>> Main report
>> Findings
ISBN 1 84482 302 4
University of Nottingham
Institutional Audit
March 2005
RG135 07/05
Summary
Web site for University of Nottingham
Contents
Introduction
A team of auditors from the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) visited the University of Nottingham (the University) from 7 to 11 March 2005 to carry out an institutional audit. The purpose of the audit was to provide public information on the quality of the opportunities available to students and on the academic standards of its awards.
To arrive at its conclusions the audit team spoke to members of staff throughout the University, to current students, and read a wide range of documents relating to the way the University manages the academic aspects of its provision.
The words 'academic standards' are used to describe the level of achievement that a student has to reach to gain an award (for example, a degree). It should be at a similar level across the UK.
Academic quality is a way of describing how well the learning opportunities available to students help them to achieve their awards. It is about making sure that appropriate teaching, support, assessment and learning opportunities are provided for them.
In institutional audit, both academic standards and academic quality are reviewed.
Outcome of the audit
As a result of its investigations, the audit team's view of the University is that:
- broad confidence can be placed in the soundness of the University's current and likely future management of the quality of its academic programmes and the academic standards of its awards.
Features of good practice
The audit team identified the following areas as being good practice:
- the responsive approach to student representation which promotes active student involvement in University processes at all levels in the institution
- the contribution of the Staff and Educational Development Unit to the sustenance and continuous improvement of the quality of educational provision across the University's campuses
- the comprehensive, accurate and accessible information provided to students including the Student Portal which allows seamless access to a variety of e-learning resources.
Recommendations for action
The audit team also recommends that the University should consider further action in a number of areas to ensure that the academic quality and standards of the awards it offers are maintained.
The team advises the University to:
- establish and maintain effective monitoring of assessment schemes for joint honours programmes, with particular reference to consistency in the regulations for borderline classifications and the coordination of the scheduling of examination boards where the results of joint honours students are considered
- in developing its policies and procedures for periodic review and audit, ensure the consistent application and implementation of systematic and uniform requirements for the inclusion of independent advisers external to the University in the membership of all panels
- ensure that formal agreements for the operation of collaborative arrangements preclude serial arrangements for provision leading to awards of the University, and also include a means for the University to approve all information produced by collaborative partners for publicity purposes.
It would be desirable, given the planned expansion of provision in overseas campuses, for the University to keep under review the continuing appropriateness of its policies and procedures for the management of the quality and standards of its awards offered through such arrangements.
Outcomes of discipline audit trails: Biology; English Studies; Pharmacy; Politics; Mathematical Sciences, and Mechanical, Materials and Manufacturing Engineering
The standard of student achievement in the programmes is appropriate to the titles of the awards and their location within The framework for higher education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (FHEQ). The quality of learning opportunities available to students is suitable for programmes of study leading to the awards.
National reference points
To provide further evidence to support its findings, the audit team also investigated the use made by the University of the Academic Infrastructure that QAA has developed on behalf of the whole of UK higher education. The Academic Infrastructure is a set of nationally agreed reference points that help to define both good practice and academic standards. The findings of the audit suggest that the University has responded appropriately to the FHEQ, subject benchmark statements, programme specifications and the Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education (Code of practice), published by QAA, noting that it is not yet in full alignment with the section of the Code of practice on collaborative provision
In due course, the institutional audit process will include a check on the reliability of information set published by institutions in the format recommended in the Higher Education Funding Council for Englands (HEFCE) documents, Information on quality and standards in higher education (HEFCE 02/15) and Information on quality and standards in higher education: Final guidance (HEFCE 03/51). The draft report will state that, at the time of the audit, the University was alert to the requirements set out in HEFCE 02/15 and to the implications of HEFCE 03/51, and was moving in an appropriate manner to fulfil its responsibilities in this respect.
Top