The effectiveness of institutional procedures for assuring the quality of programmes
166 The University describes its quality strategy as seeking 'to establish and assure appropriate standards for its awards and to enhance the student learning experience'. It highlights three principal measures for delivering this strategy: rigorous and effective quality assurance at the appropriate level; regular review of procedures to improve efficiency and effectiveness; and engagement of staff with quality improvement. The University has also sought to address the challenge of relating quality assurance and enhancement strongly to the student experience through the devolution of the management of processes to faculties where they have met certain threshold standards. The University expressed the view that there is a 'confident understanding' within faculties and departments of the University's procedural and regulatory frameworks. This view was largely confirmed during the audit. The University retains control of essential principles, policy and procedures for quality management, and these are comprehensively described in its Academic Quality Manual which is a well structured and user-friendly document. At a strategic level, a Pro Vice-Chancellor with responsibility for quality and standards reports to the Vice-Chancellor and the ASC, which reports to Academic Board, is the focal point for formal debate on quality and standards. In the view of the audit team the AQaSU provides excellent central direction and operational support for the management of quality.
167 Each faculty has a URP that manages validation using a two-stage process. At stage 1, teams developing a course refine their proposals with assistance from across the University. This includes extensive use of the Course Developer's Guide that is an excellent example of practice in that it comprehensively explains for staff the procedures that lead to course approval. Stage 2 of course approval is operated by the faculty URP and proposals are scrutinised by a validation panel including representatives from other URPs in the University and external advisers. A representative of the SU is also invited to sit on the Panel. The University carefully monitors the operation of the validation process and the SED states that this has 'confirmed a highly professional approach to the operation of validation', a view confirmed by the audit team. The University has also established procedures for the approval of minor changes to courses but the team found inconsistencies in the application of these procedures. Consequently the University is advised to ensure, through effective monitoring, that major changes to awards are not approved using the Minor Change Process.
168 The University's annual monitoring process is devolved initially to faculties and the course leader's ACMR is submitted to the Head of Department for consideration. A standard report prepared by the Head of Department identifies the Departmental Action Plan and issues to be addressed. The Head of Department monitors course action plans and ensures feedback is provided to students and external examiners on issues raised. While there was evidence of the annual monitoring process working well at departmental level, a lack of transparency was noted in some areas in respect of the responses to the previous year's action points. Consequently it is considered desirable that the University makes more explicit and transparent in documentation the actions arising from review processes, the response to them and the progress being made. The FQG reviews annual monitoring reports each year, and the Dean then prepares a Faculty Report and action plan that is considered by ASC and Academic Board. The Chair of ASC produces a full report and action plan based on a review of faculty annual monitoring reports. Service providers have recently been more closely involved in the annual monitoring process. This initiative has not only brought the Faculty Services into the monitoring cycle, but is also developing wider recognition of the importance of these services in the student experience.
169 A six-year cycle schedule of periodic evaluation, approved by ASC, is a central process that focuses on academic departments. Periodic evaluation is conducted by a panel comprising URP members external to the faculty and external advisers. The University recognises that the current system has been unable to keep pace with the intended cycle because of the establishment of more complex academic units. Feedback from URP members and departments has resulted in a review with the intention of reducing the heavy workload and making the process more effective.
170 The University has strong systems in place for gathering feedback from students and graduates and is committed to placing the student experience at the centre of its quality assurance operations. At an institutional level, the recent placing of AQaSU within the SAS is evidence of this strengthening. The University claimed that 'students play a critical part in the evaluation, development and enhancement of both the academic provision and the wider student experience'. The audit was able to confirm that students are well represented at institutional level in the University's work, with student representatives present on all major committees. The University has a strong and proactive SU, and both senior management and SU officers having a clear commitment to collaborative working. In addition to the well-established student representative system, the MEQs provide a major source of feedback from students. The use of these questionnaires is well embedded across the University. Nevertheless, there has been some student concern about the level of feedback given to students on actions taken following the module evaluations, and a working group has been set up by the University to identify best practice.
