1 An institutional audit of the University of Central Lancashire (the University) was undertaken during the week commencing 19 April 2004. The purpose of the audit was to provide public information on the quality of the University's programmes of study and on the discharge of its responsibility for its awards.
2 The audit was carried out using a process developed by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (the Agency) in partnership with the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), the Standing Conference of Principals (SCOP) and Universities UK (UUK), and has been endorsed by the Department for Education and Skills. For institutions in England, it replaces the previous processes of continuation audit, undertaken by the Agency at the request of UUK and SCOP, and universal subject review, undertaken by the Agency on behalf of HEFCE, as part of the latter's statutory responsibility for assessing the quality of education that it funds.
3 The audit checked the effectiveness of the University's procedures for establishing and maintaining the standards of its academic awards; for reviewing and enhancing the quality of the programmes of study leading to those awards; and for publishing reliable information. As part of the audit process, according to protocols agreed with HEFCE, SCOP and UUK, the audit included consideration of an example of institutional processes at work at the level of the programme, through discipline audit trails (DATs), together with examples of those processes operating at the level of the institution as a whole. The scope of the audit encompassed all of the University's provision, other than collaborative arrangements, leading to its awards. The University will have a separate collaborative audit.
Section 1: Introduction: the University of Central Lancashire
The institution and its mission
4 The University originates from the Preston Institution for the Diffusion of Knowledge, founded in 1828. The Institution became the Harris Institute in 1882 and subsequently the Harris College in 1956. Harris College formed the basis for Preston Polytechnic in 1973, retitled in 1984 as Lancashire Polytechnic. In 1992, the Polytechnic was granted degree and higher degree awarding powers under the Further and Higher Education Act and became the University of Central Lancashire.
5 The University now organises its work through five faculties: Cultural, Legal and Social Studies (CLASS); Design and Technology; Health; Lancashire Business School; and Science. Each faculty comprises between five and seven departments or centres. Faculties vary significantly in regard to student numbers, with CLASS having about 8,000 students and Science less than 4,000.
6 Since designation, the size and shape of the University has changed considerably with the incorporation of Lancashire College of Midwifery in 1993, the Lancashire College of Nursing and Health Studies (1996) and Newton Rigg College (1998). The incorporation of Newton Rigg College resulted in changes to the management of land-based education in the University. In 2002, the University established two new departments, Agriculture and Forestry, and these were fully incorporated into the Faculty of Science in 2003.
7 As a result of planned expansion, the University has experienced significant growth in recent years with the result that it is now one of the largest universities in the UK with total student numbers over 29,000. Students study on the main campus in Preston, the Cumbria Campus in Penrith, partner colleges across the North-West and NHS sites throughout Lancashire. The University's longstanding collaboration with its network of partner further education colleges, and Cumbria Institute of the Arts as an accredited College, has been central to its planned expansion and its efforts to widen participation. It currently has over 10,000 part-time students. The University has also attracted a growing numbers of students from overseas, particularly through its partnership arrangements in China.
8 The University's Mission Statement is:
- 'we promote access to excellence enabling you to develop your potential;
- we value and practise equality of opportunity, transparency and tolerance;
- we strive for excellence in all we do: locally, regionally, nationally and internationally;
- we work in partnership with business, the community and other educators;
- we encourage and promote research innovation and creativity'.
9 In 1998, the University undertook a major review of its provision, following the appointment of the current Vice-Chancellor. One of the outcomes of this review was the redefinition of the Mission Statement and the University states that this is now widely summarised as 'Access to Excellence'. The Academic Board of the University, in July 2002, approved the new Mission Statement, reaffirming the core values of equality, excellence, partnership and creativity.
10 In 2002, the University reviewed its support services and subsequently created larger more comprehensive units. The service structure now includes a Student Affairs Service (SAS); an enlarged Facilities Management Service; Library and Learning Resource Services; a Business Service; Financial Services and a Human Resources Service (HR Services). Within the SAS is located the Academic Quality and Standards Unit (AQaSU). The University considers that the location of AQaSU within the SAS recognises that one of the University's persistent challenges has been to relate quality assurance and enhancement processes strongly to the student experience.
11 The University is scheduled to have a separate collaborative audit in the near future. This institutional audit, therefore, does not address the management of the quality of its collaborative academic programmes or the academic standards of its collaborative awards.
Background information
12 The published information available for this audit included:
- the information on the University's web site and its undergraduate and postgraduate prospectuses;
- the report of a continuation audit in 1999 of the University by the Agency, published in 2000;
- the subject review reports of the University's provision, published by the Agency.
13 The University initially provided the Agency with:
- an institutional self-evaluation document (SED);
- the Academic Quality Assurance (AQA) manual;
- discipline self-evaluation documents (DSEDs) for the provision selected for DATs.
14 During the briefing and audit visits, the audit team was given ready access to a range of the University's internal documents, a large number of which were provided electronically via the University's intranet, and to a range of documentation relating to the selected DATs. The latter included examples of student work.
The audit process
15 Following a meeting at the University in September 2003, the Agency confirmed that five DATs would be conducted during the audit visit. The audit team's final selection of DATs included undergraduate and postgraduate programmes in: biological sciences; business and management; English; forensic and investigative sciences (FIS); and journalism and applied communications.
16 The Agency received the institutional SED and supporting documentation in December 2003 and the DSEDs, accompanied by programme specifications, in February 2004. Both the SED and the DSEDs were written specifically for the audit.
17 The audit team visited the University from 8 to 10 March 2004 for the purpose of exploring, with the Vice-Chancellor, senior members of staff and student representatives, matters relating to the management of quality and standards raised by the SED and other documentation provided for the team. During this briefing visit, the team signalled a number of matters for the audit visit. At the close of the briefing visit, a programme of meetings for the audit visit was developed by the team and agreed with the University.
18 At the preliminary meeting for the audit in September 2003, the students of the University were invited, through their Students' Union (SU), to submit a student written submission (SWS) expressing views on the student experience at the University and identifying any matters of concern or commendation with respect to the quality of programmes and the standard of awards. They were also invited to give their views on the level of representation afforded to them and on the extent to which their views were taken into account. In December 2003 the student body submitted a detailed document to the Agency. The submission had been prepared on the basis of a wide range of activities initiated by the SU that included email correspondence; tear-off comments sheets in student publications; open forum meetings at each campus; suggestion boxes at SU buildings; student questionnaires; an on-line questionnaire; debates at the SU forum; feedback from course representatives; focus groups for day and evening students; and consideration of previous minutes of Staff-Student Liaison Committee (SSLC) meetings and the outcomes of Student Satisfaction Surveys. The final submission was shared with the student population and with staff in the University and there were no matters within it that would require the audit team to treat it with any level of confidentiality greater than that normally applied to the audit process. The team is grateful to the students for preparing this valuable document to support the audit.
19 The audit visit took place from 19 to 23 April 2004, and included further meetings with staff and students of the University, both at central level and in relation to the selected DATs. The audit team comprised Mr P Griffiths, Professor H Colley, Mr G Curtis, Dr D Edwards, Dr M Wynne-Davies, Dr R Woodcock, auditors, and Mr M Wainman, audit secretary. The audit was coordinated for the Agency by Ms A Christou, Assistant Director, Reviews Group.
Developments since the previous academic quality audit
20 The continuation audit of 1999 noted the impact of the period of rapid growth that has taken place since the early 1990s and concluded that the University had been well served by the consolidation of its strategic approach to quality management during this period. This approach had been underpinned by appropriate staff development, effective management of communication and a well-monitored learning infrastructure. The 1999 audit report concluded that the University might wish to consider how, while retaining the security of its operations, the complexity of some of its procedures might be reduced. In regard to standards, the report noted the commendable steps that had been taken by the University to make its academic standards explicit. The findings concluded that there was broad confidence in the University's ability to discharge its responsibilities for the academic standards of its awards and for the quality of education provided in its name. The report commended, inter alia, the development of its teaching and learning strategy, the University's approach to the setting of academic standards through the use of learning outcomes, and the embedding of key skills in the curriculum. The report also commended the way in which the University's Mission underpinned policy development and facilitated a sense of shared purpose between University staff. The audit report recommended the advisability of the University reflecting on aspects of its quality strategy, reviewing some of its procedures relating to its use of external examiner reports, formalising its arrangements for the training of postgraduate students who teach, and adopting a more strategic approach towards space planning. The continuation audit report was considered widely through the University and the SED produced by the University for the purposes of the 2004 audit described the subsequent changes made in the context of its Framework for Managing Quality and Standards. It also set out a summary of the University's responses to the recommendations made. Structural changes have included the establishment of the Learning and Development Unit (LDU) in 2001 which was described by the University as a significant step in the achievement of its learning and teaching goals. The University's view of teaching and research as being 'indivisible' has been supported by the reaffirmation of the Research Strategy and the re-establishment of the Research Committee, thus giving a 'greater focus' to research. In support of its mission, the Widening Participation Strategy has been expanded and is now closely linked to the University's Further and Higher Education Partnership Strategy. This has resulted in the University identifying retention of students as one of its central institutional priorities, culminating in the Academic Board approval of a Retention Strategy in 2003 with associated significant resource investment.
21 Since the continuation audit of 1999, the University had received the outcomes of the Research Assessment Excercise 2001 where three units of assessment received a 4 rating, five had received a 3a and eight had been rated as 3b. The outcomes of an overseas audit of the University's relationship with Shenzhen University (China) were reported in 2001 and seven Agency subject reviews had been conducted. All of these reviews had resulted in the relevant provision being 'approved'. Developmental engagements in two subject areas took place in 2003.
22 The actions taken by the University, following the continuation audit of 1999, appeared to the audit team to have been thorough and effective. In respect of the recommendation to refine the quality strategy to support the agenda set out in Access to Excellence, the development of a framework for quality and standards that has devolved processes, subject to the achievement of threshold criteria, appeared to have been largely successful and well managed. The use made by the University of its external examiner reports has been strengthened to improve the identification of action points and to record responses to those points. These procedures have developed to a point where they can be considered to be a feature of good practice. The Estates Strategy, produced in 2001, adopted a new approach to space planning based on forecasts of student and staff numbers and the introduction from 2004-05 of space charging. The University has tracked the emerging national frameworks for postgraduate support for teaching by the Agency and HEFCE and has deferred the implementation of a formal framework until recently. This has now been addressed by the use of a Teaching Toolkit that such students are strongly encouraged to use. This is to become compulsory from 2004-05.
