212 An institutional audit of the University was undertaken by a team of auditors from the Agency during the week 26 to 30 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 academic standards of its awards. As part of the audit process, according to protocols agreed with HEFCE, SCOP and UUK, four DATs were selected for scrutiny. This section of the report summarises the findings of the audit. It concludes by identifying features of good practice that emerged from the audit, and by making recommendations to the University for enhancing current practice.
The effectiveness of institutional procedures for assuring the quality of programmes
213 Responsibility for the quality assurance of the University's taught programmes is delegated to QAC from Academic Board (the principal academic committee). At school level, there are school boards, which have responsibility for the quality and standards of the courses within their remit, discharging this through SQGs and PBs, which deal with the quality of modules and courses respectively. The University's courses are designed to fit within four separate modular frameworks: Foundation degree, HND/C, undergraduate, and taught postgraduate courses. Procedures for approval, review and monitoring of courses are fully documented between the Academic Regulations and the relevant section of the Administrators' Handbook, pending production of a virtual quality handbook, which will bring together all regulatory, procedural and policy information pertaining to quality assurance. Central administrative support for the University's quality assurance system is provided primarily through PaQS.
214 Approval of a course commences with approval in principle, based on academic, regulatory and market considerations. The course is then planned in detail, typically by a PB subgroup, which refers any new modules for comment on content and design to the relevant SQG, which then submits them for approval by a MARP, established by the related school board. MARPs have responsibility for assessing the quality of modules in terms of aims, ILOs, size and level, and also for evaluating the proposed teaching, learning and assessment methods. External representation is required on MARPs for modules at level 2 or above. For modules offered by the CLL, most of which are at level 1, a flexible approach is adopted, often entailing approval by correspondence, but also incorporating external input.
215 Courses are approved at institutional level by CARPs, which have delegated authority from QAC. They include external representation and have responsibility for ensuring that courses take account of relevant external reference points and satisfy institutional requirements. However, before being submitted to a CARP, the course proposal may also be scrutinised by a SCARP, which mirrors the activity of the CARP, but within the school. In endorsing the standards of courses, CARPs are also confirming the standards of their constituent modules, previously approved by MARPs. The CARP normally approves a course to run for six years, at which point reapproval is necessary. Periodic review is effectively the reapproval of a course on the expiry of its approval period and is also undertaken by a CARP. However, in this case, the documentation includes a critical appraisal of the operation of the course. There is an equivalent process for the reapproval of modules by MARPs, which takes place in advance of the course review. The University also conducts a five-yearly IQA, the most recent of which commenced in 2003, and involved a mixture of discipline audits and themed audits.
216 There is programme monitoring in the form of AQM, which involves annual reports being produced at each level: by SQGs about modules and PBs about courses, for consideration by school boards; by school boards in the form of a summary and action plan for consideration by QAC; and by the Chair of QAC as an overview for consideration by QAC and Academic Board. QAC meets in December to consider the various annual reports, including separate reports from the CLL on short courses and from SAGUK and SAGOP on collaborative provision. It meets again in March and June to monitor progress made throughout the University with the implementation of action plans.
217 Among the inputs to AQM is feedback from students and employers. Feedback on modules and courses is collected through standard questionnaires, courses being evaluated every year and modules at least once every three years. Survey results are used by SQGs and PBs to inform their ongoing deliberations and annual reports. Current students are also able to make their views known through representation on University and school committees, in addition to which there are several informal events where students and senior staff are able to meet and discuss matters of mutual interest. The University receives feedback from graduates through its annual first destination survey and this information is circulated to schools for consideration. Feedback from employers is obtained through a range of methods, including employer advisory boards or associated forums for discussion with representatives from industry, as well as less formal or ad hoc arrangements.
218 Courses delivered by distributed and distance methods are subject to the same approval, monitoring and review processes as courses delivered in-house, involving face-to-face contact. The processes relating to collaborative provision also reflect the in-house processes and are essentially the same whether the provision is based in the UK or overseas. Student feedback mechanisms similarly follow those for in-house provision. There is a University Code of Practice for the Operation of Franchised Courses, intended to ensure that, as far as possible, the student experience is comparable with that of the equivalent in-house course.