171 In its SED, the University stated that it 'greatly values external input into its quality assurance mechanisms' and the audit team was provided with extensive evidence to confirm this. It is a University requirement that academic external advisers participate in both validation and periodic evaluation processes. The approval process for external advisers within programme approval and review is rigorous with the University having clear exclusion criteria. With respect to programme approval, external advisers provide informal input into stage 1 through links with the CDC. Stage 2 of programme approval requires scrutiny of the proposal by at least two external advisers, of whom at least one must be from an academic institution.
172 In line with its mission, the University aims to develop teaching in the context of widening participation by means of new technologies and has overseen extensive expansion and strategic investment in e-learning. Distance and on-line courses are approved and monitored by the University's usual quality assurance mechanisms, although additional scrutiny is applied for non-traditional delivery methods. The Course Developer's Guide gives guidance on the additional materials needed for the approval of distance learning programmes, with particular reference to e-learning methodologies. The audit team considered that this Guide was a feature of good practice in that it clearly had a positive impact on the development of consistent practice.
173 The findings of the audit confirm that broad confidence can be placed in the soundness of the University's current and likely future management of the quality of its awards.
The effectiveness of institutional procedures for securing the standards of awards
174 The University's quality strategy seeks to establish appropriate standards for its awards and is designed, according to the SED, so 'to ensure the integrity of the academic awards of the University...[and]...to be responsible for the academic standards of the University's awards'.
175 External examiners play a fundamental role in assuring academic standards by providing an external perspective on student performance and ensuring fair and robust procedures are in place for assessment. The SED provided a comprehensive overview of the roles and responsibilities of external examiners and the audit team found that the University's policy and processes pertaining to external examiners to be both robust and transparent. Recommendations made following the audit in 1999 resulted in a review of practices on how action points were addressed. The template that the University now provides to its external examiners includes the categorisation of recommendations into 'essential', 'advisable' and 'desirable'. The team was of the view that this was a commendable initiative and an example of good practice.
176 In regard to the consistency of approach adopted across the University to the quality and standards of awards, the value of varied local practice in developing innovation and good practice was pointed out to the audit team. While the team recognised the large measure of consistency in maintaining the quality of programmes, it did have some concerns over inconsistency relating to some procedures that may have an impact on standards. Specifically these related to inconsistency in applying regulations on minor change, significant variation in the feedback provided to students on assessed work and application of penalties for late submission of coursework. Accordingly it is desirable that the University considers adopting an institution-wide scheme of penalties for late submission of coursework. The University is also advised to set up procedures to assure itself that minimum threshold standards are being set and met with regard to written feedback to students in order to ensure consistency.
177 The SMIU was established in 2003 with the major aim of improving the quality and availability of key management information for the annual monitoring process within Faculties. FIO appointments have been made to assist with local data processing and development of statistical reporting tools. The availability of accurate information at faculty level is particularly important given that the University concerns about retention. Documentation provided to the audit team referred to the continuing problems with interpreting centrally provided progression and retention data. From 2004-05, the University will have a more extensive set of user-friendly statistical reports for admission and retention. In addition, the University is in the process of appointing retention officers to drive forward the retention strategy and develop cross-faculty cooperation. In tandem with these developments the University is also planning to extend the utility of the student 'SYD' pages on the web. The team did recognise the considerable advances made within the last year, and that by September 2004 the University will be in a significantly better position to deliver its retention strategy.
178 On the basis of the evidence available to it, the audit team concluded that the University's arrangements for securing standards were effective. The findings of the audit confirm that broad confidence can be placed in the soundness of the University's current and likely future management of the academic standards of its awards.
