1 An institutional audit of the University of Essex (the University) was undertaken during the period 24 to 28 November 2003. The purpose of the audit was to provide public information on the quality of the University's programmes of study and on the discharge of its responsibility as an awarding body.
2 The audit was carried out using a process developed by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (the Agency) in partnership with the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), the Standing Conference of Principals (SCOP) and Universities UK (UUK), and has been endorsed by the Department for Education and Skills. For institutions in England, it replaces the previous processes of continuation audit, undertaken by the Agency at the request of UUK and SCOP, and universal subject review, undertaken by the Agency on behalf of HEFCE, as part of the latter's statutory responsibility for assessing the quality of education that it funds.
3 The audit checked the effectiveness of the University's procedures for establishing and maintaining the standards of academic awards; for reviewing and enhancing the quality of the programmes of study leading to those awards; for publishing reliable information; and for the discharge of its responsibility as an awarding body. As part of the audit process, according to protocols agreed with HEFCE, SCOP and UUK, the audit included consideration of examples of institutional processes at work at the level of the programme, through four discipline audit trails (DATs), together with examples of those processes operating at the level of the institution as a whole. The scope of the audit encompassed all of the University's provision leading to its awards.
Section 1: Introduction: the University of Essex
4 Undergraduate students were first admitted to the University in October 1964, with the University receiving its Royal Charter in 1965. The University, which has undergraduate and postgraduate degree awarding powers, characterises itself as expanding and research-intensive.
5 The University has four undergraduate schools: Humanities and Comparative Studies; Science and Engineering; Law; and Social Sciences. In addition there is one university-wide Graduate School. Each of the 17 departments belongs to a school, with some departments belonging to more than one school. All departments are based at the Colchester campus, with the exception of East 15, which is located at Loughton, some 50 miles from Colchester. East 15 became a department in 2001 when the University merged with the East 15 School of Acting.
6 The University has grown by 25 per cent over the past four years to reach a student population in 2003-04 of some 8,700 full-time equivalents (FTEs), including those studying through collaborative arrangements. Approximately 180 undergraduates and 50 postgraduates are based at the East 15 Loughton campus. The majority of the University's undergraduate students come from the south-east of England, East Anglia and London. The University has a substantial postgraduate population, with some 30 per cent of the student population at the Colchester and Loughton campuses being in this category, the majority of them coming from outside the UK. Overall, some 40 per cent of the University's students come from outside the UK.
7 The University's self-evaluation document (SED) explained that the University 'has a tradition of admitting students, including mature students, who do not have standard entry qualifications'. Some 14 per cent of the University's UK/EU undergraduate students and 29 per cent of overseas students are mature. The University has a commitment to widening participation, and this informs the expansion of its collaborative activity in south-east Essex. To underpin this activity, the University has developed a sub-degree framework for Foundation degrees, and has a working party which is considering entry qualifications to Foundation degrees.
8 The University's mission statement is expressed as follows: 'The aim of the University is to equip students, employers and the wider community with the knowledge, skills and ideas for living and working successfully in an international world of rapid social and technical change, by means of teaching, training, expert advice and research of a world-class standard'. Among the strategic aims through which it will support its mission, the University plans 'to increase substantially the number of students studying for University of Essex awards by building on existing strengths, embracing innovation and developing new partnerships'. The audit team learnt from senior staff of a proposal, in the early stages of development, to engage with the University of East Anglia to provide a joint higher education (HE) presence in Ipswich.
Collaborative provision
9 The University's strategy for local collaborative partnerships is for particular partner colleges to offer degree schemes that are not offered by the University itself. The University has three collaborative partnerships in the region: Writtle Agricultural College, South East Essex College of Arts and Technology (SEEC) and the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust. These collaborative arrangements are included in this institutional audit.
Background information
10 The published information available for this audit included:
- the information on the University's web site;
- five Agency quality assessment reports and four subject review reports;
- the report of the Higher Education Quality Council's overseas partnership audit of the University of Essex and the British Council Teaching Centre, Athens (Dec 1997);
- the report of the Agency's quality audit of the University (Aug 1998);
- the report of the Agency's developmental engagement in accountancy and business management (May 2003).
11 The University provided the Agency with:
- an institutional self-evaluation document SED;
- four discipline self-evaluation documents (DSEDs) for the areas selected for DATs;
- documentation as listed in the SED.
12 During the briefing and audit visits, the audit team was given access to the University's internal documents and to its intranet. The team appreciated the unrestricted access it was given to these sources of information.
The audit process
13 Following a preliminary meeting at the University in February 2003 between an Agency officer and representatives of the University and students, the Agency confirmed that four DATs would be conducted during the audit visit. On the basis of the SED and other published information, the audit team confirmed that the DATs would focus on taught programmes in:
- Computing;
- History;
- Law;
- Sociology.
14 The University provided the Agency with DSEDs in September 2003. The DSED for Computing included a report (October 2000) by the British Computer Society (BCS) on the accreditation of the University's degrees schemes in computing.
15 At the preliminary meeting for the audit, the students of the University were invited, through their Students' Union, to submit a separate document expressing views on the student experience at the University, and identifying any matters of concern or commendation with respect to the quality of programmes (degree schemes) and the academic standards of awards. They were also invited to give their views on the level of representation afforded to them, and the extent to which their views were noted and acted upon. In generating their written submission, the Students' Union conducted a student survey, working with a member of the University's staff who provided advice on questionnaire design and data interpretation. The questionnaire was emailed to every student at the Colchester campus, as well as paper copies being distributed at the main lecture theatres. Two visits were made to SEEC to gather students' views. In total, just over 1,200 responses were received. The key matters addressed in the survey were:
- resources (access, availability of staff, books, common room, computers, course materials);
- representation (including extenuating circumstances, appeals);
- quality of teaching (usefulness of lectures and classes, development of key skills, feedback).
16 On the basis of this survey, the Students' Union generated a document which was submitted to the Agency, and to the University, in July 2003. The audit team is grateful to the students of the University for preparing this helpful document.
17 The audit team visited the University on 13,14 and 15 October 2003 for the purpose of exploring with the Vice-Chancellor, senior members of staff of the University and student representatives matters of institutional-level management of quality and standards raised by the University's SED, the students' written submission (SWS), and published documentation. At the close of the briefing visit, a programme of meetings for the audit visit was agreed with the University. The team did not select any area for a thematic enquiry.
18 The audit visit took place from 24 to 28 November 2003. Eleven meetings were held during the visit with groups of staff and students from the University and staff of its partner colleges. Meetings were also held with staff and students in the four subject areas selected for the DATs. The audit team comprised Professor J L Beeby, Ms S Blake, Dr R Davison, Professor B Gower, Dr M Stowell, auditors, and Mr D Stannard, audit secretary. The audit was coordinated for the Agency by Dr D J Buckingham, Assistant Director.
Developments since the previous academic audit
19 The University received a continuation audit by the Agency in November 1997, the report of which was published in August 1998. Since then, the University has seen a substantial increase in student numbers, a widening of its portfolio via the incorporation of East 15 Acting School as an academic department and the rapid development of the partnership with SEEC. Since 1997, the University has also established its partnership with the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust and has closed its collaborative partnership with the British Council in Athens.
20 The 1998 continuation audit report highlighted the lack of a clear, explicit quality assurance strategy. In response to this comment, the University produced a teaching quality strategy, the latest version of which was approved by the Senate in June 2003 for implementation in 2003-04. Since 1998, six subject areas have undergone Agency subject reviews. In all cases the provision was approved and, in most cases, the University was awarded the maximum grading. There was a Developmental Engagement in Accountancy and Business Management in May 2003 which reported confidence in both the standards and quality of the provision.
21 The 1998 continuation audit report contained several comments related to approval, monitoring and review of provision. It noted that 'external participation in the process is not mandatory' for the approval of new degree schemes. The report also commented that, due to the review method then employed by the University, there could be long periods before issues are identified and addressed. The five-yearly degree schemes review process was replaced by the current periodic review scheme in 2001-02 which, although also on a five-year cycle, is supplemented by a system for monitoring provision annually.
22 The 1998 continuation audit report identified some areas which echoed the findings of the 1992 report of the Academic Audit Unit's first quality audit of the University. One such area concerned the use of postgraduate students in teaching. The 1998 report suggested greater support for graduate teaching assistants (GTAs), with a compulsory element of training before postgraduate students could teach. The University has now established a code of practice on the training and monitoring of GTAs.
23 Concerns raised in the 1998 audit report included those associated with weakness in the procedures with respect to collaborative provision, the report noting that 'initiatives with external partners...have largely emerged as ad hoc arrangements without forming part of any strategy for accreditation, franchising or progression'. Given the rapid development of the strategic partnership with SEEC, the University has recognised a need for the development of a procedural framework and a set of principles for collaborative provision, and has been collating the procedures and practice for validation and review in relation to all its collaborative provision into a single document. At the time of the audit visit, however, this validation handbook was still in draft form.
24 At the time of the continuation audit, the rules for progression and classification varied from school to school, and the 1998 audit report commented on the difficulty of achieving parity of treatment across the University. A working party on rules of assessment reported in autumn 1999, with undergraduate schools subsequently revising rules which were approved in summer 2002.
25 The University's responses to the continuation report are set out in a paper Continuation Audit Report - final report on the follow-up to issues raised. The audit team found this clear in its description of the actions taken, although there was little evaluation of the effectiveness of these actions. Several of the matters which emerged from the report of the continuation audit, and to which the University has responded, have been followed up in the present audit.
Section 2: The audit investigations: institutional processes
The institution's view as expressed in the SED
26 The SED outlined the processes by which the University assures itself of the quality and standards of its provision. It stated that the use of external examiners and their annual reports is pivotal in the assurance of standards.
27 Approval, monitoring and review processes are described in detail in the SED, including the rationale for changes to the systems. Annual monitoring and periodic review procedures have been introduced too recently for an effective evaluation of these processes yet to have taken place. Overall, the SED gave a clear description of the process of assurance, but commentary on evaluation of the processes was largely absent.
28 The quality strategy of the University is contained in the teaching quality strategy as approved by the Senate in June 2003. The implementation of the quality strategy involves significant devolvement to departmental level, with support and monitoring from the deans of the schools. Quality and standards of collaborative provision are managed through the recently formed Board of Studies for Learning Partnerships (previously the Board of Collaborative Education), chaired by the Dean of Learning Partnerships.
29 The SED made frequent reference to the Agency's academic infrastructure. Significant effort across the University has been focused on the production of programme specifications. It explained that work with partner colleges has been guided by the Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education (Code of practice), published by the Agency, in particular the section relating to collaborative arrangements.
The institution's framework for managing quality and standards, including collaborative provision
30 The executive governing body of the University is its Council, described in the SED as 'responsible for the management and administration of the revenue and property of the University'. The Vice-Chancellor is the chief academic and executive officer of the University. In carrying out his work he is assisted by a management team consisting of four Pro-Vice-Chancellors, the Registrar and Secretary, and the Director of Finance. They meet as the Vice-Chancellor's Advisory Group (VAG) and also as the Budget Sub-Committee, a sub-committee of the Council's Finance and Strategy Committee. In order to support good communication and discussion of policy, the Vice-Chancellor holds weekly meetings with heads of department and deans. The SED describes this as a 'relatively flat management structure...with VAG/Budget Sub-Committee at the core, surrounded by strong and trusted departments', and with short lines of communication.
31 Overall responsibility for the management of academic provision rests with the Senate. The powers of the Senate are set out in the Statutes of the University, and include directing teaching and examinations and all aspects of degree schemes. In carrying out this task, the Senate receives reports and recommendations for approval from school boards and from its Academic Standards Committee (ASC). Other committees of the Senate involved in managing quality and academic standards are the Learning and Teaching Committee (LTC) (see below, paragraph 33) and the Board of Studies for Learning Partnerships (see below, paragraph 34).
