Foreword
1 This is a report of an academic quality audit of Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College (the University College) undertaken by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA). QAA is grateful to the University College and its partner institutions for the willing cooperation provided to the audit team.
2 The audit was carried out using a revised process approved by the former Higher Education Quality Council (HEQC), and endorsed by HEQC's successor body, QAA. The modified process has been introduced following completion in 1997 of the original national academic quality audit programme which began in 1991 under the auspices of the then CVCP's Academic Audit Unit (AAU) and was subsequently taken over by HEQC in 1992. The principal purpose of this revised process is to offer an opinion on the extent to which individual institutions are discharging effectively their corporate responsibilities for the academic standards and quality of their awards and associated programmes of study. The process takes as its starting point the assumption that institutions have appropriate quality assurance policies and procedures in place, and also assumes that they can provide convincing evidence that these are working to good effect. The audit checks the extent to which this is the case and that the methods used are sufficiently reliable to continue to provide stakeholders with the necessary assurances for the future. The audit process focuses on four main topics: the institution's quality strategy; academic standards; the learning infrastructure; and internal and external communications.
Method and process
3 The primary source of documentary information for the audit was an Analytical Account (the Account) prepared by the University College which described its procedures for managing the quality of its educational provision and for safeguarding the academic standards of its awards. The Account was submitted to QAA in advance of the audit, together with a number of supporting documents including the University College's Strategic Plan, prospectuses and student guides, and papers on institutional organisation and quality procedures. Other material available to the audit team included the report of the HEQC quality audit published in 1996 and the report of the QAA audit of the University's arrangements to manage the quality of a link with a partner in South Africa, published in 1999. In addition, the team had access to the reports of teaching quality assessments and subject reviews conducted by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and QAA, and reports from professional and statutory bodies. Following a briefing meeting held to review this information, the team proposed a programme of meetings for the visit.
4 The audit team visited the University College from 19-23 November 2001. For the visit the University College made available a base room containing extensive information relevant to its quality procedures and in the course of the visit the team met the Director; the Deputy Director; the Director of Finance and Corporate Affairs; the assistant directors; deans of the faculties; the Academic Registrar and other senior officers; heads of departments; members of the University College's teaching, administrative and support staff; and undergraduate and postgraduate students. The team also met students following courses and programmes approved by the University College and offered in partner institutions and staff delivering and managing such provision. The team is grateful to all those who made themselves available to meet it.
5 The members of the audit team were Dr D W Cairns, Professor A Cryer and Dr P Marsh, auditors; and Mrs I C T Ainsworth, audit secretary. The audit was coordinated for QAA by Dr D W Cairns, Assistant Director, Institutional Review Directorate.
The context for the current audit
6 Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College has its origins in the High Wycombe College of Technology and Art and the Newland Park College of Education, which merged in 1975 to form the Buckinghamshire College of Higher Education. The University College gained its own taught degree awarding powers in 1995, having previously had validation arrangements with CNAA and Brunel University. The University College began to confer its own taught degree awards in 1996 and from 1997 registered all new students for its own awards. From February 1999, the University College successfully applied to the Privy Council, to use the 'university college' title and its adoption of its current title dates from that point. The University College's Strategic Plan indicates an objective of securing research degree awarding powers and full university title at an early stage in the new millennium. At the time of the audit, research students at the University College continued to be registered for higher degrees with Brunel University.
7 The University College is the main provider of higher education for the Buckinghamshire region and operates on three campuses: High Wycombe (the main campus), Wellesbourne (also in High Wycombe), and Chalfont Campus (in Chalfont St Giles). There is a strategic commitment to consolidating High Wycombe-based operations on a single campus and negotiations are underway to achieve this aim.
8 At present, the University College has approximately 6,000 full-time and 2,000 part-time undergraduate students and 730 postgraduate students (including those registered on research degrees). Recruitment has a strong regional concentration with approximately 4,700 of its students coming from within 25 miles of the University College. Approximately 63 per cent of the institution's students are mature (over 21) and 23 per cent are from ethnic minority backgrounds. According to the Account, the University College exceeds its HEFCE Performance Indicators benchmarks for recruitment from the state sector, and from social classes IIIm, IV and V, and in respect of retention across all categories of student intake.
Governance and management
9 The University College is governed by a Council of 25 members, which is responsible for the educational character and mission of the institution and for monitoring corporate resources, policies and procedures. Members of the Council take an active role in University College matters and it receives regular reports on academic and financial matters from senior staff. The Council has established standing committees the titles of which indicate their key functions: Audit; Estates; Finance; Human Resources; Nominations; Remuneration; Honorary Awards; Academic and Student Affairs; and Strategy.
10 Members of the Council who met the audit team to discuss their work considered that through its debates and the work of its standing committees, the Council was able to influence policy and strategy and monitor the University College's academic performance, for example by receiving reports on the award results and patterns of student progression and performance. Particular examples of Council contributions to the clarification and direction of policy included giving a sharper definition of the regional role, campus consolidation, and improvements to the learning and teaching infrastructure. Overall, the Council appeared to the team to be operating as a strategic body and to be striking an appropriate balance between constructive involvement in the affairs of the University College and allowing the institutional management to exercise its professional authority and judgement in shaping the academic policies and direction of the University College.
11 The senior management team of the University College consists of the Director; the Deputy Director; the Director of Finance and Corporate Services and two assistant directors respectively responsible for finance and corporate services, and for planning and academic affairs. The deputy and assistant directors share line management responsibility for the 11 central service departments (see below, paragraph 50) while the Director has line management responsibility for the deans of the faculties.
12 The six faculties established by the University College are: Applied Social Sciences and Humanities; the Buckinghamshire Business School; Design; Health Studies; Leisure and Tourism; and Technology. Each faculty is sub-divided into two or more departments. The faculties have broadly comparable numbers of full-time students although part-time student numbers are distributed more unevenly, with the faculties of Health and Technology accounting for approximately 63 per cent of the University College's part-time student population.
13 The committee structure adopted by the University College provides for broad representation and participation of staff at the institution, faculty, department and programme levels. Responsibility for ensuring that academic programmes are of suitable quality, and that the academic standards of awards are secure, rests with Senate which operates through a series of specialist standing committees. The three central standing committees are: the Academic Audit Committee (AAC) (which is responsible for the detailed oversight of all academic quality and standards policies and procedures); the Teaching and Learning Committee (TLC) and the Research Degrees Committee (RDC). The University College also monitors faculty matters through six faculty boards which are directly accountable to Senate and, in the case of the Combined Studies scheme, and in-house programmes in learning and teaching, a Board of Professional and Continuing Education. Below these levels, there are departmental boards and field committees (for those programmes run within the University College Modular scheme) and course committees, for non-modular courses. In each of the many cases sampled by the audit team, these committees appeared to be functioning effectively and there was a healthy turnover and cross-representation of membership (see below, paragraph 126).
14 The University College also operates a number of management committees and steering groups which oversee and give direction to particular areas. These include: the Research Strategy Steering Group; the Information Strategy Steering Group; the Learning Resources Consultative Group; the Staff Development Committee; the Student Affairs Committee (which is to be distinguished from the Academic and Student Affairs Committee of the Council, (see above, paragraph 9)); the Equal Opportunities and Community Development Committee; the Health and Safety Committee; and the Environmental Management Review Committee. Each of these bodies reports directly to the Planning Board which in turn reports directly to Senate.
15 The Planning Board is a significant committee for developing policy and planning across a wide range of University College business, and its membership reflects this significance. It is chaired by the Director and its membership includes the Directorate, deans and heads of central services; it deals with a wide range of resourcing issues, particularly those relating to the development of the support services and University College infrastructure. The audit team observed from discussions with Planning Board members and from the papers of the Board that it often functioned as a bridge between the management and deliberative structures of the University College and a forum for brokering solutions to complex policy issues which were then refined for consideration by Senate and/or the Council.
Responses to previous audits
16 The University College participated in an HEQC academic audit in May 1996, and in a QAA academic audit of its arrangements to assure the quality of provision and safeguard the academic standards of its awards in connection with taught postgraduate programmes offered in management and tourism with MANCOSA, in South Africa in July 1999.
17 The report of the 1996 audit concluded that Buckinghamshire College of Higher Education (as it then was) had 'thorough mechanisms for assuring the quality of its teaching' and that it fulfilled its intention of being responsive and its commitment to 'critical and iterative self-evaluation'. It noted several areas for commendation and a number of issues for further consideration. A paper placed in the base room set out for the benefit of the audit team how the University College had responded to the issues it had been asked to consider, although there was no detailed coverage of this matter in the Account.
18 Clear action appeared to have been taken to address shortcomings identified in the 1996 report in the checking of promotional material which the present audit team was able to follow-up in its enquiries. Equally, measures had been taken to address issues concerning: validation documentation; support for international students and students on placement; research student induction, training and teaching duties; academic level definition and understanding, particularly in relation to master's courses and the inclusion of undergraduate material; staff probation and appraisal; monitoring of technical staff support issues; double and anonymous marking; student feedback; and provision of staff development for staff in collaborative partner institutions. The present team is satisfied that the University College's overall response to the 1996 report had been serious and considered.
19 In the case of the 1999 report on the University College's collaborative arrangements with MANCOSA, South Africa, the Account set out the University College's response. Following the QAA audit, the specific relationship with MANCOSA had been internally reviewed and a staff development event on overseas collaborative audit had been held for staff with the involvement of a QAA Assistant Director. Subsequently, changes in South African educational legislation led the University College to the view that it would no longer be appropriate to maintain the relationship with MANCOSA. It has therefore decided progressively to disengage from its commitment in South Africa and will terminate its relationship by 2004. Arrangements have been made to ensure that the interests of all registered students are safeguarded.
20 As part of a wider review of its collaborative provision the University College has also decided to withdraw from the relationships it has with partners in the United Kingdom other than those with four strategic partners, and to terminate its relationships with partners in South Africa (see above) and Hungary, leaving only a longstanding relationship with the Fachhochschule Osnabruck in Germany (see below, paragraphs 48-49 and 112).
