University of Gloucestershire
Institutional audit

MAY 2005

RG 161 10/05

Findings

Web site for University of Gloucestershire

262 An institutional audit of the University of Gloucestershire was undertaken during the week 16 May 2005. 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 as a UK degree-awarding body. As part of the audit process, according to protocols agreed with HEFCE, SCOP and UUK, three audit trails were selected for scrutiny at the level of an academic discipline. This section of the report of the audit summarises the findings of the audit. It concludes by identifying features of good practice that emerged from the audit, and recommendations to the University for enhancing current practice.

The effectiveness of institutional procedures for assuring the quality of programmes

263 The University adopted new procedures for developing, validating and approving new provision in 2002-03. These replaced its previous 'event-based' approach with a process of 'continuous' validation which follows two stages: in the first, approval is sought by the sponsoring school from the University's Planning Subcommittee and the Principal's Management Group, and endorsed by the Academic Board for development in principle. In the second, development of the proposal is monitored by a validation panel formed by the relevant faculty academic standards committee (FASC) with external peer members, and chaired by a senior member of the University from another faculty. The external membership of the validation panel is subject to the approval of the University's Academic Affairs Committee (AAC), a subcommittee of the Academic Board. The progress of the proposed development is monitored by the validation panel through receiving documents, including drafts of the programme specifications and module descriptors, and a limited number of meetings with members of the proposing team. Once the validation panel is satisfied that the proposal has reached the standard required for approval it notifies the AAC, which is required to satisfy itself that it can support the validation panel's recommendation, before seeking the approval of the Academic Board. The procedures are fully described in the University's QA Handbook which was published in September 2003.

264 The University's new validation and approval procedures allow for an extended and cooperative relationship between the team developing the proposal and the validation panel. Careful scrutiny of several proposals which had proceeded to validation and approval under the new procedures enabled the audit team to satisfy itself that these more cooperative arrangements have not compromised the rigour with which the University scrutinises proposals for new provision. The AAC, chaired by the Dean of Quality and Standards Development, has taken an active interest in the work of validation panels and it has been prepared to reject or modify their advice when it has considered their recommendations for approval have been insufficiently rigorous.

265 Where the outcome of an annual field review or changing circumstances (such as student recruitment) suggest to the University that a field of study should be closed, it may have recourse to a specially developed field closure process. The design of the process is intended to protect the interests of students who may continue to take modules from a field which is being closed. It is based on an action plan that is presented to the AAC and which the latter must agree before the closure of the field can commence. The University provided the audit team with several instances of how it had handled a field closure using this process on the basis of which the team came to the view that it represented a feature of good practice.

266 The University's annual field review process operates at the subject level to review the performance of a field of study over the session just concluded. It is based on the production of an annual 'field review report' together with an action plan to address any outstanding matters, produced initially in October by the Field Chair, with the assistance of colleagues in larger subject areas. Where a field board considers that an item in its report may require action which is outside its remit, for example by the Faculty or the University, there is provision for the item to be 'starred', which identifies it for special attention. The audit team saw evidence of the effectiveness of this arrangement.

267 The annual field review report is discussed initially at a meeting of the field board. Completed field review reports are subsequently read at faculty level by members of a panel convened by the FASC chair, usually in November. The panel must include at least one member from outside the University, who is charged with monitoring the process overall, and a student member. Reports from these review panels are used by FASCs to compile their annual reports to the AAC which the latter receives at its February meeting, together with annual reports from the Undergraduate Modular Scheme (UMS) and Postgraduate Modular Scheme (PMS), and analyses of reports by external examiners and of reports from external validation panel members, in each case highlighting any common themes. The AAC expects to monitor progress in implementing the action plans attached to annual field review reports through the field review report for the following session.

268 Staff at all levels of the University who discussed its annual field review arrangements with the audit team were satisfied that it enabled the AAC (and through the latter, the Academic Board) to monitor the quality of undergraduate and taught postgraduate provision and the academic standards of the University's awards. The team came to the view that the University's annual review process is comprehensive and that it is thoroughly conducted. The arrangement whereby action plans are monitored through the next annual field review report is, however, a potential weakness in the present arrangement, in that the University might remain unaware for some time whether progress was being made in addressing outstanding items. Overall, the team came to the view that the design of the University's annual monitoring process and the manner in which it is conducted constituted a feature of good practice.

