161 An institutional audit of Cranfield University (the University) was undertaken during the period 11 to 15 April 2005. The purpose of the audit was to provide public information on the quality of the University's programmes of study and on the discharge of its responsibility as an awarding body. As part of the audit process, according to protocols agreed with the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) the Standing Conference of Principals and Universities UK, three discipline audit trails (DATs) were conducted. This section of the report summarises the findings of the audit. It concludes by identifying features of good practice that emerged during the audit, and making recommendations to the University for action to enhance current practice.
The effectiveness of institutional procedures for assuring the quality of programmes
162 The University is a specialist, research-intensive institution which focuses on applied research in engineering, science and management. Much of this work is undertaken in collaboration with business and industry. The last intake of undergraduate students took place in October 2003, so from October 2006 the University's student body will be entirely postgraduate. The University's approach to quality management is influenced by its specialist portfolio and its history, which the University believes has generated a creative and entrepreneurial culture that enables it to sustain teaching and research in a competitive marketplace.
163 A particular feature of the University's approach to managing quality and standards is 'the separation of responsibility for quality and assurance policies and procedures...from the management and oversight of the University's business interests'. This separation gives rise to a system of schools, which manage staff and resources and determine the mix of activities, in parallel with a system of committees, under the Senate, which regulates teaching and quality assurance matters. Academic matters, and in particular those that relate to quality assurance, fall within the remit of the faculty structure that operates in parallel with, but independently from the schools. The business and academic management strands come together through the office of the Vice-Chancellor and the Executive. While recognising the merits of the separation of resource management from academic quality management, the audit team also recognised the potential for the separation to introduce uncertainty into strategic academic planning.
164 The Senate is the 'principal academic body of the University', and therefore has overarching responsibility for the management of the quality and academic standards. The University takes a highly devolved approach to management, within a framework of Senate laws, Codes of Practice (CoPs) and guidelines designed to promote consistency and equity within the devolved structure. The Teaching Committee (TC) of the Senate is the main route by which the Senate maintains an oversight of quality and academic standards, and its role is seen as of particular importance in the context of the University's highly devolved approach to the management of its academic function.
165 The use of external advisers during the development of new courses is not a regulatory requirement, and the University maintains a robust defence of this position. In practice, however, considerable use is made of external advisers, albeit in an informal way to calibrate the standards and levels of the proposed programmes and to test their industrial relevance. This external input is often through the Industrial Advisory Panels of industry representatives established to advise on course matters. A course proposal is normally forwarded by faculty board to TC for university-level scrutiny and approval, but it is possible for a faculty board to promote its proposal for a new course directly to the Senate, thus bypassing scrutiny by TC. The audit team noted such a case, seeing it as an example of where the University needs to be watchful of the tensions that might result from its policy of separating business and resource matters from the quality management.
166 Annual and periodic review is largely focused at the faculty level, with the faculty board taking the overarching role of monitoring the academic health of courses. The audit team found evidence of quality loops being closed, and of a commitment on the part of course directors to use the annual reporting system to enhance the quality of learning opportunities for students. The Industrial Advisory Panels seek the views of staff and students, and take an integral part in the quality enhancement and assurance processes. Because their membership includes senior staff from the industrial and commercial sectors, they have a particular role in ensuring the relevance of courses to industrial needs. Overall, the procedures for annual oversight of the quality of programmes at faculty level is operating effectively.
167 The periodic review process makes good use of external advisers from both the academic and industrial practitioner communities. Again, Industrial Advisory Panels play an important role in the scrutiny of periodic review reports, bringing external expertise to inform programme development. The audit team noted, in particular, the ability of a faculty to use the periodic review method in a flexible manner by reducing the length of the cycle where circumstances might be considered to pose increased academic risk. The team saw substantial evidence that the processes of annual and periodic review were rigorous and probing. The team formed the view that the mechanisms in place and the manner in which they operated gave confidence in the ability of the University to deliver its programmes to an assured quality.