Other developments since the 1996 audit
21 The University College has followed a cautious process of strategic development in the five years since the last audit report in 1996 marked by a modest growth in student numbers and diversification of its portfolio. Other developments noted in the Account are: a review and revision of the modular scheme; the introduction of the Academic Tutor initiative; the creation of the Department of Quality Enhancement and Development; the development of a centralised Student Information Service; and a more strategic direction of research activity aimed at promoting selective centres of strength and encouraging greater integration between research and teaching. These individual initiatives have also been added to by a more strategic review of regional and collaborative partnership and of estate rationalisation. At the time of the audit visit, the University College was seeking to rationalise its High Wycombe-based campus locations and concentrate its activities upon one site. Although strategic developments were in train, an agreement had been reached with the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) that it would delay its submission of a new strategic plan for 2001-05 until 2001-02, by which time it was hoped that estates development matters would have been resolved. It appeared to the audit team that notwithstanding a temporary hiatus in the development of its estates the University College was implementing key academic and learning infrastructure initiatives which were of importance to the standards of awards and the quality of the student experience.
The Analytical Account
22 The Account which the University College provided to support the audit gave a detailed and well-referenced description of the University College's policies, structures and procedures, cross-referenced to and supported by a well-organised collection of documentation in the base-room, which the audit team found to be both comprehensive and extremely helpful. The Account was less helpful to the team in illuminating the key issues facing the University College and identifying a concise definition of its approach to quality and standards. In particular, while identifying the role of formal structures and procedures the University College relies on in assuring the quality of provision and the academic standards of awards, the Account understated the strength of the informal networks, teamwork and sense of professionalism which the team found to be a notable feature of its meetings and discussions with staff, students and members of the Council.
Quality management
Quality Policy
23 According to the Account the major feature of the University College's Quality Policy (the Policy) is 'the culture of review, evaluation and enhancement' exemplified through annual and periodic internal review policies, external review processes and the methods used to ensure quality enhancement'. To achieve this culture of review, the University College places central reliance upon 'the professional commitment of staff in the performance of their role', a feature which was reinforced when the University College reviewed the Policy in June 2000.
24 The formal statement of the Policy, dated October 2000, gives further definition to the University College's approach to quality management, stating that it covers the 'dimensions of students, staff, programmes, teaching and learning approaches and all aspects of the supporting learning environment'. It links these dimensions to the University College's mission to 'offer access to quality teaching and research within a committed regional and international environment which is caring, supportive of scholarship and provides students and staff with the opportunity for personal and professional development'. The Account summarised the key principles of the Policy as reflecting 'a culture of continual review and evaluation; alignment with recognised standards and established Codes of Practice; an engagement with the wider academic community; [and] a partnership between faculties and central services'.
25 The Policy aims to blend the operation of policies and procedures for assuring the quality of the learning experience and the academic standards of awards with encouragement to staff to exercise and enhance their individual and collective responsibility for quality and academic standards. It therefore relies upon a culture of professionalism and extensive involvement of staff in the formal deliberative structures of the University College and their understanding of the means by which the Policy will be delivered. These means are stated as: specialised policies and strategies; appropriate procedures; the committee structure and delegated responsibility for decision-making. The Policy also lists an array of more specific policies which support the delivery of the quality policy notably those relating to validation, review, and annual monitoring; external examiners; teaching and learning; assessment; academic tutoring; student support; staff development; information and appeals and complaints. Considered as a whole, the Policy articulates the strong regulatory framework which the University College operates and seeks to foster the values of staff professionalism and commitment to quality.
26 In meetings with staff at various levels of the University College, and with representatives of central, faculty and departmental committees, the audit team found evidence of a broad understanding of the institution's approach to quality and standards and its link to the institutional mission priorities of offering quality teaching and research; a caring and supportive learning environment and opportunities for the personal and professional development of students and staff. In discussions, staff displayed a strong culture of professionalism and a willingness to take personal responsibility for the quality and standards of their areas of operation, as well as a sense of participation in a collegial academic community. The team formed the view that the extent of staff engagement with the implementation of the University College's quality and standards policy, had not been sufficiently conveyed by the Account or, indeed, in the Policy, which tended to emphasise the centrality of the regulatory and procedural framework for assuring quality and standards. This growing awareness of a shared 'culture' of quality and standards among staff was helping in particular to promote the University College's quality enhancement aims and to reinforce the 'culture of continual review and evaluation' as one of the key principles of its quality strategy. The team considers that the existence of this ethos of academic collegiality within the University College is an important strength and a factor which the senior management could build upon and foster in any future reviews of its quality strategy.
Planning and quality
27 The University College's approach to planning demonstrates appropriate concern to ensure the quality of provision and safeguard the academic standards of awards, with due attention paid to the analysis of resourcing commitments necessary to support academic developments. The draft Strategic Plan for 2001-05 emphasises the strategic priorities of: portfolio development and growth; teaching, learning, assessment and the curriculum; and scholarship and research.
28 Within this strategic framework, faculties have been required to produce individual plans and to identify areas of potential growth and development as well as areas of decline within their academic portfolios. This academic portfolio review, and the linked processes of support service planning and estates rationalisation, are intended to capitalise upon the University College's successful period of steady growth in the 1990's, to set priorities for investment, in support of the declared intention of becoming the major regional higher education provider for Buckinghamshire and the eventual acquisition of university status. Planning documents seen by the audit team, together with discussions with members of the Planning Board, demonstrated careful consideration of strategic options and the infrastructural costs of specific developments prior to approval of their initiation. The team also noted the intention of the University College to move to a more developed business planning approach as part of the new Strategic Plan in order to ensure a close match between the delivery of strategic objectives and resource allocation.
29 Similar care is evident in the planning of individual academic developments. Faculties are required to signal new academic developments or significant modifications to their portfolios in their annual operating statements prepared in the previous year, so that they can be formally approved by the Planning Board and the senior management. Prior to validation, outline planning approval requires the completion of a resource checklist and confirmation that any specialist resources are provided. Although the audit team saw no evidence to suggest that academic developments were entering the validation cycle without due consideration of resourcing requirements the University College is currently reviewing the procedure to ensure that it remains fit for purpose.
The management of quality
30 Under the University College's devolved arrangements for quality management faculties and faculty boards have been accorded considerable authority for monitoring the security of academic standards and the quality of provision, in each case on behalf of Senate. In turn, faculties and their faculty boards vest operational authority for programme quality, and academic standards at the point of delivery, in field or course committees, and for teaching and learning quality at the module level in the module tutor.
31 AAC defines and interprets the University College's regulations, policies and procedures, and closely monitors faculties and the programmes of study they offer via a comprehensive system of reviews, which ensure upward reporting from module and programme level to faculty boards, and thence to AAC. AAC provides regular action plans and detailed reports on the quality of educational provision and the academic standards of awards for consideration by Senate. Examples of the subjects of such reports include the results of annual programme evaluation, degree classification patterns, and the operation of mitigating circumstances in relation to assessment. AAC also provides feedback to faculties on the overall outcomes of monitoring and review activity and ensures that systems and procedures are understood, interpreted consistently and evaluated for their effectiveness and efficiency.
32 At University College level, the relevant Assistant Director and the Academic Registrar are responsible for the implementation of the quality system, whilst within faculties, authority for implementing recommendations rests with the deans, who delegate the necessary authority for managing the quality of provision to departments, fields of study, and courses as appropriate. The audit team discussed these arrangements with staff at all levels and found that the latter possessed a clear understanding of the University College's expectations with respect to academic standards and the quality of provision. The team also noted the breadth of staff involvement in the University College's deliberative structures and the cross-representation between different levels of the committee system (see below, paragraph 126).
33 Arrangements for ensuring quality enhancement are perhaps less well-established and the University College is seeking to make a senior appointment to provide further impetus to teaching and learning quality and innovative pedagogy. TLC has produced a Teaching, Learning and Assessment Policy and is encouraging faculties to establish teaching and learning committees, to support enhancement initiatives at a local level. Teaching fellowships have been created and the audit team found from a meeting with the postholders, that teaching fellows were a lively and catalytic force for encouraging critical reflection and innovation in their discipline areas (see below, paragraph 108).
34 The establishment of the Department of Quality Enhancement and Development (QED) in 1998 has led to a significant increase in strategic staff development in support of the University College's quality and standards objectives and some noteworthy innovations in supporting and disseminating understanding of learning outcomes (see below, paragraph 106), and in the peer observation of teaching (see below, paragraph 105). A significant development arising from the review of the modular framework in 1999 has been the Academic Tutor initiative, which is a University College devised and resourced system of student support which all faculties are now required to adopt (see below, paragraph 93). In noting these developments, the audit team recognised that the University College had addressed major issues of quality enhancement and that it had in place initiatives which would be progressed by the new strategic plan and by the envisaged change in executive responsibilities.
Quality manual
35 The University College's Academic Staff Quality Handbook (ASQH) which is updated annually constitutes its primary academic 'quality manual'. It ensures consistency of interpretation of the University College's requirements by staff teams and provides a compendious and authoritative guide to quality assurance systems and procedures and to the University College's academic regulations.
The modular framework
36 Across the University College most programmes are offered within the modular framework. The framework was subject to a comprehensive review from 1997-99, which culminated in a significant revision to its requirements which established a structure of eight 15-credit modules to enable more in depth learning; grouped modules into academic fields to give a clear emphasis on subject standards; and created an academic tutor scheme to promote the acquisition of study skills and the capacity for independent learning by students. Linked to this review, changes were made to validation procedures; assessment regulations; student information systems and the roles of staff, with the intention of ensuring greater consistency in the interpretation of academic standards and promoting more rigorous attention to learning outcomes, teaching and learning practice, and academic support for students on single and combined honours awards. Subsequently, all faculties were required to revise and revalidate their programmes as part of the modular framework, although some programmes, particularly those in the Faculty of Health, remain outside its scope because of the specific requirements of professional and statutory bodies.
37 All programmes, whether they are within or outwith the modular framework, are required to conform to the University College's definitions of academic levels and learning outcomes, and to produce programme specifications demonstrating how the curriculum meets the educational objectives of the programme. On the basis of the material available to it in the base room and from its discussions with staff and students, the audit team came to the view that the University College has promulgated a tight regulatory framework within which individual disciplines must express and demonstrate their academic objectives and standards.
Validation and monitoring
38 The University College's procedures for validation, review, and annual monitoring have evolved gradually from its earlier experience with CNAA, and subsequently with Brunel University. All procedures are clearly specified and referenced to more detailed documents in ASQH, together with the requirements for assessment and student support which must be built into academic programmes and continuously reviewed.
39 Validation is based upon a two-stage process comprising an audit of documents prepared by the proposers at faculty level followed by a full validation event conducted at institutional level with external scrutiny and debate. The format of documentation is clearly prescribed and all modules must be specified in learning outcomes along with the teaching, learning and assessment strategies for the programme. There is also a requirement to specify external referents including reference to the appropriate subject benchmarks. Documentation and reports of a substantial sample of validation events available to the audit team in the base room indicated that procedures are operated as specified in ASQH.
