University of Glamorgan
Quality Audit Report
September 2000

Foreword

1 This is a report of an academic quality audit of the University of Glamorgan (the University) undertaken by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA). QAA is grateful to the University for the willing cooperation provided to the audit team.

2 The audit was carried out using a revised process approved by the former Higher Education Quality Council (HEQC), and endorsed by HEQC's successor body, QAA. The modified process has been introduced following completion in 1997 of the original national academic quality audit programme which began in 1991 under the auspices of the CVCP's Academic Audit Unit (AAU) and was subsequently taken over by HEQC in 1992. The principal purpose of this revised process is to offer an opinion on the extent to which individual institutions are discharging effectively their corporate responsibilities for the academic standards and quality of their awards and associated programmes of study. The process takes as its starting point the assumption that institutions have appropriate quality assurance policies and procedures in place, and also assumes that they can provide convincing evidence that these are working to good effect. The audit checks the extent to which this is the case and that the methods used are sufficiently reliable to continue to provide stakeholders with the necessary assurances for the future. The audit process focuses on four main topics:

the institution's quality strategy;
academic standards;
the learning infrastructure;
and communications.

Method and process

3 The primary source of documentary information and evidence used by the audit team about the University's quality assurance arrangements was its Analytical Account (the Account). The University also supplied a number of supporting documents, including the University Calendar, 1999-2000; the Quality Handbook, 1999; the Strategic Plan, 2000; the Handbook for External Examiners; its Undergraduate Prospectus, 1999-2000; and its Postgraduate Prospectus, 2000-2001. Other documents available to the team were the HEQC quality audit report of 1995; the report of the 1996 HEQC audit of the University's collaborative provision; the March 2000 QAA report of the University's collaborative links with Portobello College, Dublin, and Cork College of Commerce; the University's documents on its web site; and published reports of teaching quality assessments (TQA's) conducted by the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (HEFCW).

4 At a briefing meeting held to discuss the University's submission, the audit team considered the University's Account, and proposed a programme of meetings for a visit to the University. The Account listed the documentary evidence used by the University in its management of quality and standards, and these documents were available to the team during the audit visit.

5 The audit team visited the University from 15 to 18 May 2000. For the duration of the visit, the University made available to the team a base room containing the documents referred to in its Account. The team was also able to consult the several University web sites. The team held a total of 15 meetings with staff and students of the University and staff of partner colleges. These meetings, together with the documents supplied by the University, provided the information, examples and evidence upon which this report is based.

6 The audit team comprised Professor G W Hurd, Dr L H Roberts and Dr D E S Truman, auditors; and Dr L C Ford who acted as the audit secretary. The audit was coordinated for QAA by Dr D J Buckingham, Assistant Director, Institutional Review Directorate.

7 A brief guide, facts and figures 1999-2000, prepared by the University is attached as appendix 1. A list of the University's collaborative partnerships, current at 1 September 1999, is included as appendix 2.

The context for the audit

Background

8 The University of Glamorgan originated in 1913 as a School of Mines, subsequently becoming Glamorgan Polytechnic, then the Polytechnic of Wales, before becoming the University of Glamorgan in 1992. There are as a consequence of this history well-established traditions of providing vocationally-relevant education and meeting the needs of part-time students. The University has currently over 16,600 students, of whom some 6,300 are part-time. The courses taught represent all of the subject categories used by HEFCW with the exception of medicine. The academic programmes are delivered by the following schools: Applied Sciences; Business; Care Sciences; Computing; Electronics; Humanities and Social Sciences; Law; and Technology.

9 The University is strongly committed to broadening the basis of participation in higher education, and to offering opportunities for study at different levels across the range of provision. It recognises its unique position as an agent for economic development and social renewal in the local community and throughout Wales. It is currently the largest provider in Wales of higher education in Engineering and Technology, in Computing and Information Technology, and in Business and Management.

10 An important aspect of the objective of widening participation is a programme of collaboration with 19 further education colleges, most of which are in locations throughout Wales. These collaborative partnerships aim to supply provision in geographically remote areas, and in areas where there is a limited tradition of participation in higher education. The arrangements are especially directed towards part-time students and mature students. The University was also a participant in an innovation in the provision of 'HE in FE' in which HEFCW made a direct contribution to the collaborating colleges. There is a commitment by the University that the standard of educational provision and the academic standards in these collaborative programmes should be fully comparable with those of its internal provision.

11 The Strategic Plan of the University for 2000-2001, and beyond, contains nine key goals, which include the enhancement of learning and teaching quality, increasing the quality and quantity of research, and increasing the University's contribution to wealth creation and social regeneration in Wales. The enhancement of research activity and increase in the number of research students are targeted so as to contribute an economic benefit, especially locally and to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). One arm of this policy is supplied by Teaching Company schemes, and the University currently has a larger number of active schemes of this type than any other university in the UK. The University's commercial company, UGCS Limited, provides another means whereby the expertise of the University is made available to the world of industry and commerce, whilst at the same time the experience of that world is used to benefit the vocational base of many of the academic programmes of the University.

Previous quality audits

12 The University underwent a quality audit by HEQC in June 1995, and a separate HEQC collaborative provision audit took place in August 1996. A QAA overseas partnership audit, covering Portobello College Dublin and Cork College of Commerce, was carried out in 1999 and published in March 2000. Six teaching quality assessments at subject level were conducted by HEFCW between October 1993 and May 1994, prior to the HEQC audit in 1995. Since that audit, there have been a further 17 subject-level quality assessments. In addition to the audits and assessments of HEQC, QAA and HEFCW, 29 different professional bodies are involved in the accreditation of the University's courses and programmes.

13 The University has responded positively to the previous audits, most recently by producing a series of recommendations for action following the QAA audit of its Irish partnerships. The deadlines for the implementation of these recommendations ranged from April 2000 to the end of December 2000, so that the actions relating to that audit fall on either side of the present continuation audit. The objective of the current continuation audit was to review the whole of the provision of the University of Glamorgan, including education provided through collaborative arrangements.

Major developments since the 1995 HEQC audit

14 The Account prepared by the University (see below, paragraph 19) identified a number of major developments that have taken place since the previous audit in 1995:- the development of a stronger strategic planning process;
- the creation of the Academic Policy Committee (APC);
- the devolution of quality assurance to schools;
- the creation of new senior management posts - deans and PVC (Rotating);
- the overhaul of the personal tutorial system;
- achieving Investors in People status.

15 The Account emphasised the significance of 'the clear separation of academic planning through APC and auditing through the Quality Audit Committee (QAC) with cross membership to secure symbiosis...[and] the devolution of quality assurance to the schools'. The devolution of quality assurance was carried out with 'the aim of achieving greater ownership of the University's policies through wider engagement with the community'.

16 The devolved model of quality assurance agreed by the University's Academic Board in September 1997 is summarised in the Quality Handbook as follows:

- devolution of quality assurance to schools;
- audit by the centre of the devolved powers;
- retention of central responsibility for approval and review of collaborative partners, outreach awards, subjects new to the University, submission of proposals to external and professional bodies;
- independence of the approval of external examiners from the audit and assurance of taught activities, with the External Examiners Appointments Committee (EEAC) reporting directly to Academic Board;
- maintenance of the principle of independence and externality at all appropriate points of the quality assurance process;
- streamlining of the procedures for making minor amendments;
- rationalisation and pooling of the resources needed for quality assurance;
- acceptance of quality assurance rather than quality control;
- maintenance of common University regulations and quality assurance procedures;
- building on [the University's] and others' experiences and strengths of assuring the quality and standards of educational provision in a rapidly changing environment.

17 The current audit was carried out at a time when this model of quality assurance had been in place for about two and a half years, and there had been the opportunity for some evolution. Refinements of the procedures have been introduced, and senior staff expressed to the audit team the view that the quality assurance model was now entering a period of some stability. The academic structure which the model serves is, however, on the verge of further significant change with the modification of the academic year, bringing about the end of semesters and the introduction of year-long modules, due to be introduced in September 2002.

18 The University's new strategic planning process arose from an external consultancy report in 1999, and it has defined corporate goals and led to a re-working of the mission to meet new circumstances. Improvements in the timing of the planning process, with enhanced local planning and involvement, leading to a sense of ownership throughout the system, are objectives of the new procedures. This development was highlighted in the Account, along with reference to the creation of new senior posts with fixed terms of office, and the achievement of a staff development culture as demonstrated by the award of Investors in People.

The Analytical Account

19 The University submitted an Account which was made available to the audit team in advance of its visit. It was explained to the team that the preparation of the Account had involved widespread consultation within the University. Briefing meetings involving over a 100 members of staff had been used to identify key issues to be included in the Account, and the academic committees had been used during the drafting process to ensure University-wide engagement with the audit process. The Account was formally adopted by a special meeting of Academic Board.

20 The Account commented on the benefits which arose as a result of the work undertaken in its preparation, an intensive focus on quality issues being brought about in the whole community. The audit team found that the Account gave a useful introductory description of the quality assurance procedures of the University, which was then supplemented by the team's scrutiny of a wide range of documentation which was set out in a base room for the duration of the audit visit. The team's reading of the Account was further supplemented by meetings with staff representing a variety of aspects of the teaching and student support functions, and with staff of some partner colleges. These meetings demonstrated the extent to which staff at all levels in the institution were engaged with the issues of teaching quality. Discussions were frank and lively, demonstrating a constructive and innovative approach which appeared to be well established across the University.

