Foreword
1 This is a report of an academic quality audit of the University of Wales Swansea
(the University, or UWS) undertaken by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher
Education (QAA). QAA is grateful to the University for the willing co-operation
provided to the audit team.
2 The audit was carried out using a revised process approved by the former Higher Education Quality Council (HEQC) and endorsed by HEQC's successor body, the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. The modified process has been introduced following completion in 1997 of the original national academic quality audit programme which began in 1991 under the auspices of the CVCP's Academic Audit Unit (AAU) and was subsequently taken over by HEQC in 1992. The principal purpose of this revised process is to offer an opinion on the extent to which individual institutions are discharging effectively their corporate responsibilities for the academic standards and quality of their awards and associated programmes of study. The process takes as its starting point the assumption that institutions have appropriate quality assurance policies and procedures in place, and also assumes that they can provide convincing evidence that these are working to good effect. The audit checks the extent to which this is the case and that the methods used are sufficiently reliable to continue to provide stakeholders with the necessary assurances for the future. The audit process focuses on four main topics: the institution's quality strategy; academic standards; the learning infrastructure; and communications.
3 The primary source of documentary information and evidence used by the audit team about the University's quality assurance arrangements was its Analytical Account (the Account) of its quality assurance arrangements. The University also supplied a number of supporting documents, including its Undergraduate Prospectus, 1998/99, its Post-Graduate Prospectus, 1998/99, and its Handbook. Other documents made available to the team were the HEQC Quality Audit Report of 1993, the HEQC Overseas Partnership Audit report of the link between the University of Wales Swansea and Athens Campus Wales, Greece, the University's documents on its World Wide Web (WWW) site and published reports of Teaching Quality Assessments (TQA) conducted by the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (HEFCW).
4 At a briefing meeting held to discuss the University's submission, the audit team considered the commentary offered by the University in its Account and proposed a programme of meetings for a visit to the institution. The Account lists the documentary evidence used by the University in its management of quality and standards and these documents were available to the team during the audit visit.
5 The audit team visited the University from 15 to 19 March 1999. For the duration of the visit, the University made available to the team a base room containing the documents referred to in its Account. The team held meetings with more than 90 staff and students of the University. These meetings, together with the documents supplied by the University, provided the information, examples and evidence upon which this report is based.
6 The audit team comprised Professor T A M Irwin, Professor O D Jones, and Dr J Longmore, auditors, and Mr D F Batty, who acted as the audit secretary. The audit was co-ordinated for QAA by Mrs N J Channon, Head of Operations, Institutional Review Directorate.
7 A brief guide, 'facts and figures', prepared by the University is attached as appendix 1. A list of the University's collaborative partnerships, current at the time of the audit, is included as appendix 2.
The context for the audit
8 The University of Wales Swansea, as the University College of Swansea, received
its Royal Charter in 1920 and was established as the fourth Constituent College
of the University of Wales. The University is governed by its original Charter
and a Supplemental Charter granted in 1959, and awards degrees of the federal
University of Wales. The federal structure provides a basic regulatory framework
and a quality control mechanism for University of Wales degrees through its University
Subject Panels and its Academic Board. The Academic Framework approved in 1997
devolved additional responsibilities to the Constituent Institutions for the
determination of quality assurance arrangements and these were reflected by a
change in name from University College Swansea to University of Wales Swansea.
The University has 33 departments organised into five faculties of Arts and Social
Studies; Business, Economics and Law; Education and Health Studies; Engineering
and Science. Currently there are nearly 10,000 students with 7,000 full-time
undergraduates, 1,200 full-time postgraduates and 1,200 part-time undergraduates
and postgraduates.
9 In 1998, the University published a Strategic Plan in which it states that it is 'research led'. In its Mission Statement for the current quinquennium, published in the Strategic Plan, the University emphasised that it wished to 'continue to be a centre for excellence in research and scholarship'. This strong emphasis on research is directed at the Research Assessment Exercise and the Technology Foresight Programme. Departmental and interdisciplinary research centres have been established and the structure and responsibilities of the Graduate School have been reorganised to strengthen support for research students. Accreditation by professional and statutory bodies is an important feature of its academic programmes and students are actively encouraged to develop employment skills. The University undertakes to 'offer teaching, training and lifelong learning of the highest quality, both at first hand and indirectly via distance learning', and 'to facilitate regional economic growth and national wealth creation'. As part of its regional strategy it is engaged in the Community University of West and Mid Wales project, and, in association with Edexcel, UWS validates diplomas and certificates for further education colleges in South West Wales. It also has a small number of international collaborative programmes including outreach and franchised undergraduate programmes at Athens Campus (formerly known as Athens Campus Wales), and the Guilford Centre, Corfu. Through its Institute of Health Care Studies it operates postgraduate outreach schemes in Malaysia and Hong Kong.
10 A five-faculty structure was implemented in 1995 and a year earlier a Graduate School had been formed to oversee all postgraduate provision. Departments, regarded by the University as central to the new structure of governance, were established as cost centres, and for planning purposes were formed into nine Planning Groups of cognate subjects. These organisational changes were accompanied by the progressive development and introduction of modularisation of all undergraduate programmes from 1995 to 1998, (to be followed in 1999 by postgraduate programmes), a substantial revision of the academic quality infrastructure, introduced in 1998, and the implementation in 1996 of an administrative quality management system.
11 The University of Wales published its Academic Framework in June 1997 in which it is stated that the broad strategic aim of the University 'is to help create the conditions whereby its member institutions ...achieve their full potential and maintain national and international academic excellence'. The Academic Framework goes on to propose that certain administrative functions that had been carried out by the federal University should be devolved to the Constituent Institutions. In some cases the Constituent Institutions retained the option to request that the federal University should continue to provide the service to them. However, the University of Wales Swansea agreed to transfer most of the administrative functions from the federal University. The Academic Framework provides the minimum expectations of the Constituent Institutions in matters of quality assurance and the federal University expects that each of the Institutions should have its own effective mechanisms for the assurance of quality and standards. This quality audit focused on the effectiveness of those mechanisms operated by the University of Wales Swansea.
The Analytical Account and supporting documentation
12 Following a contextual introductory section, the Account is structured
around five main headings: - Developments since 1993;
- The quality strategy;
- Collaborative activities;
- Strengths and weaknesses;
- Future agenda.