269 The University does not operate a separate process for the periodic review of its provision, relying instead on an augmented form of its annual field review process which takes place at regular intervals, generally every five or six years. The audit team's enquiries to establish whether this process was providing the University with opportunities to periodically review its process and refresh the curricula led it to the view that in most particulars the way in which this deeper, five-yearly annual field review is conducted, is consistent with the advice of the Code of practice, Section 7: Programme approval, monitoring and review, published by QAA. The annual field review process provides for the participation of an external peer member in the work of the FASC panel, who is expected to monitor the rigour of the process and its conformity to the University's requirements. This individual might not, however, possess the necessary subject expertise to enable them to comment on the detail of the curricula and to assure the University that they are current. The team therefore advises the University to ensure that the measures described in the self-evaluation document (SED) to incorporate external peers with subject expertise into 'enhanced' annual field review, from 2005-06, are brought into effect.

270 In addition to annual field review and its augmented form, the University also operates a process of thematic review which was introduced in 2003. Thematic review is overseen directly by the Academic Board, which identifies the topics and prescribes the process to be followed. Reports from thematic reviews are formally reported to the Academic Board. Former thematic reviews have covered such matters as the anonymity of students in assessment, the admission of students with advanced standing and arrangements for supporting flexible and distributed learning. The calibre of the reports, their general usefulness, and the manner in which the University has used their findings to enhance its provision appeared to the audit team to constitute a feature of good practice.

271 Module evaluation constitutes the principal means used by the University to secure feedback on the quality of its provision from its students. The University does not prescribe the form in which feedback information is to be gathered or the format in which it is to be presented. Module tutors summarise the feedback for modules for which they are responsible and the summaries are received by the relevant field board of which students' representatives are members. A recent thematic review (see above) of student feedback arrangements has convinced the University that it needs to be confident that there is a degree of consistency in module evaluations, and that they will each address a 'core set of issues'. From 2005-06, the University intends to incorporate the framework provided by the National Student Survey into its own arrangements, and to provide means for its students to report on their overall experiences of the University. In addition to feedback by means of module evaluations the University has also begun to gather feedback from its students at campus-level through campus meetings with students, and from time to time it makes use of student focus groups and project groups.

272 The University seeks feedback from former students through its Careers Centre, and the SED stated that the University sought feedback and other information from employers through a variety of methods including meetings of its External Advisory Board, at which senior members of the University meet representatives of local industry and commerce. The remit of this Board seemed to the audit team, however, to be focused on external fundraising and entrepreneurial activity rather than other matters. From its conversations with members of the University, it was apparent to the team that the former were aware of the need to strengthen the institution's feedback links with the employers of its graduates and former students, and the team encourages the University to take forward this work, as part of which it will no doubt wish to ensure that information on analyses of feedback information provided by students and any responses from the University is fed back to the students.

273 The University has a small portfolio of provision delivered through flexible and distributed learning, including e-learning, but expects that such provision will grow steadily. At the time of the audit, the University was seeking to assess the costs and benefits of facilitating learning and delivering teaching by e-learning, along with other flexible and distributed methods. It had also recently concluded a thematic review for this purpose, the draft report of which was made available to the audit team. This had concluded that validation panels for proposals for new provision to be delivered by flexible and distributed learning should be accompanied by the greater part of the learning materials, to enable the panel to assess how tuition will be delivered and learning facilitated, and that successful development in this general area would require investment in the University's infrastructure. The thematic review had also identified the need for flexible and distributed learning and e-learning to be more securely situated in the University's strategic planning if it is to become a significant feature of its portfolio. The team found the advice offered to the University by the thematic review report to be persuasive and encourages the institution to take forward its recommendations.

274 One aspect of the University's overall management arrangements which has consequences for the quality assurance of its provision is its capacity to manage large-scale change. For example, through a series of responses to a central initiative, 'Framework for the Future', it has recently modified the structure of the academic session and it is modifying its internal academic and management arrangements to achieve a closer alignment between its faculties and its four campuses. Comments in the Student Written Submission, and from students and staff in the briefing and the audit visits, suggested to the audit team that the University's approach to managing changes that it had initiated, and which have the capacity to affect large numbers of students and staff, could benefit from further development. The team therefore advises the University to reflect on the effectiveness of its current approach to the management of large-scale change in its academic and associated arrangements; to consider what steps might be required to ensure that, in such cases, measures it has identified for action are carried through and that it is provided with clear and timely evidence of their effectiveness.