Strategic approach to quality management

Context

21 The University's Account stated that it based 'its assurance of the quality and standards of its awards on three elements: local-level responsibility for assurance...set in the clear university-level structures for policy and planning and audit, and confirmed at all levels by external verification'. The Account went on to describe quality management as 'a process of continuous reflection and improvement' and stated that this must be applied to all aspects of its work and that it is 'in the careful management of change, considered in a self-critical environment, with the ethos of continuous improvement and quality enhancement, that the University can be confident that it is moving forward in a constructive manner'. The Account explained that the devolution of aspects of quality management to schools, introduced in 1997, had been implemented to give 'wider ownership of quality and standards issues and to strengthen quality enhancement alongside quality control'.

22 In carrying out the audit, the audit team paid close attention to documentary evidence relating to quality management, and discussed the University's approach with a number of groups of staff. In particular, the team considered regulations and frameworks, planning new provision, committees with a quality remit, validation of programmes and approval of change, review of programmes, annual monitoring and arrangements for collaborative provision, with a view to reaching judgements on the effectiveness of the approaches taken and associated systems and procedures. A continuing theme throughout the team's enquiries related to the University's strategy of devolving significant aspects of quality assurance to its schools. The paragraphs that follow consider each of these matters in turn.

Regulations and frameworks

23The University has adopted a semesterised modular structure, of which it has considerable operational experience, although as noted above (see above, paragraph 17) the University plans to introduce year-long modules in place of semesters in September 2002. Common programme regulations are in place supported by level descriptors and grade criteria. The value of this approach in the maintenance of academic standards is considered later in the report (see below, paragraph 43). Procedures for all aspects of quality assurance are described in the Quality Handbook, together with the academic regulations. The audit team found clear evidence from various documents, and from discussions with staff, that the regulatory framework was well understood across the University, consistently applied and regularly reviewed. The team observed that the Quality Handbook provided a comprehensive guide to quality procedures, and noted that the Handbook was valued by the staff whom it met. From its discussions with staff, the team learnt that work had commenced to revise the Handbook in order to update terminology, remove duplication and, in particular, to distinguish more clearly regulations, procedures and guidance. The team formed the view that this would be a valuable development that would further enhance the utility of the Handbook.

Committees with a quality remit

24 Ultimate responsibility for quality of provision and the academic standards of the University's awards rests with Academic Board. The Board exercises this responsibility through its sub-committees. APC has a remit for policy, planning (including planning approval of new programmes) and review of regulations. QAC is responsible for ensuring adherence to the stated quality assurance procedures. The Research Programme Committee (RPC) has an audit role with respect to research degrees, and appointment of external examiners and related matters are delegated to EEAC. Academic Board is informed of the work of the
sub-committees through the minutes of their meetings and through annual reports on their activities. The audit team considered that the committees had clear and well-differentiated responsibilities that were understood by staff whom it met during the visit, and concluded that the University was well-served by the central committee structure. The University may, however, wish to ensure that more effective communication occurs between committees where standard reporting lines do not exist. This suggestion is made because the team noted an example of Academic Board considering a paper, Common Issues Arising out of External Examiners' Reports - Session 1998-99, which was seen by the Board in March 1999 and referred to EEAC for further consideration. The item did not appear on the agendas of subsequent EEAC meetings.

25 The Account explained that 'the University has a two-tier assessment and progression structure...established within a modular framework which groups together modules in a cognate area to form a field'. These cognate groups of modules are managed by field boards, who are responsible for providing academically secure modules to scheme boards. Day-to-day management is carried out by field and scheme leaders. Where appropriate, the scheme boards and field boards are combined (eg for one large course); in other cases a scheme board can oversee a number of overlapping fields. The terms of reference and arrangements of the boards were clear. They appeared to the audit team to be fully implemented, and the variation of reporting structures observed by the team was appropriate to the requirements of different disciplines. The team noted that the University had clear and well organised arrangements at school level for two tiers of examination boards which complemented the course management structure of field and scheme boards.

26 The audit team sought to clarify the relationship between school level committees and Academic Board. The University does not require that each school should have a school level committee for debating a broad range of academic matters, nor does it prescribe a school committee structure other than for course management. The team was informed that links from school level committees to Academic Board were via two routes; representation of school staff on Academic Board, and through senior school staff who were members of school management groups linking into the management structure of the University. Whilst having no reason to doubt that the representative systems from schools to Academic Board, either directly or through line management arrangements, worked well, the University may wish to consider more formal links between schools and Academic Board together with a University-wide framework for school level committees.

27 A significant development since the time of the last quality audit has been the introduction of departmental quality assurance committees (DQACs). Each school has a DQAC associated with it as a key element of the University's devolved quality assurance system. The 'departmental' title of these committees retains the terminology used before the current use of 'school' for the University's academic units; the audit team noted other instances where the terms 'department' and 'school' were used interchangeably. The terms of reference of a DQAC are set out in the Quality Handbook as follows:

- 'to coordinate the annual schedule of validation, franchise approval and periodic review of the department's courses, and to exercise oversight over the consideration and approval of such submissions including the fulfilment of any conditions and recommendations of approval;
- to oversee scheme, field and award monitoring;
- to approve minor amendments to schemes;
- to undertake any other task delegated to it by QAC'.

Formally, DQACs are sub-committees of QAC. However, ownership at school level is gained by the membership being largely from the school itself. Independence in the operation of DQACs is gained by their chairs being senior staff from another school, and by having at least one other member from outside the school. The effectiveness and general work of each DQAC is audited annually by two QAC auditors and the two DQAC members from outside the school. This annual audit is reported to QAC. A separate audit is carried out annually of each school's annual monitoring of courses and also reported to QAC. DQACs have some direct responsibilities for each school's quality procedures, such as approving minor changes to courses and arrangements for validation and review, and some audit responsibilities, such as audit of annual monitoring. The audit team noted with interest that the University had reacted to initial 'teething troubles' in the split role of DQACs by developing their audit role in annual monitoring rather than seeking to develop their wider operational role in schools.

28 From its study of the documents available to it, and from discussions with staff, the audit team formed the view that the University had in place structures, albeit complex ones, well-placed to fulfil the strategy of devolution of quality assurance to schools. There was clear evidence of widespread involvement of staff in devolved quality assurance procedures, and the team gained a strong impression of commitment to quality processes at school level. The team concluded that an appropriate balance between devolved and centralised quality assurance procedures was, in practice, secured by several mechanisms including the annual audit of DQAC operation, the fact that DQACs were formally sub-committees of QAC (not school committees), and by the presence of independent members of each DQAC. The team noted that, in the last resort, QAC had the power to withdraw devolved responsibility for quality assurance procedures if accumulated evidence were to suggest that such action was necessary.

Course planning and resources

29 Each school is required to formulate a school plan that links to the institutional strategic plan. New course proposals that arise out of the planning process are submitted to APC for approval with comprehensive details of the academic programmes and resource requirements. Members of staff from service and central departments sit on both the school level and central committees, and are required to give their support to a proposal before it is approved to go to validation. The involvement of senior school staff in the executive committees of the University, and hence in budget setting, ensures a close linkage between academic planning and resource planning. The audit team gained clear evidence from committee papers, planning proposals and from discussions with staff that the course approval processes, and links to resourcing of schools and support departments, were working well and issues arising from quality monitoring also linked effectively into resource planning. The team considered that the establishment of APC had been of positive benefit to the University's planning processes, and that its role in developing academic policy and maintaining and reviewing regulations provided a well-integrated academic planning system.

Validation and approval of changes

30 Validation of new programmes is divided between the schools and the central QAC. If the programme is in a new subject area and does not make use of existing modules, the arrangements for validation are made by QAC. Likewise, the arrangements for outreach programmes (see below, paragraph 37) with collaborative partners are carried out by QAC. All other validations, including those for franchise provision, are carried out by schools. However, regardless of the level of responsibility for carrying out the validation, the procedure involves the convening of a panel with at least two external advisors and University representatives drawn from within and outside the school concerned. The audit team saw case studies of the validation process in action, and formed the view that the procedures were effective and robust whether carried out through QAC or the schools. The reports of validation events seen by the team were thorough and contained clear conditions to be met and recommendations to be considered. Validation conditions were routinely and effectively followed up. The annual audit of DQAC activities by representatives of QAC provides the University with a check that devolved procedures are adhered to. The team noted that the University's plan to restructure the academic year by 2002 (see above, paragraph 17) would involve a substantial amount of work in the proposed review and revalidation of all courses.

31 The University has clear guidelines as to what constitutes a minor change to a programme, including changes to a module. Authority for approving changes recommended by scheme boards lies with DQACs, and the audit team saw ample documentary evidence of the careful exercising of this authority. DQACs regularly report the changes they have approved to QAC which is therefore provided with a definitive record of courses and is able to check that DQACs have acted within the limits of their delegated authority.

Periodic review

32 Periodic review of programmes, known as 'revalidation', is delegated to DQACs, except in the case of outreach provision in collaborative partners where the process is carried out by QAC. Apart from the additional requirement for course providers to produce a comprehensive review of their provision, the procedures are similar to those for validation. The audit team saw a number of case studies illustrating the periodic review procedures, and formed the view that the University's procedures were both robust and effective. Where courses are accredited by professional and statutory bodies (PSBs) the University harmonises these external processes with its internal review wherever possible, and builds into individual courses any specific PSB requirements that are over and above the University's regulations.