There is clear referencing to supporting documentation which was made available to the team in the base room.
13 The audit focused upon the extent to which the University was able to satisfy itself that it had effective arrangements, and sufficient and reliable information, to ensure the quality of provision and secure the standards of awards which it is expected to deliver and achieve. The team took the Account as its starting point in preparing for its visit. The Account provides considerable detail concerning procedures and practices, and is helpful in identifying the key issues. The University had chosen to make the way in which it maintained the standards of its awards implicit rather than explicit in the Account.
14 In 1993, the then University College participated in an academic audit conducted by HEQC. The report of that audit commended several features of the quality assurance arrangements, but also highlighted many aspects to which the University might wish to give further consideration in relation to its quality management. The report stated that 'although much progress has been made, and more initiatives are planned, it is not yet possible to predict when the College will have attained the ''corporate quality awareness'' which is its stated aim'. The Account states that the 1993 report had set the agenda for the development of the University's quality strategy, and it clearly documents the action taken in the areas which had been specifically highlighted for further consideration. In particular, the University detailed the progress it has made in supporting postgraduates, in co-ordinating the library and computing provision, and in supporting staff and students. All these matters were considered by the audit team to have been positively addressed. Other points were still outstanding at the time of the audit visit, and are covered elsewhere in this report.
15 In 1994, the newly appointed Vice-Chancellor took direct responsibility for ensuring that quality issues were systematically addressed, and in 1996 he established the Vice-Chancellor's Quality Committee to run alongside the existing but more informal Vice-Chancellor's Advisory Group. The Vice-Chancellor's Quality Committee was established to steer and oversee the quality management of academic affairs and that of administrative departments. The Committee is chaired by the Vice-Chancellor, and includes two members of Council and an industrialist with experience of total quality management. The Account states that it was the Vice-Chancellor's Quality Committee that steered the changes made since the 1993 audit, having taken on board, in 1996, the work which had previously fallen under the remit of the Vice-Chancellor's Advisory Group. These changes have been designed to achieve greater unity in direction, and to improve the quality management arrangements by securing greater uniformity with regard to quality and standards, more effective reporting lines and improved communication across the organisation.
The University's quality strategy
16 The University's Account states that the quality strategy was formulated
by the Vice-Chancellor's Quality Committee, which has as its remit, 'oversight
of all aspects of quality at the University'. The Committee is also charged with
the responsibility of monitoring the overall quality arrangements. The main monitoring
mechanisms include reports on the operation of annual departmental reviews (see
below, paragraph 23), undergraduate and postgraduate issues, validated and franchised
provision and administrative audit reports.
17 The Account states that the University's quality strategy is 'rooted in the principle that ownership and responsibility for quality and for standards lie across the University as a whole', and that the strategy 'is based on a partnership between the central management, departments and faculties' which is set within a three tiered quality infrastructure. This structure, introduced in 1998, is designed to provide clearly defined responsibilities and reporting lines which enable quality control and assurance for academic and support services to be exercised at the appropriate level, so helping to ensure an effective audit of the arrangements. The Account describes how the introduction of modularisation formed an integral part of the quality strategy. It was designed 'to achieve greater uniformity' with regard to standards and quality and 'to introduce best practice'.
Quality management structures - academic strand and infrastructure
18 Within the academic strand of the quality management structure described by the University in its Account, a hierarchy of committees has been developed which comprises three tiers controlled by Senate and Council:
Tier 1: Learning and Teaching Committee
19 The Account states that the Learning and Teaching Committee 'is the main committee within the University which formulates quality policy and defines procedures relating to academic affairs'. The Committee, which reports to Senate, has the remit 'to develop and co-ordinate effective quality assurance and quality enhancement policies with regard to teaching and learning'. In addition to policy formation and quality control, its remit includes standards and enhancement. The Committee has established a number of sub-committees to focus attention on specific aspects of learning and teaching: the Graduate School Quality Sub-Committee, the Part-Time Degree Sub-Committee, the Validation Sub-Committee and the Employability Sub-Committee.
Tier 2: Faculty quality committees
20 Responsibility for quality management at the faculty level has been
devolved to faculty quality committees, in part to reduce the burden on
the Learning and Teaching Committee. Faculty quality committees were introduced
as an intermediate tier in the academic strand of the quality management
structures in 1998 following a review by the Vice-Chancellor's Quality
Committee and by the Learning and Teaching Committee. Their responsibilities
include programme approval and review (see below, paragraphs 36 to 38),
the nomination of external examiners, monitoring departmental reviews and
enhancement of the learning and teaching experience. Because they had been
introduced so recently, it was too early for the audit team to form a view
of their overall effectiveness, although the evidence made available to
the team indicated that, whilst they were making progress in addressing
quality control and assurance matters, their quality enhancement and dissemination
roles are as yet underdeveloped.
Tier 3: Departments
21 Departments are responsible for the day-to-day management of quality and standards. The prime means for discharging these responsibilities are the departmental learning and teaching committees and the departmental student-staff liaison committees, coupled with the annual reporting process (see below, paragraph 23). It was clear from the evidence made available to the audit team and from the meetings with staff that the focus of departmental learning and teaching committees varied from one department to another, and that the module review process was in general much more fully developed than the enhancement of teaching quality. A notable exception to this was the Department of Chemical Engineering which had developed comprehensive guidelines for preparing and conducting an annual departmental review of teaching quality. The team considered that the extended reporting line between the central committee and the departmental learning and teaching committees may limit the ability of the departmental committees to fulfil their remit.
Graduate School Quality Committee
22 The Graduate School Quality Committee is a sub-committee of the Learning
and Teaching Committee and is responsible for the review and enhancement
of postgraduate research training. In order to secure continuity it is
co-ordinating the modularisation of taught postgraduate programmes. From
the next session, faculty quality committees will assume responsibility
for the quality control of all taught postgraduate programmes.
23 Annual reports, which are produced as a result of annual departmental reviews, are presented to the faculty quality committees and the Learning and Teaching Committee, and are intended to confirm that the department has undertaken a review of modules and schemes of study and that this has been informed by feedback from students and external examiners. The reports should also include a consideration of assessment procedures and learning outcomes. Departments are required to provide a summary of the main issues considered and resolutions and actions taken.