32 ASC is chaired by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Academic Standards), and is required to make recommendations to the Senate 'on the enhancement of the quality of education and the maintenance and monitoring of academic standards'. It is also required to consider reports on periodic reviews of degree schemes (see below, paragraph 55), and to consider relevant documents from national bodies. Membership of the ASC includes the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Academic Development) and the Vice-President (Academic and Welfare) of the Students' Union. ASC has responsibility for putting the University's teaching policy into practice. It approaches this formally by issuing guidelines within which, for example, can be included means of alignment with the Code of practice. Guidance on the University's procedures for quality assurance takes the form of a series of documents on the University's intranet. These form in essence a 'quality manual', but there is no single printed document with that title.
33 LTC is responsible for the maintenance and implementation of the learning and teaching strategy and the learning support infrastructure. According to the SED, the committee 'actively promotes teaching innovation in departments' (see also below, paragraph 104) and 'oversees new developments in teaching and learning and related matters'.
34 There are four school boards, each chaired by a dean. The Board of the Graduate School and the Board of Studies for Learning Partnerships are also chaired by deans. The deans have substantial devolved responsibility for the management of quality, academic standards and quality enhancement processes in the University. Their duties include matters relating to student progress, the setting and conduct of examinations and, where appropriate, reporting to the Senate. They are ex-officio members of the ASC. Schools oversee student record keeping and examinations, and their boards consider proposals for new degree schemes and such other matters as deans refer to them. Each school has an administrator and other support staff.
35 The role of the Graduate School and its Board is particularly important in quality assurance, quality enhancement and security of academic standards for postgraduate research students, to whom the University's annual monitoring and periodic review processes do not apply. The Board has established guidelines for research student supervision, and annual reports on student progress are received by the Dean of the School.
36 A significant amount of responsibility for the management of quality and academic standards is vested in the departments. The SED explained that 'within a range of University and school frameworks, guidelines and codes of practice, departments are given considerable autonomy in academic matters'. Specifically, heads of department have responsibility for all aspects of the provision of teaching in their departments. The principal line of communication for matters associated with teaching is to the school board, of which all heads of department in the school are members.
37 Responsibility for approving the rules of assessment for progression between years, and the classification of degrees, lies with the schools. This led to comments in the 1998 continuation audit report about the consistency of the rules of assessment across the University. ASC subsequently established a working party to consider the situation, and this reported in 1999. The first recommendation of the working party was that all discretionary clauses, other than those relating to documented extenuating circumstances, should be removed from the rules of assessment. This proposal was not adopted, in part because of the views of external examiners, some of whom favoured the use of discretion while others did not. As a result, discretion is still used in various ways, leading the audit team to conclude that inconsistency was still possible in the treatment of students studying different schemes, echoing an issue identified in the 1998 continuation audit report about parity of treatment in classification of degrees. The 1999 report of the working party envisaged that problems with consistency and comparability of the rules could be overcome if 'degree classes throughout the University [were] determined in an algorithmic fashion as a function of overall weighted averages and class credits'. Some progress towards this end has been achieved in that there are now three sets of rules of assessment in use on the Colchester campus, and each school is expected to choose and use one set of rules for all the degree schemes for which it is responsible. Different rules of assessment may, however, apply at collaborating partners (see below, paragraph 134). In discussions with members of the University, it was made clear to the team that although progress towards greater uniformity is continuing, staff see strong academic arguments for maintaining the different rules of assessment that the University permits.
38 The rules for progression and degree classification have also been modified in response to the guidance given by The framework for higher education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (FHEQ), published by the Agency. The award of a Pass degree has been discontinued, and boards of examiners have been given new powers to allow more flexibility for students to 'retrieve failure through reassessment'. The audit team noted, in particular, that students were now given more opportunity to resit failed courses. However, the use of this option is not uniform across the University, adding to the possibility of inconsistent treatment.
39 The University defines a complete programme of study leading to the award of a degree as a 'scheme'. The components from which a scheme is constructed are termed 'courses'. A board of examiners is selected by the dean of school for each scheme within the school. At least one member of the board is the scheme external examiner, and the chair of the board is the dean of the relevant school or another senior member of academic staff. The SED explained that the external examiner has 'overarching responsibility for the standards of the scheme and for arbitration, where necessary, on the degree class of particular candidates'. The audit team noted, however, that the full membership of boards of examiners is not minuted by the school boards, nor is it reported to the Senate, and considered this to be a potentially serious omission. The team also noted that boards of examiners, including those at partner institutions, determine classifications and award degrees without further reference to school boards or to the Senate, and found no reference in the University's Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations that formalised the authority of boards of examiners. The University is advised to review the formal relationship between boards of examiners and the Senate to ensure that the respective responsibilities of the Senate and the boards in the award of degrees are secure, and that the Senate has the ability to maintain an effective institutional-level overview of the work of the boards.
40 The SED explained that the University's strategy for collaborative provision was to 'develop a range of partnership provision which is complementary to provision at its main campus'. Responsibility for overseeing the quality and academic standards of collaborative provision, and of lifelong learning programmes, rests with the recently formed Board of Studies for Learning Partnerships, which is the successor of the Board for Collaborative Education, and which functions in the same way as a school board. To facilitate communication and strengthen links, there is significant committee cross-representation between the University and the collaborating partners at all levels, including the level of the University Council.
41 The University manages the assurance and enhancement of quality and academic standards through guidelines set out by the senior level committees, primarily ASC, and endorsed by the Senate. The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Academic Standards) who chairs ASC, has oversight of the operation of the University's quality assurance processes. It is the responsibility of the deans to ensure that the University's guidelines are followed, and for this they have the appropriate level of delegated authority. On some matters, for example, consideration of annual monitoring reports, they are only required to report to ASC on those items which they judge to have institution-wide significance. On the other hand, the reports of periodic review panels are presented to ASC for discussion and for consideration of any actions. Taken as a whole, this gives a complex structure in which, while deans are required to ensure that departments in their schools act in accordance with the agreed quality assurance processes, the heads of department are responsible not to them but to the Senate. Similarly, decisions of school boards are usually reported to the Senate and not necessarily to the ASC. Although there are additional lines of communication, such as the link Pro-Vice-Chancellor associated with each department, and the fact that deans are ex-officio members of ASC, it is nevertheless possible for consideration of issues at institutional level to be delayed by these indirect reporting lines. Overall, the audit team concluded that the University has in place an appropriate structure for managing quality and standards but that it might, on occasion, be slow to respond to problems and developments.
The institution's intentions for the enhancement of quality and standards
42 The SED did not identify separately the University's intentions for the enhancement of quality and standards, but rather identified these as consequences of the development of policies, procedures and practices as these appeared in the text of the document. The audit team therefore has chosen to generally comment on these intentions within the body of the audit report, but identifies here just three important examples of matters relating to enhancement that the University has in hand.
43 The SED reported that the University intended to administer an annual student satisfaction survey in 2003-04. A working party is currently developing the proposed survey, which is designed to align with the requirements for student evaluation set out in HEFCE's document, Information on quality and standards in higher education (HEFCE's document 02/15). The University also intends that the survey should provide it with data which is amenable to analysis to support the enhancement of the student experience. Although the proposal is to conduct the survey on-line, the University has expressed some reservations about the response rate using such a method because some departmental experiences suggested that the transfer of student course survey instruments from paper to on-line led to a decreased response rate. The audit team would encourage the University in its efforts to develop an institution-wide student satisfaction survey in the interest of regularly gaining valuable information about the students' perception of their experience, such as that gained from the survey conducted as part of the SWS to this audit (see above, paragraph 15).
44 The expansion of student numbers in recent years has put greater demands on the University's teaching buildings, with some students commenting to the audit team on over-crowding in classrooms. The University is engaged in a programme of capital building, with a Networks Centre at the Colchester campus to provide additional space for teaching and research for the Departments of Computer Science and Electronic Systems Engineering, and a new lecture theatre building planned for use from October 2005. The University is also planning a new campus in Southend, adjacent to SEEC's new building in Southend town centre. Some library facilities will be shared between the University and the College. The audit team considered that the University's plans for capital building, coupled with the implementation of new timetabling software to make more effective allocation of existing teaching space would be an appropriate enhancement of resources for teaching and learning.
45 Later in this report (paragraph 98 et seq), the audit team comments on the University's approach to the assurance of quality of teaching through staff support and development. In 2003-04, the University is introducing annual developmental reviews for all teaching and administrative staff (see below, paragraph 94). At the time of the audit visit, the University was also considering a proposal for a further significant enhancement of staff support in the form of a development programme for teaching staff, which will provide opportunities for academic staff to achieve a formal teaching qualification (see below, paragraph 93). In particular, the team would encourage the University to take this opportunity to ensure that its expanding cohort of GTAs participates in relevant aspects of the staff development programme so that departments, and students, can be assured that all GTAs have experience of good practice in teaching and learning. These initiatives should, together, allow the University to provide a more systematic approach to meeting the development needs of staff and enhancing quality in teaching and learning.
Internal approval, monitoring and review processes
46 The SED pointed to the University having 'an integrated approach to the approval, monitoring and review of its taught programmes'. It stated that the formal processes 'are interlocking and are informed by other mechanisms such as staff/student liaison committees (SSLC) and external examiners' reports'. These processes are monitored by the Quality Enhancement Office which reports annually to ASC. The audit team saw the annual report of May 2003, and considered it to be a usefully evaluative document which included a review of approval processes, consideration of efforts to raise awareness of the purpose of the annual monitoring reviews, proposals to modify the periodic review process, and discussions of external examiners reports and programme specifications. One specific item was the consideration of e-learning with a timetable for producing guidance for distance-learning developers (see below, paragraph 108).
Programme (scheme) approval
47 Proposals for new degree schemes are submitted by departments to the appropriate school board. The SED explained that all relevant issues on a centrally-provided checklist must be addressed, and that a draft programme specification must be included. The checklist requires formal confirmation that the programme specification 'has been developed with due consideration for, and acknowledges, external reference points'. The programme specification is required to identify learning outcomes and the relationship of the award to the FHEQ. The guidelines for scheme proposers, available on the intranet, give detailed explanations of the information required for the proposal. Scrutiny of a proposal is undertaken by a sub-committee of the relevant school board, appointed by the dean. The sub-committee may meet departmental representatives, if required, to address any issues arising. The dean may refer a proposal to the ASC if difficult quality matters are raised. Finally, the proposal is considered by the school board and, if approved, a recommendation for approval is made by the board to the Senate. School boards are central to the approval process, but the audit team saw little evidence of an institutional overview of the process other than the formal recommendation for approval to the Senate. In its consideration of the effectiveness of its scheme approval procedures, the University might wish to consider if it is satisfied that its institutional-level overview of scheme approvals is able to ensure equivalence of practice across the schools.
48 Provision is made for considering the views of external experts during the scheme approval process. External input is usually undertaken, according to the SED, 'where there is a strong vocational emphasis or where a new curriculum area is being developed'. Examples are given of such consultation, but the SED explained that in practice 'informal consultation with subject peers, who may be external examiners for existing cognate schemes' occurs in most cases. Where a scheme is not significantly changed from an existing scheme, no external view need be taken. The University's degree schemes on the main campus are not regarded as primarily vocational, and there is therefore limited attention to the views of employers in the approval process, the exception being for those schemes for which accreditation by a professional or statutory body (PSB) is sought. The University's approach does not, in the view of the audit team, reliably ensure that the Senate receives an appropriate level of external advice in scheme approval. The University is referred to the comments made in the 1998 continuation audit report (see above, paragraph 21), and might wish to consider revising its guidelines for scheme approval so that the Senate can always be assured that appropriate independent external guidance has been sought on the quality and standards of schemes recommended to it for approval.
49 At the level of the courses that contribute to a degree scheme, the approval of new courses is the responsibility of the relevant school board, although the SED explained that this responsibility is 'normally delegated to the dean and reported as dean's action'. Proposals for new courses and for changes to existing courses must be supported with a detailed rationale and outline. The SED gave examples of proposals which deans had felt it appropriate to refer to their school board for consideration.
50 Validation of new scheme proposals involving collaborative partners is the responsibility of the Board of Studies for Learning Partnerships, which acts in place of a school board in making recommendations for approval to the Senate. Again, there is a centrally generated checklist, specific to collaborative provision. Validation panels include external members and representatives of the University and the partner institution. Panels for vocational degrees at partner institutions normally include employer representation. At SEEC, internal panel members are now included in sessions which were previously restricted to University members only, marking a move toward greater partnership in these matters.
