Higher Education Quality Council

University of Luton
Quality Audit Report
June 1996

ISBN 1 85824 272 X

FOREWORD
THE REMIT
THE UNIVERSITY CONTEXT
THE AUDIT PROCESS
SYSTEMS AND ARRANGEMENTS FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE
ACADEMIC STANDARDS
THE DESIGN, APPROVAL AND REVIEW OF PROGRAMMES OF STUDY.
TEACHING, LEARNING AND THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE
STUDENT ASSESSMENT AND THE CLASSIFICATION OF AWARDS
FEEDBACK AND ENHANCEMENT PROCESSES
STAFF APPOINTMENT, DEVELOPMENT, PROMOTION AND REWARD
CONTENT OF PROMOTIONAL MATERIAL RELATING TO ACADEMIC PROVISION
STUDENT CHARTER
VALIDATION, FRANCHISING AND OTHER FORMS OF COLLABORATIVE
PROVISION
CONCLUSIONS AND POINTS FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION

FOREWORD

1 The Higher Education Quality Council (HEQC) was invited by the University of Luton to undertake a quality audit of the University. The Council is grateful to the University and its collaborating partners for the willing co-operation provided to the members of the audit team.

THE REMIT

2 The Quality Assurance Group of the HEQC undertakes quality audits according to the following terms of reference:

(i) to consider and review the mechanisms and structures used by those institutions in membership of the owner bodies of the HEQC to monitor, assure, promote and enhance their academic quality and standards, in the light of their stated aims and objectives; and to undertake a similar consideration and review in respect of other institutions of higher education, at their request;

(ii) to comment on the extent to which such procedures in place in individual institutions reflect appropriate good practice in maintaining and enhancing quality, and are applied effectively;

(iii) to prepare and publish a report on each audit undertaken;

(iv) to prepare and submit an annual report to the Board of Directors of the HEQC;

(v) to liaise with the other groups of the HEQC, drawing their attention to such matters and findings which may be of interest to the higher education system and which may merit further research and development; likewise receiving benefit from the work of the other groups.

Abbreviations used in this report

3 Throughout this audit report, a number of abbreviations have been used. To assist the reader, these are summarised below:

Academic Standards Committee ASC
Faculty Academic Standards Committee FASC
Faculty Academic Board FAB
Modular Credit Scheme MCS
Modular Scheme Committee MSC
Staff Development Committee SDC
Learning Resources Committee LRC
Research Degrees Committee RDC
University Research Committee URC
Quality Audit Panel for research degrees QAP
Centre for Educational Development CED
Staff Development Unit SDU
Higher Education Funding Council for England HEFCE

THE UNIVERSITY CONTEXT

Origins and recent development

4 The University of Luton is the newest university in England, having been granted the title by the Privy Council in July 1993 following a successful application from the former Luton College of Higher Education for research degree awarding powers. The Privy Council Order followed an intensive period of scrutiny of the institution's processes for the assurance of academic quality, firstly by the Council for National Academic Awards (CNAA) and subsequently by HEQC. Luton was the first, and remains the only, institution to have been directly designated a university under the procedures and criteria established by the Government, and involving HEQC, in 1993.

5 The University is accommodated on several sites in the town of Luton. The main campus is at Park Square, in the town centre, with a second campus at Putteridge Bury, situated on the outskirts of Luton. The Putteridge Bury campus is primarily used as a management and conference centre. At the Luton and Dunstable Hospital in Luton and at Bedford, the University has recently occupied buildings which were formerly National Health Service schools of nursing and midwifery. The University has also established a Research Centre which is accommodated in its own premises near to the Park Square campus.

6 Since receiving university status, the University has experienced significant expansion. In the 1987-88 academic session the then Luton College of Higher Education had some 1,800 full-time equivalent (fte) students. By the 1994-95 academic session, overall student numbers had risen by some 350 per cent to approximately 9,676 fte students. Of the undergraduate student population, some 75 per cent were studying on a full-time or sandwich basis and 25 per cent on a part-time basis. In addition to the growth in undergraduate student numbers, the University has also experienced a substantial expansion in the number of postgraduate students. In the 1995-96 academic session the University had 801 postgraduate taught students and nearly 130 students and staff registered as candidates for research degrees. In taking account of the recent restrictions placed upon the further increase of full-time and sandwich student numbers by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), the University's current Strategic Plan, covering the period 1994-95 to 1998-99 inclusive, envisages further substantial growth in part-time student numbers. The University's collaborative provision arrangements with other institutions remain relatively modest and have focused upon the widening of local higher education provision. As at November 1995, there were some 479 students studying on programmes leading to University awards in partner institutions, of whom 50 were students studying in institutions overseas. The expansion in student numbers has been accompanied by significant investment in new resources for teaching, learning and other student support services. Since 1992-93, the University has invested some £18 million in a University-wide refurbishment programme and new accommodation for students. As part of this development strategy, a £3.2 million learning resources centre was opened in July 1993.

The University's mission

7 The University's Statement of Mission has a strong vocational emphasis, reflecting the academic origins of the Luton College of Higher Education. In particular, the University seeks to provide study programmes which are 'characterised by their wide choice and flexibility' and which provide opportunities for students to 'achieve their full potential'. The development of close working partnerships with employers, professional organisations, and other stakeholders, is regarded as a high priority and, to this end, the Statement of Mission makes special mention of the University's responsibility to contribute to the cultural and economic life of the region. Underpinning the University's commitment to sustaining high-quality education and professional development is a strategy to develop a strong base of creative and applicable research.

8 Alongside its Statement of Mission, the University has developed an Equal Opportunities Statement which, in unequivocally opposing discrimination in any form, espouses an aim to 'celebrate the diversity of the [University's] student body and the community which it serves in ways which are mutually enriching'. The University accordingly welcomes students from a wide range of backgrounds, with some 20 per cent of its students drawn from ethnic minorities and 10 per cent recruited through access courses or without traditional formal academic qualifications. Its historically large access provision has been consolidated into the structure of degree work through level zero studies, which act as a foundation programme for mature students returning to study. The University is a leading partner in the Bedfordshire Access Consortium. Access to higher education is also encouraged through opportunities for the accreditation of prior learning (APL), for those with formal certification of previous education or training courses, and the accreditation of prior experiential learning (APEL), for applicants who can demonstrate a level of academic achievement despite the lack of formal higher education qualifications. With respect to its duties as an employer, the University is committed to achieving a body of staff which reflects more accurately the range of backgrounds found in society as a whole.

Academic provision

9 Virtually all the University's undergraduate provision is now provided within a modular framework. The design of the Modular Credit Scheme (MCS) has sought to place a high value on student choice and flexibility, and named awards are available in single Honours, major, joint or minor subjects. Within a two semester framework, each student is required to take four modules per semester, which may be compulsory for the programme of study, optional within the field or additional to those prescribed for an award. Combinations and additional 'electives' may be chosen from anywhere in the MCS, subject to timetabling restrictions. A modular framework for taught postgraduate work was introduced with effect from the 1994-95 academic session. Shortly before the audit visit, the University made a successful application to the HEFCE to undertake pilot research examining the feasibility of developing a three semester teaching year.

10 The development of the MCS has been built upon a corporate commitment to place progressively greater emphasis on open learning and other forms of student-centred learning. To this end, two working parties have recently been established by the University, one to guide broad developments in teaching, learning and assessment, the other to consider revisions to the MCS. These initiatives have been supported by research into curriculum delivery, undertaken through the University's Centre for Educational Development, with the intention of identifying and disseminating good and innovative practice. The University has also sought to develop opportunities for work-based learning. The work-based learning initiative has had two dimensions: first, the opportunity for employees to study for an academic award of the University by applying the learning outcomes of a conventionally-delivered syllabus to a workplace project; and, secondly, the opportunity, available to all full-time students, to undertake a project in a work environment for academic credit, where the definition of the project and its learning outcomes is the subject of negotiation between the employer, University tutors and the student concerned.

University structure

11 At the time of the audit visit, the University employed just over 1,000 staff, equally divided between academic and support staff. Academic staff have been allocated between six faculties, namely Business; Design and Technology; Health Care and Social Studies; Humanities; Management; and Science and Computing, and two centres, namely External Affairs and Quality Assurance. Each faculty is composed of between three and eight departments, with some 15 members of academic staff per department. Centralised University procedures have been established for activities such as admissions, timetabling and examinations and, with effect from the 1994-95 academic session, the University's Modular Scheme Office was enlarged in order to act as a central point for student enquiries about their programmes of study, and to collect coursework assignments from students. Operational management of the University is undertaken by the Directorate, which comprises the Vice-Chancellor, Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Director of Finance and Information, the Director of Support Services and, the audit team learnt, a faculty dean seconded on an annual basis. The Academic Board retains overall responsibility for the quality of the University's educational provision and for the standard of its awards. Directly reporting to the Academic Board are the six faculty academic boards (FABs), the Modular Scheme Committee (MSC) and other functional central committees such as Academic Standards (ASC), Research (URC), Research Degrees (RDC), Staff Development (SDC) and Learning Resources (LRC). A substantial link between the academic and managerial lines of reporting in the University is made through the Academic Executive, chaired by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and composed of the deans and the other senior academic managers. The Academic Executive reports to both the Directorate and Academic Board.