24 Documentary evidence scrutinised by the audit team indicated that this format was effective in enabling the Learning and Teaching Committee, and the faculty quality committees, to determine how the process was operating, and to take corrective action, for example in ensuring that the frequency of meetings of student-staff committees and departmental committees is appropriate. However, the format does not provide the Learning and Teaching Committee or faculty quality committees with a systematic basis on which to ensure that the substantive points raised as part of student feedback have been addressed.
25 From the reports seen by the audit team there appeared to be some unevenness in the identification by departments in the summary sections of the reports of the main issues, resolutions and actions taken, and of the consideration given to these by the faculty quality committees and the Learning and Teaching Committee. It was not always clear from the minutes of these committees how the specific matters that have been noted were being addressed. As the Account claims that 'considerable emphasis is placed on the Annual Departmental Reviews' the University may wish to consider how it might provide a more systematic basis for determining those matters which should be brought to the attention of the appropriate committees.
Departmental assessment visits
26 Whilst the process of departmental assessment visits was introduced as part of the preparation for TQA visits, the University also used the process to provide internal quality assurance information and to review departments such as Adult Continuing Education and the Institute of Health Care Studies which had not been subject to the external TQA process. The documentary evidence available to the audit team confirmed that the departmental assessment process provided an effective means for departmental quality assurance and enhancement. The external TQA cycle has now been completed, and the University is building on this practice and drawing on experience from elsewhere to introduce a process of departmental audit to be conducted on a five- or six-year cycle and including an external assessor. The audit will encompass quality assessment, assurance and enhancement and be set in the context of the University's proposed Learning and Teaching Strategy. The University is to be commended for the protocol of departmental audits.
Overview of quality management
27 The quality control function, including the monitoring of standards, is exercised through the consideration, on an annual cycle, of the reports of annual departmental reviews, external examiners' reports and the outcomes from the student survey and, in the longer term, of the reports from departmental audit visits. The audit team noted that apart from the departmental audits there was no systematic monitoring and review of student completion rates and achievement data by faculty quality committees or the Learning and Teaching Committee. It was also observed that there was no process for considering these data on a University-wide basis. The University may wish to consider a more effective alignment of the annual departmental report and the five-year departmental audit process to ensure that consideration is given to these important indicators of academic standards. In reviewing this matter, the University might wish to draw on the guidelines for the annual review of teaching quality prepared by the Department of Chemical Engineering (see above, paragraph 21). Consideration should also be given as to how the University might undertake a corporate comparison of student progression and achievement data.
28 Scrutiny of documentation, and meetings with staff, demonstrated that whilst the Learning and Teaching Committee had performed an effective role in overseeing the introduction of new procedures such as departmental visits and the production of the Teaching Quality Manual, much of the Committee's business was primarily concerned with reacting to quality control matters. There was little evidence as yet of the Committee anticipating the quality implications of the University's Strategic Plan, or indeed of any systematic direction of quality enhancement in respect of learning and teaching. This reactive stance is underlined by the concerns expressed by HEFCW to the University regarding the lack in the University's Strategic Plan of an explicit strategy for learning and teaching. However, at the time of the audit, the University was in the process of developing a detailed institution-wide strategy for learning and teaching. The early draft of the strategy paper seen by the audit team set down the mechanisms by which the University would be able to demonstrate the implementation of the broad objectives for learning and teaching within three years. Further development of the paper and early adoption of the strategy should be a priority for the University.
29 The University has a small portfolio of overseas and UK franchised and validated collaborative programmes. These include franchise and outreach provision at The Athens Campus and the Guilford Foundation Programme, Corfu. UWS also validates HND courses at Swansea College and Carmarthenshire College in association with Edexcel. The University's Account gives as one of its specific aims and objectives 'to develop a regional strategy with a variety of partners to widen access' but the audit team understood that the University had no plans to extend its overseas provision.
30 Proposals to validate undergraduate programmes beyond levels 0 and 1, and to validate postgraduate programmes, must be approved by the Validation Board of the Federal University. The administration of validated and franchise programmes within UWS is co-ordinated by the Validation Unit which reports to the Validation Sub-Committee of the Learning and Teaching Committee, and through that Committee to the Planning and Resources Committee and Senate. It was clear from the documentation available to the audit team, and from discussions with staff, that UWS monitoring arrangements are working satisfactorily, and that the processing of all assessment reports and examination marks through the faculty boards is enabling them to play a more effective role in assuring the comparability of standards.
31 The University also offers a range of outreach taught postgraduate programmes.
These programmes differ from other collaborative arrangements in that they
are taught wholly by UWS staff. Proposals are submitted to the Validation
Unit for approval, and they are subject to the same quality assurance and
control mechanisms as those delivered at Swansea. The present approval
and monitoring arrangements do not provide for University-level scrutiny
of the resources available to students at the outreach centres. It was
not clear to the audit team how in the absence of a formal report at the
time of approval and monitoring the University could assure itself of the
initial and continuing adequacy of the resource base.
32 The Account describes how the Vice-Chancellor's Quality Committee 'is now more involved with quality enhancement rather than quality assurance'. It was evident to the audit team from the documentation and meetings with staff that the external members are actively and productively engaged in the quality management processes and that the Vice-Chancellor and this committee have played an innovative role in shaping the direction and implementation of the quality strategy in both the academic and administrative domains. The Learning and Teaching Committee is exercising its responsibility for quality control but the University's quality strategy requires that the Committee should adopt a more strategic role. The team did not consider that the Learning and Teaching Committee had yet taken on this role.
Academic standards of programmes and awards
33 The University states in its Account that it had 'adopted a Quality
Strategy in which individuals, committees and statutory bodies interact to establish
standards' and that it has the responsibility for assuring standards. The Learning
and Teaching Committee has an explicit remit to maintain and monitor standards via the
faculties (and their quality committees), the Graduate School Quality Committee,
the Part-Time Degree Sub-Committee and the Validation Sub-Committee.
