Introduction
A team of auditors from the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (the Agency) visited the University of Bristol (the University) from 26 to 30 April 2004 to carry out an institutional audit. The purpose of the audit was to provide public information on the quality of the opportunities available to students and on the academic standards of the awards that the University offers.
To arrive at its conclusions the audit team spoke to members of staff throughout the University, to current students, and read a wide range of documents relating to the way the University manages the academic aspects of its provision.
The words 'academic standards' are used to describe the level of achievement that a student has to reach to gain an award (for example, a degree). It should be at a similar level across the UK.
Academic quality is a way of describing how well the learning opportunities available to students help them to achieve their awards. It is about making sure that appropriate teaching, support, assessment and learning opportunities are provided for them.
In institutional audit, both academic standards and academic quality are reviewed.
Outcome of the audit
As a result of its investigations, the audit team's view of the University is that:
- broad confidence can be placed in the soundness of the University's current and likely future management of the quality of its academic programmes and the academic standards of its awards.
Features of good practice
The audit team identified the following areas as being good practice:
- the collegial relationship between the Teaching Support Unit and the senior management and the academic staff of the University, which contributes to the effectiveness of the Unit's work in offering guidance to academic departments for the development and implementation of systems for the assurance of quality and standards;
- the frankness, depth and quality of debate in the University which draws appropriately upon the different faculty viewpoints and experience as evidenced in the minutes of the University's committees;
- the role of the mediation service in prompt and effective resolution of a significant proportion of student complaints and appeals;
- the work of the Plenary Group of Faculty Quality Assurance Team Chairs in identifying opportunities for enhancement and matters for further consideration at taught programme level;
- the accessibility and responsiveness of staff to students on taught programmes; and
- the resolve of the senior staff to recognise and reward teaching excellence in this research-intensive institution.
Recommendations for action
The audit team also recommends that the University should consider further action in a number of areas to ensure that the academic quality and standards of the awards it offers are maintained. The team advises the University to:
- review, as matter of priority, its arrangements for supporting postgraduate research students, establishing a systematic approach to annual review of the research postgraduate learning experience, and maintaining an appropriate central overview of the collective learning experience and progress of research students;
- give further consideration to its approach to the reliability and equity of assessment across departments and faculties to maintain consistency;
- review its approach to qualifications titles for programmes of study involving more than one discipline, in the context of the guidance in The framework for higher education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (FHEQ), to ensure that such titles represent accurately the balance of components in both level and volume of study; and
- revise its Guidelines for Educational Partnerships and current agreements with partner institutions to ensure that responsibilities for the management of quality and standards are clearly defined.
- It would be desirable for the University to:
- pay particular attention to the systematic identification of institution-wide learning resource and other infrastructure requirements in implementing the action plans associated with the Education Strategy;
- ensure that, as it completes the programme specifications for all its programmes, the award of University credits takes account of the interrelationship between intended learning outcomes at the unit and programme levels; and
- define minimum requirements for the content and quality of student handbooks with particular reference to regulations and assessment criteria.
Chemistry; dentistry; engineering mathematics; politics; theology
The standard of student achievement in the programmes is appropriate to the titles of the awards and their location within the FHEQ. The quality of learning opportunities available to students is suitable for programmes of study leading to the awards.National reference points
To provide further evidence to support its findings the audit team also investigated the use made by the University of the academic infrastructure which the Agency has developed on behalf of the whole of UK higher education. The academic infrastructure is a set of nationally agreed reference points that help to define both good practice and academic standards. The findings of the audit suggest that the University has responded appropriately to the FHEQ, subject benchmark statements, programmes specifications and the Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education (Code of practice), published by the Agency. The University is not yet in full alignment with the sections of the Code of practice on postgraduate research programmes and collaborative provision.
In due course the institutional audit process will include a check on the reliability of the information set published by institutions in the format recommended in the Higher Education Funding Council for Englands documents, Information on quality and standards in higher education (HEFCE 02/15) and 03/51: Final guidance. The findings of the audit are that, at the time of the audit, the University was alert to the requirements set out in document HEFCE 02/15 and to the implications of document HEFCE 03/51 and was moving in an appropriate manner to fulfil its responsibilities in this respect.
>> Main report
>> Findings
ISBN 1 84482 152 8
Top