12 A statement of the University's constitution and management structure, together with a listing of associated institutions and collaborative programmes, prepared by the University, is attached as an appendix to this report.

THE AUDIT PROCESS

13 Prior to the audit visit, the University submitted an extensive and well-organised range of documentation outlining its aims and strategies, its management and committee structures, academic and non-academic staffing arrangements, teaching and learning initiatives and the mechanisms used to evaluate performance. The briefing material, which included an informative overview document written to support the audit, was drawn almost entirely from existing papers. On the evidence of the documents made available to the audit team, the University had evidently reflected critically on its quality assurance arrangements in advance of the audit visit. Following its reading of the briefing documentation, the team proposed a programme of meetings for the visit, and sought additional contextual materials to help it to understand and verify the structure and processes of the University's quality assurance arrangements.

14 The audit visit took place over three days, 5-7 December 1995. During the course of the visit the audit team had wide-ranging discussions with individuals and groups, including: the Vice-Chancellor; the University's Academic Executive; heads of department; members of University committees with responsibilities for academic standards, quality and planning; University staff directly involved with teaching activities; members of staff from the University's various support units; staff from partner institutions; members of the University's Students' Union Executive; and a broad range of full- and part-time undergraduate and postgraduate taught and research students from the University and partner institutions. In all, the team met some 140 staff members of the University and its partner institutions, and some 75 University and partner institution students.

15 The audit team wishes to express its gratitude to those members of the University, and the representatives from partner institutions, who attended the various meetings set up to discuss the University's quality assurance arrangements.

16 The audit team consisted of Mr A Jones, Dr J S Knowland, Professor J Rear, auditors, and Mr M Ratcliffe, audit secretary. The audit was coordinated for HEQC by Dr C J Haslam, Assistant Director, Quality Assurance Group.

SYSTEMS AND ARRANGEMENTS FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE

17 The University's systems for the quality assurance of academic provision still bear the hallmark of the CNAA, under whose auspices it operated, initially as a college of higher education, until it acquired, in rapid succession between 1991 and 1993, accredited status from the CNAA, taught degree awarding powers, research degree awarding powers and ultimately designation as a university. The audit team noted that the University's quality assurance systems are still substantially based upon those promoted by the CNAA. The University places a high priority on the effectiveness of these processes given the importance of sustaining high quality education in its mission statement, a point stressed by the Vice-Chancellor in his initial meeting with the team.

Quality assurance organisation

18 Ultimate responsibility for the quality of academic provision and the standards of awards resides with the University's Academic Board, but is exercised on its behalf by two sub-committees, an Academic Standards Committee (ASC), which has responsibility for all taught courses, including collaborative arrangements, and a Research Degrees Committee (RDC) responsible for its MPhil and PhD arrangements. Until 1994, the ASC had a subgroup entitled the course quality group, with broad responsibility for overseeing the rapid development of autonomous processes, but this was discontinued once such processes were in place. Responsibility for quality is devolved from these central bodies to the six faculties, each of which has an academic board and an academic standards sub-committee.

Overview of quality assurance systems

19 The University's quality assurance arrangements are set out in some detail in a Handbook for Quality Assurance. Course approval follows a two-tier process, with the planning and development tier undertaken in the faculties, followed by a formal validation event recommending the form of approval to ASC and the Academic Board. The processes of approval for collaborative provision follow the same pattern and the arrangements for the periodic review of courses are broadly similar, although the latter were being examined with a view to modification at the time of the audit visit. There are also clearly described processes for adjustments to courses and, in particular, for the modification, development and addition of fields to the MCS. Annual course monitoring is initially the responsibility of course and field boards, reporting to the appropriate FAB, which produce composite summary reports, while the ASC has responsibility for those matters which have wider institutional implications. ASC also carries out an audit of the monitoring process. The University's central administration assists the monitoring process by producing statistical data, analysing the University-wide student questionnaire and providing a digest of external examiners' reports. The faculty summary reports are finally considered by the University's Academic Board.

20 The audit team noted that there was considerable cross-representation between the various committees and boards responsible for course quality which, in the view of the team, facilitated effective communication. The University also makes a distinction between academic judgements on course quality, which are the responsibility of committees and made by academic peers, and executive actions, for example the implementation of a course monitoring action plans, which are the responsibility of designated individuals.

21 As a result of its examination of the documents and its meetings with staff and students, the audit team was satisfied that the Handbook for Quality Assurance, amplified by the University's regulations for the MCS and other publications, was not only understood by staff and well disseminated, but also both comprehensive and suited to the purpose of assisting the smooth running of its course quality system. Although the team found some of the University's documentation to be excessively lengthy and, in places, repetitive, the University is to be commended on the clarity and utility of its Handbook for Quality Assurance.

ACADEMIC STANDARDS

22 The University's Handbook of University Regulations outlines an institutional commitment to ensure that the standards of its awards are comparable with those offered by other UK higher education institutions and asserts that the standard of the bachelor's degree with honours is 'the fixed point against which all other awards are measured'. For each award, the University has established an explicit benchmark standard against which course proposals are to be judged, 'defined in terms of full-time study, in academic years, by a student who has appropriate knowledge and skills to enter a programme of study of the minimum length'. For example, the standard of the University's honours degree is that expected of a student with the required entry qualifications who has completed a 'programme of study suitable for the fulfilment of the University's general educational aims and who has demonstrated the capacity for sustained independent and high quality work', normally for between three and six years. The regulations go on to set out the general educational aims by reference to knowledge, understanding and skills, together with further explication of the expectations at each level of study. Definitive course or field documents are required for all validated courses and these amplify, and where appropriate modify in the light of, for example, professional body requirements, the application of the general regulations. Guidance is also given on the approval of credit for prior and experiential learning. The University is to be commended for having an explicit policy in respect of the setting of academic standards and for establishing a clear, general framework for assessment (see also, paragraphs 69 to 73 below).

23 The effectiveness of the University's policy on academic standards is monitored through its annual course reviews; the external examining experience of its own staff; the reports of its external examiners, coupled with the overview of these reports given annually to the University Academic Board by the Dean of Quality Assurance; accreditation by the Business and Technology Education Council (BTEC) and various professional bodies; and through the HEFCE subject assessment process. Some external examiners' reports raised concerns in the minds of the audit team as to whether appropriate academic standards were being consistently attained, but the team concluded that the balance of the evidence of these reports and of HEFCE assessors indicated that the University was achieving its aim to maintain standards. Nevertheless, some external examiners' reports made available by the University suggested to the team that some teaching could be regarded as being insufficiently challenging and was not 'stretching' the students. Accordingly, the team was encouraged to learn that the University plans that in future its quality assurance system will give explicit attention and status to course delivery and assessment mechanisms.

24 The audit team noted the University's concern to maintain the standards of its awards and its unwillingness to compromise this. The reports of external examiners, HEFCE assessors and internal monitoring activities, indicated that, overall, the levels of attainment of the University's students might be at the lower end of the spectrum of achievement. This view was reaffirmed by statistics showing that the modal class of degree attained by students is a lower second (compared with an upper second nationally). The audit team noted that the percentage of students entering through the clearing system in the 1995-96 academic session was 61 per cent, a reduction from 68 per cent in the 1994-95 session, reflecting the University's long-term policy in the pattern of admissions. Although the level of students' attainment is lower than the national norm, the level of their qualifications on entry is also substantially lower. This reflects the University's particular access mission.

25 In its briefing materials, the University distinguished between academic quality and academic standards and found no conflict between its access mission and its responsibility to uphold academic standards. The audit team heard of a wide range of strategies which the University is adopting to address the issues of withdrawal and failure in the early years of a student's study programme including, for example, securing better information on the causes of withdrawal; improved student induction mechanisms; an increased focus on the development of study skills; revisions to the tutorial system to provide maximum support for first year students; improved and expanded student accommodation; improved central services and a 'customer care' programme; and various subject level initiatives within the faculties where particularly high failure rates have been experienced. The University is to be commended for the vigour and evident commitment it has shown in seeking to understand and address the various difficulties which it has faced in its transition from a college of higher education to University.

THE DESIGN, APPROVAL AND REVIEW OF PROGRAMMES OF STUDY

26 As noted above (paragraph 19), the University operates a two-stage validation process under which faculties have assumed significant quality assurance responsibilities for initial validation. The faculty stage is essentially developmental, culminating in the dean's approval for the submission documentation to go forward to a second, formal, stage of University validation.