275 The University has a small portfolio of partnership links which are mostly local or based in the University's home region. Most of the links are in the areas of health studies, initial teacher education, theology and ministry, with a small number of links based around Foundation Degrees. The University has one overseas link in Germany, which participated in a QAA overseas audit in 2001-02. When opening a link with a new partner, the University carries out a series of checks designed to enable it to satisfy itself that its own aims and those of its prospective partner are compatible; that students will enjoy a learning experience comparable to that which is available to its campus-based students; that there is a correspondence between the subject focus of the proposed partnership and subject expertise available in one or more of its schools; and that one of its schools is willing and able to accept responsibility for overseeing the partnership link.

276 The audit team reviewed the University's procedures for opening a new link and for validating the provision which is to form the focus of the link, and found that these were broadly sound and consistent with the advice offered in the Code of practice, Section 2: Collaborative provision and flexible and distributed learning (including e-learning), published by QAA. One feature of these arrangements could, however, benefit from further development. Where the University has validated unrelated programmes in different partners that lead to identical award titles the team considered that it would be wise for it to satisfy itself from time to time that the academic standards of such awards are equivalent.

277 Arrangements for monitoring the development of partnership links are School-based. It is the University's intention that there should be two lines of communication between partners and the University: one based around the subject element and the other for quality assurance and academic standards. The University's Handbook for Collaborative Provision indicates that these two roles may be discharged by a single individual, and the audit team found several instances where this was the case. In the instances the team saw where roles had been combined, it was satisfied that both were being discharged responsibly. There is a risk in such arrangements, however, that communications between the University and its partner may become too reliant on a single person, who may find the range of roles they are required to discharge burdensome. There is some evidence to suggest that some of the detail of the quality management of partnership activities (for example, checking the accuracy of marketing material produced by the partner) could be undertaken with greater attention to detail. The team also considered that the University's school-based approach to managing individual partnership links could benefit from the introduction of arrangements to allow it to maintain an institution-level overview of the totality of its collaborative arrangements more easily.

278 Several of the University's partnership links are with small colleges specialising in theology and ministry. In these links, in the event-based process the University follows for approving any instance of collaborative provision, the audit team noted that the external peer members of validation panels generally seemed to be drawn from similarly small institutions. Likewise, external examiners appointed to programmes in these institutions also appeared generally to be drawn from small institutions. Such practice differs from the procedures the University follows for its own programmes and has the potential to limit opportunities for its partners to benefit from perspectives and practices across higher education in the UK. The team advises the University to ensure that when appointing external examiners for programmes provided through partnership links, and external peers to validation and review panels for partnership programmes, such peers are drawn more broadly from across the UK higher education sector.

279 While identifying several areas in the University's quality management arrangements which would benefit from improvement overall, the SED stated that the University had confidence in its arrangements to safeguard the quality of its provision. On the basis of its enquiries the audit team came to the view that the arrangements merited broad confidence and that several areas of these arrangements including the design and operation of the University's annual field review report process, thematic review and field closure arrangements constituted features of good practice.

The effectiveness of institutional procedures for securing the standards of awards

280 The University takes the view that its maintenance of the academic standards of its awards requires that the academic standards of each award should be explicitly stated and referenced to The framework for higher education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (FHEQ), that it should operate a rigorous assessment system to maintain the integrity of those awards, and that academic standards more generally should be underpinned by reference to the Academic Infrastructure.

281 The University's assessment arrangements are set out in its Assessment Handbook, where it is stated that it is the University's intention that its assessment arrangements should be consistent with the advice of the Code of practice and with five key principles: the promotion of learning; transparency; equity; validity and reliability. Each of these principles is spelled out in detail. The Assessment Handbook also provides detailed information on assessment procedures, including where responsibility rests at each stage of the assessment process, for example for drafting assessment tasks, whether coursework or examination, their approval, who is responsible for disseminating information on assessments, and how coursework assessments should be received and returned. The Assessment Handbook also provides staff with information on how boards of examiners at field and scheme level should be conducted and on liaison with the external examiner. A separate appendix provides detailed guidance to external examiners on their role in the University's assessment arrangements and its requirements.

