Foreword
1 This is a report of an academic quality audit of Glasgow Caledonian University (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 Handbook of Procedures for Academic Quality Assurance, the Summary of the University Strategic Plan, 1999-2000 - 2002-03, its Undergraduate Prospectus, its Postgraduate Prospectus and its Part-time Prospectus. 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 University's documents on its web site; and published reports of teaching quality assessments and subject reviews conducted by the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council (SHEFC) for the University and its collaborative partners.
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 in a base room during the audit visit.
5 The audit team visited the University from 30 October to 3 November 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 University's web site and its intranet. The team held a total of 16 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 Dr S A Dilly, Dr S Jackson and Professor T J Kemp, auditors; and Mr P A Probyn 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 2000-01, prepared by the University is attached as appendix 1. A list of the University's collaborative partnerships, current at January 2001, is included as appendix 2.
The context for the audit
Background
8 Glasgow Caledonian University was established in 1993 as a merger between Glasgow Polytechnic and The Queen's College, Glasgow. It was further extended in 1996 by the transfer of programmes in health from the Nursing and Midwifery Colleges in Glasgow. The academic structure of the University comprises three faculties: Science and Technology; Health; and the Caledonian Business School. At the time of the audit visit, the University was located on two sites, the City Campus and the Park Campus (formerly The Queen's College, Glasgow) but was actively engaged in consolidating all its academic activity onto its City Campus.
9 The University's mission includes a commitment to providing 'flexible life-long learning opportunities to students from a wide variety of backgrounds and at different stages of their lives'. The Account stated that the University 'specifically targets widening access provision to support the local community', and claimed that the University could demonstrate success in achieving this. The claim was based on a report on performance indicators, recently published by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), which, according to the Account, showed that the University had 'performed well in terms of widening participation and exceptionally well in terms of attracting students from low participation neighbourhoods and mature students with no previous HE experience'. The audit team was mindful of this context in its consideration of the University's approach to quality management.
10 HEQC conducted an audit of the University's quality assurance procedures in 1994 (reporting in 1995), and an audit of collaborative provision in 1996. The reports of these audits identified a number of points for further consideration which the University has acted upon as it has continued to develop its strategic approach to assuring the quality of provision and the academic standards of its awards.
11 The University has experienced some turbulence in its internal organisation and management structure over the past five years. The 1995 HEQC audit report noted that, at the time of the merger, the intention had been to establish a 'fully integrated institution' which would operate as 'a single entity with appropriate governance, academic and administrative structures'. In pursuit of this objective the senior managers who formed the University's Executive brought forward proposals, in 1996, for the reorganisation of the academic structure from three faculties into six schools. Implementation of the revised structure began in 1997, but was interrupted by changes in the Executive. In the light of continuing disquiet among staff, Senate revisited the restructuring proposals, and took the decision to revert to the former faculty structure until the end of the 1999-2000 academic year. Following the installation of a revised Executive, the issue of internal academic organisation was, at the time of the audit visit, once again under active consideration.
12 During the period May 1997 to September 1998, the Executive was led by a senior member of staff in the role of Acting Principal, the Principal having left the University in May 1997 following a SHEFC/National Audit Office investigation into alleged abuses of authority. Partly as a result of the disruption and the uncertainty about internal academic structures, the Account explained that little progress was made on the revision of quality assurance procedures during the interregnum, and acknowledged that some established procedures, such as programme monitoring, were not rigorously applied during this difficult period.
13 At this time, the University was also under review following the receipt of formal allegations of academic misconduct from a former member of staff. The University Court commissioned an investigation into the circumstances of the case in 1997. The report of the investigation, the Darby Report, whilst dismissing many of the allegations and concluding that academic standards had not been compromised, identified a number of issues relating to the University's governance and quality assurance procedures. The Darby Report has influenced the University's developing strategy for quality, and resulted in a number of significant changes.
14 The incoming Principal, who was appointed in 1998, instigated a review
of institutional structures and procedures to include governance, resource
allocation and portfolio analysis. This review was still in process at
the time of the audit visit, and hence the audit team found that many of
the University's structures were either recently established or still under
consideration. The focus of this audit, therefore, was necessarily on the
University's current position and on its current and future ability to
discharge its responsibilities for quality and standards. The team formed
the view that the changed and changing structures, and the revised mission
and values of the University, would generally strengthen the University's
ability to fulfil its responsibilities, but it recognised that the evidence
to support this view would become available only when the new structures
had been in operation for long enough to allow a full quality assurance
cycle to have been completed.
Governance structures
15 In the light of the recent internal upheavals, the University has given detailed consideration to the effectiveness of its governance structures, and to achieving an appropriate balance between the need for executive leadership and the involvement of all staff within a collegial institution. The University Court established a Governance Task Force to define a set of principles and values which would underpin the University's approach to the management of its affairs, but decided to postpone a fundamental review of the University's academic governance structure and arrangements until after the completion of this quality audit. The Account explained that the set of principles and values included 'mutual respect; selflessness; integrity; objectivity; accountability; openness; honesty; quality and propriety'. The audit team was interested to explore how effectively these principles and values were being communicated within the University (see below, paragraphs 94 et seq).
The Analytical Account
16 In preparation for the audit the University produced an Account outlining the principal characteristics of its strategy for quality assurance and the maintenance of academic standards. The Account provided a clear and frank review of the University's difficulties of the recent past and identified the methods the University had employed to compensate for the upheavals and discontinuities in quality assurance processes. It also detailed the current procedures and likely future developments, and as such provided a useful basis for the conduct of the audit. The Account was prepared by a Task Force with representation from the Executive, the faculties and the support departments, reflecting the new ethos of openness and transparency advocated by the University's senior management. The audit team considered that the Account was a positive indicator of the University's capacity for constructive analysis of the effectiveness of its management of quality and standards.
Strategic approach to quality management
Background
17 The 1995 HEQC audit report referred to the University's 'rigorous though rather inflexible and cautious systems built from the CNAA inheritance', and encouraged the University to consider how it might 'streamline some of its quality assurance procedures without loss of rigour'. As part of its 1998 review of quality assurance procedures (see above, paragraph 14), the University took the decision to devolve to faculties the responsibility for the review, monitoring and enhancement of the quality and standards of their academic provision. According to the Account, the purpose of this devolution was to maintain rigorous procedures while 'placing responsibility for quality assurance as close to the point of delivery as is practicable'. The latter quotation is taken from the Handbook of Procedures for Academic Quality Assurance (see below, paragraph 21), which goes on to emphasise that, in the implementation of its policies for quality assurance, the University has a commitment to the principles of self-evaluation, peer review, local responsibility and a 'right first time' culture.
18 Within the revised management structure, responsibility for academic quality and standards has been shared between three key posts. The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Learning) has overall responsibility for quality and standards policy as part of a remit for all academic affairs. The Assistant Principal (Quality) coordinates the University's internal quality audit and quality assurance procedures; the postholder was elected by the academic staff and has a role of keeping an objective eye on a wide range of quality matters. The Chair of the University's Academic Quality and Standards Committee (AQSC) (see below, paragraph 19) is independently appointed by Senate, and reports on the outcomes of quality assurance activity directly to Senate. Through these three senior posts, the University has separated the exercise of executive responsibility for quality from the oversight of the operation of quality and standards procedures.
Committee structures
19 The University Senate 'determines policies for the maintenance of academic standards, the validation, monitoring and enhancement of programmes and the systems for determining the efficacy of these policies'. The responsibility for ensuring the implementation of these University policies rests with AQSC. This Committee oversees the effectiveness of quality procedures within faculties, and provides a forum for institutional debate on quality matters. The Academic Planning and Policy Committee (APPC) and the Learning and Teaching Committee (LTC) have terms of reference which also cover some aspects of academic standards. Cross-representation between these three senior committees provides opportunities for ensuring that issues are shared and links are maintained.
20 The terms of reference of AQSC cover a substantial range of functions, including 'maintaining a strategic focus on matters related to academic quality assurance within the University and advising Senate on the ongoing development of best practice in relation to academic quality assurance and academic standards as developed throughout higher education nationally and internationally'. The Committee is supported by five sub-committees:
- the Programmes Sub-Committee;
- the Assessment Regulations Sub-Committee (see below, paragraph 63);
- the Internal Quality Audit Sub-Committee (see below, paragraph 32);
- the Postgraduate Learning Contracts Sub-Committee;
- the Quality Assurance Sub-Committee (see below, paragraph 30).
The Account explained that AQSC was responsible for 'receiving and,
where appropriate approving, on behalf of Senate, recommendations from
faculties on all matters related to the maintenance of standards and the
enhancement of quality'.
Faculty structures
21 Under arrangements for devolving operational authority for quality assurance procedures to the faculties, each faculty is responsible to Senate, via AQSC, for its own quality procedures. The University's Handbook of Procedures for Academic Quality Assurance sets out the responsibility of the faculties 'for ensuring the effective design and implementation of processes and procedures to review, monitor and enhance the quality and standards of their academic provision'. The audit team saw that the Handbook provided a series of definitive statements concerning the functions of the main committees concerned with quality assurance and of procedures relating to validation, quality assurance and enhancement of modules. The team considered the Handbook to be a useful reference source for staff concerned with the quality assurance of modules and programmes.
22 The Handbook outlines the institutional framework, but there is no compulsion on faculties to maintain identical procedural structures. Faculties are given flexibility, according to the Account, to 'devise methods and procedures for implementation which best reflect their individual programme and subject requirements within the broad framework of University policy'. To this end, each faculty produces a handbook for its own scheme of procedures for quality assurance. The audit team considered the implications of this approach, particularly with regard to the consistency of implementation between faculties. Despite the permitted flexibility, in practice the different handbooks appeared to the team to have a high degree of commonality in the application of quality assurance procedures, and the team gained the view that each faculty had provided an appropriate interpretation of the University's quality strategy within the agreed policy framework.