168 With regard to the management of quality in collaborative programmes, the audit team saw evidence of robust discussion within the committees considering new proposals, but found no reference to an institutional policy for the strategic development of collaborative activity, or any systematic institutional-level overview of quality and academic standards in collaborative provision. Once approved, collaborative provision is subject to the same CoPs as on-campus courses, with the exception of a three-year periodic review period instead of five years. If the University intends to expand its international portfolio of collaborative taught programmes, as its Strategic Plan implies, it would be advised to consider establishing an institutional policy to guide the strategic planning of that expansion so that it may be confident of meeting fully its responsibilities as the awarding institution.
169 Student evaluation of courses is obtained through end-of-module questionnaires or through feedback meetings. At campus level, surveys of library and computing provision are undertaken to seek the views of students on the adequacy of provision. The audit team, however, found no evidence of reliable mechanisms for disseminating good practice identified through course and campus-level evaluation. At institutional level, the exit questionnaire that was commended in the report of the 2000 quality audit continues as a student satisfaction survey, and provides useful feedback. The Cranfield Students' Association undertakes its own student survey annually, and make the results available to the University.
170 Communication links between the course and faculty level are short, effective and well used. Although there are close links between the faculties and TC, these appear to work less well because the TC receives a substantial number of routine papers from the faculties, and its agendas and minutes indicate that much of the business of the committee focuses on these detailed issues rather than developing the broader and more strategic part of the academic agenda. The audit team found a lack of a clear vision of the strategic role of the TC in portfolio planning and institutional-level oversight of quality management, or how it might need to be developed in order to give greater leadership to the academic business of the University in the context of a highly devolved management structure. TC does, however, keep effective oversight of the regulatory framework within which the devolved management operates. Overall, the findings of the audit confirm that broad confidence can be placed in the effectiveness of the University's current and likely future management of the quality of its programmes.
The effectiveness of institutional procedures for securing the standards of awards
171 The University considers that it 'retains a traditional approach' to defining and maintaining academic standards. The appointment and specific role of external examiners for taught course are governed by Senate CoPs which are aligned with the precepts of the Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education (Code of practice), published by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA). Most external examiners are appointed from the higher education (HE) academic community, but about 20 per cent have a commercial or industrial background, in keeping with the University's mission. Recently approved amendments to an external examiner's report form, enable examiners to comment directly on issues related to the standards of assessments and the academic standard of the University's awards in relation to similar UK institutions.
172 The audit team found clear mechanisms at course, faculty and University levels for responding to the comments made by external examiners in their reports. Course directors respond directly to external examiners' reports, and reports are also considered, and acted upon, by course teams as part of annual and periodic course review. External examiners' reports seen by the team were generally complimentary and, where issues had been raised, the team found that appropriate action had been taken. The University has recently introduced a mechanism, through TC, for taking an institutional-level overview of the outcomes of external examiners' reports across the University. The team was able to confirm that the external examiners play a significant role in assuring the academic standards of the University's awards.
173 The audit team found that an appropriate range of statistical data for taught programmes is available at subject level, and is analysed in annual and periodic programme review. Research student data is reviewed at faculty level.
The team found that such data is being used effectively in the course-level monitoring of quality and academic standards, but found little evidence of it being used systematically at institutional level to support the management of academic standards. The team would encourage the University to consider mechanisms by which progression and completion data can be used more effectively to inform strategic academic planning at institutional level.
174 At course level, the audit team found significant external input from industry and commerce through the Industrial Advisory Panels and professional, statutory and regulatory body (PSRB) accreditations. Course accreditation by a PSRB is the responsibility of the course team, with accreditation reports being monitored by the relevant faculty board. The University acknowledged, however, that a more strategic institutional-level approach to the wider use of accreditation report outcomes would benefit the University as a whole. On the basis of the evidence available in the DATs, the team found that input from Industrial Advisory Panels and PSRB accreditation was used effectively in the procedures for securing the academic standards of awards, and in assuring the quality of the learning opportunities available to support students in achieving those awards. Overall, the findings of the audit confirm that broad confidence can be placed in the University's current and likely future management of the academic standard of its awards.