282 The University has recently begun to introduce Assessment Standing Panels (ASPs) which were first introduced in the Business School. The ASPs are intended to operate below field level, and at field level and above, and to assume responsibility for checking examination papers and summative assessment tasks for consistency with the intended learning outcomes and module descriptors, advised by the external examiner, and with proofreading examination papers before approving them. The ASPs are normally chaired by the field chair. It seemed to the audit team that the University's identification of the work of the Business School's ASP as good practice and its decision to introduce ASPs across the institution had provided it with a useful means of ensuring that schools operate their assessment procedures in a more consistent fashion. The introduction of ASPs seemed to the team to constitute a feature of good practice, and the team encourages the University in its endeavours to embed them in all its schools.

283 The University has developed comprehensive means to gather data on student progression and retention. These include the development of datasets which make it possible to track the progress of cohorts of students as well as individuals. For students prior to enrolment the university's management information tools allow applications to be regularly monitored. Registered students, progression, retention and first-destination data are available to heads of school and field chairs, and can be used to generate up-to-date student enrolment information, class lists for modules and programmes, and to inform annual field review. The audit team came to the view that the design of the University's student information systems, their implementation, and the work that has been undertaken to train staff at all levels in their use constituted a feature of good practice. Notwithstanding the substantial progress that has been made in this area, the SED acknowledge the need for further work to embed the use of these facilities at school and module level and the team encourages the University to continue with this, and to continue to enhance the confidence of teaching and administrative staff at field, school, and faculty level in the reliability of centrally-provided data.

284 External examiners are appointed by the AAC on behalf of the University following consideration of their nomination by the relevant FASC, and may be appointed at field level or to be responsible for overseeing a scheme. External examiners at the field level are required to verify the academic standards of assessments, check that the intended learning outcomes have been met, and to confirm that the academic standards of the resulting awards are comparable with those of like schemes across the UK higher education sector. At scheme level, the University appoints chief external examiners (normally from among those already serving as external examiners at field level) to be responsible for ensuring that academic standards and their comparability is maintained across the scheme.

285 For provision it delivers itself, the University usually seeks to appoint external examiners with outstanding qualifications from well-regarded institutions. External examiners are given clear guidance on what the University expects their reports to cover. Reports are received by the Vice-Chancellor's Office and are then distributed to senior postholders, including the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Academic), the Field Chair, the head of the relevant school, and the Chair of the relevant FASC.

286 Annual field review reports are required to address points raised by external examiners in their reports, and FASCs are expected to check that such responses are appropriate to the matter raised by the external examiner. The University expects the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Academic) to read the report of each external examiner and to prepare a synoptic report on their comments for the AAC and Academic Board, identifying features of good practice and matters requiring attention. Several of the matters the Academic Board has identified for thematic review have been highlighted through such synoptic reports, although from its own reading of external examiners' reports from 2002-03 and 2003-04 the audit team noted that several other matters which had been raised by a number of external examiners, and which had figured in the synoptic reports, did not appear to have been identified for further inquiry or action.

287 The University's view is that its external examining arrangements are central to its quality and academic standards arrangements and that its processes in this area are robust. Overall, the audit team found that the procedures presented in the QA Handbook for working with external examiners, including their nomination and appointment, were employed consistently across the University, that external examiners were satisfied that the academic standards of the University's awards were comparable with those in like institutions and on like programmes, and that reports from external examiners were generally used in a satisfactory manner to support quality and academic standards.

The effectiveness of institutional procedures for supporting learning

288 Library, academic computing and media support for students is delivered through the University's Learning and Information Services (LIS) which is led by the Head of LIS and reports to the AAC and the Professional Services Committee. The LIS works closely with the schools and learning centres have been established on each campus to provide learning and teaching support. It is the University's express intention that the facilities in each campus learning centre, and the services it offers, should be broadly comparable.

289 Following the University's consultation on Framework for the Future, planning for learning support resources has been switched from the former system which was School-based, to campus-based arrangements with resources largely allocated on the basis of student numbers. Since the conclusion of its Framework for the Future consultations, the University has relocated its central Learning Technology Skills Support (LTSS) team from LIS to form part of its Central Academic Development Unit, with the intention of enabling a stronger focus on the provision and development of information and communication technology support for learning and teaching. The work of the LTSS team is overseen by the University's Teaching Learning and Assessment Committee (TLAC). As part of its work, LTSS is seeking to promote wider use of the University's proprietary virtual learning environment (VLE) by students and staff. This has involved improvements to the merger of the University's intranet and its central website to make information more readily available to applicants, students and staff.