23 Each faculty has its own AQSC which has principal responsibility for the operational arrangements for quality assurance within the faculty. Faculty AQSCs report to the University AQSC and to the relevant faculty assembly or board. They consider and approve all external assessor appointments within their faculty, and approve the composition of subject quality groups (SQGs), programme boards (PB), subject area assessment boards (SAABs) and progression and awards boards (PABs). For every approved programme of study there is a corresponding PB. According to the Account, PBs are responsible to their faculty and to Senate for 'the academic health and well-being of their programme including the maintenance of academic standards, the ongoing academic coherence and development of the programme, consideration of external assessor reports, the maintenance of appropriate links with professional and statutory bodies (PSBs) and the overall quality of the student experience'. Their responsibilities are focused at programme level.
24 At the module level, responsibility for ensuring the maintenance of academic quality and standards falls to SQGs. These are defined as 'sub-discipline' groupings which bring together staff with common academic interests, and are responsible to faculties 'for the development, maintenance, monitoring and review of all modules within their subject area remit'. The Account explained that 'in short, SQG is responsible for all aspects of modular development and delivery including, and in particular, the ongoing academic health of each module for which it holds responsibility'. Although all SQGs have a common remit, they vary significantly in size between departments and faculties. Some SQGs represent small groupings of staff within a defined academic area, while others represent very large departments. In the latter case, SQGs have set up a number of sub-SQGs to deal with the interests of particular subject areas. Some PBs and SQGs represent effectively the same groupings of staff.
25 The University acknowledges that there have been some difficulties with the inter-relationship between PBs and SQGs, and has debated these difficulties in meetings of Senate. The principal points of issue are the communication and reporting links between SQGs and PBs, and the different relationships that exist across different programmes. The University is attempting to resolve these difficulties by seeking advice from faculties and AQSC (see below, paragraph 56). The audit team would encourage the University to continue to seek clarity in the respective roles and responsibilities of PBs and SQGs in its current review of faculty structures.
26 Each programme of study is led by a programme organiser who has overall responsibility for coordinating the contributions from SQGs and for completing annual monitoring requirements. It was not clear to the audit team, from its discussions with staff of the three faculties, to whom programme organisers reported. Nor was the team clear, from its discussions with faculty staff, how the outcomes of annual monitoring were brought to bear on the allocation of resources for the delivery of programmes (see below, paragraph 35). The University may wish to consider the operation of its faculty academic structures to ensure that there is an effective linkage between management structures, resource allocation mechanisms and quality assurance arrangements.
Programme approval
27 In line with the University's objective of seeking to streamline quality
assurance procedures without loss of rigour, as recommended in the 1995
HEQC audit report, a revised approach to programme approval has been adopted
as a result of the 1998 review of quality assurance procedures. In the
planning phase, proposed new programmes are required to gain approval from
APPC, which considers the rationale, resource requirements and links to
the University's Strategic Plan. Subsequently, proposals are considered
by a faculty programme approval panel which examines the academic quality
and standards of the programme; a panel will normally include at least
two external peers. Final approval is granted by AQSC on the recommendation
of the appropriate faculty AQSC. The Account emphasised that the
previous two-stage validation procedures had been streamlined into this
single-stage event, 'with responsibility for ensuring its proper conduct
fully devolved to the faculty', and added that it was 'incumbent upon each
faulty to ensure that the process is "right first time"'.
Programme monitoring
28 PBs are responsible for reporting annually on the progress of their
programmes of study. Previously this had taken the form of annual PB reports
(APBRs) which included a significant amount of narrative commentary. These
are being replaced by programme annual monitoring statements (PAMS), which
include statistical information on key performance indicators (admissions,
progression, final awards, employability). PAMS normally include information
from annual module reports completed by SQGs, although the audit team was
informed that practice currently varied between faculties and departments.
In discussions with staff, it became clear to the team that a factor that
obstructed the effective completion of annual monitoring was the poor quality
of some of the student management information available to PBs and SQGs.
The University has acknowledged this, and has implemented developments
to address the issue.
Programme review
29 Programme approval is time-limited, and after a specified period (normally five years) programmes are reviewed to test their 'academic health and operational effectiveness'. In its Account, the University indicated that it was moving away from the review of individual programmes to the review of clusters of related programmes. This cognate area review (CAR) is conducted at faculty level, and is based largely on existing documentation generated by module and programme monitoring. Review panels include representatives from outside the faculty. The original idea behind CAR was to align internal review processes more closely to the requirements of external teaching quality assurance. At the time of the audit visit only a few CARs had been conducted. The audit team learnt that the University was considering how best to continue with this approach to the review of programme clusters in the context of the recently introduced QAA academic review procedures.
30 These developments in the processes of programme approval, monitoring and review resulted from the deliberations of a Quality Assurance Working Group whose remit had been to make the University's quality assurance processes more flexible, less onerous in demands on staff time, more appropriate to the nature of the process being undertaken, but without loss of rigour. The Working Group has now been established as the Quality Assurance Sub-Committee of AQSC, with the remit to keep under review the University's processes and procedures for quality assurance to ensure that they remain fit for their purpose. The Account noted that the Sub-Committee would also be addressing a view held by some staff that 'despite recent innovations, the University processes for academic quality assurance remain somewhat inflexible and protracted'. The audit team had some sympathy with that view, but considered that, at this time, considering the significance of recent changes, it was appropriate that the University should continue to establish full confidence in the effectiveness of its quality assurance procedures before looking for further streamlining. The team was therefore particularly interested in the audit-based scheme which it has established to oversee the effectiveness of its monitoring and review procedures.
Internal quality audit
31 In 1998 the University set up an Internal Quality Audit Office, whose remit was described in the Account as being to 'monitor and check internally that all of the institutional academic quality assurance procedures are properly established and enacted'. Internal quality audit is intended to support the devolution of responsibility for quality to faculties by providing an independent mechanism for monitoring existing quality assurance procedures. Where an internal quality audit finds that a procedure is not working as it should, its principal function is to identify whether the fault lies in the procedure itself or with those responsible for carrying out the procedure, and to make recommendations accordingly. This responsibility is discharged through audits of three types:
- procedural audits of PBs and SQGs, to ensure adherence to quality procedures at faculty and University levels;
- academic audits of whole faculties, annually, to assess the effectiveness of the faculties' discharge of their devolved responsibilities for quality assurance;
- thematic audits of selected operational procedures to assess their effectiveness in relation to quality assurance.
32 The process of internal quality audit is overseen by the Internal Quality Audit Sub-Committee which reports to AQSC. Internal auditors are selected from both academic and administrative staff, and are trained in the methodology and procedures of the process. Internal audit reports identify issues for consideration and elements of good practice, and result in the production of an action plan. The process is comprehensively described in a Handbook of the Internal Quality Audit System, which emphasised that 'a fundamental principle of the internal quality audit system is that it is based on the utilisation of existing documentation which would be expected to be produced in the normal course of events'. Each internal audit is coordinated by a 'facilitator' who directs the auditors to the relevant evidence and supports them with provision of any clarification that may be required. The first round of internal audits was conducted during the session 1998-99, and an analysis of the key issues arising from this first round was reported to AQSC.
33 Evidence of the outcomes of all three types of internal quality audits was made available to the audit team, together with details of analysis and action resulting from the audit reports. The team was particularly interested to note that the effectiveness of AQSC itself had been the subject of a recent thematic audit. From its discussions with staff, the team heard about the usefulness of the process and the benefits that had been identified, and formed the view that the internal quality audit was performing a valuable, and valued, role in securing the effectiveness of the University's quality assurance procedures. The team commends the University for the establishment of the internal audit process, whilst recognising that, over time, the University might be able to move the process toward a 'lighter touch' as it develops confidence in the effectiveness of its approach to quality management.
Strategic planning
34 The University produces an annual strategic planning document which details its principal objectives and key targets over a five year period. In the light of recent discussions about governance, and to ensure greater involvement of staff, a revised planning process has been established which includes input from support teams as well as academic departments. The Strategic Plan provides a framework within which individual faculties and departments develop more detailed plans and set specific objectives.
35 In the revised planning process, the University has identified the importance of the link between strategic planning and resource allocation. Over the past three years a new resource allocation model (RAM) has been developed which distributes SHEFC teaching income between departments on the basis of student numbers and units of resource, less a contribution to University overheads. This model exhibits a number of significant differences in departmental funding from the historical budget setting process previously used. In its discussions with staff, the audit team heard frequent reference to the difficulties experienced by some departments which are currently classified as 'RAM negative', and therefore needing to consider ways of aligning costs more closely to income. As it continues to develop this methodology, the University will wish to ensure that due consideration is given to the impact on the quality of students' learning experience of changes in resource allocation.
Research degrees
36 Overall responsibility for the quality assurance of research degrees rests with the Research Degrees Committee (RDC). The Account explained that the Committee monitored 'the quality of supervision that is offered, the facilities and equipment which are available and the development of research and employment-related skills'. Faculties and departments have a responsibility to ensure the operational aspects of quality assurance are completed and that appropriate training and support are provided for research students.
37 The progress of research students is monitored informally on a regular basis and by an annual report which is completed jointly by the student and by their Director of Studies. Students are also required to complete an annual feedback questionnaire, the results of which are considered by RDC. The audit team learnt that there was a continuing concern about the low level of response to the questionnaire, particularly in view of the value attached to student feedback in ensuring the quality of research support. From the documentation available to it, the team formed the view that the University had effective procedures for assuring the quality of provision for research students, but would encourage the University to continue to seek ways of securing a greater return from the annual feedback questionnaire.
Quality and standards in collaborative provision
38 The Account emphasised that the University was 'committed to the development of collaborative links within its overall educational mission'. In its approach to the management of quality and standards in collaborative arrangements, the University makes a distinction between UK and overseas collaborations. Quality management in UK collaborative arrangements is the responsibility of the relevant faculty, while for overseas arrangements this responsibility is retained centrally by AQSC. The audit team noted the statement in the Account that 'from session 1999-2000 all collaborative arrangements had to comply with the relevant QAA Code of practice', and that the Internal Quality Audit office 'used the QAA Code of practice as the basis for preparing its audit checklists'. The Handbook of Procedures for Academic Quality Assurance also states that 'in all collaborative arrangements, GCU will follow the QAA Code of practice on collaborative provision'. From its study of recent documentation, the team was able to confirm the steps taken by the University to check adherence to the precepts of that section of QAA's Code of practice relating to collaborative provision.
