University of Bradford
Institutional Audit

November 2003

RG 039 04/04

Summary

Introduction

A team of auditors from the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (the Agency) visited the University of Bradford (the University) from 10 to 14 November 2003 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 the awards that the University offers.

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 academic 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.

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 programmes and the academic standards of its awards. Confidence in the capacity of the University to manage the quality and standards of the awards in collaborative provision, the focus of which for the purposes of this audit is Bradford College (the College), is limited;
the judgement on collaborative provision is made in the context of the need to formalise existing arrangements and the report acknowledges the quality of provision offered by the College. In coming to both of these judgements, the team considered that the continuing validity of the statements of confidence is dependent on a fundamental review of the University's quality strategy and arrangements for quality assurance.

Since the audit QAA has been provided with information that indicates that appropriate action has been taken by the University in response to the findings of this report. As a result the audit was signed off in June 2005.

Features of good practice

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

the University's commitment to the regional community;
the value of the University's programme specifications in supporting course approval processes and in providing information for students;
the University's efforts to combine major course reviews with those required by professional, statutory and regulatory bodies;
the induction and mentoring of new staff;
the joint training and staff development initiative with the College; and
the University's commitment to widening participation and to catering for the needs of a diverse student body.

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. It is essential that the University:

on the basis of the evidence relating to the partnership with the College, reviews and modifies monitoring processes to ensure effective oversight of its collaborative provision and secures appropriate and formal agreements with the College.

The audit team advises the University to:

without delay, progress the work to define assessment levels to ensure consistent standards across the University;
without delay, initiate a review of the strategy and structures for the management of quality and standards;
review the effectiveness of the structures and processes for annual monitoring of academic provision;
in collaboration with the student body, develop effective and transparent arrangements for student participation in all appropriate quality assurance processes; and
ensure that the current review of the tutorial system delivers an effective and appropriate level of support across the University.

It would be desirable for the University to:

consider how it could improve the extent to which students feel they are informed of the outcomes of the feedback they provide and the manner in which it is employed; and
consider furnishing either the Academic Policy Committee or the Quality Assurance Subcommittee with statistical analyses of student progression and completion across the full range of the University's provision, including that which is offered in partnership with other organisations.

Business and Management, Clinical Sciences, Engineering and Peace Studies

To arrive at the conclusions and recommendations in the paragraphs above, as well as speaking to staff and students and receiving information about the University as a whole, the audit team also looked in detail at several individual programmes to find out how well the University's systems and procedures were working at that level. The University provided the team with documents, including student work and, here too, the team spoke to staff and students. The team was able to confirm that 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 for England, Wales and Northern Ireland (FHEQ), published by the Agency. The team was also able to state that the quality of learning opportunities available to students is suitable for a programme 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 which the Agency 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 actively to the FHEQ, subject benchmark statements and guidelines for programme specifications. The University does not have a comprehensive and coordinated approach to the evaluation of the precepts contained in the Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education (Code of practice) and has not yet completed a full consideration of the sections of the Code relating to collaborative provision as it applies to the College and student assessment. The individual programmes looked at by the team confirm the overall institutional approach to the academic infrastructure. Scrutiny at the level of the discipline also showed that programme specifications are widely shared with students. From 2004, the published information set will include the recommended summaries of external examiners' reports and feedback from current students for each programme. The University is working towards meeting this expectation and is preparing for the publication of its information set.

ISBN 1 84482 043 2

>> Main report

>> Findings

University of Bradford Institutional Audit