The design and development of programmes

27 At the beginning of each academic year, faculties notify the University's Academic Board of their course planning intentions and make a preliminary judgement about matters such as programme design, match with existing provision and the availability of the necessary resources. Subject to confirmation by Academic Board and, where necessary, consideration by the Academic Executive of any resource implications extending beyond the initiating faculty, a course development team is established. A timescale for validation is agreed with the Academic Registrar, who is responsible not only for managing the second stage of the validation activity but also for keeping a watching brief over the process. A planning meeting involving, typically, the course manager, the dean or a nominee, a representative of the Academic Registry, the Head of the MCS or a nominee and, if known, the nominated chair of the validation panel is then convened. The purposes of the planning meeting include ensuring that the course team understands the University's expectations and that matters which need to be addressed during the development process are identified.

28 Course teams are expected, in developing their proposals, to take as much expert advice as they deem necessary, from within and without the faculty and, where relevant, from other higher education institutions, industry, commerce and professional bodies. The dean also will normally take advice before approving the documentation, signifying, on behalf of the FAB, that the faculty owns the proposal and will resource it as specified; that agreements on resourcing have been reached wherever necessary with departments outside the faculty; that the proposal conforms to University policies and regulations on such matters as equal opportunities, modularity, open learning, enterprise and marketing; and that the Head of Learning Resources is able to support the course as documented. Although there is no University requirement to do so, faculty validation events are usually held in the faculty prior to the dean giving approval to proceed to University validation. At such faculty meetings, the proposal is customarily examined both by University peers and by external experts.

29 From its scrutiny of the documentation and its discussions with staff, including staff from collaborating institutions, the audit team was satisfied that the practices of the faculties in their arrangements for the design and development of programmes closely correspond to the procedures prescribed in the regulations. These procedures are appropriately rigorous. The team noted with interest that the 1994-95 ASC Validation and Review Report had identified emerging problems, following devolution to faculties, concerning a perceived deterioration in the quality of submission documentation; a tendency of the faculties to submit documentation late; and he se ting of unrealistic timescales for validation. However, the team found no evidence of undue variation between faculties in the way their discretion was being exercised, and noted that the University was monitoring its experiences closely.

University scrutiny and approval of new or substantially modified programmes

30 University validation events consist of a meeting between the staff team responsible for developing the proposal and a validation panel comprising a mixture of internal and external peers, appointed, after consultation with the appropriate dean, by the Academic Registrar. Panels are chaired by an academic member of staff not associated with the proposal, drawn, normally, from a pool of about 20 senior, experienced staff. In a few cases, individuals from outside the University will chair such events. The panel normally includes two to four internal University members from outside the parent faculty and must include two or more members external to the University and independent of the proposed course (one of whom is normally a practising professional), the principal role of these external members being to provide relevant subject expertise. Where the validation is in partnership with a professional body, then the composition of the panel will also take into account that body's requirements.

31 Validation, the principles and criteria for which are clearly set out in the Handbook for Quality Assurance, is normally a single day event and is based on the submission documentation made available by the course team. The submission is also used as a basis for the definitive course document. The event includes an inspection of teaching and learning resources and, where possible, a meeting with students. The outcome is a report and a recommendation to Academic Board, for rejection or, more usually, for approval with or without conditions and/or recommendations and, unless a time limit is established, is subject to satisfactory future progress reviews. A course may only begin if the chair of the panel authorises it on the basis that all conditions have been met. It is a requirement that, within three months of authorisation, the definitive course document be lodged with the Academic Registry.

32 The provision of necessary resources has been a common condition of validation. The team discussed with the Academic Executive one instance where specified resources had not been in place prior to the start of the course and noted that, in such circumstances, it was regarded as being sufficient if the resources were formally committed and due to be made available before they were actually required by the teaching staff or students. It was explained to the team that faculty academic standards committee (FASC) representation on the FAB was a check against the dean, as the budget holder, acting improperly, and that cross-representation of other faculties on FASCs acted as a further control. Any suggestion of impropriety could, moreover, be challenged by other deans in the Academic Executive, which is the forum where, at the University level, resourcing matters are deliberated upon. Finally, a further check is achieved through staff representation on the University's Academic Board, where the final power of approval lies.

33 The audit team considered that the University's arrangements for integrating and scrutinising future resource demands, as a part of the validation process, were as thorough as they could reasonably be. Nevertheless, in view of some of the resource problems which the University has experienced during its recent period of expansion, and seems likely to continue to experience in view of further anticipated reductions in the unit of resource, the team had some concern about the degree to which, within the different arenas for debate, the University was accurately anticipating the extent of the demands its proposed developments would make upon its resources. The University will no doubt wish to continue to keep under careful review the effectiveness of its processes for resourcing new and expanded course provision.

34 Minor amendments to courses are dealt with in a flexible manner. Changes require the backing of the FASC; thereafter, the form of validation, including, for example, whether a validation panel needs to be established, will be determined by the Academic Registrar in consultation with the course manager. As a minimum, the Academic Registrar may require only that amended pages of the course document be submitted, so long as the external examiners have approved the change.

35 The audit team noted that the University's quality assurance arrangements were generally strongly paper-based, with heavy documentary demands. The team observed, for example, that the guidance published in the Handbook for Quality Assurance was that 15 to 30 pages would usually be 'adequate' to meet the requirement for the 'quite brief' documentation needed to support 'appreciable changes' to a course; and that the 1993-9 4 Report on Validation and Review itself commented that the validation process was running smoothly but 'may be rather heavy-handed, especially when making changes to an existing programme'. When it has gained more experience of their operation within a modularised framework, the University may wish to consider the desirability of seeking to introduce more economic quality assurance processes and some lightening of the demands placed upon its staff in this respect.

Course monitoring and review

36 Course monitoring processes range from informal contacts with students and other clients, to the University's standard annual monitoring system. Monitoring is regarded as a faculty responsibility, with the University's role in the process being confined to general oversight of both systems and outcomes. The system is expected to identify good performance as well as bad. Moreover, through the devising and implementation of action plans, there is expected to be a dynamic link between monitoring and evaluation on the one hand, and changes in curriculum design and delivery on the other.

37 Annual course monitoring begins with staff teams, who prepare written appraisals of the progress of their courses at the end of each academic session. Staff are asked to report on matters arising from the characteristics of the student body (entry qualifications, progression and achievement, and other statistics gathered, in standard format, through the University's management information system); lecturers' and students' perceptions of the course (gathered by the Academic Registry through questionnaires; see also, paragraph 74 below); the views of external stakeholders (including external examiners, employers and professional bodies); and meetings of course and field committees. The reports are considered by the FASCs, as a result of which the chairs of FASCs prepare summary reports of the findings. Separate reports are prepared centrally on the outcomes of student questionnaires, on the overall findings of external examiners and on the operation of the MCS. All of these reports are considered by the ASC and University's Academic Board. Well before the end of the first semester, it is intended that the Academic Board will be in a position to be able to form a judgement about the academic health of the institution.

38 The Handbook for Quality Assurance sets out the criteria for course monitoring. The audit team noted with interest that the approach is to use a five point qualitative evaluation on five aspects of the course, namely: entry qualifications; student perceptions of the course; lecturer perceptions of the course; external perceptions of the course; and achievements. Using general descriptions developed by the University, course teams are asked to ascribe self-critically a letter grade to their course, ranging from an 'A' grade indicating 'extremely good' to an 'E' grade indicating 'extremely poor'. While a course with mostly D and E grades may expect 'the closest of attention from its faculty', the team was unable to form a clear view as to the proportion of course elements to which such gradings had been ascribed by relevant course teams.

Monitoring of fields in the Modular Credit Scheme

39 Within the MCS, students are associated with fields not courses, so that monitoring mainly occurs at the field level. Annual review is carried out by the field manager and is concerned with the health of the field as a whole and of its modules. The process of reporting is, however, substantially the same, with reports being ratified by the field committee before going to the relevant faculty or inter-faculty board, which attaches a commentary, before transmission to ASC and Academic Board. At scheme level, the MSC submits its own report to ASC on the academic and administrative well-being of the scheme as a whole, based on statistical data and on the faculty reviews of the fields.

40 The audit team would wish to commend the University for introducing a comprehensive system of overview and summary reports. The team heard evidence of how the Academic Executive had responded to these and HEFCE subject assessments, for example by injecting additional resources into the library to support a particular subject area. The team was particularly impressed by the quality of the statistical information presented in the 1993-94 MCS annual report, despite the fact that the University, like many other institutions which have implemented modular structures, has encountered some difficulties with its student records and management information systems.