Annual monitoring

33 Annual monitoring of courses, including franchise collaborative provision, is carried out by schools. The annual monitoring of outreach provision is carried out by teams of QAC auditors who report directly to QAC on whether the annual monitoring in partner colleges offering outreach courses has been carried out according to the required procedures. According to the Quality Handbook, annual reports are required to be produced to a standard template. The audit team saw many examples of annual reports that followed the template laid down in the Quality Handbook and gave comprehensive coverage of the annual monitoring process. In some areas, particularly, but not always, where reports were also needed for outside bodies, annual reports went well beyond the basic requirements laid down in the Quality Handbook. In some cases, however, annual reports were of variable quality and did not follow the standard format. For example, some did not include action plans or analysis of entry, progression and outcome data. In one school, the team saw reports in several different formats, even for the part-time and full-time versions of the same course, and some of the reports were cursory. The team saw some reports that did not comment on external examiners' reports, and heard that lack of comment might be because of late receipt of external examiners' reports. The team was encouraged to find that, in such cases, DQACs did follow up to ensure late reports were considered, although this late reporting meant that matters raised by external examiners could not be included in the summative reports by heads of school or in audit reports to QAC.

34 Following consideration of annual reports in the schools, the head of each school is required to prepare a summary report on annual monitoring for the school DQAC. The process is audited by the two independent DQAC members who are joined by two QAC auditors who report to QAC on whether the whole process has been completed properly. The Quality Handbook does not specify how schools should consider annual reports, gives limited guidance on the format of heads of school's summative reports, and gives no guidance on the format of the audit report to QAC. In the case noted above of a school with annual reports in different formats, the head of school's summative report was brief and was unable to cover all the items that would reasonably be included. Other summative reports seen by the audit team, whilst varying in format, were admirably complete and detailed and included action plans. In general, however, summative reports by heads of school tended to concentrate on concerns and issues and contained limited information on positive developments that might contribute to quality enhancement and dissemination of good practice.

35 Given that the Quality Handbook does not prescribe the way in which the schools should address annual reports, and that the University does not provide a framework for school-level committees, the audit team sought to understand how this aspect of review was carried out within a school. From its discussions with staff, the team found that schools had put in place a variety of procedures for consideration of annual monitoring. In some cases, school committees were established to consider all monitoring reports and to meet with field and scheme leaders responsible for reports (including franchise provision) to agree action plans. In other cases it was clear to the team that no action was taken by schools in response to the submission of reports of variable quality, and in one instance the report of DQAC auditors to QAC, whilst pointing out some of these failings, concluded that annual monitoring procedures had been satisfactorily carried out. The team was informed during the visit that QAC had recently decided not to accept this particular report and to refer it back for further action. Whilst encouraged by this, the team was concerned that corrective action had not been taken until this late stage of the process. The DQAC audit reports to QAC deal primarily with whether due process has been followed and formal reporting of good practice in learning, teaching and assessment is limited.

36 The final stage of the annual monitoring process is a formal report from QAC to Academic Board to give assurance that the process has been completed and to flag up key matters. The audit team noted that this report to Academic Board for 1997-98 annual monitoring was received in February 2000, and considered that this timescale was unacceptably long. The team was informed that the University had recognised this problem and was taking action.

Collaborative provision

37 The University defines two types of collaborative provision: franchise provision where programmes offered within the University are also offered through partner institutions; and outreach provision where a programme offered only in the partner institution is validated by the University to lead to a University award. Responsibility for franchise provision lies with the schools as part of the devolved quality assurance procedures. Responsibility for validation, periodic review and audit of annual monitoring of outreach provision lies with QAC. In addition to the same quality assurance procedures and regulations that are applied to its internal provision, the University has instituted a process of institutional approval of new partners and institutional review of all partners every four years. Much of the University's collaborative provision is within Wales as part of its mission to widen participation in higher education within the Principality. Major partners are accorded the status of 'associate college' based on the extent of provision and operational experience over a number of years. The University and its associate colleges have an agreement that includes sharing planning processes and reviewing, at a senior level, the effectiveness of partnership links. The title of 'community college' has been introduced for partners offering more limited provision. As part of its longer term strategic view of collaborative provision, the University has recently developed procedures for accreditation which can be employed when it is judged that an associate college has reached a level of maturity to be granted a measure of independence in carrying out quality assurance. At the time of the audit visit, no collaborative partner had yet met the criteria for achieving the status of accredited college.

38 The University has more limited collaborative provision in the UK outside Wales. This is based upon the franchise and outreach models, and largely relates to initiatives where there is a clear subject match between the University and the partner. The University also has a limited amount of overseas collaborative provision. The audit team was not able to investigate overseas links in detail but was aware of reports published by QAA on the University's links in Ireland (see above, paragraph 3) which recommended some matters for further consideration by the University. The team was therefore interested to hear that the University has taken the strategic decision to withdraw from overseas links on financial grounds apart, perhaps, from retaining some articulation agreements and distance learning arrangements. Overseas activity is, therefore, not considered further as part of this continuation audit.

39 The audit team saw examples of quality assurance processes in collaborative provision in action, covering institutional approval and review, validation and periodic review of franchise and outreach courses and annual monitoring. The examples included procedures that were devolved to schools and those carried out by QAC. The team also discussed the arrangements with University staff at all levels and with representatives from partner colleges. It was clear from the discussions that all of the arrangements were well understood. Staff from partner colleges were particularly complimentary of the support they received from the University at all levels, from strategic planning to day-to-day liaison, and they strongly supported the view gained by the team from its study of documentary evidence that the University's quality assurance procedures were robust and applied with rigour. With only a few exceptions the annual reports seen by the team on collaborative programmes conformed to the University's required format. The audit by QAC of outreach provision provides an effective monitoring process, and the team's only concern about the monitoring of franchise activity was the same as that for the University's in-house provision, relating to the consistency of implementation (see above, paragraphs 33 to 36). The team considered that the demonstrably effective day-to-day management of collaborative provision and good liaison with partners owed much to the commitment and effectiveness of franchise officers in each of the schools involved with collaborative activity.

40 A further strength of the University's collaborative arrangements is the wide range of formal and informal staff development and enhancement activities. For example, the audit team saw a comprehensive file of staff development events, Cydweithio/Working Together, that had involved participation from the University and its partner colleges. Regular meetings of franchise officers and representatives of support departments formalised as a sub-committee of APC, provide a valuable forum for dissemination of good practice. The team was particularly interested to note that the University had established 'recognised teacher status' (RTS) for appropriately qualified staff in partner colleges who teach on collaborative programmes. Staff of partner colleges who met the team spoke in strong support of this initiative, and the team formed the view that this mechanism for giving formal recognition to those engaged in collaborative teaching was a welcome and positive development. In general, the team concluded that the quality assurance procedures in place to secure the quality and standards of UK collaborative provision were effective and rigorously applied.

Summary

41 The audit team concluded that a high level of confidence could be placed in the University's ability to manage its responsibilities for both in-house and collaborative provision now and into the future. The considerable evidence that the University reflects on its own practices, and acts upon the outcomes of that reflection, gives confidence that corrective action will be taken in the limited number of areas where improvements could be made. In the view of the team, such areas include the consistency, quality and timeliness of reports arising from the annual monitoring process and the formal arrangements for establishing and operating school-level committees. In general, the team formed the view that the initiatives taken by the University since the last quality audit, including some devolution of quality assurance to schools, had been effective. The team noted with interest the recent introduction of cross-University senior level appointments relating to customer care, quality assurance, academic policy and research and consultancy, and concluded that this initiative was likely to support the University as it seeks to further improve its approaches to quality management.

Academic standards

42 In its Account, the University stated that it 'requires that the outcome standards of the award, at every level, be appropriate for the level of qualification it confers'. It takes both external and internal referents to set and to measure those standards. The external referents for setting and measuring standards include:

- external peer endorsement of comparable standards;
- nationally articulated standards and outcomes definitions (benchmark statements, professional body definitions, Edexcel standards, level descriptors).

The internal referents include:

- explicit and defined levels of academic attainment within individual programmes;
- comparability across programme areas;
- peer determination within a subject group.

43 The Account stated that the University worked within a principle that all of its awards were subject to the same regulatory framework regardless of mode of attendance, level or structure of programme (single honours or multi-disciplinary). The framework applies equally to franchise and in-house provision, and consequently the University describes the procedures for assuring standards in off-campus provision as rigorous as those for its internal provision. Schools 'have full responsibility for academically securing all of the credit awarded in their area, and for securing all awards within their remit, thus ensuring parity of standards for all students enrolled at the University, regardless of location of study'. The audit team learnt from its discussions with staff that the regulatory frameworks and quality procedures were intended to provide appropriate levels of consistency whilst catering for the needs of diverse disciplines across the institution. The team noted that the University placed emphasis on the value of the Quality Handbook for articulating the ways in which it assured itself that its standards were achieved.

Definition of standards

44 A principle which guides the validation and review processes of all the University's programmes is that explicit outcome specifications are built into the development process of every module or scheme from the beginning of academic planning. The formal processes of validation and review are used to ensure that all units offered are subject to a process that results in effective definition of standards appropriate to the award concerned, a process that is overseen by QAC. In the case of new programme areas, or where the documentation is to be submitted to external bodies, QAC undertakes the validation itself. When programmes are already established, the processes of validation and review to ensure definition of standards are undertaken by the relevant DQAC.

45 The University is committed to the formal adoption of nationally agreed standards as they become available, and staff expressed to the audit team confidence in their ability to work to benchmark standards when they are published. HEFCW, through Credit Initiative Wales, has supported the establishment of a framework of generic level descriptors, which are used throughout the University to set the standard of each level of work in the modular framework. These descriptors are used by staff in drawing up the learning outcomes of each module, which has defined aims, teaching methods and assessment procedures to deliver the learning outcomes which are specified. The team found ample evidence of commitment to the use of generic level descriptors and specific learning outcomes as a means of defining and maintaining academic standards. This was as much the case with recently appointed staff and with those responsible for franchised courses in partner colleges as it was with experienced staff in the University. From its discussions with staff, and from documentary evidence, the team formed the view that effective processes were in place for the definition of academic standards in the modules and programmes of the University. The team commends the University for the attention given to learning outcomes and generic level descriptors in defining its framework for academic standards across the University and in its collaborative partners.