Annual monitoring
51 The annual monitoring process has been considerably modified since 1998, when the report of the continuation audit commented on some weaknesses. The SED explained that annual monitoring now consists of an 'evaluative summary of the delivery of a scheme over a year'. This summary is prepared by departments for each degree scheme they teach, using a report pro forma which, according to the SED, 'is intended to encourage a forward looking approach to monitoring activity'. Guidelines for the process include good practice examples to encourage inclusion of adequate information rather than insubstantial responses. The University recognises the need to ensure that annual monitoring is embedded in departmental processes, and is encouraging departments to use their existing internal review mechanisms to support the annual monitoring process and the resulting follow-up actions. It is also 'exploring focusing an element of periodic review on this specific area' to encourage the effective use of departmental processes.
52 Annual monitoring reports are considered by the appropriate dean. The University recognised in the first year of operation of the new process, 2001-02, that monitoring reports and the subsequent feedback to departments 'did not meet the overall objectives of the process'. Accordingly, in 2002-03, additional staffing resources were provided to manage the process centrally, and departments were given detailed feedback on their 2002-03 reports. A broadly similar process applies to collaborative provision.
53 The University intends that each annual monitoring report, together with the dean's response, will be used as an additional means of providing feedback to external examiners. Following the first year of operation, and a review of the process by the Quality Enhancement Officer, monitoring report deadlines have been moved to allow departments sufficient time following the end of the external examining timetable and receipt of statistical information. The University emphasised that departments are still required to respond to external examiners following receipt of their reports, and that sending annual monitoring reports to external examiners is 'an enhancement to existing practice'.
54 The University wishes to ensure that the new process for annual monitoring will be 'a helpful reflective tool with which departments are fully engaged' and that it will be 'an integral part of a department's process of review and development'. The audit team formed the view from the evidence seen during the DATs that there is some way to go before this is aim is fully satisfied, with most teaching staff appearing to have only limited involvement in the monitoring process. Meanwhile, the University is continuing to evaluate the process and to adjust it as necessary to integrate it with the periodic review scheme.
Periodic review
55 The current periodic review process was introduced across the University in 2001-02, following piloting in the previous year. It is designed to take account of the appropriate section of the Code of practice, and is applied to each scheme, or group of schemes, on a quinquennial basis. Each review is conducted by a panel, typically of nine members, chaired by the dean of school. Of the members, there are up to four staff plus a student from the department, an external member who is not a current external examiner and a member of the staff of the Academic Section who acts as secretary of the review. Periodic review panels include two members from outside the department but within the School. Joint schemes are reviewed with the single honours schemes of the lead department but with an additional review panel member from the partner department. The review is paper-based, and documentation is provided by the department according to a specified schedule. This includes a reflective document written by the department, annual monitoring reports, external examiners' reports, subject benchmark statements and student survey results. The panel will meet students registered on the schemes under review. The main meeting of the panel follows informal discussions between the non-departmental panel members.
56 Detailed guidelines are provided to panels setting out the key questions to be explored, and for which the outcomes should form part of the panel report. Reports may conclude with a summary of recommendations for consideration by the department. The report is formally presented to ASC, and includes a recommendation stating whether the degree scheme(s) should be continued for the succeeding five years. The relevant school board receives a copy of the report together with the ASC minute relating to it. Recommendations made by review panels will lead to an action plan reported on and monitored through the annual monitoring report process. Two recent reports seen by the audit team demonstrated the process, although the team noted that one panel had not followed up its considerations with any recommendations for action or by drawing attention to any points of good practice.
57 The same process with minor modifications is used for schemes delivered by collaborative partners, except for Writtle Agricultural College which has its own procedures. The panel for review of collaborative arrangements includes a senior officer and staff members of the institution delivering the scheme, replacing those from the department in internal reviews. These reports are presented not to the ASC but to the Board of Studies for Learning Partnerships, although the dean may refer reports to ASC if they raise University-wide issues.
58 The SED expressed the view that the new process has already eliminated a number of weaknesses in the earlier system of periodic review. After consideration of the periodic reviews which have so far taken place, the University has decided to make small changes to the procedures. Each review will, in future, be separated into two parts, with the first part focusing specifically on aspects of quality assurance, with the intention of strengthening the monitoring of these aspects of departmental activity, leaving the second part to concentrate on scheme content, curriculum development and the student experience. The University intends to explore further refinements to the process for future years.
59 The audit team noted the way in which the University had strengthened its periodic review process. It also noted, however, that the paper-based review is conducted by a panel which might, if the student is included, have a majority of departmental members. The team was not convinced that this arrangement was sufficiently distanced from day-to-day departmental business to be sure of appraising potential weaknesses, or strengths, in the delivery of degree schemes. The team also noted that, in using the annual report process as the mechanism for following up responses to any recommendations, control passed from the centrality of ASC, to the school, potentially losing consistency and oversight of any institution-wide issues.
60 Although the periodic review and annual monitoring processes were both relatively new at the time of the audit visit, the audit team was able to form the view that they are capable of providing the University with sound assurance of the quality of its taught programmes. The team considered, however, that the balance of departmental representation in periodic review and the school-level process of annual monitoring could allow variations in local practice which might limit the Senate's capacity to assure itself of the equivalence of the quality of provision across the University. The University is encouraged to continue to monitor and develop the operation of its annual and periodic processes so that it can be confident that it has an effective institutional-level overview of the quality of its provision.
Departmental review
61 The University also has a separate departmental review process, operating on a seven-year cycle. This review is chaired by a Pro-Vice-Chancellor and considers general departmental progress, strategic development, efficiency and effectiveness, and the resource framework within which the department is operating. The review panel is independent of the department in that it does not include members of the department being reviewed, and it includes at least one independent external adviser. The panel's report is received by the VAG, and any subsequent actions on the department are monitored six and 18 months later, and through a mid-term review. The implementation of the periodic review process might have an impact on the designed purpose of departmental review. It is possible that departmental review might take a more strategic role to complement the more functional role of periodic review, and the audit team considered that there might be advantage in this as long as any such distinction is made clear in both processes.
External participation in internal review processes
62 In addition to the external consultation concerning new degree schemes described in paragraph 48 above, the SED explained that in the case of schemes with a strong vocational emphasis the consultation 'may be more formal and may continue after the scheme has admitted students'. The latter process also applies where a new curriculum area is being developed. The SED provided examples where external comment had been obtained for degree schemes both internally delivered and delivered by partner institutions. It made no comment on whether the University considers this level of external participation to be appropriate.
63 The audit team confirmed that the SED set out an accurate statement of current practice for external participation in scheme approval and review. While the arrangements are operating as designed, the audit team formed the view that a potential weakness in the overall consistency of the scheme approval process is the optional nature of formal external comment, and has commented on this in paragraph 48 above. The team questioned whether the recent examples of new degree schemes which have recruited small student numbers might be a consequence of inadequate consideration of external experience.
64 On the other hand, the audit team considered that the degree of externality in the periodic review process, recently enhanced to exclude the use of current external examiners as review panel external members, is strong. The team concluded that the level of externality in periodic review is appropriate.
External examiners and their reports
65 The SED stated that the external examiner system 'is one of the main guarantors of the standards of the University's degrees'. External examiners are specifically asked to compare the standards required of the University's students in comparison with the standards required of students following similar schemes of study, or courses, at other institutions. The SED also explained that external examiners provide 'a check on the fairness of the assessment procedures and a source of external advice about its provision'. There are documented procedures, including the procedures used with collaborating partners, setting out the aims of the external examiner system and the University's expectations of the external examiners it appoints. Policies and procedures for the appointment of external examiners are documented. Within the University, nominations are provided by departments and are considered and approved by the relevant dean of school in accordance with explicit criteria. In the case of the University's collaborating partners, nominations are provided by the partner institutions and are considered and approved by the Dean of Learning Partnerships in accordance with same criteria.
66 Some external examiners have responsibility for the standards of degree schemes and on the classes of degrees awarded to students, while others provide subject expertise to assure the standards of particular courses within degree schemes. The roles and powers of each type of external examiner are clearly stated. All external examiners are provided with written guidance about the University's expectations of them, and are supplied with the information they need in order to satisfy those expectations. The decisions of boards of examiners about the outcomes of assessments for examination candidates are formally endorsed by all external examiners present at meetings of the boards in order to signify that procedures have been followed correctly.
67 Annually, external examiners complete pro forma reports on their experience of the examination process and forward these to the Vice-Chancellor. Each report is considered by the relevant department (or equivalent in the case of collaborating partners), by the relevant dean, and by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Academic Standards). The outcome of that consideration, including any action to be taken in the light of comments made, is reported back to the external examiner. Responses to external examiners' comments and suggestions are being incorporated into the new annual monitoring process. Comments of external examiners which require consideration at an institutional level are drawn by deans to the attention of ASC, which decides what action, if any, will be taken.
68 The University's external examining system is monitored annually by ASC, and is reviewed by a working party 'reporting to ASC at least every five years'. The SED stated that, since 2001 when the working party's report responded to the section of the Code of practice relating to external examining, the principal function of external examiners has been to advise the University on whether its degrees are appropriate in content and standard. This has been interpreted to mean that curricula and academic standards should be in accordance with the FHEQ and with subject benchmark statements. Accordingly, the pro forma that external examiners are required to complete asks not only whether the standards set for awards are comparable with awards in other institutions, but also whether 'the standards set for the award(s) for which you are appointed [are] appropriate, in the light of the National Qualification Framework for England and Wales, [and] published national subject benchmarks (where they exist)'. However, the completed forms made available to the audit team indicated that the answers provided by external examiners, since they were sometimes very brief and did not include any specific reference to the FHEQ, might not be meeting all the University's expectations.
69 External examiners are made aware of the University's assessment policies, including its policies regarding anonymous marking, second-marking or moderation of examination scripts and of summatively assessed coursework, resitting of examinations and resubmission of coursework, and the condonement of failed assessments. They are able to comment on these policies and procedures. Such comments are reported to the ASC, the minutes of which indicate what action will be taken. The SED explained that further work in the development of policy is taking place on departmental assessment strategies, partly as a consequence of the views expressed by external examiners. An example of the use made of external examiners' views is found in the report on the rules that the University applies in classifying undergraduate degrees. This comprehensive report was prepared for ASC, partly in response to the 1998 continuation audit report, and it makes extensive use of the comments of external examiners on rules of assessment and related matters.
70 The SED expressed the view that 'one of the main strengths of the current external examiner system is that it carries great weight, both formally and informally, with departments'. The audit team was able to confirm this view, with evidence available to the team showing that departments have considered the comments of external examiners with care and have responded to suggestions in a detailed, timely and robust manner. At the institutional level, however, it appeared to the team that consideration of suggestions can be delayed, with evidence available to the team indicating that decisions deferred by ASC to subsequent meetings could remain outstanding for more than a year.
71 The audit team formed the view that the University is making effective use of its external examiners to maintain the standards of its awards, and to provide it with assurance that assessment procedures are operated soundly and fairly. External examiners' reports are scrutinised at both departmental and institutional level, and with the incorporation of responses to those reports in the annual monitoring process the contribution external examiners make to the assurance of quality and standards is being strengthened. There is, however, evidence that external examiners are not yet providing some of the information the University asks for (see above, paragraph 68), and the University may wish to consider whether additional guidance to external examiners would be appropriate.
External reference points
72 The SED explained that the Code of practice and the FHEQ have been considered at institutional level, and the outcome of that consideration has been embedded in University policy and practice. It went on to explain that the University requires that subject benchmark statements are taken into account in preparing programme specifications, and that they are used as a reference point in periodic review.