41 The audit team noted that the University had identified a range of quality assurance matters, familiar to modular schemes and largely arising from flexibility in programme design and the multiplicity of pathways for the students, which needed to be addressed. In view of the relatively recent introduction of the MCS, the University's monitoring procedures are inevitably still under development. The University is to be commended for the importance it has attached to the monitoring process, for the care with which it reviews feedback received from a variety of sources, and for its insistence in requiring explicit action plans within course and field reports. However, the team also noted that the length and quality of monitoring reports could vary and that some were rather uncritical, despite the guidance on the form and content of the reports that the ASC issued annually. In a number of instances, it was not clear to the team what had been done to implement the previous year's action plan or to address the comments of the external examiners (see also, paragraphs 70 to 73 below). The team was reassured to learn from staff that field and course committees and FASCs always sought to satisfy themselves that matters requiring remedial attention were addressed by an appropriate body during the following academic session. The University may, however, wish to consider making its academic accountability processes more visible by re-emphasising the requirement on course and field teams to be more self-critical and to outline in their annual reports what action has been taken to implement the previous year's action plan, including the action taken on external examiners' reports.

42 The University's stated intention is to secure greater co orate coordination of the various processes of annual course monitoring and periodic review, both quantitative and qualitative, and to ensure that the information generated by the process is used more effectively for quality enhancement purposes. The audit team noted that the University, as it approached its first significant series of progress reviews following its rapid expansion, was considering the possibility of grouping cognate courses and giving such groupings a subject focus.

43 The University sees the MCS as a powerful instrument for, on the one hand, responding to changing student demand and, on the other, ensuring compliance on a University-wide basis to a common set of regulations and procedures. The audit team was told that this sense of cohesion had been reinforced by the recent bringing together, in one building, of the Academic Registry, the MCS Office, the Centre for Educational Development (CED) and Admissions and Access, reflecting their functional interrelationships. The team also noted the corporate spirit and teamwork that appeared to exist within and between the faculties and central administration, without which these structural changes might have proved problematic.

Conclusions

44 The rapid expansion of the University's portfolio of programmes and the accompanying modularisation of the curriculum in response to the needs of students and employers, has inevitably tested to the II its mechanisms for the development and validation of courses and fields. The exposure of proposals to a range of opinions from outside both the parent faculty and the University is a feature of each stage of the validation process. The monitoring of courses and fields is, likewise, marked by a strong reliance upon feedback from students, staff and external quality assurers. While the University acknowledges that its procedures, rooted in the CNAA tradition, may be somewhat 'heavy-handed, it nevertheless believes them to be cost effective. Although there are matters which the University will clearly wish to consider in further detail, the evidence seen by the audit team suggested that, generally, planning, validation, monitoring and review practices comply with the procedures laid down by the University in its Handbook of University Regulations and supported by the Handbook for Quality Assurance. The procedures appeared to be well understood by staff and the interlocking operation of validation panels, FABs and FASCs, at both the faculty and University level, ensures full discussion of relevant matters. Importantly, these arrangements enable the University to identify and address, with reasonable speed, the quality assurance matters which confront it. The University is to be commended for having established rigorous planning, validation, monitoring and review mechanisms.

TEACHING, LEARNING AND THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Identification of quality in teaching and learning activities

45 The University states that the effectiveness of the teaching process 15 evaluated principally via career review and course reports (see also, paragraph 36 above and paragraph 84 below). The audit team noted that, while formal feedback was provided by students through module questionnaires, there were no specific questions seeking students' perceptions of the quality of individual teaching. Although staff with whom the team discussed this matter indicated that informal feedback was often sought from students, the University may wish to consider introducing a more formalised feedback mechanism.

The policy for teaching and learning

46 The University has sought to respond to resourcing constraints, changing expectations of students and employers, and pressures to provide students with an increasing range of academic and vocational skills, by looking for ways of teaching more effectively and efficiently, without any loss of quality. To this end, it is seeking to develop an explicitly student-centred curriculum which 'is more responsive to the changing needs of the full-time and part-time student body, and which encourages more student autonomy in learning'. The intention is to bring together into a single framework, through revision of the modular scheme and provision of guidelines for staff, a number of previously separate strands of development, namely: transferable skills; negotiated learning; diversified assessment; credit for work-based learning; and vocationalism; within a system of reduced class contact. The team was told that the implementation of the new curriculum had been deferred until October 1996, largely the consequence of the longer than anticipated time needed to secure agreement on the way forward and to prepare an appropriate 'organisational setting'. Staff who met the team testified to the extent of the policy debate taking place within the institution. The policy under discussion includes the possibility, identified in an initial document presented to the Academic Executive, of radical reductions in class contact time. The team, however, found some ambiguity among the staff it met about whether the principal for the proposed changes was to save money or to improve effectiveness.

Support for, and monitoring of, teaching

47 The University has introduced a number of strategies aimed at promoting improvement in teaching and underpinning the policy for a student-centred curriculum. These include, for example, the induction and mentoring of new staff; staff development and career review (see also, paragraphs 77 to 89 below); peer observation of teaching; the creation of teaching fellowships; and the reorganisation of support structures.

48 The University has published a Teaching, Learning and Assessment Handbook which is designed to prompt staff to review their pedagogical practice. In addition, the audit team learnt with interest that the annual staff development programme of seminars and workshops is prioritised by the central administration in response to matters raised in course reports and through career review processes. The team noted that the recently introduced policy for peer support of teaching (see also, paragraph 76 below) also supports the University's teaching improvement strategy.

The promotion of innovation in teaching and learning

49 The University advised the audit team that the reports of HEFCE assessors had 'encouraged it to be more active in the identification and sharing of pedagogical innovation through practical example'. To this end it was, at the time of the audit, in the process of appointing teaching fellows to act as 'champions' within their faculties and to forward innovative ideas to relevant colleagues. These new positions are designed to create a career pathway for those academic staff who wish to specialise in the teaching of their subject, to parallel the opportunities already open to staff to become principal lecturers and readers. The team met two newly appointed teaching fellows, who had been appointed following internal advertisement and, from its discussions, formed the view that these appointments could indeed provide a useful mechanism for stimulating interest in pedagogical innovation and in spreading good practice. The teaching fellows would, the team learnt, also provide the opportunity for an important additional link to be established between the faculties and the Staff Development Unit (SDU). The team also heard that, where appropriate resources could be made available, the Academic Executive sought to support those staff who devised viable schemes for improving their teaching skills.

50 In developing and beginning to implement its policy for supporting student learning, the University is to be commended for having created an atmosphere within which its staff feel that they are being encouraged to be innovative and, against a background of resource constraints, for producing, through extensive consultation, an explicit strategy designed to achieve important pedagogical improvements.

Advisory, tutorial and counselling services

51 The University has secured external funding to establish a regional guidance and information network for students which, it is hoped, will also form the basis for the development of a more integrated service to students within the University. At present, the provision of guidance and counselling are distributed between teaching staff, the Modular Office, personal tutors, the study support tutors in Learning Resources, the Students' Union, and Student Services. The Access and Admissions Unit provides a further focal point.

52 The University has sought to address the rapid growth in student numbers and, in some specific areas, the potentially high levels of student non-completion, by trying to concentrate its personal tutorial support system almost exclusively upon first year students and by encouraging students to become active independent learners. The audit team was told about the use of informal 'drop-in tutorials', the introduction of a pilot project to teach literacy skills to students on a referral basis, and the greater use being made of learning resources staff, demonstrators and technicians in direct contact with students. Students who met the team found University staff generally supportive and accessible, although some students expressed the view that the Modular Office might be more supportive. Students' Union officers told he team that there had been some loss of contact between staff and students as a result of the growth of the student body. The Students' Union also noted that although students undertaking dissertations received special support from 'dissertation tutors', it had some concerns about the level of support provided for second and third year students. However, such students who met the team indicated that they, and their colleagues, still went to their former personal tutors for advice, notwithstanding the new policy, and the team was accordingly satisfied that, overall, students did have access to advice and counselling services. The team noted that the University had recently been successful in a competitive bid to the HEFCE for funding to establish a more integrated advisory service, and that the first phase of implementation would begin in September 1996.

53 The audit team was told that, in response to the growth in student numbers, the staffing complement of Student Services had expanded significantly and, although there had been tensions, through close teamwork and revised working methods, the Service had managed to satisfy demand. For example, careers education staff had moved away from an individual interview format, had sought to develop a system of personal portfolios for students to build up, had designed a career planning handbook, and had sought, successfully in some areas, to get careers education integrated into the curriculum. The team was also interested to hear of a range of strategies, including the establishment of a new assessment centre, designed to address the difficulties faced by students with special needs.

54 A distinctive feature of the work of the central counselling and welfare services is the way in which their staff have sought to develop collaborative relationships with local community services, for instance in dealing with hardship, accommodation problems, and the personal security of students. In the latter instance, for example, a staff member sits on the Luton Crime Prevention Panel, community police officers hold regular 'surgeries' at the University, and a sub-group of the Panel meets three times a year to address specific matters. The University has also produced a student guide addressing personal safe and security. As a result, students who met the audit team believed that the University was doing all it reasonably could to protect their personal safety. The University is to be commended for these initiatives, which also serve to support its mission to the local community.