Local collaborative partnerships
39 The University has developed a close working relationship with a number of local colleges for the delivery of joint programmes and to facilitate progression of students onto degree programmes. Five further education colleges in the Strathclyde region have partnership arrangements with the University whereby they deliver HNC programmes in Applied Science that articulate directly with science-based programmes in the University's faculties of Health and Science and Technology. The HNC programmes have been developed by the University, allowing it to have oversight of the quality of articulation to study at degree level.
40 Two colleges, Glasgow College of Building and Printing and Glasgow College of Food Technology, have a 'special' relationship with the University as affiliate colleges. The affiliate college relationship is characterised by institutional cross-representation, whereby a senior member of staff of one college is a full member of the University's Senate, and members of the University's senior management serve as governors for the colleges. In addition to 2+2 articulation arrangements into selected BSc programmes in the University, the partnership with the affiliate colleges supports some joint programmes where staff of the affiliate college jointly deliver the programme with staff of the University. The University also offers a number of master's programmes jointly with the University of Strathclyde.
41 The local partner colleges and the University share a commitment to access and social inclusion. A significant proportion of the University's recruitment is from local colleges; the audit team understood that such recruitment made up more than a third of the University's total intake. The team formed the view that the University had established good working relations with its local collaborative partners, with whom it has a common purpose in widening participation to higher education, thus realising a main component of its Mission Statement.
42 There are two local collaborative arrangements for programmes involving off-campus delivery, one being a BEng (Hons) in Electronic Engineering in a link with Motorola, the other an MSc/PgD in Maintenance Management in a link with the Post Office. Both involve the delivery of existing full-time University programmes in the workplace. There was some initial concern expressed by AQSC about the quality assurance arrangements for such programmes, and evidence of some difficulties in the arrangements for the link with Motorola. The documentation available to the audit team indicated that the difficulties had been identified, debated and an action plan implemented. The team considered that broad confidence was justified in the University's ability to maintain high quality of provision and secure standards in all its local collaborative arrangements.
Overseas collaborative partnerships
43 The University also has a number of links with overseas partners. The Account described the University's approach to quality and standards in any collaborative arrangement as a requirement that students 'must achieve the same standards as those undertaking a programme of study at GCU'. Oversight of overseas collaborative arrangements, and the monitoring of implementation of quality assurance procedures, is retained centrally by AQSC. The University requires partner institutions to employ the same quality assurance procedures as it uses internally; the details of the required procedures are contained within a Memorandum of Agreement.
44 The Account explained, however, that some difficulties had been encountered in the management of overseas links, particularly in 'ensuring that the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement in relation to quality assurance procedures have been fully adhered to'. As a consequence, the University had withdrawn, or was in the process of withdrawing, from three of the overseas collaborative links. Its sole remaining overseas partner is the Caledonian College of Engineering in Oman.
45 For its continuing relationship with the Caledonian College of Engineering in Oman, the University has taken steps to ensure the effective management of the partnership and to safeguard the standards of its awards. An internal quality audit of the link was conducted in March 2000. From its study of the available documentation, and from discussions with University staff, the audit team formed the view that the internal quality audit of the College had been conducted in a thorough way, and considered that the report of the audit identified clearly a number of firm requirements and recommendations for both the University and the Caledonian College of Engineering. Subsequently, the University has produced (in July 2000) a Liaison Handbook, specifically for this relationship, to provide a detailed account of the procedures required for academic quality assurance, and to identify the respective roles and responsibilities of the Caledonian College and the University in ensuring the maintenance of the University's academic standards. These revised arrangements have addressed adherence to the precepts and guidance contained within the QAA's Code of practice on collaborative provision. It appeared to the team that the Liaison Handbook provided a good basis for reliable control of the delivery, quality assurance and standards of the franchised programmes at the Caledonian College of Engineering.
46 At the same time as the development of these measures to strengthen the University's oversight of its collaborative arrangements, there has been consideration of proposals to extend the range of provision in the Caledonian College of Engineering. A visiting panel of AQSC reviewed the operation of the existing franchised diploma programmes in April 2000, and considered a proposal from the Caledonian College that two of the franchised programmes be extended to level 3 (final year, BSc degree). The view of the visiting panel was that, despite some reservations held by the University, the evidence from the College demonstrated that sufficient progress had been made to warrant limited approval, for one year, for one of the programmes, although it deferred consideration of the other. The report of the visiting panel also identified a number of other requirements and recommendations which subsequently informed the development of the Liaison Handbook and the revised management arrangements. When the report of the visiting panel was considered by AQSC, representatives of the Faculty of Science and Technology reiterated concerns about extending provision to level 3. The issue was referred to Senate which, after extensive consideration, agreed to allow the proposals to go ahead on the understanding that the revised procedures, detailed in the Liaison Handbook, provided reassurance that the programme could be managed effectively. The audit team considered that the information available from the report of the internal quality audit and the report of the visiting panel had been carefully considered at University level.
Academic standards of awards
Institutional approach to academic standards
47 The Account set out a list of features of the University's approach to the maintenance and enhancement of academic standards. The audit team considered that the 12 features identified by the University could be characterised under three broad headings. First, the structures designed to ensure the security of academic standards in a modular framework, including two tiers of assessment boards at undergraduate level, the engagement of SQGs and PBs in module-level and programme-level assessments respectively, and the monitoring of the outcomes of assessment through faculty AQSCs to the University ASQC. Second, the documentation designed to support consistency in the determination of academic standards, from the use of standard module descriptors with defined learning outcomes, through programme regulations which define 'what must be achieved in terms of modular combination and underpinning to progress and to achieve an award', and an annually updated set of University Assessment Regulations governing the assessment process. Third, it was clear that external assessors played a key role in the maintenance of academic standards, from their involvement in the scrutiny of modules and programmes, through their participation in all assessment boards at undergraduate and postgraduate levels, to their formal reporting on the outcomes of assessment boards. The team was interested to gain a view of the effectiveness of these various features in maintaining the academic standards of the University's awards.
Modular structures
48 Shortly after the conferment of university status in 1993, the University adopted a credit-based, modular curriculum and a two semester year. The Account reported that, in establishing the University's modular structure, 'Senate was clear that modularity would be set within a framework of named awards with clear requirements for credit accumulation at each level of attainment'. Each module is worth 20 credit points, three modules are taken in each semester, and achievement of 120 points is required for progression to the next level. This framework has applied to all undergraduate levels since it came into full operation in 1995-96. The Account stated that this modular framework was designed to increase the flexibility of provision, and 'to underpin the University's strategic commitment to the opening up of access and the provision of vocational education to enhance the employability of graduates'. The Account went on, however, to acknowledge that 'concerns are emerging at the restricted approach of the model adopted', and referred to statistical analysis pointing to 'issues in relation to student progression'.
49 The issue of students' non-completion of programmes has been a matter of particular concern to the University. The University is well-aware of the potential tension between widening access and maintaining the standard of awards without dropping progression rates. The document Performance Indicators in Higher Education (HEFCE 99/66) while showing that the University had 'performed well in terms of widening participation' (see above, paragraph 9), also showed that the University was experiencing higher levels of student withdrawal than many other UK post-1992 universities. In part, this reflects the particular characteristics of the University's catchment, but the University also recognises that there are a number of possibilities for enhancing the experience of first year students and improving progression and completion rates. A careful analysis by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Learning) of the University's modular framework, assessment regulations and progression statistics in the light of the Performance Indicators Report resulted in a paper to Senate which indicated that the modular framework lacked flexibility and was 'restrictive of student choice, particularly at levels 1 and 2'.
50 The paper concluded that it was not inherently impossible to widen access and, at the same time, achieve good progression rates, and it supported this view with evidence of success in other universities. With regard to admissions standards, it drew attention to the differences between Scottish and other UK admissions arrangements, where Scottish students were generally younger and had 'Highers' rather than 'A' levels. Thus students entering the University have 'not achieved the same depth of knowledge in specific subjects before they enter University as is the case in the rest of the UK', and 'some staff also expressed the view that students on entry lacked some of the skills and competencies necessary to study at degree level'.
51 Discussion of the paper and its implications was still in progress at the time of the audit visit, and each faculty was reviewing the circumstances of student non-completion and identifying points for action. The Account reported that it was anticipated that 'changes in the modular structure to be piloted in the Faculty of Science and Technology in 2000-01 will be implemented University wide in 2001-02'. The audit team discussed these matters with a broad range of staff groups, all of whom recognised the problem and the size of the challenge. Examples of other universities with a comparable student intake but better progression rates were pointed to as proof that it could be achieved. The University's approach to the challenge, at this stage, is to reconsider its modular framework and the provision of learning support for students so that more students can both achieve the standards and feel adequately supported to complete their programmes. It was clear to the team, from current documentation and from its meetings with staff, that the University was addressing, as a matter of priority, its concerns about student progression.
Admissions
52 The University's strategic objectives include a strong commitment to encouraging participation from communities which have not traditionally sought access to higher education. The Account described the significant amount of work in progress on 'outreach initiatives designed to target potential students across the social spectrum'. Entry requirements are published in the University's prospectuses, and admissions procedures are published annually by the Department of Academic Administration. According to the Account, 'admissions procedures are designed to ensure that admissions standards are met'. Entry decisions are taken by admissions tutors at programme level, and the whole process is coordinated and checked by the Admissions Section of the Department of Academic Administration.
53 For mature applicants, the admissions process offers Accreditation of Prior Learning (APL) or Assessment of Prior Experiential Learning (APEL) routes to admission. The Account stated that this was 'an important element in the strategy of widening access'. Mature students are offered assistance by DLED to create a 'portfolio of prior learning', with which they can approach admissions tutors for entry to named programmes through an APL/APEL route.