290 Discussions with students about the part played by the VLE in supporting their learning and teaching suggested to the audit team that the University had some way to go in order to embed the VLE equally firmly in all schools. Students were, however, generally satisfied with their access to learning support resources and praised the development of the campus-based learning centres, which they considered to be a 'vital resource'. The University has hitherto monitored the alignment of its learning resources provision with its portfolio of programmes and courses through deans and directorate meetings and through the Principal's Management Group. As the University's new campus-based resourcing model takes effect, it would now be advisable for it to establish more settled arrangements to allow it to take a view of its overall learning support needs to balance that taken for each of the campuses.

291 The University's predecessor was advised in a previous institutional audit report, published by the Higher Education Quality Council (HEQC), of the necessity to review its academic guidance and support arrangements for students. The University introduced new arrangements shortly after the publication of the HEQC report which were intended to match the level of support to be made available to the perceived need of students at different stages of their studies. First-year students are therefore allocated to a personal tutor and students in subsequent years are directed to seek academic guidance from senior tutors based in each school. Students at any stage of their studies can seek additional support from the University's small corps of academic student advisers (SAs). They work from Student Information and Advice Centres (SIACs) based on each campus although, at the time of the audit, it appeared to be the case that there were insufficient SAs to staff the SIACs on each of the campuses on a full-time basis.

292 From its consideration of the University's papers and its discussions with staff and students, the audit team came to the view that arrangements for academic guidance and support differed between the schools and operated through a range of formal and informal mechanisms. It seemed to the team, however, that even with the contributions made by the SAs, the effectiveness of the University's present arrangements for providing academic guidance support and supervision for all its students, and particularly those studying across more than one field, was open to question. The team therefore advises the University to consider how it might achieve a fully effective academic guidance and support system for all its students and how it might monitor its implementation.

293 Elements of the University's arrangements for providing personal support to students are integrated with its present system for academic guidance and support, with personal tutors able to refer students to the University's central and campus-based services. The University's aim is to coordinate the delivery of personal support services centrally, but that they should continue to be delivered locally. Students who met the audit team praised the support available for students with special needs and spoke warmly of the support provided by the Counselling Services, the International Student Advisers and the Medical Services.

294 From its own reviews, the University has identified differences in the nature and availability of personal tutor support from level 1 to level 2, and above and it intends to provide further staff development in order to improve support for students after level 1. The audit team encourages it to keep this area under review, while recognising that tackling perceived difficulties with academic guidance and counselling might represent a more immediate priority.

295 The University seeks to underpin the quality of teaching through its arrangements for staff support and development which are set out in its Staff Development Policy. Key features of the Policy include an allocation to each member of staff of three days each year for continuing professional development; support for staff who wish to study for the University's Postgraduate Certificate in Higher Education; and a series of initiatives and specialist centres. These include a University Teaching Fellowship scheme, a Scholarship of Learning and Teaching Programme, a Professional Development Group Scheme and Support for staff through the LTSS team of the University's Centre for Learning and Teaching. Each of these initiatives is intended to provide opportunities for staff to update or extend their skills, but responsibility for taking forward some developments (for example the Professional Development Group Scheme) are based in the schools and have been implemented in different ways and with varying degrees of effectiveness. The University's development of its former Journal of Learning and Teaching into an electronically distributed peer-reviewed journal: 'e-JOLT'. This provides staff with the opportunity to debate and learn from advances in learning and teaching, and is a feature of good practice. The University has also launched a refereed journal (which is published electronically and in hardcopy): Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (LATHE).

296 The audit team was able to confirm that members of staff are able to take advantage of a comprehensive induction process delivered at University and school level which is a feature of good practice. Staff also have access to a number of staff-development opportunities, including a guarantee of not less than three days of professional development each year, but corresponding opportunities for the continuing professional development of those leading fields programmes and for senior managers appeared to be more restricted. The University might therefore consider it desirable to assess what training opportunities it might wish to provide as a matter of course for staff appointed to academic and other management roles at a senior level.