40 The operation of the annual monitoring system (now termed the Annual Review and Evaluation system) has recently been reviewed by AAC in response to staff perceptions of monitoring 'overload', and with the aim of sharpening the focus on critical reflection and debate at field or course committee level. With effect from 1999-2000, progressive changes have been designed to ensure that staff teams have the appropriate information to evaluate student performance, module and programme feedback, and reports from external examiners. In 2001, faculties have also been encouraged to provide 'away days' for field and course teams to engage in programme evaluation, with the documentation being used to capture the process of discussion and debate rather than being an end in itself (see below, paragraph 114). An overview of the annual monitoring process is maintained through the allocation of two independent AAC reviewers to each faculty, who attend meetings and sample the process of field and programme review.
41 At AAC, members review all completed reports against the six aspects of provision used by the subject reviews operated by QAA until 2000-01, and a full day is spent by AAC considering all reports (including a report on the monitoring of individual research degree student progress from each faculty) prior to preparation of an action plan of key points for Senate. Members of staff told the audit team that they had found this revised system to be less burdensome and that it had encouraged improved evaluation. Members of AAC told the team that they had found the revised process to be more effective in promoting a culture of peer review rather than 'top-down' inspection. On the basis of the papers it scrutinised in the base room, and discussions with members of the University College at all levels, it appeared to the team that by reducing some of the formal reporting requirements and encouraging staff teams to identify and discuss the quality and standards issues they and their students found most significant, the University was gaining better value from its monitoring procedures. The team came to the view that the revised arrangements for annual monitoring described above were working effectively.
Periodic reviews
42 The University College has recently completed a series of reviews of all six faculties which concentrated upon monitoring the effectiveness of the operation of the quality assurance systems and procedures at faculty, departmental and programme level. The relevant procedural document specifies that faculty reviews must include meetings with management and staff representatives (academic, administrative and technical), members of the faculty board, students and recent graduates. Issues to be covered in discussion and document scrutiny include: resourcing; quality assurance; teaching, learning and assessment; staff development; tutoring and student support and programme operation. A panel consisting of independent internal members (drawn from AAC, the Research Committee, and two independent faculty boards) together with an external peer carry out the review, and report back to AAC. Samples of the reports of such reviews which were provided in the base room appeared to the audit team to be analytical in nature and likely to be helpful to the faculties under review while providing AAC with a useful means by which, on behalf of Senate, it could ensure that procedures to assure the quality of provision and safeguard the academic standards of awards were being implemented consistently across the University College.
43 Members of faculty boards who discussed the conduct and outcomes of periodic reviews with the audit team acknowledged their usefulness in disseminating good practice and encouraging internal self-critical analysis. Procedures for periodic review were under consideration by AAC at the time of the audit and the University College was seeking to rationalise some of its extensive audit and review activity and align its internal procedures with the changing system of external review. While understanding (and supporting) the University College's wish to reduce the burdens on its teaching, administrative and management staff occasioned by such reviews, it seemed to the team that such holistic periodic reviews of faculty activity were particularly useful to the University College as a means of ensuring accountability and consistency within a devolved managerial system. Though not wishing to suggest the review method which might be adopted, the team believed that it was desirable that the University College should use the present pause in external quality reviews by QAA for reflection, to plan and implement a future internal review system which would continue to support the consistent delivery of quality and standards across the institution.
Collaborative provision within strategic partnerships
44 As part of its recently developed regional strategy, the University College has formed strategic alliances with four local colleges: Amersham and Wycombe; Aylesbury; East Berkshire; and Berkshire College of Agriculture. The aim of the alliances is to establish a network of Higher National and degree programmes validated by the University College and with guaranteed progression to programmes offered by the institution. Currently 37 programmes have been validated to operate in the four regional strategic partners, all but five of which have been validated since 1999. In March 2001 approximately 375 students were registered to study on programmes approved by the University College and leading to its awards.
45 Papers in the base room and information from discussions with members of the University College showed that the policy and planning debate surrounding the regional partnerships initiative had been thorough and considered, with the Planning Board, Senate and AAC involved in the consideration of the strategic dimension and matters relating to the management of quality and the academic standards of awards. Following the submission of papers to the Planning Board, and subsequent papers to Senate, in 1999 revised procedures and a new policy on collaborative provision had been agreed, which recognised the future concentration upon regional strategic partners. Simultaneously, procedures were revised to ensure closer scrutiny of collaborative provision and the necessary University College support for the increased range of collaborative programmes which was validated in conjunction with the four strategic partners during 1999-2000. In this development, the Planning Board appeared to the audit team to have played a key role in advancing and refining the detail of the Policy and discussing its implications for faculties and central services, and therefore in enabling a more rounded policy to be presented to Senate. This and other instances of the work of the Planning Board served to illustrate for the team its effectiveness and its capacity to support dialogues between senior academic and central service managers and to ensure wide involvement in policy-making and subsequent implementation and monitoring.
46 Accompanying the development of the strategic partnerships, new structures for the management of strategic partnerships have been adopted. These include a Regional Collaboration Steering Group, which encompasses members from all partner colleges and key University College staff and which reports to the University College AAC. There is also a bilateral Joint Board for the Chairs of the Council/Governors and Chief Executive and Deputy Chief Executive from both the University College and each partner college, which reports to the University College's Planning Board. In addition, the University College has established the Collaborative Provision Unit (CPU), in 2000, located within QED, with a Registrar and administrator responsible for liaison with the partner colleges and the faculties. Lastly, the Regional Collaboration Steering Group has been renamed the Collaborative Provision Steering Group in December 2000 and continues to act as a forum for monitoring the collaborative programmes and supporting future developments. Noting that these arrangements were both relatively recent and of strategic significance for the University College, the audit team examined them in some detail. It found that the new structures provide for a more sustained involvement at institutional level in the quality management and the quality enhancement of collaborative programmes, chiefly through CPU the establishment of which has allowed the University College to offer a central point of contact with its strategic partners and to provide support and staff development for staff in partner colleges as well as their counterparts in the institution. At the same time, the University College has assisted each of its strategic partners to establish 'higher education development managers' to act as central contact points and sources of guidance for staff teaching in the partner institutions on University College programmes.
47 The audit team met University College representatives involved in these arrangements and members of staff from the strategic partner colleges to discuss the development and operation of the strategic partnership. Staff from the University College and from partner institutions demonstrated a clear understanding of their roles within the quality and standards framework of the University College and the application of BCUC policies and procedures to collaborative provision. There was enthusiasm for the inclusion of partner college personnel in the University College's committees and acknowledgement of the degree of support which was being provided to staff and to students on collaborative programmes (see below, paragraphs 104 et seq and 112). Noting that conspicuous efforts had been made to put in place a clear structure of support and accountability to underpin its new regional partnership strategy, the team commends the conscientious approach which the University College is taking to the management of quality and the safeguarding of academic standards in its recently developed regional partnership.
Other collaborative provision
48 The University College's work on the future strategic direction of its collaborative provision within its regional partnership has not prevented its identification of a clear 'exit strategy' for most of the other links which it has in the UK (but outside the region) and overseas. All links have been reviewed under University College procedures, and while such reviews did not involve external specialist reviewers, all demonstrated that academic standards and the quality of provision were being thoroughly monitored and matters identified for action where appropriate. As a consequence of such reviews, three links in the United Kingdom, one link in Hungary and one in South Africa will be terminated leaving a longstanding relationship with the Fachhochschule Osnabruck, Germany, outside the University College's new strategic framework for collaborative provision. A new Collaborative Provision Policy was produced in June 2001 which sets out the basis of the change of direction by indicating that 'all future collaborative provision in the United Kingdom will only be undertaken in association with Further Education Corporations based within the immediate region of the University College (and with whom) the University College has established a broad and fundamental institutional relationship'. The Policy also notes that 'collaborative provision overseas will only be undertaken in association with an institution with which the University College has a long standing relationship and one that can be developed into a broad corporate strategic alliance'.
49 The audit team was satisfied that the University College had established a clear policy and strategic framework for ensuring the quality and standards of its collaborative provision and that the remaining links which would continue to operate outside the strategic regional partnership arrangements, would be subject to appropriate levels of scrutiny. However, the declared intention in the University College Policy on Collaborative Provision only to pursue overseas collaboration with institutions with which it had a 'long standing relationship' appeared to conflict with a broader statement in its International Policy, which merely stated that 'the University College will adopt a cautious approach to any future proposals for collaborative provision and a rigorous approach will be taken towards their scrutiny against strategic, academic and financial criteria'. Recognising that these policies were produced at different stages in its thinking on the management and development of collaborative links, the University College may consider it desirable to eliminate any inconsistencies between the wording of its Collaborative Provision and International Policy statements.
Administrative support for quality assurance and enhancement
50 The University College has a range of functional central services to support its academic and business activities the heads and members of which are represented on the Planning Board and its sub-committees and in the deliberative committee structures of Senate. Of particular relevance to the management of quality and standards are the Academic Registry; the Student Information Services and QED. The latter was established in 1998 and has managerial responsibility for staff development; learning and teaching enhancement; the Combined Studies scheme and collaborative provision with the four strategic regional partners (see above, paragraph 44).
51 The central services are supported by faculty registrars, based in each faculty, who manage and deploy administrative staff in support of academic programmes and students. Papers in the base room and discussions with the Academic Registrar, faculty registrars, and other administrative and technical staff provided conclusive evidence that the University College could rely upon a professional and efficient support service for the operation of its quality systems. Agendas for meetings were well-organised and their proceedings thoroughly and clearly minuted. Information on student progression and achievement within the modular scheme was presented in a consistent format to assessment boards and committees and there was effective communication between the central Academic Registry and the faculty registrars.
52 The University College made available to the audit team the conclusions of a recent external consultancy report which it had commissioned on its administrative systems. This document indicated that the University College was carefully reviewing particular operations and the deployment of staff with a view to supporting future strategic developments. In this respect, the team noted recent action to strengthen support for the monitoring of quality and standards at faculty level by the appointment of 'academic quality coordinators' in each faculty. The team was therefore satisfied that the University College was acting to strengthen the supporting administrative resources for its quality and standards procedures where required.