73 As sections of the Code of practice were published, the University evaluated its practice in the aspects of provision covered by that section, and made changes to its procedures where these were judged appropriate or necessary. Because the implications of the Code have been expressed in terms of University policy and procedure, there is no expectation that academic staff will generally be familiar with its precepts and guidance of the Code. Collaborating partners have been required to review their procedures in the light of the Code and to report on the outcome. Not all reports had been received at the time of audit visit, but the audit team was informed that all the University's collaborating partners were addressing the implications of the Code for their procedures and practice, and that no serious deficiencies had been identified. The SED recognised that some aspects covered by the Code still needed attention. For example, the University has yet to incorporate some precepts of the section of the Code dealing with student assessment, in that it is possible for students to obtain a qualification without having successfully completed all the learning outcomes associated with it (see below, paragraph 148).
74 A particular issue arising from the section of the Code of practice dealing with student assessment has been the use of a variety of rules of assessment to determine undergraduate degree classes from marks awarded for component courses in schemes. The 1998 continuation audit report drew attention to the diversity of these rules and the consequent scope for questions of comparability of standards, and of fairness to students, to arise. The present audit report comments on this in paragraph 37 above.
75 The audit team found that the University is making appropriate use of the Code of practice for assuring the quality and standards of its own provision and the provision offered through collaborative arrangements. It noted that the University recognised that in certain areas further progress was needed, and concurred with this view. The team would recommend, in particular, that in the light of the section of the Code dealing with the assessment of students, the University might give further attention to securing greater consistency in its policies and rules for assessment, and in their implementation.
76 Subject benchmark statements are referred to in the Notes for Preparation of Programme Specifications as 'an important point of reference during the preparation of programme specifications'. The Notes emphasise that 'evidence of a relationship between a benchmark statement and programme specifications will be expected wherever possible'. While some of the programme specifications available to the audit team showed that this advice had been followed, most did not explain this relationship.
77 ASC commissioned and considered a detailed report on the implications for the University of the FHEQ. The report recommended to the Senate that a formal credit framework be introduced in order 'to provide evidence that the University's qualifications were at the appropriate QAA level'. Senate decided not to adopt this recommendation. Senate minutes noted that some members believed that 'the majority of the University's existing structures and procedures already met the NQF [now FHEQ] principles', and that 'the introduction of the proposed credit framework might not be necessary to demonstrate implementation of the NQF'. The SED considered that the University's awards were 'in line with the levels described in the FHEQ', on the basis that programme specifications are now available and the guidance provided for their completion required departments to 'give close consideration to the appropriate National Qualifications Framework qualification descriptor'. The University's Notes for Preparation of Programme Specifications states that each specification should clearly identify 'the relationship of the programme to the National Qualifications Framework in terms of the level of the award'. Some of the undergraduate programme specifications which the University made available to the audit team claimed to define 'the level of the final award in relation to the FHEQ', although they did not make clear to a non-specialist audience how this has been done. Others made no reference to the FHEQ. Some postgraduate programme specifications made available to the team claimed that FHEQ M-level descriptors had been taken into account, but also did not make clear to a non-specialist audience how this has been done. Others made no reference to the FHEQ. In some cases, programme specifications on the University's web site made brief reference to the FHEQ while the hard copy versions available to the team did not. Internally, subject specialists within departments are in a position to provide explanations of how the learning outcomes identified in programme specifications ensure that the requirements of the level descriptors in the FHEQ are met, and thereby meet the requirements identified in the University's guidance notes. The University has recognised that external examiners could provide further advice in these matters, but has yet to provide the explicit guidance that external examiners would need to fulfil this role. Further advice for internal and external experts would, in the view of the team, strengthen the ability of the University to use the FHEQ as a reference point against which to specify the academic standards of its awards.
Programme-level review and accreditation by external agencies
78 The SED commented on the reports of the four most recent Agency subject reviews which received the maximum grade for all six aspects. The reports were considered by ASC, but contained no recommendations which would require action by the University. A developmental engagement in accountancy and business management took place in May 2003. The report was received and considered by ASC just before the audit visit.
79 The University has only a small number of degree schemes which engage with PSB accreditation. The SED stated that where PSB accreditation is involved, ASC receives accreditation reports and recommendations, and gave examples of how departments have engaged with their PSB in a positive way to inform their approach to teaching and learning. The audit team noted that both law and computing made reference to accrediting PSBs in their programme specifications. Although it was unclear to the team how the specification of the programmes articulated with the requirements of their respective PSBs, undergraduate programme specifications in law appeared to have taken into account professional body requirements for qualifying law degrees. Recommendations contained in accreditation reports are treated in the same way as periodic review recommendations, and followed up as part of the annual monitoring process.
Student representation at operational and institutional level
80 The SED stated that there was 'wide student representation' on University committees through the Students' Union. Students are represented on the Council and the Senate and its key sub-committees by Students' Union officers. The SED explained that there is a University/Students' Union Consultative Group to provide a 'forum for consultation and discussion' where members of the Students' Union can meet senior members of the University. Students are invited to join working parties where there are legitimate student interests, and students are represented on all periodic and academic services reviews. Students are also included in departmental meetings that prepare annual degree scheme monitoring reports.
81 At departmental level, the formal mechanism for student representation is via SSLCs, governed by a Code of Practice for Student Representation in Departments. This code establishes minimum requirements for membership and business, but allows detailed implementation to be determined by each department according to local need. In addition, the Graduate School operates its own version of a SSLC to provide a forum for discussion and consultation on those issues of concern to graduate students which are not specific to individual departments.
82 The survey carried out by the Students' Union to inform the SWS suggested that some students were not well aware of the student representative system, or did not perceive it to be effective. The University noted in its SED that it was 'often difficult to interest students in the process', and officers of the Students' Union reported to the audit team that it was sometimes hard to recruit representatives. These concerns prompted a review of the Code of Practice for Student Representation in Departments by the Students' Union and ASC in 2003. The review resulted in a series of recommendations, including the provision of training for student representatives by the Students' Union, and the appointment of an Academic Support Co-ordinator by the Union to support student representatives. ASC has also approved a paper setting out the 'rights and responsibilities' of all parties for making the representation system more effective. Officers of the Students' Union commented that they welcomed this development.
83 The SED gave a number of examples where student involvement in meetings at institutional and departmental level had prompted reviews of decisions and curriculum change. Students who met the audit team as part of the DATs generally expressed satisfaction with the operation of SSLCs as a mechanism for raising student concerns, and gave further illustrations of curriculum development resulting from SSLC involvement. There was, however, also a perception by these students of variation in the responsiveness of different departments to issues of general concern, and in the effectiveness of departments in closing the loop on action taken. Officers of the Students' Union who met the team confirmed that the University had been responsive to the issues raised in the SWS to the audit, and spoke positively about their role in the work of senior committees. The team saw evidence in the minutes of committees at institutional and departmental level of the active and positive role of students in quality management. Overall the team formed the view that the University had effective arrangements for students to contribute to the management of the quality of provision, and was taking action to strengthen these arrangements further.
Feedback from students, graduates and employers
84 Questionnaire surveys for student assessment of courses and teaching (SACT) have been operated since the early 1990s, governed by Senate policy. The SED acknowledged that that there have been 'a number of practical problems associated with running the survey and these have been the subject of considerable ASC discussion in recent years'. In 1999-2000, responsibility for operating surveys of SACT was devolved to departments, and student assessment of courses (SAC) was decoupled from student assessment of teaching (SAT). SAT has been suspended since 2000-01 pending an overall review of student satisfaction surveys (see above, paragraph 43).
85 Heads of department are responsible for ensuring that SAC is carried out in accordance with Senate policy, which is that each course must be assessed once every three years, and that new and revised courses in the first two years after approval. Each department may design its own questionnaires for SAC, although guidance on good practice in design is provided centrally. Course directors must provide the head of department with a written report on the outcomes of a SAC survey, and the SSLC must receive a summary report on SAC and its follow up from the previous year. This summary is also included in the annual monitoring report, thus allowing deans to monitor implementation of University policy on the student assessment of courses.
86 The SED claimed that 'SAC has proved an effective feedback mechanism and has prompted changes designed to enhance the student experience'. The audit team heard during DAT meetings of examples which supported this claim, and students cited to the team various mechanisms and examples of opportunities for them to feed back comments, both in relation to course matters and in relation to University services. At the same time, it was clear to the team, through its meetings with students and its review of documentation, that there was variation both across the University and within some departments in the extent to which questionnaire design and analysis was informed by the University's guidance on good practice. There was also variation in the extent to which the management of the SAC process was effective for students. Some students expressed the view that questionnaires administered at the end of lectures did not elicit good quality feedback, and some indicated that they were not always informed of outcomes. Students in some departments commented to the team that on some matters, for example, in respect of variation in practice, there had been little progress in response to concerns that had been represented. The team would encourage the University to consider whether it could do more to promote the good practice demonstrated in some areas to achieve greater consistency in obtaining feedback from students.
87 The SED explained that the University has been much concerned in recent years with student feedback, particularly how teaching quality might be assessed, and the possible introduction of a student satisfaction survey. It was clear to the audit team from the recommendations of the working groups set up in the course of the last three years to review SAC and SAT, and from the large-scale institutional survey of students carried out by the Students' Union with the assistance of the University for the purposes of the audit, that the University was strongly committed to seeking and responding to student views. The institutional survey reflected a high level of student satisfaction with their academic experience, but it also indicated a number of matters with a lower level of student satisfaction, notably in relation to variability of policy and practice between departments on rules of assessment, penalties for late submission of coursework, and feedback on assessed work. At the time of the audit visit the University had already met officers of the Students' Union to discuss the findings of the survey and develop an action plan to take forward the issues raised. The SED noted the University's aim to introduce an on-line student satisfaction survey.
88 The University indicated in the SED that it awaits further information from HEFCE about the proposed national graduate survey. In the matter of gaining feedback from employers, the SED stated that 'there are University awards in which preparation for work is central, so that employer advice and involvement are particularly important - notably sub-degree provision at collaborative partner institutions'. The audit team noted the commitments in the University's draft employability strategy to strengthening links with employers.
Progression and completion statistics
89 The SED explained that the University's Planning Office produced statistical information relating to admissions, progression and completion. This information is intended to support annual monitoring and periodic review, and is also 'for consideration by Senate and School Boards'. From the 2002-03 academic year, data concerning progression and retention is made available to departments as part of the annual monitoring process; in previous years, these data were only provided on request. School boards receive student completion data. The data provided to departments and to boards enable comparisons with previous years to be made. The SED also stated that data on admissions are produced regularly and used by selectors, school boards, senior managers, and the Recruitment Strategy Group to inform planning processes and strategies for the development of teaching and learning.
90 Completion data are received by ASC on behalf of the Senate, by school boards and by the Board of Studies for Learning Partnerships. At departmental level, consideration of progression and completion statistics is an established part of the periodic review process, resulting in brief reports which do relate to quality and standards, but only implicitly. The information available to the audit team suggested that progression and completion data are not yet analysed in ways that reliably inform the development of policy and routinely lead to the enhancement of teaching and learning. The team formed the view that progression and retention data are not considered in a regular or systematic manner at institutional level.
91 The SED indicated that the University was seeking to develop and improve the quality of statistical information about admissions, progression, retention and completion. It also stressed the University's wish to improve and clarify the arrangements for considering this information and for taking appropriate action. The audit team would encourage this intention, and anticipates that the new periodic review process and the procedure for annual monitoring will result in more systematic attention to such data, and to quality enhancements deriving from that attention. The team concluded, however, that there is scope for improving the use of data on admissions, progression, retention and completion by ASC, school boards and the Board of Studies for Learning Partnerships, so as to inform strategic planning for enhancement of quality in teaching and learning.
Assurance of the quality of teaching staff, appointment, appraisal and reward
92 The SED made clear that the University places a high priority on good teaching, and considers that it has a good record for recruiting high-quality staff. The University's human resources strategy is intended to support excellence in teaching with regard to how the University 'recruits, retains and supports staff'. Annual review procedures for the promotion and reward of academic, teaching fellow and research staff are documented. The Strategic Plan sets out an aim to recruit staff from among the best available, to retain them and support them so they can perform to their full potential. Procedures for the appointment and promotion of staff are documented and are overseen by the University's Personnel Section. Selection committees include outside assessors for all senior appointments. Training is available for those who appoint staff, including equal opportunities training.