The effectiveness of institutional procedures for supporting learning
179 The University believes that the great majority of its staff are strongly committed to its educational mission and this has been confirmed by the findings of this audit. This success is based upon effective leadership and the full involvement of staff in meeting the University's challenging goals and objectives. Recently a HR section has replaced the previous personnel services section and a HR Strategy was then developed. This Strategy recognised the University's strengths, such as its status since 1998 as an accredited IIP, while also outlining key priorities for development in order 'to create an environment in which everyone is able, expected and encouraged to contribute to the development of the University to the very best of their ability'. There are clear institutional criteria for the appointment of staff, and a requirement that all staff involved in recruitment and selection have relevant training. In addition, a detailed and user-friendly guide, The Staff Recruitment and Selection Good Practice Manual, has been provided to set out helpful guidelines. The University's Equal Opportunities' and Diversity policies are particularly well developed. A Diversity Committee has been established and a comprehensive and innovative Diversity Workbook has recently been issued to all staff in order to increase awareness of discrimination. The Workbook emphasises the University's commitment to promoting equality of opportunity and was considered by the audit team to be an innovative and effective tool and a feature of good practice.
180 Annual staff appraisal for academic and administrative staff is undertaken by a trained appraiser, is confidential and results in an action plan for the coming year. At present, the dissemination of good practice and the identification of points for action derived from the appraisal system occurs informally and mainly at department level. However, the audit team was informed that the appraisal process is currently being reviewed in order to develop a system that will provide an overview of staff development needs and which will consider the specific relationship between appraisal and reward. The University has clear new guidelines for the promotion and reward of staff and the team noted that the University's promotions scheme was cited as an example of good practice in the Government White Paper on the Future of Higher Education.
181 The University has a strong commitment to supporting academic staff and to ensure that there are comprehensive opportunities for staff development. AQaSU works in partnership with the LDU and HR on enhancement initiatives. AQaSU identifies staff development needs through quality assurance processes, particularly annual monitoring, and through communication with heads of department. AQaSU then communicates these needs to the LDU, enabling the delivery of a range of relevant programmes associated with teaching and learning. The LDU is, therefore, a central resource for staff in all aspects of learning and curriculum development and provides a comprehensive range of programmes. The LDU also runs Learning, Teaching and Research Development Week programmes which respond to the University's mission by enabling links between teaching and research. The audit team noted that these Development Weeks reinforced the view that teaching and research were closely interwoven and 'indivisible' in the University and contributed effectively to this feature of good practice.
182 New academic staff are required to complete the weeklong Teaching Toolkit programme which develops their role in learning, teaching and student support, as well as providing information on University systems and procedures. All academic staff are also expected to participate in peer observation of teaching and the audit team saw evidence that the procedure is applied across the University. In addition, staff have access to an ILTHE accredited PgCert in Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. The 1999 Audit requested the University to consider formalising arrangements for the appointment and training of postgraduate students that act in a teaching capacity. The Teaching Toolkit has now partially addressed this issue, in that it is available to students and they are strongly encouraged to take the course. It will become compulsory from the start of the academic year 2004-05. Staff support and development is further facilitated and enhanced through the CIP which aims to encourage staff to take 'full responsibility for reviewing and improving the effectiveness and efficiency of their work'. The University has also developed significant training in managerial skills through the Leadership Development Programme which has trained all University staff with management responsibility, both academic and non-academic. The team noted that staff appreciated the University's investment in management training and that the programme has already helped to engender a more open employment culture.
183 The audit was able to confirm that, as part of the corporate planning process, the LLRS three-year plan sets annual targets to ensure integration with the strategic development of estates, HR and finance and that these are monitored on an annual basis. There are several ways in which the University is made aware of, and responds to, needs in relation to the library. A LLRS link person is involved in the procedures for validation of new courses. This ensures that additional book stock requirements are considered in the annual bidding process for new resources. This may be supplemented by general library funds if necessary. The annual monitoring template is used to highlight service issues and the deans meet service heads to consider these. The Director of the LLRS is also a member of the Senior Management Team. The mechanism for student feedback is by SU representation on the LLRS User Group and through feedback from course committees and reviews. While being highly supportive of the assistance given by library staff, students highlighted ways in which the service could be improved, and were at times critical about provision. The recent addition of an extensive e-book collection, with over 10,000 e-books available on-line will ameliorate some of these difficulties. An extensive consultation on IT services resulted in the development of a new information systems infrastructure. This development was student focused, involving a single integrated network with core systems available from anywhere across the globe via remote access. The University considers this development successful and has further extended access by the introduction of a wireless network available at the Cumbria Campus and at key buildings on the Preston Campus. The team considered this was further evidence of student centred support for learning.