34 Staff who met the audit team confirmed the view that these responsibilities were clearly located within the University. However, the team noted that the jointly-agreed Academic Framework referred to the degree-awarding body, the University of Wales, acting 'to ensure the maintenance of the highest academic standards in respect of its qualifications and to preserve and protect their reputation and integrity'. The federal University has a significant role in setting standards through the involvement of University Subject Panel members in programme approval (see below paragraph 36). It contributes to the monitoring of standards through the receipt of a federal section of the external examiners' reports. Among the external examiners who met the team there appeared to be some uncertainty about the role of the University of Wales in processing the optional federal section of their reports. In at least one instance, this feedback cycle did not appear to be operating effectively. The team noted a lack of clarity about this relationship with the University and therefore had difficulty in forming a clear assessment of the precise balance of responsibilities for the security of standards between the University and the University of Wales.
35 Although institutional policy for setting and maintaining standards
is not fully articulated in the Account, the team was able to examine
several mechanisms identified by the University as means for safeguarding
standards:
- programme approval and review;
- admissions procedures;
- external peer review;
- regulatory frameworks and assessment practices.
36 The Account refers to the responsibility of the faculties, through the faculty quality committees, for the approval of new modules and schemes of study and the review of existing degree schemes. Details of the relevant procedures are provided in the Teaching Quality Manual, where there is reference to the use of external assessors at the planning stage of a new scheme of study to help ensure that an appropriate standard is set. At the second stage of validation, the faculty quality committee acts as a validation panel for undergraduate schemes of study while the Graduate School Quality Sub-Committee deals with postgraduate schemes. Further externality is provided at this stage by the University of Wales, which appoints a University Subject Panel (USP) representative to serve on the validation panel. The USP representative submits a separate report to the University of Wales Subject Panel, which is then forwarded to the federal University's Academic Board. The team examined documentation relating to the proposed BSc in Medical Sciences and Humanities, and noted the effective use of externality in ensuring appropriate standards for a new programme.
37 Programme review procedures appeared to be less well-established than approval procedures, and to have relied heavily on the external TQA cycle which has recently been completed. Whilst there was evidence of considerable review activity within the Faculty of Science Quality Committee, there appeared to be a backlog among the less well-established faculty quality committees despite reference to a specific requirement for 'regular' review of schemes of study in the Teaching Quality Manual. At the taught postgraduate level there is a simultaneous modularisation and review process currently under way for all programmes: the written consent of the external examiner is required as part of this process.
38 At the time of the audit visit, the proposal to introduce the departmental audit process had recently been approved by the Senate (see above, paragraph 26). Such reviews will offer further means of assuring the maintenance of standards at departmental level, as well as ensuring more explicit consideration of academic standards at the Learning and Teaching Committee.
39 The admission of both undergraduate and, since 1998, postgraduate students has been the responsibility of the Admissions Office within the Planning and Marketing Department. Admissions policy is formulated by a sub-committee of the Planning and Resources Committee, the Admissions and Marketing Committee, which is chaired by a Pro-Vice-Chancellor. The latter acts as Dean of Admissions and sets departmental admissions targets. The audit team was told that admissions criteria were set in annual discussions between the Dean of Admissions and departmental admissions selectors with regard both to comparability across the sector and to the requirements of professional bodies. The team noted a high level of awareness of the more flexible admissions criteria which will be required as the University pursues its projected strategy of widening access in South and West Wales. An Access Working Party reports to the Admissions and Marketing Committee and admissions selectors are provided with guides to good practice in terms of a range of entry qualifications. The Account states that 'the University has continued to maintain high standards for admission to its courses' and that 'the graduate achievements reflect this trend'.
40 The effectiveness of admissions policies and procedures is monitored regularly both through the Pro-Vice-Chancellor's membership of the informal Vice- Chancellor's Advisory Group and through his regular reports to the Vice-Chancellor's Quality Committee. In addition, in May 1998, the Admissions Office went through a periodic review conducted by a team drawn from the Vice-Chancellor's Quality Committee. The audit team concluded that the undergraduate admissions process was effectively managed. However, some inconsistencies were noted in the admissions procedures for postgraduate students which suggested that postgraduate admissions were still undergoing realignment within the Admissions Office.
41 The University's Account stresses the importance of external peer review in the monitoring of standards and in ensuring comparability of standards with other UK universities. The role of external examiners, the accreditation of programmes, such as engineering, law, education and health, by professional bodies and the HEFCW Teaching Quality Assessment visits are all cited as mechanisms for securing standards. External examiners are drawn from beyond the University of Wales and, in line with the recommendation of the 1993 HEQC Report, attend all meetings where degrees are classified.
42 As indicated in the Teaching Quality Manual reports from external
examiners and professional bodies are circulated to each Head of Department
as well as to the Vice-Chancellor, the Academic Registrar and the Pro-Vice-Chancellor
(Academic Affairs), the Chair of the Learning and Teaching Committee and
the appropriate faculty quality committee. In addition, the Committee on
Academic Quality and Standards of the University of Wales may receive reports
at the discretion of individual external examiners. A summary of actions
taken in response to reports from external examiners and professional bodies
is prepared by heads of departments and submitted to the relevant faculty
quality committee. It is the responsibility of the Dean to forward a short
report to the Learning and Teaching Committee regarding issues of institutional
concern arising from external reports and confirming that departments have
responded appropriately to such external comment. In addition, annual departmental
reports must include evidence that the department considered and responded
to external examiners' reports. The team noted, however, that there was
no equivalent section for professional body reports and was unclear as
to how the University was made aware of any issues arising out of such
reports. Moreover, as the Learning and Teaching Committee does not receive
copies of external examiner reports, it is not in a position to ensure
that all the points raised have been fully addressed. The University will
wish to consider how to ensure that all appropriate action has been taken
in response to external examiners' reports.
Regulatory frameworks and assessment practices
43 At undergraduate level, the University observes the Enabling Regulations for Modular Initial Degrees of the University of Wales as well as its own supplementary modular regulations. Postgraduate taught programmes are currently undergoing modularisation and will operate in accordance with the relevant regulations of the University of Wales and the Higher Education Credit Initiative Wales. The introduction of modularisation of all undergraduate teaching in 1995 was intended to contribute to the maintenance of standards by increasing uniformity in assessment practices across the University and by introducing best practice. A handbook, Assessment in a Modular Environment, containing full details of the regulations, procedures and structures was produced by the Deans' Academic Committee and is available to staff and students through departments and the library.