The management of change
53 The University College and its predecessors have maintained a stable senior management team over a considerable period, and this stability was considered by the members of the Council who met the audit team to have been an important factor in the ability of the University College to manage competitive pressures, and to make necessary adjustments to staffing levels in certain areas, while maintaining overall growth and avoiding turbulence in industrial relations. The Account noted that in the near future a number of retirements were likely to occur among senior staff, and that the University College was planning to review the structure of the Directorate and the organisation of responsibilities during 2001-02. A particular priority, which the Council members drew to the attention of the team, was to make a senior appointment to develop learning and teaching strategy as part of the new strategic direction being taken by the University College.
54 Senior members of staff and members of the Council characterised the University College's approach to strategic and academic planning during the last five years as 'cautious', and considered that this had enabled it to manage developments incrementally, without creating major risk to quality and standards. At the time of the audit, however, the University College was poised to develop a more ambitious regional strategy, submit a new strategic plan, consolidate its activities in High Wycombe on a single campus, and carry out a thorough review of its academic portfolio. The evidence seen by the audit team was that this new strategic direction was being carefully evaluated, and that the potential demands upon systems, and the implications for the quality of its educational provision and the academic standards of its awards, were being anticipated and planned for.
55 Against the back-cloth of the many exciting changes the University College is embarking upon, the audit team would wish to encourage it to maintain its current careful reviews of systems and its inclusive approach to staff involvement in policy-making and implementation, continuing to draw upon the vitality of the staff community as a valuable resource for maintaining and enhancing quality and standards, as it seeks to achieve its new strategic goals.
Academic standards of awards
56 In the Account the University College identified Senate as the body with prime responsibility for standards. The terms of reference for Senate include: the approval of academic awards and qualifications; establishment of an academic infrastructure capable of maintaining the standards of courses; responsibility for the admission, progression and examination of students; the establishment of processes for validation, revalidation, monitoring, review; and reporting on academic matters to underwrite Senate's responsibilities. The regulations and procedures of the University College provide for the delegation of authority to subordinate bodies within the institution, most notably to Senate subcommittees, including the faculty boards.
57 In reviewing Senate minutes and papers in the base room and through its discussions with members of staff and students the audit team was able to confirm the care taken by the University College to ensure that the responsibilities ascribed to Senate are not infringed. For example, minutes and papers of Senate meetings showed its active and recent consideration of matters pertaining to academic standards, such as: the roles of QED and the faculties with respect to collaborative arrangements (July 2001); aspects of the operation and refinement of the University College's Admissions Policy (approved December 2000) (July 2001); confirmation of criteria for appointment of external examiners for taught courses, including the assessment strategy as a component of the external examiners' briefing pack (July 2001); a review of the annual monitoring process (March 2001); and refinement of the course validation process (July 2000). The contribution of Senate to sustaining the University College's consensual and collegial style of debate and decision-making is discussed in paragraph 115, below.
Policies for defining, monitoring and maintaining the academic standards of awards
58 In the Account the University College set out the policies and procedures it relies on to achieve, maintain and enhance its academic standards. These include: its validation processes (see above, paragraph 38 and below, paragraph 60); its monitoring of the effectiveness of the teaching and learning strategies, through which programmes of study are delivered (see above, paragraph 40); its assessment procedures (see below, paragraph 65); the contributions of external peers through, for example, external examining (see below, paragraph 68) and their contributions to validations, revalidations and advisory committees (see below, paragraph 61); the personal and professional development of staff (see below, paragraph 104); and a 'robust and rigorous system of quality assurance to monitor and evaluate provision, that embodies a culture of critical reflection and planned improvement'.
59 Reports, papers and minutes generated by and submitted to AAC testified to the care with which staff at module, field, course and programme level, in the departments and on the faculty boards, evaluated the levels and the standards of attainment necessary for student progress and the award of qualifications. This was particularly to be seen in the production of annual monitoring reports, where as noted in paragraph 40, the University College is seeking to reduce the administrative burden for staff occasioned by annual monitoring in the interests of promoting opportunities for reflection and evaluation.
Validation and approval of new provision and revalidation of existing provision
60 The University College seeks to combine the production of consistent and thorough documentation with direct peer appraisal and debate on the substantive qualities, coherence and rigour of each proposal. Samples of validation and revalidation reports provided in the base room showed that the University College's procedures were conscientiously applied, with the faculty registrars providing effective support for the first, faculty-based, stage of validation and with the second stage involving external academic or professional peers.
61 The validation and revalidation processes require that proposals address external points of reference such as the qualifications framework for higher education, and Subject benchmark statements published by QAA on behalf of the higher education sector, the requirements of professional, statutory and regulatory bodies, and programme specifications, together with learning outcomes and assessment objectives and methodologies. There was evidence in the base room that briefings on these matters had been provided by the Academic Registry and QED for those preparing validation or revalidation documentation, with particular emphasis being placed on academic standards, the demonstration of externality, and the roles and responsibilities of those involved. Such briefings, together with helpful templates to facilitate the development of programme specifications, appeared to the audit team to have made a signal contribution to taking forward the debate on academic standards within the University College.
62 The audit team reviewed a sample of reports from first and second stage validations and revalidations, from which it was clear that the recommendations of such reports were expected to be fully addressed before being endorsed by AAC, prior to formal approval by Senate. Debates in Senate in February and July 2001 showed that even when faced with tight deadlines for the approval or reapproval of courses or programmes of study, the University College was not prepared to compromise the thoroughness of its validation and revalidation processes. Evidence provided in the base room included samples of reports and papers relating to the validation and approval of provision developed with regional partners: these indicated that the process which had been followed in respect of such provision was no less rigorous than that followed in respect of courses and programmes of study for offer within the University College itself. As with the annual monitoring process, the University College is reviewing how it might streamline its validation and revalidation processes without dulling their effectiveness.
63 The audit team found that the written and oral descriptions of the operation of the processes and procedures mentioned above, and others, provided ample evidence of the engagement of University College staff with internal and national debates around academic standards. The team considered that the approach was continuing to mature and that the burden of documentary description was giving way to more valuable reflection and evaluation, a trend that it can endorse. Innovations to support common understandings among staff of levels and outcomes such as the Learning Outcomes Game (see below, paragraph 106) have undoubtedly been helpful, but are only part of a broadly based consideration of the contemporary standards issues.
Institutional policies and practices for monitoring admissions, including recruitment and selection procedures
64 The application of the provisions of the admissions policy is delegated to nominated staff members and the audit team was told that identical criteria are applied to all potential entrants, with an additional English language requirement for international students. Entry criteria are established by academic staff of faculties and approved at validation. In order to maintain a balance between its inclusive admissions policy and its requirement to safeguard the academic standards of its awards the University College has developed special measures to address what it regarded as unsatisfactory student retention and progression rates, particularly at level one; these measures are described in paragraph 93, below.
Assessment and the classification of awards
65 In the Account the University College identified the clarity, fairness and rigour of its assessment procedures as one of the means whereby it achieves, maintains and enhances the standards of its awards. Taken as a whole, the University College's formal descriptions of the modular framework within which staff and students operate, its assessment strategy, the widespread use of learning outcomes, and guidelines on assessment types and associated loads, clearly establish the University College's expectations with respect to the standards of achievement it requires of its students in a wide range of contexts. Students told the audit team that they were aware of the University College's expectations in respect of levels of attainment, and that information in handbooks and regulations was directly reinforced by the teaching staff.
66 Reports from external examiners provided in the base room showed that the extent to which the University College's expectations in respect of academic standards were fully embodied in programme delivery varied across the institution, but that work was in progress to make links more apparent between stated learning outcomes and the assessment strategies adopted in particular modules and programmes. The University College has identified these matters from its own scrutiny of external examiners' comments and one of its stated priorities is to strengthen the links between learning outcomes and assessment strategies in modules and programmes.
67 The range of evidence available to the audit team in the base room included records of the proceedings of examination boards and reports from external examiners. In addition the team discussed arrangements to support and monitor assessment processes with members of the Registry and faculty registrars. Taken together, this information confirmed for the team that the student assessment and progression arrangements operated by the University College were robust, and were assisting the institution to maintain the academic standards of its awards. It may now be desirable for the University College to extend the range of external comparators it chooses to use to benchmark its own performance in order to make them more challenging.
External examiners: appointment, induction and support by the University College
68 The Account cited the support the University College receives from its external examiners as a key component of its approach to maintaining the academic standards of its awards. Arrangements and procedures for the nomination and approval of external examiners are clearly set out, sound, and from the evidence available in the base room, rigorously observed. Potential external examiners are generally identified by University College staff at field or course level. Nominations are initially scrutinised at faculty level and then by AAC, which is responsible for recommendations on appointment to Senate. The minutes and papers of AAC in the base room clearly showed that the Committee considers each case for appointment submitted to it carefully, prior to making its recommendation and in one or two cases it was clear that AAC had sought further information from faculties to enable it to make a properly informed decision.
69 On appointment, external examiners are provided with comprehensive and explicit briefing documentation. Comments by external examiners from academic and from professional backgrounds in their reports indicated that they found this material helpful. The detailed induction of external examiners is a responsibility which has been delegated to faculties, not all of which have thought it appropriate or necessary to mount formal induction sessions or courses for their examiner cohorts. Notwithstanding variations in the approaches taken by faculties to preparing external examiners for their responsibilities, reports from the latter indicated that, in general, they were appreciative of the introductory and induction arrangements made for them by the institution and by the particular groups of staff with which they worked. External examiners' reports were also generally supportive of the help and advice they had received with regard to course-work assessment processes. Should an external examiner be or become less than assiduous in the exercise of her or his responsibilities there are formal arrangements for addressing the matter and, if necessary, terminating their appointment.
Reports from external examiners
70 External examiners are required to submit their annual reports to the Registry following a standard form which has recently (2000) been amended to solicit comment on a wide range of pertinent issues. The standard form used includes an explicit invitation to comment on the academic standards being attained. Reports received by the Registry are copied to senior staff, including the Director, and to the relevant faculty and the field and/or course team responsible for the relevant provision. The wide range of reports available in the base room allowed the audit team to satisfy itself that external examiners do specifically comment on the appropriateness of the academic standards achieved and that in the instances seen by the team they had also provided other useful and supportive recommendations.
71 The University College expects that reports from external examiners will elicit formal responses from the relevant field or course teams and that the Registry's scrutiny of reports will allow it to identify matters requiring attention at institutional level. Evidence in the base room showed that course and field teams carefully considered external examiners' reports and responded to suggestions and comments. Discussions with staff throughout the visit provided additional information on how matters requiring action are dealt with.