184 Students are assigned a designated personal tutor with responsibility for providing academic and personal guidance, and for referring students to other sources of support as appropriate. The scheme relies on implementation at departmental level and, although the audit was able to identify examples of good practice, there is variability across the University with no formal mechanism for verifying implementation at the local level. However, meetings with students at the audit highlighted the general availability and helpfulness of academic staff. A joint LDU, HR and student services project team is developing a programme of staff development for personal tutors. Additionally, a Code of Practice for Personal Tutors is being developed together with departmental staff development support. The University has recognised a need for development in this area and work is underway.
185 Following consultation involving the SU, service staff and external advisers, a new SAS was created in 2003 from three existing services: the Academic Registry; Student Services; and the Quality Assurance and Enhancement Unit. The SAS aims to offer to students 'seamless access to information, advice and guidance'. At the heart of the Service is the 'i', a one-stop shop support service for students. Students were very supportive of the range of services and accessibility of the 'i' and saw it as a major plank in the support package provided for students.
186 After a review of induction into the University, a CIWP was established to 'improve initial student experience and ultimately to improve retention', and the effectiveness of induction is now reviewed annually. Other support service activities have been integrated into induction, for example, the M and M peer support network. The M and M mentoring scheme was introduced to combat students' experience of 'issues relating to socialisation and isolation'. Existing students volunteer, and are trained, to act as mentors. Students praised pre-induction activities such as the Flying Start Summer School programme. The International Student Support Service caters for international students. A Buddy Scheme also provides a meet, greet and assist service for new students. The pattern of support provided before and during induction ensures an informative and supportive environment for students to enhance their early experience of university life and was considered by the audit team to be an important component of the retention strategy of the institution and a feature of good practice.
Outcomes of discipline audit trails
BSc (Hons) in Biological Sciences, Biomedical Sciences, Exercise, Nutrition and Health, Human Physiology, Medical Biology, Molecular Biology and Biochemistry, Molecular Microbiology and Sport Science; and BSc (Hons) Combined Honours course in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
187 From its study of students' assessed work, and from discussions with students and staff, the audit team formed the view that the standard of student achievement in the programmes was appropriate to the title of the awards and their location within the FHEQ. Programme specifications for each course made reference to the appropriate levels of the FHEQ and, in most, to the relevant subject benchmark statement. Learning outcomes were mapped onto those detailed in the programme specification. However, the team found evidence of instances where learning outcomes for modules at level 3 did not map onto those given in the relevant programme specification resulting in some being inappropriate to their specified level. One external examiner also had expressed concerns about the appropriateness of some examination questions at level 3. At levels 1 and 2, the work matched the expectations of the programme specifications, the views of the external examiners and reflected the locations of the awards within the FHEQ. At level 3 the team saw cases where assessment titles and consequently student work did not meet the expectations of the learning outcomes given in the programme specification or FHEQ. Examination of module learning outcomes, for some of the level 3 modules made available to the team, revealed that a number could not easily be mapped against the programme outcomes given in the programme specification and did not appear to be appropriate to the final year of an honours degree course. The team carefully considered whether there were significant weaknesses in a number of the level 3 modules made available to the team in terms of appropriateness of learning outcomes but, on balance, came to the conclusion that this was not the case. The Department has a number of mechanisms through which it offers support and guidance to students. The students who met the team highly commended the induction process and the approachability and helpfulness of staff within the Department. Students are engaged with quality assurance and enhancement through formal and informal means at the department and faculty level. The team saw a range of individual and summarised MEQs and noted the generally high level of student satisfaction. The team concluded that the quality of learning opportunities available to students was suitable for programmes of study leading to these awards.
