1 An institutional audit of the University of Buckingham (the University) was undertaken during the week commencing 10 November 2003. 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 for its awards.
2 The audit was carried out using a process developed by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (the Agency) in partnership with the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), the Standing Conference of Principals (SCOP) and Universities UK (UUK), and has been endorsed by the Department for Education and Skills. For institutions in England, it replaces the previous processes of continuation audit, undertaken by the Agency at the request of UUK and SCOP, and universal subject review, undertaken by the Agency on behalf of HEFCE, as part of the latter's statutory responsibility for assessing the quality of education that it funds.
3 The audit checked the effectiveness of the University's procedures for establishing and maintaining the standards of its academic awards; for reviewing and enhancing the quality of the programmes of study leading to those awards; and for publishing reliable information. As part of the audit process, according to protocols agreed with HEFCE, SCOP and UUK, the audit included consideration of examples of institutional processes at work at the level of the programme, through discipline audit trails (DATs). The scope of the audit encompassed all of the University's provision and collaborative arrangements leading to its awards.
Section 1: Introduction: the University of Buckingham
The institution and its mission
4 The University was founded as the University College of Buckingham in 1976. It was granted its Royal Charter in 1983 when it became the University of Buckingham with full degree-awarding powers. Its founders had a vision of an institution in the spirit of an American liberal arts college, independent of government influence or intervention. Independence was to be achieved by generating income through student fees, independent research grants, donations and endowments, rather than relying on government funding councils. The University was the pioneer of the accelerated honours degree programme, based on the use of 40 weeks in the calendar year for teaching and examinations, and through which students are able to achieve full honours in two years. It is also unusual in having two student intakes a year to many of its undergraduate programmes.
5 The academic structure of the University is based on three schools of study, managed by deans who report direct to the Vice-Chancellor. The School of Business comprises the Departments of Accounting and Finance, Information Systems (IS), Management and Psychology. The School of Humanities has Departments of English, Modern Foreign Languages, International Studies and, currently, Education. The School of Law consists of a single Department of Law. In May 2003, the University had a total of 705 students, of whom 452 were studying on full-time undergraduate programmes, 128 were on taught postgraduate programmes and 30 were research students. In August 2003, student numbers had decreased to 623. Most of the University's academic staff, a total of some 65 full-time equivalents, are on full-time contracts.
6 The University occupies two sites within the small market town of Buckingham: Hunter Street (with the adjacent Chandos Road complex) and Verney Park, which is a short distance away. The Hunter Street site houses the School of Business, part of the School of Humanities, Clore Laboratory (location of a metabolic research group), one of the two libraries, a range of student support and recreational facilities, and residential accommodation. Additional teaching facilities are provided at Chandos Road. The School of Law and the Departments of Information Systems and Psychology are situated at Verney Park, together with further teaching, student support and recreational facilities. There are also some 32 acres of land a mile outside the town, some of which have been developed into playing fields.
7 Since its establishment, the University has maintained its independence in line with its founders' vision, but has also undergone some significant changes. It remains independent of HEFCE, although it receives a £2,640 fee subsidy for each of its UK students. In the spirit of its foundation, it has followed market forces and has, in the process, lost its aspiration to be a liberal arts college. Today, the majority of the University's students are studying law and business programmes, although a range of programmes in the humanities, sciences and social sciences is maintained. Some undergraduate programmes are now available over three years in addition to the accelerated route. Around 80 per cent of the student population are from overseas, a fact that has a singular impact on the nature of the institution as a community, the nature of its academic environment and, at its core, the nature of its mission.
8 At the time of the audit, the University was in the process of finalising its Strategic Plan 2003-08. Drafted by the Vice-Chancellor, and frank in tone and content, the Plan identified growth in student numbers to a target figure of 1,000 as a key strategy, together with the re-investment of resources in successful areas, and greater engagement with government and with the national quality agenda. It also set out the Vice-Chancellor's intention to modify the University's academic structure by the massing of existing small groups, in order to realise potential synergies. While the School of Law will remain unchanged, it is proposed that two departments within the School of Business (Management, and Accounting and Finance) might be fused with the Department of International Studies (at present in the School of Humanities) to form a single Department of Business. Similarly, it is proposed that the School of Humanities will, in effect, cease to exist and be replaced by a grouping of arts and science subjects centred on a language centre, managed by a director analogous in status to the Deans of Business and Law. The Plan dubbed these arrangements a structure of 'two and a half faculties'. The audit team was informed that the draft Plan had been presented in outline to a Staff Assembly meeting and to Senate and that, while the response had been varied, the consensus was generally positive.
Mission statement
9 The University's mission is 'to provide high quality, personal, small-group teaching for our community of UK and international students, and to deliver an excellent student:staff ratio'. Its vision is 'to live by our brand values, to grow in terms of student numbers and academic reputation, and to pioneer the future of UK higher education (HE) in an independent mould'.
Collaborative provision
10 The University's collaborative provision is limited to two arrangements: the provision of an MSc programme in Transformation Management in partnership with Team Engineering and Management Consultants in Jordan (TEAM), and an MA in Historic Interiors with the Wallace Collection in London. Recruitment onto the former has been suspended, owing to the failure to gain accreditation by the Jordanian Government (which classed the programme as 'distance learning'). The future of the MA programme is also in doubt, in the light of declining student demand. The University does not currently have any student exchange arrangements, although two potential exchange partnerships with overseas universities are under discussion.
Background information
11 The published information available for this audit included:
- the information on the University's web site and its undergraduate and postgraduate prospectuses;
- the report of a quality audit of the University by the Higher Education Quality Council (HEQC), published in March 1993.
The University initially provided the Agency with:
- an institutional self-evaluation document (SED) and appendices;
- a range of supporting documentation, including the draft Strategic Plan 2003-08 and the Governance Handbook;
- discipline self-evaluation documents (DSEDs) for the provision selected for DATs.
12 During the briefing and audit visits, the audit team was given ready access to a range of the University's internal documents, a number of which were provided electronically on a specially prepared CD, and to a range of documentation relating to the selected DATs. The latter included examples of student work.
The audit process
13 Following a preliminary meeting at the University in February 2003, the Agency confirmed that two DATs would be conducted during the audit visit and made an initial identification of possible DATs. The audit team's final selection of DATs was undergraduate programmes in English literature and taught postgraduate programmes in business studies.
14 The Agency received the institutional SED and supporting documentation in July 2003 and the DSEDs, accompanied by programme specifications, in September 2003. Both the SED and the DSEDs were written specifically for the audit.
15 The audit team visited the University on 8-9 October 2003 for the purpose of exploring, with the Vice-Chancellor, senior members of staff and student representatives, matters relating to the management of quality and standards raised by the SED and other documentation provided for the team. During this briefing visit, the team signalled a number of themes for the audit visit. At the close of the briefing visit, a programme of meetings for the audit visit was developed by the team and agreed with the University.
16 At the preliminary meeting for the audit, the students of the University were invited, through their Students' Union (SU), to submit a separate document expressing views on the student experience at the University, and identifying any matters of concern or commendation with respect to the quality of programmes and the standard of awards. They were also invited to give their views on the level of representation afforded to them, and on the extent to which their views were taken into account. In July 2003, the student body submitted a detailed document to the Agency. It had been prepared by two appointed Agency Student Coordinators, in consultation with the SU, and was based on information gathered through a questionnaire and from informal and formal discussions among students. The student body indicated that the document had been shared with staff in the University and there were no matters within it which would require the audit team to treat it with any level of confidentiality greater than that normally applying to the audit process. The team is grateful to the students for preparing this valuable document to support the audit, although its subsequent discussions with student representatives suggested that students were generally less critical of the University than might have been expected from the document.
17 The audit visit took place from 10 to 14 November 2003, and included further meetings with staff and students of the University, both at central level and in relation to the selected DATs. The audit team comprised Dr P D Hartley, Professor J Hughes, Professor T J Kemp and Mr B Robinson, auditors, and Ms S M Welham, audit secretary. The audit was coordinated for the Agency by Ms S J Clark, Assistant Director, Reviews Group.