Section 2: The audit investigations: institutional processes
The institution's view as expressed in the SED
23 The University describes its quality strategy as seeking 'to establish and assure appropriate standards for its awards and to enhance the student learning experience'. The SED 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 SED notes the challenge of relating quality assurance and enhancement strongly to the student experience.The institution's framework for managing quality and standards, including collaborative provision
24 At a strategic level the Pro Vice-Chancellor with responsibility for quality and standards reports to the Vice-Chancellor. The AQaSU provides central direction and operational support for the management of quality. In addition to quality management, AQaSU has responsibility for academic regulations, student complaints, servicing Academic Board and other senior committees, producing and updating the AQA Manual, and maintaining information and guidance through its web site. Each faculty has a University Review Panel (URP) that manages validation and the periodic review process.
25 In order to move responsibility for quality assurance and enhancement as closely as possible to the student experience the University has, where appropriate, devolved management of processes to faculties. The University retains control of essential principles, policy and procedures for quality management and these are comprehensively described in the AQA Manual. The audit team found the Manual to be a high quality document that is well structured and user-friendly. There was evidence that it is seen as a key element in the management of quality. Staff in a number of meetings, including the DAT meetings, cited it as the major source of guidance on quality and standards. Faculties taking on devolved responsibilities must meet certain threshold standards: robust validation procedures and positive outcomes from Agency subject review. In addition, the recent location of AQaSU in SAS has allowed better opportunities for interaction between quality management staff and those staff dealing with areas such as admissions and student data management. In a meeting with the team staff illustrated this by reference to a coordinated approach within SAS to improving retention and progression.
26 The Academic Standards Committee (ASC), which reports to Academic Board, is the focal point for formal debate on quality and standards. ASC papers seen by the audit team showed careful and well-informed debate of key agenda items. A number of other groups report to the ASC: the International Collaboration subcommittee; the Academic Regulations Working Party; the Disability Review Group; and the External Examiners' Panel. Committees dealing with quality and standards at faculty level are variously described as committees, groups or panels (for consistency the term 'group' will be used throughout this report). These bodies report to a Faculty Executive Team and the link to ASC is through faculty deans serving on the ASC. The team considered this to be an important personal link given that they did not find evidence of faculty quality committee minutes being considered by ASC and faculty quality officers in meetings were not clear whether such minutes were passed to higher committees.
27 Currently procedures devolved to faculties include those relating to validation, annual course monitoring, module evaluation by students and peer observation of teaching. While the faculty may develop its own methods of scrutiny for these devolved procedures it is accountable to ASC and must comply with the University's prescribed processes described in the AQA Manual. In order to manage the potential diversity, and to track faculty procedures, the University has required faculties and departments to produce a manual of procedures in 2003-04 and the AQM gives explicit direction for its construction. Faculty manuals must address organisational and management structures and describe policies and procedures. Departmental manuals are to cover admissions and induction, course management, assessment arrangements, student support and guidance, staffing and resources and placement learning. Faculty and departmental manuals sampled by the audit team showed full adherence to the University template and in some manuals there was additional guidance and good practice material in appendices. As the manuals have only very recently been introduced it is too early to judge the impact of this initiative. Standard templates for procedures such as annual course monitoring also seek to maintain consistency of approach across the University. The DATs were able to confirm a conscientious and consistent approach to annual monitoring across faculties (see Section 3). Devolved validation and review practices are also monitored through meetings of the URP Chairs and Vice-Chairs with the Chair of the ASC and reports are made to ASC. A sample of URP reports provided to the team showed detailed analysis of the year's events and provided a good example of the institution drawing out features of enhancement and good practice. For instance, in their last report the URP Chairs had recommended changes to stage 1 validation to give greater clarity to procedures for partner colleges. The Chair of ASC also has responsibility for appointing chairs to the URPs. The University expresses 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 through meetings with staff in University and DAT meetings who referred to the AQA Manual and the Course Developers Guide as key documents and to the mentoring of new staff to facilitate a prompt understanding of regulation and procedure.
28 Throughout the audit, the audit team tested the consistency of approach across the University to the quality of programmes and standards of awards. Staff from the University pointed out the value of varied local practice in developing innovation and good practice. Furthermore, there were obvious means of disseminating this through the regular cross-faculty meetings of Faculty Principal Officers (Academic) and Faculty Validation Officers. While the team accepted the large measure of consistency in maintaining the quality of programmes, it did have some concerns about inconsistency relating to standards. Inconsistencies in applying regulations on the Minor Change Process are detailed in paragraphs 37, 125 and 137 below. DAT surveys also revealed significant variation in the feedback provided to students on assessed work (paragraph 88) and application of penalties for late submission of coursework. Staff in meetings stated that penalties for late submission were set out in module documentation and the team confirmed this. Nevertheless the team considered that variability of penalties could lead to student confusion and is something of a contradiction in the integrated Modular Credit Accumulation and Transfer Scheme (MODCATS) framework. Accordingly the team believes it desirable that the University consider adopting an institution-wide scheme of penalties for late submission of coursework. Auditors noted that a regularised scheme already exists for final-year dissertations and projects.
29 The University secures the standards of its awards by operating robust and transparent policies and procedures pertaining to external examiners (paragraphs 48 to 51). Standards are also maintained through the adoption of standard mark schemes set out in the academic regulations and through annual briefings for the chairs of assessment boards and administrators attached to boards. The University has also produced a guidance pack Assessment Strategies and Good Assessment Design and Practice that is supported by staff in the LDU (paragraph 56). During validation, course teams are required to produce an assessment strategy, and monitoring of standards is achieved through the centrally managed periodic evaluation process. The sample of periodic evaluations provided to the audit team indicated that the process is generally working satisfactorily, although not with consistent rigour. The adoption of a standard template for programme specifications also helps the University to secure standards across its provision. The team studied a number of programme specifications provided in the DATs. Auditors confirmed that learning outcomes are set at an appropriate level. However, the 'explicit' linking to subject benchmarks mentioned in the SED is, in a number of instances, not obvious. The University recognises the need to ensure that the outcomes declared in programme specifications are fully supported by the emerging arrangements for Personal Development Planning (PDP) and a working party is leading revision. It is due to report in May 2004.
30 The University has a considerable portfolio of collaborative provision involving overseas partners and a regional network of college partners. Procedures for validating collaborative provision and distance learning are the same as those for internal provision, however, management of quality assurance is not devolved owing to the uneven spread of expertise in collaborative provision across the faculties. AQaSU manages validation and periodic evaluation, and the Annual Course Monitoring Report (ACMR) is prepared by the Principal at the partner college and submitted to the University's Partnership Office. The University has taken account of the Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education (Code of practice), Section 2: Collaborative provision, published by the Agency, and where necessary has amended its procedures.
The institution's intentions for the enhancement of quality and standards
31 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 Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Act, 2001 (SENDA) requirements, the Diversity Workbook (paragraph 70), the Code of practice, Section 3: Students with disabilities and the introduction of the Student Organiser, a booklet giving key information and guidance on, for example, reflective approaches to learning. Other examples of recent enhancement activity include case-studies of good practice reported by an external consultant for LDU, the appointment of Faculty Information Officers (FIOs) (paragraph 100) to enhance delivery of the retention strategy, and the introduction of the Teaching Toolkit (paragraph 74) to improve access to learning and teaching training for new and existing staff. 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, particularly in the DATs, 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. The University has also established a Learning, Teaching and Research Week with a stimulating programme of institutional and faculty events and workshops. The programme for 2004 includes a number of distinguished external speakers and is an excellent vehicle for developing and sharing good practice. Meetings with staff showed that a number of the other enhancement intentions outlined in the SED, 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 discussed in broader fora across 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. In 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 for developing the regional agenda is the responsibility of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and a primary intention is to have all faculties providing courses at the Cumbria Campus that reflect the needs of the region. The Dean and staff from the Cumbria Campus reported that courses on outdoor education had recently been established and that discussion with the regional Learning and Skills Council had identified other areas for development (for example, environmental management and tourism and leisure). 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.
Internal approval, monitoring and review processes
Approval
32 The University regards its procedures for validation as the cornerstone of its quality assurance system and a real strength within its quality assurance framework, describing it as a 'very well developed and rigorous process' that follows the precepts of the Code of practice. Within the SED the description of internal approval and review processes is reflective and evaluative, highlighting recent changes that have taken place to further enhance the processes.
33 The approval of new programmes consists of a two-stage process that is devolved to faculties within a standard framework. The URP is central to the validation process. Each faculty has a URP, consisting of approximately 22 members from other faculties, from which validation panels are drawn. Stage 1 of the validation process focuses on helping course teams refine their proposals, check marketability and ensure compliance with academic regulations, with authority for this stage being vested in the faculty, through the Faculty Quality Group (FQG). Course development committees (CDCs) liaise with the Head of Department, Faculty Validation Officer and Faculty Principal Officer (Academic) to prepare the documentation for stage 1. A Library and Learning Resources Service (LLRS) representative is also involved to ensure adequate library provision. The Chair of the CDC discusses the proposal with the Head of Department who then refers this to the Dean of Faculty for inclusion in the planning cycle for the faculty and University. The proposal is forwarded by AQaSU to ASC for approval and subsequent inclusion in the validation schedule within the University's Academic Development Plan.
34 The University ensures, through guidance provided in the Course Developer's Guide, that development is within the Academic Plan, the Academic Regulations, and addresses criteria for the assurance of quality and standards. The Course Developer's Guide is an excellent resource for staff, and an example of good practice, that comprehensively explains programme development and approval, including a checklist that clearly identifies the areas staff need to consider in their proposals.
35 Stage 2 validation is operated by the faculty's URP supported by the faculty under devolved arrangements, or by AQaSU in the case of validation of proposals for distance-learning or collaborative provision. Proposals are scrutinised by a Validation Panel comprising academic staff drawn from one of five URPs independent to the faculty and at least two external advisers. A representative of the SU is invited to sit on the Panel. The Chair of a Validation Panel is drawn from the Chair or Vice-Chairs of the URPs, normally the URP for the relevant faculty. Departments may also invite a non-academic external adviser from industry or the professions. External advisers are appointed from nominations approved by the Head of Department and Dean of Faculty using a standard pro forma. In stage 2, the proposal is judged against the University's threshold criteria for course validation. Documentation comprises background information including the programme specification, the Student Handbook, module descriptions and institutional documentation. Subject benchmark statements and The framework for higher education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (FHEQ) are taken into account in the process as part of the University's template for programme specifications. The Chair of the CDC is responsible for ensuring that conditions and recommendations arising from validation are met, overseen by the Faculty Validation Officer.