BA Human Resource Management; BA Management; Graduate Diploma in Personnel Management; MBA; and Diploma in Management Studies
188 From its study of students' assessed work, and from discussions with students and staff, the audit team formed the view that the standard of student achievement in the programmes was appropriate to the title of the awards and their location within the FHEQ. Programme specifications were appended for all courses and made clear reference to the FHEQ requirements. Most undergraduate programme specifications make reference to the relevant subject benchmark. The programme specification templates require specific outcomes reflecting external influences to be cross-referenced, but none of the programme specifications had cross-referenced their outcomes to external influences. The programme specification template and its use are currently being reviewed at the institutional level and will contain a standard format for mapping outcomes. This review resulted from feedback by programme specification designers concerning lack of clarity provided in guidance. External examiner reports are considered both within the Department and the Faculty. Formal and timely responses are made to each external examiner and the systematic implementation of this practice was evident to the team. External examiner reports are supportive of the programmes. The approach to assessment is outlined in each student handbook and marking and assessment criteria are contained within the MIPs. A wide variety of assessment methods is used and students receive written feedback using standard sheets. The team found the quality of feedback on assessment was generally rich and informative, although not always related to assessment criteria. Student feedback is through MEQs and SSLCs and was viewed by students as effective. There is a full-time SLO for the Business School. The team found that the School was responsive to student feedback and actions resulting improved the quality of the student experience. The team concluded that the quality of learning opportunities available to students was suitable for programmes of study leading to these awards.
BA/BA (Hons) in English and American Literature; BA/BA (Hons) in English Language and Literature; BA/BA (Hons) in English Literary Studies; BA/BA (Hons) in English and Theatre Studies; Combined Honours Subject: English Literature; and MA/PgDip in Literary Studies
189 From its study of students' assessed work, and from discussions with students and staff, the audit team formed the view that the standard of student achievement in the programmes was appropriate to the title of the awards and their location within the FHEQ. Detailed programme specifications complied with the relevant subject benchmark statement, with the FHEQ and the University's own level descriptors. Programme and module aims and learning outcomes are clearly and consistently described in the handbooks available to students, although they are not clearly linked to the programme specifications. The aims and learning outcomes comply with the subject benchmark statement, both in demonstrating a clear progression from levels 1 to 3, and in maintaining flexibility and coherence within the discipline. For example, there is clear progression from the common foundation module for all level 1 students, which ensures students attain a well-supported and thorough grounding in knowledge and key skills, to the level 3 optional modules which are informed by staff research. The level 3 modules demonstrate the close links between teaching and research achieved by subject staff. Student views are obtained through the MEQs, the SSLC and a Student Advisory Group. The team was informed that the Subject Team responded to concerns through these formal channels, as well as through informal contact with staff. External examiners have consistently praised the quality of the provision at subject level and have affirmed both that standards achieved compare favourably with similar programmes across the sector, and that the programmes comply with the subject benchmark statement and FHEQ. External examiners have particularly commended the integration of aims, syllabi, and learning outcomes with assessment methodologies. The team saw evidence that action on matters raised in external examiners' reports was timely and appropriate. The team was satisfied that assessed work matched the expectations of the programme specifications and the aims and objectives outlined in programme and module handbooks. The standards achieved were appropriate to the relevant awards and their location within the FHEQ and student work met the appropriate subject benchmark statement requirements. The team noted that the feedback provided by staff on student work was consistently detailed, clear and supportive. The team concluded that the quality of learning opportunities available to students was suitable for programmes of study leading to these awards.