219 There are two additional bodies giving advice to QAC on the University's partnership activities: these are SAGUK and SAGOP, which have a specific remit for monitoring quality assurance processes as they relate to UK and overseas collaborative provision respectively. Courses are subject to the same MARP and CARP processes, although franchised courses, in recognition that their in-house equivalent will normally already have been approved, are subject to approval by a variant process involving PARPs, whose purpose is specifically to ensure that appropriate mechanisms are put in place to monitor the franchise and that suitable staffing and facilities are available. Franchises are subject to review after six years, unless the PARP stipulates a shorter period. Before a new collaborative venture is entered into there is scrutiny of the partner and partnership arrangements by a special panel which makes a recommendation to QAC; overseas partnerships must also have their 'business case' proven to IDC and the Vice-Chancellor's Group. An integral part of all approval procedures is a formal agreement signed by both the University and the partner institution, which defines the respective responsibilities for course delivery and quality assurance.
220 In the SED, the University has stated its commitment to 'continuous quality improvement through regular cycles of formal and informal processes of quality assurance and control plus ongoing programmes of quality enhancement': in other words, a quality spiral. The University sees its approval and review processes as comprehensive and thorough, as evidenced by external audit and review reports and the University's own themed audit of the MARP process, as part of the 2003 IQA. However, the SED also acknowledged that these processes were the focus of 'continual internal debate' about streamlining procedures to reduce the amount of staff time involved. Similarly, the University sees the AQM process as well-embedded, having remained basically the same for many years, and as forming the prime mechanism for checking whether teaching and learning activities are working as intended.
221 With regard to student feedback, an IQA themed audit had revealed that students and staff were often not clear about the purpose of the standard feedback questionnaires, even though these had been in use for many years. The University stated in the SED that it intended to review the current range of student surveys, but also highlighted the particularly well-developed links with employers who contribute directly to course design and delivery, which generate regular and systematic feedback. The University sees its student representation arrangements as wide-ranging, with the SED reporting over 500 students to be involved during 2002-03, but acknowledging that there were recurrent problems of filling vacancies and in communicating with representatives once in post. It hoped that a recently introduced facility, giving students remote access to their email accounts via the internet, would ease communication problems.
222 In the context of flexible and distance-learning programmes, the University has agreed on a blended learning approach and has clearly recognised its responsibility to train staff in the pedagogical principles that should inform distributed learning, as well as in use of the software platform. For collaborative provision, the SED stated that SAGUK and SAGOP had greatly assisted QAC 'to exercise effective quality control of the University's collaborative developments', but also suggested there would be benefits from closer collaboration between them. On UK collaborative provision, the SED acknowledged the market shift away from the traditional franchise on which the University's existing structures and procedures were essentially based, while pointing to the continued improvement of certain features. In the case of overseas collaborative provision, the University is firm in its belief that it has 'appropriate procedures, a committee structure and internal networks, which allow effective discharge of responsibility for quality and standards'.
223 The audit team was able to confirm that the course and module approval and review processes, including those for collaborative provision, were being operated as described in the SED, and that appropriate use was being made of external reference points and external advisers. Moreover, there is good practice in the flexible approach to the integration of provision offered through the CLL into the formal approval and review processes (see paragraph 273 i below). The team concluded that the University had developed an extensive and rigorous system for approval and review, which was well established and generally well understood by staff.
224 However, the audit team took an interest in the debate about the amount of staff time involved in operating quality assurance processes, noting that in its Learning and Teaching Strategy, the University had identified streamlining of these processes as a 'means' of achieving its 'purpose to build capacity for change'. From various examples, it seemed to the team that the University had made limited progress in its efforts to scale down its procedures. Looking for external comparisons, the team considered external examiners' comments on the features of module and course design to be fairly typical of those being made on provision throughout the HE sector. This led the team to question whether the University's extensive discussion of modules and courses prior to approval, and the level of staff input this entailed, were being matched by corresponding benefits (see 275 i below).
225 Within AQM, the audit team found some overlap between the issues discussed in reports from associated SQGs and PBs and also some variation between schools in their approach to reporting upwards to QAC. There were differing views among deans about the purpose of school board reports, with the result that some schools were reporting comprehensively on their activities and others restricting the reporting so as to channel upwards only issues requiring resolution at university level, but not issues the schools could deal with themselves (see paragraph 274 i below). However, the team also noted as good practice the fact that, again, the CLL was integrated into AQM (see 273 i below). The team was able to see first hand the inconsistencies in use made of module and course questionnaires by SQGs and PBs and that issues raised were not automatically addressed in annual reports. The recent IQA themed audit of the student feedback system had identified these issues and made several recommendations, but these had yet to have an impact. Based on several examples, the team formed the view that changes to the procedures in the areas covered by the themed audits were somewhat slow in being implemented (see 275 ii below), although appreciated that the IQA process was still ongoing.