Developments since the previous academic quality audit
18 The University has not been subject to an external quality audit since HEQC's visit in 1992, the report of which was published in March 1993. The 1993 report was generally very favourable and praised several aspects of the University's arrangements, including the existence of the Academic Advisory Council (AAC); the process of course and programme reviews; the care taken to maintain the University's distinctive character; the investment in student welfare; and the financial provision to support the contributions of part-time staff to course development and tutorial guidance. The dedication of staff was found to be worthy of special mention. The report also set out a range of recommendations for the University to consider, and drew attention to the need to ensure clarity in terms of the responsibilities for the maintenance of academic standards, and for the management of quality in relation to learning and teaching. In addition, the report noted that although quality assurance mechanisms were being developed, 'progress could be faster and go further'.
19 The SED detailed the action taken by the University in response to the 1993 report and also described some significant changes since 1993 which had impacted on quality management arrangements. In 1997, the (then) Vice-Chancellor had disbanded the (then) four schools of study in favour of a structure based wholly on academic departments. As a result, the basis for the University's periodic review process was lost and periodic reviews had ceased to take place (see below, paragraphs 29 and 40). While compensation for this loss had been provided, in part, by the introduction of AAC sub-committees for each subject area (see below, paragraph 39), it was apparent to the audit team that the disbanding of the schools had resulted in some problems in the monitoring of quality and standards that were only now being addressed, in part as a result of the re-establishment of the schools system in 2002. Within this context, the team noted that the proposals outlined by the current Vice-Chancellor in the draft Strategic Plan 2003-08 were in accordance with the overall recommendations of the 1993 audit report.
20 Because it does not receive HEFCE funding, the University has not received HEFCE and Agency reviews of its provision at subject level. Its law provision is accredited by the Law Society and the Bar Council and its accounting and finance provision is accredited annually by the Chartered Institute of Certified Accountants. Students holding accounting and other appropriate degrees can apply for exemptions to the relevant professional body.
Section 2: The audit investigations: institutional processes
The institution's view as expressed in the SED
21 The SED outlined the ways in which the University sought to assure the quality of its programmes and the academic standards of its awards. Standards are said to be 'safeguarded primarily by the role of the AAC and by the external examiner system'. The role of the University's external examiners 'has been considerably strengthened' in the light of the Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education (Code of practice), published by the Agency, and is 'reinforced by the AAC', a body established by the University's Royal Charter, which 'approves the appointment of all external examiners and reviews their reports'. Its members also 'provide advice on academic standards and curriculum matters'.
22 The SED drew attention to the University's engagement with external developments, particularly the academic infrastructure developed by the Agency. It claimed that 'careful consideration' had been given to The framework for higher education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (FHEQ), subject benchmark statements and the Code of practice, and that steps had been taken to implement their recommendations in the University's approach to quality management, although its emphasis on small-group teaching 'implies a certain degree of freedom and trust in individual teachers and support staff...to do some things differently'. 'All sections of...QAA's Code...that are relevant to the University' have been 'widely disseminated'.
23 Key to the University's work in this area is the Quality Assurance (QA) Office, a section of the academic administration established early in 2002. The QA Office, which comprises the Quality Assurance Coordinator and the Quality Assurance Administrator, is responsible for the University's quality management procedures and 'ensures that the appropriate departments consider all aspects of the academic infrastructure'. In particular, it liaises with the three deans and provides support for both academic and non-academic departments 'in ensuring that their procedures are in line with current recommendations' in the Code of practice. It also monitors progress in achieving adherence. While the University has no quality assurance manual, or equivalent compendium of procedures, the QA Office has produced a variety of documentation relevant to its responsibilities.
The institution's framework for managing quality and standards, including collaborative provision
24 The University's overall framework for managing quality and standards is based on a committee structure that has a division of the reporting lines for quality issues. Broadly speaking, there is an external line that encompasses AAC and its subcommittees, all of which include members external to the University, and an internal line, headed by the Senate, to which a Curriculum Committee and the School Boards of Study report. The respective responsibilities and interactions between the two lines are discussed in the paragraphs that follow.
25 The 1993 audit report commended the existence of AAC as a 'noteworthy and valuable feature of the University'. The SED described it as having had, since the incorporation of the University, 'a key quality assurance function through the approval of all external examiners' and a 'continuing and important role in offering independent advice and scrutiny'. AAC takes an overview of new programme and course proposals and on occasion requests further information on specific issues, such as student retention. Should a generic policy issue be identified from external examiners' reports, AAC is expected to raise concerns. Meeting annually, AAC comprises three members appointed by the Privy Council and not less than 10 other members appointed by the Council of the University; all are external and of professorial or equivalent status. Senior University officers are invited to attend the annual meetings. The audit team heard that AAC was seen primarily as a deliberative body, although it had executive functions with respect to the appointment of external examiners.
26 The role of the AAC in offering 'annual institutional scrutiny of the University' has, since the 1993 audit, been supplemented by the establishment of subcommittees for each school of study, chaired by members of AAC. The roles and functions of the subcommittees have been modified to take account of changes in academic management structures, and currently there are subcommittees for the Departments of Accounting and Finance, English, Information Systems, International Studies, Law, Management, Modern Foreign Languages and Psychology. Like AAC, the subcommittees meet on an annual basis. They act as the locus for the process of annual monitoring and report to AAC on such matters as external examiners, student numbers, programme review, student feedback, research and scholarship, and staff development. The SED described the subcommittees as having proved to be 'reasonably effective in ensuring that detailed consideration is paid to data generated annually on academic performance'.
27 Of the committees in the internal line, the audit team received confirmation that Senate was the principal executive body, operating through its subcommittees, including the Curriculum Committee, the school boards and, ultimately, through the Committee of Deans (previously the Executive Committee). Of these bodies, the team heard that the Curriculum Committee was effectively the University's internal quality committee, in that it carried responsibility, on behalf of Senate, for approving new programmes and regulations, for approving changes to existing programmes and regulations, and for validating external programmes. It also advises Senate 'on matters relating to academic audit and quality assurance policy'. Its membership comprises the Vice-Chancellor, the three deans and between four and seven academics; it is not, however, chaired by the Vice-Chancellor. Changes to courses and programmes approved by the Curriculum Committee are reported to the relevant AAC subcommittee and, where changes are significant, it is expected that an AAC member with relevant expertise, an external examiner or some other external assessor should be consulted (see below, paragraphs 37 to 38).
28 In discussing with senior managers the linkage between the two reporting lines, the audit team was informed that, whereas the AAC was the supreme external assessor of standards, the Curriculum Committee had the role of checking that the schools had functioned according to the correct procedures. External examiners' reports and action taken in response to them are considered at Board level, AAC subcommittees and the main AAC meeting. Issues having institutional implications are referred to the Curriculum Committee. At the time of the audit there was no formal link between the Chair of the Curriculum Committee and the Chair of the AAC, although there were plans to put this in place. In querying whether bodies that met only annually could discharge effectively their quality assurance functions, the team was informed that since AAC acted only in an advisory capacity, its annual meeting was sufficient for it to comment usefully on strategic matters.
29 At programme level, the audit team was informed that the main quality controlling body was the School Board of Study. The boards in their original form were disbanded in 1997 when the schools themselves were abolished (see above, paragraph 19), but were re-established by the new Vice-Chancellor in 2002 and were now described to the team as 'owning the system'. The SED was frank that the interregnum had indirectly resulted in the discontinuation of the quadrennial periodic review of programmes. The recent reconstitution of the boards had enabled the planned reintroduction of periodic review, now to be undertaken on a quinquennial basis, under the oversight of AAC (see below, paragraph 40). The team viewed the re-establishment of the School Boards, and the associated reintroduction of periodic review, as key elements in bringing the University's quality assurance model into line with that operated in most other institutions, and as a clear illustration of the newly-adopted strategy, set out in the Strategic Plan 2003-08, of greater engagement with government and with the national quality agenda.