Student induction

55 New students are introduced to the University and the MCS through a comprehensive programme undertaken in a special 'induction week' held prior to the commencement of the first semester. Students also receive a number of supporting documents, including two useful and accessible publications entitled The AA Guide: Academic Advice for Students and the Rough Guide: A Student's Guide to the First Weeks of Term. International students are invited for a three-week 'Induction and Pre-sessional Programme', consisting of English Studies in the mornings and various talks and study tours in the afternoons. Students who met the audit team generally felt that they had been well inducted into the University and the environment of Luton. Some students had, however, experienced difficulties with accommodation and some international students suggested that the information they had received about the pre-sessional programme did not make clear what level of English language proficiency was required or what knowledge of life in the UK it presupposed, meaning that for some students the experience had been unsatisfactory. The University may, in the light of these observations, wish to consider reviewing the content of the information given to newly arriving international students.

Learning resources

56 The University's book collection has been developed from a relatively low base, reflecting the changing character of the institution. Between 1989 and 1994 the collection grew from 65,000 to 135,000 volumes and, by committing additional funds at a level above the median for the sector, current plans envisage a further expansion to some 220,000 volumes and 2,100 journals by 1998-99. The University has similarly ambitious plans to expand the information technology network and increase student access to computing facilities. The development of its learning resources is a key element in the University's strategy for teaching and learning and, as part of this strategy, the unification of management activities associated with information technology, library and media services is being pursued. A new Learning Resources Centre was opened in 1992 and the University's Strategic Plan provides for the addition, by 1998-99, of a further 4,000m²of teaching and office accommodation to deal with the growth of student numbers and changing curriculum needs. The audit team was greatly encouraged to learn that, despite the reductions in HEFCE capital funding levels, the necessary funding for this vital development had been secured and that building work would commence in early 1996. Meanwhile, the University sees itself as currently having the highest space utilisation efficiency in the UK higher education sector.

57 The audit team was told by the students it met that, although improvements had occurred, access to study texts, particularly as assignment deadlines drew near, could be a significant problem. In relation to information technology facilities, students made varying observations to the team, with some indicating that notable difficulties existed and others that it was only a problem when seeking to access word processing facilities in order to undertake assignments. While acknowledging these difficulties, learning resources and technical support staff with whom the team discussed these views indicated that similar problems were being experienced by many other higher education institutions. The strategies adopted by the University had, they believed, been appropriate. It was noted, for example, that generally, except where security problems intervened, the principal facilities were open for some 22 hours a day; while the book collection might not be as large as other institutions it was fully current and very carefully selected; new course proposals had to be 'signed off' by the Head of Learning Resources before they could be approved; inter-library loans were free to students (albeit with limits on the number of concurrent applications); the short-term loan system was strongly supported by students; and the University 's CD-Rom collection was being developed. Learning resources staff further indicated that a network of collaborative, reciprocal access links had been established with other libraries; there were effective arrangements in place for liaising with academic staff over book lists; technical support to outlying open access terminals was provided; a monitoring system had been developed to identify when peak periods of demand on computing facilities would occur; and there were suggestion boxes which enabled the Learning Resources Service to be responsive to particular problems identified by users.

58 The audit team was told that an important element of the University's current learning resources policy was to encourage students to purchase their own copies of a key set text for each module. Some course reports seen by the team questioned the realism of this expectation. Students with whom the team discussed the matter took the view that, in the light of students' increasing financial hardship, such purchases could not be relied upon as a matter of policy, a view which was shared by the Students' Union. The University may wish to keep this policy under careful review.

59 Appropriate and adequate teaching accommodation is a basic learning resource. Although in its discussions the audit team learnt of some equipment problems, it also heard some very positive appreciation of the facilities made available on specialist programmes. However, many students told the team that the shortage of space in general teaching rooms could be a particular problem, with several popular modules being overcrowded to such an extent that, in some instances, students had eventually ceased to attend. Staff with whom the team discussed this criticism generally rejected overcrowding as a serious current problem, although difficulties with planning the recruitment to individual modules were acknowledged to have created some problems in the past. It was felt that improved planning, the availability of more teaching accommodation, and the increased practice of duplicating provision of popular modules, had satisfactorily addressed the matter. The University will nevertheless wish to keep under review this important aspect of the student experience.

60 Part-time students, previously the majority of the University's students, are now in a minority, though there are plans for some expansion of numbers in the lifetime of the institution's current strategic plan. A number of part-time students who met the audit team felt that they were significantly disadvantaged by the University's learning resource arrangements, particularly access to facilities and resources at times when they were able to be in the University. Members of the ASC and the FABs with whom the team discussed these comments observed that the existence and nature of the problems varied across the faculties, and that senior management had recognised the need to review the matter. This view was confirmed by the team's scrutiny of course reports and by its discussions with students.

61 The audit team was told by the Head of Learning Resources that funding for learning resources was expected to grow in real terms and that, through his position as a member of the Academic Executive, the strategic importance of learning resource matters was properly represented in the University's forward planning activities. The University will no doubt wish to ensure, however, that part-time students enjoy access to learning resource facilities and to teaching and support staff which is equal to that of full-time students and that their special needs are carefully monitored.

62 While impressed by the energy and the range of strategies being devoted to learning resources, the audit team noted the University's own acknowledgement, derived through an analysis of the information provided by student satisfaction surveys, validation panel reports and HEFCE assessment reports, that 'the scale of its learning resources provision needs to be significantly enhanced to provide to students and staff the level of service expected of a major higher education institution, and to respond to the new learning needs of students implied by the adoption of the student-centred curriculum'. The team noted with interest that, at the time of the audit visit, work had just commenced on a £5 million capital project to extend the Learning Resources Centre and that, since 1994, learning resources staff had held formal meetings with their stakeholders, with a view to enabling the University to continue to respond to the perceived needs of its users.

Monitoring individual student progress

63 As part of its student assessment policy (see also, paragraphs 69 to 73 below), the University requires each course and field to ensure the prompt return of assessed course work and to specify the time within which such work will be returned to the student. The audit team noted from the briefing documentation that course teams have responded variably to this requirement, and some did not appear to specify a timescale. The team also heard from students that, in some cases, course work had been returned late, sometimes after the completion of the module and the end of semester examinations. Student responses to the module questionnaires also supported this view. The University may wish to consider reinforcing its practice in this area, particularly in light of its decision not to produce a student charter (see also, paragraph 93 below), so as to ensure that its stated policy is carried out in all cases.

Postgraduate research student monitoring, supervision and training

64 The University has made a substantial investment in postgraduate research since it was given powers to award research higher degrees in April 1993. Out of a total of some 130 postgraduate research students, 48 are fully funded by the University, and six from other sources. On the grounds that quality in research contributes to quality in teaching, staff members are encouraged to register for higher degrees, and 37 are currently registered as part-time research degree candidates. In practical terms, research students are well supported. The University's internal bursaries are set at £1,000 per annum above the relevant research council rate, and there are other benefits including the provision of office space and personal computers. The University seeks to meet the costs of attending conferences, of obtaining literature through inter-library loans, and of travel to other libraries to consult material not readily available in Luton. It also meets the costs of at least two meetings a year between students and their external supervisors (see also, paragraph 67 below). Students are encouraged to participate in a limited amount of teaching and receive payment for this activity and the associated preparation time.

65 The audit team heard that the University's selection criteria for research degree students are flexible. While the normal expectation is that candidates for research degrees should have good first degrees, students with less conventional backgrounds who can demonstrate adequate motivation are also considered. All new research students attend an induction course which covers research methods, the availability of support services, preparing material for oral presentation and publication, and the expectations of both students and supervisors. All research students have one principal internal supervisor, called the director of studies, who is required to identify one supporting internal supervisor and one external, the overall objective being to ensure that there is both specialist and general expertise available to the research student. The University Research Committee (URC) examines carefully the qualifications and experience of the supervisory team and must be satisfied that appropriate supervision is available before it will approve a studentship. Students recruited in this manner are required to register for the degree of MPhil within six months of joining the University, and again the URC examines the proposals in detail, if necessary referring applications back, before approving them. Transfers from MPhil to PhD status, which normally take place between 15 and 20 months after starting, are also examined carefully. Students are required to summarise their achievements and future aims in a report of some 15-20 pages which, following review by the relevant faculty research committee, is considered by the University's Research Degrees Committee (RDC). Students transferring are additionally required to give a seminar on their work to a panel containing their supervisors, members of the RDC, other members of staff, and their fellow research students. At submission for the degree of PhD, the director of studies, after consulting the candidate and other staff as appropriate, submits the name, qualifications and curriculum vitae of a suggested external examiner through the faculty research committee to the RDC, the aim being to identify well respected individuals with appropriate experience.