36 The University carefully monitors the operation of the validation process through written feedback from external advisers, the URP chairs' annual report and an annual report on validation and review outcomes produced by AQaSU. The SED states that these have 'confirmed a highly professional approach to the operation of validation', a view confirmed by the audit team from meetings with staff and evidence from the annual reports and validation reports seen by the team. In response to comments from URP chairs, the University is currently reviewing its processes for validation and periodic evaluation to ascertain whether they can be made more effective overall. Concern had been raised over whether a two-stage validation process was unnecessarily burdensome on staff, and this is currently being reviewed
37 Minor changes that do not alter the basic nature of a course are approved through the Minor Change Process. Such changes are defined and the mechanisms for their approval detailed in the Course Developer's Guide in the AQA Manual. Changes proposed by course leaders are authorised by the Head of Department and, in some instances, the Faculty URP Chair. Each faculty, through the Faculty Principal Officer (Academic) maintains a record of minor changes made for each course. In the DATs, the audit team found inconsistency in the application of the Minor Change Process such that in one case, major changes to a forensic science course, that included the introduction of a new subject area into the programme, had been approved through the Minor Change Process. In discussions with staff, and from the documentation made available in the DATs, the team also noted confusion with respect to where responsibility lay at the faculty level for authorising minor changes and signing the Minor Change Process proposal form.
Annual monitoring
38 The University's annual monitoring process, described in the AQA Manual, is devolved to faculties with the Course Leader and course team having responsibility. The SED explains that a number of changes have been made to the annual monitoring process following devolution to faculties to streamline procedures and ensure a more consistent approach. Although faculties have developed different models for course review, it is carried out within the University framework and Code of practice, a view confirmed by the audit team. In addition to formal annual monitoring, departments monitor course operation throughout the year by interim evaluations and SSLC meetings. The Course Leader's ACMR is submitted to the Head of Department for consideration. A standard report prepared by the Head of Department for the FQG identifies the Departmental Action Plan and issues to be addressed by the faculty and University. The Head of Department monitors course action plans and ensures feedback is provided to students and external examiners on issues raised. While the team saw evidence of the annual monitoring process working well at departmental level it noted a lack of transparency in reporting to ASC with respect to the responses taken in light of the previous year's action points, making it difficult for an external observer to easily identify progress on previous years' action. The team recommends to the University the desirability of making more explicit and transparent in documentation the actions arising from review processes.
39 Annual monitoring reports are reviewed each year by the FQG in discussion with departmental staff. The Dean of Faculty reviews all head of department reports and 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 which is endorsed by ASC and approved by Academic Board. The progression of annual reports through the course, department and faculty level could be readily followed through the standard paperwork and committee minutes made available to the audit team.
40 Since 2002, service providers have been more closely involved in the annual monitoring process. Faculties work together to identify common issues and then discuss these with heads of services at a special meeting attended by the Chair of ASC. The University states in the SED that this initiative has not only brought the services into the monitoring cycle, but that it is also developing wider recognition of the importance of the services in the student experience.
41 In the SED and in meetings with staff, the University recognises difficulties associated with the use of standard templates for annual monitoring. The annual monitoring template has been revised a number of times in light of comments from staff and recommendations implemented for 2003-04 have provided the template with a clearer focus. The University also recognises problems with provision of statistical data in a format useful to course leaders for their annual reports. The University has made a significant commitment to resolving this issue including the introduction of the Banner Student Record System (Banner System) and the recent appointment of FIOs.
Periodic evaluation
42 A six-year cycle schedule of periodic evaluation, approved by ASC, is a central process that focuses on academic departments. Periodic evaluation is managed by AQaSU, guided by the AQA Manual, and conducted by a panel comprising URP members external to the Faculty and external advisers. It may be a conjoint event involving a professional body. 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 by the Validation and Periodic Evaluation Working Group with the intention of reducing the heavy workload and making the process more effective. The group is due to publish its recommendations in May 2004.
43 Periodic evaluation has two main objectives: to review the standards and quality of a Department's academic provision and to review the compatibility of a Department's provision with institutional goals and mission and strategic academic and resource planning. Periodic evaluation is a two-stage process. Phase 1 consists of a review of evidence, both current and for the previous three years, to establish the agenda for Phase 2. Internal and external panel members are involved in Phase 1. Phase 2 involves meetings with staff and students to discuss issues arising from the review of evidence undertaken in Phase 1. A report, prepared by AQaSU is submitted to the department and panel for approval and to the FQG and ASC for information. The Head of Department is responsible for ensuring that conditions and recommendations arising from the report are acted upon by the appropriate course leaders/teams. The audit team saw limited evidence of periodic evaluations, but noted that the University was currently reviewing their effectiveness and use. URP members and departments have commented that while valuable, the current process creates heavy workload which in turn has an impact on the effectiveness of the process. In addition URP members note that they are not best placed to judge the strategic direction of departments. The interim report of the Validation and Periodic Evaluation working group has, therefore, appropriately recommended that URP panels conduct periodic evaluation primarily to confirm the standard and quality of courses.
External participation in internal review processes
44 In its SED, the University stated that it 'greatly values external input into its quality assurance mechanisms'. Although, the section in the SED on external participation in validation and review processes was brief and contained little analysis of the effectiveness of the University's procedures with respect to external participation, the audit team was provided with extensive evidence to confirm the SED statement.
45 It is a University requirement that academic external advisers participate in both validation and periodic evaluation processes. The approval process for the involvement of external advisers is rigorous with the University having clear exclusion criteria and nomination through a standard template approved by both the Head of Department and Dean of Faculty.
46 With respect to validation, external advisers provide informal input into stage 1 through links with the CDC. Stage 2 validation requires scrutiny of the proposal by at least two external advisers, of whom at least one must be from an academic institution, in addition to internal advisers drawn from outside the faculty. Departments may also invite a non-academic external adviser from industry or the professions if deemed appropriate. In addition, the University through URPs ensures a robust system of internal externality in the approval process. The audit team saw evidence of strong input from external advisers in the University's validation processes across faculties.
47 External advisers are also involved in Phase 1 and Phase 2 of periodic evaluation. They are nominated by the Head of Department and approved by the Chair of the Periodic Evaluation Panel, who is a URP Chair. External advisers, using standard templates are asked to comment on course-based materials, course aims, learning outcomes, curriculum content and design, assessment, teaching and learning, resources and enhancement. External panel members meet with both students and representatives of the department during Phase 2. Scrutiny of periodic evaluation reports in selected DATs by the audit team revealed the process to be rigorous and the level and degree of external involvement strong.
External examiners and their reports
48 The University states that '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 provides a comprehensive overview of the roles and responsibilities of external examiners and gives details of changes made to processes as a result of the University's continuation audit and in preparation for meeting the Teaching Quality Information (TQI) requirements detailed in HEFCE's document, Information on quality and standards in higher education (HEFEC 02/15), or HEFCE 03/51, Information on quality and standards in higher education: Final guidance. As a result, the University's policies and processes pertaining to external examiners were considered by the audit team to be both robust and transparent.
49 The AQA Manual contains comprehensive and detailed procedures for the appointment of external examiners of taught provision that includes rigorous criteria against which nominations are judged. Nominations for external examiners are made by heads of department on a standard template using set criteria. These are scrutinised by the Faculty Principal Officer (Academic) to establish that they meet the University criteria for appointment and then approved by the Dean of Faculty. Nominations are then forwarded to AQaSU for final approval before consideration by ASC. If nominations do not meet University criteria they are forwarded to the External Examiner Panel, a subgroup of ASC, for further consideration. The Chair of the ASC has responsibility for the termination of external examiner contracts. AQaSU has responsibility for administering the termination of external examiners' periods of office.
50 External examiners are appointed for a four-year period and receive a comprehensive briefing pack. All newly-appointed examiners are invited to an annual briefing event, with an expectation that inexperienced examiners will attend. External examiners are required to produce an annual report, using a standard template that has been modified for the 2003-04 academic year following recommendations of the External Examiner Panel. Guidelines on the format of the report are provided in the 'Information for newly appointed external examiners' in the AQA Manual. External examiners reports are submitted to AQaSU and then circulated by AQaSU to the Course Leader, Head of Department, Faculty Principal Officer (Academic), the Dean of Faculty and the Chair of the ASC. The Chair of the ASC reads all external examiners' reports and takes action when appropriate. The audit team saw evidence of these processes working effectively and in accordance with University guidelines and the Code of practice at the subject level. Good practice and identification of areas for improvement are disseminated through an AQaSU annual report of external examiner reports for ASC which is ultimately considered by Academic Board. The team saw examples of these reports for the last two years, and was of the view that they provide the University with a valuable tool for quality assurance and enhancement.
51 Recommendations made following the continuation audit resulted in a review of practices for the appointment of external examiners and how action points were dealt with. The University took the opportunity to review practices in light of the Code of practice, Section 4: External examining. A further review, undertaken in 2003 by the External Examiner Panel to ensure that procedures meet the national TQI requirements, recommended changes to the External Examiner Annual Report template. It also recommended that the Head of Department be ultimately responsible for action and for response to the external examiner to remove confusion over where responsibility lay and to include the categorisation of recommendations or actions into 'essential', 'advisable' and 'desirable'. This has been implemented for the current academic year. The audit team was of the view that this was a commendable initiative and an example of good practice.
External reference points
52 In developing its procedures for quality and standards the University has considered the national academic infrastructure. Where necessary, procedures have been modified and amendments were detailed in appendix three of the SED. 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 meetings with staff, particularly on DATs, the audit team was able to confirm a knowledgeable awareness 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 such as AQA Manual which includes the Course Developers' Guide. The team considered that potential enhancement benefits arising from use of the Code (for example, in curriculum design) could be more fully exploited at departmental level. Subject benchmarks have been used as reference points in the design and review of courses and this is demonstrated through most programme specifications. Further monitoring is provided by subject specialists who are asked, during validation and review processes, to comment on the provision's alignment to the appropriate subject benchmark statement.