297 In general, the SED provided a fair account of the University's arrangements to support learning in the course of which it identified a number of areas which, in its view, needed further development. Overall, the audit team found itself in agreement with the University's assessments of these matters although, with respect to the provision of academic guidance and support for students, the team came to the view that the University might have underestimated the gap between the advice and support it believes its present arrangements can provide for students after level 1 and the need of students in the UMS for better advice and guidance, particularly where they are studying across more than one field.

Outcomes of discipline audit trails

Business and management

298 The scope of the DAT comprised provision offered by the University's Business School leading to undergraduate awards in Business Management with the following titles: BA (Hons) Management; BA (Hons) Management (Major) with Human Resource Management (Minor); BA (Hons) Management (Defined Route) and taught postgraduate provision in Business Management leading to the following master's awards: MA Management; Master in Business Administration; and MA Leading Change by Action Research. In each case the audit confirmed that the standard of student achievement was appropriate to the respective awards and their location within the FHEQ.

299 The first ASP to be established in the University was a Business School initiative, which has since been extended across the institution. There is clear evidence that assessment processes are actively and carefully managed by the Business School and that they conform to the requirements of the University's Assessment Handbook. Reports from external examiners are received in a timely fashion, but it seemed to the audit team that some comments from external examiners had not been given sufficiently close attention.

300 In general, the learning environment provided for business students in the School matches the requirements of the provision, and although it is optimised to meet the needs of undergraduate students, taught postgraduate students were satisfied that it also met their needs.

301 Programme specifications for all the University's business management provision (including that offered through the School of Sport and Leisure) were provided for the audit. In all cases, the programme specifications were in line with the University's requirements, and were consistent with the advice offered by the Academic Infrastructure, including the subject benchmark statements. Students contribute to the management of their provision by providing feedback through module evaluations, and through their attendance at committee meetings within the Business Management Field; there is no separate staff-student liaison committee. Students are nonetheless confident that their views are taken seriously at School level, but are less confident that this is the case at levels above the School.

Psychology

302 The scope of the DAT comprised provision in psychology leading to the following awards BSc (Hons) Psychology (Major/Joint/Minor); MSc Psychology in the Workplace, with interim postgraduate diploma and postgraduate certificate awards, recently renamed MSc Business Psychology. In all cases the standard of student achievement was found to be appropriate to the titles of the awards and their location within FHEQ.

303 Scrutiny of reports from external examiners and samples of marked and moderated student work show that assessment arrangements across the field generally work well and that matters raised by external examiners are given careful attention. It would, however, be wise for the Field and the School to check that in all cases the University's expectations are being met that assessment criteria will be set out in detail. The Psychology Field has recently established an ASP and this might be an early item for its attention. There was evidence that the University's restructuring of the academic year in 2004-05 had caused problems in that delays in returning marked work with tutors' feedback to first-year students had limited their opportunities to the marks and the feedback to inform their choices of modules for their second year of study.

304 Learning resources for psychology are provided by LIS and the School. Staff and students alike consider the learning resources available to them to be satisfactory and welcome the School's location on the same campus as the University's main repository for psychology texts and journals. The programme specifications for the taught undergraduate psychology provision were consistent with the University's requirements, made appropriate reference to the FHEQ and other elements of the Academic Infrastructure, and to the requirements of the British Psychological Society, which accredits the provision that leads to the psychology major award as suitable to lead to graduate registration.

305 Students contribute feedback on their learning experiences by means of module evaluations and through the participation of their elected representatives in meetings of the Psychology Field Board. In an interesting development, the Psychology Field has begun to supplement end-of-module evaluations with mid-module evaluations to enable it to respond to students more rapidly. This seemed to the team to be a feature of good practice.

Sport and exercise sciences

306 The scope of the DAT comprised provision in the School of Sport and Leisure, within the Faculty of Environment and Leisure, and included undergraduate provision in single honours and in Major/Minor combinations BSc (Hons) Sport and Exercise Sciences (Major and Joint); Sport Science; BSc (Hons) Exercise and Health Sciences (Major) with more than 20 minor fields. Postgraduate awards included in the DAT were PgCert, PgDip, MSc Physical Activity and Health Development; PgCert, PgDip, MA Sports Development. Research postgraduate students based in the School are registered to study for awards at MSc, MPhil and PhD level. In all cases, the audit found that the standard of student achievement was appropriate to the titles of the relevant awards and their location within the FHEQ.

307 From the reports of the external examiners and the marked student work made available for the audit it was clear that assessment practices within the School are satisfactorily managed and conform to the University's requirements as set out in its Assessment Handbook. The School has recently introduced an ASP.