93 Newly appointed staff who have not previously held a permanent teaching position are normally subject to five years probation. The human resources and staff development strategies require each probationer to be supported and monitored by a supervisor who reports to the relevant head of department, and senior staff in each department carry out an annual review of probationers' progress. From 2003-04 observation of teaching is a mandatory part of the probation process. Recently appointed staff who met the audit team were generally positive about the support provided to them, but it appeared to the team that the extent to which procedures were explained and implemented could vary between departments, and that there could also be variation in the amount and timing of training provided.
94 Primary responsibility for monitoring the performance and quality of teaching staff lies with the relevant head of department, but there seems to be no uniform monitoring process once probation has been completed. At the time of the audit visit the University did not have a staff appraisal system in place, but will introduce a 'Performance and Development Review' system, which is intended to be developmental rather judgemental, during 2003-04. Outcomes of this system will be monitored by the head of department and the Personnel Section. The audit team was told that, after probation, any weak performance should be identified through student feedback and complaints, and that it would be remedied with special training through the Staff Development Office.
95 While student evaluation of courses and peer observation of teaching might assist in the assessment and support of good performance, and information on good practice for both is provided by the University, the audit team found that use of both varied very significantly between departments. It was thus not clear to the team how performance is regularly and consistently reviewed across the University, or how evidence of teaching and administrative performance is coherently and fairly identified for reward and promotion, save informally.
96 The University makes significant use of GTAs, and has a Graduate Teaching Assistant Code of Practice covering their appointment and monitoring. The audit team was told that GTAs are employed on the same terms as other teaching staff, and have access to training. The deans have oversight of the use of GTAs, although departments also have significant responsibilities toward them. There are limits on the amount of teaching and marking that GTAs can do, and there is provision for observation of their teaching and sampling of marking. In its meetings with students, the team heard that most GTAs were good, but that a few had weaknesses that could affect students' learning and assessment. It also became clear to the team that practice of induction and support for GTAs could vary significantly between departments. GTAs who met the team were aware of such variation, and some expressed the view that they would value more support and training. The University's view was that SACs should bring out any student concerns about GTAs, but the team was not convinced by this explanation in view of the significant variation in the use of SACs.
97 Staff at collaborative institutions are recruited and appointed by the partner institution, but the University has to be informed about all staff teaching on collaborative degree programmes. University staff sit on recruitment interview panels at SEEC and on appropriate panels for senior appointments at Writtle Agricultural College. The audit team considered that the University had appropriate procedures for monitoring the appointment of staff to collaborative provision.
Assurance of the quality of teaching through staff support and development
98 The University's Strategic Plan includes a commitment to the highest quality of teaching, and its human resources strategy identifies excellence in learning and teaching as a key aim. The SED stated that the University had an excellent record for learning and teaching, and cited the outcomes of recent subject reviews as evidence of this. The University's policy is to share responsibility for staff development and teaching quality between the University centrally and the departments. The audit team comments on staff development in collaborative provision in paragraph 135 below.
99 At University level, LTC oversees implementation of the learning and teaching strategy. The management of teaching quality is an aspect of the portfolio of the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Academic Standards), supported by a Learning and Teaching Development team. This team was brought together in 2001 to ensure an integrated approach to staff development and teaching and learning. It includes a Learning and Teaching Development Officer, a Virtual and Distance Learning Officer and an Online Learning Officer. The team works closely with departmental learning and teaching representatives.
100 Staff development is supported centrally by the Staff Development Office. The Office offers an annual central staff development programme which is available to all staff, and information on development opportunities is provided through a staff development web site. The SED explained that the programme for established staff aimed 'to address both current and anticipated needs', and was 'under constant review' by the Staff Development Advisory Group. Participation in the variety of development opportunities on offer is largely voluntary. The University does not require any formal teaching qualification, and does not yet offer an externally accredited teacher training programme. The learning and teaching strategy includes plans to offer flexible modular training in learning, teaching and assessment from 2004-05. These plans have been recommended by LTC but had not been approved at the time of the audit visit. If implemented, they will provide opportunities for staff to acquire a Postgraduate Certificate in HE teaching with assessment by portfolio, and the possibility of gaining the Certificate by accreditation of prior learning for established staff. The 1998 continuation audit report made reference to the support of GTAs, and the audit team would encourage the University to ensure that the proposed modular training programme would have the capacity to provide an appropriate and reliable means for the preparation and support of GTAs. At the time of the audit visit, the University had not decided whether the training would be compulsory, or the extent to which the University would make time available for staff to engage with the training. The team took particular note of the strong support expressed to it by staff for the proposed training opportunities, and would encourage the University in its intention to introduce this training to support all teaching staff and, through them, its students' experience of learning.
101 At departmental level, there is a network of learning and teaching representatives through which staff can discuss current teaching issues and help to spread best practice. Each department also has a staff development representative who liaises with the central Staff Development Office. The audit team was told that each department should have its own learning and teaching strategy, but not necessarily have its own staff development policy.
102 The University centrally takes a flexible approach in supporting departments in staff development and quality of teaching, providing guidance on matters such as peer observation of teaching and student assessment of courses. In its DAT investigations, the audit team found significant variations of practice in these matters between departments. For example, some departments have peer observation for all staff while some have it for no staff except probationers. Some departments use standardised questionnaires for all courses each year, and in others individual staff can draw up their own questionnaires. Staff commented to the team that good practice exists in many areas in different departments but it is not well shared across the University.
103 In matters of staff development, there are some requirements for reporting between departments and the University centrally, but the evidence provided to the audit team did not reveal any general monitoring process that could ensure that all departments are maintaining consistent practice in fostering staff development and identifying and spreading good teaching practice. While recognising that there is no particular merit in uniformity of practice, the team would encourage the University to consider the potential benefits of greater consistency of practice, and the spread of good practice, that might be gained from more active central monitoring of departmental staff development activity and plans. The team would refer the University to the recommendation made in the 1998 continuation audit report to 'develop further its arrangements for...monitoring the performance of teaching staff'. The Performance and Development Review being rolled out to all staff during 2003-04 should provide a clearer institutional focus for staff development. The team noted that departments will be able to tailor documentation to suit their needs and would, again, encourage the University to monitor departmental variations in implementation of the scheme so as to be able to give central guidance on good practice.
104 Teaching quality and staff development are supported through the Teaching and Learning Innovation Fund (TALIF), which provides money for experimental and innovative projects. At the time of the audit visit the scheme had funded 38 projects which ranged from reviews of assessment strategy to using information and communication technologies (ICT) in teaching. The audit team noted with interest that the University uses its web site both to promote TALIF and to publicise the outcomes of TALIF-supported projects by way of disseminating good practice.
105 The SED made some reflection on how staff and students are involved in identifying and fulfilling staff development needs. The 2003 annual report of the Quality Enhancement Office identified the need for more 'joined-up' processes as regards annual course monitoring, learning and teaching development and staff development, and the audit team would endorse this aim. The team found significant enthusiasm in teaching and administrative staff involved with teaching quality and staff development, but formed the view that this enthusiasm could be deployed to better effect if a clearer framework described the variety of individuals and committees involved in matters of quality in teaching and staff development.
Assurance of the quality of teaching delivered through distributed and distance methods
106 The SED does not discuss the delivery of teaching through distributed and distance methods, but the University is aware of such developments and has taken action to support staff wishing to use on-line methods. The Teaching Services Unit, which is part of Information Systems Services, has placed a page on the University's web site entitled 'Virtual Distance Learning'. This page provides information about where to get help in the development of distance learning, and links to other pages with more detailed information. Another page addresses the delivery of teaching material on-site and on-line in support of standard teaching methods.
107 The University has established an on-line course materials repository into which teaching staff are encouraged to place course material. The audit team was interested to learn that the use of this facility has grown rapidly in the last year, and now contains material for more than 800 courses. Students who met the team expressed strong support for the repository, and welcomed the increase in its use, while noting that there is considerable variation in the quality of the course material available there.
108 The University does not yet have particular protocols for the approval of internet-based modes of delivery. The SED cites a proposal for the internet-based delivery of a postgraduate course as an example of referral of a new course proposal to the Graduate Board. In that particular case, the proposal was not approved because 'it was felt that the course should be piloted before it was offered to students'. The audit team noted, however, that the periodic review report for Health and Human Sciences commented that 'the department was now committed to the expansion of e-learning and distance learning and had started to offer the MSc in Infection Control by internet-based distance learning'. It is clear that flexible and internet-based approaches to teaching are rapidly developing within departments. The team would encourage the University not to delay in establishing central guidelines and practice for such approaches so that the assurance of quality of their provision does not rely solely on extrapolation from more traditional modes of teaching.
Learning support resources
109 The SED stated that the University has 'invested heavily in the provision and management of a high-quality learning environment to support every student in achieving to the maximum of his or her potential, irrespective of background'. The budget for learning support resources is controlled by the Budget Sub-Committee on the advice of the Library, and Information Systems Services through the preparation of planning statements and development strategies.
110 The University places a strong emphasis on the library resource provision and services which 'meet the highest standards set by UK university libraries', and the SED claimed that the University's library expenditure and opening hours were above the average for UK universities. High priority is allocated to development of the library collection, and the SED explained that the library aims to provide 'complete coverage of all items recommended for reading'. Progress is monitored against a range of strategic targets and benchmarks, with the Library Committee, which includes student representation, overseeing the development and management of the library. Before a new degree scheme is approved, the library is consulted. There is an annual library user survey, and an annual open meeting of the Library Committee. The audit team heard of a number of examples of issues being raised by students, through the Library Committee and the Students' Union, which have resulted in a number of measures to enhance access, in particular the 24-hour opening of the library's large reading room.
111 The SED stated that the University 'provides, supports and manages a high level of access to ICT on an equal opportunity basis'. The level of access to PCs at the Colchester and Loughton campuses is 'kept under review', and machines are replaced on a four-year cycle. All student bedrooms in University residences are connected to the campus network.
112 The SWS to the audit indicated satisfaction with the availability of books and materials and computer facilities at the University. At the same time, some students expressed dissatisfaction with the costs of printing and photocopying materials, although they recognised that this is a generic issue for all institutions. The SWS indicated that access to resources was not of the same high standards at sites away from Colchester. The University is alert to the resource issues at East 15 and at SEEC. At East 15, the University has entered into arrangements with Epping Forest College for use of library resources, and the audit team learnt that the University is actively exploring the development of electronic links between campuses.
113 The University recognises that rapid growth in recent years has resulted in increasing demand for high-quality and well-equipped teaching and learning space. The audit team found that this was a significant problem for some departments, with teaching sometimes taking place in what was described to the team as inadequate accommodation. The University anticipates that the investment it is making in new building of teaching space and the planned implementation of new timetabling software to 'facilitate far greater efficiency in the use of teaching space' will bring improvements in the position for 2004-05.
114 Learning support resources in relation to library collections, computing facilities and the on-line availability of course materials represent a clear strength of the University. The provision of such resources is managed efficiently, although it is also clear that the recent growth in student numbers, the addition of East 15 at Loughton, and the new partner college developments at SEEC, represent challenges to the University's commitment to provide all students with the same high-quality learning environment.
Academic guidance, support and supervision
115 The SED stated that departments operate 'a variety of systems to provide support to students'. An academic services review of the Student Support Office in 1997-98 had identified concerns about the effectiveness of the 'adviser system' where each student had a named adviser from the academic staff of the department to which the student belonged. Following a review of the adviser system, it was replaced in 1999-2000 by a more flexible system of departmental support, recognising the existence of an institutional network of professional services. This more flexible system allows departments to focus departmental support on the need to provide students with academic advice while referring students to specialist support services where appropriate. Some departments have chosen to retain the adviser system, but most now have a smaller number of named contacts for student support.
116 The Student Support Office provides assistance to departments in managing student support arrangements by making available to all staff a comprehensive guide to supporting students, and offering opportunities for staff training. Information about institutional procedures and cross-University services, and the departmental arrangements for student support are included in departmental handbooks. The University also provides every student with a handbook on non-subject-specific expectations and requirements.