Admission of students

46 The University's mission of widening access involves accommodating a diversity of attainments on the part of applicants for admission. The Account acknowledged the challenge in striving to 'open up higher education opportunities for students from non-traditional backgrounds' while wishing to 'improve the quality of its applicants'. It recognised that 'these goals are not necessarily mutually exclusive but ways will have to be found to address both issues - for example when setting admissions criteria and in the way courses are marketed to particular groups of students'. The Quality Handbook sets out principles guiding admissions, and lays out a series of regulations. Amongst the principles is that 'it will be expected that anyone admitted to an award will be able to fulfil the objectives of the award and achieve the standard required for the award'. The regulations allow for admission with academic credit or advanced standing, for the accreditation of prior learning, and for consideration of industrial experience and training. Where there is admission by advanced standing, which may include direct admission to year two or year three, the decision on placing the student is made at the level of the school. The University has responded to the diversity of its student intake by a number of support measures, such as special tuition in mathematics and 'drop-in' centres for study support, which have the objective of providing learning support geared to the maintenance of standards of overall learning outcomes.

47 Undergraduate student admission is a centralised process administered within Student Information Systems, but guided by standards defined by schools and with schools playing a part when applicants are atypical in their qualifications. The International Officer gives advice to schools on the qualifications of overseas applicants. Postgraduate admissions are centred on the school to which candidates apply. The admission system is overseen by the Academic Registrar, who also chairs the Admissions Advisors Group of admissions tutors and representatives of support services. The Account explained that 'this forum provides another venue for the sharing of good practice in relation to admissions'. The audit team concluded that the University had a satisfactory system of control of admission standards to underpin the maintenance of the academic standards of its awards.

Student assessment and the classification of awards

48 The Quality Handbook stipulates that the purpose of assessment is to ensure that students have fulfilled the objectives of their programme of study and 'have achieved the standard required for any awards they seek'. The University requires that assessment should relate student achievement to a consistent national standard of award. It is University policy that all examinations and, where possible, all other assessments should be marked anonymously.

49 As modules are developed and their learning outcomes defined, so an assessment strategy is developed. The development of marking schemes is encouraged, but it is recognised that they may not always be appropriate to the nature of the assessment. When a module or scheme is offered in a partner institution, it is to be treated in the same manner as an internal module or scheme. Where a course is offered on an outreach basis, the college concerned is required to operate its procedures within the University's guidelines, 'as if it was a department of the University'.

50 Staff induction at school level addresses the need for new staff to be made aware of the academic standards and criteria of the University, and the use of descriptors and grade criteria facilitates this process. Double marking and moderation procedures play an effective role in ensuring the integrity of the assessment system, and staff who met the audit team reported that double marking with an experienced colleague was an important part of the process whereby the common standards of the institution are promulgated. The team was told that whenever postgraduate students are involved in marking of any assignment that contributes to the assessment of a module, they are given clear guidance and their marking is checked by experienced staff. Chairs of field boards have responsibility for ensuring the maintenance of standards in assessment. Staff development activities involving staff from partner colleges play an important part in ensuring the comparability of assessment standards in collaborative provision, as does the institution of RTS which identifies staff in the colleges who are cognisant with the academic standards of the University (see above, paragraph 40). In its meetings with staff, the team found evidence at all levels that staff were inducted into their responsibilities in relation to assessment. The team formed the view that the linkage of assessment criteria to specified learning outcomes was an important contributory factor in the assurance of the academic standards of the University's awards.

External examiners

51 Writing of the assurance of internal and external comparability of academic standards, the Account remarked that 'external examiners are the cornerstone of the system', and no recommendation for the conferment of an award of the University can be made without the signature of the external examiner. The roles and responsibilities of external examiners are set out in the External Examiners' Handbook and there is a separate Handbook for Examiners of Research Degrees. EEAC not only scrutinises the qualifications and experience of proposed external examiners before approving their appointment, but also arranges training for them and handles the administration of their appointment and induction. The criteria for appointment are very specific and are set out in the Quality Handbook. It is required that the examiner has 'appropriate standing, expertise and experience to maintain academic standards in the context of higher education as a whole'. Following scrutiny by EEAC, appointment is confirmed by Academic Board.

52 External examiners are required to report annually on the assessments for which they are responsible, and a number of items for report are specified, including 'the overall performance of students in relation to their peers on comparable modules or schemes'. External examiners have the right to report directly to the Vice-Chancellor if there are items of a serious nature that they wish to bring to his attention. The normal reporting route is to the Academic Registrar, who copies reports to the appropriate head of school, to the award/field leader, to the Chair of QAC and to the Chair of the relevant DQAC. The Academic Registrar and the Chair of QAC are able to raise issues arising from the reports directly with the Vice-Chancellor.

53 A head of school is responsible for making a response to the report of the external examiner, indicating such action as has been taken as a result of the report. This response is copied to the Academic Registrar and the Chair of QAC. As part of the annual monitoring process, DQACs review the reports and responses. The Dean of Quality Assurance and the Academic Registrar make a synoptic summary of the principal features of each year's set of external examiners' reports for the use of QAC.

54 The audit team had the opportunity to study a selection of external examiners' reports, and was able to confirm that the external examiners had taken their responsibilities seriously, making detailed comments on the units for which they were responsible and specifically addressing the standard of award in the University of Glamorgan in relation to that in other institutions of higher education of which they had experience. Meetings held with staff also confirmed to the team the importance attached to external examiners' reports and their role in the assurance of standards of academic awards. It did, however, emerge that not all examiners had been prompt in submission of their reports and that a number of problems had arisen as a result of late submission (see above, paragraph 33). On occasion reports had not been received at the time when it was necessary to write the annual reports in the quality assurance process, and the team was of the view that it had not always been easy to identify whether reports had been received. There appeared to be need for a clearer system of logging external examiners' reports so as to identify where one had not arrived by a certain date and to exert pressure to elicit a response. The University may wish to consider the advisability of improving the management information which supports the procedures associated with external examiners. Notwithstanding occasional difficulties relating to the timing of external examiners' reports, the team concluded that the system of external examiners played an effective part in the maintenance of the academic standards of the awards of the University, particularly with respect to comparability with the higher education system of the UK as a whole.

External comparability: the role of accrediting bodies

55 A number of awards of the University are subject to accreditation by professional bodies, and a total of 29 different bodies have given their accreditation to some part of the University's teaching activity. The awards of the School of Care Sciences are subject to joint validation with the Welsh National Board for Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors. The University operates under the Edexcel Licence Agreement with delegated powers in respect of Higher National awards. In addition to professional body accreditation, the University maintains further links with the standards of professional practice since many scheme boards include industrial and professional members. From the evidence available to it, the audit team formed the view that accreditation by professional bodies provided an effective external referent for the academic standards of the University's awards.

Evaluation and improvement of procedures

56 The procedures whereby the University seeks to assure the standards of its academic awards are subject to review by subgroups of two major committees. The APC Regulations Group, acting on behalf of APC undertakes a continuing review of the University's academic regulations. It has addressed the issues arising in relation to anonymous marking and has produced guidelines for consideration of mitigating circumstances for poor performance. The QAC Procedures Group reports to QAC and is concerned with the refinement of the processes of quality assurance in response to inputs from DQACs, external examiners and others. The Dean of Quality Assurance and the Academic Registrar jointly produce an annual systematic review of all external examiners' reports, identifying opportunities for improvement of practice. This is reported via QAC to Academic Board. The Centre for Lifelong Learning (CeLL), in its programme of internal staff development relating to assessment, is active in the refinement of procedures, addressing, for example, issues relating to anonymous marking.

Standards of research degrees

57 The academic standards of the research degrees of the University are assured by external examiners, whose scrutiny of theses and conduct of oral examinations is consistent with normal practice in the UK. Examiners for research degrees receive a separate handbook setting out their responsibilities, which includes the requirement 'to establish that the research carried out is appropriate to the award and is of a standard that would normally meet the requirements of a University in the United Kingdom for such an award'. Senior staff who met the audit team confirmed that the University adhered to the precepts set out in the QAA Code of practice on postgraduate research programmes.

Summary

58 The audit team, having studied the documentation made available to it, and having met and interviewed a range of academic staff, was confident that the University of Glamorgan had in place a series of procedures which enabled it, now and in the future, to establish, maintain, monitor and improve the academic standards of its awards.

Learning infrastructure

Library, laboratory and information technology

59 The Account stated the University's 'duty to provide the best facilities and support mechanisms commensurate with the level of awards it offers and within obvious resource constraints'. Central support is delivered principally though two departments: the Learning Resource Centre (LRC) and Information Systems and Campus Services (ISACS). LRC incorporates the Library and a Media Resources Centre, which makes available studio and editing suites for students and staff. ISACS provides most of the University's ICT provision and is responsible for the full range of campus services, including accommodation and catering. Specialist laboratories and facilities are organised and managed by the schools, including a drama theatre, chiropractic clinic and engineering and technology laboratories. The Academic Registry supports quality assurance and research. The Account noted that each of these services has a 'key role to play in meeting the teaching, learning, information, research and corporate needs of the University's students and staff'.