53 In discussions with staff the audit team found the approach to the use of subject benchmark statements and programme specifications varied. The University acknowledges that it needs to continue to monitor the relationship between subject benchmarks, programme specifications and module outcomes, and is currently reviewing the use of programme specifications which in the future will form the central document for validation. The team formed the view that the University needs to make more explicit how these relationships have been addressed.
54 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 through a template the relationship of provision to career planning, employability, key skills and volunteering. In a meeting URP Chairs reported that AQaSU and the LDU had provided guidance on considering PDP in validation and review. However, there was uncertainty over monitoring PDP progress in existing courses not scheduled for periodic evaluation in the next few years. A suggestion from staff was that this would be addressed through annual monitoring, but the audit team did not see evidence to suggest a systematic approach to PDP through this process. In meeting with students on DATs, the team found little awareness of PDP despite there being good evidence that staff in discipline areas were actively taking forward the PDP agenda with leadership from the Teaching and Learning Coordinators (TLC). In a clarification meeting it was suggested that the students would not recognise the term PDP as the University does not use this as a 'brand name' and the team concurred with this view. The team accepted that PDP had grown from the University's key skills agenda, and associated curriculum development, and that a majority of students had been aware of key skills development. Nevertheless the term Personal Development Planning was used explicitly in key documents such as the Student Organiser. At the present time, the team acknowledges 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 encouraged to draw on the work of the Teaching and Learning Committee and LDU to make PDP developments more explicit to students at subject and programme levels.
Programme-level review and accreditation by external agencies
55 Since the 1999 continuation audit, the University has had seven Agency subject reviews, with two achieving the highest possible graded profile. The University aligned its internal processes to facilitate preparation for subject review, and has subsequently reviewed its systems following the inception of the institutional audit process.
56 Subject review reports were considered by the department and faculty both on receipt and in their annual reports, with the report and the Department's formal response being considered by ASC. Heads of departments have, through presentations to ASC, disseminated good practice with respect to subject review. In a review of the outcomes of subject review the University noted its strength in student support and guidance. As part of its response to Agency subject reviews, the University is working to ensure that good assessment practice is effectively disseminated and the audit team saw evidence of this. The LDU and AQaSU have developed an information pack 'Assessment Strategies and Good Assessment Design and Practice'. However, while staff from the DATs who met the team knew of this, few had used it and promotion by LDU will be needed to generate best practice. The LDU has also undertaken a series of workshops on assessment. In discussions with staff and examination of documentation, the team concluded that the University is investing considerable resources into the dissemination of good practice on a wide range of issues arising from feedback from programme level review, but that the uptake of training related to this is variable across the institution.
57 The nature of the University's portfolio is such that a considerable number of courses are subject to accreditation by professional statutory and regulatory bodies (PSRBs). The relationship with professional bodies and liaison pre and post-accreditation is managed at departmental and faculty level. AQaSu maintains a database of PSRB accredited courses, including details of when re-accreditation is due. Where possible PSRB accreditation is aligned with validation; if not, separate accreditation events are held depending on the specific requirements of the accrediting body. While approval and monitoring of PSRB accredited courses generally follows the University's standard procedures, practice in faculties varies with respect to consideration of accreditation and re-accreditation reports. As a result ASC has, appropriately, recommended standard procedures for the consideration of such reports, including that the outcomes of accreditation and any actions/recommendations arising from it be included in the annual monitoring process with effect from 2003-04.
Student representation at operational and institutional level
58 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 SED and the SWS 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 showed a clear commitment to collaborative working. The Senior Management Team and the SU Executive meet approximately every six weeks. The agenda is set by the SU, and the meetings are chaired by a member of the University Directorate. The University and the SU confirm that these six-weekly meetings have influenced the University's major recent developments, for example, the planning and construction of a new SU building.
59 The major focus of student representation at faculty level rests with the Student Liaison Officers (SLOs). There are now SLOs in all faculties, but none yet at the Cumbria Campus. The SLO posts are funded through the University's retention strategy; some are full-time, working at faculty level, while others are part-time, working at departmental level. The University accepts that SLO posts are better established in some faculties than others, and discussions with students confirmed that the full-time SLOs are inevitably able to provide a more stable and effective level of student representation than their part-time peers. The SU is routinely sent documentation for all validation events, and student representatives are encouraged to attend. Attendance varies from year-to-year, but is generally good, with active participation from student representatives. Student representatives also attend periodic evaluation events.
60 Each course has a committee with staff and student representation, sometimes referred to as a SSLC, sometimes as a Course Committee. Course representatives are elected, with two representatives per course. Some elections are contested. The University recognises that the operation of committees varies across faculties. In areas where straightforward student representation is more difficult to organise, separate arrangements have been made, using special fora for research students and email contact for distance-learning students. Student views are fed from departments through Faculty Learning and Teaching Committees to the ASC.
61 In the view of the audit team, there is strong evidence of positive student contribution to the assurance of quality and standards.
Feedback from students, graduates and employers
62 The University has effective 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.
63 Graduate surveys of first destinations, administered by the Careers Service, show over 80 per cent response rates; the first destination survey is supported by a mailshot requesting feedback from graduates on the quality of support offered to students by the Careers Service. The Advancement Service is currently upgrading the University's alumni database. The University's Careers Service web site contains case-studies of former graduates' career success, and a number of graduates have supported students in their job search efforts.
64 In addition to the student representative system, a major source of feedback from students is the Module Evaluation Questionnaire (MEQ). The use of these questionnaires is well embedded across the University. Nevertheless, there has been some student concern about the effectiveness of the MEQs, in particular regarding the level of feedback given to students on actions taken following the return of MEQs to departments, and a focus group has been set up by the University to identify best practice. In several departments, for instance, a summary of MEQ feedback is included in the Module Information Pack (MIP) for the following year. In others, the MEQ is administered several weeks before completion of a module, so that feedback can be given to students while the module is still running. The University operates an annual Student Satisfaction Survey at institutional level. Findings are analysed and put into report format to inform senior management of overall student experience.
65 The University states that it 'places a high value on the maintenance of contacts with employers'. The audit team were given numerous examples of employer feedback. Some of this is given through formal channels and some through informal channels. There is no institutional policy regarding procedures for responding to employer feedback but it is clear that employers are involved with the University's academic provision at several levels. Many creditable examples of employer involvement are cited in the SED; these include membership of department advisory panels, and the provision of placements and projects. In vocational courses, practising professionals are directly involved in the planning and delivery of taught programmes, often through the use of fractional appointments which complement their professional work. The SWS confirms that 'some courses are particularly strong in encouraging employability and learning through reflection-based exercises, specialist workshops and/or modules and/or placements.'
66 Under the leadership of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, the University is expanding contacts with employers through its developing knowledge transfer strategy, for which units have been established in each faculty.
Progression and completion statistics
67 The SED acknowledges that the University has an ongoing problem with supplying management information from the Banner System, introduced in 1999-2000. The Student Management Information Unit (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. At faculty level, FIO appointments have been made to assist with local data processing and the development of statistical reporting tools. A working group led by the recently appointed Head of the SAS is looking at 'data integrity'. The availability of accurate information at faculty level is particularly important given the University's concerns about retention. Documentation provided to the audit team, in particular ACMRs, referred to continuing problems with interpreting centrally provided progression and retention data from the Banner System. In meetings, staff acknowledged recent improvements arising from the appointment of the FIOs and, following extensive and thorough testing of the data, the Head of SAS indicated satisfaction with the reliability and integrity of statistical information supplied. From September 2004 the University will have a more extensive set of user-friendly statistical reports for admission and retention and the FIOs should be able to look at withdrawals in 'real time'. In addition, the University is in the process of appointing Retention Officers to each faculty to drive forward the retention strategy and develop cross-faculty cooperation. There will also be reports on research and research students to assist monitoring of the University's research strategy. In tandem with these developments, the University is planning to extend the utility of the student 'See Your Data' (SYD) pages. At present the pages contain a largely historical record of verified marks from modules and the intention is to provide information on the student's current programme to assist students with programme planning, and to give better tracking of progression. Although the team was concerned at the length of time taken to address this serious problem, it did recognise the considerable advances made within the last year. In the opinion of the team if the new reporting tools are available, on time, in September 2004 the University will be in a significantly better position to deliver its retention strategy.
Assurance of quality of teaching staff, appointment, appraisal and reward
68 The University has recognised that the expansion and development of provision consequent upon its mission, 'access to excellence', necessitated a review of HR. Personnel Services was replaced by a HR function led by a director, and a new HR Strategy was approved in 2002. This strategy recognised the University's strengths, such as its status since 1998 as an accredited Investor in People (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'. The 2003 'Access to Excellence' internal review, which covered HR provision, noted positive developments particularly in management training, but also recognised that improvements remained to be made, especially in the area of individual staff development. As a result, HR is, at present, consolidating the major developments already achieved and developing new strategies in key areas, such as published information and appraisal.
69 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, HR has produced a detailed and user-friendly guide, The Staff Recruitment and Selection Good Practice Manual, which provides helpful guidelines. Senior academic appointments are tested for relevant competencies, and a pilot is underway in the CLASS faculty that expands this focus upon competencies to all academic posts. In order to attract high calibre candidates the University offers market supplements along HEFCE's guidelines, although this process also remains under review.
70 The University's Equal Opportunities' and Diversity policies are particularly well developed. HR has established a Diversity Committee which reports to the Senior Management Team and which has undertaken statistical analysis of current and prospective staff, showing an increase in the numbers of previously underrepresented groups. A comprehensive and innovative Diversity Workbook has recently been issued by HR to all staff in order to increase awareness of discrimination. The Workbook emphasises the University's commitment to promoting equality of opportunity and its recognition of the value of a learning community that includes people with different backgrounds, skills, attitudes and experiences. The Workbook's combination of useful information and questionnaires is intended to help staff understand diversity, challenge perceptions and encourage respect. An optional follow-up telephone questionnaire is available and the uptake across the University has been around 33 per cent. Staff told the audit team that the introduction of the Diversity Workbook has raised awareness, as well as consolidating current good practice. The team recognised this as a feature of good practice.