308 The School of Sport and Leisure is based on a purpose-built campus at Oxstalls on the outskirts of Gloucester, about five miles from the main campus in Cheltenham. Staff and students consider that the quality of the learning opportunities available to them on the Oxstalls Campus to be very satisfactory, and one external examiner has described them as 'excellent'. The programme specifications for provision in sport and exercise sciences had been informed by the relevant subject benchmark statement and made reference to the FHEQ.

The use made by the institution of the Academic Infrastructure

309 The University is committed to ensuring that all its provision is managed in line with the advice of the Code of practice and that all awards are located within the FHEQ, and validation panels are expected to check these matters when considering proposals for new provision. Programme specifications have been developed and are readily available to staff and students and subject benchmark statements have been carefully considered. Again, the University expects programme specifications to be provided as part of the standard documentation when proposals for new provision are considered, and programme specifications are required for all provision leading to the University's awards. Likewise, validation and review panels are expected to confirm with subject teams that they have referred to the subject benchmark statements in developing the provision for which they are responsible. Overall, the audit team came to the view that the University continues to pay careful attention to the advice of the Academic Infrastructure in all its work.

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

310 The SED provided a clear description of University procedures and practices linked to the broad headings used for institutional audit reports, in which each section concluded with an evaluation reflecting the University's views as to its strengths and weaknesses.

311 The University's notable frankness in analysing and evaluating the appropriateness of its quality and academic standards was matched by its willingness to open its papers to the scrutiny of the audit team and to enter into discussions. This openness provided a sound basis for the team to establish the level of its confidence in the University's quality and academic standards arrangements.

Commentary on the institution's intentions for the enhancement of quality and standards

312 The University's Teaching, Learning and Assessment Policy commits it to secure the establishment of quality enhancement and staff professional development activities and its Framework for the Future consultations, and confirmed that the enhancement of the quality of its provision is a strategic theme in the University's forward plans. The TLAC is charged with maintaining and updating the University's forward plan for quality-enhancement activities drawing on the advice of the learning and teaching coordinators based in each of the schools. The latter are responsible for providing staff with support and advice and for organising campus-based staff-development and enhancement activities. Quality-enhancement activities at field level are also supported by the University's Quality Support Team.

313 Across the University initiatives linked to quality enhancement are being taken forward by many different committees, working groups and specialist units. For example, there is a Centre for Learning and Teaching; a Scholarship of Learning and Teaching Group; a Professional Development Group Scheme which works with learning and teaching coordinators in each of the schools; and a central quality support team. The number and vitality of the University's enhancement initiatives testifies to its commitment to enhance its support for learning and teaching. Careful monitoring of the totality of these activities might be wise, to ensure that only overlaps in activities which are likely to prove fruitful are allowed to continue.

314 The SED was able to point to several initiatives which the University was taking forward as a result of its analysis of reports produced through its quality assurance work, among the most significant of which has been its identification of the value of the Business School's ASP as a device for working towards greater consistency in assessment procedures. Other schools have now been required to establish ASPs. This development suggested to the audit team that the University had successfully used the outcomes of quality assurance as a basis for quality enhancement and as such it represents a notable success.

Reliability of information

315 The University has committed itself to meet the requirements of HEFCE documents 02/15 and 03/51, which set out the items of Teaching Quality Information (TQI) that higher education institutions in England are required to provide to the Higher Education and Research Opportuniuties (HERO) portal. At the time of the audit, it was proceeding to deliver the necessary information within the framework set by HEFCE. The University has found that the structure of its provision, and difficulties for HERO/TQI in dealing with large multidisciplinary provision, have made it challenging to provide TQI formatted to match the headings of the Joint Academic Coding System (JACS). There are some residual issues with the Major/Minor weighting for awards used by the University, which the latter intends to resolve shortly. With respect to the University's collaborative provision, however, it would now be wise for the University to work with its partners to check that all items of information they publish (including through their website) which relate to provision leading to the University's awards is up to date and accurate; however, from the information and data the University made available, there can be confidence in the institution's arrangements to publish information to the TQI site and to meet the requirements of HEFCE in this matter.