117 The majority of students who met the audit team expressed satisfaction with departmental student support systems, citing the accessibility of staff through well publicised 'office hours' systems. The outcomes of the survey conducted to support the SWS, and meetings with students, illustrated both the effectiveness of some departments' arrangements for student support, academic advice and guidance, and the variability of such arrangements across departments. A number of departments have made special provision for the academic support of their students through the establishment of resource rooms, staffed by coordinators who might also provide a range of academic support including study skills workshops. Students reported to the team that they greatly valued such support.
118 The audit team formed the view that some departmental support systems only worked to best effect for those students who actively sought advice, and could depend significantly on the approachability of individual staff members. It was not clear to the team how departmental student support systems were monitored at institutional level, given the freedom of departments to operate their own arrangements. Departments are expected to carry out their own evaluation of their support systems, although questions on student support will be included in the student satisfaction survey in 2003-04. The SED explained that the recently appointed Director of Student Support will be reviewing the departmental student support system 'to ensure that the system continues to work effectively'.
119 Arrangements for the supervision and support of research students are set out in University's Higher Degree Regulations, and there are documented guidelines for supervisory arrangements and progress procedures. The University took into account the relevant sections of the Code of practice in developing these guidelines and procedures, and plans to review them against the HEFCE report on improving standards in research degree programmes. Institutional guidelines are supplemented by more detailed departmental arrangements. All research students have a supervisory board which must meet at least twice a year for full-time students. Their progress is monitored via departmental progress committees which meet at least annually to review the progress of all students on the basis of a written report from the supervisor. The Dean of the Graduate School is assured by departments of the progress of individual students through receipt of progress reports. In its meetings with staff from different departments and meetings with postgraduate students, the audit team found the arrangements for supervision and support for research students to be working effectively. The team formed the view that the ability of the Graduate School to take a University-wide overview of systems and structures facilitated the dissemination of good practice in the support and supervision of research students.
120 The audit team concluded that overall arrangements for academic support of students, including research students, were working satisfactorily. Students commented positively on the accessibility and approachability of staff. While there was also evidence of variation in the effectiveness of support between departments, such variation in itself was not necessarily a weakness. Nevertheless, as the University reviews the departmental student support systems, it may wish to reflect on the range of practice in the support and guidance of students on taught schemes, and consider how to foster the dissemination of good practice across departments.
Personal support and guidance
121 At institutional level, student support is coordinated by the Student Support Office, and is focused around general advice and information on matters relating to student welfare and finance, counselling, international student issues, support for residents and support for students with disabilities. Overall responsibility for coordination of institutional support services and departmental arrangements rests with the Student Support Office, the Director of which reports to the Academic Registrar. The SED explained that staff of the Office liaise closely with the Students' Union Advice Centre, through complementary service provision, and the Welfare Forum set up by the Students' Union in 2002-03 aims to share information and bring together the Union and the University to work together on common projects.
122 The University has long experience of supporting students with disabilities and specific learning difficulties and 'aims to offer academic support in response to individual needs' in accordance with its equal opportunities policy. All academic departments have a disability liaison officer. Such officers work with a range of specialist advisers and practitioners, including a Disability Co-ordinator, a Learning Support Co-ordinator and an Access Co-ordinator Facilitator, to offer advice and information to students and staff on aspects of academic and personal support. The University set up a working party to examine the implications of the Special Education Needs and Disablilty Act (2001), an action plan and code of practice are being drawn up, and training is being put in place to support implementation of the requirements of the Act.
123 The audit team was particularly interested to hear about the support provided for international students, since one of University's strategic aims is 'to maintain and enhance the recruitment and support of international students'. Of the total student FTE numbers at the Colchester campus in 2002-03 over 40 per cent were international students, and 80 per cent of the postgraduate FTE numbers are international students. This is thus a 'sizeable body of clients who have specific expectations with regard to the provision of services'. The University does not have an International Office, but responsibility for international student support is located with the Student Support Office, which issues a Handbook for International Students, and provides some specialist guidance and advice services. There are dedicated pages on the University's web site for international students, and the team considered that these provided useful information.
124 International students who met the audit team were very positive about the support provided at both institutional and departmental levels, and praised the availability of on-line information. They valued highly the provision by the English Language Teaching Centre of English language support at no cost for themselves and family members, as well as the support provided by the Students' Union International Students Officer. The team studied the report of the 2002-03 administrative services review of the international student experience, and formed the view that it had been very effective in focusing attention on the needs of international students. The capacity of the academic services review to focus on the student experience appeared to be an excellent driver for quality enhancement.
125 From its reading of documentation and its meetings with staff and students, the audit team formed the view that the University took very seriously the need to review and develop student support services to meet the needs of a changing student population. A review of the Counselling Service had recently taken place in response to the increasing pressure felt as a result of growing student numbers, and the Director of Student Support is reviewing the operation of the residents support network, which has a key role in providing pastoral support for students living on campus. The University has taken steps to address the 'employability agenda' by establishing a steering group to produce an employability strategy, which will complement the work of the Careers Advisory Service. Students who met the team praised the Essex Skills Award which supports students through skills training sessions run by University staff and employers to develop their employment-related skills. The SED explained that the Essex Skills Award was introduced in 2000-01, and reported that the University plans to increase the numbers of students taking part in the scheme.
126 Overall, the audit team formed a positive view of the efforts made by the University to be responsive to student needs. There is a conscious commitment to quality enhancement, and the level and quality of institutional support for students derived benefit from this. Students who met the team generally spoke positively about the support services available, and gave many illustrations of good practice.
Collaborative provision
127 At the time of the audit visit, the University's collaborative provision was limited to three UK partnerships with Writtle Agricultural College, SEEC and the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust. Each partnership is governed by a formal agreement that states the responsibilities of the University and the partner, and each is managed by a board with joint membership.
128 The partnership with Writtle Agricultural College, which is located near Chelmsford, was established in 1997. The College specialises in land-based courses but is diversifying its provision to include provision in the leisure, business management and animal management. As of November 2002, the University had 21 degree schemes validated for delivery at the College, with some 700 FTE students enrolled on them. The College is subject to its own institutional audit by the Agency.
129 The partnership with SEEC was established in February 2001. SEEC is a large further education college situated in Southend, offering a range of vocational degree and sub-degree programmes. It is expected that a major new building will be available from late 2004. The SED identifies this as 'an ambitious strategic partnership', with planned growth of student numbers from 500 FTE in 2002-03 to 900 FTE by 2005. As of November 2002, 27 University degrees had been validated for delivery at SEEC.
130 The University's partnership with the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust was established in 1999, and currently involves 25 FTE students. The partnership covers masters awards in psychoanalysis and educational psychology, and a professional doctorate in Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy.
131 In December 2000, the University established a Board of Studies for Collaborative Education to oversee University provision undertaken with collaborative partners. In August 2003, this was re-formed as the Board of Studies for Learning Partnerships to take responsibility 'for overseeing the quality and standards of collaborative partnerships and lifelong learning programmes'. The Dean of Learning Partnerships is a member of ASC. Liaison between the University and its partner colleges occurs mainly through cross-membership on key committees. For example, the Dean of Learning Partnerships is also a member of Writtle Agricultural College's Academic Standards Committee, and there is University representation on the internal Quality Assurance Committee of the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust.
132 Approval, monitoring and review mechanisms of University provision in its partner colleges are described in the Handbook of Validation Procedures, Learning Partnerships, November 2003, which was still in draft at the time of the audit visit. The audit team felt that this draft handbook was a useful and coherent document. The mechanisms are very similar to those that the University operates for its own degree schemes. External examiners are appointed to degree schemes and their reports are received by both the partner institution and the University. Responses to external examiners' reports from the partner colleges are also sent to the Dean of Learning Partnerships for approval.
133 Each partner college is required to adhere to the Code of practice, and to inform the University how this has been achieved; partner colleges use 'compliance grids' as a way of recording the actions that they have taken in this respect. The audit team learnt that SEEC had yet to submit a complete set of evidence to the University (see above, paragraph 73), showing how its practices aligned with the Code. Given the scale and projected growth of the University's collaboration with SEEC, and the recent establishment of this partnership, the team expressed some concern at the University's acceptance of this lack of firm evidence of the way that the College was addressing the Code.
134 Unlike the University itself, partner colleges operate under a single set of assessment regulations. The establishment of a separate set of regulations for partner colleges appeared to the audit team to contravene the ASC ruling that the University operate a maximum of three sets of rules of assessment. In contrast to the resit regulations operating for the University's own programmes, the rules of assessment for partner colleges appear to allow for a limitless number of resit opportunities. The team considered this to be potentially inequitable in its effects on opportunities for progression, and was a variance difficult to justify in academic terms.
135 While staff of partner institutions have the opportunity to attend events such as academic research seminars at the University, in general, staff development in collaborative provision is a matter for the partner institution. In the context of collaborative provision, the SED recognised 'a need to further develop joint staff development'. The audit team would endorse this aim, in the interest of ensuring that staff engaged in delivering an HE experience through collaborative provision are enabled to deliver an experience that the University would wish to provide for all its students. Given the rapid growth of student numbers at SEEC and significant numbers of students at Writtle Agricultural College, the team considered that the University would benefit from an institutional strategy to support staff at partner colleges in the delivery of University degree schemes.
136 The audit team noted that SEEC is undertaking a building programme, and that the University is to develop a physical presence adjacent to SEEC's new building. The University and SEEC plan to offer some shared resources. The team welcomed this development, on the basis that the HE experience of students on the University's degree schemes offered through SEEC should benefit from this development.
Section 3: The audit investigations: discipline audit trails
Computing
137 This DAT covered all degree schemes delivered by the Department of Computer Science, including undergraduate single honours degrees, undergraduate joint honours degrees and masters degrees. Provision at partner colleges was not included in the DAT. The DSED was derived from internal documents including extracts of minutes from undergraduate and postgraduate management meetings and curriculum strategy group meetings, annual monitoring reports, periodic review reports and a recent BCS accreditation report. Programme specifications for all schemes were included.
138 All programme specifications are informed by the relevant subject benchmark. Specifications for joint degrees refer to both relevant benchmark statements, for example, the specification for BSc (Hons) Computing and Management refers to both the Subject benchmark statement for computing, and the general business and management statement. Although the specifications do not all contain explicit reference to the FHEQ, examination of the aims and skills described, showed that they were all aligned with the FHEQ.
139 Neither annual monitoring reports nor the periodic review reports contained within the DSED contained any progression data, although classification data were evident in some of the annual monitoring reports. Each annual monitoring report concludes with an action plan detailing action required, staff responsible for implementation and an associated timescale. The audit team was assured that appropriate action was taken on recommendations, but the method of monitoring this appeared to be informal. Minutes of degree scheme management committees recorded that the annual monitoring report had been received and considered, without reference to how action had been taken on the recommendations.
140 The audit team discussed the quality of feedback to students. Masters students who met the team were rather more satisfied than undergraduate students who, while generally satisfied with the feedback they received, reported delays in the receipt of feedback which they felt could jeopardise their revision. In matters of student evaluation of courses, the team noted that the Department has decided to conduct SACs every year for every course although this is not a University requirement. Students who met the team expressed satisfaction with the operation of their SSLC, which meets termly, and were confident that staff took their concerns seriously and acted promptly to address the issues that they raised.
141 Periodic review takes place every five years and the one-day review event can encompass a cluster of similar degree schemes. The DSED contained the periodic review report from March 2002 for a cluster of undergraduate computing degree schemes. The report concluded with two sets of recommendations; one to the Department and one to ASC. There was clear and fully minuted evidence that the Department had followed up its recommendations, but it was not clear to the audit team how the recommendations to ASC had been implemented. There appeared to be no monitoring of these conditions or reporting back to the periodic review panel that action had taken place. The University may wish to reflect upon how it can be sure that recommendations contained in periodic review reports are followed-up and their effectiveness be monitored.
142 A summary of external examiners' reports highlighting areas of good practice and areas of debate is contained in the annual monitoring report, which also gives brief details of the Department's responses to external examiners' comments. The Department proposes to use the annual monitoring report as the mechanism for formally responding to external examiners.
143 External examiners' reports are generally complimentary about the quality of provision and the standards of the awards. Students who met the audit team were clear about the expectations of the assessments, including the method of calculating degree classification. A range of assessed work by level and course was seen by the team, and the team considered that, on the basis of this evidence, the standard of student achievement was appropriate to the title of the award and its location within the FHEQ.