30 It was clear to the audit team that the last two years had seen a major growth in the University's activities in respect of quality-related issues prompted by the new Vice-Chancellor. It was also clear that the introduction of the QA Office, the planned reintroduction of periodic review, the drawing up of programme specifications, and associated developments such as the formulation of teaching and learning strategies, were elements of a complex shift in institutional culture. Staff who met the team, in both institutional and DAT meetings, indicated that that they supported the spirit of change, albeit that some had individual reservations about aspects of the Strategic Plan. Documentary evidence gathered throughout the audit led the team to conclude that, while not all elements of the enhanced quality agenda were yet fully in place, very significant progress had been made since the arrival of the new Vice-Chancellor.
31 The recent growth in activity is not, however, fully recognised in the current committee structure. The audit team found that the AAC subcommittees were performing good work in relation to annual monitoring, with the unusual safeguard of an external expert chairing their meetings, but both the subcommittees and AAC meet only once a year. In the team's view, while these committees provided a valuable external perspective on the University's academic provision, the frequency of their meetings was insufficient to enable them to play the more significant role in quality monitoring and quality management now required by the University. In addition, the team took the view that the particular remit of the subcommittees in relation to annual monitoring might be contributing to a relative lack of development in the University's arrangements for formal annual monitoring by programme teams (see below, paragraph 39). The University is advised to consider the ways in which the committee system might be strengthened to provide a more dynamic engagement with, and monitoring of, quality matters. In the view of the team, such an engagement might be achieved simply through redrafting the terms of reference of (and renaming) existing committees, especially the Curriculum Committee and the nascent Learning and Teaching Strategy Committee (see below, paragraph 34), with a view to expressing more clearly their intended remits and enabling the University to cope with the increasing flow of business in a more timely manner. As part of this work, the University may wish to give particular attention to the QA Office, given that the quality of its work to date suggests that it would be well placed to make a more strategic and formalised contribution to the work of the key committees in respect of quality management.
32 The University's management of the quality and standards of its collaborative provision takes place within the committee and procedural framework described above, and in accordance with a formal 'Procedure for the Assurance of Academic Quality and Standards in Collaborative Arrangements'. An analysis of the effectiveness of the University's arrangements in this area is provided below, paragraphs 88-89.
The institution's intentions for the enhancement of quality and standards
33 The SED outlined several matters to which the University intended to give particular attention in the context of its Strategic Plan 2003-08. These included the reintroduction of periodic review with effect from September 2004 (see above, paragraph 29 and below, paragraph 40); increased attention to matters relating to student support and feedback (including the publication of its own code of practice on student assessment); and monitoring the implications of the Bologna declaration (which commits signatories to three-year honours degree programmes) for its own accelerated provision.
34 The SED also emphasised the University's current work, prompted by the requirements of the Information on quality and standards in higher education (HEFCE's document 02/15), on developing a formal Learning and Teaching Strategy (LTS). The audit team noted that this initiative was being taken forward by a working party that first met in March 2003. The initiative had already resulted in the production of departmental LTSs, informed by HEFCE's guidelines. Some of the latter were still in draft form at the time of the audit visit but, in the team's view, were well advanced and had been prepared with considerable care. The SED reported that the working party was to be reconstituted as a formal committee of the University, with the intention of putting in place a 'developing implementable strategy with measurable objectives and targets, and identifiable responsibilities'. Among the objectives to be pursued are 'rewarding good teaching, enhancing the use of information technology (IT), and provision of appropriate staff development opportunities'. The Committee is also intended to provide a focus for the approval and review of assessment strategy, and for enhanced use of statistical information, prompted in part by the requirements of HEFCE's document 02/15 (see below, paragraph 63). Within the context of the LTS, the SED also drew attention to the University's Staff Development Policy, recently updated from its 1997 version. It expressed a commitment to 'continue to strengthen and improve recent initiatives', indicating in particular that academic staff appraisal was to be reintroduced in 2004 (see below, paragraph 70).
35 In the view of the audit team, the University's intentions for enhancing quality and standards constituted an appropriate agenda for the short to medium term, against which significant progress had already been made at the time of the audit.
Internal approval, monitoring and review processes
36 The University assures the quality of its programmes through a formal programme approval process, the annual monitoring of courses and programmes of study, and the (planned) process of quinquennial review, to be introduced in September 2004. The procedures for these activities have been formally documented by the QA Office.
Programme approval
37 The formulation of proposals for new or substantially modified programmes takes place at departmental level (or at school level in the case of Law), with initial discussions at the relevant School Board. According to the SED, by the time a firm proposal is submitted to the Curriculum Committee, it will have 'been subject to internal and external peer review, will have been considered to be administratively and commercially viable, and resource issues will have been agreed'. It will also have been scrutinised by a programme planning group, with the proposer then attending the relevant meeting of the Curriculum Committee. Adherence to these procedures is monitored by the QA Office.
38 Documentation provided for the audit team suggested that these procedures were followed scrupulously at both departmental and institutional level. The papers of the Curriculum Committee confirmed that appropriate documentation was presented, covering rationale, differentiation, timetabling and resources issues, recruitment potential, and a full programme specification. Documentation supporting proposals to discontinue several programmes was also appropriately thorough. There was, in addition, evidence of external comment on proposals, although it appeared to the team that the latter had, on occasion, been sought at a rather late stage of the process, when the planning team might have benefited from external input at an earlier stage (see below, paragraph 106). Overall, however, on the basis of the evidence available to it, the team concluded that the University's programme approval mechanisms were robust, operating as intended and consistent with the relevant section of the Code of practice.
Annual monitoring
39 Given the lapse in the process of periodic review, and until its full restoration, the process of annual monitoring has become the linchpin of the University's quality assurance arrangements. The SED described this process as taking place 'within the framework of the annual report to the AAC by each subject area (via its Sub-Committee)'. The subcommittees work to a template agenda that covers external examiners' reports, student numbers, current/recent activities (including curriculum and staff changes), review of courses, student feedback, research and staff development (including peer review of teaching). The audit team's scrutiny of the papers of the subcommittees confirmed that they were rigorous in discharging their responsibilities, and in their analysis of the documentation prepared by the departments concerned. However, in the view of the team, the apparent absence of a form of self-evaluation to accompany each department's documentation was a weakness in the current arrangements, in that it had the effect of assigning primary responsibility for formal monitoring to the largely external subcommittees, rather than, as would be more appropriate, requiring primary responsibility to be taken by the departments themselves (see below, paragraphs 96 and 106).
Periodic review
40 The University plans to introduce periodic review of schools in September 2004, commencing with the School of Law. By the time of the audit visit, a new procedure for carrying out the reviews had been documented and approved. Consistent with the Agency's expectations, the new procedure includes the participation of three persons external to the University, one of whom may be an external examiner. The remaining two are expected to be subject specialists and/or to have experience of Agency subject review. The audit team found the proposed new procedures to be appropriate and consistent with the relevant section of the Code of practice, but heard no clear rationale for delaying their introduction until autumn 2004. Given the time that has elapsed since schools were last subject to periodic review, the University is advised to accelerate its plans, and to reintroduce this key process in the very near future.
External participation in internal review processes
41 As a small institution outside the HEFCE-funding framework, the University has been conscious of the need to secure other forms of external involvement in its internal processes. The SED suggested that the University had been 'far-sighted' in establishing AAC to provide external quality assurance, a move that has since been strengthened by the creation of its subcommittees, chaired by external members, to undertake annual monitoring. These arrangements are supplemented through appropriate involvement of external participants in programme approval procedures and in the proposed procedures for periodic review (see above, paragraphs 37 and 40).
42 From the evidence available to it, both at institutional level and through the DATs, the audit team was satisfied that the University was making strong and scrupulous use of external participation in its internal processes, and that AAC in particular was continuing to make a valuable deliberative contribution to overall policy. In its overt use of committees with largely external membership, the University has undoubtedly anticipated the more recent emphasis on external participation elsewhere in the sector. However, as the University continues to engage actively with the national quality agenda, it is likely, in the view of the team, to become increasingly evident that AAC is no longer able fully to discharge its 'overall remit for quality and standards', and that a revisiting of the committee structure is necessary to deal with the increased volume of quality business needing more than annual consideration (see above, paragraph 31).