66 As part of its effort to determine and maintain the standard of its research degrees, the University established, in 1992, a Quality Audit Panel for research degrees (QAP), a sub-committee of the governing body and composed of external, research-active members from other higher education institutions. The QAP has met on a number of occasions and has given advice which, the audit team heard, had been greatly valued by the University. In 1995, shortly before the audit visit, the QAP declared that it felt it had completed its task and should now be disbanded, advice which the University has accepted.

67 Various mechanisms, both formal and informal, exist to enable research students to deal with any problems that may arise. They are able to raise matters formally with their director of studies and pursue them through their faculties to the respective dean. After consultation with their head of department and the FAB, research students are entitled to change supervisors or arrange for an additional supervisor to be appointed. However, the team heard that the preferred route for dealing with problems is through the Research Students' Support Group, which was established by the students themselves. This group encourages interaction between research students and can take up matters informally with the Director of Research, FABs and the RDC. The Group thus, the team was told, performs a useful function in anticipating and dealing with potential problems before they become unduly serious. The full-time research students whom the team met were generally satisfied with their treatment and achievements. After reviewing the various documents made available by the University and its meetings with staff and research students, the audit team wishes to commend the University for its commitment to supporting postgraduate research students.

Conclusions

68 The audit team found that the University has a commendable range of strategies to promote improvement in teaching, to monitor the undergraduate student learning experience, and to ensure the effective supervision and support of postgraduate research students. However, the team noted that the provision of learning resources has, in the recent past, not always matched the University's expansion in student numbers, to the detriment of the student experience. The team was, therefore, encouraged by observations of students they met indicating that the situation was an improving one and that, in the students' view, within its resource constraints the University was doing what could reasonably be expected of it to support them in their study programmes.

STUDENT ASSESSMENT AND THE CLASSIFICATION OF AWARDS

69 Through the Academic Board, the University seeks to ensure that its academic standards are clear and consistent across courses by describing in some detail the criteria used to assess students' achievements in relation to degree classification (see also, paragraph 22 above). This information is also included in the University's MCS Staff Handbook. For new staff, this basic information is supplemented by discussion with mentors (see also, paragraph 80 below). For work-based learning schemes, the University seeks, through systematic staff discussions, to adapt its internal assessment procedures so that the material and processes used in the work-based mode produce comparable outcomes. For examined material, it is striving to implement double marking consistently. However, the team also heard that double marking practices were not universal, and it would accordingly wish to support the University's attempts to pursue opportunities for extending the practice.

External examiners

70 External examiners are made aware of the criteria for assessment through the University's Handbook on Assessment, which describes in considerable detail both the procedures and criteria to be adopted in the assessment process. External examiners can be nominated by course teachers, and the University maintains a database to assist in this activity. Nominations are progressed from the FASC, signed as approved by the dean of faculty, and thence to the ASC, which periodically notifies the University's Academic Board of the appointments made. The audit team formed the view that this level of scrutiny was appropriately rigorous. For each programme of study, the University aims to appoint at least two external examiners who do not hold more than one other substantial external examinership at another higher education institution.

71 External examiners' reports are sent, in the first instance, to the Academic Registrar, who checks that they have been prepared in accordance with University guidelines. The Academic Registrar, helpfully, also produces a digest of the reports, identifying common themes and matters which may be of University-wide interest. This summary report is ultimately discussed by the University's Academic Board. External examiners' reports are forwarded to the appropriate FAB for consideration before being passed to course and field managers and their teams. The audit team heard, however, that in some cases individual staff members and, in particular, visiting lecturers had not, in practice, seen the reports but had received verbal briefings instead. The team also heard that several external examiners' reports had not been received in sufficient time to be commented upon by course and field boards as part of the annual monitoring process. The University may, therefore, wish to consider whether mechanisms could be developed to encourage external examiners to submit more timely monitoring reports (see also, paragraph 72 below).

72 The audit team had an opportunity to examine a number of external examiners' reports and to review the subsequent processes. This scrutiny revealed a number of recurring comments including observations that external examiners did not always have an opportunity to comment on draft examination papers; that they were not always provided with sufficient time to undertake an appropriate review of scripts; that they did not always receive mark sheets setting out students' complete records; and that some individuals believed that there could be inadequate discussion between internal and external examiners at the adjudication stage. In one instance, an external examiner had questioned whether the degree being gained was truly of 'Honours standard'. The team observed that FASCs consider course and field committees' annual monitoring reports alongside external examiners' reports, but it was not always evident that in all cases specific points of concern had been incorporated into course action plans. In at least one instance, the same critical comments from an external examiner had appeared in two consecutive annual reports, suggesting that effective remedial action had not been taken. As some external examiners' comments appeared to the team to raise serious matters of concern, the University may wish to consider the necessity of ensuring that responses to the specific concerns of external examiners are referred to in the course team's subsequent action plan, even if such plans merely state that the course team believed that no specific remedial action was necessary.

73 The audit team noted with interest that the University also conducts its own audit of the examination process, carried out by an external examinations auditor who is a retired former member of the University. The team learnt through its reading of the auditor's report for 1993-94 and through discussions with University staff, that this report had identified serious defects in the arrangements for, and the conduct of, University examinations. Some examination papers had contained errors, including, for example, one instance where the length of the paper had not been stated, and in one case the examiner setting the paper had not been made aware that there were to be no restrictions on the material which candidates could take into the examination. Further, there appeared to be no consistent policy about whether candidates whose native language was not English were to be allowed extra time, and problems had also arisen in accommodating students in suitable rooms and in correctly informing them of the location of their examination. Problems with invigilation arrangements and referred examinations had also been identified. The team heard that the 1994-95 examination auditor's report had also identified difficulties, albeit different to those in the previous year's report. In commending the University for undertaking an external audit of its examination processes, the team hopes that the University will wish carefully to scrutinise the underlying reasons of the concerns identified through such external review.

FEEDBACK AND ENHANCEMENT PROCESSES

Student questionnaires and representation

74 The University indicated, both in its briefing materials and discussions with the audit team, that it places particular emphasis on seeking and acting on students' views. At postgraduate research student level, the mechanisms employed appeared to the team to be working well (see also, paragraph 67 above). At undergraduate level, the formal mechanisms used for obtaining student feedback involve student representatives and questionnaires targeted at both individual modules and overall courses. The questionnaires used by the University allow students to comment on the content of courses, their organisation, assessment mechanisms, and the quality of learning resources and other facilities. Responses to the questionnaires are used in the compilation of annual course reports and comprise a valuable database for assessing the overall quality of the student learning experience. However, the team heard that the return rate for questionnaires had, historically, been relatively low, and, in this regard, some of the students it met commented that they did not always appear to be distributed. The students, noting that a section was provided for the students' registration number, also appeared to doubt the stated confidentiality of the questionnaires. They also suggested that the forms contained sections which some respondents might treat with some caution, including, for example, questions relating to age, sex and ethnic origin. University staff with whom the team raised this matter indicated that it was not compulsory to enter such data, but accepted that the request for information could, perhaps, be revised. The team, acknowledging the value to the University of obtaining student opinion, wondered whether the distribution of questionnaires could be made more uniform and whether the purposes of seeking feedback could be made clearer to students, thereby encouraging improved response rates to University questionnaires. The team learnt that, in response to representations from the Students' Union, questionnaires for the 1995-96 academic session were being made completely anonymous. The team was told by the University that this change could lead to a reduction in analytic value.

75 Student representatives on course, faculty and University committees typically pursue matters of more general interest to the student body and it was generally accepted by both students and staff who met the audit team that they played a useful role. The team also noted that a number of more informal feedback mechanisms existed, for example through the personal tutorial system (see also, paragraph 52 above).

Review of teaching performance

76 The audit team was informed that the University also secures teaching performance feedback through the widespread use of staff monitoring. In addition to the mentoring system for new appointees (see also, paragraph 80 below), the University has introduced systematic peer review of teaching performance. The review process involves lecturing staff being present in teaching classes given by their colleagues in order to discuss together their operation and explore, where appropriate, improvement strategies. The team was encouraged to learn that the review system was widely accepted by staff and undertaken in a mutually co-operative manner. Further, it was viewed positively not only by recently appointed staff but also by more established staff, some of whom commented to the team that, with the change to University status, some modification to their teaching practices had proved necessary and the review process had acted as an important catalyst for this.

STAFF APPOINTMENT, DEVELOPMENT, PROMOTION AND REWARD

Introduction

77 It was evident to the audit team that the significant growth which has occurred in the University's staffing complement would be an important factor in any audit of the University's quality assurance arrangements. The University's staffing profile produced in November 1995, a copy of which was seen by the team, showed that approximately three quarters of the full-time academic staff had been appointed in the previous five years and one quarter in the previous two. Additionally, a very large increase in student numbers in September 1993 had, in a number of departments, necessitated the appointment of a significant number of visiting lecturers. At the time of the audit, the growth rate in staff numbers had slowed considerably.