226 The audit team, while recognising that some procedures could be strengthened, concluded that the University had appropriate student representational systems in place and that these were generally being used in an effective and timely manner to respond to students' concerns. Furthermore, there is good practice in the University's effective engagement with CUSU representatives that extends beyond their active participation in formal and informal meetings to their involvement in project work and related activities (see 273 ii below).
227 In respect of distributed and distance delivery, the audit team formed the view that the University had in place appropriate structures for moving to the next stage in developing a managed learning environment. The team found UK collaborative arrangements to be working satisfactorily, with good communication channels between the University and partner institutions. The team also found the University's confidence in its overseas arrangements to be well-placed, with a proactive approach to quality assurance being adopted. Overall, there is good practice in the University's considered approach to the management of collaborative provision, which incorporates mechanisms for relating the degree of direct involvement to the level of confidence built up in the partnership arrangement (see 273 iv below).
228 Notwithstanding the recommendations for action by the University, the findings of the audit confirm that broad confidence can be placed in the University's present and likely future management of the quality of its programmes.
The effectiveness of institutional procedures for securing the standards of awards
229 The Academic Regulations, together with the Assessment Strategy for taught programmes (approved for full implementation in 2004-05), prescribe the overall framework for securing the standards of awards. Within this framework the external examiner system operates as the University's most well-developed mechanism for monitoring and evaluating academic standards year-on-year.
230 The University has a two-tier system of assessment boards. SABs have primary responsibility for securing academic standards: their delegated authority extends to considering students' results module by module and confirming that assignments and examinations have been set and marked at an appropriate standard. PABs take decisions about individual students' progression or awards, based on their overall performance across a range of modules. According to the constitution of both SABs and PABs, their membership is to include external examiners. The same SABs and PABs (where practical) have responsibility for franchised courses as for the equivalent in-house course, with special examiners appointed to PABs for the small number of courses where there is no such equivalent.
231 The majority of external examiners are appointed to one SAB and one PAB. The University's appointment letter specifies the modules and awards for which they are responsible and also makes clear that they should normally attend all boards to which they are appointed and present their reports after the final meeting. The University also appoints all external examiners for collaborative courses and their reports are sent directly to the University. External examiners are each provided with the Handbook for External Examiners for Taught Courses and there are also annual briefing sessions, aimed mainly at newly-appointed external examiners.
232 External examiners' reports are received, on behalf of the Vice-Chancellor, by the Academic Registrar who circulates them to the Chair of QAC and also to the dean (or associate dean) of the appropriate school who coordinates a formal response to each report. This response is based on the annual reports to the school board from SQGs and PBs as part of the AQM process, wherein external examiners' comments are addressed. In addition, the Academic Registrar compiles an institutional-level summary of external examiners' comments for consideration by QAC alongside the annual reports from schools, and also by Academic Board.
233 The annual reports from SQGs and PBs also address significant features of admissions, progression and completion statistics. The University has a single student record system, UNIVERSE, giving schools direct access to statistical information at module and course levels through a series of centrally produced standard reports. The University additionally produces a set of performance measures for the purposes of internal comparison of trends and external monitoring against comparator universities.
234 The SED stated that the Assessment Strategy had drawn together and harmonised existing assessment policies, placing emphasis on the use of ILOs linked to assessment criteria and providing guidance on the generic criteria for different mark ranges applicable at undergraduate level. The SED also stated that the majority of external examiners performed their duties diligently and that their reports were valuable and constructive. However, the institutional summary of reports for 2002-03 had highlighted that, in a few areas, external examiners had been reluctant to attend both a SAB and a PAB, usually giving priority to the PAB. The University had attempted to counteract this by giving increased emphasis to the responsibilities of the SAB for setting academic standards.
235 The SED presented a particularly positive view of the statistical information now being generated by UNIVERSE, although it acknowledged the need to improve the quality of data entered on the UNIVERSE system and explained how this was being addressed. The SED also highlighted the continuing development of statistical reporting to reflect the increasing complexity of student study patterns.
236 The evidence available to the audit team allowed it to conclude that the University was making good use of external examiners in summative assessment procedures, particularly at the module level. It was apparent to the team that the institutional strategy of alignment of standards with level and qualification descriptors was a feature of subject-level discussions with external examiners. Generally, it was clear to the team that external examiner input was taken seriously, appropriately fed into the AQM process and acted upon conscientiously. The team was able to confirm, across a range of collaborative provision, equivalence with the in-house provision in the procedures for considering external examiners' reports.