External examiners and their reports
43 The SED stated that the University 'has always recognised the importance of external examiners in the maintenance of standards in respect of its awards', and outlined the key features of the external examining system. The system applies both to internal and collaborative programmes. External examiners are nominated by the dean of the relevant school on the advice of subject specialists within departments, and are appointed by AAC for a period of three years. Extension of contract is permitted in exceptional circumstances, but for a maximum of a further two years. The Secretary to Council holds a formal record of all external examiner appointments.
44 The main roles of external examiners are to ensure that academic standards for the awards are set and maintained at the appropriate level; that assessment and examination processes are robust and measure student achievement against the intended outcomes of the programmes; and that the standards of the University's awards are comparable with those of other institutions. External examiners are responsible for approving examination papers and moderating examinations and assessed work. They also comment and advise on programme content, learning methods and assessment procedures as laid down in the University's programme specifications. To assist them in their work, they are provided with an External Examiners' Code of Practice (produced in November 2002) and the Plagiarism Policy. The University has not yet published a Code of Practice on Assessment, although departments give their external examiners information on assessment practices. No dedicated training is provided, but they may be invited to attend meetings relevant to their subject area before taking up appointment.
45 External examiners are required to produce a report after each assessment or examination period. The report is produced to a standard University template that requires the examiner to comment on matters relating to curriculum and assessment procedures, administrative arrangements and resources, and quality and standards. The SED reported that the template had been revised in 2002 to request specific comment on whether the learning outcomes set out in programme specifications were achieved. Reports are sent directly to the Secretary to Council, who copies them to the schools and to the QA Office for review and action. The Secretary also prepares an initial reply to the external examiner, and provides a summary of the key points raised for deans, heads of department, the Chair of AAC, the relevant AAC subcommittee member and the QA office. The relevant head of department is required to consider the reports, respond to the external examiner(s), and inform the Secretary and the QA Office of any actions taken in response to matters raised.
46 The audit team was able to confirm, in discussion with staff and students and through scrutiny of the available documentation, that these processes appeared to be working as intended. The External Examiners' Code of practice was a useful and informative document, and there was clear evidence that external examiners' reports were read carefully by the Secretary to Council, and at school and department level. The subject-level responses to the reports, usually produced by the head of the department concerned, were of an appropriate level of detail and evaluation. There was evidence that the matters raised by external examiners, and actions required and taken in response to them, were discussed by school boards, the Curriculum Committee, and the AAC subcommittees. The team noted that AAC also received a summary of actions taken in response to issues raised, thus ensuring that matters were debated at all levels of the University and closed off at the end of the cycle. The team noted occasional examples of reports that were too brief to be helpful to the University in developmental terms and that had been identified as such by the QA Office. There did not appear to be a routine policy of referring such reports back to the external examiners, a matter to which the University may wish to give consideration, as it seeks to further enhance its procedures.
47 External examiners are asked to confirm specifically that 'the standards demonstrated are appropriate for the programme and/or course by reference to published national benchmarks, the FHEQ, and the University's relevant programme specification', thus providing the University with a mechanism for establishing, via external scrutiny, that its standards are in line with the expectations of the Agency's academic infrastructure. All of the reports read by the audit team included a positive response to this question.
48 The audit team was satisfied that the University was making strong and scrupulous use of external examiners and that its arrangements were consistent with the relevant section of the Code of practice. The team found that the relevant procedures were clearly laid out for internal staff and for the external examiners themselves, and were detailed and robust, permitting discussion at all levels of the University, and ensuring that developmental and remedial action was taken where needed. In the view of the team, the thoroughness of the University's arrangements in this area is a feature of good practice.
External reference points
The FHEQ, subject benchmark statements and programme specifications
49 The SED stated that the University introduced programme specifications and course specifications early in 2002, using a 'big bang' approach. The QA Office had the task of devising a standard template and providing advice and documentation for the academic staff responsible for developing the specifications. The programme specifications 'have been prepared with reference to the subject benchmark statements and the FHEQ'. The audit team was informed that specifications were now available for about 95 per cent of the University's courses and programmes. In a further development, the external examiner's report form has been revised to ask external examiners to confirm explicitly that the standards achieved by students are in line with the benchmarks and the FHEQ (see above, paragraph 47). All of the external examiners' reports read by the team included such confirmation.
50 The audit team had access to a significant number of course and programme specifications, and found them to be well constructed and informative. There were clear statements of course/programme content, intended learning outcomes and assessment methods. However, the specifications did not map outcomes to specific assessment tasks and, therefore, did not provide the course/programme leaders with a clear method of checking which outcomes were assessed by which assessment tasks (or indeed if they were assessed at all). The team found a number of examples of students on the same course being assessed in quite different ways, and at different levels of the University's framework, against identical learning outcomes (see below, paragraphs 94 and 104). The University is advised to revisit this feature of the design of the specifications in the near future, as a means of both ensuring that students are assessed consistently and strengthening its evaluation of student performance.
The Code of practice
51 The SED discussed the University's general approach to the Code of practice, but did not deal systematically with the University's adherence to specific sections. During the audit visit, the audit team was provided with a statement setting out how the University had evaluated its own procedures against the precepts of the Code of practice, and was informed, in meetings with staff of the QA Office and with academic staff, that the realignment of University procedures with the precepts of the Code was proceeding apace, and that adherence was being checked on an ongoing basis by the QA Office. The intention is for the QA Office to consolidate staff awareness of the Code by disseminating information on best practice across schools, although a detailed strategy for such dissemination does not yet appear to be in place.
52 As it continues its work in this area, there are two sections of the Code of practice to which the University may wish to give particular attention. The first is the section relating to the assessment of students. The students' written submission (SWS) to the audit team suggested that there was a considerable amount of confusion amongst the student body about how academic performance was assessed and degree classifications were decided. This picture was confirmed by the team's various meetings with students, at both institutional and discipline level, where many students were not aware of the precise method of determining their final degree classification, and the protocols adopted in borderline cases. The SED suggested that this matter had been discussed in the past by Senate, in response to student feedback, but that the result had been the publication of reassuring statements about double-marking and the role of external examiners, rather than agreement to provide explicit information about grading. During its meetings with academic staff and the QA Office, the team heard that there was continuing debate in the University as to whether the Examination Conventions should be made available to students, and some resistance to the notion that a greater amount of information should be published. The University is advised to consider whether its current position is consistent with the precepts of the Code of practice relating to assessment, which expect institutions to publish clear criteria for the marking and grading of assessments, and clear criteria for the aggregation of marks and grades, together with the rules and regulations for progression, final awards and classifications.
53 The second section to which the University may wish to give further attention is that relating to arrangements for students with disabilities, in the context of the changing legislation relating to equality and diversity. The new legislation will have a significant impact not only on estates development, but also on the design and delivery of programmes, and on student support and staff development. It was not clear to the audit team that the University had established a clear strategy to address these issues, nor clarified the locus of responsibility for the establishment and implementation of such a strategy. It would be desirable for the University to move more rapidly towards developing a strategy and policies to ensure that it is able to comply with national requirements and legislation relating to equality and diversity.
Programme-level review and accreditation by external agencies
54 Because it does not receive HEFCE funding, the University's subject-level provision has not been reviewed by HEFCE or the Agency. However, accreditation by external agencies is particularly significant for the University, given that more than half of its students are studying law and management. Undergraduate programmes offered by the School of Law are accredited by the Law Society and the Bar Council, and the SED provided an example of how the accreditation process had enabled the University to effect improvements to its provision through the introduction of more European law, a change approved by the School Board and the Curriculum Committee. The accounting and financial management degree permits exemptions from various papers in the professional examinations of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants and the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants, and the SED provided evidence of the way in which the University had modified the programme to take account of changing professional body requirements. On the basis of the limited evidence available, the audit team was satisfied that the University's responsiveness to requirements of the relevant professional bodies was appropriate.
55 The SWS raised a particular matter relating to the fact that the University's undergraduate psychology programme was not accredited by The British Psychological Society (BPS). It pointed out that students had not been made aware of this fact prior to commencing their studies and would be required to undertake additional study elsewhere in order to achieve professional status; a situation that negated the benefits of the accelerated degree programme. Students who met the audit team confirmed these claims. The team was informed by the University that, for staffing reasons, the subject coverage of the programme was insufficient for BPS accreditation. The team noted, however, that the source of the students' complaints had now been addressed: the latest prospectus contained a clear statement on the status of the degree, and the web site indicated that 'some graduates may become professional psychologists after obtaining relevant experience and postgraduate training'. Nonetheless, the University will be aware of the need to be vigilant in these matters, to ensure that students are provided with full and accurate information that enables them to make informed choices about where to study.