The effectiveness of institutional procedures for supporting learning
175 The work of the Library and the University's computing services is monitored and guided by the Information Strategy Committee and the Learning and Teaching Information Committee. These committees are informed by faculty boards and student surveys. Students generally rate library and computing facilities as good, although there is some variability in provision across the campuses. The audit team found that decisions affecting the provision of learning and information technology resources had sometime been poorly communicated to students.
176 The provision of specialist support facilities to support learning at departmental level and the significant links which departments had with industry and potential employers was seen by the audit to be a particularly strong feature of the University. The audit team heard, however, from some students of problems with prioritisation of available resources, including work space and computing facilities, which they perceived to have an adverse effect on completion rates. It appeared to the team that, in the absence of an institutional overview of equitable allocation of available resource, the devolved management structure could be impeding resource sharing, leading to variation in practice in the quality of learning resources available to students. The team would encourage the University to consider how it might take a more central strategic approach to achieving greater equity and consistency in the allocation of resources to support learning.
177 Academic support and guidance is provided to students primarily by course directors in the case of taught courses and by supervisors in the case of research students. The support includes appropriate induction programmes and the introduction to academic staff and learning support facilities associated with each individual course. There are no formal University-wide requirements for the arrangements for personal support and guidance, as a result of which there is diversity in the format of provision across the schools, ranging from individual personal tutors through to course directors acting as a personal tutor to a whole class. In view of the often small cohorts on a taught programme, and the maturity and experience of the students, the audit team considered that diversity of practice to suit the circumstances of a course was appropriate.
178 At a central level, personal support is provided by a range of welfare, careers advice, counselling and medical services including arrangements for the support of students with disabilities and special needs, which is led by the University's Disability Learning and Support Officer. Language provision for overseas students is provided centrally but normally at an additional cost to the students. The provision of basic health and safety training was found to be variable in quality across the University, and although compulsory in some areas, the team found that it was not always being enforced. The team, therefore, welcomed the recent appointment of a University Health and Safety Officer and the establishment of a central Health and Safety Committee, which appeared to be a positive step in addressing this matter. Careers advice was recognised to be a particularly strong feature of the University, and benefited from the links that most schools have with industry and potential employers.
179 In respect of supporting learning through the professional development of staff, the University has taken measures since the 2000 quality audit to develop significantly its approach to staff development. A Head of Professional Development has been appointed and the Professional Development Group (PDG) has been established, with responsibility for delivering a broad ranging portfolio of development activities to support good practice in teaching and learning, including a course, accredited by the Higher Education Academy, leading to the award of the Postgraduate Certificate in Learning, Teaching and Assessment in Higher Education. The professional development needs of staff are identified in annual appraisal and used to inform the development and differentiation of the PDG's activities. A Staff Development Sub-committee of the Senior Appointments Committee of Senate provides central oversight of staff development, which is therefore now a core part of institutional-level quality management. Overall, the audit team viewed the arrangements for professional development as forming a significant contribution to the enhancement of support for learning.
Outcomes of discipline audit trails
MSc Automotive Product Engineering
180 The DAT covered the MSc programme in Automotive Product Engineering delivered by the Department of Automotive, Mechanical & Structures Engineering located within the School of Engineering. Programme specifications set out appropriate learning outcomes, and link these to teaching, learning and assessment. While no subject benchmark statements are relevant to this master's programme, the programme specification had taken note of progression beyond first-degree benchmarks and of the accrediting PSRB's reference points.
181 Students receive detailed and helpful information about their studies and assessment requirements and expectations. Student evaluation of the provision was largely positive but those students interviewed did express some reservation about the learning resources not being up to date and relevant to the course of study. The programme benefits from very close links with industry and a proactive Industrial Advisory Board which has a positive impact on course design and curriculum development. The audit team was able to conclude that the standard of student achievement on the programme was appropriate to the title of award and its location within the FHEQ, and that the quality of learning opportunities provided for students is suitable for the programmes of study leading to the named award.