237 The audit team explored the issue of external examiners' attendance at both SABs and PABs, noting that this had been raised by external examiners in the context of their request for a review of the roles of the respective boards. While a review as such had not been initiated, there had been a reduction in the discretionary powers of the PAB. The audit team developed a concern that this reduction, combined with the emphasis being given to the external examiner's role on the SAB, without a parallel specification for the role on the PAB, was adjusting the relationship between the boards without tackling the issue of reluctance on the part of some external examiners to attend both boards or fully taking into account their expressed view about whether attendance at both boards was essential (see 274 ii below).
238 The audit team was able to verify that statistical data relating to admissions, progression and completion rates were being commented on in the AQM process and that the utility of the reports provided centrally had improved over time. However, the team questioned the extent to which progression and completion data were being used to inform admissions policy as distinct from strategies for student support. For instance, it was generally unclear as to how the standard statistical reports could readily be used to inform institutional admissions policies, since they did not permit easy tracking of particular student 'types'. Nevertheless, the monitoring by SAGOP of the performance of students entering with advanced standing from overseas partner institutions was recognised by the team, as was the University's success in widening participation, demonstrated by its matching or exceeding all the HEFCE benchmarks. The team considered that, overall, the University was making appropriate and increasing use of statistical management information and had itself identified areas for improvement to which it was giving suitable priority.
239 Notwithstanding the recommendation for action by the University, the findings of the audit confirm that broad confidence can be placed in the University's present and likely future management of the academic standards of its awards.
The effectiveness of institutional procedures for supporting learning
240 Library services are centred on the new Lanchester Library, also housing the Teaching and Learning Support Unit, which provides support to staff in the development of teaching and learning materials, while ICT services are supplied by CSV, encompassing hardware, software and technical support for both staff and students. Both the library and CSV produce an annual business plan, which feeds into the University's planning processes. Arrangements for deciding priorities are informed by feedback from staff and students about the quality of services, as well as by capacity planning questionnaires, completed by schools and departments, in the case of forecasting ICT requirements. There are specific student and staff surveys, as well as feedback from CCCs. Both the library and CSV also have extensive representation on institutional committees including, in the former case, SAGUK and SAGOP, to facilitate links with partner institutions.
241 The University has a variety of mechanisms for the academic guidance and support of students, spanning the duration of their studies, ranging from induction, through personal support, to developing skills for enhancing employability. Procedures are in place to confirm that comparable mechanisms exist in partner institutions. Induction comprises a series of central and local events during which students are issued with school student handbooks, course-specific study guides and instructions on how to access the MID, which provides essential information about modules within their programmes of study. There are separate induction packs for part-time students unable to attend the induction events.
242 Arrangements for academic support are governed by the University Code of Practice for the Personal Support of Students, which also covers pastoral support. This Code stipulates minimum standards, beyond which schools are permitted to adopt different systems for support, although most operate a surgery system, whereby students are given access to designated staff at specified times. In addition, there are specialist support centres for English language, computing and mathematics, to be followed soon by one for students' academic writing skills. With respect to employability, under the Code of Practice for Academic and Professional Skills, each course must have a clearly stated strategy for providing students with a range of 'transferable' skills, the development of which must be addressed in course planning. The University's arrangements for the supervision of research students are outlined in the Research Degrees Handbook, which is issued to both research students and supervisors. A generic module in research methodology is offered, which all research students are required to attend and pass, and various seminars and symposiums, aimed at research students, are also organised.
243 A comprehensive range of welfare and advisory services, including the careers service, is provided through the Student Services Department, complemented by services offered by the CUSU Advice Centre and the International Office.
244 The University has well-established procedures for the appointment, appraisal, reward and development of teaching staff. The appraisal system has recently been re-launched as the Staff Development and Performance Review to place a greater emphasis on aligning individual objectives with school business plans and institutional goals. The scheme is compulsory for teaching staff, including part-time lecturers and those on short-term contracts and is based on self-appraisal, facilitated by an appraisal interview, leading to an agreed action plan. Training is mandatory for those conducting reviews. Staff development activity is monitored by the HRDC and the main central provider of staff development is CHED, whose remit is to promote and develop innovation in teaching, learning, assessment and educational technology, which it pursues through a task force and a team of teaching fellows working within and across schools and service departments to provide consultancy and support for pedagogic developments. CHED reports annually to TALC and within schools there are equivalent committees which identify the priorities for development activity.