Student representation at operational and institutional level
56 Student representation was discussed only briefly in the SED which stated that students were represented on Senate, Council and Boards of Study (the Governance Handbook indicated that they were also represented on the Health and Safety at Work Committee). The SED recognised that there was scope for greater representation, indicating that 'students are encouraged to be represented on a range of additional bodies that influence the activities of the University...but the University is aware that students are not fully represented...and is investigating how they can be encouraged to become members and attend meetings'. The SWS suggested that the situation was less positive than the SED implied. It indicated that there was 'general ignorance' among the student body about representation and how it worked and that this, together with a lack of representation on some Boards, undermined communications between the University and students. It also suggested that in some discipline areas, students were asked to become representatives without elections, thereby undermining the democratic process.
57 The audit team pursued these suggestions with the staff and students it met, in the light of the University's own claim that one of the advantages of being small was that it facilitated internal communication. While student officers supported the suggestions in the SWS, the generality of students who met the team had no criticisms about the way they were represented. However, it appeared to the team from its discussions that there was an over-reliance on informal information channels, particularly given that the quality of these channels appeared highly variable from one department to another, and even from one individual to another. While the team recognised the importance of such channels, it did not regard them as a substitute for more formal and clearly defined systems. The team concluded that there was scope for the University to define and improve its formal channels of communication with students and, in so doing, to consider the ways in which opportunities for student representation and participation in decision-making might be better publicised, particularly at departmental level. In taking these matters forward, the University will be able to build on the progress it has already made in recent months through, for example, the introduction of student-staff liaison committees.
Feedback from students, graduates and employers
58 The SED emphasised that the University sought to enhance the quality of its provision through 'regular feedback obtained formally and informally'. In terms of informal feedback, students who met the audit team praised the open door policy of academic staff that enabled them to speak directly to staff about their work and other concerns that they might have. Formally, all departments are required to collect student feedback, but there is no 'prescriptive format' for doing this or for analysing the results (although most departments have chosen to use end of course and end of programme questionnaires). Thus feedback is 'dealt with and responded to in a variety of ways'. An overview is maintained by the AAC subcommittees, with student feedback a key item on their annual agendas.
59 The audit team was able to confirm that the SED provided an accurate picture of current arrangements. The team noted that although student feedback was an agenda item for all of the AAC subcommittees, there was a wide disparity of practice, in terms of both the quantity and quality of information provided. Although the majority of the questionnaires seen by the team used a standard set of questions, individual members of staff used different questionnaires - even within the same department - and in at least one case the questionnaire consisted of no more than three open-ended questions, with no reference to what the students thought of the course content, quality of teaching or course materials. The team also noted that there was diversity of practice in relation to the analysis, recording and dissemination of results. In particular, there was very little analysis or summary of results on a programme basis.
60 In discussing these matters with staff, the audit team was informed that from 2003 onwards there would be greater uniformity of practice, at least within departments. The Department of Management, for example, would be moving to the use of a standard questionnaire. The team welcomed this development, and believed that the University would find benefit in moving to a system whereby course monitoring reports considered by Boards of Study included a concise summary of questionnaire results, identifying any problems and indicating the remedial action proposed. Such a system would ensure that both heads of departments and student representatives were kept informed of the results of student feedback, and were in a position to monitor the action taken in response.
61 In addition to developments at departmental level, the audit team was informed of two recent initiatives at institutional level that should serve to enhance the University's arrangements for student feedback. Since the end of 2002, a termly Students Forum has provided students with a new mechanism 'to give the University feedback about the student experience'. The Forum is open to all students and is attended by the Vice-Chancellor and other senior officers who answer students' queries and concerns. In addition, a new Student Complaint Centre, managed by a Student Liaison Officer, will begin operations in early 2004 and will deal specifically with complaints about teaching.
62 The SED did not comment on whether or not the University made use of feedback from graduates or employers, although it did include a section on alumni. Like many other institutions, the University uses its overseas alumni groups in the recruitment process, given that alumni 'are regarded as the University's best ambassadors'. The audit team did not meet any employers and only two alumni, both of whom spoke very highly of the University. The University may wish to consider whether arrangements for the collection of formal feedback from graduates and employers would enhance its monitoring of the quality of its programmes.
Progression and completion statistics
63 At institutional level, the University does not routinely make use of statistical information, including student progression and completion data, in evaluating quality and standards. The SED indicated that examination statistics, including degree classifications, were prepared at departmental level, but that consideration was 'now being given to broadening this to institutional level', in part as a response to the requirements of HEFCE's document 02/15. It also stated that the University did attempt to track, at departmental level, 'premature leavers', including 'those who subsequently restart and complete, and those who transfer to another institution'.
64 The statements in the SED were confirmed by the information provided for the audit team. The DSED produced for one of the two DATs contained evidence that some departments were able to compile local statistics for the purpose of quality monitoring. The team was also provided with a set of data comprising examination matrices for the past three years, which contained some student progression data, and two years' summary figures for premature leavers. However, a formal statement prepared by the Director of Finance was frank in acknowledging that examination results were not analysed statistically at institutional level, and that completion statistics (defined as 'the proportion of students in a given cohort who have successfully completed their programmes') were not prepared. The team also saw no evidence that the University used statistical information to benchmark itself against other institutions - perhaps a surprising omission given its commercial orientation.
65 On the basis of the evidence available, the audit team concluded that the University currently lacked effective processes for strategic, institution-level interrogation of student progression and completion data, and that at departmental level practice was variable. The University is advised to take forward its commitment to improving measurement of student achievement, by developing its capacity for producing readily comprehensible student statistics. In the view of the team, rapid progress in this area will greatly assist the University in the formulation of admissions policy, in quality monitoring and in overall academic planning, at both institutional and subject level.
Assurance of the quality of teaching staff, appointment, appraisal and reward
66 The University's academic staff are appointed by panels chaired by deans. As is common within the HE sector, all staff called for interview are asked to make a formal presentation on a specified topic. The University does not provide a formal induction programme; once appointed, academic staff receive an 'individually tailored' induction to meet their specific needs. In the view of the audit team, this approach was justified given the small number of new appointments in any given year. Its discussions with staff provided evidence that a satisfactory induction process was in place.
67 Since 2002, the University has required all newly appointed staff with no previous teaching experience to attend an introductory course in teaching and learning run by the Staff Development Unit of the University of Leicester. Since 2003, this course has been expanded to lead to a Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice in Higher Education. The SED indicated that the success of this arrangement would be measured by the number of new staff achieving the certificate within two years of the start of their employment at the University.
68 The University's probationary period for new academic staff is relatively short, being of one year's duration. The audit team was informed that the period was appropriate, given that the University's mission was based on teaching rather than research; research required a longer period of gestation, but decisions on the basis of the quality of teaching could be taken more quickly. Staff emphasised, however, that the University would have no hesitation about extending the period of probation if appropriate, should difficulties emerge during the first year.
69 Although academic staff receive annual cost of living increases in salary, they do not benefit from an incremental salary structure. The SED reported that 'decisions about increases in salary have generally been based on merit as determined by the Dean, in consultation with heads of department'. The audit team was informed that such increases were based on performance in teaching, research and administration, but saw no documented criteria for their award. There are, however, criteria for the promotion of academic staff from one grade to another. Candidates for promotion from Lecturer A to Lecturer B 'will normally be expected to demonstrate that they have reached a satisfactory level of achievement or performance in all four areas of teaching, research and scholarship, administration and citizenship'. For promotion to Readership and Professor, candidates have to demonstrate leadership qualities as well as sustained and high (or outstanding) distinction in their fields. Given that such academic distinction is usually earned through establishing a reputation in research and publication, it was evident to the team that research was an important criterion in determining the promotion of academic staff to senior grades. In the view of the team there was, therefore, some conflict between what was widely perceived to be the main responsibility of academic staff - teaching - and the main criterion - research - through which they progressed in their career.