MSc Logistics and Supply Chain Management
182 The DAT covered the MSc programme in Logistics and Supply Chain Management which is offered as a full-time degree and in three different part-time versions. Programme specifications set out clearly the aims, objectives and learning outcomes of the programmes together with details of how these are to be achieved and the programme delivered. The specification reflects the relevant benchmark statement and is informed by the requirements of accrediting professional bodies. From its study of students' assessed work, and from discussion with students and staff, the audit team was able to conclude that the standard of student achievement on the programme was appropriate to the title of the award and its location within the FHEQ.
183 Students receive helpful and detailed information about their studies and useful feedback on their work. They comment favourably on the standards of teaching, the quality of the learning environment and the learning resources that are available. In particular they commend lecturers' knowledge of the subject area and their accessibility and helpfulness. The programme benefits from the very close links that exist between the academic groups responsible for its delivery and the industry, so that students have a wide choice of industrial projects to choose from for their dissertations. The audit team concluded that the quality of learning opportunities provided for students is suitable for the programmes of study leading to the named award.
MSc Water Management
184 The DAT covered the MSc programme in Water Management which is offered in five options. The programmes are available in both full and part-time modes within the Institute of Water and Environment in the Faculty of Agricultural Engineering, Food Production and Rural Land Use based on the Silsoe Campus, and are accredited by the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management. Programme specifications presented for each option of the programme included appropriate aims and learning outcomes, linked to teaching, learning and assessment. From its study of students' assessed work, the audit team was able to conclude that the standard of student achievement on the programme was appropriate to the title of the award and its location within the FHEQ.
185 Students who met the audit team were generally complimentary about all aspects of the programme including learning resources and support, staff accessibility, staff response to issues, the quality of handbooks, the timeliness of assignment allocation, the quality of coursework feedback and the clarity of the assessment requirements and marking criteria. They have opportunities to comment on the course through end-of-module questionnaires and in the course team/student meetings. Students who met the team were aware that beneficial changes had occurred for their programme due to comments from the previous student cohort and felt they should do the same for the next student cohort. Overall, the team found that the quality of learning opportunities is suitable for the programme of study leading to the named award.
The use made by the institution of the Academic Infrastructure
186 The University expects its staff to be familiar with the Academic Infrastructure through familiarity with its own Senate CoPs and guidance. It is particularly important, therefore, that the Senate CoPs and guidance are appropriately aligned with the Academic Infrastructure. It is the responsibility of TC to consider this alignment, and to recommend amendments to the University's own CoPs or guidelines as necessary. The University listed the dates on which TC had considered individual sections of the Code of practice, and the action that was taken. While the audit team was able to confirm that the University had engaged with the Code in relation to its own policies and procedures, it noted some delays in response to the 2004 revisions of the Code and incomplete application of certain sections, such as that on placement learning, which it dismissed as 'not applicable'. The University may wish to reconsider the applicability of the sections of the Code and to give more timely consideration to revisions of the Code.
187 The University has developed a set of descriptors for M-level awards and is currently developing D-level descriptors. The audit team found clear evidence of the use of The framework for higher education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (FHEQ) for both sets of descriptors. The University's academic portfolio will soon to be wholly postgraduate, for which there are currently few subject benchmark statements. The team saw evidence of the use of the M-level Subject benchmark statement for general business and management, and of undergraduate subject benchmark statements being used as an indication of the anticipated subject knowledge of recent graduates entering postgraduate programmes.
188 The University has adopted a template for programme specifications based on QAA's guidelines. All postgraduate taught programmes have a programme specification which is updated as part of the periodic course review process. The audit team found the procedures in place for the approval, including amendment, of programme specifications by faculty boards to be effective.