54 It was clear to the audit team that the University was taking considerable care to ensure that its entry routes to undergraduate programmes were capable of supporting its mission of widening participation in higher education. To underpin the analysis and monitoring of admissions, there needs to be robust and timely provision of relevant information. It seemed to the team from its meetings with faculty and academic services staff that there was some diversity in the provision of such information. The team had no reason to suppose that this had given rise to anomalies in the admissions procedures, but would suggest that a routine analysis of entrants' actual qualifications against published entry requirements would help to support the University's careful approach to widening access. The team recognised that the University was putting considerable care and effort into seeking effective ways of maintaining its mission of widening access without compromising its position on academic standards.
Academic standards at module level
55 The Account made it clear that SQGs, together with PBs, are 'the critical units for the delivery of quality and standards in GCU awards'. Primary responsibility for the maintenance and monitoring of academic standards rests at module level with the module descriptor defining the syllabus, learning outcomes and learning and teaching strategies to be employed. Module descriptors are subject to external and internal peer review by subject experts to ensure comparable standards across the University and with other universities. The peer review process, and the two-yearly review required of modules by the University is the responsibility of a module's SQG. The membership of an SQG includes all the staff engaged in delivering modules in that subject area, and the audit team was interested to note that an SQG is also responsible for identifying the continuing professional development needs of those staff. The activities of an SQG are monitored by the relevant faculty AQSC and, in turn, by the Quality Assurance Sub-Committee of the University ASQC. The team studied minutes of meetings of faculty ASQCs, and of the Quality Assurance Sub-Committee, and noted that these committees were actively engaged in the process of monitoring the academic standards which are set at the module level. The team considered that a specific recommendation made in the 1995 HEQC audit report about the need to seek greater correspondence between learning outcomes and assessment instruments has been addressed at module level through the use of module descriptors and their peer review.
56 The considerable variation in size of SQGs was noted in the Account as having 'raised issues at both ends of the size spectrum', with the potential for a large SQG to lose academic focus and for a small SQG to lack the collective expertise or experience to make well-informed judgements (see also above, paragraph 24). Nonetheless, the University wished to allow academic departments and divisions to decide upon SQG title and membership, subject to faculty approval. Other factors are, however, 'altering the nature of the evidence base that [SQGs] must generate to meet the requirements of the faculties under the devolved QA model'. Such factors include the QAA framework, which would cause judgements on module monitoring to be more closely aligned to such external referents as subject benchmarks and the qualifications framework.
Academic standards at programme level
57 According to the Account, 'while academic standards are determined at the module level, it is the responsibility of the PB to define the academic coherence of the modules which contribute to awards, and to set this out in the programme approval document'. Although there were some acknowledged operational difficulties in the discharge of this aspect of the duties of PBs during the University's period of management turbulence, the Account considered that the programme level was firmly re-established during 1999 through the establishment of the new quality assurance procedures and the interpretation of the procedures through the faculty handbooks. Nevertheless, the Account acknowledged that PBs had 'faced more fundamental challenges in the post-modularisation period'. It suggested that the conceptual shift from a CNAA-derived centrality of the programme to the new attention given to the module had tended, in some cases, to 'weaken the apparent importance of the PB', and it expressed the view that the reaffirmation by the QAA framework that 'the central focus of QA is the student experience' would help to further strengthen the role and status of PBs.
58 The audit team was interested to discuss with staff their perceptions of the roles and responsibilities of the various groups, boards and committees engaged in the management of academic standards of the University's awards. A fundamental point in the University's strategy for quality and standards is to combine devolution with central monitoring. While some staff who met the team felt that the devolved approach was working well, others expressed the view that the diversity in structures was leading to some confusion over quality assurance arrangements, that there was lack of clarity on SQG and programme leaders' reporting routes, and that there was confusion over annual monitoring. The distinction between the management of standards at module and programme levels appeared to be not always clear to staff who met the team, and conflicting views on the workings of the structures and processes were given to the team in the course of various meetings. Other staff, however, demonstrated a clear understanding of the University's mechanisms for the definition and maintenance of standards and, in particular, saw the standards as being set by the academic leaders of subject areas.
59 All senior and established academic staff who met the audit team were confident that the University was taking a rigorous and robust approach to implementing the precepts of the QAA Code of practice, with staff well-engaged with developing appropriate mechanisms for the adoption of the various sections of the Code as they emerged. The team learnt that it was intended that the implementation of the QAA Code of practice would be monitored through thematic audits of the internal quality audit programme (see above, paragraph 31).
60 Notwithstanding the apparent need for ensuring that all teaching staff are equally well-briefed on the roles of SQGs and PBs in the maintenance of academic standards at module and programme levels, the audit team came to the overall view that the University has a secure system for assuring the academic standards of its awards. The University is conscious of the issues associated with its approach to the management of standards, open-minded about how well the system works in practice, and capable of taking action in response to any problems that may emerge as the system adapts to the requirements of new external frameworks.
Assessment
61 The Account stated that 'the University has always placed great emphasis on achieving consistency in the operation of the assessment process. This is considered to be fundamental to the process of demonstrating the achievement of academic standards'. The report of the 1995 HEQC quality audit, however, invited the University to consider the necessity of 'establishing University policies on a number of assessment issues where currently there appears to be inconsistency and non-comparability across the University'. The audit team was interested to explore how the University had addressed the recommendation of the 1995 report.
62 For undergraduate awards, a two-tier assessment process operates. At module level, assessment is monitored by SAABs. At programme level, PABs receive assessment data from SAABs 'for all contributing modules at each level of the individual award', and thus are able to make a decision based on the overall achievement of individual students. Consideration of any special factors relating to individual students takes place at the level of the PAB. At postgraduate level there is no need for the SAAB level, and all decisions are made at the PAB level. The Account described how assessment data is gathered into the University's central records system, known as OMNIS. This enables student achievement to be tracked from the time of registration on a module, passing through SAABs to build up a holistic record of a student's achievement which allows 'informed consideration to take place and final decisions to be made at PABs'. The Account considered that the system has worked well, although recognising that the training of staff in the use of the OMNIS system remained an issue which was being addressed as part of a wider need for staff training in the 'IT environment'.
63 Assessment regulations are kept under review on behalf of Senate by AQSC, which has formed an Assessment Regulations Sub-Committee to discharge this responsibility. The Sub-Committee takes an overview of the 'issues raised and lessons learned' and makes recommendations to AQSC for any changes in the regulations. It also monitors internal and external factors that require review or amendment of the assessment regulations. In this respect, the Account cited the publication of the sections of the QAA Code of practice on assessment of students and on external examining as examples 'currently under consideration by the Sub-Committee'.
64 The overall view gained by the audit team of the University's assessment
arrangements was that they formed a sound framework to support the University's
awards and the standards of those awards. It appeared to the team that
the University had taken appropriate action to address the issue of consistency
and comparability raised in the 1995 HEQC quality audit.
External assessors
65 The University places great emphasis on the role of external assessors in maintaining the academic standards of the University's awards, and the benchmarking of these standards within the higher education sector. The locus of responsibility for quality and standards of modules lies with SQGs, and it is the SQGs which nominate external assessors. Each faculty has a sub-committee to receive nominations from its SQGs and to consider them for approval against the University regulations for the appointment of external assessors. Faculties set out their procedures in their quality handbooks. For example, the Faculty of Health requires its sub-committee to submit its external assessor nominations to the Faculty's AQSC for formal approval. The audit team found that the January 2000 Faculty of Health AQSC had before it the minutes of the Faculty's External Assessor Nominations Sub-Committee, along with items on the appropriateness of external assessor reports and on external assessors for specialist nursing. From the documentation available in the base room illustrating the work of faculty quality committees, the team formed the view that the University had sound procedures for nominating and appointing external assessors.
External assessors' training
66 Upon appointment, each external assessor is invited to an induction
and training session run annually by the University. The Account noted
that, following the publication of the section of the QAA Code of practice on
external examining, 'each external will also receive written guidance in
the future'. The audit team was able to study the papers from the external
assessors' briefing session of February 2000. The team considered that
these would be very helpful to an external assessor, giving the clearest
and most concise explanation of the relationship between SQGs, PBs, PABs
and SAABs that the team encountered in the base room documents.
External assessors' reports
67 The Account stated that 'great emphasis is placed on the receipt and consideration of external assessors' reports within the University'. Reports are normally completed on a standard University pro forma, but external assessors may add further comments or substitute a narrative report. Their reports are received and read by the Clerk to Senate, who is charged with highlighting issues of concern that are judged to require immediate attention, and directing such issues to the Chair of AQSC, the Assistant Principal (Quality) and the appropriate dean. The Clerk to Senate is also required to initiate an independent enquiry should an external assessor resign prematurely, and to report the findings of that enquiry, through AQSC, to Senate. Any resignation concerning a matter of principle is also drawn to the attention of the Chair of Senate.
68 From the documentation available to it in the form of papers from SQGs, PABs, SAABs, PBs, faculty AQSCs, and the University AQSC, the audit team saw ample evidence of external assessors' reports being considered, directed for action as appropriate and the results of such action checked. Despite the proliferation of the groups, boards and committees, the team formed the view that the procedures for receiving and responding to external assessors' reports was conducted conscientiously, and quality assurance loops were properly closed. The team concluded that consideration of external assessors' reports was conducted in a thorough fashion in line with the procedures described in detail in the University's Account.
Developing the procedures
69 Many of the structures and systems described by the University in its Account were recent developments, and time will tell how successful they are and how well the University can adapt to the changes that are still 'bedding down'. Some senior staff who met the audit team expressed the view that the devolution of responsibility for quality and standards to faculties 'allowed the system to learn', although others recognised that they had not yet had time to focus on disseminating good practice or quality enhancement. However, members of the Faculty of Health who met the team reported that routes through their Faculty Board, school assemblies and PBs were used effectively to disseminate good practice.