144 Students reported a variety of experiences when trying to contact a member of staff. Some reported quick access, having arranged an appointment via email, while others expressed frustration at having to explain their problems in a series of emails before gaining face-to-face access. Some reported being referred by academic staff to GTAs who were unable to help them. GTAs teach on all years of degree schemes including masters courses, although their work is predominantly in years one and two. Students reported that many GTAs are knowledgeable, helpful and supportive, but also reported some problems where some GTAs were unable to help, unable to understand the student or, in some cases, where the students were unable to understand the spoken word of the GTA. GTAs also help with the marking of assessments, and students who met the audit team reported variation in the rigour of marking between GTAs.
145 Students who met the audit team reported that they found the course handbooks informative and accurate. They were clear about the intended learning outcomes from the induction, handbooks and additional material supplied by staff, and considered that assessment criteria were clearly explained. Handbooks are available in hard copy and in electronic format via the course materials repository. Students reported that increasing use is made of internet-based material and that access to computers is good for timetabled classes, although access outside of timetabled classes is more variable. The library has copies of all recommended course textbooks although sometimes demand exceeds supply. Overall, the team found the quality of the learning opportunities to be suitable for the programme of study leading to the named awards.
History
146 The Department of History offers eight single honours undergraduate degrees in history, seven joint honours degrees with other departments, and contributes to the introductory courses in some general schemes of study. At the time of the DAT there were approximately 300 undergraduate students registered for these schemes. For postgraduate students, there are seven taught MA schemes with approximately 25 students registered, and the Department has responsibility for the supervision of a further 25 research students.
147 The audit team was provided with a DSED based on earlier periodic reviews, together with a commentary of action taken in response to them, and supporting evidence. The DSED included the most recent annual monitoring reports and, following the team's request, information relating to the provision for research students was also provided. The team was therefore able to consider the full range of the Department's provision. Accompanying the DSED were programme specifications for each of the undergraduate schemes for which the Department is responsible, and each of the taught postgraduate schemes.
148 The programme specifications for undergraduate schemes show that the Subject benchmark statement for history was taken into account in the design of the curricula. However, the rules of assessment in use in the School of Humanities and Comparative Studies allow for the compensation of failure marks. The audit team considered, therefore, that it would be possible that students with classified degrees will not have demonstrated the achievement, at the level indicated in the specification, of all the learning outcomes identified in the benchmark statement. The team noted that, in those courses where presentations form part of the summative assessment, some marks are given for attendance at classes, and it was not clear to the team how these marks could justifiably be used to measure a student's achievement of any of the learning outcomes identified in the programme specification. The programme specifications for MA and Postgraduate Diploma (PgDip) schemes state that the FHEQ M-level descriptors have been taken into account. Again, the current rules of assessment allow for award of a qualification to students who may not have demonstrated their achievement of all learning outcomes.
149 Annual monitoring reports show that progression data are considered, but reference to completion data is variable, as is consideration of their implications for quality and standards. In its meeting with academic staff, the audit team learned that a start is being made on making use of improved and more comprehensive progression and completion data. The team would encourage the Department in its efforts to make more effective use of progression and completion data in the management of quality and standards.
150 The DSED demonstrated that important issues arising from review reports were addressed. The views of students are taken into account in the periodic review procedure and on a more frequent basis through the SSLC, the minutes of whose meetings are circulated to members of the Departmental Meeting. In its meeting with students, the audit team was assured that the SSLC was working satisfactorily to meet the needs of students. The DSED also served to illustrate how current review procedures had removed some of the recognised weaknesses of earlier procedures.
151 The reports of the external examiners for the degree schemes expressed positive views about the standards set for awards, about the achievements of students, and about the fairness with which the boards of examiners made their decisions. The Department considers the reports of its external examiners with care, and responds in a timely and appropriate manner to their recommendations. Responses to examiners are being incorporated into the annual monitoring report, which is made available to the Department's external examiners. The audit team considered that this was a helpful way to show external examiners how their recommendations can contribute to the enhancement of quality and the security of academic standards.
152 Assessment practices in the Department are consistent with University policies. Borderline and fail marks are subject to confirmation by a second marker. Undergraduate examination scripts are double-marked when they contribute to degree classifications, but the coursework that also contributes is not. Although students are able to request that their coursework is re-marked if they are not satisfied, the Department might reflect upon whether the reliability of marks given to summatively assessed coursework would be strengthened by the routine use of some form of moderation. The Department does not provide opportunities for second-year undergraduate students who have failed courses to resit examinations or resubmit coursework before the beginning of their final academic year. Since students in some other departments do have this opportunity, the Department's practice raises questions of equality of opportunity. Students who met the team expressed the view that assessment practices were rigorous and that the standards expected of their work were high.
153 All students have an opportunity to complete evaluation questionnaires for at least some of their courses. The Department does not require a standard format for these questionnaires, or require that standard questions are asked in all questionnaires. Consequently, the audit team saw that students were asked to respond to a wide variety of questions about their experience of teaching and learning. The data provided are analysed by the academic staff providing the courses, and there is evidence that courses are modified as a consequence of this form of feedback from students. However, it did not appear to the team that there was any systematic procedure for informing students of the outcome of their feedback or of the action to be taken in response to it.
154 The progress of the Department's research students is monitored by a Progress Committee which reports and makes recommendations to the Dean of the Graduate School. Particular attention is paid to those students in receipt of Economic and Social Research Council or Arts and Humanities Research Board funding in order to ensure that they complete their studies within the set timescale. Each research student has a supervisory board comprising the student's supervisor and one or two additional members of the Department's academic staff. Each board meets with the student for whom it is responsible on a regular basis in order to consider and discuss a substantial piece of work contributing to the student's thesis, and it provides a report to the Progress Committee. The audit team formed the view that these processes provided a good and consistent level of academic support for both full and part-time research students.
155 The audit team reviewed a range of undergraduate and postgraduate work, including samples of the journals kept by second-year undergraduate students on a regular basis to enable them to reflect critically upon their experience of historical study, and including examples of MA dissertations. The team was satisfied that the nature of the assessment and standard of student achievement met the expectations of the programme specifications, including those concerning the Subject benchmark statement for history, and were appropriate to the honours award of BA, and the award of MA and PgDips and their location within the FHEQ.
156 Undergraduate students are provided with a handbook setting out a good range of information about the Department, its organisation and its practices. The handbook includes useful advice about essay and project writing, and information about assessment procedures, assessment methods and the criteria used to mark work. A handbook containing similar information is provided for postgraduate students, and is intended to meet the needs of research students as well as those following taught courses. The handbooks also explain the support available to students both within the Department and from centrally provided services. Both handbooks are appropriate for helping students to understand what they can expect of the Department's staff and its resources, and what the Department expects of them in their learning and assessment. Students who met the audit team expressed positive views about the quality of the information they received.
157 Students who met the audit team explained that the Department provides a valuable source of material to supplement the main library resources. The on-line course material repository provides dedicated areas in which lecturers can store course materials such as handouts, book lists and assessment tasks. Some courses provided by the Department made use of this facility. Overall, the team was satisfied that the quality of learning opportunities available to undergraduate students was suitable for courses of study leading to the honours award of BA, that the quality of learning opportunities available to taught postgraduate students was suitable for courses of study leading to the awards of MA and PgDip, and that the quality of learning opportunities for research students was appropriate.
Law
158 The Department of Law has more than doubled its student numbers over the past decade, and has widened its range of undergraduate and postgraduate degree schemes. The Department recruits a relatively large proportion of mature and non-UK students. The DAT covered the LLB scheme, all joint honours schemes, and all taught LLM schemes.
159 The DSED included an overview of the Department's academic activities. It included examples of periodic and annual review, and some material on developments within the Department, such as some restructuring of the LLB and the integration of skills work in teaching. It provided a limited amount of information on areas such as learning resources, learning support and policy on staff training and development. The basic organisational structure for the Department was outlined in the DSED, but the audit team was left with an impression of a level of informality in management. For example, the DSED reported that termly meetings for each LLM had not taken place prior to 2003-04, and the implementation of a recommendation of a Departmental Review in 2001 that job descriptions for teaching staff with administrative roles should be specified was still in progress.
160 The DSED included programme specifications. The audit team was informed that a set of programme specifications for all schemes was on the University's web site, including revisions since the DSED had been produced. The specifications include reference to their alignment with appropriate level descriptors in the FHEQ, and, where relevant, with the Subject benchmark statement for law. The team agreed that work to refine and improve the specifications would continue through the processes of monitoring and review, and noted that the process of generating programme specifications had been constructive in the way that it had prompted clarification of skills elements in the LLB schemes.
161 The DSED included periodic reviews of undergraduate provision and of two taught masters programmes that took place in 1999, with follow up action. Since then only the LLM European Community Law has had a periodic review, in 2002. Periodic reviews for the full range of undergraduate and postgraduate courses are scheduled to take place in 2004-05 and 2005-06. These reviews will be particularly important because of the extent of the development of the department since the last periodic reviews.
162 Annual monitoring reports of LLB schemes for 2001-02 were included in the DSED. The audit team was also provided with a draft for 2002-03 and with two annual reviews of LLM courses. The newer joint honours programmes, the combined LLB/Maîtrise programme and the newest LLM courses have not yet been brought within the annual review process. Annual reviews of the LLB show a constructive and developing use of the University's annual review process, but the evidence available to the team did not demonstrate a similar level of engagement in the reviews of postgraduate programmes, which were lacking in evaluation and identification of action points. The DSED accepted that there had been some failure in the past to adopt a rigorous annual monitoring policy, and the team would endorse the Department's recognition of a need to engage more fully with review processes.
163 Recent external examiners' reports were positive in tone, supported the standards of the courses, and contained no significant criticisms. The audit team saw evidence that points raised by external examiners were followed up efficiently, with copies of external examiners' reports going to all staff, being discussed within the Department, and with main issues for further action being identified by the Dean. Matters that had been raised recently included deadlines for submission of work and dealing with extenuating circumstances. The team was provided with examples of students' assessed work from undergraduate and taught postgraduate programmes. In the view of the team, this work matched the expectations set out in programme specifications, and was of a standard appropriate to the title and level of relevant awards. The reports of external examiners supported this view. The team saw examples of the use of a standard cover sheet for providing feedback to students on their work. Students who met the team welcomed the use of this style of feedback, but indicated they would value more information on the criteria used for marking.
164 The audit team saw copies of the Department's handbooks for undergraduate and postgraduate students, and considered these to be clear and helpful, containing references to more detailed material on the University's web site. Students expressed general satisfaction with the information provided to them. The general view expressed to the team by students about learning resources, including library provision and information technology (IT) access, was positive, although there are some pressures on space, particularly for lectures, due to the growing number of students in the Department. The Department has to bid for space from the University, and the team heard that the position will be improved when a new building becomes available, possibly in 2004-05. The SWS to the audit, and meetings with law students, raised some concerns by students about significant variations in staff use of the on-line course materials repository. Students reported that they found this facility, giving electronic access to course documents, potentially very helpful, but its use by staff appeared not to be subject to any clear Departmental policy. The team was told that staff training should help to ensure the more consistent use of the facility.
165 For the evaluation of courses by students, the Department uses a standard SAC form, and all courses are assessed each year. The results of SAC are seen by the Head of Department, and the set of SAC results seen by the audit team was positive overall. Students who met the team supported this generally positive view of the teaching they received, but commented on the variation in the quality of teaching they received from GTAs. The team felt that there was some lack of commitment in the Department to the identification and promotion of good practice in teaching, and to the Performance and Development Review scheme that the University is introducing. The Department's staff development strategy that had been drawn up recently is a compilation of the University's expectations rather than a framework of goals and action points. Staff explained to the team that good practice was identified informally and through discussion, but recognised that observation of teaching was a realistic way of enhancing this approach.
166 The DSED stated that the Department had moved away from the provision of personal tutors. The audit team was told that, at undergraduate level, this move had resulted in a concentration of pressure on a few individual staff, and plans were being discussed to put groups of students in touch with personal tutors, possibly even before enrolment on the course. Postgraduate courses still have a personal tutor system, and postgraduate students generally spoke positively about the support available to them.