BSc (Hons) Forensic Science; Combined (Hons) Forensic Science; Foundation degree Forensic Science; Certificate in Forensic Science (distance-learning mode); BSc (Hons) in Police and Criminal Investigation; MSc in DNA Profiling; and MSc in Document Analysis
190 From its study of students' assessed work, and from discussions with students and staff, the audit team formed the view that the standard of student achievement in the programmes was appropriate to the title of the awards and their location within the FHEQ. Programme specifications were well written and followed the University's standard template. Links to the FHEQ are achieved through the structuring of undergraduate programmes in accord with the University's MODCATs framework which is compliant with the FHEQ. The team noted that there was no subject benchmark statement for the forensic science disciplines. However, use had been made of benchmarks in related disciplines, and professional requirements had been addressed through alignment with the National Occupational Standards. External examiners had approved the programme specifications and had expressed the view that the courses were meeting the required standards. Assessment strategies and policies are set out in the Departmental Manual and are compliant with University practice. External examiners report overall satisfaction with the standards of marking but noted some difficulty in fully understanding the allocation of marks, as exam scripts have little or no comment from the markers. Student handbooks are well written and structured and give useful guidance on assessment and student responsibilities for successful study. The students were very complimentary about the departmental commitment to supporting learning through WebCT and other on-line sources. The engagement of students with on-line learning and the enthusiastic support from staff provides a model of good practice for the University. There is a high return rate for MEQs and student feedback is generally thorough and informative with the departmental SLO assisting students to draw up agendas for staff-student meetings. Students were articulate and enthusiastic and expressed strong satisfaction with the level of support provided by the Department. Research is well established and students acknowledged the vibrant research environment and strong support for their studies. It was also clear that the Department is thoroughly committed to research, and staff stressed the applied nature of much of the research and the value to teaching because of the network of practising professionals. This ensured that curriculum updating had an industrial and commercial focus. The good practice in research in the Department fits with the University's determination to exploit the synergies arising from research and teaching. The team concluded that the quality of learning opportunities available to students was suitable for programmes of study leading to these awards.
BA (Hons) Journalism; BA (Hons) Journalism and English; BA (Hons) Management and Public Relations; BA (Hons) Marketing and Public Relations; BA (Hons) Public Relations; BA (Hons) Public Relations (SW); BA (Hons) Public Relations and Management; BA (Hons) Public Relations and Marketing; BA/BSc Combined Hons Journalism; BA Combined Hons Public Relations; MA Strategic Communication; MA Online Journalism; MA/PgDip Broadcast Journalism; and MA/PgDip Newspaper Journalism
191 From its study of students' assessed work, and from discussions with students and staff, the audit team formed the view that the standard of student achievement in the programmes was appropriate to the title of the awards and their location within the FHEQ. The Department of Journalism contains two divisions: Journalism; and Applied Communication (which delivers the public relations programmes). The National Council accredits single honours and postgraduate journalism courses for the Training of Journalists and/or the BJTC; the public relations courses are approved by the IPR. The team formed the view that the Journalism undergraduate courses were consistent with the appropriate sections of the Subject benchmark statement for communication, media, film and cultural studies. However, references to subject benchmarks are not present on all programme specifications for journalism undergraduate courses. At present there is no specific subject benchmark for public relations, but references to public relations are made in related subject benchmark statements. The Department's provision is closely benchmarked, however, against its professional accreditation requirements. The team was able to confirm that programme learning outcomes map on to the honours level outcomes in the FHEQ. Internal monitoring and review is effective in the Department and student feedback is generated through staff-student liaison meetings and MEQs. The full-time Faculty SLO also plays an important role in communications between staff and students. The Department operates a thorough moderation system, through which the generation of the MIP, the setting of assessment tasks, marking of student work, and quality of feedback to students are all moderated effectively. The Department sets out its assessment procedures and policies in the Departmental Manual and clear information is given to students concerning all aspects of the assessment process. Analysis of student work confirms that students receive timely and appropriate feedback on their work. Students confirmed that assessment tasks are clearly mapped to module learning outcomes, marked work is returned to them in a timely manner and the quality of written feedback is good. On the evidence of the assessed student work supplied for the audit, the team was able to confirm that the assessment processes used were appropriate. The team concluded that the quality of learning opportunities available to students was suitable for programmes of study leading to these awards.