71 Annual staff appraisal for academic and administrative staff is undertaken by a trained appraiser, normally the appraisee's line manager and, at subject level, most commonly the Head of Department. The scheme is clearly described in the Staff Handbook and the Staff Appraisal Scheme Guidance Notes. Appraisal is confidential and covers overall performance of individual staff members in relation to the tasks and activities undertaken as part of their job, and results in an action plan for the coming year. Participation in the scheme is 'a contractual requirement for all staff', with the responsibility for ensuring that the process occurs residing in the appraisee's line manager. The SED acknowledges that, while appraisal is embedded across the University, the current system has no formal mechanisms for incorporating staff development needs into an overarching strategy. 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 by HR 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.
72 The University has clear new guidelines for the promotion and reward of staff which are monitored by HR. The academic promotions Scheme includes a range of criteria for promotion on the basis of teaching, academic leadership, contribution to consultancy and commercial activities, as well as research and scholarship. Promotion to the titles of professor and reader are also well defined. Promoted staff told the audit team that they found these procedures clear and welcomed the University's commitment to rewarding staff. The University's promotions scheme was cited as an example of good practice in the Government White Paper on the Future of Higher Education.
Assurance of quality of teaching through staff support and development
73 The University has a strong commitment to supporting academic staff. 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 informal communication with heads of department. AQaSU communicates these needs to the LDU, enabling the delivery of a range of relevant programmes associated with teaching and learning. HR provides the funding for the LDU programmes, and delivers complementary training programmes in soft skills. As such, the LDU is a central resource for staff in all aspects of learning and curriculum development and provides a comprehensive range of programmes. These include: subject-based and open seminars, the Teaching Toolkit programme, the Postgraduate Certificate (PgCert) for Research Student Supervision, regular sessions on enhancing learning through technology, and designated sessions, such as the Teachability seminar on disability issues. The LDU also runs Learning, Teaching and Research Development Week programmes, which in the current academic year respond to the University's mission by enabling links between teaching and research.
74 New academic staff are required to complete the weeklong Teaching Toolkit programme run by the LDU which develops their role in learning, teaching and student support, as well as providing information on University systems and procedures. In addition, staff have access to a PgCert in Learning and Teaching in Higher Education which is accredited by the Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (ILTHE) (now the HE Academy) and offers ILTHE member status on successful completion. The LDU hosts and contributes to the PgCert in Research Student Supervision offered by the Department of Education and Social Science and the Research Support Office. New staff particularly commended the Teaching Toolkit programme. The 1999 continuation audit asked the University to consider formalising arrangements for the appointment and training of postgraduate students to act in a teaching capacity. This has taken some time to resolve but the Teaching Toolkit has now largely addressed this issue, in that it is available to postgraduate students and they are strongly encouraged to take the course. It will become compulsory from the start of the academic year 2004-05.
75 Staff support and development is further facilitated and enhanced through the Continuous Improvement Process (CIP) which aims to encourage staff to take 'full responsibility for reviewing and improving the effectiveness and efficiency of their work'. The CIP was developed in 2001 by HR; it was initially directed at management and administrative groups and from 2004-05 will engage with academic staff. The University has also developed significant training in managerial skills through the Leadership Development Programme, which has been running since 2003, and is training all University staff with management responsibility, both academic and non-academic. Staff told the audit team that they appreciated the University's investment in management training and that the programme has already helped to engender a more open employment culture.
76 All academic staff are expected to participate in peer observation of teaching and the audit team saw evidence that the procedure is applied across the University. Peer review is intended to be developmental and supportive and is consequently confidential, although heads of department collect anonymised evidence of good practice for dissemination. At present, there is no formal mechanism for using information obtained through the process in relation to overall staff development needs and, while AQaSU provides minimum requirements, departments have implemented the scheme in a way which best suits their needs. A Peer Observation Working Party, which reports to ASC, has been established to review the peer observation process. The team was satisfied with the group's report that while current philosophy and principles are sound, ways to enhance the process will be developed and implemented.
Assurance of quality of teaching delivered through distributed and distance methods
77 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 both on campus and on distance-learning programmes. Accordingly, the learning and Teaching Strategy states a commitment to 'University-wide open and distance learning materials and web-based support for the courses' and to becoming 'a high quality on-line provider of e-Learning, both regionally and internationally'. To facilitate this development an e-Learning Committee, which reports to the Learning and Teaching Committee, was established to coordinate central support and oversee the implementation of policy.
78 The University has invested considerably in the information technology (IT) infrastructure and currently has one of the largest WebCT installations in Europe, with around 600 students studying principally or wholly through e-learning. At the same time, the University recognises the learning and support needs of students by encouraging the fusion of traditional and e-learning methodologies in an integrated approach. All existing programmes now have at least one on-line module, while new internet-based courses are being encouraged with dedicated investment. This integrated learning approach ensures that all University students now have the opportunity to experience e-learning. In addition, each faculty now has a fully on-line e-learning or distance-learning course, although these are primarily at postgraduate level.
79 The University has recognised the necessity of dedicated training in the use of e-learning methodologies, and in 2002 set up a working party to identify staff development needs. Currently, the Information Strategy Panel identifies priorities, and the LDU is working with AQaSU to deliver directed training. At present, LDU provides clear information on the quality assurance and enhancement procedures, teaching, and external sources of information relating to distance-learning and on-line teaching. The LDU also provides specialised courses and in 2003 ran a dedicated Distance Learning Fair.
80 Both distance and on-line courses are approved and monitored through the University's usual quality assurance mechanisms, although additional scrutiny is applied for non-traditional delivery methods. The Course Developer's Guide gives clear guidance on the additional materials needed for the approval of distance learning programmes, with particular reference to e-learning methodologies, as well as a set of demanding supplementary criteria which must be met before validation can occur. Explicit reference is made to guidelines on distance-learning published by the Agency, and monitoring of the approved programmes and modules is undertaken by AQaSU in accordance with University regulations and according to Agency guidelines.
Learning support resources
81 The institutional SED and meetings with staff confirmed 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. These are monitored on an annual basis. LLRS provides both library and IT support services on both campuses, Preston and Cumbria. The University has set out to increase access to Library and Information Services in line with its mission statement and its Learning and Teaching Strategy. Key initiatives include the improvement of accessibility to electronic resources, the introduction of an electronic helpdesk, automated telephone renewals and the introduction of 24-hour access to library facilities at key times in the academic calendar.
82 There are several ways in which the University ensures that its library provision supports learning and teaching. An LLRS link person is involved in stage 1 of the procedure 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 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.
83 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. They did, however, note that the University addresses issues when they are raised. In particular, concerns were expressed about the availability of books and limitations of space to expand book and journal collections. The recent addition in March 2004 of an extensive e-book collection, with over 10,000 e-books available on-line, will ameliorate some of the difficulties. Students welcomed the trial 24-hour opening period at the Preston Campus. Although access to facilities at the Cumbria Campus is more limited, and does not yet compare with the extensive facilities available at the Preston Campus, Cumbria staff report that the library is well stocked.
84 An extensive consultation on IT services in 1998 and 1999 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 by 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. Although students expressed concern in their most recent Student Satisfaction Survey about the lack of availability of computers, those who met with the audit team recognised that the number has been increased and that measures to provide software support for identification of current machine availability will relieve pressure on the workstations in the LLRS.
85 The SWS recognised that there were problems with availability of student timetables and commented that there were also some problems with room bookings (paragraphs 107, 129 and 153). Notification of late changes is provided by the 'contact your students' email facility which students saw as very useful. Students commended the high calibre of sporting facilities at the Preston Campus, but noted a strain on facilities at the Cumbria Campus. The 1999 Agency quality audit report recommended that the University adopt 'a more strategic approach towards space planning and provision' as a result of difficulties with the availability of teaching accommodation. The University has responded by developing a high level Estates Strategy (November 2002) that links planned growth and improvement of the estate more explicitly to growth in student numbers. This is particularly critical since student numbers at the Preston Campus are anticipated to rise from 22,000 to 29,000 by 2008 according to the Corporate Plan. The Strategy concentrates on development of faculty space and centrally booked space available to a faculty on specific parts of the campus to minimise student movement between classes.
86 The University has appropriate processes embedded to maintain adequate services in support of the student learning experience. Additional requirements for new courses, annual monitoring of the library and learning resources and the collection and use of student views all contribute to this. The impression is given of an institution which is active in addressing issues as they arise as well as proactive in identification of the expansionary needs associated with the significant targeted growth in student numbers. The University has moved forward in the development and integration of a new student-focused infrastructure with the provision of some impressive facilities, for example, the 'i' one-stop shop support service for students (paragraph 90), and is now working on the development of reporting facilities. Strategic issues are addressed in a way that integrates estates planning and anticipated growth.
Academic guidance, support and supervision
87 The SED states that all students are assigned a designated personal tutor with responsibility for providing academic and personal guidance, and for referring students to other sources of help and support as appropriate. The audit team identified some variability with the current system. In particular, the system requires proactivity on the part of the student and this does not always happen. The University, as part of its Retention Strategy recognises the need to support students who would not necessarily act proactively in seeking guidance through personal tutors. Monitoring and resourcing of the arrangements has recently developed significantly. There appears to be some need for clarification of the role and the terms 'personal tutor' and 'academic adviser' and the University has undertaken some work in this area. Some students entering directly into later years of a course are not assigned a personal tutor. The scheme relies on implementation at the departmental-level and although the SED identifies examples of good practice, there is variability across the University with no mechanism for verifying implementation at the local level or for dissemination of good practice. Meetings with students in the DATs confirmed this but also highlighted the general availability and helpfulness of academic staff. Heads of departments have recognised the need for role definition and staff development in personal tutoring, and senior staff have acknowledged the importance of reviewing the system. A joint LDU, HR and Student Services project team is developing a programme of staff development for personal tutors through a Staff and Educational Development Association accredited module that will be available in September 2004. 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 under way.
88 The SWS indicated that the quality of feedback on assessed work was variable with some areas providing little or no feedback. The University has a policy of returning written feedback within 15 working days however promptness was also identified in the student satisfaction survey as an area of low satisfaction. This variability in approach was reflected in the student work reviewed by the audit team where excellent examples of written feedback were also found. Students commented that where particular departments were alerted to issues, they were happy to address them and the University confirmed that it had produced guidelines and advice on good practice. To ensure more consistent practice, secure threshold standards and dissemination of good practice it is advisable that the University establish procedures to assure itself that these standards are being achieved.