Management, planning and feedback

60 All of the University's learning resources and IT facilities are monitored by the Directorate Information Advisory Group (DIAG) and the subcommittees which report to it, of which the four central ones are the Information Strategy Planning Group; Academic Information Strategy Planning Group; Corporate Information Strategy Planning Group; and Learning Resources Planning Group. Through DIAG, each of these subcommittees reports to the Directorate, and there is cross-representation on APC. In meetings with heads of support departments, it was explained to the audit team that this subcommittee structure was established to give better strategic direction to the planning and development of services. The team heard that, prior to the establishment of DIAG, a number of groups existed but without such effective coordination or clear reporting lines. The DIAG structure of subcommittees and working groups provides feedback on the quality and effectiveness of services, and the Account described recent developments and improvements in LRC provision in response to feedback from monitoring. Members of support departments participate in review and validation panels, and are represented on scheme boards, DQACs, QAC, APC and Academic Board. This broad involvement of support departments provides a mechanism through which the outcomes of quality assurance processes can inform investment decisions and resource allocation. The Account identified as examples the introduction of seven-day opening of the Library and the general investment in LRC stock, 'which has improved the ability of the university to meet the demands of student-centred learning and increased research activity'. It was evident that investment in LRC services is linked to the University's corporate objectives to widen participation and deliver high quality, flexible learning and teaching. Central departments produce operational plans within a clear framework of institutional strategic objectives set by the University's revised strategic planning process. The team reached the view that there were clear and effective mechanisms for the strategic planning and management of learning resources and IT facilities.

61 The audit team saw evidence that central departments were actively involved in planning to meet the resource implications of the University's UK collaborative activity. The recently introduced system of institutional reviews of collaborative partners (see above, paragraph 37) is intended to confirm resources are adequate before validation panels consider specific programmes. The Account explained that service agreements for Library and media provision between the University and its partner colleges had been introduced as a result of the work of the Franchise Librarians' Group. The team heard that at the time of the audit visit the recently appointed Director of Services was developing service level agreements with partner colleges covering all aspects of the student experience.

Information Systems and Campus Services

62 It was evident to the audit team that ISACS was ensuring a good standard of IT support for teaching, learning and research, and undergraduate and research students who met the team made positive comments about their access to computers. According to the Account, improving the Student Management Information System (SMIS) was one of nine 'key strategic goals' identified in the University's strategic plan, and the team was therefore particularly interested in this aspect of the University's infrastructure. A review of SMIS in 1997 resulted in a number of operational improvements to systems, and DIAG is taking forward suggestions for further improvements. The team sought to establish what the experience of these developments had been in the schools. Heads of school and academic staff who met the team confirmed that there have been improvements to student administration as a result of recent software developments, and they now had better access to centrally held data. However, the view expressed to the team was that, at present, the user interface was complex and, as a result, training in its use had been concentrated on administrative staff. Therefore, although heads of school regarded the work of DIAG and the investment in SMIS as positive responses to schools' needs, they attached a high priority to the objective of improving SMIS so that in future it would enable easy access by academic staff to accurate and timely data. Operational improvements have been made to SMIS and the team was left in no doubt about users' views of the importance they attach to the University making further significant improvements to systems.

63 Service effectiveness is regularly monitored and reviewed to ensure that development plans are linked to corporate objectives. In their meeting with the audit team, heads of central service units emphasised the importance of the good links which exist with the schools, and believed their relationship with academic schools to be better described as one of partnership rather than support, working closely with academic schools and playing an active role in planning and quality assurance processes for on-campus and collaborative provision. From its discussions with staff, and from the available documentation, the team concurred with this view, and concluded that the University had in place an effective strategic planning framework to oversee investment and development of Library and information technology services.

Student support and guidance

64 The report of the 1995 HEQC audit commended the University for 'the range of its student support services'. The Account made clear that as the University had embraced the new widening participation mission it had recognised the important part student support and guidance played in underpinning that mission. Particular features of that support and guidance were identified as pastoral support 'to help students persevere with their studies' and 'study skills modules to give them the necessary skills to succeed'.

65 The Account described the support services available to students as being organised into a 'two-tier system to ensure the correct and appropriate level of support is provided on each occasion'. Academic schools provide the 'first tier of support...supplemented by central facilities'. At the centre, the University's Student Services Department provides all main welfare services. Counselling and advice are available to meet a range of personal needs, and to help with financial and legal problems. There is a Specific Needs policy, and the Student Services Department provides information and direct support to students within the framework of this policy. A complementary range of welfare and advice services is managed by the Students' Union.

66 Academic and pastoral support structures in schools were reviewed in 1997 in response to critical feedback from monitoring and, as a result, a common University-wide framework of school-level student support was established. This was kept under review, and in 1998 the Head of Student Services reported significant variation in the way in which schools were implementing the new structure. In its meetings with staff and students the audit team sought a view of the effectiveness of school-level support. Variation in schools' implementation of student support was confirmed by heads of school and heads of support departments in their meeting with the team. However, the team was told that there was no evidence that this variation affected the service students received, and those students who met the team commented positively on the access they had to academic staff at all levels. The view of representatives of the Students' Union was that when students took problems to academic staff they were invariably content with the response. Research students who met the team confirmed that they received excellent support from academic staff in schools and staff in central departments. The evidence of general student satisfaction with the support they received led the team to agree with the Account that the variations were 'minor' and that 'an overarching framework is now firmly in place'.

67 Support for international students and part-time students were areas noted in the report of the 1995 HEQC audit as areas for improvement. The Account described a range of measures which the University had taken to improve services to international students, and indicated that further improvements were planned. Pre-entry support is provided by the International Officer, based in Marketing and Student Recruitment. Once they have joined the University, international students receive support which is again managed on a two-tier basis, between schools and central departments. Discussions with heads of school confirmed to the audit team the improvements identified in the Account. In relation to part-time students, the Vice-Chancellor emphasised to the team the importance he attached to the development of support services to meet the needs of an increasingly heterogeneous student body, which widening participation and lifelong learning will produce. In its meetings with staff and students the team found wide support for this view.

68 An important vehicle for promoting this change in culture will be the recently established Customer Care Committee which is chaired by the PVC (Rotating), reporting to the Vice-Chancellor and Academic Board. According to the Account this Committee was 'currently establishing mechanisms for monitoring support provision and will be making recommendations for improvements to Academic Board'. The audit team saw an example of the work of this Committee in the First Experience Group, which, as its name suggests, is responsible for the quality of experience enjoyed by new students. The team considered that the Customer Care Committee was a positive development, and one that would ensure that, in implementing its mission, the University was well-placed to match its support infrastructure to the changing needs of students.

Recruitment, appointment and probation of staff

69 Staffing policies are the responsibility of Personnel Services, which has in place the normal range of procedures covering recruitment, appointment and probation. There are criteria, published in the University's web pages, to be taken into account in selecting candidates for promotion to principal lecturer, the first of which is the individual's 'effectiveness, application and creative ability as a teacher'. As described in the Account, the procedure for probation involves objective setting and a sequence of reviews of an individual's performance before an appointment is confirmed, which in the case of academic staff is after 12 months. The Account recognised the limitations of a 12 month probation period, and the audit team learnt that the probation system was being reviewed and discussions being held about a proposal to extend the probationary period for academic staff from 12 months to three years. The arguments given in favour of an extension were that an individual needed time to develop and demonstrate their potential in research and teaching: 12 months was not considered to be enough time for real benefit to be gained from staff development. As far as the operation of the present probation scheme is concerned, from discussions with staff and heads of school the team gained the view that its requirements were not well understood and, as a result, an individual's experience of the formal probation procedure may vary considerably from school to school. The team therefore concluded that the review of probation procedures should address the issue of consistency of application, as well as the duration of the probation period.

Staff development

70 The Account noted that the University of Glamorgan was the first Welsh higher education institution to gain the Investors in People award; evidence that the University is 'firmly committed to the development of all its staff'. For newly appointed academic staff there are University- and school-based induction programmes, and all schools provide mentoring support, which may be a more or less formal process. Recently appointed academic staff who met the audit team were positive about their experience of induction and satisfied with the level of support given to them. The team understood that part-time staff were also invited to attend the induction process, and it was evident to the team that the University was actively making efforts to extend opportunities for staff development to its part-time staff.

71 All academic staff are appraised annually. Appraisal is currently voluntary for some support staff, but a staff development interview replaces appraisal in such cases. Training and staff development needs are identified at appraisal or its equivalent, and fed upward through schools and departments to inform the University's Training and Development Plan.

72 The audit team took particular note of the range of staff development activity, both formal and informal, available to support the University's collaborative partners in Wales. Staff in partner colleges who apply for RTS (see above, paragraph 40) are able to receive guidance on staff development needs, including studying for higher degrees at the University, for which financial support is available in the form of discounts. Those representatives of partner colleges who met the team were positive about the benefits to their staff of the RTS scheme and the opportunities for further study. Franchise officers have regular contact with their opposite numbers in partner colleges, meet collectively in the Collaborative Group, which reports to APC, and are responsible for ensuring partners 'are fully aware of the University's systems and with current developments in higher education'. It was evident to the team that the contribution made by the franchise officers to staff development was a commendable feature of their overall work with collaborative partners.

Teaching and learning strategy

73 In the course of meetings with staff, and from the available documentation, the audit team found evidence of substantial staff development activity set within the framework of the University's strategic plan and a specific Teaching and Learning Strategy. The Account described the role of CeLL, created in 1999 to replace the Educational Development Unit, as particularly important in piloting many initiatives 'which have subsequently been integrated into mainstream University policies and procedures'. A recent development is the Flexible Learning, Assessment and Teaching (FLAT) strategy which is designed to promote 'teaching excellence', and which is being overseen by a working group reporting to APC. School Teaching and Learning Advisors are represented on this group, and contribute to the development of annual school teaching and learning plans, which are considered by APC. Examples of plans were provided to the team, and it was clear from discussions with heads of school that these were useful documents. In its meeting with research students, the team established that none of them had undertaken any teaching duties without prior appropriate training.