70 While the SED asserted that 'the University recognises the important role that staff appraisal can play in any staff development policy...to ensure quality and performance', it was frank in acknowledging that the formal appraisal of all categories of staff was allowed to lapse some years ago because the University was unable to satisfy the pay expectations that it generated. The SED reported that, in the light of the new Strategic Plan 2003-08, the University was planning to reintroduce academic staff appraisal in late 2004. Although the documentation seen by the audit team suggested that the new system was to be developmentally based, the team's discussions with staff suggested that the question was still open as to whether appraisal should be used primarily as a vehicle for staff development or for determining merit pay increases. In the absence of an incremental salary structure, some senior staff acknowledged that appraisal would allow a more systematic and uniform review of staff performance and a fairer method of allocating merit pay. They accepted, however, that this would conflict with a developmental role. In the event that the University opts for a developmental system of appraisal, then it will need nonetheless to give consideration to the adoption of a more transparent mechanism for determining pay based on merit.
Assurance of the quality of teaching through staff support and development
71 The SED emphasised the University's commitment to providing a range of staff development activities in order to meet its operational needs, as well as the personal and professional development needs of its staff. It also drew attention to the recent appointment of a new Human Resources Manager with particular responsibility for staff development, and to its intention to 'increase its activities in this area'. The Staff Development Policy was introduced in 1995 and revised, after wide consultation, in April 2003. The audit team noted that the policy, which covers all categories of staff, had both proactive and reactive elements. The proactive elements were those that directly supported the University's goals, such as the development of information technology (IT) skills and the training of new academic staff. The policy was reactive in the sense that 'the University expects its staff to...proactively assess their own performance and positively seek out activities to support personal development'.
72 In addition to the requirement that new academic staff obtain a teaching qualification (see above, paragraph 67), the Staff Development Policy sets out the University's support for staff seeking to acquire other professional qualifications relevant to their roles, including membership of the Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. The University is a member of the Higher Education Staff Development Agency and the Midlands Universities Administrative Training Committee.
73 The SED reported that peer review of teaching was well established at the University prior to 1997, but had lapsed when the four schools were abolished. A new system was introduced in August 2002, facilitated by some in-house workshops, and the audit team heard that it was already well embedded. As in other institutions, the outcomes of peer review are confidential between reviewer and the member of staff reviewed. The team believed, however, that two additional steps were needed if the full benefits of the scheme were to be realised by the University: a mechanism for ensuring that best practice was widely disseminated; and a means of recording any developmental needs identified during the review to enable the head of department to ensure that appropriate provision was made. The team learnt that both steps were currently under consideration.
74 On the basis of its discussions with staff and the documentary evidence that it reviewed, the team was satisfied that the University was paying appropriate attention to staff support and development in the pursuit of excellence in teaching. The University will no doubt be proceeding with its own agenda for further enhancements in this area, including evaluating more formally the effectiveness of current provision.
Assurance of the quality of teaching delivered through distributed and distance methods
75 Discussion of the University's arrangements for assuring the quality of off-site teaching is provided below, paragraphs 88-89.
Learning support resources
76 The Information Services (IS) Department, headed by the University Librarian and Director of IS, is responsible for the provision of library, IT, audiovisual (AV) and web services. Service planning and monitoring is overseen by an IS User Group, with both staff and student representation. Currently, user surveys are carried out on an ad hoc basis, but the SED indicated that plans for 'more regular surveys' were in train.
77 The University has two libraries, one covering law and science, and the other business and the humanities. The SED stated that there were problems in meeting the demand for books on short-term loan at peak periods, but described the collection of electronic databases and journals as 'very good', with access on a par with a large research library. During term time, the libraries are open seven days a week for a total of 91 hours, although it is recognised that 24-hour opening is desirable during examination periods. In terms of computer facilities, the SED reported that there was open access to computer rooms on all sites, as well as PC areas in both libraries. Student PCs are upgraded on a three-year cycle, and the software on all PCs was upgraded to Windows and Office 2000 in summer 2003. There is 24-hour access to computer rooms outside the libraries. The SED acknowledged that AV facilities, in particular the provision of video technology for teaching and learning, required upgrading. It also reported that a working party had been established to consider the possibility of introducing a virtual learning environment to the University.
78 The SWS provided a less positive picture of learning resources. It reported that 41 per cent of students who responded to the survey on which the submission was based felt that library facilities were insufficient and opening hours inadequate. A slightly higher percentage felt that computing and printing facilities were inadequate. These results, however, were not confirmed by the experiences of the students who met the audit team. All of these students expressed a high level of satisfaction with the provision of library and IT facilities. The only reported problem was that study bedrooms were not hard wired and therefore did not permit access to on-line journals and databases. Staff who met the audit team reported that this matter was under investigation. The team was also informed that since the release of the SWS, IS had introduced one important change and was committed to another. The shortage of short-loan books was to be alleviated by allowing them to be borrowed only on a two-hour reference loan, and the libraries would in future be open for 24 hours a day for a two-week period during final examinations.
79 On the basis of its discussions with staff and students, the audit team was broadly satisfied that the University was keeping an overview of its learning resources provision, and was taking steps, where appropriate, to respond to user need. The SED acknowledged that there was currently 'no overall IS strategic document', but reported that plans were in place to develop such a document, once the Strategic Plan 2003-08 and the LTS had been finalised. By the time of the audit visit both the Strategic Plan and the LTS had gone through several drafts and the IS Strategic Plan was in place. However, the team's discussions with staff suggested some lack of coherence in the planning and allocation of resources for learning support and, potentially, some vulnerability. The absence of a resource allocation model to guide the University in its strategic decision-making means that there is uncertainty in the allocation of departmental budgets, and renders learning support resources particularly vulnerable in times of budget deficit. The University is advised to take a more strategic approach to the planning and allocation of resources for learning support.
Academic guidance, support and supervision
80 The SED claimed that the University provided 'a high level of individual attention and support' for its students and placed 'considerable store on the delivery of a high quality student experience'. Academic support and guidance begins with induction during a freshers' week, when students are introduced to academic support services, such as the libraries and IT, as well as to pastoral and welfare services. During this period, students receive detailed information about their programme of study, usually through a student handbook that includes course and programme specifications.
81 Once the academic year is underway, academic staff are primarily responsible for providing students with academic advice and guidance in their various roles as teachers, course convenors and personal tutors. Contact between staff and students is facilitated by relatively low student:staff ratios so that, in the majority of cases, the tutorial/seminar class size is no more than five or six. Although the formal contact hours of teaching staff are no higher than in many other institutions, the audit team was informed that informal contact hours were much higher, suggesting that students not only had easy access to staff but also availed themselves of it. Supplementary support is available through departmental study skills programmes. Students experiencing learning difficulties also have access to institutional support through the Learning Support Adviser (LSA), who organises individual support for dyslexic students and others in need.
82 The SWS reported that around 62 per cent of the students responding to the survey felt that they received 'genuine personal attention', and 77 per cent that they had sufficient access to staff, although there was some concern among students (37 per cent) as to whether they were receiving 'the right sort of support academically'. The students, both undergraduate and postgraduate, who met the audit team were overwhelmingly enthusiastic and complimentary about the academic support and advice they received.
Personal support and guidance
83 Personal support and guidance also begins with the induction programme, when students receive the Student Support Handbook, providing details of a range of pastoral support mechanisms and welfare services. Although the University's induction arrangements are similar to those of other institutions, they are of particular importance 'at Buckingham with its large overseas student population' and more than one intake of students each year. The audit team noted that the University was aiming to reduce the number of premature leavers by focusing on English language competence at entry, induction processes and enhanced personal tutor support. The effectiveness of induction in particular is reviewed through a feedback questionnaire administered by the Student Support Department, and through 'wash-up' meetings to which students are invited.