89 The University has reviewed its approach and its Code of Conduct for research against the Code of practice, published by the Agency, and the audit team confirms that the University is broadly in alignment. Registration procedures are currently under review and the research student training programme is being enhanced to improve skills development for research students. The SED identifies several initiatives at the faculty level to support postgraduate students. In meetings with students, biological sciences commented that they have a Postgraduate Research Student Progress File in which staff record meetings with students and students record training they have undergone, and are allocated a personal tutor of their choosing (paragraph 105). FIS postgraduates were enthusiastic about availability of e-learning resources and widespread use of WebCT.
Personal support and guidance
90 Following consultation involving the SU, service staff and external advisers, a new SAS was created in September 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. A complementary web site has been developed. The 'i' offers a range of services and advice on such matters as accommodation, council tax, courses, academic administration as well as surgeries which include skills, careers, curriculum vitae writing, peer mentoring, crime prevention and personal safety, and advice for applicants. Students were very supportive of the range of services and accessibility of the 'i' that is a major plank in the support package provided for students. Although there is no equivalent of the 'i' at the Cumbria Campus, equivalent student services are provided.
91 After a review of induction into the University, a Central Induction Working Party (CIWP) was established to 'improve initial student experience and ultimately to improve retention'. The CIWP developed a series of initiatives focusing on skills development. The CIWP reviews the effectiveness of induction annually, the outcomes of which are actioned in the following year. Other support service activities were integrated into induction for 2003-04, for example, the M and M peer support network and the Welcome Team. 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 praise the scheme in their SWS. The Welcome Team consists of students who assist in the induction process. Students also praised pre-induction activities such as the Flying Start Summer School programme. In this programme prospective students are invited to stay at the University for a series of activities to introduce them to HE, develop skills and meet other prospective students. The International Student Support Service caters for international students. A 'Buddy Scheme', piloted in 2002 and extended in 2003, provides a meet, greet and assist service for new international students. All first-year undergraduate students are also provided with an informative personal organiser.
92 The University recognises the importance of creating a welcoming and supportive environment for new and prospective students and students appreciate this. This pattern of support provided to students before and during induction (Flying Start Programme, written documentation, Student Organiser, M and M support network, Buddy Scheme and services from the 'i') ensures an informative and supportive environment for students to enhance their early experience of university life and must be considered an important component of the retention strategy of the institution.
93 The Advice and Counselling Service of the University works from a Centre, with staff working on various courses across the University. The Centre administers hardship funding. The University has reviewed its activities against the Code of practice and developed an institutional policy statement on Career Education Information and Guidance incorporated within the University's Learning and Teaching Strategy. The careers service is a centre of excellence having achieved the Matrix standard. The University has also reviewed its policy towards disability with respect to SENDA and, at the same time, aligned itself with the Code.
94 The audit team confirmed that the institution has provided a strong pattern of student support provided to students before and during induction to enhance their early experience of university life and improve retention.
Collaborative provision
95 In its SED, the University identifies partnership arrangements as one of the elements of its widening participation and regional role, closely linked to the University's Further and Higher Education Widening Participation Strategy. As such, it has entered into partnerships with a number of colleges for the delivery in full or part of the University's awards. The University retains responsibility for validation and quality assurance. A range of partnerships exist including franchised courses; validated courses; validated institutions; accreditation of programme for credit transfer; articulation agreements for recognition of qualifications for entry to the University's awards; and collaborative awards. The University's AQA Manual provides guidance on arrangements for the approval and monitoring of such programmes. The manual states that each collaborative arrangement is underpinned by an agreement and a Memorandum of Cooperation signed by the parties involved. Guidelines for Overseas Collaborative Provision are available on the AQaSU web site.
96 The University is scheduled to have a separate collaborative audit in the near future. This institutional audit did not, therefore, address the management of the quality of its academic programmes and the academic standards of its collaborative awards.
Section 3: The audit investigations: discipline audit trails
Discipline audit trails
97 In each of the selected DATs, appropriate members of the audit team met staff and students to discuss the programmes, studied a sample of assessed student work, saw examples of learning resource materials, read external examiners' reports and studied annual reports and periodic evaluation reports, where available, relating to the programmes. Their findings in respect of the academic standards of awards are as follows:
Biological sciences
98 A DAT was conducted for courses leading to the degree of BSc (Hons) in Biological Sciences, Biomedical Sciences, Exercise, Nutrition and Health, Human Physiology, Medical Biology, Molecular Biology and Biochemistry, Molecular Microbiology and Sport Science in the Department of Biological Sciences within the Faculty of Science. The audit trail also encompassed the BSc (Hons) Combined Honours course in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. It was supported by a DSED prepared for the purposes of the audit which was largely descriptive in nature.
99 The DSED included programme specifications for each course that made reference to the appropriate levels of the FHEQ and, in most, to the relevant subject benchmark statement. Reference to the appropriate subject benchmark statement for sport science was made in the amended programme specification at the course's 2004 Interim Review. Programme specifications are made available to students in their Student Handbook. Learning outcomes at levels 1 and 2 were mapped onto those detailed in the programme specification. However, the audit 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 level 3 modules. Discussions with staff confirmed the view expressed in the DSED that teaching, especially at level 3, is firmly underpinned by staff research.
100 Limited descriptive data were presented in the DSED on student admission, progression and achievement, however, more detailed information was available at the audit visit. The University has taken steps with the introduction of the Banner System and, more recently, FIOs to ensure that departments and course leaders are provided with accurate and reliable data on student progression and achievement to inform course review and monitoring. An analysis of data for 2002-03 revealed satisfactory student progression and achievement on most courses. Sport science accounts for the largest number of students that do not progress from level 1. The Department fully acknowledges this and the audit team saw examples of several excellent initiatives at both the departmental and institutional level to improve student retention and progression.
101 The Department operates the University's annual monitoring procedure for each course, including those that are externally accredited. A key part of the Department's activities within the annual review cycle are module review meetings at the end of each semester. Both staff opinion and student feedback inform this process in addition to data on standards achieved by students and the comments of external examiners. The departmental TLC examines minutes from all module review meetings in order to identify key areas for action within the Department, which are then used to inform staff development activities. A summary of the actions is made available to students so they can see the value of their feedback and how it is acted upon. The audit team saw examples of the previous years' course leaders report for each course and noted that all except one followed the University's standard template. The 2002-03 Department Annual Monitoring Report and Faculty Report were detailed and transparent.
102 In 2004 sport science was subject to an Interim Review. This was undertaken by a panel comprising an external academic adviser and two internal members, both external to the Faculty. From the subsequent report, the audit team was able to confirm that the review had been a thorough exercise that had provided the Department with information that would enable it to further enhance quality and standards. The report of the Periodic Evaluation of the Department in 2002 further confirmed the rigorous nature with which courses are reviewed, in accordance with University guidelines within the Department.
103 External examiners have reported that student achievement is in line with national standards, with the exception of one examiner who had concerns about the appropriateness of some examination questions at level 3. The audit team agreed with the external examiner's concerns and was pleased to note the prompt action taken by the Department and the University.
104 The Department's assessment strategy follows University guidelines and, therefore, the Code of practice. Details are provided for staff in the Departmental Manual. Students are made aware of assessment requirements and regulations in both their Student Handbook and MIP for each module. Summative and formative modes of assessment are used within the Department across all courses. The audit team saw a range of student work from a number of courses at each level. 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 contained within the MIPs for the level 3 modules made available to the team revealed that a number could not easily be mapped against the programme outcomes in the programme specification and appeared inappropriate 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, after detailed review and discussion, came to the opinion this was not the case.
105 The Department has a number of mechanisms through which it offers support and guidance to students. All applicants have the opportunity of attending an 'open day' to meet the Head of Department and Course Leader and are supplied with a comprehensive fact sheet on their chosen course. New students participate in the Department's induction programme during which they meet their personal tutor. Postgraduate research students have a specific induction programme and are assigned a personal tutor of their choosing. In their second and third years, students reported to the audit team that they did not meet regularly with their personal tutors because they felt they could approach any member of staff within the Department with issues or concerns. The students who met the team highly commended the induction process, the Student Organiser provided and approachability and helpfulness of staff within the Department.
106 Students are engaged with quality assurance and enhancement through formal and informal means at the department and faculty level. Formally, student opinion is sought through MEQs. The audit team saw a range of individual and summarised MEQs and noted the generally high level of student satisfaction. Where issues of concern were raised, Module Tutors responded in their summary how the issue would be dealt with for the following session. Student concerns are also discussed more informally in SSLC meetings held twice a year, the minutes of which are available to students by means of notice-boards and the Departmental newsletter that is emailed to all students, including those who are part-time. Feedback from postgraduate research students is sought through meetings with the Department Research Degree Tutor. Students who met with the team were confident that through these processes they had ample opportunity to raise concerns, and that issues raised would be dealt with promptly. The Department is committed to the enhancement of its provision as evidenced by the appointment of a departmental TLC, its active staff development programme, run in conjunction with the LDU, its peer observation of teaching scheme and annual appraisal.
107 The Department has a strategy for the management of learning resources detailed in the Departmental Manual. The Head of Department reviews resources on an annual basis in liaison with course teams and the Faculty Laboratory Facilities Team. The Department has a library representative who liaises with the Science Librarian with responsibility for biological sciences in the LLRS unit. Students were happy with the level of provision with respect to resources, including books and journals, and mentioned the considerable degree of access the University has to electronic resources, including books. The DSED acknowledges that there are issues relating to the quality of some teaching rooms and this was confirmed in some of the student MEQs. The University, through its Estates Strategy is currently working on this issue.
108 The audit team confirmed that the quality of learning opportunities provided for students was suitable for the programmes of study leading to the named awards within the audit trail.
Business and management
109 The DAT in the Lancashire Business School covered business and management courses in the Department of Strategy and Innovation. The courses covered a range of levels and modes of attendance: BA Human Resource Management and BA Management (full-time sandwich course and one-year top up), Graduate Diploma in Personnel Management (part-time), MBA (full and part-time), and the Diploma in Management Studies (part-time). These courses have all been running for at least 10 years with the DMS for more than 30 years. Total numbers enrolled for 2003-04 are 617 although the Business School has experienced a decline in demand in recent years due to increased local and regional competition.
110 The School has recently undergone structural reorganisation in 2003 and now has four Departments with the Department of Strategy and Innovation (DSI) containing 32.5 full-time academic staff. Undergraduate and postgraduate programmes in two of the departments (Strategy and Innovation, and Information and Finance) share respectively a Head of Undergraduate Programmes and a Head of Postgraduate Programmes, each of whom is responsible for the academic leadership of programmes across both Departments. Responsibilities for policies and procedures are identified in faculty and departmental handbooks.