44 The publication of modules in University-wide catalogues has encouraged cross module comparisons of standards in terms of module content, assessment and teaching methods. However, despite reference in the regulations of the University of Wales to the circulation of level descriptors to all institutions the audit team was unable to find evidence of substantial engagement with the articulation of standards at different levels. At the time of the audit visit, a working party of the University's Deans' Academic Committee had commenced a review of modularisation which included examination of credit values and level descriptors.
45 The phased introduction of modularisation between 1995 and 1998 was monitored by the Deans' Academic Committee and, more recently at departmental level, by the informal Forum for Departmental Co-ordinators for Modular Degrees. During the visit, the audit team became aware of a number of problems associated with the method adopted for the introduction of the modular scheme, including the lack of a progressive overview of the evolving system. It appeared to the team that the implications of modularisation for a number of subject areas and their professional bodies had not been fully considered in advance. However, the team considered that the Forum for Departmental Co-ordinators of Modular Degrees had played an effective enhancement role in respect of the implementation of the scheme and that this Forum could play a more active role in quality improvement.
46 From the documentation available to it, including HEFCW Teaching Quality Assessments, and from discussion with a group of external examiners, the audit team noted a mixed response by external bodies to the modular assessment procedures. In particular, there were numerous comments on the University's 'Cascade System' of undergraduate degree classification which is based upon differential weighting of student performance across levels two and three. During 1997-98 considerable concern was expressed by external examiners within the Faculty of Engineering about the compatibility of the new modular assessment regulations with the requirements of the professional bodies. Successive TQA reports had also raised issues relating to student assessment and achievement. It was not clear to the team that all of these concerns had progressed through the system to ensure full consideration by the Learning and Teaching Committee and subsequent feedback to the relevant parties. In view of the emphasis placed by the University on external reports as key elements in the system for monitoring standards, the team suggests that more comprehensive consideration should be given in the current review of the University's undergraduate assessment procedures to the reports of external examiners and of professional bodies for the years 1997-98 and 1998-99 to ensure a University-wide response.
47 From documentation and in discussions with staff during the visit, the audit team learnt that the University had made gradual modifications to the progression and award rules of the modular scheme, which had led to considerable inconsistencies in assessment practices across the University. In particular, the level of variation in the operation of the 'Cascade System' had led to the establishment of an Assessment Working Group of the Deans' Academic Committee. This group produced a report which commented that the rules were 'close to being unsustainable' as a result of variations permitted by the University. Mid-year modifications to the assessment regulations have recently become necessary in order to address unanticipated problems with the existing condonement criteria, but staff who met the audit team observed that this was an interim measure to satisfy the professional bodies in engineering. Under the heading of 'future agenda' in the University's Account it was stated that a review of modularisation was under way but that 'fundamental alterations cannot be introduced before October 2000' as the current cohort of students is following the existing rules. Whilst the team accepts that the University has identified the problems generated by the implementation of modularisation, and is taking steps to review the existing system, the University will wish to give particular priority to the deliberations of the Deans' Academic Committee's working groups.
48 The University states in its Strategic Plan that one of its specific aims in delivering its Mission Statement over the next five years is to 'press ahead with its ongoing programme of raising standards'. The audit team was made aware of considerable institutional progress in terms of data collection throughout the visit. The administrative staff in charge of the newly-computerised student record system, for example, had gathered examination data for the last three cohorts. However, there appeared to have been little reference to such data in the deliberations of the Learning and Teaching Committee, despite its responsibility for maintaining and monitoring standards. Administrative staff who met the team confirmed that insufficient internal and external data was used to inform committee discussions but referred to the projected departmental audits as a future means of introducing statistical indicators. Nonetheless, the team concluded that an institutional overview and analysis was still required in areas such as student progression and achievement as a means of improving standards.
49 In preliminary documentation for the departmental audits the University demonstrated awareness of the need for a new approach to the management of standards. This would incorporate aspects of the 'changing quality agenda' such as programme specifications and benchmarking. The audit team noted the University's intention to establish a further informal group as a means of disseminating information about these developments: the Forum for Chairs of Departmental Teaching Committees. In addition, there have been recent staff development courses on programme specification and benchmarking. Discussions with both newly-appointed and established staff suggested that awareness of these developments is not, as yet, widespread. The University may wish to consider the desirability of emphasising the role of the newly-established Forum for Chairs of Departmental Teaching Committees in sharing such knowledge held at departmental level.
Standards in collaborative provision
50 Management of standards in the University's limited validated, franchised and outreach provision is the responsibility of the linked departments, overseen by the Validation Sub-Committee and the Senior Pro-Vice-Chancellor. The Teaching Quality Manual includes detailed procedures for franchising schemes of study while outreach schemes are subject to the same approval processes as programmes taught at the University. Approval of validated provision at undergraduate levels 2 and 3 and at postgraduate level is the responsibility of the University of Wales.
51 In its Account the University emphasises assessment as providing 'the key measure of consistency of standards' for collaborative provision. Examination marks and progression issues are considered at the University's own examination boards with collaborative representatives in attendance. Responsibility for monitoring franchised programmes lies with the Validation Sub-Committee, while the University of Wales Validation Board considers the annual monitoring of all validated courses. In view of the evidence available to the team, it considered that the UWS procedures, linked with the monitoring role of the federal University, provide a sound basis for safeguarding the standard of its collaborative provision.
The learning infrastructure
52 In its Account, the University draws attention to its policies for
supporting staff and students. The audit team noted that several of the recommendations
made in the 1993 HEQC report for further consideration related to matters of
staff and student support, and so was particularly interested to learn how the
University has developed its policies and practices in these areas.
Library and computing provision
53 The HEQC Report of 1993 suggested 'that new mechanisms should be introduced to co-ordinate library and computing provision'. At the time of the HEQC audit, the IT and library services were separately managed, and the IT section serviced both academic and administrative requirements. As a result of discussion originally initiated by the informal Vice-Chancellor's Advisory Group, the academic side of the Computing Centre's work has been absorbed into a new, composite Library and Information Services (LIS). From discussions with staff and students, and from the results of the annual general satisfaction survey, the audit team considered that the claim in the Account that these changes had been beneficial was widely endorsed. These services are still in course of development, for example the library opening hours have recently increased, and, the team learnt, may well increase still further, in the direction of 24-hour provision. Monitoring of these services seems particularly thorough as the University seeks feedback on its services through a suggestion box, with responses being posted on a noticeboard, as well as through the annual LIS satisfaction survey. In addition library attendance is monitored so that new patterns of need may be detected. The University recognises that developments in collaborative provision, especially in South and West Wales, will pose further problems in respect of library resources and, especially, IT provision and is developing strategies to deal with these. The team formed the view that the Library and Information Service was well managed and responsive to the needs of the academic community.