84 At departmental level, personal support and guidance for undergraduates and taught postgraduates is provided largely through the personal tutor system. The system operates in accordance with a University Code of Practice and details for students are published in the Student Support Handbook. The system is organised by departments, with oversight provided by the University's Senior Tutor, particularly on disciplinary matters. Personal tutors have both an academic and a pastoral role. In their pastoral role, while it is not expected that they will be able to solve all their students' problems, it is expected that they will know to whom they should refer the students. Support for the small population of research students is provided by supervisors, under arrangements set out in the Research Degrees Handbook.
85 At institutional level, the Student Support Officer (SSO) is responsible for 'the overall welfare of the student body' and also provides one-to-one support, with a caseload arising from self-referrals and referrals from the Senior Tutor and the LSA. The post is currently filled by a member of the academic staff whose time is notionally split on a 50:50 basis. The SWS reported that some students found it unsatisfactory that the SSO post was filled by an academic, because of the 'personal nature of the information that they disclose'. The audit team heard that the SSO and the LSA did not perceive this to be a problem: they worked closely together, each providing cover and support for the other. Thus, if a student's academic affiliation was close to that of the SSO, the LSA would step in and provide support for that student.
86 Of the other services available to students, the SED reported that the Careers Service offered the usual range of services, in line with the relevant section of the Code of practice. The Service provides information about jobs, including an email service about job vacancies, and organises careers events, including seminars in academic departments and presentations by professional bodies. In a more recent development, an HE Progress Files Working Party has been established to take forward work on the provision of transcripts and personal development plans. The audit team was informed that the Service suffered somewhat from being part of a small university, finding it difficult to persuade large employers to make recruitment visits. It attempted to overcome this disadvantage by 'piggy backing' on the career services of larger institutions. The team also noted that the high proportion of overseas students, many of whom returned to their home country after graduation, made the job of the Service particularly difficult. These observations were borne out by the SWS, which reported that over half the students who responded to the survey did not know whether or not the Service was responsive to their needs.
87 The matters raised above notwithstanding, the totality of evidence available to the audit team suggested that the commitment of the University's staff to providing academic and pastoral support for students was a feature of good practice.
Collaborative provision
88 The University's collaborative provision is limited to two arrangements: an MSc programme in Transformation Management in partnership with TEAM, and an MA in Historic Interiors with the Wallace Collection in London. Recruitment onto the former has been suspended, owing to failure to gain accreditation by the Jordanian Government (which classed the programme as 'distance learning'). The future of the MA programme is also in doubt, in the light of declining student demand. Both programmes operate in accordance with the University's Procedure for the Assurance of Academic Quality and Standards in Collaborative Arrangements. Administration is undertaken by the University and assessment and examination procedures are the same as for comparable internal programmes. The SED reported that the QA Office worked closely with the programme directors of both programmes to ensure that the arrangements were consistent with the relevant section of the Code of practice.
89 The audit team was provided with very full documentation relating to both partnerships and met staff with responsibility for overseeing the collaborations on behalf of the University. The team found that the processes of formulating agreements and programmes specifications, programme approval by the appropriate University committees, review by external examiners, obtaining student feedback, and reporting on student progression and achievement, fully met the expectations of the Code of practice. In the case of the TEAM collaboration, the team noted that the arrangements had included a particularly thorough audit by an external assessor. The team found the quality of documentation and processes underpinning the two partnerships to be a feature of good practice. While the future of these two collaborations may be in doubt, the team concluded that the University's general approach to setting up and maintaining partnerships was robust and, providing a similar level of care was taken, should stand it in good stead for any developments in the future.
Section 3: The audit investigations: discipline audit trail
Discipline audit trail
90 For each of the selected DATs, two members of the audit team met staff and students to discuss the provision, studied a sample of assessed student work, saw examples of learning resource materials, and studied internal review and other documentation. The team's findings are as follows.
Undergraduate programmes in English literature
91 The DAT was based on six undergraduate programmes in English literature, offered by the Department of English within the School of Humanities. The programmes were English Literature (single honours), and English Literature offered with English Language Studies (English as a Foreign Language); French or Spanish; History; Multimedia Journalism; and Psychology. The DAT did not cover activity relating to English language programmes or courses.
92 The DAT was supported by a specially prepared DSED produced by the Department of English. The DSED provided an overview of English literature provision and helpfully included an analysis of the responses of an extensive questionnaire given to students on the programmes in anticipation of the audit. It also included several appendices.
93 The DSED was accompanied by programme specifications for all the programmes. The specifications made reference to the Subject benchmark statement for English and had been prepared in the light of the FHEQ. The audit team identified other appropriate references to these elements of academic infrastructure in the Department's LTS and its student handbook. The DSED also made reference to various sections of the Code of practice and the team was able to establish, through discussion with staff and by reviewing the available documentation, that the references were underpinned by firm knowledge and understanding of the content and purpose of these external reference points.
94 The course and programme specifications had been prepared using the University template. The audit team noted that the template did not make explicit the need for a clear relationship between learning outcomes and assessment. The team also noted, as a matter of concern, that students following the same course were assessed differently according to their level within the programme, and according to whether they were native speakers of English or not. This was not reflected in the course specifications, which did not differentiate between learning outcomes for different student groups. Likewise, the grade criteria for English, although available in the student handbook, were not directly linked to assessment practice. In the view of the team, these matters were indicative of weaknesses at institutional level that the University needed to address (see above, paragraph 50). The team was confident that the Department of English would, when required to do so, modify its documentation in line with any new University procedures.
95 The DSED included progression and completion data for all the programmes, and also provided some commentary and data on entry qualifications and recruitment. The audit team explored with staff how these statistical data were prepared and used, and was informed that the data were not made available centrally in the University but had been prepared by the Department for the purposes of the audit. While staff indicated that they found the data useful, particularly in relation to entry qualifications, the team had some difficulty in establishing a transparent connection between the data and the monitoring of quality and standards, either in the documentation provided, or through discussion with staff. This is a matter that the University will wish to address, in the context of observations made elsewhere in this report (see above, paragraphs 64-65).
96 Quality assurance of provision at local level takes place in accordance with the University's procedures. The English literature programmes have been developed over a period of years, and the DSED reported that those that existed prior to 1997 were periodically monitored by AAC as part of the system of quadrennial programme review. Since then, all of the programmes, including new offerings and combinations approved by the Curriculum Committee, have been reviewed and reported on annually by the relevant AAC subcommittee. The DSED also reported that monitoring of programmes was 'carried out on a regular basis through departmental meetings...held at least once a term'. These meetings included consideration of staff and student feedback and external examiners' reports, and responses to the latter are forwarded to the AAC Sub-Committee and, if appropriate, to the School Board and the Curriculum Committee. In the view of the audit team, these arrangements would be enhanced by a University requirement that departments bring together the results of their monitoring activities, and other significant aspects of their work, into annual self-evaluations submitted to the AAC subcommittees as part of the annual monitoring process (see above, paragraph 39).
97 The audit team had access to examples of external examiners' reports for the three years preceding the audit. The reports contained many positive comments, both about the academic standards achieved by the students and about the quality of the learning and teaching environment through which staff helped students to reach their potential. The team saw evidence that matters raised in the reports were identified at both School Board and AAC subcommittee level, although in the view of the team, the relative infrequency of the latter's meetings meant that it was unlikely to be an effective mechanism for ensuring that appropriate and timely action was taken in response to matters raised by external examiners.
98 The audit team reviewed a range of assessed student work from all levels of the programmes. It was satisfied that the nature of the assessment and standard of student achievement was appropriate to the titles of the relevant awards and their location within the FHEQ.
99 While the student handbook states that all work in the Department is blind double-marked, staff informed the audit team that this was only true on the English literature courses. Students were required to hand in two copies of coursework so that each marker could have a clean copy. The copy with the first marker's comments was then handed back to the student. In the view of the team, this system had the disadvantage that there was no retained copy of the first marker's comments, a difficulty only partly overcome by staff making summaries of their comments for retention; external examiners were not able to see, for example, all the careful annotations made on the texts. The team also noted that, while the Department had an assessment form to be used by markers, the form did not break down feedback in terms of grade descriptors and learning outcomes. These are matters to which the University may wish to give further consideration, in the light of its overall arrangements for assessment and the provision of feedback to students.