167 There are SSLCs for undergraduate and postgraduate students, and the DSED recognised a need to use the LLM SSLC more effectively for course development and planning. The audit team was provided with minutes of SSLC meetings. These showed that students' concerns were raised and discussed, and included matters relating to course structure and workloads. There was evidence that changes had been brought about by such discussions, for example, in the proposals to revise the provision of personal tutor support. Students expressed the view to the team that they were broadly content with the level of their involvement in the Department, although they would like more involvement in developing courses. They reported that they did not always get feedback on why action was not being taken on their requests, and that some reviews seemed to take a long time, although they valued the increasing availability of information through email. Students expressed the view that they would welcome more contact with different types of legal practitioner and legal practice to inform decisions on future careers, but they praised the support given by the Department to the Student Law Society, and valued the contact with some parts of legal practice given by the Law in Action programme. Overall, the team was satisfied that the quality of learning opportunities available to students is suitable for the schemes of study offered by the Department of Law.
Sociology
168 The DAT covered single honours and joint honours schemes at undergraduate level (seven degree schemes in total) and taught postgraduate programmes (14 PgDip/MA schemes in total) offered by the Department of Sociology. The DSED consisted of an updated response, together with supporting evidence, to the recommendations arising from reports of the school degree review processes, the system of internal programme review before the current periodic review process. The review reports were dated March 1999 for undergraduate programmes, and December 1999 for taught postgraduate programmes. These were accompanied by annual monitoring reports for 2001-02, and draft programme specifications for all schemes.
169 Programme specifications for postgraduate schemes make reference to the FHEQ M-level descriptors, but there is no explicit reference in the undergraduate programme specifications to the FHEQ, although there is explicit reference to the Subject benchmark statement for sociology. Staff indicated to the audit team that the generation of programme specifications had encouraged reflection on curriculum design issues and, for postgraduate programmes in particular, there had been considerable discussion and benchmarking of levels. The team formed the view that, when they are complete, these programme specifications and their appended 'module maps' will provide clear statements of the structure, level and expectations relating to each degree scheme.
170 Progression, completion and degree class profile data, together with data on the entry profile of students, are made available to departments by the University's Planning Unit, and these data have become more complete and detailed in recent years. The audit team noted that these data had been commented upon in annual monitoring reports, and that recruitment data in particular was the subject of regular discussion at departmental meetings. Staff indicated that data are used to inform judgements about the retention or discontinuation of schemes at postgraduate level. The Department has made use of data to consider the relative success of entrants with and without GCE A-Level Sociology to undergraduate degree schemes, and this, in turn, has informed strategies for teaching student groups.
171 Annual monitoring of degree schemes is carried out by the departmental curriculum or graduate committee, both of which have student membership. The audit team saw completed reports for 2001-02 and draft reports for 2002-03, the third year in which the process has been operating. All single honours programmes are grouped together in one report, but joint schemes, even where numbers are relatively small, have their own monitoring report. Reports draw together a range of evidence on quality and standards, including external examiners' reports, entry profiles, progression and achievement data, first destination data, annual SAC outcomes and minutes of SSLCs. The reports available to the team were evaluative, with clear evidence of quality enhancement, set out in an action plan.
172 The 1999 report of the school degree reviews carried a recommendation to ASC that the degree schemes be renewed for five years. For both undergraduate and postgraduate schemes there were a number of recommendations to the Department which were received and discussed at the departmental Curriculum Sub-Committee in June 1999 and March 2000. The audit team saw from the minutes of departmental meetings and other papers provided in the DSED, that these recommendations were discussed and acted upon, although in some cases action had been taken only recently. Monitoring of the action following review is done via the annual degree scheme monitoring report.
173 From 2003 University procedures require responses to external examiners' reports to be included in the annual monitoring report. Staff indicated to the audit team, however, that their previous practice of responding directly to external examiners on issues that they raise would still take place at an early point, in addition to including the response as an appendix to the monitoring report. External examiners' reports are also considered by the Dean of the School, who refers matters for comment or action to departments, school boards and ASC as appropriate. This appeared to the team to be an effective process for ensuring that issues of a general nature are identified and addressed.
174 The audit team was interested to hear how the Department had responded to external examiners' comments on the relatively low proportion of First class and Upper Second class degrees awarded, and the suggestion that the rules of assessment were somewhat 'harsh'. Staff reported to the team that the 'considerable powers of discretion' permitted to the board of examiners were used to ameliorate the effects of the rules and to better reflect a student's 'exit velocity'. The team would encourage the University to reflect on whether this use of academic discretion to ameliorate the effect of rules of assessment is appropriate in the light of its commitment to secure equality of treatment.
175 The audit team reviewed examples of students' assessed work from a sample of courses at undergraduate and postgraduate levels, and demonstrating achievement across the range of marks. The team considered that the assessed work it saw was appropriate to the relevant awards and their location in the FHEQ. The Department uses feedback forms for commenting on student work. The team noted the double-marking of all dissertations and theses, and the extensive commentary with a formative purpose on first-year work. Students indicated that the quality of feedback varied, but that use of a standard form did ensure some consistency. Staff who met the team commented that, in line with University policy, from 2003-04 there would be a specific annual exercise to monitor the quality of feedback to students.
176 Students who met the audit team commented that the information provided about degree schemes in the prospectus and handbooks was good. The Department's student handbook, and its supplements for different year groups, was regarded by students as providing useful information about assessment and student support. The team also saw some examples of high-quality course guides which gave detailed information about weekly class sessions, reading and assessment tasks. Some staff made these and other learning materials available via the course materials repository which was much appreciated by students. Detailed course outlines give guidance on what is required in assignments, and students spoke highly of the support available from staff in preparing for assignments which take a variety of forms. The introduction of a journal for first-year students was regarded as a particularly positive innovation, and the team noted with interest the examples that it saw of these journals.
177 The DSED stated that library facilities 'generally meet the teaching and learning requirements'. Notwithstanding some problems with the availability of core texts, students who met the audit team generally endorsed this view, and commented positively on the availability of on-line materials and on the Departmental resource room. The resource room not only provides resources in the form of projects and theses, photocopied articles and reference texts, it also provides a base for study-skills workshops and a voluntary scheme which seeks to link international students with home students.
178 SSLC meetings occur every term and the DSED noted that these 'serve to pick up problems in their early stages, but are also a source of positive suggestions for improvement'. Although students who met the audit team felt that the SSLC was 'not used much', and expressed the view that students were somewhat reluctant to get involved, they agreed that staff were responsive to issues raised. One example noted by the team was the publication of a document on key criteria, provision of 'best practice' exam scripts and a first year post-examination clinic for students, following concerns expressed at SSLC about assessment criteria for examinations and lack of feedback on examination performance. Feedback from students on their courses is also obtained via end-of-course questionnaires using a standard form. The team heard the view that this source of feedback would be more valued and valuable if it were not administered hurriedly at the end of lectures, and if actions arising from feedback were clearly communicated back. Nonetheless, students who met the team were satisfied with the opportunities to participate in quality management.
179 Undergraduate and postgraduate students who met the audit team expressed satisfaction with the operation of their courses and degree schemes, and with the level of personal and academic support offered by the Department. They were aware of the Department's excellent research record, and felt that the academic standards expected of them were high but achievable. Overall, the team found the quality of learning opportunities to be suitable for the programmes of study leading to the schemes of study offered by the Department of Sociology.
Section 4: The audit investigations: published information
The students' experience of published information and other information available to them
180 The SWS to the audit said little about the information available to students, from which the audit team concluded that the process used by the students in identifying issues had revealed no significant concerns in this area. This view was supported in the team's meetings, where students generally expressed satisfaction with the range and accuracy of the information provided to them, identifying few problems or gaps. The University's SED also commented little on the information published to students, save for dealing in some detail with the requirements of HEFCE's document 02/15.
181 At institutional level, the audit team found a wide and comprehensive range of published information. The University's web site includes a considerable amount of publicly accessible information on courses and facilities, including a range of programme specifications. The University's intranet includes a wide range of course material, and the printed material seen by the team, in particular student handbooks, frequently refers students to material on the intranet for further detail. The team was provided with copies of undergraduate and postgraduate prospectuses, student handbooks, and undergraduate and postgraduate assessment regulation handbooks. In general, these were clear, well presented and up to date. The University's Regulations, Policy and Procedures 2003-04 and the Higher Degree Regulations and Procedures 2003-04 were less user-friendly and clear than other publications, with extracts from other documents and notes that details for some schemes were available from other sources.
182 Departmental student handbooks are required to follow central University guidance on content. The audit team saw various examples in connection with the DATs, which were clear and appeared to comply with central guidance, again frequently making reference to the university web site for details. The SWS indicated some dissatisfaction with particular handbooks, and the team noted that this matter is being addressed by the University.
183 The SWS and students who met the audit team were very positive about information provided, with praise in particular for the dedicated web site for international students. A few concerns were expressed, primarily in the area of assessment. Students indicated some problems in getting coherent information where a scheme is delivered by more than one department, as each department might have different assessment guidelines, for example, in the handling of penalties for late submission. Students also raised some reservations about the coverage of information on criteria for assessment, and about the bases for appeals and complaints.
184 The University's undergraduate prospectus included information on degree schemes available through SEEC, and the postgraduate prospectus included provision at Writtle Agricultural College. The audit team was provided with a copy of the SEEC prospectus for 2004. The team formed the view that information on collaborative provision was of broadly similar standard to that provided by the University for its own degree schemes.
185 Overall, the audit team supported the students' view that a good range of information is available through the internet, the intranet and in printed form. No evidence was found from the documents available to the team, or from comments by students, to suggest that information is anything other than accurate, reliable and consistent. The team's only reservation relates to the area of assessment, where the rules of assessment, and movement towards more unified assessment regulations, could usefully be supported by clearer information.
Reliability, accuracy and completeness of published information
186 The SED explained the steps taken by the University to ensure that all data required to comply with the recommendations of HEFCE's document 02/15 was being prepared. At the time of the SED, the University was engaged with the completion of programme specifications, consideration of the presentation of external examiners' reports and the operation of student satisfaction surveys. Progress in these matters is being overseen by ASC. The SED outlined the development of programme specifications. The University has taken care to provide a coherent approach to the preparation of programme specifications, and has engaged departments in constructive debates about requirements and audiences. The SED envisaged that 'revision of programme specifications will be completed on an annual basis by departments as part of the annual monitoring process'.
187 Further guidance on published information on quality and standards in HE in HEFCE's document 03/51, Information on quality and standards in higher education: Final guidance, became available at the time of the audit visit, and a meeting was arranged to update the audit team on plans for addressing the revised requirements. The University has informed its external examiners of the need to provide a summary report for publication, and ASC has approved a template for these summary reports. The pro forma for periodic reviews reports has been modified to ensure that a summary is produced for publication at the same time as the report, with the summaries being signed-off by ASC. The University informed the team that various initiatives regarding links with employers will be published by the relevant departments, 'often through the departmental website', and that the information to be published will be overseen by ASC. The team was told that the information required from collaborative partners will be produced through a process similar to that used by the University, with summaries being signed-off by the Board of Studies for Learning Partnerships, and that a framework is in place for signing-off material produced by partner institutions jointly by the partner institution and the University. The team formed the view that the University has in place appropriate measures to ensure that it meets the requirements of HEFCE's document 03/51 during 2004.
188 The University's policy is to focus effort on making its web site the principal source of up-to-date information for staff, students and the public. The SED set out how various categories of information are produced and approved, and where such information is held. Information on degree schemes is approved by school boards, and approval of material contributing to prospectus and handbooks is the responsibility of heads of department. The University has appointed a Records Manager whose duties include maintaining accuracy of internal records. On the basis of the evidence provided, the audit team formed the view that there could be confidence in the procedure that the University has in place to ensure the reliability, accuracy and completeness of published information about its programmes and procedures.
ISBN 1 84482 037 8
next >> Findings
Top
QAA updates
QAAtweets
QAAtube