54 The Account recognises that there were inconsistencies between
departments in implementing systems of personal tutoring. This inconsistency
in approach had also been raised with the University by the Students' Representatives
Forum. The nature of these variations means, for example, that in some
cases the tutor is also in effect the academic advisor, but in some cases
not. In addition, from discussions by the audit team with staff it appeared
that by no means all members of the academic staff are aware of the availability
of study skills support for students having difficulty with their courses.
A University working party has drawn up a draft Guide to Good Practice which
recommends that all prospective personal tutors should undertake a relevant
Staff Development Unit training course. The team would encourage the University
to implement the Guide to Good Practice to ensure that an adequate
level of personal advice and support is available to all students.
55 The 1993 HEQC report had identified several points for further consideration
to do with the way in which postgraduate students were supported and monitored.
The Account also recognises that in the past the University had
not given sufficient support for postgraduate students. In an effort to
resolve this matter the University established the Graduate School to enable
it to focus all postgraduate matters in one place. As part of its role
in monitoring student progress, the School provides a second level of annual
review of students after departmental review, and can require extra reports
in cases where a student's progress is unsatisfactory. A recent development
has been to introduce an additional monitoring stage at the middle point
of the first year. The School also arranges training courses for students
useful both in themselves and as a means of bringing together postgraduate
students from diverse disciplines. The University has established a Graduate
School Assembly which is a staff-postgraduate students' forum reporting
to the Graduate School Committee. However, some of the research students
met by the team were not aware of its existence. Students met by the team
expressed their satisfaction with the support received from their departments
and the International Office. The Graduate School may wish to consider
how it might further a sense of community across the postgraduate body
as a whole. The team considered that the University had successfully addressed
the requirements of the postgraduate students and that appropriate steps
had been taken to ensure that sufficient support and monitoring was in
place.
56 In the 1993 HEQC report, both the provision of student support and student counselling were highlighted as areas for further consideration. During its meetings with students the audit team was told that the student support services were operating successfully. The Careers Centre has grown considerably since 1993 and offers a wide range of advice, extending to temporary and term-time employment. The Centre reviews its own activities through regular satisfaction surveys which show a high level of student satisfaction. There is close collaboration between Admissions, the Students' Union and the Examinations Office to meet the requirements of students with special needs. Special needs provision is being increased and facilities for visually-impaired students are outstanding. The provision of student counselling was judged 'perhaps the least satisfactory aspect of the support services' by the HEQC report of 1993. Since that time, the Counselling Service has expanded to meet the demands placed upon it.
57 The HEQC report called for further co-ordination of all aspects of student
welfare. In response, the University founded the Student Support Liaison
Group, but it does not appear that this Group has significant formal status,
since it meets infrequently and reports only to the Student Union Liaison
Committee. However, in the view of the audit team much has been done to
improve the student support services and, whilst the profile of the Student
Support Liaison Group could usefully be raised, the team considered that
the informal links between the support services themselves, and between
the Students' Union and the support services, now seem to be strong.
Staff training and development
58 There was a call in the 1993 Report for 'greater emphasis on staff training and development'. The Staff Development Unit (SDU) now runs a wide range of induction and training courses, partly on its own initiative and partly in response to needs emerging, for example, from appraisal. From discussions with fixed-term staff and postgraduates the team understood that the Unit was well aware of the special requirements of these groups. The SDU monitors the success of its programme by means of questionnaires issued at the end of each course. The Staff Training and Development Committee, which meets annually, and reports to Senate, serves as a steering committee.
59 The Account describes the procedures that had been put in place in 1997 for promotion to senior lecturer. The procedures were designed to reward success in teaching and learning or contribution to the profession or the community. In discussions with staff, the audit team noted that there seemed to be general agreement that the new procedures for promotion represented a marked improvement, but that there was some indication that that they were not yet significantly more successful in identifying and rewarding teaching ability.
60 The Account states that the University will be setting up a Human Resources Committee which will have responsibility for co-ordinating all personnel policies. However, the remit of the proposed committee seemed to the audit team to be as yet rather vaguely defined, and the team was unable to establish what the timetable for establishing this important committee was likely to be.
61 The Account describes the induction process that all new members
of staff are required to attend. The induction includes some training in
teaching and marking; thereafter their chief source of information is provided
by the department. Apart from booklets of various kinds produced by the
University, there is also a mentoring system and it is in this way that
staff gain further knowledge of the Department's standards, traditions
and preoccupations. The audit team formed the opinion that the University's
staff training and development was well managed and effective.
62 There was evidence from discussions with staff that the Administrative Support staff were well organised, worked closely with senior academic staff and had contact with user groups. They have shown themselves to be proactive in a variety of ways including writing policy drafts for the principal quality committees. As the work of the staff crosses departmental and other boundaries, they have a good overview of many aspects of the University's work, and are able to use this to good effect through the dissemination of good practice.
Internal and external communications
Communication with staff
63 The Account describes how the University responded to internal concerns in 1994 that communication between management and staff in the departments was not effective. The Account goes on to suggest that communications systems are now 'a major strength'. The changes that have taken place started with the reorganisation of the faculties and the governance in 1995. Much of the emphasis is now on informal contacts of various kinds. A number of these for example, the Planning Groups, the Heads of Department Meeting, and the Forum for Departmental Co-ordinators for Modular Degrees, have had the useful effect of cutting across departmental boundaries. In discussions with staff, the audit team understood that the methods for communication were sound, but that the informal nature of some of the communication did not encourage a more formal involvement by all members of staff in strategy issues. The team endorsed the University's view that staff communications were working well, but would wish to encourage the University to develop a more systematic method of ensuring discussion at all levels of the implications of University strategies.
64 The University has been commended in TQA reports for its 'open door' policy, which the team understood from discussion with staff and students is valued. Students' Union officers stated that they felt able to make a direct approach to the Vice-Chancellor or to one of the Pro-Vice-Chancellors concerning major issues.