189 Overall, the audit team concluded that the University was engaging appropriately with the Academic Infrastructure, and was promoting internal debate on aspects of the Infrastructure, but the team saw little evidence of the University's engagement with the consultation processes and the wider debate by which the sector develops these reference points. Notwithstanding, or perhaps because of, the specialised nature of the University, the team formed the view that the University would gain benefit from a greater interaction with the wider debates within the HE academic sector on external reference points and protocols, such as the debate on the implications of The Bologna Declaration for taught master's programmes.
The utility of the SED as an illustration of the institution's capacity to reflect upon its own strengths and limitations, and to act upon these to enhance quality and standards
190 The self-evaluation document (SED) provided the audit team with a clear and accurate description of the University's central processes for the assurance of quality of provision and for securing the standards of its awards. It provided useful background to the University's approach to quality assurance, and highlighted areas of good practice and plans for enhancement. The document was prepared by a subgroup of TC, and was strongly reflective of the role and the perspective of groups such as the Registry. However, because of the devolved nature of the University, the team was able to form a better view of the institution's capacity for self-awareness after speaking with staff and students at the operational level.
191 The audit team noted a lack of a strategic emphasis within the SED. In part this reflected the uncertainty within the institution at the time of the audit surrounding the future of the Shrivenham campus. The team came to the view, however, that this lack of strategic emphasis was consistent with a culture of limited institutional-level strategic planning in a highly devolved structure.
Commentary on the institution's intention for the enhancement of quality and standards
192 The SED identified four areas where the University believes enhancement is needed. These relate to staff development, professional networks, dissemination of good practice and collation and use of information across the University. In addition, the University plans to build further on various pilot studies previously undertaken, for example, introducing personal development planning for students; and continuing to build on key initiatives such as e-learning.
193 The audit team confirmed that the enhancement agenda presented in the SED was relevant and appropriate. It considered, however, in the context of the University's highly devolved management structure that the proposals gave little sense of a clear agenda for change emanating from central strategic planning of the future academic business of the University.
Reliability of information
194 Despite institutional scepticism about the value of publishing the teaching quality information (TQI) required by HEFCE's document 03/51, Information on quality and standards in higher education: Final guidance, the University has made good progress towards meeting the requirements of publication. Those aspects of TQI which are not yet published are in the process of being made ready for publication. The University is also proposing to develop further access to information on quality and standards and has put in place a means of allowing partner institutions to upload their TQI.
195 Students find the information provided to them useful. The audit team found no evidence of inaccurate or unreliable information, but was not convinced that the University had robust institutional-level mechanisms for assuring itself of reliability and accuracy, especially in relation to collaborative provision. On the basis of the evidence available, the team formed the view that reliance can be placed on the accuracy, integrity, completeness and frankness of the information which the University publishes about the quality of its programmes and the standards of its awards.
Features of good practice
196 Of the features of good practice noted in the course of the audit, the audit team noted the following in particular:
i the active engagement of Industrial Advisory Panels in quality management and course development (paragraphs 47, 55, 76, 125, 137, 145)
ii the institutional recognition of the value of the periodic review process as an effective quality management tool (paragraph 54)
iii the provision of opportunities for the professional development of academic staff (paragraph 89)
iv the widespread use of the University's research environment and links with industry to enhance the quality of learning opportunities (paragraph 94).
Recommendations for action
197 The University is advised to:
i give greater prominence to the strategic planning of the academic business of the University (paragraphs 32, 39, 48, 70, 82, 95, 113).
In addition, the University may wish to consider the desirability of enhancing its quality management arrangements by:
i reviewing the University's provision of learning skills support in the context of an increasingly diverse student intake (paragraphs 100, 139)
ii testing the security of the present and planned arrangements for academic partnerships leading to the awards of the University against the guidance contained in section 2 (revised 2004) of the Code of practice (paragraph 110).
ISBN 1 84482 333 4
Top
QAA updates
QAAtweets
QAAtube