111 The DSED was specifically written for the audit. This document was clear and descriptive rather than evaluative. Programme specifications, the majority of which were prepared/revised in January/February 2004, were appended for all courses. The DSED makes clear reference to the subject benchmark statements and other external influences such as the Chartered Institute of Personal Development (CIPD). The programme specifications also make clear reference to the FHEQ requirements. Most undergraduate programme specifications make reference to the relevant subject benchmark statement for general business and management. The MBA refers to the Subject benchmark statement for general business and management rather than the Subject benchmark statement for masters awards in business and management. The programme specification templates require specific outcomes reflecting external influences to be cross-referenced. None of the programme specifications have cross-referenced their outcomes to external influences (for example, subject benchmarks, CIPD), as stated in the programme specification introductions. 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.
112 Progression and completion data were not available with the DSED. General progression completion data was made available, although not disaggregated by programme. Specific compiled cohort data and statistics were supplied to the audit team at the visit. These data show that the completion rates are not significantly out of line with sector norms, given the diversity of student intake. The team saw evidence once again of the University's difficulties with its information system in the compilation of data, although this is being remedied with new reporting tools.
113 The internal monitoring and review processes are in line with institutional procedures. These culminate in a Head of Department Annual Report and Action Plan, progress on which is reviewed by the Faculty Executive Team. The process is viewed as leading to continuous improvement. The audit team confirmed that these procedures were followed. The School has undergone recent PSRB accreditations in 2002 and 2003 with the CIPD.
114 External examiner reports are considered both within the Department and the Faculty. Formal, timely written responses are made to each external examiner. This is an improvement in quality, as suggested by the previous subject review report and the systematic implementation of this practice was evident to the audit team. External examiner reports are supportive of the programmes.
115 The previous subject review report identified the need to ensure that assessment criteria were set and students had written feedback. As a result, processes have been improved. 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. Students receive written feedback using standard sheets.
116 The audit team was able to examine assessed work for a range of programmes and levels. The standard of assessed work, as confirmed by the samples inspected, indicates that student achievement is appropriate to the title, level and award for the programmes considered. The team found the quality of feedback was generally rich and informative although not always related to assessment criteria.
117 Each year students are provided with a student handbook for their course. These handbooks are clear and provide students with straightforward information on programme structure and content and general university matters. Assessment requirements and assessment regulations are covered. The handbooks provided also contained detailed notes on referencing. The students, especially postgraduate, reported that they found the handbooks useful.
118 Students are supported through a personal tutor system. The personal tutor provides academic guidance and acts as a referral point for further help. Both students and staff reported this was well developed and working well. Significant support was also provided through pre-induction and induction. Detailed information on facilities and support offered by the institution is also available at the 'i' and on the supporting web site. This is a useful resource which students reported using. The audit team found that the level of support for students was significant and was valued by students.
119 Student feedback is through MEQs and SSLCs. MEQs were viewed by students as effective. They cited mid-semester MEQs leading to actions during the semester, together with start of semester reports on the actions taken on MEQs provided by the previous student cohort. The SSLCs meet regularly and the minutes confirm their effectiveness. There is a full-time SLO for the Business School. The audit team found that the School was responsive to student feedback and actions resulting improved the quality of the student experience.
120 Overall, the audit team confirmed that the quality of learning opportunities was suitable for the range of programmes of study leading to the named awards and that these were appropriately located within the FHEQ.
English
121 The DAT covered the range of teaching in English literature programmes provided by the English Team in the Department of Humanities which is in the Faculty of CLASS. The English subject section became part of the Department of Humanities in 2003 with the merger of its former department, Cultural Studies, with Historical and Critical Studies. The subject area was supported by an overarching DSED which was prepared for the purposes of the audit.
122 The following programmes were included: 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; MA/PgDip in Literary Studies (part-time).
123 The DSED was accompanied by detailed programme specifications which complied with the relevant subject benchmark statement, with the FHEQ and the University's own level descriptors. Programme specifications provided in the DSED are not currently provided to students, although they are available on the subject web page. 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 that 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.
124 The DSED did not include progression and retention data, but these were available to auditors in the Annual Monitoring Reports at module and subject levels. The audit team noted that module leaders, the Subject Head and the Head of Department use statistical information to monitor student progression and retention, and to identify action points.
125 The subject area underwent a comprehensive internal periodic review in 2001 that recommended major curricula changes. The Subject Section responded fully to these recommendations and the new curricula were approved by the University. Since the internal review, alterations to modules have been undertaken through the Minor Changes Process procedure, including revision of aims, learning outcomes, syllabus, bibliography and assessment. Annual monitoring at subject level is comprehensive. Module Reviews include summaries of student comments from the MEQs and SSLC minutes, points made by external examiners and teaching staff, statistical information, and action plans. These reviews feed into the Annual Monitoring Subject Reports which cover statistical data, student and staff feedback, external examiners' comments, learning resources and partnership liaisons, while also addressing the previous year's action plan and incorporating a new one for the coming year. The Head of Department incorporates the Subject Reports into a Department Report that is submitted to Faculty and, subsequently, to the ASC, and which covers the same areas, but also includes separate action plans directed at departmental, faculty and university levels.
126 Student views are obtained through the MEQs, the SSLC and a Student Advisory Group for English (SAGE) which comments upon long-term initiatives, such as programme development. Students told the audit team that the Subject Team responded to concerns expressed through these formal channels, as well as through informal contact with staff. The Department is committed to the enhancement of its provision through a proactive Learning, Teaching and Assessment Strategy, staff development through the LDU, and a comprehensive peer observation scheme. Annual appraisal is in place and the Subject Team has extensive external links within the discipline nationwide. In addition, the Subject Team has responded to the University's commitment to expand e-learning at undergraduate and postgraduate levels, particularly in the area of Shakespeare studies.
127 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 nationwide, 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 audit team saw evidence that action on matters raised in external examiners' reports was timely and appropriate. Copies of the subject section's responses to external examiners are sent to the Faculty Principal Officer and AQaSU, in order to ensure that appropriate actions are being taken.
128 Assessment at subject level is informed by the Department's Learning, Teaching and Assessment Strategy. This follows University guidelines and, as such, is informed by the section of the Code of practice, Section 6: Assessment of students. The audit team reviewed a range of assessed work across all programmes and levels, including essays, examination scripts, performance diaries, commentaries and analyses of texts, précis and dissertations. The team was satisfied that the 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.
129 Students receive useful programme and module handbooks which give a clear account of learning outcomes, and other relevant information, such as assessment criteria, key and employability skills and the use of WebCT. Students have complained about teaching accommodation and library stock in both the MEQs and through the SSLC, and they affirmed their continuing concerns to the audit team. In the DSED, subject staff also noted that the match of rooms to group needs is variable, but indicated that this issue is being addressed through the University's Estates Strategy and through close cooperation with the Room Booking Unit. Students confirmed that action on teaching accommodation had been taken. The Subject Team has made efforts to supplement LLRS provision, especially with the acquisition of electronic resources, such as the English Poetry Database, although students remain concerned at the lack of key texts for certain modules.
130 In the MEQs almost all students classified the approachability of staff as excellent, and students affirmed to the audit team that support from staff was comprehensive and readily available. Prospective students receive full and detailed pre-entry information, and are invited to useful open days. Mature student applicants are always interviewed and are particularly supported by the University's access programmes. Students expressed satisfaction with the induction programme, although few had used the M and M or Flying Start schemes. All students are allocated a personal tutor and have mandatory meetings during induction and at one other point during their first year at the University. In the second and third years contact with personal tutors is dependent upon student need, and students told the team that the system was not used extensively, since support was readily available from subject staff in general. The Combined Honours Unit assigns Combined Honours students to a personal tutor, who may not be within English, although a transfer to a personal tutor within the subject section is made available. While staff recognise the usefulness of PDPs, students demonstrated a limited awareness of the term PDP and were more familiar with the focus on the development of their key general and transferable skills and the support for their learning within the programme of study.
131 The subject section has trained student representatives from all programmes and levels who either volunteer or are elected. The representatives liaise between students and the Subject Team, and sit on the SSLC which meets twice each semester. The Department has a SLO who ensures that student views are represented and acts as a channel for widespread concerns, as well as providing information on university procedures. In their meeting with the audit team students confirmed that student representation was effective and gave several examples demonstrating that their concerns had been dealt with. In addition, the recently reintroduced SAGE provides an extra forum in which students may voice concerns.
132 The audit team confirmed that the quality of learning opportunities provided for students was suitable for programmes of study leading to the named awards
Forensic and investigative science
133 The audit trail reviewed the following courses: 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; MSc in Document Analysis. Approximately 722 students are studying on these programmes. The audit team met with staff and students and studied samples of assessed work for 2002-03 from level 1 through to M-level.
134 A DSED was prepared specifically for the audit and provided a thorough and detailed description of provision and programme specifications that had been amended at the start of the 2003-04 academic session. There was very little self-evaluation within the document.
135 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. This framework is compliant with the FHEQ. The DSED noted that there was no subject benchmark statement for the forensic science disciplines. However, use had been made of benchmarks in chemistry, anthropology and the biosciences and professional requirements had been addressed through alignment with the National Occupational Standards. External examiners had approved the programme specifications. In a meeting, staff indicated that familiarity with other aspects of the academic infrastructure was achieved through reference to the Course Developers Guide, the internet version of the AQA Manual, and through staff away days.
136 The DSED did not provide details on student progression and achievement; however, the ACMRs did contain such data. These data were produced within the Faculty from centrally provided statistical reports. Annual course monitoring clearly demonstrated that these data were being used to monitor quality and standards. Overall, the Department has the best retention record in the University with forensic science courses showing about 90 per cent retention.
137 The procedures and requirements for internal monitoring, review, and validation are set out in the Departmental Manual. Examples of validation documents indicated an appropriate level of externality in the process. Annual course monitoring is thorough and evaluative in presenting progress on previous actions and establishing actions arising from the current monitoring. The overarching Head's annual report gives an accurate summary of course leaders' reports and there is detailed reporting on previously agreed actions. A weakness within the Department is in dealing with minor change to programmes. In one instance the Department did not follow the University's process: in forensic science a new 'route' to an existing programme had been approved through minor change. In accordance with University policy the the Minor Change Process amendments detailing the new route had been placed in the student handbook and programme specification.