70 The audit team found no consensus view on the efficiency of the current systems for assuring quality and standards. Of those who discussed the new systems with the team, the deans viewed it as less bureaucratic than previously, although some other faculty staff spoke in terms of the 'burden' of the quality assurance arrangements, and of the need for streamlining. The effective operation of the quality assurance system, however, depends not only on having appropriate structures and procedures but that the institutional culture should encourage debate and promote a self-critical approach. What was clear to the team was the open-minded approach and the vigorous debate which are likely to encourage constructive analysis and allow the new systems to improve.
The learning infrastructure
Strategies for supporting learning and teaching
71 The Account explained that 'the University's academic and pedagogic objectives in support of its mission are established in the Strategic Plan', and that the first objective of the 1999 Strategic Plan, updated in 2000, was 'to extend the University's role in providing lifelong learning opportunities through innovative, student centred flexible programmes'. Responsibility for implementing these aspects of the University's mission lies with LTC. The Committee was established in 1995, and developed a Learning and Teaching Strategy which was approved by Senate in 1996 and which formed a major part of the University's Strategic Plan for 1997-2000.
72 While the 1996 Learning and Teaching Strategy might seem to have been superseded by the Strategic Plan for 1999-2000 to 2002-03 and the later Learning, Teaching and Assessment Strategy (see below, paragraph 74), certain elements have had a lasting influence. The 1996 Learning and Teaching Strategy comprised four sections:
- the attributes to be nurtured in students, making reference to records of achievement and stressing skills and abilities that define an independent learner;
- the need for learning support services and facilities;
- Continuing Professional Development (CPD) for staff;
- the need to recognise high quality teaching (supported by scholarly activity)
through promotion and title.
Dissemination of this strategy was achieved by visits to every teaching and academic support department by the Chair of LTC, the Head of the Centre for Learning and Teaching Innovation (CLTI) and the then Staff Development Officer. The outcome of these discussions was an implementation report which outlined means of achieving the elements of the strategy, and was approved by LTC and distributed to all departments.
73 In 1999, LTC reviewed the implementation of the 1996 Learning and Teaching
Strategy. It noted that, because the implementation report had not been
submitted to Senate for adoption as part of the policy supporting the Strategy,
the report remained a purely advisory report from LTC rather than a policy
document. Consequently, LTC concluded that implementation of the 1996 Learning
and Teaching Strategy had not been properly monitored. For example, it
found that the execution of the recommendation of the implementation report
relating to identification of CPD needs was incomplete, and the recommendation
relating to TLTM had achieved only partial success because of insufficient
support mechanisms to allow staff time to complete the course. It was clear
to the audit team that the University had carried out a careful analysis
of the effectiveness of implementation of the 1996 Learning and Teaching
Strategy. LTC used this analysis and its operational experience to revise
that earlier Strategy to form a Learning, Teaching and Assessment Strategy
which was approved by Senate in June 2000 for implementation in 2000-01.
Learning, Teaching and Assessment Strategy (2000-04)
74 The Learning, Teaching and Assessment Strategy (LTAS) is considered by the University not to replace the 1996 Learning and Teaching Strategy (2000-04) but rather to build on it. The Account stated that LTAS addressed all the issues that arose from the analysis of the implementation of the 1996 Learning and Teaching Strategy and, in addition, addressed 'current issues such as:
- personal progress files;
- programme specifications;
- increasing the use of ICT in curricula delivery;
- ILT accreditation'.
75 The Account explained that LTAS sought to articulate 'the concept of the Glasgow Caledonian Learning Experience with an emphasis on a shift towards methods that encourage the progressive development of independent learners, with attainment standards for personal and transferable skills as well as subject knowledge. It recognises that students come from diverse backgrounds and that, together with different delivery modes characteristic of the range of disciplines and programmes offered at GCU, means that there cannot be uniformity'.
76 Three part-time secondments have been made in 2000-01 to support the
establishment of LTAS by helping departments to embed LTAS in programme
specifications. The Account stated that the secondees would also
'provide staff development in the peer observation of teaching, the development
of personal progress files and providing academic guidance'.
Staff development in teaching, learning and assessment
77 Provision is described in LTAS for enhancement in the University's CPD in teaching, learning and assessment. Peer observation of teaching is to be introduced to enhance the sharing of best practice. The Certificate in TLTM is to be strengthened and a more formalised CPD programme established for staff, although the Account noted that the TLTM programme depended very much for its success on the role and availability of departmental mentors. Recently-appointed staff who met the audit team confirmed that their attendance on the TLTM course had been a formal requirement. Developments in the TLTM programme will be directed by the requirements for accreditation by the Institute for Learning and Teaching (ILT), and the University has agreed to pay initial registration fees for all staff applying successfully for membership of the ILT in 1999-2000 and 2000-01.
78 The design of an institution-wide system of appraisal 'with the aim of explicitly incorporating personal development planning' has high priority in LTAS, and is due to be piloted during 2000-01. Staff who discussed these matters with the audit team were aware of this development, and pointed out that personal review interviews had continued pending the introduction of the new scheme. While it is too early to judge the long-term success of these developments springing from LTAS, the audit team formed a clear view of the University's commitment to supporting the continuing professional development of its staff, and of its aim to develop a coherent policy to achieve this, both in allocation of additional resources and provision of relief from other duties for staff undertaking TLTM.
The Department of Learning and Educational Development
79 The Department of Learning and Educational Development (DLED) was formed in 1996 from the merger of the Centre for Continuing Education (CCE) and the Quality Enhancement Departments with a new self-funded unit, the Centre for Education and Training Development (CETD). The Account explained that DLED now has three centres:
- CCE;
- CLTI;
- CETD.
CCE has responsibility for leading developments within the University in respect of part-time provision and in establishing a framework for APEL. The remit of CLTI includes responsibility for staff development programmes in learning and teaching, including TLTM. CETD is mainly involved with school-based and developments in further education provision. DLED has promoted a range of collaborative ventures with other higher education institutions, for example with the University of Stirling in web-based distance learning, and has provided the University with a model for the further development of distance learning. It appeared to the audit team that DLED was playing an effective role in enabling the University to implement those parts of its mission dedicated to access and lifelong learning.
Caledonian Library
80 The Library is described in the Account as working closely with the academic departments and schools to 'ensure that resources are focused in a way that enhances the student learning environment'. Communication between the Library and academic units is supported by Library representation on PBs and faculty or school boards, and by a liaison librarian assigned to each faculty. According to the Account, 'the appropriateness of Library provision is measured by a well-established and extensive feedback programme which includes an Annual Satisfaction Survey'. The audit team's reading of this Survey indicated a broad level of satisfaction by the student body as a whole, but with the nursing students registering significantly lower levels of satisfaction on every issue. From its discussions with University staff, the team learnt that technical measures had been taken to alleviate the particular problems experienced by nursing students. However, noting that part-time nursing students numbered over 1,000, the team considered that the University might see a need to increase access to the Library and its associated open-access IT facilities.
81 The Account pointed out that the Library was 'a major provider of IT facilities', and provided 'a full range of services', but acknowledged that there were some deficiencies as regards its holdings. It described the University's approach to 'overcoming some of the problems associated with competition for scarce resources'. These included:
- reciprocal access agreements with other HE providers, local and national;
- top slicing of the materials budget to protect the provision of undergraduate texts;
- a policy of providing electronic access to supplement hard-copy holdings.
In particular, the Account identified the electronic access route as a means by which it has 'reduced the significance of mode of attendance' enabling students to work from home. Nevertheless, in view of the University's mission for widening access, and its planned increase in the number of part-time students, the University might wish to consider whether it is yet providing an appropriate level of access to learning support facilities through its Library.
IT provision
82 The Account stated that 'responsibility for developing IT-based learning methods has been shared between LTC and the Information Strategy Steering Group (ISSG)'. This Steering Group is an advisory committee of the Executive, and has responsibility for IT provision across all areas of the University, and for developing an IT strategy within the broader Information Strategy. The Account went on to explain that the two committees 'collaborate in areas of overlap', such as in making recommendations to Senate on the introduction of a certification scheme for IT skills training for students, and that 'both committees have been instrumental in shaping a University-wide debate'.
83 The devolution of IT support to faculties has been steered by ISSG. The audit team learnt from its discussions with staff that consultation was taking place between the Director of Information Resources and interested parties over the development of an IT policy which would facilitate campus-wide communication while encouraging innovation within departments. The team also heard from student representatives of some problems of access to IT facilities both at departmental and institutional level; the University's response to the team in respect of these perceived problems was that management of IT support was variable across the University and that this issue was under review. Research students who met the team expressed no dissatisfaction with their level of IT support, but research students form a small constituency of the student body. The Account stated that 'at the time of writing...the Principal had commissioned a review of the learning services...to identify the optimum organisational structure to support the effective delivery of CIT based learning'. The team felt that, because the reviews of IT strategy and of learning services were yet incomplete, it could not form a clear view of the IT strategy, or level of provision, but noted that the University was aware of the issues and was tackling them in a consultative manner.
84 The Account described a number of SHEFC initiatives from which it has benefited, including a project in staff development in IT skills. A learning technology adviser was appointed to DLED in 1998 to manage the Staff Training in Learning Technology (STILT) project. The latter has three main objectives:
- the provision of a fully equipped dedicated staff training laboratory;
- the equipping of lecture theatres throughout the University with standardised presentation facilities;
- making available advice and training in a comprehensive range of learning software and other information for the support of teaching.
Computing and information technology (CIT) skills for students
85 Following reports submitted to Senate in 1999, the University has adopted an approach, shared with the Universities of Glasgow and Strathclyde and Queen Margaret University College, to allow students to gain certification in CIT skills. The Account reported that 'the policy is to require all students in their first year of study at GCU to achieve the baseline standard', and a CIT skills coordinator has been appointed to DLED.