245 The University requires all newly-appointed staff without a recognised teaching qualification or substantial teaching experience to enrol on the Postgraduate Certificate in Learning and Teaching during their 12-month probationary period. This gives accredited teacher status, recognised by both ILTHE (now within the Higher Education Academy) and SEDA, to which there is also a route offered by the University for experienced staff, involving a combination of course modules and APEL. Postgraduate research students or assistants, undertaking teaching or demonstrator duties, are required to take a variant of the teaching course. In addition, there is a well-established system of peer observation applicable to all teaching staff.
246 According to the SED 'a great deal of care' is taken to ensure consonance between the development of library services and the University Learning and Teaching Strategy, as evidenced by the monitoring of these services through TALC. The development of computing services is shaped by the University Information Strategy, under the remit of the Information Strategy Group which, like TALC, is chaired by the PVC (Academic Development and Quality). Both the SED and SWS highlighted the recent considerable investment in ICT provision, including a significant increase in the number of PCs available.
247 In relation to academic guidance, the University places considerable emphasis on its induction arrangements as a channel for communicating information to students. In the SED, it also draws the link between student support generally and levels of student progression and retention, attributing a significant improvement in retention to 'local induction and enhanced academic and pastoral support in the early weeks of courses'. The SED also cited the University's good track record in the 'student support and guidance' aspect of subject review as giving recognition to the overall effectiveness of its student support system.
248 On the subject of staff development, the SED emphasised the significance of the Learning and Teaching Strategy and the associated Human Resources Strategy in driving the development of teaching skills for teaching staff and the importance in this context of the formal linkage between TALC and CHED. The SED also highlighted the achievement of IiP status for all schools and service departments.
249 The audit team concluded that the University was taking a coordinated and strategic approach to the provision and development of learning resources, with appropriate mechanisms in place for monitoring and responding to user feedback, and noted such recent improvements as the extension of library opening times and the expansion of internet access to some halls of residence.
250 In relation to academic guidance, the audit team found students to be positive about the induction programme and student handbooks, but to have mixed views about the usefulness of the MID in relation to free-choice modules, chiefly because of the restrictions faced by students wishing to take modules from other subject areas or schools, rather than because of any specific shortcoming in the MID itself (see 275 iv below).
251 In respect of academic support, the audit team considered that the wide variety of systems currently in place was potentially leading to a lack of equivalence in provision across the University. However, it also acknowledged that the University was itself aware of the need to address the issue of consistency and was seeking to implement best practice in tutor support, particularly in the early stages of courses. In the case of postgraduate research students, the team was able to verify that there were robust arrangements in place for their supervision and for progress monitoring.
252 In the context of transferable skills, the audit team was unable to gain a strong impression, from students or staff, of the University's commitment to the development of skills to enhance employability, although there were some examples of good practice, notably the expansion of dedicated arrangements for assisting students to improve their mathematical and academic writing skills (see 273 iii below).
253 The audit team found the University's arrangements for academic and personal (pastoral) support to be premised on careful consideration of 'student type and culture', generally effective in their operation and well-received by the student body. Furthermore, there is good practice in the University's continuing development of a range of local and central support services and its involvement of CUSU in project work under the widening participation initiative (see 273 ii and iii below).
254 The audit team regarded the University's processes for staff appointment, appraisal and reward to be effective, clearly articulated and well-embedded, and recognised its strong commitment to staff support and development at all levels. Within schools, teaching fellows were clearly perceived as agents of change and the CHED task force as active in disseminating good practice. Overall, the team considered the University's procedures for supporting learning to be effective, with an appropriate level of institutional oversight.
Outcomes of discipline audit trails
Biological and sport and exercise sciences
255 The scope of the DAT comprised BIO and SPO programmes within the School of Science and the Environment, focusing on BSc (Hons) undergraduate programmes and including the HND/C Sport and Exercise Science, which is the first part of the 2+2 BSc (Hons) Sport and Exercise Science course, operated as a franchise arrangement with Henley College Coventry. Programme specifications set out appropriate learning outcomes, linking these clearly to teaching, learning and assessment, with reference made to relevant subject benchmark statements. The September 2002 combined CARP and PARP for the HND/C programme specifically considered the 2+2 progression route and provided the audit team with an illustration of the rigour of quality assurance processes undertaken in conjunction with collaborative partners. From its study of the students' assessed work and from its discussions with staff and students, the team found the standard of student achievement to be appropriate to the titles of the awards and their location within the FHEQ.