72 One feature of note in the University College's present arrangements to respond to points raised by external examiners in their reports is that the response which goes to the external examiner is sent by the field or course leader, on behalf of the field or course team and the University College. The responses seen by the audit team were considered, thorough, and relevant, and addressed external examiners at the appropriate level using appropriate language. That the responses were only monitored by the faculty and institution after their submission to the external examiners was justified to the team, in its meetings with staff, on the basis of the need for timeliness. In support of this pragmatic arrangement, responses to external examiners are formally reviewed by departments, faculties, and the Registry and are considered as part of the University College's annual monitoring process. Since external examiners receive copies of the annual monitoring reports and any comments made on them by senior committees, they are in a position to confirm that the response they have received earlier from the field or course leader has the institution's imprimatur.
73 Based on its scrutiny of external examiners' reports, the Registry provides AAC with an annual analysis of themes and patterns, both in external examiner arrangements, and in assessment and classification processes overall. Examples of such annual reports provided in the base room confirmed their usefulness in providing an analytical overview of the operation of the University College's assessment and classification arrangements in the previous session. This report, together with the careful consideration it receives from AAC, allows the latter to bring to the attention of Senate any recurrent or specific themes arising from the annual assessment review and the role of external examiners in it. Taken together, the arrangements in place in the University College to support the work of external examiners and to attend to their reports appeared to the audit team to be effective and consistent with the precepts of the relevant section of the QAA Code of practice.
Academic standards of research awards
74 Students following programmes of study by research at the University College currently proceed to higher degree awards of Brunel University. While noting this fact the audit team sought to establish how the University College monitored the levels of attainment of students proceeding to higher degrees. It noted that Senate has delegated authority for these matters to its RDC and that the latter, with the approval of Senate was working to revise policies and procedures for research students, their progression and their assessment, within the overall framework operated by Brunel University.
75 The University College's research degree procedures are well-specified and provide a clear framework of support for individual students as well as ensuring that the standards of approval, supervision and examination of research degree awards are maintained in line with the expectations of Brunel University. Senate has recently identified the need for more thorough assessment of those applying to register as research students, prior to their admission, and for their research proposals to be subject to better evaluation in each case with a view to reducing the number of research students withdrawing from their studies. Nonetheless, the selection and admissions processes described by the research students who met the audit team appeared to the latter to have been robust, supportive and effective.
76 Systems at faculty level, including the appointment of faculty research student tutors, independent of supervisory teams, appear to ensure a sound experience for research students and those met by the audit team were appreciative of local support and the facilities provided for them. The University College has devoted a considerable amount of resource to developing and supporting the research student population particularly with funded bursaries, and it is maintaining a resourcing commitment to the quality of the research environment as part of its research strategy. It is also seeking to strengthen the link between staff research activity and the quality of teaching and learning.
77 The University College takes care to monitor the suitability of staff seeking to act as research supervisors, and to provide training and support for the role. RDC monitors training for potential supervisors and has identified that some are not attending the workshops provided. Senate has therefore recently endorsed the recommendation of RDC that, in future, non-attendance of staff at the workshops for research candidate supervisors would preclude them from continuing to act as supervisors. Senate has also stated that it wishes to extend the pool of staff who are trained to chair PhD examination boards. Taken together, these steps offer evidence of the University College's intention to further strengthen the context in which research students progress to assessment for their awards.
78 Research students told the audit team that they had found the Research Students' Handbook to be a clear and user-friendly source of information which described a thorough and rigorous mechanism designed to monitor research students' progress. The documentation available to the team and the evidence of the students themselves provided ample illustration that the monitoring of progress through the formal mechanism was rigorously applied and taken seriously by all parties. The outcomes of the process were reviewed by RDC where student representation enhanced the range and value of discussions.
79 A review of external examiner reports on research students and their examination process, together with the University College arrangements applied before the assessments enter Brunel University procedures, provided evidence that appropriate protection was in place for postgraduate research degree awards, although the mechanisms needed to sustain such a level of protection will be something RDC and the University College will continue to reflect upon as the plan to increase research student numbers is addressed.
80 Material in the base room supplemented the information provided by the Account on the measures taken by the University College to compare its own arrangements for postgraduate research students with the precepts of the relevant section of the QAA Code of practice. Scrutiny of these materials showed that RDC had available to it a wealth of individual and statistical data which allowed it to monitor student progress and identify the need for action either at local or institutional level.
81 In the areas of external examining for taught postgraduate schemes, and of postgraduate research provision, the internal reviews conducted by the University College have satisfied it that it has satisfactorily addressed the precepts of the relevant parts of the Code of practice. The audit team found no evidence which would cause it to disagree with that view.
Student and management information to support academic standards
82 The Account described the documentary evidence and data the University College collects, analyses, and presents to its senior academic and management committees, to enable them to monitor academic standards across subject areas. These analyses have informed the institution's approach to progression and retention and the provision of the academic and pastoral support needs of students. Progression and retention data have provided Senate with a focus for discussions concerning internal comparability. That basic structural modifications to the modular scheme and other responses have been possible from such starting points demonstrates the capacity of the University College to gather and process data from, and about, its quality arrangements to enhance its activities. Improvements to the clarity of assessment objectives for staff and students should continue to inform both policy and practice into the future.
Assuring comparability of awards, including comparability of awards gained through partnerships
83 The Account together with the materials available in the base room indicated the full range of means whereby the assurance of internal comparability of awards could be addressed (see above). In each case, the approaches taken by the University College to safeguard the academic standards of awards attained through study on its own campuses clearly extended to provision leading to its awards offered through partner institutions. The inclusion of staff in partner colleges in common processes, procedures and, importantly, evaluation and debate was fully attested by the University College staff and their colleagues in partner institutions. This collective engagement in developing a full understanding of the levels of attainment and academic standards applicable to the University College's collaborative provision, and the thorough approach being adopted to the management of quality, and to safeguarding the academic standards of awards in the regional partnerships, is to be commended.
84 In respect of the external comparability of its awards, the University College relies heavily on the comments of its external examiners and takes justifiable comfort from the rigour of the appointment processes involved (see above, paragraph 68). This has been reinforced, as the Account noted, by increased external involvement in the development and validation processes it has undertaken since 1998 and the intended alignment with subject benchmarks and the qualifications framework for higher education, which, for example has already had an impact on the designation of some previously validated postgraduate qualifications and the continuing debate concerning alignment with M-level descriptors.
85 In the Account the University College stated that its analyses of award statistics indicate that its students achieve results comparable with those of students from similar institutions in the sector. On this basis the University College is able to demonstrate its success in matching the attainments of other, similar, institutions. If, however, it wishes to enhance its present performance the audit team suggests that the University College might wish to consider the desirability of extending the range of comparators it employs in the interests of setting itself greater academic challenges. Such an approach would help the University College capitalise on the growing confidence and experience of its staff.
The learning infrastructure
86 The Account provided a helpful introduction to the University College's view of its learning infrastructure, a term which it defines as 'all those aspects of the physical environment, the social organisation, pedagogic, and administrative processes, and culture that shape the student learning experience'. It described the manner in which the University College was seeking to develop its learning infrastructure in the context of its strategy for Teaching, Learning and Assessment, and the key principles it sought to apply to the learning infrastructure. In summary, these were to ensure: effective support for student learning through a partnership between the faculties and the central support services; that programmes of study progressively developed student autonomy; and that scholarship in teaching and learning should underpin both the curriculum and practice.
87 At the time of the audit, the University College was well-advanced in planning major developments in connection with its estate, in which improvements to the learning environment of students were to the fore. In respect of more incremental developments the audit team noted evidence in the University College's papers in the base room and from its discussions with teaching and support staff which indicated that careful attention was being devoted to the improvement of those parts of the institution's estate which related to the learning environment.
88 The Account described the University College's development of its teaching, learning and assessment strategy but provided little information on how TLC worked with other Senate committees, or the part it played in monitoring the effectiveness of the teaching, learning and assessment strategy. Members of Senate committees and of QED who discussed the work of TLC with the audit team were able to point to informative documents addressing these matters in the base room and to confirm that the responsibilities of TLC included advising Senate on the balance to be struck between providing resources for different levels of teaching; for academic tutoring (see below, paragraph 93); for peer observation of teaching; for teaching fellowships (see below, paragraph 108); and for mentoring new staff (see below, paragraph 103); and that the Committee monitored the full range of these activities on behalf of Senate.
89 At the time of the audit the University College was encouraging faculties to establish teaching and learning committees and some had already done so. The audit team discussed this development with members of the University College throughout the visit and noted with interest this instance of the University College's style of decision-making. So, for example, while faculties could be in no doubt of the University College's positive views on the merits of establishing teaching and learning committees at faculty level, it had chosen to allow them to determine for themselves whether and how teaching and learning committees might be introduced in the interests of securing faculty 'ownership' of the committees when established.
Library resources and information and communication technology support for teaching and learning
90 The campus organisation of the University College has required it to develop distributed arrangements for library services and information and communication technology (ICT) in support of teaching and learning. Learning Resource Centres (LRCs) on two of the campuses (High Wycombe and Chalfont) provide access to texts, periodicals and advisory services, together with ICT facilities. On the Wellesbourne campus, library services have been designed to complement rather than duplicate the services provided on the High Wycombe campus. The report of a recent subject review confirms that these particular arrangements are working satisfactorily.
91 In addition to providing library support for teaching and learning, LRCs provide access to ICT facilities on each campus. The University College's procedures for developing new provision stipulate that the requirements of the latter for library and ICT support should be established in the course of the development and validation process, and that their provision should be confirmed prior to approval. Evidence in the University College's papers in the base room clearly showed that such checks were undertaken (including in the case of developments in partner institutions) and signed off when appropriate. Discussions with students also suggested, however, that levels of current provision made little allowance for temporarily upward fluctuations in demand, which might occur, for example, when deadlines for submission of assessments coincide with the unforeseen need to withdraw personal computer and printing facilities for maintenance or repair. The University College may wish to continue to keep under review its capacity to support ICT for teaching and learning.
Student support and guidance
92 The Account stated that the University College provides student support and guidance through 'partnerships between faculty based staff and central services' noting that, outwith the faculties, 'Student Services and the Students' Union provided most of the support. Student Services comprises the Careers Service, the Counselling Service, the Disabilities Support Services, Exercise & Health, and Student Money Advice. The Students' Union's guidance services to students are provided through its Advice and Representation Centre (ARC). The University College's Student Services department is developing close relations with partner colleges within the regional initiative (see above, paragraph 88).