74 The University has set a target of 75 per cent membership of the Institute for Learning and Teaching within two years, and this was described to the audit team as a challenging but welcome target. There is a SEDA-accredited Postgraduate Certificate of Education for newly appointed staff, who must register for a minimum of one module on the programme. This minimum threshold was explained to the team as due partly to the issue of the length of the probation period (see above, paragraph 69) but, more persuasively, as the consequence of a preference for a voluntary, as opposed to mandatory, staff development culture. The team was told that the University aimed to 'get people on board' rather than force them into staff development. None of the recently appointed staff who met the team had undertaken the programme, and it was therefore not possible for the team to reach any conclusion about its value or effectiveness. Through meetings with staff, and from the available documentation, the team confirmed the picture of staff development activities to support teaching and learning set out in the Account. When it has completed its review of the probationary scheme, the University will, no doubt, wish to consider how to improve the take-up and effectiveness of its Postgraduate Certificate of Education.

Internal and external communications

75 The University stated in its Account that it 'recognises that good communications are essential'. In support of this recognition, the University has a formal, written communications strategy, developed in 1994, relating to staff and students within the University and to external stakeholders. Individual schools, such as the School of Electronics, have developed their own communications strategy statements. External stakeholders are kept informed by the Vice-Chancellor's Annual Report, by HESA statistical returns, by information on the internet and by media releases and briefings.

Communications with staff

76 The University produces a range of publications for staff and for particular individuals, such as external examiners, who have a function within the University. Of particular significance from the point of view of maintenance of the quality of provision and of academic standards is the Quality Handbook, and it was evident to the audit team that the Handbook was a familiar source of information, frequently referred to by staff, and valued greatly by collaborative partners. The team was informed that the Handbook, which was first produced in September 1999, was in the process of being updated and revised to take account of new developments and regulations. The team also heard of a proposal to develop an Academic Handbook which would deal separately with policy, regulations and quality assurance procedures and which would make allowance for the needs of professional bodies. Work on preparing this new document is well-advanced and has involved widespread consultation.

77 Other publications directed to meeting the needs of staff include school and departmental handbooks, the staff newsletter, entitled Bulletin, and newsletters on specific topics such as Research Matters and Estates News. Among the other communications valued by members of staff is a newsletter produced by CeLL covering issues related to teaching, assessment and learning, and entitled Dysgu. Electronic communications are of growing significance, with many important University documents now available on its web site. An email system is in use throughout the University for day-to-day communication, and is also a valued channel of communication with partner colleges. Communication with partner institutions is also facilitated by the use of video-conferencing.

78 The University's committee structure is of major significance in communication throughout the institution, and members of staff who met the audit team observed that the central committee structure was genuinely participative. In addition to formal committee meetings, the team was told of many informal gatherings of staff which play a role in sharing of information and ideas. For example, though formal meetings of scheme boards are scheduled once per semester, it was reported to the team that they may meet informally on a weekly basis. Informal gatherings of groups with common interests include meetings of heads of schools, the Administrative Staff Forum, the DQAC Secretaries Forum, and the DQAC Chairs Forum. Staff from partner colleges who met the team referred to frequent contacts with staff in the University. Throughout the meetings that the team held with staff of the University, and staff of partner colleges, it was evident that the combination of formal and informal channels of communication were effective and appreciated.

79 The Vice-Chancellor and the Governors annually hold open meetings to encourage discussion amongst staff. The audit team heard that these were well-attended and valued by staff, and that they presented opportunities for genuine debate. Senior staff are regarded as approachable and were described to the team as 'good at walking about'. The team gained the impression of an ethos of accessibility between staff and senior management, and one member of staff, recently appointed from another institution, remarked to the team on how visible were the most senior staff of the University. Major academic issues, such as the proposals for the change in the academic year, have evidently received widespread consideration at all levels of the institution. The team concluded that the arrangements for internal communications, particularly in the part they have to play in the management of change, were effective.

Staff induction

80 Newly appointed staff take part in a University-wide induction programme and this is supported by less formal introductory programmes at school or department level (see above, paragraph 70). Induction covers matters such as an introduction to the personnel of the department, and to health and safety procedures. Staff who met the audit team expressed the view that that they received ample guidance on their teaching role and on issues such as standards required when marking assignments, there regularly being double-marking, and assistance available from a mentor.

Communications with students: publicity and recruitment material

81 Before enrolment, students are able to obtain information about the University from a variety of printed sources and from the University's web site. Publications include an undergraduate and a postgraduate prospectus, as well as departmental promotional material. Printed documents are increasingly supplemented by email and internet access. Responsibility for all this material rests with the Director of Marketing and Student Recruitment, by whom partner colleges are also contractually obliged to have their literature checked before publication. The students who met the audit team regarded the information that they had received before entering the University as broadly accurate and fair. They did, however, express their concern that they had received inadequate information about the additional costs associated with study, such as charges for fieldwork and for materials.

Student induction

82 During the week of enrolment, special arrangements are made to communicate necessary academic information to new students. The Student Services Department produces a guide for all staff likely to come into contact with new students. Information is also given on sources of help. These arrangements for induction of undergraduate students are kept under review by the First Experience Group (see above, paragraph 68). Arrangements for the induction of research students are made on a school, rather than University, basis, and are supported by a Handbook for Research Students.

Student representation

83 Communication with students is facilitated by student representation at a number of levels. Students are represented on scheme boards, and there is student representation on a number of important committees, such as Academic Board, QAC, Research Committee, and Customer Care Committee. There is a meeting four times per year between the Students' Union Executive and the University Directorate. Student representatives who met the audit team reported that they found their involvement with the University's committees worthwhile, but also emphasised the importance of informal communication with staff, whom they found generally to be friendly and accessible. It was recognised by these students, including the elected officers of the Students' Union, that more needed to be done to ensure adequate representation of part-time and mature students. The students who met the team were generally very satisfied with the arrangements for communications from the University and with their own opportunities to communicate their views. The team concluded that communications between staff and students in the University were satisfactory, with an overall spirit of friendliness and openness.

Course and programme information

84 Individual letters to students, leaflets and notices are used to communicate course and programme information, and student handbooks provide information on particular schemes and on the University's regulations. The Quality Handbook contains a section on producing student handbooks, giving guidance about both style and content. For example, the Quality Handbook advises that the appeals regulations and student complaints procedures should be included in each handbook. The audit team had an opportunity to study a sample of handbooks, which gave clear presentation of information relating to courses. The team noted some variation between the handbooks that was appropriate to the differing nature of the programmes, but also noted that complaints and appeals procedures were not always clearly set out. There is a newsletter for research students, Research Matters, and email conferencing is also important. There is a Research Students' Society, and opportunities for research students to meet on the Research Methodology Programme.

85 Student feedback is gained through representation and by the use of questionnaires relating to modules and programmes. The audit team heard that the outcomes of a questionnaire survey at the end of one module are generally reported on at the beginning of the next, and saw evidence that there could be rapid reaction to issues raised by students. It was generally evident from the views of students and staff who met the team that there was effective informal communication with students. In addition to the progress tutors, scheme leaders and school tutors with specific responsibilities for communicating with students, the team gained the impression that students felt free to approach most academic staff, and of an atmosphere of openness between staff and students.

Academic appeals procedures

86 Procedures for dealing with students' complaints and with academic appeals are set out in the document Academic Appeals Procedures published by the Academic Registrar's office, and the regulations are generally, but not always, included in course handbooks (see above, paragraph 84). All the students who met the audit team, both undergraduate and postgraduate, were aware of the existence of these procedures and confident that they could find details should they need them.

The Student Charter

87 The current version of the Student Charter is the 1997 revision, and the Account explained that it set out the University's 'obligations to its students and what it expects in return'. Copies are distributed to all students. Amongst other matters, the Charter addresses equal opportunities, disabilities, rights and responsibilities before joining, whilst a student, and after leaving the University, and it includes details of the student complaints procedure. The University gave consideration to a proposal in the report of the 1996 HEQC audit of collaborative provision that there should be a separate version of the Charter for off-campus students. It was decided, however, to meet the needs of off-campus students by ensuring that copies of partner colleges' charters were compatible with the needs of students following collaborative programmes.

Conclusions

88 The University of Glamorgan has over 16,600 students following academic programmes in all of the subject categories used by HEFCW, with the exception of medicine. The University is structured as eight schools: Applied Science, Business, Care Sciences, Computing, Electronics, Humanities and Social Sciences, Law and Technology, together with a number of support departments. At the time of the audit visit it was the largest provider of higher education in Wales in the subject areas of Engineering and Technology, Computing and Information Systems and Business and Management. The University has extensive collaborative provision, and provides a focus in Wales for provision of higher education in areas remote from higher education institutions, particularly for part-time students. The University has developed and refined its mission of providing widening access to higher education in Wales to include a commitment to contributing to the creation of wealth and social regeneration whilst educating students to national standards. The key goals in its strategic plan include enhancement of learning and teaching quality and an increase in the quality and quantity of research, especially with a view to economic development.

89 The University has responded positively and effectively to points for further consideration raised in previous quality audits of its own in-house provision (1995) and collaborative provision (1996). Major initiatives that have been undertaken include the development of a stronger strategic planning process, establishment of APC as a sub-committee of Academic Board, introduction of devolved quality assurance procedures in schools, creation of new senior management posts, the overhaul of the personal tutorial system and the gaining of the Investors in People award.