100 Undergraduate students are provided with the student handbook which includes the Department's grade criteria. However, the handbook does not include course and programme specifications, although the students who met the team confirmed that they had been given them separately. The students were full of praise for the amount and quality of the formative feedback on their academic performance that they received from staff. They were also very positive about the availability of learning resources, and about opportunities to give feedback to the Department and the University. The team was informed that there was a feedback form for all courses, and that the student representation system was effective and well used.
101 Notwithstanding the matters raised above (which were, in the view of the audit team, largely matters of institutional policy), the team was satisfied that the quality of learning opportunities provided for students was suitable for programmes of study leading to the named awards.
Taught postgraduate programmes in business studies
102 The DAT was based on six taught postgraduate programmes in business/management, offered by the Department of Management within the School of Business. The programmes were the MBA, and MSc programmes in Service Management; International Hotel Management; Transformation Management (offered as separate programmes in the UK and Jordan); and Social and Economic Transformation (due to commence in January 2004).
103 The DAT was supported by a specially prepared DSED produced by the Department of Management. The DSED provided an overview of management provision, contained student completion statistics, and helpfully included an analysis of the responses of an extensive questionnaire given to students on the programmes in anticipation of the audit. The DSED made it clear that three of the programmes - International Hotel Management, and the two Transformation Management programmes - were being phased out. As a result, the DAT focused on the MBA, the MSc in Service Management, and the forthcoming MSc in Social and Economic Transformation.
104 The DSED was accompanied by programme specifications for all of the programmes. The specifications had been drawn up using the University template, and with reference to the FHEQ and the Subject benchmark statement for masters awards in business and management. The audit team noted that, while the specifications were generally consistent with the expectations of these elements of the academic infrastructure, there were a number of matters requiring further attention. For example, the MSc in Service Management carried a higher credit load (210 credits) than the MBA and the MSc in Social and Economic Transformation (180 credits), suggesting that the curriculum of the former was overloaded. The MSc in Social and Economic Transformation appeared to include some unrealistic plans for the delivery of 15 credit courses over three days. On the MBA programme, students are allowed to opt for one undergraduate course each term. While the aggregate number of undergraduate credits thus accumulated is within the limits permitted by the Subject benchmark statement, MBA students are required to obtain a higher Pass mark on these courses than undergraduate students, even though the specified learning outcomes are the same for all students, regardless of the level of award. More generally, the specifications did not map outcomes to specific assessment tasks, making it difficult for staff and external examiners to check that all outcomes were assessed. In the view of the team, these matters were indicative of weaknesses at institutional level that the University needed to address (see above, paragraph 50). In particular, the University is advised to move swiftly to the adoption of a consistent institution-wide approach to the matching of accumulated credits to masters level awards.
105 Quality assurance of provision at local level takes place in accordance with the University's procedures, and the audit team's discussions with staff suggested that there was full engagement with the new institutional quality agenda. There is a student representative on the School Board who, the team was informed, consulted with postgraduate students via email about issues to be raised at Board meetings and provided subsequent feedback. The team's scrutiny of Board agendas and minutes for the last two years suggested that this was a relatively recent change, but students who met the team were satisfied that the system was working well, and with the level of representation afforded to them. Monitoring of the programmes is based on student feedback questionnaires, a standard format for which was introduced in 2003, and there is annual monitoring by the relevant AAC subcommittee. In the view of the audit team, these arrangements would be enhanced by a University requirement that departments bring together the results of their monitoring activities, and other significant aspects of their work, into annual self-evaluations submitted to the AAC subcommittees as part of the annual monitoring process (see above, paragraph 39). In March 2001, the Department of Management was subject to what the DSED described as 'a full internal programme and department review', conducted by a member of AAC.
106 The audit team looked in particular at quality assurance in relation to the MBA programme, which accounted for 26 of the total of 36 students in 2003, and has just undergone major restructuring. The team noted that discussions about restructuring had been ongoing over the last 18 months, and had involved students, external examiners and at least one other external specialist. A paper outlining the proposed changes was discussed at the Business Board of Study in August 2002 and subsequently outline planning approval was given by the Curriculum Committee. A total of seven different iterations of the new proposal culminated in final approval by the Curriculum Committee in November 2003. The team was satisfied that the approval process was conducted in accordance with the University's procedures for making substantial changes to programmes, although it noted that the external consultations, which occurred towards the end of the discussions, might have been more timely (see above, paragraph 38).
107 The audit team had access to external examiners' reports for the programmes, which indicated satisfaction with the standards achieved by students. The team saw evidence that the (generally minor) matters for further consideration raised in the reports were dealt with in accordance with University procedures: responses were reported to the Board of Study by the Head of Department, then forwarded to the AAC Sub-Committee, with any institution-wide implications reported to the Curriculum Committee. The team noted that external examiners had commented on the fact that examination conventions and classification regulations were not disclosed to students, a matter yet to be addressed by the University (see above, paragraph 52).
108 The audit team reviewed a range of assessed student work. It was satisfied that the nature of the assessment and standard of student achievement was appropriate to the titles of the relevant awards and their location within the FHEQ.
109 At induction, students are provided with information packs that set out programme details, including course and programme specifications. There is currently no student handbook, but the audit team heard publication is planned for January 2004 (see below, paragraph 114). Students who met the team were generally satisfied with the information they received, and with the quality and the timeliness of the feedback provided on their assessed work.
110 Notwithstanding the matters raised above (which were, in the view of the audit team, largely matters of institutional policy), the team was satisfied that the quality of learning opportunities provided for students was suitable for programmes of study leading to the named awards.
Thematic enquiries
111 The audit team did not select an area for thematic enquiry.
Section 4: The audit investigations: published information
The students' experience of published information and other information available to them
112 The SED summarised the University's approach to providing information for students and prospective students, and for ensuring the accuracy of that information. There are established mechanisms for ensuring the accuracy of publicity materials, including prospectuses. The audit team was provided with a range of documentation published for students and prospective students, and with course and programme specifications, the production of which is nearly complete (see above, paragraph 49). The University has not yet established an intranet facility but important documents are placed on the internet.
113 The audit team discussed access to institution, programme and course-level information with staff and students in institutional and discipline-level meetings. Both staff and students emphasised the importance of informal systems of information access, supplementing the more formal institutional arrangements. Students explained that they had felt well informed about what to expect from the University and their programmes before commencing study, and that the material sent to them had been accurate and comprehensive, with one notable exception relating to BPS accreditation (see above, paragraph 55). However, some students expressed concern about the reliability and comprehensiveness of the information they received when at the University.
114 The audit team noted in particular that the University had determined that those departments which did not currently produce student handbooks would be required to do so in the very near future, and that the handbooks were intended to include course and programme specifications, together with information about matters such as plagiarism. In the view of the team, the student handbooks already produced varied in quality. While most of the information provided appeared to be accurate, there was some repetition and there were some gaps. The course and programme specifications contained a wealth of useful information, but in their current form did not map learning outcomes clearly to assessment tasks (see above, paragraphs 50, 94 and 104). In addition, the team noted that the usefulness of the information provided for students was currently limited by the fact that examination conventions and classification regulations remained unpublished. The students who met the team were also not consistently clear about the conventions surrounding late submission of work and the procedures and penalties in respect of plagiarism. The team considered that the introduction of a standard template might help the University in achieving standardisation and consistency in student handbooks. The University is advised to move swiftly to adopt an institution-wide policy on the publication of clear, consistent and comprehensive information to students, particularly in relation to assessment criteria, degree classification conventions and associated regulations.
Reliability, accuracy and completeness of published information
115 Although not funded by HEFCE, the University has engaged constructively with the new national information requirements set out in HEFCE's document 02/15, and is working towards meeting those requirements within the designated timescale. Subject to access to appropriate facilitatory support from Higher Education & Research Opportunities in the United Kingdom, it intends to publish the required quantitative information during 2004, although because it does not currently make a statistical return to the Higher Education Statistics Agency, it has substantial work to do in this area. The reintroduction of periodic review will enable it to publish summaries of review findings and follow-up, according to the terms specified by HEFCE.
ISBN 1 84482 036 X
next >> Findings
Top
QAA updates
QAAtweets
QAAtube