93 In addition to the support arrangements listed above, the University College has invested considerable resources in its Academic Tutor Initiative (see above, paragraph 34). A key aim of the Initiative has been to provide support for students at level one, not least to improve retention and progression, by offering more systematic skills development and by ensuring that students' overall progress is monitored. All incoming students are assigned to a trained academic tutor and are required to attend regular tutorials during their first year of study; students are encouraged (but not required) to attend tutorials in subsequent years. Until recently, central support for the Initiative had been focused on a 'lead tutor' in each faculty, and Student Services has provided workshops aimed to assist tutors to identify students in need of more specialist assistance. In the next stage in the development of the Initiative, the intention is to provide greater support for all Tutors. Papers in the base room, particularly a thoughtful and detailed 'review of retention and recruitment' for Senate, demonstrated the attention devoted by the University College to monitoring and analysing patterns and trends in recruitment and retention.
94 The audit team discussed the University College's provision for pastoral support and guidance and its academic tutor arrangements with each group of students it met. It was told that, even outside the formal provisions of the academic tutor initiative (which was welcomed), staff were readily available to students and that the small scale of the institution helped to maintain good communications between staff and students. Through discussions with students and staff the team sought to establish the effectiveness of the partnership between Student Services, the Academic Tutor Initiative and the Students' Union ARC in providing student support arrangements across the Faculties and the Campuses. It was told that academic tutors were generally aware of how to refer students to specialists when necessary, and that Student Services, in collaboration with QED, provided staff development sessions on aspects of student support (such as money advice and counselling). It appeared that referrals were occasionally made to ARC inappropriately by staff. In the few such cases which had occurred, ARC had quickly referred the student on to the relevant branch of Student Services, however, in the context of support arrangements that are generally working well, the University College may wish to consider further clarifying relations between central Student Services, ARC, the Students' Union and the academic tutor system, in the interests of providing a seamless service to students.
95 The Account noted that the University College had appointed a full-time Disabilities Adviser, and that Disabilities Support Services provides advice and guidance for prospective and current students with disabilities. Arrangements for students with special needs, including dyslexia, are made by the Disabilities Adviser. The audit team discussed the University College's response to the QAA Code of practice on students with disabilities and to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. As with other published elements of the QAA Code of practice, the team noted that the University College had carefully checked its own procedures against the advice of the Code and had taken steps to amend the former in the light of the latter. As part of its response, the University College had established a Disabilities Steering Group (DSG), which is drawing up a Disability Development Plan. DSG reports to the Student Affairs Committee of the Council.
96 Reviewing the work undertaken and in progress in the University College to support students with disabilities, the audit team noted that while not having received earmarked funding under the HEFCE Disabilities Initiative, the University College had nonetheless taken positive steps to support current and prospective students with disabilities (see below, paragraph 100).
Arrangements for international students
97 The report of the 1996 HEQC audit suggested that there was scope for improvement in arrangements for identifying and meeting the support needs of international students. The Account noted that the University College 'had not sought to increase substantially the number of students recruited from overseas' and that it had therefore decided 'not to proceed with the establishment of an International Office'. The Account also noted that the University College was 'currently' establishing a forum to 'bring together all involved with international students with a view to coordinating support and activities across the College and identifying additional support needs'. The audit team was disappointed that five years after the University College's receipt of the HEQC audit report, little tangible appeared to have been done to improve support arrangements for international students although the institution intended to provide some limited additional resources to support international students from September 2002.
98 Students who met the audit team told it that they were unaware of any arrangements for the reception and induction of taught postgraduate students from overseas, although the research students who met the team (a majority of whom were from overseas) considered that they had received good support in their initial weeks at the University College. In the view of the team, it would now be desirable for the University College to ensure that arrangements for receiving and inducting all its overseas students work as effectively as those which it offers its research students.
Arrangements for mature, and other 'non-standard' students
99 In line with its commitment to widen access to all those able to benefit from higher education, the University College operates comprehensive arrangements for mature and other 'non-standard' students, commencing with special arrangements to assist would-be students, assess the match between their needs and the University College's offerings. The audit team noted with interest that counselling for potential applicants occasionally resulted in their enrolment for University College provision at partner institutions where this was considered more appropriate. Discussions with members of staff indicated that the balance to be struck between providing learning skills support for students in faculties, and centrally, was being kept under review. Annual reports from Student Services to Senate were both evaluative and informative, providing a good basis on which to assess the merits and progress of particular policies.
100 The audit team reviewed information on support for mature students and other 'non-standard' students in the base room, and discussed such arrangements in meetings with students throughout the visit. Information from students confirmed that those whose individual situations created particular needs in respect of travelling or availability for teaching and learning had been helped to pursue their studies by the University College's willingness to put in place flexible timetabling and the availability of a range of imaginative support arrangements and by the helpfulness of teaching and support staff. The University College is to be commended for the range of measures it has introduced to support non-standard students and to provide support for students with disabilities.
Recruitment, appointment, induction and probation arrangements for teaching staff
101 The University College has developed a comprehensive range of formal procedures to support the recruitment, appointment, and induction of its staff, and operates probation arrangements for all teaching staff; these were referred to in the Account and the accompanying Staff Handbook. Papers in the base room expanded on the information on procedures in the Staff Handbook and there was clear evidence in other papers that the effectiveness of such procedures was regularly monitored. Members of staff who met the audit team were able to confirm that, in all respects, their experience of appointment and induction corresponded to the statements in the Account and the Staff Handbook.
102 The Account stated that the Staff Development Committee monitors the response of newly appointed staff to the University College's formal Induction Programme and the attention of the audit team was drawn to the reports of periodic reviews of its effectiveness. While the University College has been keen to meet the requests of some of its staff for greater information on institution-wide matters, feedback from recent induction events has suggested that, on the whole, staff benefit more from locally arranged induction programmes. The reports and minutes in the base room which dealt with these matters demonstrated that staff induction programmes are carefully monitored, and amended in the light of feedback information from participants.
103 Recently appointed members of the academic staff who are new to teaching are allocated to an established member of staff, who acts as a mentor. Mentors are expected to provide routine support and to monitor the progress of new colleagues at the beginning of their appointment. The Account stated that feedback collected from newly appointed staff indicated that the mentoring scheme was effective. Members of staff who had experienced the University College's mentoring arrangements shared this view. In addition to mentors, heads of departments are also expected to monitor the progress of newly appointed staff and to check that mentoring is working satisfactorily; additional checks are periodically made by the Personnel Department.
Development arrangements for teaching staff, including appraisal
104 The Account described a number of measures which the University College has taken since the HEQC audit to support and encourage staff development across the institution. These included the creation of TLC, the establishment of QED, and the development of a formally validated Certificate and Diploma in Learning and Teaching.
105 Details of staff development programmes were provided in the base room and the audit team discussed staff development arrangements with those they met throughout the visit. It was able to confirm that staff who were identified to undertake research supervision were provided with training and support and that a range of workshops and other development activities was routinely provided. The University College has adopted a peer observation policy which applies to all teaching staff who have passed probation, the framework for which focuses on the enhancement of teaching and support for learning. The Account acknowledged that there had been difficulties in implementing the scheme across the University College with uniform effectiveness, and that the scheme was being evaluated through three projects in different faculties. Members of staff who met the team nonetheless supported the general principles of the scheme and were able to identify a number of positive outcomes (such as dissemination of good practice in teaching and in learning support) from the observations in which they had participated. Reports from peer observations are confidential to participants and do not contribute to the University College's appraisal scheme (see below, paragraph 107).
106 Throughout the visit, members of the teaching staff paid tribute to the positive contributions made by QED to the enhancement work of the University College and a number of instances of targeted staff development were brought to the attention of the audit team, including support for the introduction of the Academic Tutor Initiative and the use of the Levels Toolbox/Learning Outcomes Game to develop and disseminate skills in writing learning outcomes statements. In the case of the latter the Levels Toolbox, as it was then known, had been used to support a general redesign of programmes of study in 1998. Members of staff from partner institutions who met the team described how the University College had worked with them to reach a shared understanding of academic standards and quality management, for example, through joint participation in validation and review events and through development sessions using the Learning Outcomes Game. This approach to staff development throughout the University College, and across the range of its regional partnerships, appeared to the team to represent commendable good practice in staff development in support of teaching, learning and assessment.
107 The Account briefly described the University College's appraisal arrangements for its teaching staff and pointed the audit team to dossiers of information in the base room. The framework of the University College's appraisal scheme is set out in the Staff Handbook. Members of the teaching staff are expected to be appraised each session and the reports from appraisals provide one of the chief sources of information for the Personnel Department and QED when shaping the institution-wide staff development programme. For most members of the teaching staff their head of department will be their appraiser. Members of the teaching staff who met the team were able to confirm that, in broad terms, the appraisal scheme described in the Staff Handbook and referred to in the Account was operating, but there appeared to be considerable variations from faculty to faculty in the intervals between appraisals. Some heads of department who met the team indicated that the number of appraisal interviews required made it difficult for them to appraise all members of staff within the recommended timescale, with knock-on consequences for planning institution-wide staff development programmes. The University College will wish to keep under review its capacity to deliver appraisal and staff development, in a timely fashion, to all teaching staff.
108 For its academic staff, the University College explicitly identifies performance in teaching as one criterion for promotion, and it has recently introduced a Teaching Fellowship scheme, the focus of which is pedagogic rather than subject development. Under the terms of the scheme, faculties are financially compensated for releasing teaching fellows from a proportion of their teaching duties for two years. The operation of the Teaching Fellowship scheme is monitored by TLC, on behalf of Senate. Minutes and papers from TLC in the base room confirmed that the progress of the scheme was carefully monitored.
109 During the visit the audit team met a number of teaching fellows to discuss the operation of the scheme, and support for teaching and learning more generally. Again, staff commented on the positive contributions of QED, in organising institution-wide training and dissemination events, and in providing leadership and a focus for quality enhancement across the University College and regional partnerships.
Development arrangements for support staff
110 The Account provided no information on staff development arrangements for learning and other support staff. The audit team discussed appraisal and staff development arrangements with those members of the support staff it met throughout the visit. It appeared to be the case that a number of courses provided by QED had been developed with the needs of support staff in mind, and that training and support opportunities were positively used to enable the University College to retain staff in an area of full employment.