Features of good practice

316 The following features of good practice were noted in the context of the University:

i the introduction of Assessment Standing Panels (ASPs) across the institution (paragraphs 51 and 210)

ii its development of its on-line journal of learning and teaching (paragraph 60)

iii the comprehensive design and thorough operation of the annual field review process (paragraph 75)

iv the process it has developed to support the withdrawal of fields (paragraph 78)

v its process of thematic review (paragraph 84)

vi the design of its management information systems which has enabled it to produce reports to support quality and academic standards management (paragraph 129)

vii its arrangements for the induction of new members of academic staff (paragraph 131)

viii the introduction of Student Information and Advice Centres across the campuses (paragraph 160)

ix the introduction of mid-module reviews in psychology (paragraph 226).

Recommendations for action

317 As the University continues to develop its quality and academic standards management arrangements it may wish to consider the advisability of:

i reflecting on the current effectiveness of its approach to the management of large-scale change in its academic and associated arrangements, and considering what steps might be required to ensure that in such cases, and more generally, measures it has identified for action are carried through and that it is provided with clear and timely evidence of their effectiveness (paragraphs 42, 151 and 157 )

ii monitor carefully the changes it has made to the periodic elements of its enhanced annual review arrangements, in order to ensure that they provide clear evidence for itself, and external stakeholders, that the curriculum is being effectively refreshed and academic standards secured (paragraph 81)

iii considering how it might ensure that the outcomes of external reviews of its provision and arrangements have the benefit of more penetrating consideration at University level (paragraph 87, 108)

iv ensuring for all its collaborative provision that, when identifying external contributors to validations and periodic reviews, and when identifying and appointing external examiners, such external peers are drawn from institutions representing the full breadth of the higher education sector in the UK (paragraphs 90 and 193); enabling more direct University-level monitoring of the academic well-being of individual partnership links (paragraph 196); and discussing with its partners measures which will assist with all aspects of their institutional development prior to putting the agreed measures into effect (paragraph 194)

v giving thought to how it might achieve a fully effective academic counselling system for all students and how it might more closely monitor its implementation and operation (paragraph 168).

318 The University may also wish to consider the desirability of:

i ensuring better communications with student representatives, including those serving on senior institutional committees (paragraph 119)

ii considering what training opportunities it might wish to provide as a matter of course for staff appointed to academic and other management roles at a senior level (paragraph 143).

Appendix

The University of Gloucestershire's response to the audit report

The University welcomes the audit report and its expression of broad confidence in the management of the quality of our programmes and the standards of our awards. We are also pleased to note the positive outcome of each of the three Discipline Audit Trails (in Business and Management; Psychology; and Sports and Exercise Sciences).

We are delighted that the audit report highlights many examples of good practice:

The arrangements for the induction of new members of academic staff
The design of management information systems which has enabled the production of reports to support quality and academic standards management
The introduction of Assessment Standing Panels across the University
The comprehensiveness of the annual field review process
The introduction of Student Information and Advice Centres across the campuses
The processes developed to support the withdrawal of fields
The introduction of mid-module reviews in Psychology
The process of thematic review
The development of its on-line journal of learning and teaching.

We believe that this is evidence of our commitment to the continued enhancement of our teaching and learning environment and the quality of the student experience. It is also pleasing to note the audit team's positive view of many aspects of our quality assurance and internal review processes.

The audit process was a valuable complement to our ongoing scrutiny of the quality of our provision, and the audit was conducted near the end of a period of significant change within the University's academic management structures. We consider that our decision to move to a more campus-based structure, with an increased degree of devolution of academic development and ownership, will enable us to provide better student support services and an enhanced academic infrastructure. We have put in place, from September 2005, a revised faculty and committee structure to facilitate this development and to ensure that we maintain an effective University-level overview of all matters relating to quality and standards.

We are aware of the need to ensure continued improvement. At the time of the audit, our own internal review processes had already indicated the need for further action in a number of areas noted in the report, including the establishment of a more effective counselling system for students. We have taken steps to improve communications with and between student representatives, and the new committee structure affords greater opportunity for student representation and feedback. Discussions have already taken place with the Students' Union on methods of improving training of student representatives and enhancing their input to committee deliberations. Action is under way to address other recommendations in the report, in particular those advising modification to our processes for external input to collaborative links, and the monitoring of changes to annual review.

The University wishes to thank the audit team for the professional manner in which the audit visit was conducted.

ISBN 1 84482 361 X

University of Gloucestershire Institutional audit