65 There is effective student representation on the main University committees and the sabbatical officers are trained in preparation for such work by the Students' Union. An interesting Union initiative is the Course Representatives' Assembly, which brings together representatives from every staff-student committee and deals primarily in generic issues. Staff and students who met the audit team indicated that staff-student liaison within departments is generally effective, although a recent Union survey found that over 50 per cent of students could not name their course representative. The team considered that the University has a strong basis for good staff-student relations.
66 In its Account, the University outlines the induction arrangements
for students including an induction week which, from discussions with students,
the audit team understood to be well regarded. There is also a special
one-week orientation programme for overseas students which, the team was
told, was also well thought of, although it is unfortunately not available
to those arriving after the start of the academic year. The University
has established good induction arrangements which have done much towards
reducing the number of students dropping out in the early days of programmes.
67 The Account describes the new student record system which was fully functioning by the time of the audit visit. Students confirmed to the team that they now had direct access to their own records and that the information was secure. Administrative support staff hope now to be able to generate more sophisticated statistical data for central monitoring.
68 The Account draws attention to a range of handbooks, manuals
and other publications available to students. Students seemed satisfied
that their experience at Swansea matched the description they had read
in advance in prospectuses. There is a wide variety of miscellaneous information
available in printed form. For example, the International Office offers
a number of useful leaflets. Responsibility in the area of publications
is at present divided, so that, for example, a departmental booklet is
the responsibility of the head of department. However the Director of Planning
and Marketing is to provide a further level of oversight, and will be sent
copies of all departmental material.
69 Communication is certain to be a crucial factor in the development of the Community University of the Valleys if the students concerned are to feel that they are participating in a common enterprise. The Department of Adult Continuing Education has acquired valuable experience in this area and looks well prepared to carry the initiative forward. The University recognises that this development will place many additional demands on its infrastructure, but on the basis of the progress made over the past five years the audit team was confident that the University understood the demands that this development would place on it and was in a position to respond positively to them.
Conclusion
70 The University's Analytical Account offers an indication
of the considerable extent to which quality assurance issues have been
addressed and moved forward since the HEQC audit of 1993. The development
of both academic and administrative quality assurance arrangements has
been pursued with much energy from the highest levels of the central administration.
The personal commitment of the Vice-Chancellor to changing the culture
of the institution and to 'cascading the quality ethos' was evident. A
particularly innovative feature was the establishment of the Vice-Chancellor's
Quality Committee to drive the quality strategy. This Committee continues
to play an effective role in maintaining both strategic and operational
oversight of the quality assurance infrastructure. However, despite the
intended shift in the balance of responsibilities from the Vice-Chancellor's
Quality Committee to the existing Learning and Teaching Committee, the
latter has yet to prove that it can take effective control of responsibility
for quality and standards, especially in terms of quality enhancement and
the dissemination of good practice. The Learning and Teaching Committee
is supposedly a central element in the academic quality assurance framework
but tends to act as a conduit for issues rather than fulfilling its specific
remit. It will need to assume a more pivotal and decisive role in future
as the Vice-Chancellor's Quality Committee moves towards a more supervisory
function.
71 The University is undergoing significant internal transition with the recent modularisation of the undergraduate and, from 1999, of the taught postgraduate degree programmes. In addition, a full cycle of HEFCW teaching quality assessments finished in the current academic year. Structural changes have been deliberately limited during this period of transition. However, at the same time, the existing committees have tended to operate reactively in terms of quality assurance. The review process offers a clear example of this reactive tendency with heavy reliance on the external teaching quality assessment cycle for the purpose of programme review. A potentially rigorous internal review process has been approved by Senate and will be introduced in the next academic year in the shape of quinquennial audits of all aspects of departmental provision overseen by the Learning and Teaching Committee. This process may encourage the recently-established departmental learning and teaching committees to engage more fully with their remit and to overcome the limitations of their rather extended reporting line to the central Learning and Teaching Committee.
72 While the University appeared to be discharging its responsibility for the maintenance of standards, in combination with the University of Wales, the exact division of responsibility for standards between the two institutions remained occasionally unclear. A number of feedback loops did not appear to be fully operational, including the joint arrangements for external examiners' reports and the monitoring of some aspects of collaborative provision. The latter may generate particular difficulties in view of the institutional commitment to expanding collaborative links in South and West Wales over the next five years.
73 Internal mechanisms for setting, maintaining and monitoring standards have been further developed, although there was little explicit reference to these mechanisms in the documentation supplied by the University. There has been an increase in the degree of externality used in the design of new programmes in addition to continuing reliance on federal mechanisms such as approval by University Subject Panel members. External examiners are now drawn wholly from beyond the University of Wales. However, the phased introduction of the modular degree at undergraduate level has resulted in a number of unforeseen difficulties. Whilst a review of the modular system has commenced, there is an urgent need for a co-ordinated oversight of existing arrangements in order to limit variations in assessment practices. More extensive central use of statistical data relating to student achievement is required for the establishment of comparability of standards both on- and off-campus and beyond the University. There is a significant degree of institutional involvement in current developments in benchmarking and academic review, yet there was limited evidence of wider institutional engagement with the implications of these developments for safeguarding standards.
74 There has been considerable progress in the development of the learning infrastructure, including regular and rigorous scrutiny of the effectiveness of support services. More consideration of the requirements generated by franchised and distance-learning provision will be required as there is a change in the strategic direction of the University's collaborative arrangements. Cross-institutional communication has also become more effective, although there is still a marked tendency among departments to maintain separate identities and informal systems of internal communication. However, a group of energetic and well-informed administrative staff within the Academic Registry has begun to undertake a more prominent role in supporting the quality assurance functions of both departments and central committees. Whilst not subsuming wider staff responsibilities, this development should provide a useful vehicle for the closer integration of centrally-driven initiatives and departmental responsibilities for quality and standards as well as for the dissemination of good practice across the University.
75 The Account offers a useful insight into the quality assurance arrangements of the University during a period of transition. Considerable progress has been made, and a further re-alignment of responsibilities for academic quality and standards is currently under way. The latter will require a marked transfer of energies from central to departmental level. In the light of the range of evidence made available to the team, the quality of the Account and the measures that the University is promoting to implement its quality strategy, the team is broadly confident that the University will continue to manage its responsibilities for quality and standards effectively.