138 The external examiners expressed the view that the courses were meeting the required standards. One relatively minor issue was that they did not always see all draft examination papers. This was partly owing to administrative oversight; however, the Head of Department has taken action to ensure that the external examiners see all relevant examination papers. Detailed response to their reports was timely and provided by the Head. Key issues and requests were addressed by the Head of Department in these letters and ensuing follow-up action was discussed in annual course monitoring which included prioritising actions.
139 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. This arises from the policy of double-marking in which markers are discouraged from using such comment. In future the Department will increase provision of mark sheets and assessment grids to the external examiners. In the sample provided for the audit, feedback to students on coursework was variable and in a number of modules staff failed to complete the feedback pro forma attached to the returned coursework. Only one cohort of students has graduated from the honours streams and shows high achievement.
140 In the view of the audit team, student handbooks are well written and structured and give useful guidance on assessment and student responsibilities for successful study. The student handbook for the Distance Learning Certificate addressed a number of key issues for distance learners but did not provide advice on nominal study times for completing assignments or modules.
141 Student numbers on the courses have grown rapidly in the last two years and notes from staff-student meetings indicate that, at times, staffing and resources have not kept pace with growth. However, the University has invested heavily in the discipline area and at meetings with students they expressed satisfaction with the current levels of resourcing and staffing. Library problems mentioned in the SWS had been successfully addressed through a growing provision of electronic journals and books, through the development of a Departmental reprint collection and through greater use of restricted loan. 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.
142 There is a high return rate for MEQs and student feedback is generally thorough and informative. The sample of modules provided for audit indicated that all module leaders were analysing student feedback and providing responses with appropriate action through module reports. Notes on staff-student meetings indicate debate on a range of important issues: staffing on modules, facilities in laboratories, provision of computers in resource rooms, laboratory support for dissertations. The departmental SLO assists students to draw up agenda for staff-student meetings. Student attendance at staff-student meetings is generally modest, consequently the Department has introduced in 2003-04 further staff-student meetings in a lecture slot for a core module. Students met by the audit team were articulate and enthusiastic and expressed strong satisfaction with the level of support provided by the Department and University.
143 Research is well established in the Department and postgraduate students met by the audit team acknowledged the vibrant research environment and strong support for their studies. It was also clear in the team meeting with staff that the Department was thoroughly committed to research and had a number of incentives for encouraging staff to engage in research. Staff also stressed the applied nature of much of the research and the value to teaching provided by a network of practising professionals. This ensured that curriculum updating had an industrial and commercial focus and allowed staff to invite professionals to contribute to the courses. The good practice in research in the Department fits with the University's determination to exploit the synergies arising from research and teaching.
144 The audit team considers the quality and standard of student achievement and the quality of learning opportunity appropriate to the awards offered by the Department.
Journalism and applied communications
145 The DAT covered the following programmes offered by the Lancashire Business School's Department of Journalism, in the areas of journalism and applied communications: 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; MA/PgDip Newspaper Journalism.
146 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 (NCTJ) and/or the Broadcast Journalism Training Council (BJTC); the public relations courses are approved by the Institute of Public Relations (IPR). The Department underwent an Agency subject review in 1997, when the total of the graded profile was 22 points out of a possible 24. Responsibility for validation and annual monitoring of the Department's provision was devolved by the University from its central management to the Lancashire Business School with effect from September 2002. The Department will be subject to the University's Periodic Evaluation process later in 2004.
147 A DSED was specially written for the audit, and contained information regarding the Department's educational aims, planning and provision, quality of learning opportunities, and maintenance and enhancement of standards and quality. The relevant programme specifications were appended. The Department claims that the journalism undergraduate courses are 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 the Subject benchmark statement for communications, media, film and cultural studies. The Department's provision is closely benchmarked, however, against the accreditation requirements of the NCTJ and BJTC and the approval requirements of the IPR. The Department also claims that programme learning outcomes map on to the honours level outcomes in the FHEQ. This was confirmed by the audit team.
148 The Department both receives and generates information regarding progression and completion. The Faculty has experienced some difficulties regarding the completeness of data received through the Banner System, but SMIU will make interpretation of data easier for the Department, in turn enabling closer correlation between available data and the monitoring of quality and standards. The Department has introduced exit interviews for students who withdraw in semester one. Progression data from 2000-01 and 2001-02 led external examiners to question the low proportion of First class and Upper Second class degrees by Journalism graduates; an extensive review was carried out in 2002-03 to address this.
149 Internal monitoring and review is effective in the Department, with a variety of systems in place. Student feedback is generated by staff-student liaison meetings (SSLMs) 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 by a colleague.
150 At the time of the audit visit, the University was introducing new report forms for external examiners. The current Head of the Department of Journalism was appointed in August 2003; since then he has initiated several new quality-related procedures. One of these involves the production of a 'newsletter' for external examiners, in which the Head of Department lists actions taken to date in response to comments made in external examiner reports. Another has involved the setting up of various task groups within the Department; among these are the Quality-Systems Group and the Quality-Student Experience Group. The Quality-Systems Group is currently considering a new structure for the evaluation of external examiners' comments by all staff at the Department level.
151 The Department sets out its assessment procedures and policies in the Departmental Manual. These are in line with University Regulations. Clear information is given to students concerning marking guidelines, internal moderation procedures, deadlines for submission of work, submission of evidence of extenuating circumstances, and feedback on assessment. Analysis of student work by the audit team confirmed that students receive timely and appropriate feedback on their work. Students confirmed that clear information on assessment is given in MIPs; that assessment tasks are clearly mapped to module learning outcomes; that marked work is normally returned to students within the 15-day limit set by the University; and that the quality of written feedback is good. On the evidence of the marked student work supplied for the DAT, the team confirmed that the Department's assessment processes comply with the relevant section of the Code of practice, Section 6: Assessment of students.
152 The provision of learning resources is generally well received by students, who noted the Department's responsiveness to a concern expressed by their representatives in 2002-03 regarding stocks of books for the Public Relations courses. More books were purchased, and recently on-line journals and e-books have become available. A newly established Learning and Teaching task group will consider the resourcing of the Department's practice-based modules. Significant developments have taken place in some areas; a dedicated office for the innovative new student Public Relations Consultancy UK Progress has been established and equipped, and the Department is collaborating with the Faculty of Design and Technology to bid for funds for a new digital media centre on the Preston Campus. The Department is taking an active part in the University's e-learning strategy, with all modules available through the WebCT virtual learning environment.
153 Students give feedback to the Department through a variety of methods. Individual feedback is given through MEQs which are distributed to students and completed during lecture time. Any major changes made by the Department following analysis of MEQs are notified to SSLMs. The audit team was able to review SSLM minutes for the two years preceding the visit. No issues of major significance were identified, but some concerns were expressed in the 2002-03 session regarding the quality of some teaching rooms and occasional unreliability of computers and printers in some dedicated teaching areas. Students did not identify this as a continuing issue when the matter was discussed at the DAT student meeting.
154 A new, issue-based pro forma has been introduced to track actions taken regarding issues raised at SSLMs, ensuring that quality loops are closed. Students welcomed the clarity of these pro forma, and the clear lines of accountability that they ensured.
155 It is the audit team's view that the standard of student achievement is appropriate to the titles of the awards under consideration and their location within the FHEQ.
Section 4: The audit investigations: published information
The students' experience of published information and other information available to them
156 The audit team audited the prospectus, the University web site, programme specifications, student handbooks, the Student Organiser, and MIPs. Findings are based on a reading of these documents and meetings with students at the Briefing and Audit visits.
157 The University's Advancement Service has responsibility for ensuring the currency and accuracy of both print-based and electronic information. The University acknowledges occasional 'slight 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, among other things, 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 invested significantly in a new Information Systems Infrastructure. It claims that 'this very large and successful development exercise has been student focused' and that 'it has been successful in meeting the practical needs that the students had identified'.
158 The SWS suggested that there was a lack of awareness among students regarding the details of the procedures for making complaints or academic appeals. Students were nevertheless confident about being able to find the details if they needed them. The University has published a Complaints Procedure booklet, and information regarding the academic appeals procedure is available on the web site and sent to students with their results. The above reflects comments in the SWS, which is generally appreciative of the information provided to students, but states that 'problems are occurring when students do not know what is available to them or do not use these services'. The audit team's meetings with students confirmed that personal tutors and the 'i' were consistently regarded as reliable sources of information.
159 Newly-styled course fact sheets have been agreed and these are in the process of being adopted across all programmes MIPs were felt by students to be of a high standard across the University. They routinely include details of key content, advice on assignments, learning outcomes/objectives. Many are available on the University web site.
160 The University offers students clear information regarding the Data Protection Act and its relevance to students, and offers students the opportunity to view data held on the by the University by means of the 'SYD' web page.
Reliability, accuracy and completeness of published information
161 The University has acknowledged some difficulties with the management of statistical information and this was evidenced through the DATs and institutional level documents and meetings with staff. The new Student Information Management Unit (SIMU) aims 'to improve the quality, quantity and availability of statutory and management information reports...'. Discussions with the Director of the SAS confirmed that data produced from the Banner System now matches exactly the local data used by staff in departments for annual monitoring purposes. A revised institutional system will be in operation from September 2004; this will include the use of standard reports across faculties for the analysis of 2003-04 student performance. The University has already appointed three new FIOs, and is currently advertising two further posts. Part of the duties of these officers involves work with the Banner System, focusing on student retention, with a view to being able to provide real-time information on retention.
162 The University has produced a draft Internal Communications Strategy with a view to improving the quality of internal communications in line with the programmes outlined in the December 2003 document 'Medium Term Strategy - Investing for the Future', an update of the University's 'Access to Excellence' mission statement.
163 The University is preparing for, and is confident that it will meet the requirements of TQI. The main consideration has been the publication of summaries of external examiner reports and the results of periodic programme and departmental reviews. The audit team acknowledged that a clearly articulated process is in place and is well advanced.
164 Based on its review of documentation and its meetings with staff and students, the audit team found the University's currently published information to be accurate and reliable. The team was satisfied that the University is managing the flow, integrity and completeness of published information in a proactive and thorough fashion.
ISBN 1 84482 172 2
next >> Findings
Top
QAA updates
QAAtweets
QAAtube