The use made by the institution of the academic infrastructure
192 In developing its procedures for quality and standards the University has considered the national academic infrastructure and, where necessary, procedures have been modified. The impact of sections of the Code of practice was considered by groups across the University. The development of the FHEQ coincided with the University's review of its academic regulations in 2000 and this allowed mapping of the University's awards against the FHEQ. Continued monitoring of awards against the FHEQ criteria is achieved through validation and periodic evaluation. During the audit, the audit team was able to confirm a knowledgeable awareness by staff of the FHEQ and the Code. Staff expectations were that University adherence was achieved through centrally-led modification and amendment to University regulations and procedures. These changes would then be reflected in key documentation. The team considered that potential enhancement benefits arising from full use of the Code (for example, in curriculum design) were not being fully exploited at departmental level given that mapping of the Code was largely centrally led and focused on adherence. Subject benchmarks had been used as reference points in the design and review of courses and this is demonstrated through most programme specifications.
193 In discussions with staff the audit team found the approach to the use of subject benchmark statements and programme specifications varied. The University acknowledged this and is currently reviewing its use of programme specifications which, in the future, will form the central document for programme approval, and the way in which they engage with subject benchmark statements. The team formed the view that the University needs to demonstrate more clearly the links between subject benchmark statements and learning outcomes at both programme and module level.
194 Work is continuing on establishing progress files. The University has met the transcript requirement and the focus is now on PDP. Review and validation procedures require course teams to demonstrate the relationship of provision to career planning, employability, key skills and volunteering. The audit team noted that there appeared to be uncertainty over monitoring PDP progress in existing courses that were not scheduled for periodic evaluation in the next few years. In meeting with students, the team found little awareness of PDP despite there being good evidence that staff in discipline areas were actively taking forward the PDP agenda. It was suggested by the University that students may not recognise the term PDP as the University does not use this as a 'brand name' and the team broadly accepted this explanation. The team noted that PDP had grown from the University's key skills agenda and that a majority of students had been aware of key skills development. The team acknowledged good progress on PDP at an institutional level particularly through the work of LDU and the TLCs, but it also recognises the need for a more consistent approach at subject level and in engaging students. The University is consequently recommended to draw on the work of the Teaching and Learning Committee and LDU to make PDP developments more visible and the benefit more recognisable and understood by students.
The utility of the SED as an illustration of the institution's capacity to reflect upon its own strengths and limitations, and to act on these to enhance quality and standards
195 Contributions to the production of the SED had been sought from all areas of the University and all staff had had the opportunity to consider and comment upon it. These opportunities had taken the form of sessions with academic departments, consideration through the committee structure and by student representatives, and the publication of drafts on the University intranet, inviting comment. The University Board and Academic Board considered and formally approved it before submission. The team considered that the SED gave a clear description of the University's procedures for assuring the quality of programmes and securing the standards of its awards. Evaluation of these procedures was balanced and gave appropriate and accurate weight to strengths and issues that the University considered needed further development. This open approach, which was reinforced by the conduct of staff and students during the audit visit, demonstrated a maturity of the University's understanding of the agenda it had set itself and the impact that this had upon its quality and standards framework. The team concluded that the SED provided good evidence of the University's capacity to reflect upon its strengths and limitations and to act upon these to enhance quality and standards.Commentary on the institution's intentions for the enhancement of quality and standards
196 In its SED, the University states its commitment to the continuing development of a quality culture through systematic monitoring and review of courses, sharing of good teaching practice, focused staff development and appointment to support the growing international student population, and review of the postgraduate learning experience in preparation for expansion in numbers. Recent examples of improving the quality culture are provided by the University's approach to SENDA requirements, the Diversity Workbook and the Code of practice, Section 3: Students with disabilities. In the SED the University indicated its commitment to developing research and to use this to enhance teaching. In a number of meetings with staff, it was obvious that the commitment extended to all levels in the University and examples were provided of staff drawing on their own and external research expertise to enhance learning and on developing knowledge transfer activity. Meetings with staff showed that a number of the other enhancement intentions, for example on addressing The Bologna declaration process and developing pedagogic centres to assist overseas partners were at a very early stage of development and had not been fully discussed in the University. With respect to future intentions for enhancement, a more detailed picture is provided through documents such as the Learning and Teaching Strategy, the revised Corporate Plan and the emerging Access to Excellence II. Within the last of these there are, for example, commitments to the continued expansion and enhancement of e-learning opportunities to be supported by LDU and the development and enhancement of the regional agenda. Leadership of developments in the regional agenda is the initial responsibility of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and one intention is to have faculties providing courses at the Cumbria Campus that reflect the needs of the region. Overall, the audit team recognised that the University had a clear vision for future development of the University and that appointments and resources were in place to deliver that vision.