256 Student evaluation of the provision was largely positive and students were satisfied with both the nature and extent of support they received from staff and the learning resources placed at their disposal. Students particularly valued the high level of academic and personal support they received from enthusiastic staff. They confirmed that the information provided by the School through handbooks and electronic means was accurate and helpful. However, they were unclear as to how the input collected through module evaluation questionnaires was utilised, which indicated that mechanisms for reporting back to students were not yet firmly established. The audit team found the quality of learning opportunities available to students to be suitable for the programmes of study leading to the awards covered by the DAT.
Computing
257 The scope of the DAT comprised provision in computing, within the School of MIS, including selected programmes from the schemes of degree courses in computing, Interdisciplinary degree courses in IT and vocational courses in computing and IT. Programme specifications set out appropriate learning outcomes and link these clearly to teaching, learning and assessment, with reference made to the Subject benchmark statement for computing. Where relevant, linkages are also made to the University Code of Practice for Academic and Professional Skills Development (formerly the University Enterprise Capabilities). Modules within courses use NICATS level descriptors and are designed, where appropriate, to meet the accreditation/exemption requirements of the BCS. The School's Industrial Advisory Board and the Commercial Service Advisory Board provide further mechanisms for external input to course content. From its study of the students' assessed work and from its discussions with staff and students, the team found the standard of student achievement to be appropriate to the titles of the awards and their location within the FHEQ.
258 Student evaluation of the provision was largely positive and students were satisfied with both the nature and extent of support they received from staff and the learning resources placed at their disposal. They were particularly positive about the use being made of the VLE and the way they felt it enhanced their overall learning experience. Students commented favourably on the usefulness of the information they received by way of handbooks and guides and were generally satisfied with student feedback processes. The audit team found the quality of learning opportunities available to students to be suitable for the programmes of study leading to the awards covered by the DAT.
Engineering
259 The scope of the DAT comprised PEPs, within the School of Engineering. Programme specifications meet the expectations embodied within the FHEQ qualification descriptors for M-level programmes and have clearly articulated learning outcomes. PEPs are aligned to national credit guidelines and industrial relevance is also a key reference point, with the PEPs Industrial Steering Committee providing a formal mechanism for external input to the content of degree programmes. From its study of the students' assessed work and from its discussions with staff and students, the team found the standard of student achievement to be appropriate to the titles of the awards and their location within the FHEQ.
260 Student evaluation of the provision was largely positive and students were generally satisfied with both the nature and extent of support they received from staff and the learning resources placed at their disposal. However, students indicated that the library did not adequately meet the needs of their programme, although they did have access to supplementary material electronically. In terms of representation and feedback, they said they felt actively involved in the quality management processes relating to their courses. The audit team found the quality of learning opportunities available to students to be suitable for the programmes of study leading to the awards covered by the DAT.
Graphic design and visual arts
261 The scope of the DAT comprised the graphic design and visual arts programmes within the School of Art and Design, focusing on established undergraduate courses (provision has recently been expanded), and also including the MA Fine Art course. Programme specifications set out appropriate learning outcomes and link these clearly to teaching, learning and assessment, with reference made to the Subject benchmark statement for art and design. The professional experience core options are referenced to the University Code of Practice for Sandwich Placements. From its study of the students' assessed work and from its discussions with staff and students, the team found the standard of student achievement to be appropriate to the titles of the awards and their location within the FHEQ.
262 Student evaluation of the provision was largely positive and students were satisfied with both the nature and extent of support they received from staff and the learning resources placed at their disposal. Students expressed general confidence that their views were sought, listened to and respected through formal and informal structures and that their recommendations generally elicited useful outcomes. The audit team found the quality of learning opportunities available to students to be suitable for the programmes of study leading to the awards covered by the DAT.
The use made by the institution of the academic infrastructure
263 The University's approach to the Code of practice, as described in the SED, is one of progressive alignment of its procedures with the various sections of the Code. Administrative responsibility for this now lies with PaQS, which produces summary tables showing how the precepts of the Code are addressed, by identifying the corresponding University policies, procedures or guidance and the officer or committee responsible for their maintenance. On the basis of this exercise, the University expressed its view that 'the great majority of the precepts are secure', citing the formulation of the University Assessment Strategy and the revision of the University Code of Practice for Sandwich Placements as illustrations of how it was addressing gaps in institutional strategy and variability in local practice. From 2003-04, there is to be a standing item on the agenda of school boards to confirm that school practice is consistent with the relevant sections of the Code, with upward reporting of outcomes to QAC.