Appointment and induction

78 The University has in place clear and well-documented procedures for the appointment of new staff, which involve the production of a job and person specification. The latest version of its appointment procedures, produced in August 1995, indicated that, in addition to a formal interview by a panel whose membership was specified for the different grades of appointment, an informal stage involving a longer list of candidates might be considered. It was not clear to the audit team how anyone other than the relevant dean was involved in drawing up either the long or short list, though the personnel manager had to be informed of the reasons for rejecting candidates from the longer list. The University stresses the importance of appropriate teaching ability in making its appointments, though it was not clear to the team whether it had any consistent or direct means, through for example a requirement for candidates to conduct a short teaching session, to assess candidates' teaching abilities. In its discussions with staff from the personnel department and others involved in staff appointment activity, the team learnt that these processes were now being applied to the appointment of visiting lecturers. In its discussions with a group of visiting lecturers the team learnt that the means of appointment, including some recent examples, were more varied and sometimes informal. The team noted with interest that the University now conferred the title of 'Luton associate lecturer', with attendant rights to facilities and staff development, to part-time staff teaching more than three hours a week.

79 The induction of new staff, including associate lecturers and other visiting lecturers, which in the past has been rather informal, is now organised around a 'New Staff Conference', which takes place twice annually. In addition, staff new to teaching are provided with specific induction in teaching, learning and assessment matters, including an introduction to the University's policy on academic standards. Both of these events are organised centrally by the University's Staff Development Unit (SDU) and are supplemented by departmental and faculty induction mechanisms which are provided on a more informal basis. Each faculty dean is required to confirm to the personnel department that such local induction has occurred. In its discussions with a variety of academic staff, the audit team found that the induction process was highly regarded. In further discussions with staff involved in providing induction programmes, the team heard with interest that, although there was no formal course in higher education teaching specifically provided for University staff, there was a post-compulsory certificate in education course available. The team was told that, at the time of its visit, some nine academic staff were studying on the programme.

80 Since September 1994, all new full-time and part-time academic staff have been provided with a mentor. To support mentors and those in receipt of mentoring, a Guide to Mentoring booklet has been published setting out clearly what the mentoring scheme entails and providing a checklist to ensure that support is effectively provided. The mentoring scheme was supported by those recently appointed staff with whom the audit team had discussions.

81 The audit team would wish to commend the University on the organisation of its induction and mentoring arrangements and on the inclusion of visiting lecturers in these activities. However, given the importance the University attaches to effective teaching (see also, paragraph 76 above), the University may wish, as it reviews its induction arrangements, to consider making the post-compulsory certificate in education course more widely known and available to new staff.

Staff development and appraisal

82 Organised staff development opportunities are provided centrally by the SDU and locally by the faculties. The University stated in its documentation that the SDU provided development in support of broad corporate objectives, encompassing generic skills, while faculties and departments concentrated on scholarship and subject related matters. The SDU has responsibility for the corporate staff development programme, complementing the responsibilities of the Professional Development and Training Department which undertakes developmental work with employers. The process is further assisted by the Staff Development Advisory Group, a sub-committee of the Academic Board composed of academic and support staff which, at the time of the audit, had just been reorganised and retitled the Staff Development Committee (SDC).

83 The audit team was provided with information on the University's staff development programmes and noted their volume and range. In its discussions with senior staff, the team was told that the annual budget for staff development, despite the University's low unit of resource, was considered to be quite generous and this was a view supported by academic staff, who expressed satisfaction with the staff development activities they had attended. Training targeted at student-centred learning and the modular scheme, both important areas for the University (see also, paragraph 46 above), were identified as having been of particular value. These events had also been attended by some visiting lecturers and by support staff. The team was also interested to note that, in 1993-94 academic session, the University had decided to apply for an 'Investors in People' award and that, at the time of the audit, it was known to be the only University to have gained such institution-wide recognition.

84 The personal development system, which the University terms 'Career Review', was carefully examined by the audit team, both through documentation and meetings with staff. The career review process appeared to be well embedded in the faculties, and to be supported by staff. It also appeared to the team to feed successfully into the staff development programme, there being a requirement that faculties inform the SDU of the development needs arising from these annual career reviews.

85 The audit team would wish to commend the University on the scope, comprehensiveness and relevance of its staff development activities. As it continues to develop its interests in this area, the University may wish to keep under careful review the staff development activities at present undertaken by the central unit and the six faculties.

Equal opportunities in staffing

86 The University has an equal opportunities policy which, the audit team learnt from staff, was shortly to be reviewed. The University's personnel department has responsibility for the staffing aspects of equal opportunities and, in particular, for monitoring and producing statistics on its staffing complement. The department had, at the time of the audit, produced a staffing profile, including statistics on the age, gender, ethnic origin and service profiles of all University staff. In its discussions with staff responsible for staffing matters, the audit team was told that the relatively small numbers of women in senior posts and the proportion of staff from ethnic minority backgrounds were matters which the University was actively considering. In further discussions, the team learnt that, although all applicants for posts were requested to complete an equal opportunities monitoring form, these forms had never been subject to central analysis and that, accordingly, no information was at present available to enable a comparison of applications with appointments. The University also states that it expects that there will be representatives of both sexes on appointment panels, although the team heard of some cases where this had not occurred. The University may, therefore, wish to consider analysing, as resources permit, equal opportunities data received from applicants to University posts and of seeking, where practicable, to eliminate single gender appointment panels.

Promotions and appointments to special posts

87 The University has produced documentation establishing policies and procedures for a variety of appointments which are available, sometimes exclusively, to internal candidates. In 1993, it produced a document on the criteria for the selection and promotion of principal lecturers, identifying four broad areas of expertise which were relevant, namely, course design, managerial competence, scholarship and research and 'awareness of sectoral developments'. In acknowledging the importance of such appointments and the potential for short term difficulties if inappropriate people were selected, it concluded that 'the University must recognise and reward, as part of its promotional strategy, those people who have shown the potential to help the University to acquit itself well'.

88 In 1994, the University approved procedures for the appointment of professors and readers. The document on professorships states that the criteria are personal recognition in relation to their profession, qualities of leadership and a record and reputation as a communicator. All staff are eligible and individuals may nominate themselves, be nominated by two colleagues or be personally invited to apply by the Vice-Chancellor. There is a two-stage procedure, the first being an advisory stage in which the Dean of Quality Assurance and the Director of Research, assisted by up to two other senior staff, determine whether a prima facie case has been established. If a case is believed to exist, or if the candidate wishes to proceed notwithstanding the absence of formal first stage approval, a conferment board, chaired by the Vice-Chancellor and including two external members of professorial status, is established to consider and decide on the application. It is also possible for a professorship to be conferred as a result of an externally advertised post, in which case the University endeavours to ensure that the appointment panel meets the requirements of a conferment board. The personal skills criteria for readerships are rather more elaborately set out, but no specific procedure for appointment is identified. Initial appointments are for three years, with renewal for a further two year period, subject to satisfactory review. The University had, at the time of the audit, used these powers sparingly, having appointed 11 professors and nine readers.

89 As a result of its reading of relevant briefing documentation and its meetings with staff, the audit team formed the view that the procedures and policies adopted by the University for the promotion and career development of staff were broadly appropriate. The University has already (see also, paragraph 49 above) been commended for the way in which its policy on teaching fellows supports its mission as a teaching institution and the team also noted the use of professorial and readership appointments to support its developing research activities. In reviewing its policy and practice in these areas, the University may wish to consider producing and promulgating a more explicit procedure for the appointment of readers.

CONTENT OF PROMOTIONAL MATERIAL RELATING TO ACADEMIC PROVISION

90 The initiative for the design and text of promotional material for courses rests with field and scheme managers and is channelled through the appropriate FAB or, in the case of the modular scheme, through its scheme board. The material is produced in collaboration with the marketing director, who is responsible for its presentational quality and accuracy. The Head of Marketing and the International Office is also ultimately responsible for all advertisements used in relation to the recruitment of staff and students.

91 The audit team saw a variety of publicity material, including undergraduate and postgraduate prospectuses and a range of specific course publicity material, covering both University campus based and collaborative programmes. The team was able to satisfy itself, from its discussions with both staff and students and from its reading of associated documentation, that the arrangements for the production of publicity materials were well understood and that promotional material was of an appropriate standard.