86 LTC, being responsible for the dissemination of good practice in learning and teaching, has organised a series of annual innovative learning and teaching events. The Account observed that 'the dissemination is less than effective for those academics whose interest in teaching is subsidiary to their commitment to research', a problem which is not confined to Glasgow Caledonian University. DLED is addressing the problem by publishing the outcomes of the events through hard copy, distributed to all departments, and through a dedicated web site. The audit team noted with approval the efforts made by LTC to achieve dissemination of good practice.
87 LTC also has responsibility for managing the Academic Development Fund which is directed towards major projects. Projects that have received, and continue to receive, support are in the areas of web-based learning, work-based learning and a computer-based tutorial system. The funding available for 1999-2000 was £160,000. The Account noted that 'in the future, projects are likely to be integrated within the strategic developments identified within the University's Strategic Plan'. The audit team recognised the value of the Academic Development Fund as a means of raising the profile of innovation in approaches to teaching, and supporting the University's mission.
Student learning strategies
88 According to the Account, responsibility for the development of support for student learning strategies in the University rests principally with three areas:
- LTC, responsible for implementing policy, cross-University standards, and provision in core skills areas;
- PBs, responsible for ensuring the quality of the student experience including the adequacy of all aspects of curriculum-specific student learning support strategies;
- the Department of Student Services (SSD), responsible for provision of specialist and remedial learning support for students in addition to core central and programme-based provision.
89 Coordination of these activities is 'managed through the cross-representation
of each responsible area on the University's AQSC and LTC'. The Account set
out the significant developments in learning strategies that had occurred
during the last five years, one of which was the establishment of a central
Effective Learning Service (ELS). This Service, which is managed by SSD
and housed in the Library, provides a team of tutors with a range of specialisms
to assist students who need help to develop their learning strategies.
ELS is 'primarily geared towards part-time students and is open in the
evenings', but it attracts other students with a range of linguistic and
numeracy needs. The audit team noted that student feedback showed ELS to
be highly valued, and that the service it provided was fully consistent
with the University's plans for widening access and improving student progression.
However, the University is not complacent about the services provided,
and the Account described a number of actions that have been identified
to address perceived weaknesses. The team noted with approval the varied
learning provision made by the University for its broadly-based undergraduate
intake and its continued assessment of the quality and effectiveness of
this activity.
Student support services
90 Counselling services are provided by SSD, and include careers guidance, personal counselling, financial advice, disability support, crèche facilities, housing advice and training and development for University staff in matters of student support. The Account listed the various aspects of student support that had been enhanced since the 1995 HEQC quality audit. The report of that audit had recommended that the University consider the necessity of evaluating its arrangements for providing students with academic advice and guidance. The audit team for the current audit considered that the University has comprehensively addressed that recommendation. In particular, the team noted the targeting of support, by a variety of means, for particular student groups, such as part-time, disabled and mature students and those on low incomes or with dependants. The University's breadth of intake consequent upon its policy of widening access poses particular difficulties. The University fully recognises these difficulties, and is seeking to adapt its support mechanisms appropriately. According to the Account, the actions proposed include:
- agreeing targets for student support as part of the academic planning process;
- establishment of user forums as an additional feedback tool;
- including aspects of student support as part of the cycle of thematic academic audits;
- the establishment of employability skills as a core element of LTAS.
91 The audit team sampled the provision of student support by investigating the section of the University's web site, headed 'Accessing Opportunity', dedicated to facilities and support for disabled students, and aimed at both potential and current students. The team considered this to be helpful and candid information that set out to give the support available from the University about all aspects of student life for students with a wide range of disabilities.
Recruitment, selection and induction of academic staff
92 Selection of academic staff involves presentations and formal interview, while senior appointments also include the use of assessment centres. Where an appointee has no formal training in teaching in higher education, they are required, as part of LTAS, to undertake the programme leading to a certificate in TLTM (see above, paragraph 73). All new appointees attend a one-day core Induction Workshop. Recently-appointed staff who met the audit team spoke well of the induction programme they had experienced. The induction process has recently undergone a substantial review, and the team was unable to gain an informed view on its revised form.
93 The audit team was interested to learn from research students whom it met of their induction into the variety of part-time teaching duties they undertook. The adequacy of this induction appeared to be variable, ranging from required attendance at a formal programme in one faculty to 'being dropped in at the deep end' with no awareness of any training programme. The team considered that, whatever the nature of their teaching duties, research students should receive appropriate training. As the University continues to develop its staff appraisal scheme (see above, paragraph 78) it may wish to consider whether there is sufficient support for teaching staff to complete the TLTM scheme and, in particular, for research students engaged in teaching.
Internal and external communications
Background
94 In its Account the University stated that 'University Governance was the subject of significant deliberation during academic years 1998-99 and 1999-2000, following consideration of issues arising from the Darby Report (see above, paragraph 13) and from the departure of the previous Principal'. The Account explained that 'a major challenge facing the University has been the adoption and implementation of a package of governance reforms in response to issues raised in the Darby Report'. These governance reforms included the adoption of a set of principles and values (see above, paragraph 14) in which 'openness' was a major feature. The concept of openness within the University is defined as follows 'all decision-making processes should be able to demonstrate transparency and openness as integral features of their conduct with the rationale for decisions available for inspection. Information should only be restricted when it is clear that the University and wider public interest justifies such action'. From discussions with University staff during the audit visit, it became clear to the audit team that these principles and values were appreciated and shared by staff, and that a new culture of 'openness' had been established within the University. The team commends the University for its commitment to developing new governance structures which are open and inclusive, and which provide a strong platform for the sound management of academic affairs.
95 The Account noted that 'the inclusion of openness in the University
value-set is evidence of the much greater emphasis now placed on communication'.
The audit team noted this desire to effect a sea-change in institutional
culture, and was interested to explore how far this cultural change had
permeated through the University as a whole. The team also considered the
role played by internal communications in these developments.
Staff communications
96 Four principal mechanisms have been established as tools in the quest to secure better communication and cohesiveness within the University. In 1999, a series of 'Strategic Briefings' was introduced for members of Court, of Senate and of the Executive, and for some other staff representatives including those of the trades unions. According to the Account, the objectives of these briefings include 'to review strategic direction; to help develop a more open, inclusive culture; to enhance debate and, where appropriate, to brainstorm'. Their primary objective, however, is 'to improve communication within and across the University and between the University Court and Senate'. The Account stated that 'the strategic briefings have played a major part in this process'. The audit team met a recently-appointed head of department who commented positively on the strategic briefings he had attended before taking up post.
97 A 'Management Forum', comprising the Executive and heads of departments/divisions, has been established to service a number of aims including one of improving communication within the University. The forum was described to the audit team as an extension of the long-established 'Heads' Coffee' which meets weekly and allows all Executive members and HODs to meet informally and discuss matters of mutual interest. In 1999-2000 it was decided that, on a monthly basis, Heads' Coffee should be formalised as the Management Forum, with an agenda, circulated in advance, to include both management and strategic items for discussion. Staff who met the team confirmed the usefulness of Heads' Coffee, with one member expressing the view that it had allowed heads to 'take control of the agenda'. Following an opinion survey of all staff which, among many other things 'identified that the visibility of Executive members could be improved', a series of departmental visits was introduced in late 1999. In these visits, a two to three hour dialogue takes place between departmental members of staff and the Principal and members of the Executive.
98 Also springing from the staff opinion survey, the concept of Team Briefing was introduced in April 2000. The Account explained that this involved all staff in the University, and 'comprises a system of regular meetings intended to complement other existing forms of management communication'. Its objective is 'to make sure that all staff know what is happening and why, and to do so through explanation, question and answer'. According to the Account, the briefing is cascaded from the Principal and the rest of the Executive to Department Heads and team leaders, resulting in staff attending a meeting led by a 'briefer who is responsible for that particular group of staff'. The brief is arranged in two parts:
- the core brief, disseminated to 'everyone in the University and dealing with matters such as strategy, major achievements, organisational policy and overall financial performance';
- the local brief, which 'updates a team about its performance, summarises issues relating directly to a team (for example, priorities, workload, team success), and deals with people issues'.
Staff who met the audit team spoke approvingly of their experience of Team Briefings. The team noted with interest the practice of posting on the University's intranet answers to questions raised by staff at Briefings for which there had been insufficient time for discussion. The team concluded that the Briefings were fulfilling a valuable role in communication with the teaching staff.
99 Another action point emanating from the staff opinion survey was the production, in March 2000, of a summary of the University's Strategic Plan. This summary gives the full text of the University's Mission Statement, a summary of the key objectives for the period 1999-2000 to 2002-03, information on recruitment in session 1999-2000 and on financial performance in session 1998-99.
100 Two publications are devoted to communicating with staff, namely the Caledonian,
a magazine aiming to keep staff informed of developments within the University,
and the Quality Times, which conveys information on various matters
relating to quality assurance. From its reading of the Caledonian,
the audit team formed the view that it was an attractive and informative
'house magazine' covering a variety of news and features items that would
be of interest to staff. Communicating the business of Senate to a wider
audience of staff is approached by posting highlights of each Senate meeting
on the University's intranet. The team was interested to see the Senate
Highlights, and noted that they presented the business of Senate in
a digestible and user-friendly form. Staff who discussed these matters
with the team valued the Senate Highlights as a means of awareness
of policy issues.
Student communications
101 Student communications are described in the Account as mainly falling into three categories:
- universal communications designed for any/all sub-groups of students;
- programme-based communications, customised for individual student groups;
- feedback mechanisms (formal and informal).
102 The Account noted that a considerable range of student-directed publications were produced 'at both programme level and centrally within the University by the various services and the Students' Association'. These are summarised in the Student Reference Guide and the induction information pack distributed to all new students. First-year students also receive a combined handbook and diary outlining a range of University provision and their rights and responsibilities. The audit team considered this to be an attractive and useful aid to incoming students.