Arrangements for monitoring the learning infrastructure in partnership arrangements, including partnerships overseas
111 Validation, annual monitoring, and review reports for provision within the University College's regional partnerships indicated the care taken by University College staff to check the suitability of the learning environment in partner institutions for provision leading to the institution's awards. Discussions with members of the University College and partner institutions confirmed that the learning environment in partner institutions was monitored by University College staff when they visited, and staff development opportunities were regularly made available to partner institutions.
112 In 2000, the University College conducted an internal review of two of its remaining overseas partnerships. Reports of these reviews and their findings were made available to the audit team in the base room. The findings of these reviews, and the range of recommendations made, suggested that some variant of the staff development provided for teaching and administrative staff in partner institutions regionally within the UK could usefully be provided for staff in partner institutions elsewhere in the UK and overseas.
Internal and external communications
113 The section in the Account which addressed the University College's internal and external communications arrangements provided an overview covering: communications with applicants and students; admissions; student induction; the Student Handbook; student representation; informal communications with students; academic appeals and complaints; communications with staff; measures to ensure the accuracy of published promotional materials; and promotional media.
114 The Account acknowledged that the multi-campus nature of the institution, together with the development of partnership work within the region and further afield, created a complex environment within which to disseminate information about policies and procedures and developments more generally. It stated that such 'is the volume of information in circulation that it is necessary to consider carefully the information needs of different groups of staff [who can] feel overwhelmed with information at every level - mirroring the situation faced by students, particularly in their early weeks'. The audit team was told that such was the labour required of staff to produce the large volumes of information demanded by the University College's quality systems and external regulators, that there was little time for reflection on its content. As noted earlier, in a recent initiative annual monitoring procedures had been modified to encourage greater reflection on the past year and 'away days' had been introduced to provide staff with an opportunity to reflect on and discuss the outcomes of their annual monitoring activities (see above, paragraph 40).
115 Overall, the audit team found this section of the Account accurate and helpful. In the team's view, however, the Account did not do full justice to the collegial manner in which the University College, at all levels, has chosen to conduct its business and which has contributed to sustaining the University College as an academic community. The team found many instances of this collegial approach to the conduct of business in the University College's papers, and through its discussions with staff and students, and it was clear that discussions in Senate allowed for consideration and reflection on matters which might well be referred back to sub committees or other originators for reconsideration. Members of the Council, of Senate, and of central and faculty committees were therefore able to confirm the view of the team that, while responsibility for decision making clearly rested with the Senior Management Team, the advice of the Council and University College committees (and chiefly Senate) was valued and actively sought.
Communications with applicants and students
116 The University College carefully reviews the effectiveness of its communications with applicants and Senate has established an Admissions Group to review admissions procedures against the suggestions of the draft QAA Code of practice on admissions. The University College monitors changing patterns of study and it operates a schools liaison programme, one aim of which is to alert school leavers in its travel-to-work area of the higher education possibilities open to them at the institution without the necessity to leave home. The University College offers a programme of open days throughout the year and faculties have been encouraged to customise the arrangements they make to bring their activities to the attention of potential students.
117 Induction arrangements for undergraduate and taught postgraduate students are largely handled at faculty level. Discussions with staff and students, together with evidence from feedback collected by the University College itself, suggested that such induction arrangements varied in their effectiveness from faculty to faculty. The University College might wish to consider how it might satisfy itself that all faculty-based induction arrangements for undergraduate and taught postgraduate students are as effective as it would wish.
Student representation on the University College's committees
118 Students are represented on committees at all levels of the University College, including Senate and the Student Affairs Committee of the Council, with officers of the Students' Union being chiefly responsible for representation on the central committees and students directly elected by their peers (or more often, volunteers) being responsible for representation at faculty level and below. In addition to the Student Affairs Committee of the Council the University College makes provision for monthly liaison meetings between sabbatical officers of the Students' Union and its General Manager, the Head of Student Services and the relevant Assistant Director.
119 The Account acknowledged that, since the switch from a largely programme-based academic organisation to combined honours awards in a modular structure, there had been difficulties in securing adequate student representation on committees at faculty level and below, and described the measures which the University College had been taking, in concert with the Students' Union, to encourage students to act as representatives on faculty level committees. These included ensuring that standing items of committee business relevant to students, or raised by them, are addressed early in University College meetings, rotating meetings across the three main campuses, and jointly providing training courses on representation for students with the Students' Union. The audit team encourages the University College to continue its efforts with the Students' Union to improve the recruitment and attendance of student representatives at faculty level committees.
Provision of programme and module information to students
120 The University College provides all students with a Student Handbook. This is produced in three sections: all students receive the same University College section which provides information on regulations and procedures (including complaints and appeals procedures) and describes sources of advice and where additional information can be sought. A further section provides information on the particular faculty in which the student has enrolled and the third section provides specific information on module and assessment details.
121 A review carried out by the University College in May 2000, in connection with its evaluation of the modular scheme, identified 'limited use of the handbook by students' and the Account noted that the University College had subsequently required academic tutors to introduce students to the content and use of the Student Handbook during their induction. The audit team reviewed a number of such Student Handbooks in their faculty variants. It found their content consistent with the descriptions in the Account. Similarly, handbooks and written guidance provided for students at module and programme level, though varying in presentation and format, appeared to the team to be generally user-friendly and informative although further development of handbooks in the Faculty of Technology would be worthwhile.
Student complaints and appeals procedures
122 As noted above, information on University College procedures, including how to lodge a complaint, or commence an appeal against an academic decision, are set out in the Student Handbook. Such information is also available in all campus libraries and, according to the Account, on University College notice boards.
123 The University College monitors the operation of its appeals process annually through a report submitted to Senate. The most recent such report submitted to Senate noted a sharp rise in the number of appeals and identified 'a growing number of appeals...being received where no ground [for making the appeal] is clearly identified'. At the time of the audit, therefore, the University College was reviewing its regulations and its appeals process 'particularly in respect of grounds for appeal, deadlines, separation of advice and decision-making, and workload' [ibid]. The audit team reviewed a number of the annual reports submitted to Senate on the operation of the appeals process, and was able to confirm the care with which the operation of the process was monitored and that action was taken when a report indicated. Students with whom the team discussed the operation of the appeals process were able to confirm that they had access to the information needed to formulate and lodge an appeal against an academic decision, and members of the Students' Union were satisfied that such appeals were dealt with thoroughly and fairly.
124 In 1999 the University College reviewed its procedures for handling complaints against the precepts of the relevant section of the QAA Code of practice. The Account stated that the University College received few formal complaints and that most complaints were addressed and resolved informally. Students who met the audit team confirmed that this was the case.
The provisions of the Charter for Higher Education
125 The University College has developed a Student Charter which was reviewed during the 1999-2000 session by the Student Affairs Committee of the Council. The Charter takes the form of a statement of commitments by the University College and matching responsibilities on the part of students. A copy of the Student Charter is included in the text of each Student Handbook. Its provisions are consistent with the contents of the Charter for Higher Education.
Internal communications with staff
126 The University College circulates newsletters to staff periodically but is making growing use of its intranet and email to keep staff informed of relevant developments. Throughout its meetings with staff and students the audit team was frequently reminded that the small size of the institution made for good formal and informal staff and student communications, and that simple but effective practices such as cross-membership of committees, and placing staff needing to consult one another frequently in adjoining offices had been adopted. The evidence available to the team suggests that communications within faculties are generally good, but that the University College's concern to ensure that inter-faculty communications are as effective as it would wish is soundly based.
Communications with partner institutions and their staff and students
127 The audit team discussed the University College's arrangements to communicate its policies and procedures with members of staff from several of its regional partners and reviewed papers in the base room relating to communications between the University College and partners elsewhere in the UK and overseas. The team was told that the construction of good communication links typically began with the process of developing and approving the partnership (whether based on a franchise or a validation), and that the inclusion of representatives from partner institutions on the University College's boards of study and senior committees provided helpful opportunities for the exchange of information between individual partners and the University College and across the partnership network. As with communications across the University College's campuses, newsletters are distributed to partner institutions but, similarly, intensive use of email has enabled rapid exchanges of information across the partnership network. Papers from partner institutions and boards of study within the University College appeared to confirm that this was the case and members of staff from partner institutions were confident that they received the information they needed to manage the provision they offered leading to the University College's awards.
128 In 1999-2000 the University College conducted a review of two of its continuing overseas partnerships. In the case of one partnership the internal review panel noted that communications between the sponsoring faculty in the University College and the overseas partner would benefit from improvement. The evidence gathered by the University College's review panel appeared persuasive and the audit team noted with interest that the University College and faculty intended to introduce a number of changes to bring communication arrangements with its overseas partners more into line with the good practice observable across the regional network.
Measures to assure the accuracy of publicity and recruitment information
129 The University College's Communications Policy adopts the position that 'all members of the institution have a role in ensuring the accuracy of publicity and other information about the University College'. In practice, in respect of formal publications such as the prospectuses and other promotional material, responsibility is shared between the faculties and the Marketing Department, with staff in the faculty offices being responsible for the accuracy of the academic content and the Marketing Department being responsible for consistency across the institution and the format in which information is presented. Similar arrangements apply to promotional material produced by partner institutions, which is checked by both the faculties and the Marketing Department. These arrangements appeared to the audit team to be working well.
Conclusions
130 Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College is the main provider of higher education for the Buckinghamshire region and operates on three campuses, two of which (including its main campus) are in High Wycombe, with a third in Chalfont St Giles. There is a strategic commitment to the further consolidation of its work in High Wycombe and negotiations are underway to achieve this aim. Recruitment has a strong regional concentration with approximately 4,700 of its 6,000 full-time and 2,000 part-time undergraduate students coming from within 25 miles of the University College. There are 730 registered postgraduates, including approximately 100 registered for research awards through Brunel University.
131 The Mission of the University College informs an important strategic aim: to provide educational opportunities which will widen access to higher education. There is clear evidence that this aim is being successfully addressed and that staff at all levels look to the Mission to help define present and future activities.
132 The Analytical Account provided by the University College to support the audit was informative, well-written and sober. It downplayed, however, some of the apparent strengths of the institution, in that it did not convey the sense of academic community and commonality of vision shared by the staff of the University College, or the strengths of informal links among staff and between staff and students. Nor did the Account succeed in conveying the synergy, observable in internal papers and exchanges with staff, between the University College and the four further education institutions which have joined it in a regional partnership, as they work together to provide enhanced access to higher education. Thus, although accurate in its description of the formal elements of institutional arrangements to manage the quality of provision, and to safeguard the academic standards of its awards, the Account less satisfactorily conveyed the positive academic culture which pervades the University College.