90 The University has in place clear procedures for the development and approval of new course proposals which are closely linked to strategic planning and the resourcing of academic and support departments. If issues arise from quality monitoring that require rebalancing of resources, there are transparent procedures to link quality management systems with planning and budget-setting mechanisms. The University has made good progress with its programme of devolution of aspects of the quality assurance procedures to schools. This devolution has led to enhanced ownership of quality procedures and responsibility for quality enhancement at school level, and the involvement of a wide range of staff. An appropriate balance has been struck between devolved systems and retention by central management of some procedures associated with activities that potentially have a higher risk, such as approval of courses in new subject areas and outreach programmes. The arrangements for validation of new courses, periodic review of existing courses and approving changes to courses are effective and robust. The procedures for devolved annual monitoring continue to be refined, and whilst the procedures are, in principle, effective, there is significant variability in the quality of the reports that arise from the process and somewhat limited reporting of quality enhancement matters within them. The timescales for formal consideration of the outcomes of annual monitoring by central committees are too extended for rapid and effective responses to be generated. The University has recognised these deficiencies, and some progress has been made since the introduction of the devolved system. However, more remains to be done, and the University will wish to continue to refine procedures and provide tighter guidelines for reporting as it revises its Quality Handbook.

91 The quality management systems of the University are supported by a clear committee structure at course level for the management of provision and assessment of students. Central committees reporting to Academic Board have clearly defined roles and responsibilities, and the introduction of APC has been a positive development since the last quality audit. At present the University does not have a formal framework for determining the arrangements of committees at school level, and a variety of arrangements have developed. There is no formal mechanism for schools to report to Academic Board as corporate bodies and, whilst it was clear that the representative system from schools to central committees works well, the University may wish to review its arrangements in this area. The University may also wish to review its procedures that ensure that resolutions of Academic Board which require attention by other committees are acted upon. A clear strength of the University's quality management systems is the participation of staff from support departments in the work of committees at all levels, in ad hoc groups, in quality assurance procedures and, in general, the close integration of academic and support departments. Students are fully involved in the committee work of the University. Feedback from students in committees, and from other means such as course evaluation surveys, is taken seriously and acted upon. Feedback to students on actions and consideration of their views is effective and closes the feedback loop. The University is generally responsive to feedback from a wide variety of sources. The considerable weight of evidence that the University is able to reflect on its own practices gives confidence that corrective action will be taken in the limited number of instances where improvements could be made. In summary, a high degree of confidence can be placed in the University's ability to manage its responsibilities for quality now and into the future.

92 The maintenance of the standards of the awards of the University builds upon a clear understanding of national developments, including the use of generic level descriptors, application of grading criteria and the employment of specified learning outcomes in course design. There is good provision of student support and guidance to assist the diverse student intake to attain the academic standards set and maintained by the institution. The precepts of the QAA Code of practice on postgraduate research programmes are being applied throughout the University. There is a preparedness to apply national subject benchmark standards as they become available. Comparability of standards across the University is supported by common regulations for taught and research degree programmes and wide-ranging use of assessment criteria. The external examiner system is applied to assure comparability with national standards in higher education, although the University could usefully take further action to improve management information which supports procedures associated with external examining. The University is well placed to achieve its mission of widening access whilst maintaining national standards, and confidence can be placed in its ability to assure the standards of its academic awards.

93 The University has a clear strategy for collaborative provision which is to strengthen and expand well established partnerships with a network of further education colleges in Wales, supporting the University's mission to widen participation and contribute to social regeneration. Major partners have been accorded associate college status, and the University has recently developed the status of community college for some of its smaller partners. Accreditation procedures have been established so that, in the future, the University might be able to give greater independence to associate colleges who demonstrate appropriate maturity. As part of the University's strategic refocusing, further overseas franchising has been suspended whilst a review of international activities is undertaken. It is understood that the University's intention for overseas collaborative activity in future is to support only distance learning and articulation agreements. The University applies the same quality assurance procedures to quality and standards in collaborative provision as it does for in-house provision, but with less delegation to schools. There is evidence that the framework for management of quality and standards is effective and as embedded in collaborative provision as in the University's internal provision.

94 There are clear mechanisms for staff development and support. The University and its partner colleges are demonstrably committed to quality enhancement and dissemination of good practice, as evidenced by the range of formal and informal committees and working groups. Franchise officers in the University's schools make an important contribution to the quality of collaborative provision through close and effective working relationships with their opposite numbers in the partner colleges. The University and its partners are well aware of the QAA Code of practice on collaborative provision, and are taking active steps to reflect on its implications and confirm adherence to its precepts.

95 The findings of this audit demonstrate the commitment of the staff of the University to quality management, maintenance of standards and support for students. There is a wide-ranging and effective informal communication process that supports and underpins the University's formal procedures, with the result that staff have been fully involved in the development of the University's strategic plan, and have a sense of ownership of it. The University will, no doubt, take the opportunity to continue to develop and refine its relatively new devolved quality assurance procedures as it implements its plan to change the structure of the academic year by 2002, involving the review and revalidation of courses and the development of substantially new academic regulations. As it develops this ambitious plan, the University will wish to keep under review its ability to fulfil both of these objectives simultaneously, and to ensure that those staff primarily responsible for managing these changes have appropriate central and school-level support.

Points for commendation

96 Many aspects of the University's approach to the maintenance of quality and standards of its academic provision are worthy of commendation, in particular:

i the way in which devolution of quality procedures has promoted active participation of staff, including support staff, in the management of quality and standards (passim);

ii the balance that has been achieved between central and devolved responsibilities for quality assurance (paragraphs 28 and 30);

iii a clear strategy for collaborative provision which is supporting the University's mission to widen participation in Wales (paragraphs 37 and 38);

iv the application of effective procedures to maintain quality and standards in UK collaborative provision, and the central contribution made by franchise officers in maintaining close and effective working relationships between the University and its collaborative partners (paragraphs 39, 40 and 72);

v the attention given to learning outcomes and generic level descriptors and assessment criteria in defining its framework for academic standards across the University and its collaborative partners (paragraphs 43 and 45);

vi institutional commitment to quality enhancement and dissemination of good practice within internal and collaborative provision using a range of formal and informal processes (paragraphs 50, 56 and 78).

Points for further consideration

97 As the University continues to review and develop its quality assurance processes it is invited to consider the advisability of:

i considering the merit of developing a University-wide framework to guide the establishment of school level management committees (and their sub-committees) and a formal reporting line from the schools to Academic Board (paragraphs 24 and 26);

ii continuing to improve the consistency, quality and timeliness of reports arising from the annual monitoring process (paragraphs 33, 35 and 36);

iii improving the management information which supports procedures associated with external examining (paragraph 54);

iv continuing to review the academic staff probation system with respect to the duration of the probationary period and the consistency of its application (paragraphs 69 and 74).

Appendix 1*

University of Glamorgan - facts and figures 1999-2000

History

The University of Glamorgan started life in 1913 as a School of Mines offering a limited range of vocational courses to the local community. As Glamorgan Polytechnic and later The Polytechnic of Wales, it expanded its subject portfolio and became the only institution in Wales to be fully accredited by the CNAA for all awards from Cert HE to PhD. It became the University of Glamorgan in 1992 and currently offers courses in all categories of HEFCW-funded subject areas, with the exception of Medicine. It has expanded its research activities, concentrating on areas of strength identified in earlier RAE exercises, whilst encouraging new developments across the board. Its student population is a balance of Welsh (71 per cent), rest of UK (18 per cent) and overseas students (11 per cent). Part of its mission is to widen access which means that these students come from a variety of backgrounds and age groups. The University further provides valuable access to HE in Wales through its long-established and extensive collaborative network.

Mission

The University's vision is 'to be a premier UK modern university and to advance - within the wider international HE context - the economic, social and cultural priorities of Wales'.

Its mission is:- to educate students to national standards;
- to produce employable graduates;
- to generate and disseminate knowledge;
- to serve the community in Wales.

In order to achieve this, the University has set itself key strategic goals relating to attracting and retaining the appropriate students and staff; enhancing learning and teaching; extending its research activities; generating income from a variety of sources and contributing to the creation of wealth and social regeneration in Wales. The University is particularly conscious of its role and obligations in the Principality. This is evidenced in its community projects, its access policy (both in general and for Nursing in particular), and the consultancy and skills updating services for local businesses.

The University has achieved national recognition through its three centres of excellence and has achieved excellent ratings for 10 out of the 17 teaching quality assessments carried out since 1995. Throughout the various institutional changes, the University has striven hard to maintain its reputation for service and friendliness - a factor which has influenced the UCAS choices of many students, both UK and overseas.

Schools

The University is based on a 40 acre campus at Treforest. It is organised into eight schools - Applied Sciences; Business; Care Sciences; Computing; Electronics; Humanities and Social Sciences; Law; Technology.