103 Programme-based communications are based on a Programme Handbook which is produced for each programme, and 'may be customised by level of study'. Additionally, according to the Account, 'there are standardised communications produced by the Department of Academic Administration for all academic administration purposes'. The Account noted that 'the University has made significant improvement in the range and content of student publications, particularly those targeted towards students in their first year of study. It is recognised, however, that there is still room for improvement'. A series of issues has been identified for further consideration including access to the most recent versions of relevant documentation; avoiding duplication of effort and content between centrally- and locally-produced publications; ensuring accuracy; enhancing web-based information resources; and developing email as a general means of communication with students.
Student feedback and complaints procedures
104 The Account referred to 'a comprehensive range of feedback mechanisms for the use of students to comment on or complain about the nature of GCU's provision, in relation to programmes and other aspects of delivery,' citing as principal components:
- module evaluation (considered by SQGs);
- programme evaluation (considered by PBs);
- student/staff consultative groups (SSCGs) (responsibility of each PB);
- service evaluation and review (accountable to Executive with academic aspects scrutinised by internal quality audit);
- student complaints and grievance procedure (responsible to Student Affairs Committee and reviewed by internal quality audit);
- ad hoc initiatives such as the Student Withdrawal Survey.
105 SSCGs are seen by the University as a key feature of the feedback process, with student representation being achieved through elected student members of the group. Responsibility for ensuring the establishment and effective operation of SSCG rests with the relevant PB. The student complaints and grievance procedure, established in 1994-95, is managed by the Head of Student Services. The procedure was revised in 1998-99, and now includes provision for independent annual review. The Account stated that the procedure would be reviewed again in 2000-01 to ensure adherence to the relevant precepts of the QAA Code of practice. The audit team noted that the complaints and grievance procedure is publicised through the Student Handbook and Diary and through Programme Handbooks. The Student Handbook seemed to the team to be an attractive, user-friendly publication. The Programme Handbooks read by the team appeared to be entirely suitable for their purpose.
106 The view expressed in the Account was that the strengths of the mechanisms of student communication procedures lay in their range and accessibility and in the 'on-going monitoring, review and enhancement underpinned by the Court and Senate annual review of the student experience'. Weaknesses identified in the Account related to:
- the difficulty of closing the loop through immediate feedback to the relevant cohort of student comment/complaint through module evaluation;
- the volume of feedback requested of students leading to 'evaluation fatigue';
- the management of feedback on academic staff performance;
- the invisibility of the internal quality audit processes to students;
- the lack of integration of complaints mechanisms;
- a lack of a general overview of issues arising from complaints.
107 The audit team felt that the University had given these concerns a thorough analysis with commendable frankness. Among the several actions listed in the Account as being taken to address the perceived shortcomings, the team was interested to note the establishment, in 1999-2000, of a Vice-President (Welfare) by the Students' Association, and the introduction of an annual report to the Court and Senate on the student experience by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Learning) beginning in 2000-01. The team's meeting with the student representatives revealed their concerns with a variety of communications issues, especially the need to enhance the public perception of the University, although the team took the view from the audit as a whole that the University was working very hard, and effectively, to recover from the reverses associated with the former management. However, the team noted that there had been limited student input into the development of the Account, and that although copies of the draft had been made available to the Students' Association, the student body seemed not to have taken the opportunity of making a significant contribution. The team would encourage the University to continue to seek ways of ensuring that the student body is actively engaged in decision-making processes at University level. Student representatives also spoke to the team about some variability in the effectiveness of SSCGs. The team regarded the working of SSCGs as a matter in which the students themselves have as great a responsibility as the University to ensure their effective operation. With regard to the complaints procedure, the one student met by the team who had used the system expressed the view that it was a fair process and was undertaken seriously.
External communications
108 The monitoring and control of publications is the responsibility of the Department of Marketing and Public Relations (MPR) which, according to the Account sought 'to ensure compliance with the appropriate CVCP guidelines and those of the Advertising Standards Authority'. Of the University's paper-based communication materials, the Annual Report is targeted at the various stakeholders and the wider community, the Caledonian magazine is distributed to some 1,000 external constituents as well as to all University staff (see above, paragraph 100), and a bi-annual newsletter, Perspective, is distributed to all alumni. The University's web site has been redesigned to bring all faculties and departments into an agreed common format and to improve accessibility to those with disabilities. The audit team learnt that the web site will be subject to evaluation by users in autumn 2001. The team formed the view that the web site was well-designed, wide-ranging and easy to use.
Information Strategy
109 The Account stated the University's commitment to developing IT as 'a vehicle for the distribution of information and to enhance communication'. This commitment is underpinned by the University's Information Strategy which, according to the Account, 'establishes the key principle that all non-confidential information will be freely available to all staff, and that the University will provide staff with the means to access such information'. The Information Strategy, introduced in 1998, is monitored and developed by ISSG, which also oversees IT development in the University on behalf of the Executive. The Information Strategy has provided a focus for some successful information-related projects, but the Account acknowledged that until recently 'a robust framework of strategies and policies relating to technology to support the Information Strategy did not exist'. During 1999-2000 ISSG 'developed a wide range of policies and procedures...relating to the development of CIT and Information Systems of the University'. The Account conveys confidence that this approach will mean the 'University has systems to meet the needs of internal users and external agencies'. From its study of the available documentation, and from its discussions with staff and managers, the audit team formed the view that the University had made a careful analysis of its CIT provision and strategies, and had the capacity to take appropriate action to further the aims of its Information Strategy.
110 In its meeting with representatives of local colleges involved in collaborative provision of various kinds, the audit team learnt of close working relationships (see also above, paragraph 40). All staff from collaborating colleges spoke warmly of the quality of their links with the University and the team commends the good working relationships between the University and local colleges which provide a significant proportion of the University's intake.
111 The audit team concluded that the systems for internal and external communications had received serious attention by the University following the change in senior management, as illustrated by such innovations as Team Briefings, Senate Highlights and the more interactive form that Heads' Coffee had taken. The team also noted the quality of the house magazine Caledonian and the ease of use of the intranet web site. These developments had been well-received by staff who met the team. The team would wish to commend the quality of internal and external communications, in particular with staff, in support of openness and management of change. The team recognised that the dissemination of information to students concerning the impending move from the Park Campus was a difficult issue bearing in mind commercial confidentiality, but the web page dedicated to the potential move appeared to the team to provide open communication and allay concerns about the move.
Conclusions
112 Glasgow Caledonian University was formed in 1993 when Glasgow Polytechnic merged with The Queen's College, Glasgow. In 1996, the University entered an agreement with The Scottish Office for the delivery of pre-registration nursing and midwifery education in Glasgow. This progressive expansion through merger, and consequent broadening of the University's portfolio of provision, increased the number of students in 1999-2000 to 10,189 full-time and 3,542 part-time. The University is structured upon three large academic units: the Faculty of Health; Faculty of Science and Technology; and the Caledonian Business School. At the time of the audit visit the University was situated on two campuses, but was in the process of consolidating all provision onto its City Campus.
113 In the mid-1990s, the University suffered considerable managerial turbulence which resulted in the departure of the then Principal. With the appointment of the present Principal, in 1998, the University entered a period of rapid change in order to recover stability. The incoming Principal instigated a far-reaching review of institutional structures, procedures and management. Although this review was still in progress at the time of the audit visit, the University was already beginning to consolidate the benefits gained from this institutional self-analysis, and had clearly 'turned the corner' on its journey to academic confidence and managerial stability.
114 The University states in its mission that it has 'a distinctive role in Scottish higher education providing flexible life-long learning opportunities to students from a wide variety of backgrounds and at different stages of their lives'. Throughout the recent difficulties and developments the University has consistently given high priority to widening access to higher education and serving the local community. The University recognises the challenge of maintaining academic standards whilst remaining true to its mission of widening participation and in the face of poor progression rates. The approach that it is taking to meet that challenge is through initiatives to assist students, particularly non-traditional students, in gaining the skills needed to achieve good academic standards. An IT Strategy is under development with a view to achieving greater coherence of IT provision across the University and to encourage increased availability of learning resources. The University demonstrates a strong commitment to its mission of widening participation to higher education.
115 The University's approach to quality management is one of devolving responsibility for quality near to the point of delivery, then monitoring adherence to a framework of institutional policies and procedures for quality assurance through a rigorous scheme of internal quality audit. The approach has been designed to accommodate the different needs of the three academic units within the institutional framework. Although this approach might have given rise to some rather complex arrangements and to possible duplication of effort, the internal quality audit scheme is both appropriate and necessary at this stage of building of a secure devolved quality management structure from the managerial disturbances of the recent past. It is an approach which might allow the University to consider some 'lighter touch' in its quality management procedures as it gains confidence in the effectiveness of its approach to quality assurance. The audit took place at a time when the University's quality management procedures were still evolving, and some had yet to be fully tested. Nevertheless, there was sufficient evidence to suggest that there could be broad confidence in the effectiveness of the University's approach to assuring the quality of its provision.
116 The University also uses devolved responsibility supported by central monitoring in its approach to securing the standards of its awards. External assessors have a key role in benchmarking the standards of awards against national referents, and the procedures for receiving and taking action upon their reports are sound. Academic standards are considered at both the module level, where they are determined against subject criteria, and at the programme level, where academic coherence is examined. Although there is still some need to clarify the respective responsibilities of module and programme level processes for maintaining academic standards, the findings of this audit support confidence in the capacity of the University properly to discharge its corporate responsibility for the standards of its awards.
117 In respect of collaborative provision, the University's links with local partner colleges are underpinned by cross-representation of University and college staff on the senior bodies of both, to ensure strategic coherence of provision and maintenance of standards of awards. Progression from partner colleges to the University is supported by good articulation between college and University programmes, and a significant number of students progress to the University's programmes by these routes.
118 At the time of the audit, the University's only major overseas collaborative link was with the Caledonian College of Engineering, Oman, having terminated several other overseas collaborative links as a result of its concerns with arrangements for assuring quality and standards. An internal quality audit of the Caledonian College of Engineering had identified areas for improvement, and the University was taking action to rectify points of weakness. At the time of the audit, there was insufficient evidence yet available to demonstrate the effectiveness of these actions, but it was clear that the University was rationalising its overseas collaborative provision and establishing firm management of the collaborative arrangements with the intention of maintaining quality and standards. The findings of this audit suggest that there can be broad confidence in the University's ability to provide continuing security of the quality and standards of its local collaborative provision made through articulation arrangements, and in the collaborative programmes provided through the Caledonian College of Engineering.
