University of Hull
Collaborative provision audit

MAY 2006

RG280 09/06

Summary

Introduction

A team of auditors from the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) visited the University of Hull (the University) from 8 to 12 May 2006 to carry out an audit of the collaborative provision offered by the University. The purpose of the audit was to provide public information on the quality of the programmes of study offered by the University through arrangements with collaborative partners, and on the discharge of the University's responsibility as an awarding body in assuring the academic standard of its awards made through collaborative arrangements.

To arrive at its conclusions the audit team spoke to members of staff of the University, and read a wide range of documents relating to the way the University manages the academic aspects of its collaborative provision. As part of the audit process, the team visited three of the University's collaborative partners where it spoke to students on the University's collaborative programmes and to members of staff of the partner institution.

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 award. It is about making sure that appropriate teaching, support, assessment and learning opportunities are provided for them.

The term 'collaborative provision' is taken to mean 'educational provision leading to an award, or to specific credit toward an award, of an awarding institution delivered and/or supported and/or assessed through an arrangement with a partner organisation' (Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education (Code of practice), Section 2: Collaborative provision, and flexible and distributed learning (including e-learning), 2004, paragraph 13), published by QAA.

In an audit of collaborative provision both academic standards and academic quality are reviewed.

Outcome of the collaborative provision audit

As a result of its investigations the audit team's view of the University is that:

broad confidence can reasonably be placed in the soundness of the University's present and likely future management of the academic standards of its awards made through collaborative arrangements, and that
broad confidence can reasonably be placed in the present and likely future capacity of the University to satisfy itself that the learning opportunities offered to students through its collaborative arrangements are managed effectively and meet its requirements.

Features of good practice

The audit team identified the following areas as being good practice:

the clarity of the University's strategy for the development of higher education to meet the economic and social needs of the region
the University's commitment to staff development at partner colleges including the identification of staff needs and the opportunities provided for colleagues to share experience
the moderation of assessment conducted at partner institutions by staff of the University
the process by which the University managed the withdrawal from a partnership arrangement that no longer matched its regional strategy
the process for ensuring that external examiner reports are effectively considered and acted upon, and
the use of virtual learning environments (VLEs) and the consultation between the University and its partner institutions on the schedule for replacing the existing VLE platform.

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 of programmes and standards of the awards it offers through collaborative arrangements are maintained.

The team advises that the University:

ensures that an appropriate level of academic and administrative staff resource provision underpins its expanding collaborative activity to enable it to assure itself of the quality and standards of such activity
stipulates the period of programme approval at validation so that it is clear when a programme should be revalidated to ensure its continued currency and relevance
clarifies, for the benefit of those involved in collaborative provision leading to its awards, the relationship between the revalidation of programmes at partner institutions and the system of periodic review of subjects
keeps under review the implementation of the new code of practice as it relates to the use of academic consultants appointed to provide specialist curriculum advice to partners offering non-comparable provision, and
satisfies itself that new programme approvals take account of external advice and that conditions and recommendations set at the time of approval are followed up expeditiously and clearly documented.

The team considers that it would be desirable for the University to:

introduce a more systematic approach to site visits in the partner and programme approval process
develop a common student information system which allows comparative analysis of student progression and achievement across on-campus and collaborative partner provision
strengthen its procedures for granting Recognised Teacher Status (RTS) to ensure that all partner staff teaching on collaborative programmes are RTS-approved in a timely manner and at the appropriate level of teaching, and
ensure that the currency of relevant entries on partner institutions' websites is maintained.

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 which 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 audit found that the University has responded appropriately to The framework for higher education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, subject benchmark statements, programme specifications, and the Code of practice, all published by QAA.

In due course, the audit process will include a check on the reliability of the teaching quality information published by institutions in the format recommended in the Higher Education Council for England's document 03/51, Information on quality and standards in higher education: Final guidance. The audit team was satisfied that the University is taking appropriate steps to ensure the accuracy, integrity, completeness and frankness of the information that it publishes (or authorises to be published) about the quality of the programmes offered through collaborative provision that lead to its awards, and about the standards of those awards.

>> Main report

>> Findings

ISBN 1 84482 599 X

University of Hull Collaborative provision audit