264 The University has adopted the FHEQ qualification descriptors to elucidate standards in the documentation supporting course approval and review. Other reference points include NICATS level descriptors for module content and assessment, and PSRB requirements, where applicable. The University's approach to programme specifications has been to integrate their implementation with the CARP process, by making them a requirement, from 2001-02, for the approval or reapproval of a course. However, the University also imposed a target date of July 2003 for the production of programme specifications, applicable to all courses, including those not due for review, and it now has a full set of programme specifications in place.
265 The audit team considered that, in general, the University was using the Code of practice in an appropriate way, as a framework for the ongoing review of its own practice and as an instrument for targeting areas of its activity where it perceived institutional oversight might be improved. However, it appeared to the team the University had been rather slow in its response to the last two sections (Section 9: Placement learning, and Section 10: Recruitment and admissions). The team was able to verify that subject staff were routinely engaging with external reference points both in formulating ILOs in the preparation of module and course proposals and in checking ILOs in the approval, monitoring and review processes. Subject staff were also reporting action in response to PSRB reports through the AQM and CARP processes, but there was not a well-established process for considering PSRB reports centrally (see 275 iii below). Although the team saw examples of inconsistencies in the format of programme specifications (which the SED had acknowledged), it recognised that the University had made progress in linking ILOs with assessment criteria (termed constructive alignment). Overall, the team found that the University was making effective use of external reference points and evaluating critically its practices in relevant areas.
The utility of the SED as an illustration of the institution's capacity to reflect upon its own strengths and limitations, and to act on these to enhance quality and standards
266 The SED provided a detailed account of the University's arrangements for the quality assurance and enhancement of its provision, describing the development of policies, procedures and strategies in response to previous external audit and review and to changes in the HE environment. It emphasised that the central features of the University's processes, namely the regulation of courses within the modular frameworks and the centrally-directed quality assurance system, standardised across schools, had 'served [the University] well...and [were] unlikely to undergo major change in the short to medium term'.
267 The audit team considered the SED to be an informative and honest account of the University's ongoing achievements and the challenges it is currently facing. However, in the team's view, the clarity of the SED was not aided by its excessive length, and tendency to repetition, although it was clearly cross-referenced. In summary, the team perceived the SED to be detailed in its description of quality assurance processes, but more limited in its demonstration of the capacity of the University to reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of these processes in delivering continuous improvement.
Commentary on the institution's intentions for the enhancement of quality and standards
268 The SED identified four specific ways in which the University was seeking to achieve quality enhancement through its quality spiral (see paragraph 220 above): regular quality assurance activities; special initiatives recommended by working parties or senior staff; the six-year review cycle for modules and courses and the five-yearly IQA; and the quality assurance of collaborative provision.
269 The audit team particularly focused on widening participation and blended learning, which currently feature on the central quality enhancement agenda. With respect to the former, it noted planned developments in student support, such as the centre for academic writing skills, while with respect to the latter, it noted that structures were in place for addressing pedagogical as well as technological issues, through the designated teaching fellows and CHED.
270 While the audit team fully endorses the linkage between quality assurance, continuous improvement and enhancement, it was also aware of the need for a balance between the different stages within the cycle, which the University had also recognised in its Learning and Teaching Strategy in the context of building capacity for change. In some cases, the team questioned the value added by certain steps in quality assurance processes and whether initiatives recommended by working groups were being implemented in a timely fashion (see 275 I and ii below).
Reliability of information
271 The SED indicated that, following publication of HEFCE 03/51, the Academic Registrar had set out the information required and the current status of this information within the University. This had revealed that most of the information already existed and that the task was one of coordinating its publication in a form suitable for uploading to the TQI website. A QAC working party had been recently established with this remit. Progress to date is such that the external examiners' report form now includes a section specifically geared to producing the requisite summaries electronically; the QAC working party is currently considering how best to compile the periodic review summaries from information derived from the CARP and AQM processes; the listing of employer links is envisaged to be prepared without difficulty; and there are plans to provide a directory of programme specifications, equivalent to the MID. In the case of the quantitative information, the development of UNIVERSE is on course to return the necessary data to HESA.