Points for commendation
76 The audit team wishes, in particular, to commend the University
for:
- the extensive progress in developing the ethos of quality and associated
arrangements since the 1993 audit report (paragraphs 14 and 15);
- the achievements of the Vice-Chancellor's Quality Committee in determining
the institution's quality strategy and in monitoring its implementation
(paragraphs 19 and 32);
- the protocol for departmental audits (paragraph 26);
- the involvement of members of the University Council and external advisers
in the work of the Vice-Chancellor's Quality Committee (paragraph 32);
- the effectiveness of the Forum for Departmental Co-ordinators for Modular
Degrees in addressing operational aspects of the undergraduate modular
scheme (paragraph 45);
- the effectiveness of the student support services, including those for
special needs, careers, library and information services, and international
students (paragraphs 53, 56, 57 and 66);
- the effectiveness of the monitoring of research student progress (paragraph
53);
- the strength of central administration for quality-related activities
(paragraph 62);
- the effectiveness of staff/student liaison (paragraphs 64 and 65); and
- the Student's Union Course Representatives Assembly (paragraph 65).
Points for further consideration
77 As it continues to develop its systems and arrangements for assuring
the quality of its educational provision and the standards of its awards,
the University may wish to consider the advisability of:
- clarifying the basis on which issues arising from annual departmental reports,
external examiners' reports and professional body reports are brought to the
attention of Faculty Quality Committees and the Learning and Teaching Committee,
and ensuring that the appropriate higher-level committee is able to determine
the adequacy of the response (paragraphs 25 and 42);
- ensuring that consideration is given at institutional level to an analysis
of student progression and achievement statistics as part of the ongoing
monitoring of standards (paragraph 27);
- ensuring that the Learning and Teaching Committee develops a mode of
working to enable it to foresee and deal with quality assurance implications
of the University's Strategic Plan (paragraph 28);
- completing and implementing its learning and teaching strategy at the
earliest opportunity (paragraph 28);
ensuring that academic standards be given more explicit consideration
at tier 1 of its academic infrastructure (paragraph 38);
- completing the review of the undergraduate assessment process so as
to enable it to achieve consistency in assessment decisions giving comprehensive
consideration to the views of its external examiners' and professional
body reports for the years 1997-98 and 1998-99 (paragraphs 46 and 47);
and the desirability of:
- considering a closer relationship between the departmental audit and
the annual departmental review (paragraph 27);
- ensuring it has the means to satisfy itself of the adequacy of resources
available to its outreach activities (paragraph 31);
- extending the remit of the Forum for Departmental Co-ordinators for
Modular Degrees to include quality improvement in learning and teaching
(paragraph 45);
- developing more effective means of disseminating the knowledge, information
and experience held at departmental level of internal and external developments,
for example, benchmarking, computing and information technology (paragraph
49); and
- extending awareness of the implications of its various strategies at
all levels (paragraph 63).
Appendix 1
University of Wales, Swansea - facts and figures
Number of staff (as at 30 November 1998)
Academic (teaching and research) - 648 (full-time); 92 (part-time)
Administrative, Library, Computing - 139 (full-time); 14 (part-time)
Other academic related - 46 (full-time); 45 (part-time)
Technical - 108 (full-time); 17 (part-time)
Clerical - 243 (full-time); 117 (part-time)
Manual/domestic - 107 (full-time); 255 (part-time)
Financial information (1997-98)
Income
in £0,000
Funding Council grants - 31,588
Fees and support grants - 17,129
Research grants/contracts - 8,345
Other operating income - 17,161
Endowment income and interest receivable
- 780
Total - 75,003
Expenditure
Staff costs
- 40,068
Depreciation - 2,518
Other operating expenses - 29,141
Interest payable - 1,401
Total - 73,128
Surplus after depreciation of assets at Valuation and minority interests - 1,875
Student numbers (1998-99)
Full-time
Arts & Social Studies
-
2,644 (UG); 178 (PGT); 96 (PGR)
Business, Economics & Law - 1,144 (UG); 17 (PGT); 17 (PGR)
Education & Health Care - 835 (UG); 334 (PGT); 37 (PGR)
Engineering - 673 (UG); 45 (PGT); 185 (PGR)
Science - 1,734 (UG); 45 (PGT); 194 (PGR)
Total - 7,030 (UG); 619 (PGT); 529 (PGR)
Part-time - 932 (UG); 564 (PGT); 343 (PGR)
Male/female numbers
Full-time UG - 3,101 (male); 3,929 (female)
Full-time PG - 615 (male); 533 (female)
Part-time UG - 143 (male); 789 (female)
Part-time PG - 391 (male); 516 (female)
Total - 4,250 (male); 5,767 (female)
All students by domicile
Wales
- 4,916
England - 3,895
Scotland - 17
Northern Ireland - 17
EU - 547
Other Overseas - 593
Data unavailable - 24
Appendix 2
List of the University's collaborative arrangements
Franchised agreements
1 Guilford Foundation Programme, Corfu
Franchised courses at Foundation (level 0) and level 1
2 Athens Campus (formerly known as Athens Campus Wales), Athens
A number of franchised courses at Foundation (level 0) and level 1
Three fully franchised schemes, approved by the University of Wales Validation Board:
BA (Hons) in English Language and Italian with Business Studies (MLBS)
BSc (Hons) in Psychology
BScEcon (Hons) in Business Economics
3 Hogeschool, Enschede, The Netherlands
A one-year MSc in Chemical Engineering, approved by the University of Wales Validation Board
4 Pembroke College
A BSc in Nursing and Midwifery, approved by the University of Wales Validation Board
5 Swansea College
A two-year HND in Sports Science, approved by the University of Wales Validation Board
Validated agreements
1 National Birds of Prey Centre, Newent, Gloucester
Diploma in Raptor Biology
2 School of Nursing, Mid-Glamorgan
Diploma in Children's Nursing
Outreach agreements
1 MEd (Education Department)
A two-year outreach course with Athens Campus
2 MSc Health Care Management
Two-year (part-time) outreach programmes in Singapore, Hong Kong and Kuala Lumpur
3 MSc in Community Services Management
Two-year (part-time) outreach programmes Mauritius and Hong Kong
Top
QAA updates
QAAtweets
QAAtube