Number of students 1999-2000

Listed by school

School
Business	6,050
Technology	2,431
Humanities & Social Sciences	2,120
Applied Sciences	1,897
Computing	1,686
Care Sciences	1,519
Electronics	1,204
Continuing Education	1,104
Combined Studies	565
Law	360
Outreach	241
Centre for Lifelong Learning	58
Total	19,235

Student characteristics (total population)

Gender	FT	PT	Total
Male	5,915	4,277	10,192
Female	4,982	4,061	9,043
Total	10,897	8,338	19,235

Mature students

Proportion of full-time undergraduate population aged 21 or over on entry - 27 per cent

Proportion of part-time undergraduate population aged 21 or over on entry - 46 per cent

Domicile

	UK	Other EU	Overseas	Total
Undergraduate	15,076	1,077	335	16,488
Postgraduate (taught)	2,051	192	191	2,434
Postgraduate (research)	220	52	41	313
Total	17,347	1,321	567	19,235

Institutional staff (1999-2000)

	FT	PT
Number of staff employed by the institution	1,082.04	122.43
Number of academic/research staff	507.00	25.21

*as supplied by the University of Glamorgan

Appendix 2*

List of the University's collaborative partnerships as at 1 September 1999

1 Validated programmes (known as outreach in Wales)

External institution	Programme title
Aberdare College	ISM Certificate/Diploma (PT)
Barry College	HNC Aeronautical Engineering HNC Aerospace Maintenance Engineering HND Aerospace Maintenance Engineering (PT)
Bridgend College	HNC Building HNC Building Engineering
Carmarthenshire College of Art and Technology (CCTA)	HNC Building HNC Mechanical & Production Engineering HND Electrical & Electronic Engineering HND Mechanical & Manufacturing Engineering
Coleg Menai	HNC Mechanical & Production Engineering
Evangelical Theological College of Wales (ETCW)	BA Theological Studies BA Theology (PT) MTh Modern Evangelical Theory (FT) MTh Modern Evangelical Theory (PT)
Llandrillo College	HNC Food Technology (PT)
Pembrokeshire College	HND Community Care Top-up (PT)

2 Franchised programmes

External institution	Programme title
Aberdare College	HNC Business Administration HND Business Administration Top-up HNC Electrical & Electronic Engineering HNC Computer Aided Engineering HNC Mechanical & Manufacturing Engineering
Barry College	HNC Business Administration HND Business Administration Top-up HNC Electrical & Electronic Engineering HND Manufacturing & Business Studies (PT)
Blackburn College	BA Accounting & Finance BA Accounting & Finance (PT) BA Leisure and Recreation Management (FT & SW) BA Leisure and Tourism Management (SW) HNC Legal Studies HND Legal Studies LLB Fast Track (qualifying) LLB Fast Track (non-qualifying) LLB Law (PT) LLB Law Top-up - qualifying
Bridgend College	BA/HND Business Administration HNC Business Administration HND Business Administration Top-up ( PT) PGC/PGD Management (PT) HNC Legal Studies Diploma in HE in Computing (PT) HNC Business Information Technology HNC Computing HND Computing
CCTA	BA/HND Business Administration HNC Business Administration HNC Business Administration Top-up MBA (Direct Delivery for final stage) (PT) HND Sports Science (Performance Analysis) HNC Business Information Technology HND Business Information Technology HNC Computing HND Computing HNC Multimedia HND Multimedia HNC Software Engineering HND Software Engineering BSc Electrical & Electronic Engineering (PT) HNC/D Electrical Engineering/Electronics (PT) HNC/D Mechatronics (PT) HNC/D Mechanical & Manufacturing Engineering (PT) HNC/D Medical Electronics (PT) HND Medical Electronics (FT) HNC Estates Administration HNC Facilities Management HND Building Studies (PT) BSc Mechanical & Manufacturing Engineering Top-up
CMA, Athens	BA Business Studies MBA International (PT) MBA International (FT) BSc Multimedia Computing BSc Software Engineering
Coleg Gwent - Crosskeys	HNC Business Information Technology HNC Graphic Design : Photography HND Graphic Design: Photography HND Textile Design & Garment Manufacture
Coleg Gwent - Ebbw Vale	HNC Business Information Technology HND Business Information Technology
Coleg Gwent - Newport	HNC Business Administration
Coleg Gwent - Pontypool	HNC Business Administration : Executive Secretary HNC Business Administration HNC Electrical & Electronic Engineering HNC Graphic Design HND Graphic Design HND CAE Top-up (PT) HNC Computer Aided Engineering
Coleg Gwent - Usk	BA/HND Business Administration HND Legal Studies HNC Exercise Science with Business HNC Exercise Science with Business Top-up (PT) HND Exercise Science with Business HNC Applied Computer Networking
Coleg Menai	HNC Business Administration PGC/D Management (PT) HNC Building Studies HND Building Studies HNC Civil Engineering HND Civil Engineering Top-up (PT)
Coleg Powys	HNC Business Administration HND Business Administration Top-up (PT) HNC Business Information Technology HNC Mechanical & Manufacturing Engineering
Cork College of Commerce	DipHE Property Management & Valuation
Kensington College	BA Business Studies MBA International (Direct Delivery all stages)
Llandrillo College	BA Hospitality Management (FT) BA Business Adminstration BA/HND Business Administration HNC Business Administration HND Business Administration Top-up (PT) HNC Business Administration (Fast track) HND Leisure, Sport & Recreation Management HND Travel & Tourism Management PGC/D Management (PT) HNC Legal Studies HND Legal Studies HND Sports Science HNC Early Childhood Studies HNC Business Information Technology HND Business Information Technology HND Business Information Technology Top-up (PT) HNC Computing HND Computing HNC Information Systems HNC Network Administration HND Network Administration HNC Software Engineering HND Software Engineering HNC Media Technology HND Media Technology HNC Personal Computer Technology HNC Fashion & Textile Design with Technology HND Fashion & Textile Design with Technology HNC Computer Aided Engineering HND Computer Aided Engineering HNC Mechanical & Manufacturing Engineering
Merthyr Tydfil College	HNC Business Administration HNC Business Administration (Evening only) HND Business Administration Top-up (PT) PGC Management (PT)
Neath College	HND Business Administration Top-up HNC Sports Science (Human Movement) HND Sports Science (Human Movement) HND Sports Science (Health & Exercise) HNC Business Information Technology BDip (Higher) Communication Systems Tech (PT) HNC Electrical & Electronic Engineering HNC Mechatronic Engineering HNC Personal Computer Technology HNC Building Studies HNC Business Administration
Pembrokeshire College	Diploma in Professional Practice (PT) HNC Automotive Engineering HNC Business Administration PGC/D Management (PT) BSc Coastal Zone & Marine Environment Studies HNC Coastal Zone HND Coastal Zone & Marine Environment Studies HNC Sports Science (Outdoor Activities) HND Sports Science HND Sports Science (Marine Pursuits) HND Sports Science (Outdoor Activities) BSc Professional Practice (Midwifery) (PT) BSc Professional Practice (Nursing) (PT) HNC Business Information Technology HND Business Information Technology BDip (Higher) Communication Tech (PT) BSc/HND Electrical & Electronic Engineering (PT) HNC Electrical & Electronic Engineering HNC Mechatronic Engineering HNC Personal Computer Technology HND Energy Resources Technology HND Media Technology HNC Architectural & Building Conservation HND Architectural & Building Conservation BSc Mechanical & Manufacturing Engineering (PT) HNC Computer Aided Design HNC Industrial Design HND Industrial Design HNC Leisure Boat Design HND Leisure Boat Design HNC Mechanical & Manufacturing Engineering
Pencoed College	HNC Landscape Design HND Landscape Design HND Landscape Science HND Animal Science (Agriculture) HND Animal Science (Animal Care) HND Animal Science (Equine)
Pontypridd College	HNC Business Administration HND Business Administration Top-up (PT) HNC Business Information Technology HNC Mechatronic Engineering HND Mechatronic Engineering BA Animation HNC Building Studies HND Building Studies (PT) HNC Civil Engineering
Portobello College, Dublin	BA Business Studies BA Business Studies (PT)
Swansea College	PGC/D Management (PT)
Tampere Institute, Finland	MSc Quality & Environmental Management MSc Quality & Environmental Management (PT) MSc Quality in Business Management
Welsh College of Horticulture	HNC Animal Science HND Animal Science HNC Landscape Design HNC Landscape Science HND Landscape Science HND Landscape Technology
Ystrad Mynach	HNC Business Adminstration (Evenings only) HND Business Administration Top-up (PT) HNC Business Information Technology BA Humanities

3 Franchised modules

External institution	Programme title
Open College of the Arts	Starting to write The experience of poetry Storylines Advanced writing

4 Other collaborative programmes

Joint Delivery

External institution	Programme title
Pontypridd College	BA/HND Graphic Design BSc Product Design
Welsh College of Music & Drama	BA Theatre & Media Drama

Direct Delivery

External institution	Programme title
EMIC, Bahrain	MBA (PT) MBA (FT)
EMIC, Dubai	MBA (FT)

Advanced Standing

Centre Internationale d'Etude des Langues (CIEL), France

Dimitreli College, Greece

Groupe ESC Normandie, France

Fachhochschule Hanover, Germany

Högskolan Dalarna, Sweden

Shue Yan, China

Suzhou, China

University of Applied Sciences, Bremen, Germany

Université Jean Monnet, France

*as supplied by the University of Glamorgan

University of Glamorgan Quality Audit Report September 2000

Contents

Foreword

Method and process

The context for the audit

Background

Previous quality audits

Major developments since the 1995 HEQC audit

The Analytical Account

Strategic approach to quality management

Context

Regulations and frameworks

Committees with a quality remit

Course planning and resources

Validation and approval of changes

Periodic review

Annual monitoring

Collaborative provision

Summary

Academic standards

Definition of standards

Admission of students

Student assessment and the classification of awards

External examiners

External comparability: the role of accrediting bodies

Evaluation and improvement of procedures

Standards of research degrees

Summary

Learning infrastructure

Library, laboratory and information technology

Management, planning and feedback

Information Systems and Campus Services

Student support and guidance

Recruitment, appointment and probation of staff

Staff development

Teaching and learning strategy

Internal and external communications

Communications with staff

Staff induction

Communications with students: publicity and recruitment material

Student induction

Student representation

Course and programme information

Academic appeals procedures

The Student Charter

Conclusions

Points for commendation

Points for further consideration

Appendix 1*

University of Glamorgan - facts and figures 1999-2000

History

Mission

Schools

Number of students 1999-2000

Listed by school

Student characteristics (total population)

Mature students

Domicile

Institutional staff (1999-2000)

Appendix 2*

List of the University's collaborative partnerships as at 1 September 1999

1 Validated programmes (known as outreach in Wales)

2 Franchised programmes

3 Franchised modules

4 Other collaborative programmes

Joint Delivery

Direct Delivery

Advanced Standing

University of Glamorgan
Quality Audit Report
September 2000