133 Arrangements to manage the quality of the University College's academic provision (both internally and across its partnerships) are sound. Procedures for developing and approving new provision, for revalidating existing provision, and for monitoring and periodically reviewing programmes of study and courses work as described in the relevant handbooks and can be relied upon. In their present form, however, they can be burdensome for staff. Recognising this, the University College has begun to refine them in the interests of providing staff with better opportunities for reflection and evaluation. This represents a fitting response to the concerns expressed in the 1996 HEQC audit: that process had come to dominate outcomes. As it continues to develop its quality processes, however, the University College could take the opportunity offered by the present pause in external reviews by QAA to develop a new internal process for periodic reviews that is less burdensome but continues to provide AAC and Senate with a holistic view of an area of provision.
134 Since 1996 the University College has undertaken a comprehensive review of its collaborative provision. It has set out new policies and procedures and it has decided to withdraw from all overseas partnerships save one, and from all UK partnerships other than those it has concluded with four regionally-based partners in pursuit of its new regional strategy. There is clear evidence that the regional partnerships are working well, that the quality of provision, the learning environment for students, and safeguarding the academic standards of their awards have been given careful attention and that, together, the University College and its four partners are providing students across Buckinghamshire and its environs with an enhanced range of opportunities to sample and enter higher education. The methodical quality assurance and academic standards support arrangements that have been made for these regionally based collaborations could now, with advantage, be extended to the University College's sole continuing overseas partnership.
135 Arrangements for ensuring that the academic standards of awards are secure and for assisting staff to achieve and share common understandings of levels of attainment and outcomes are sound and extend to staff within the regional partnerships. The University College's intelligent use of purpose built enhancement and staff development tools to support this process, together with its insistence that staff in partner institutions sit as full members on its committees at all levels, from course and programme boards to Senate, have contributed to this commendable achievement. Should it choose to do so, the University College could now begin to seek more challenging comparators for the academic standards of its awards, and its performance more generally, by extending its existing systematic arrangements to compare itself with other institutions.
136 The University College's long-standing plans to consolidate its High Wycombe-based operations are gradually coming to fruition but, in the meantime, measures to safeguard and develop the learning environment for students are being vigorously pursued. Students consider that library facilities broadly meet their needs but there is evidence to suggest that in a few locations, access to information technology (in particular, PCs and printers) while adequate is at times stretched to the limit of what is acceptable. The University College is aware of these minor difficulties from its own monitoring arrangements and is keeping them under review.
137 Student support arrangements are generally working well and are clearly informed by the institution's mission to extend access to higher education. The introduction of the University College's Academic Tutor Initiative, to provide support to all students and particularly to those in their first year of study, has been carefully thought through and implemented. Early statistics appear to show that it has contributed to improvements in student retention and progression. The University College's arrangements to support mature students, those returning to higher education, and those with disabilities are commendable. Minor improvements to enhance the synergy between the central Student Services and academic tutors, and services provided by the Students' Union can only serve to enhance already competent arrangements.
138 In relation to internal and external communications, the University College is characterised by a rich texture of collegiality. Decisions are generally consensual and reached after searching and extended debates. At all levels, members of the University College share a sense of community and commonality of goals; this also pervades the relationships with the regional partners which enjoy a full involvement with the University College in the collective delivery of the regional strategy.
139 The full range of evidence available to the University College from its quality procedures and information systems demonstrates its access to the information it needs to manage the quality of its provision and safeguard the academic standards of its awards. In view of the soundness of these arrangements, and the rigour with which its quality processes are operated, there can be overall confidence in the ability of the University College to manage the quality of its academic provision and safeguard the academic standards of its awards.
Points for further consideration
140 The University College is to be commended for:
i its approach to managing the quality and safeguarding the academic standards of awards within its regional partnerships (paragraph 83);
ii the effectiveness of its arrangements to support students formally admitted with disabilities and learning deficits (paragraph 100);
iii the manner in which its staff and its regional partners have used staff development to support developments in teaching, learning and assessment (paragraph 106).
141 As the University College continues to develop its systems and procedures it may wish to consider the desirability of:
i using the present opportunity for reflection to plan a future system of internal reviews to sustain the consistent delivery of quality and standards across the University College (paragraph 43);
ii taking steps to eliminate any inconsistencies between the institution's international policy and its collaborative provision policy statements (paragraph 49);
iii extending its existing systematic arrangements to compare itself with other institutions to encompass a more challenging set of comparators (paragraphs 67 and 85);
iv keeping under review its capacity to support information and communication technology for teaching and learning (paragraph 91);
v further clarifying relations between central Student Services, the Advice and Representation Centre, the Students' Union, and the academic tutor system, in the interests of providing a seamless service to students (paragraph 94);
vi monitoring its recently-introduced arrangement to support international students in order to check its fitness for purpose (paragraph 98);
vii keeping under review its capacity to deliver appraisal and staff development in a timely fashion to all teaching staff (paragraph 107);
viii satisfying itself that faculty-based arrangements for student induction operate consistently and effectively to the benefit of students (paragraph 117).
Appendix 1*
Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College - facts and figures 2000-01
History
The University College has its origins in the High Wycombe College of Technology and Art, based in High Wycombe, and the Newland Park College of Education, based in Chalfont St Giles. The two institutions merged in 1975 to form the Buckinghamshire College of Higher Education. The new institution developed a wide ranging programme of higher education awards validated by CNAA and BTEC.
In May 1995 the College secured taught course degree awarding powers. Following the successful passage of the amended Further and Higher Education Act 1992 the name of the institution was formally changed to 'Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College' in February 1999.
The University College has three main teaching campuses: two in High Wycombe and one at Chalfont St Giles.
Mission
Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College offers access to quality teaching and research within a committed regional and international environment which is caring, supportive of scholarship and provides students and staff with the opportunity for personal and professional development.
The faculties and staffing are:
| Applied Social Sciences and Humanities | 43FTE |
| Business school | 55FTE |
| Design | 90FTE |
| Health Studies | 72FTE |
| Leisure & Tourism | 40FTE |
| Technology | 48FTE |
Number of HE Students 2000-2001
Undergraduate
|
Full-time
|
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Faculty | Female | Male | Total |
| ASSH | 607 | 414 | 1,021 |
| Business School | 576 | 488 | 1,064 |
| Design | 567 | 491 | 1,058 |
| Health Studies | 957 | 276 | 1,233 |
| Leisure & Tourism | 500 | 573 | 1,073 |
| Technology | 128 | 440 | 568 |
| Partner Institutions | 144 | 97 | 241 |
| Institution | 3,479 | 2,779 | 6,258 |
|
Part-time
|
|||
| Faculty | Female | Male | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| ASSH | 69 | 15 | 84 |
| Business School | 195 | 88 | 283 |
| Design | 176 | 155 | 331 |
| Health Studies | 930 | 76 | 1,006 |
| Leisure & Tourism | 54 | 44 | 98 |
| Technology | 151 | 524 | 675 |
| Partner Institutions | 94 | 67 | 161 |
| Institution | 1,669 | 969 | 2,638 |
Postgraduate
| Faculty | Female | Male | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| ASSH | 15 | 11 | 26 |
| Business School | 263 | 229 | 492 |
| Design | 22 | 28 | 50 |
| Health Studies | 11 | 2 | 13 |
| Leisure & Tourism | 16 | 11 | 27 |
| Technology | 19 | 64 | 83 |
| Partner Institutions | 49 | 23 | 72 |
| Institution | 395 | 368 | 763 |
*As supplied by Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College
Appendix 2*
Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College - Collaborative Provision as at July 2001
Within the context of its role as the key regional provider of a broad range of undergraduate and postgraduate education, the University College has over recent years made a major commitment to widened access and participation. The University College has established exclusive collaborative relationships with all four local Further Education Colleges as well as substantial links with the Local Education Authority's Adult Continuing Education service. These partnerships with Amersham & Wycombe, East Berkshire, Aylesbury Colleges and Berkshire College of Agriculture enable the delivery of HE work, predominantly HNDs and HNCs, by our partners and facilitate progression onto University College degree awards.
The University College has determined that the future focus for the development of collaborative provision will be the region, and that future arrangements will be within an institutional framework. In addition to the strategic partnerships above, the University College has agreements with two regional and three overseas partners for the delivery of a part time/distance learning management programme. Within the context of the collaborative provision policy, the University College has arranged a phased withdrawal from three other non-regional FE Colleges for the delivery of furniture courses which involve a limited number of students on specialist awards.
Amersham & Wycombe College
HND Performing Arts (Music & Theatre)
HND Media Studies
HNC Business
HNC Business and Finance
HNC Business and Marketing
HNC Business and Personnel
BA (Hons) Applied Graphics Studies (L3)
BA (Hons) Applied Textiles Studies (L3)
HND Fine Art
HND Design (Graphic Design)
HND Design (Textile Design)
Postgraduate Certificate in Education
HNC Business Information Technology
HNC Computing
Aylesbury College
HND Business Studies
Certificate in Management
Postgraduate Diploma in Management Studies
MA Management Studies
HND Sports and Fitness Management
HNC Sports and Fitness Management
HND Hospitality Management
HNC Hospitality Management
HND Hospitality Management (Licensed Retail)
HNC Hospitality Management (Licensed Retail)
Postgraduate Certificate in Education
East Berkshire College
HND Drama Production
HND Media Studies
HND Business Studies
HNC Business Studies
Diploma in Stitched Textiles
Postgraduate Certificate in Education
HNC Computer and Electronic Engineering
HND Computing
HNC Computing
HNC Mechanical Engineering Design
Berkshire College of Agriculture
HND Equine Studies with Management
HND Animal Studies with Management
New College (Basford Hall), Nottingham
BA (Hons) Applied Furniture Studies
HND Furniture Studies
Highbury College, Portsmouth
HND Furniture Studies
Bridgewater College, Somerset
HND Furniture Studies
Oxford College of Further Education
Postgraduate Diploma in Management Studies
Reading College and School of Art & Design
Certificate in Management
Postgraduate Diploma in Management Studies
Fachhochschule Osnabruck, Germany
Certificate in Management
Postgraduate Diploma in Management Studies
Master's in Business Administration
Szamalk Open Business School, Budapest
Certificate in Management
Postgraduate Diploma in Management Studies
Master's in Business Administration
Mancosa, South Africa
Certificate in Management
Postgraduate Diploma in Management Studies
Master's in Business Administration
MSc Tourism Development and Management
*As supplied by Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College
Top
QAA updates
QAAtweets
QAAtube