119 The approach taken by the University's senior management to building a new confidence and corporate vision has been to put considerable effort into changing the institutional culture from perceived managerialism to collegiality within a strong institutional framework. This culture change is being achieved through a philosophy of openness, transparency and consultation, underpinned by an emphasis on good communications. The University has achieved a great deal in the past two years, and has demonstrated, not least by the Analytical Account prepared for this audit, its capacity to reflect constructively on its approach to the management of quality and academic standards.
Points for commendation
120 The audit team would wish to commend the University, in particular, for:
i the energy with which it has implemented the principles of openness and transparency in its decision-making processes (passim);
ii the way in which it is managing the changes needed to secure the quality of provision and academic standards, recognising that the new structures have yet to be fully tested and optimised (paragraphs 14, 21, 60, 69 and 70);
iii its effective use of the internal quality audit process to underpin the devolved quality assurance structures at this stage in their development (paragraphs 33, 38 and 45);
iv the good working relationships that it has established with its local collaborative partners, and the effective articulation arrangements (paragraphs 41, 42 and 110);
v the various ways in which it has enhanced communication within and across the University in support of openness and inclusion in the process of cultural change (paragraphs 94, 96, 98, 100 and 111).
Points for further consideration
121 As it continues to develop its systems for managing the quality of provision and standards of all awards made in its name, the University may consider it advisable to:
i continue to develop its approach to quality management so as to establish effective linkage between its management structures, resource allocation mechanisms and quality assurance arrangements (paragraphs 25, 26 and 35);
ii continue to seek ways to ensure full implementation of the system for gaining feedback from research students (paragraph 37);
iii consider whether it is giving sufficient support, in their professional development, to inexperienced academic staff to complete the TLTM programme, and to research students who are engaged in teaching (paragraphs 73, 78 and 93);
iv consider whether it is providing an appropriate level of IT and Library-based learning support for its expanding cohort of part-time students (paragraphs 80 and 81);
v continue to strive to ensure that the student body is actively engaged in decision-making processes at University level (paragraph 107).
Appendix 1*
Glasgow Caledonian University - facts and figures 2000-01*
History
In 1990 what is now Glasgow Caledonian University was two separate and distinct institutions, Glasgow College and The Queen's College, Glasgow. In 1991 Glasgow College became Glasgow Polytechnic; and in April 1993 Glasgow Polytechnic and The Queen's College, Glasgow merged to form Glasgow Caledonian University. In 1996, the University signed a Nursing Contract with the Scottish Office for the delivery of pre-registration nursing education in Glasgow. The pre-existing Nursing and Midwifery Colleges were subsequently closed and students and staff transferred to the University.
Throughout the last decade, the University has been involved in a large-scale development of its City Campus. Four new buildings - the Charles Oakley Building, the Britannia Building, the Faculty of Health Building and a Sports and Recreation Centre - have been constructed and opened for use. In addition, new Halls of Residence immediately adjacent to the City Campus have been constructed, phase 2 being completed in September 2000.
At the time of the continuation audit, the University was located on two campuses - the City Campus and the Park Campus (formerly The Queen's College, Glasgow) located approximately two miles from the City Campus. The consolidation of the University on a single campus has been a primary strategic objective and, since completion of the audit, students and staff from Park Campus have transferred to the City Campus.
Mission
Glasgow Caledonian University has a distinctive role in Scottish Higher Education, providing flexible lifelong learning opportunities to students from a wide variety of backgrounds and at different stages of their lives:
- Working together with professional bodies, employers and others in education to support students to gain nationally recognised qualifications, enhancing their skills and advancing their careers.
- Developing the capabilities of all staff, strengthening the University's profile nationally and internationally in research, scholarship and learning.
- Promoting the regeneration of the West of Scotland through the generation and transference of higher skill levels, partnering others in applied research and the commercial development of the regional knowledge base.
Faculties
Caledonian Business School
Faculty of Health
Faculty of Science and Technology
Number of students 2000-01
| RPG | TPG | UG | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FT | PT | FT | PT | FT | PT | Total | |
| CBS | 36 | 26 | 228 | 416 | 3,385 | 628 | 4,719 |
| FoH | 70 | 55 | 138 | 200 | 3,887 | 1,024 | 5,374 |
| FoS | 44 | 46 | 199 | 123 | 2,109 | 512 | 3,033 |
| Other | 1 | 0 | 0 | 33 | 104 | 51 | 189 |
| 151 | 127 | 565 | 772 | 9,485 | 2,215 | 13,315 | |
Student characteristics (total population, 2000-01)
| Gender | Full-time | Part-time | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Male | 3,880 | 1,349 | 5,229 |
| Female | 6,311 | 1,775 | 8,086 |
| Total | 10,191 | 3,124 | 13,315 |
Mature students
Proportion of full-time undergraduate population aged 21 or over on entry - 39.6 per cent
Proportion of part-time undergraduate population aged 21 or over on entry - 94.6 per cent
Domicile
| UK | Other EU | Overseas | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Undergraduate | 11,401 | 172 | 120 | 11,693 |
| Postgraduate (taught) | 1,217 | 53 | 75 | 1,345 |
| Postgraduate (research) | 207 | 24 | 46 | 277 |
| Total | 12,825 | 249 | 241 | 13,315 |
Institutional staff 2000-01
| Full-time | Part-time | |
|---|---|---|
| Number of staff employed by the institution | 1,341 | 183 |
| Number of academic/research staff | 648 | 67 |
*as supplied by Glasgow Caledonian University
Appendix 2
List of Glasgow Caledonian University's collaborative partnerships as at 17 January 2001*
1 Validated programmes
| External institution | Programme title |
|---|---|
| Kinharvie House | MSc/PgD Counselling and Supervision |
| Counselling Education Training |
2 Franchised programmes
| Caledonian College of Engineering, Oman | BSc Electronic Engineering |
| Caledonian College of Engineering, Oman | University Diploma Mechanical Engineering |
| Caledonian College of Engineering, Oman | University Diploma Computer Engineering |
| Caledonian College of Engineering, Oman | University Diploma Engineering Management |
| Caledonian College of Engineering, Oman | University Diploma Electronic Engineering |
| Caledonian College of Engineering, Oman | University Diploma Civil Engineering |
| Hogeschool van Utrecht, Netherlands | MSc/PgD Maintenance Management |
| Langside College, Coatbridge College, Motherwell College, Clydebank College, Stow College |
HNC Applied Science |
Open Learning Resources, Singapore |
BA Tourism |
Scottish Power |
Diploma in Retail Management |
Strategic Business School, Malaysia |
MSc Corporate Administration |
3 Franchised modules
| James Watt College of Further and Higher Education | Named modules of the BSc/BSc (Hons) Health Studies Degree |
4 Other collaborative programmes
| Joint delivery/Joint award | |
|---|---|
| Department of Clinical Physics and Bioengineering (DCPB) of GGHB | BSc Medical Technology |
| EHSAL, Belgium; Lille, France | MSc/PgD Computer Studies (Europe) |
| EHSAL, Belgium; Lille, France | MSc/PgD Information Management Systems (Europe) |
| EHSAL, Belgium; Lille, France | MSc/PgD Informatics (Europe) |
| EHSAL, Belgium; Lille, France | MSc/PgD Business Information Systems (Europe) |
| Head Injury Trust | University Certificate in Head Injury Rehabilitation |
| Institute of Medical Illustrators | BSc in Medical Illustrations (Distance Learning) |
| University of Strathclyde | MSc/PgD Construction Innovation |
| University of Strathclyde | MSc/PgD Industrial Mathematics |
| University of Strathclyde | MSc/PgD Journalism Studies |
| University of Strathclyde | MLitt Journalism Studies |
| University of Strathclyde | MLitt Journalism Research |
Affiliate College
| Glasgow College of Building and Printing | BSc/BSc (Hons) Quantity Surveying (F/T & P/T) |
| Glasgow College of Building and Printing | BSc/BSc (Hons) Construction Management (F/T & P/T) |
| Glasgow College of Building and Printing | BSc/BSc (Hons) Building Surveying |
| Glasgow College of Building and Printing | BSc/BSc (Hons) Building Control (F/T & P/T) |
| Glasgow College of Building and Printing | BSc/BSc (Hons) Leisure Facilities Management |
| Glasgow College of Building and Printing | BSc/BSc (Hons) Property Management and Development/BSc Property Studies |
| Glasgow College of Building and Printing | BSc/BSc (Hons) Interior Design |
| Glasgow College of Building and Printing | BSc/BSc (Hons) Architectural Technology |
| Glasgow College of Building and Printing | BSc/BSc (Hons) Fire Risk Engineering (F/T & P/T) |
| Glasgow College of Building and Printing | BSc/BSc (Hons) Multimedia Technology |
| Glasgow College of Building and Printing | BSc Applied Graphics Technology with Multimedia |
Affiliate College Agreement/Articulation
| Glasgow College of Food Technology | BSc/BSc (Hons) Food Technology |
| Glasgow College of Building and Printing | HND Imagery for Medical Illustrators/ BSc Medical Illustration |
Partnership (Off Campus delivery)
| Glasgow City Housing | Certificate in Training Practice |
| Glasgow District Council | PgD Corporate Resource Mgt |
| Motorola | BEng (Hons)/BEng Electronic Engineering |
| Post Office | MSc/PgD Maintenance Management |
| Scottish Housing Associations Resources | Certificate in Personnel Practice for Education |
Memorandum of Agreement
| University of Stirling/University of Southern Queensland | MSc Lifelong Learning |
Memorandum of Association
| Strategic Business School, Malaysia | MSc Human Resource Management |
*as supplied by Glasgow Caledonian University
Top
QAA updates
QAAtweets
QAAtube