Reliability of information
197 The audit process included checking on procedures for ensuring the accuracy and reliability of information published by the University. The audit team did not find, nor did students and staff it met indicate, any significant inaccuracy or unreliability of the information available to it. The University's Advancement Service has responsibility for ensuring the currency and accuracy of both print-based and electronic information. The University acknowledged occasional minor discrepancies between different parts of the University's web site and time lapses between paper publication of course fact sheets and their uploading to the web site. It is introducing a new content management system that will ensure efficient version management of documents in both print and on-line formats. There is a specific contact in the Advancement Service with responsibility for the accuracy of the University web site. The University has produced a draft Internal Communications Strategy with a view to improving the quality of internal communications. The University is preparing for, and is confident that, it will meet the requirements of HEFCE 02/15 and it appeared to the team to be moving appropriately towards fulfilling its responsibilities in this respect. The team was satisfied that the University is managing the flow, reliability, accuracy and completeness of published information in a proactive and thorough fashion.
Features of good practice
198 The following features of good practice were noted:
i the way in which teaching and research is closely interwoven into the life of the University through involvement of research staff in teaching and the obvious alignment of research and curriculum development (paragraphs 20; 34; 73);
ii the comprehensive Course Developers Guide that has had a positive impact on the development of consistent practice (paragraphs 27; 135);
iii the categorisation of actions arising from external examiners' reports (paragraph 51);
iv the Diversity Workbook as an innovative and effective tool in raising awareness, securing commitment and disseminating practice (paragraphs 31; 70);
v the pattern of support provided to students before and during induction to enhance their early experience of university life and improve retention (paragraph 92).
Recommendations for action
199 The audit team 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:
i ensure, through effective monitoring, that major changes to awards are not approved using the Minor Change Process (paragraphs 37; 125);
ii set up procedures to assure itself that minimum threshold standards are being set and met with regard to written feedback to students to ensure consistency (paragraph 88).
200 The audit team considers it would be desirable for the University to:
iii regularise the University's approach to the penalties incurred for late submission of student work for assessment (paragraph 28);
iv make more explicit and transparent in documentation the actions arising from review processes, the response to them and the progress being made (paragraph 38);
v draw on the work of the Teaching and Learning Committee and Learning Development Unit to make PDP developments more visible and the benefit more recognisable and understood by students (paragraphs 54; 130).
Appendix
The University of Central Lancashire's response to the audit report
The University welcomes the judgement of broad confidence in both the quality of its programmes and the academic standards of its awards, along with the report's confirmation of the effectiveness of its quality assurance procedures.
The University will address the recommendations contained in the report and take forward areas for development. The University is disappointed that the auditors considered that, in one instance, the 'minor change' process had been used inappropriately, when its own evidence showed this not to be the case. However, the University will take this opportunity to reflect on the criteria used for minor changes to courses.
The University acknowledges that feedback to students does vary and believes that there are pedagogically sound reasons for this, given the diversity of disciplines and learning activities. It will, however, review the situation to ensure that there is an appropriate level of consistency in the written feedback given.
The University is pleased that the report has recognised a number of areas of good practice, in particular the way in which teaching and research are closely interwoven into the life of the University through the involvement of research staff in teaching and the close alignment of research and curriculum development. We also welcome the recognition of the strong pattern of support to enhance students' early experience of University life. We will continue to build upon these strengths, and upon the additional good practice identified in relation to the work of the Learning Development Unit; the positive impact of the Course Developer's Guide; the categorisation of actions arising from external examiners' reports; and the effectiveness of the Diversity Workbook.
ISBN 1 84482 172 2
Top
QAA updates
QAAtweets
QAAtube