272 The audit team was able to review a variety of University and school publications, as well as the University website and the websites of some of its partner institutions. On balance, the information provided appeared to be appropriate and effective, with particularly helpful information on the avoidance of plagiarism and on student appeals. However, in the case of free-choice modules, the team concluded that promotional and course literature might raise expectations about the extent of choice and scope for flexibility afforded by the modular frameworks, which, on the evidence of current students, could not be realised in practice. At the time of the audit the website was in a state of radical overhaul, so it proved difficult for the team to make an assessment of the consistency and currency of internet-based information, although that provided through the first phase of the new website was clear and easy to navigate. These observations aside, the team considered that the University was, as claimed in the SED, making 'every effort to provide a fair and balanced picture' through its published information and specifically, in relation to HEFCE 03/5, was making steady progress towards uploading the prescribed information onto the TQI website.
Features of good practice
273 The following features of good practice were noted:
i. the flexible approach to the integration of provision offered through the CLL into the formal approval, monitoring and review processes (paragraphs 48, 57 and 94);
ii. the effective engagement with CUSU representatives that extends beyond their active participation in formal and informal meetings to their involvement in project work and related activities (paragraphs 90 and 134);
iii. the continuing development of a range of local and central student support services, notably the expansion of dedicated arrangements for assisting students to improve their mathematical and academic writing skills (paragraphs 129 and 135);
iv. the considered approach to the management of collaborative provision, which incorporates mechanisms for relating the degree of direct involvement by the University to the level of confidence built up in the partnership arrangement (paragraph 145).
Recommendations for action
274 Recommendations for action that is advisable:
i. to improve the consistency and comprehensiveness of annual reports from school boards, ensuring that, in addition to referring matters upwards for resolution, these allow for effective institutional oversight of issues identified for action at school level (paragraph 59);
ii. to review the arrangements for securing appropriate input from external examiners to decisions relating to the standards achieved by students over their entire course (paragraph 72).
275 Recommendations for action that is desirable:
i. to develop further and implement its plans for streamlining quality assurance processes to achieve a better balance between the value added by each of the various steps in these processes and the level of staff time involved (paragraphs 50, 57, 65 and 143);
ii. to give greater priority to putting into operation the recommendations of committees or their working groups, according to clearly defined timescales (paragraphs 62 and 82);
iii. to ensure that reports of PSRBs are routinely and adequately considered centrally, while clarifying for schools the rationale for institutional oversight; (paragraph 84);
iv. to review its stated commitment to the principle of free-choice modules since, in practice, there appears to be limited opportunity or encouragement given to students for selecting options outside their subject area (paragraph 127).
Appendix
Coventry University's response to the audit report
Coventry University welcomes the Institutional Audit report with its confirmation of full confidence in the academic standards of awards. The University is also pleased that the soundness of its approach to the management of quality, including future plans, is fully recognised.
The University has noted that a significant number of areas of good practice were identified by the audit team and have been referred to in the body of the audit report, with four specific areas being especially highlighted. In particular, the University is gratified that the auditors appreciated the on-going work being done to enhance the overall student experience at Coventry, for example through the links established with the Student's Union and student representatives, importance placed on student feedback and the continuing development of various support services including the dedicated arrangements to assist students with their mathematical and academic writing skills.
The University acknowledges the recommendations for action, some of which are already being actively addressed and others that will be subject to further development and will be monitored in line with an action plan. There has been progress on a number of aspects identified through the institution's own internal quality enhancement mechanisms and referred to within the self-evaluation document as well as the audit report. Specifically:
- a 'virtual' web-based handbook providing a focus for information relating to quality assurance and enhancement including policies, procedures and regulatory matters as well as guidance on course design, approval and monitoring is nearing completion. This will be regularly and systematically updated to respond to both internal and externally driven quality issues;
- during the 2003-04 academic year a growing number of reports have been designed to be automatically generated through UNIVERSE (the University's student records system), notably in the area of student completion and progression which will aid this year's round of annual quality monitoring; the processes inherent to annual monitoring will be revisited during 2004-05 to further encourage a more consistent approach;
- reports from professional and statutory bodies will be considered by the University's Quality Assurance Committee as an annual substantive agenda item as part of the annual monitoring cycle for the first time in December 2004.
A number of other issues addressed in the report will be the subject of discussion and action at University level in 2004-05, including: a review of the input by External Examiners to the assessment board process; a more effective link between progression and retention statistics and the admissions policy; the University's approach to free-choice modules, and the more timely implementation of the recommendations of committees and working groups.
In conclusion, the University is appreciative of the constructive approach adopted by the audit team, and of the positive outcome of the audit process, which endorses the good practice already in place and, in many respects, echoes the University's own intentions to continue to enhance the quality of the student experience.
ISBN 1 84482 158 7
Top