92 The audit team did learn, however, of examples where the accuracy of promotional material had been questioned. In discussions with students, the team was told of one instance where a student had been offered a place on a course after responding to a press advertisement, only to find on arrival at the University that the course was no longer available. The student was, the team was told, subsequently offered a place on another course. In another example, the team's attention was drawn to the promotional material produced in relation to a collaborative franchise arrangement with a local institution, Barnfield College. There had been some student concern, evidenced in annual monitoring reports over the three years of the course's operation, that course literature and other information given to students had led them to believe that they would be based at the University, only to discover, on taking up the course, that they were to be located at the partner college. The team was informed by University staff that action had now been taken to redesign the promotional material in order to avoid any such misunderstanding. However, a recent publicity document relating to this course seen by the team suggested that the information provided was still capable of confusing students. The franchised course was variously described as being offered 'in association with the University of Luton', by 'the University of Luton at Barnfield' and at 'the Barnfield campus'. Moreover, in discussion with the marketing director, it appeared that he had neither approved nor seen this particular document, though it was also suggested that the material might have been produced 'for local use'. The University may wish to consider reviewing its otherwise clear processes for securing the accuracy, uniformity and quality of promotional material, in order to ensure that their implementation applies equally to collaborative course material.

STUDENT CHARTER

93 The University has recently decided, after some deliberation, not to produce a specific charter setting out the rights and responsibilities of students and the standards of service they might expect to receive. Instead, it has produced two documents: an Academic Advice Guide, setting out the University's expectations of, and the policies and procedures which affect, the student experience; and a Student Services Directory, outlining the student support services, including guidance and counselling, which are available to students. The audit team was able to examine both documents and to satisfy itself that they set out clearly what was available to, and what was expected of, students. It was also evident to the team that the Regulations for the Modular Credit Scheme further amplified aspects of student assessment and arrangements for the return of assessed work.

94 Although the University has a clear policy and an effective set of procedures for student appeals against assessment decisions, it did not, at the time of the audit visit, have such a set of procedures for other kinds of student complaint. The audit team was told that the University was reviewing this matter. Based on the documentary information available to the team and from its discussions with students, it was apparent that the Students' Union was, in general terms, in agreement with the University's approach. Students whom the team met said that they could, and did, complain through the Students' Union or their course representatives to get problems dealt with quickly and effectively. While reassured by the good relations which appeared to exist between Union officials, course representatives and University staff, the team thought that the University might wish to consider the merits of putting in place, as soon as possible, a more formal student complaints mechanism and keeping its decision not to promulgate a specific student charter under review.

VALIDATION, FRANCHISING AND OTHER FORMS OF COLLABORATIVE PROVISION

Collaborative policy

95 The University's collaborative course provision arrangements with other institutions are both recent and modest. At the time of the audit, there were some 479 students located in a relatively small number of partner institutions. The longest standing collaborative arrangements have grown out of the University's association with local colleges through the Bedfordshire Access Consortium and the South Bedfordshire Colleges Federation. A number of collaborative access and BTEC programmes have arisen from these linkages. Reflecting its developing experience in this area, more recently the University has established links with a private college in London to offer a master's degree in Systemic Psychotherapy; has, in collaboration with Vauxhall Motors, developed a work-based learning programme for a Business Systems degree; has established two international franchises, one in Athens and one in Singapore; and, with effect from September 1995, has franchised year one of its Graphic Design degree to a local college.

96 Through scrutinising available briefing documentation and the outcomes of its discussions with staff and students, the audit team formed the view that the University had approached its collaborative ventures with sensible caution. In particular, it appeared that the University had sought to ensure that identical, or broadly similar, approval and monitoring processes were applied to such associations as applied to on-campus provision. Procedures had been developed to enable an initial scrutiny to be made of the prospective partner institutions' fitness to enter into a collaborative arrangement. These appeared to have worked effectively in the recent development of international collaborations, involving visits both by academic staff and a member of the directorate to assess physical and human resources and the overall appropriateness of the academic environment. Approval to proceed with the University's two international collaborations had rested personally with the Vice-Chancellor. In the case of local partner colleges, institutional checks had been characterised by informal processes deriving from the close relationships which existed between the University and the colleges. The initial course approval process had, however, included examination of specific resources and, in one instance, the Dean of Quality Assurance had undertaken an exploratory visit to a college and provided a formal report of the visit to the ASC. Although the team considered that the University's local partnership arrangements might have benefited from a more formal initial institutional scrutiny, it was not made aware of any major problems that had arisen which could be directly attributable to the absence of such a review.

97 The audit team did, however, encounter some confusion about the status of some local collaborative arrangements, both in terms of quality assurance arrangements and the position of students. For example, a validated HND programme offered at Dunstable College was frequently referred to in briefing documentation as being franchised. In discussions with University and partner institution staff it emerged that, until the 1995-96 academic session, the course had not been associated with the University's quality assurance system, being described as having 'a direct relationship with BTEC'. The team was assured that the course was 'now being integrated with Luton's quality assurance processes' in a more formal arrangement. In addition, partner institution students on this study programme whom the team met said that, until recently, they were unaware of the link with the University and, in particular, of their rights of access to University facilities. Their awareness had been raised, it was reported, by the arrival of students on the franchised Graphic Design degree, and since then they had gained access to the University library and other facilities, including those of the Students' Union.

98 An HND programme offered at Barnfield College, in contrast, appeared to the audit team to be more fully integrated with the University's quality assurance processes and, through its reading of annual reports and in discussions with partner institution and University staff, the team concluded that course monitoring was effectively conducted. The franchise arrangement had, in June 1995, undergone a successful reapproval process, having been approved originally for three years. The programme was, at the time of the audit, operating for the first time in year one as a stand-alone operation, the parent pathway at the University having been discontinued. Although there had been a number of conditions attaching to the re-approval, one of which required the Barnfield course board to be a sub-committee of the appropriate University field board, the franchise appeared to be firmly established and to be well supported by both staff and students. There were also clear arrangements at Barnfield for the double marking of assessed student work by University staff (see also, paragraph 69 above).

99 As noted previously (see also, paragraph 92 above), some students who met the audit team expressed concern that they had not, in their view, been made clearly aware that they would be located at a partner college for all, or part, of their studies. This had led to some dissatisfaction and the transfer of several students to other courses run at the University. The majority of students did, however, indicate that they were aware of, and exercised, their rights of access as University students. Their timetables had been arranged so as to leave significant blocks of time available for them to visit the main campus and University transport was made available to facilitate this.

100 The audit team was told that the University's two recent international franchises had been subject to rigorous validation. In order to ensure that validation conditions were satisfied and to ensure that liaison arrangements were secure, the University had deferred the start of both franchises until 1996, The team noted that the external examiners for these programmes would be the same as for the parent courses offered in the UK and that both UK and overseas staff were committed to ensuring comparability of standards. The University has prepared interim guidance on the development of collaborative links with international partners.

101 At the time of the audit, the University had recently validated a postgraduate diploma and master's degree in Systemic Psychotherapy with a private college, an arrangement which it had taken over from another validating institution. The audit team had access to the report of the validation event and learnt that although some of the conditions, notably the production of a student handbook, had not, at the time of the audit, yet been met, the University had sought to satisfy itself that corrective actions were being taken by the partner institution. The team also learnt that, although there had been modifications to the course, the University had confirmed the appointment of the same external examiners as used by the previous validating institution. The team also noted that it was intended that any new, relevant staff appointments at the partner institution would be approved in partnership with the University.

102 Reviewing the information made available to it and, in particular, noting the uncertainties which appeared to exist in relation to the status of some collaborative ventures, the audit team considered that the University might wish to consider developing and then promulgating updated guidance on its collaborative provision addressing matters such as, for example, programme planning and design; programme management; assessment activities; programme monitoring; and student rights and responsibilities.

Work-based learning

103 At the time of the audit visit, the University's work-based learning initiatives, in particular a close collaboration with Vauxhall Motors, had been in operation for about two years. The audit team learnt that these innovative developments had been considered carefully, both by a working party specifically established to develop such initiatives and through the University's validation mechanisms. It appeared to the team that considerable thought had been given to the feasibility of matching the learning outcomes of existing modules to the work undertaken by students in their place of work. Further, it was apparent to the team that particular efforts had been made by University staff to ensure the success of the work-based mode of delivery even though, as noted in the first annual monitoring report, this had involved more staff time than had previously been envisaged. The annual monitoring report was, the team considered, commendably thorough and informative, and clearly identified areas where improvements still had to be made. Drawing attention to the low non-completion rates, students and staff from Vauxhall Motors, whom the team met, were all enthusiastic and fully supportive of the course. It was even reported to the team that two course members who had been transferred to other plants, one in the Netherlands, returned to Luton one day every week in order to continue their studies. The University is to be commended on this innovative development and is encouraged to build on its initial success.

CONCLUSIONS AND POINTS FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION

104 The University of Luton is England's newest university. Against a background of constrained resources, it has grown rapidly. In its Statement of Mission, the University recognises that its major role is as a teaching institution and that other functions, such as the development of a research portfolio, should be seen, in part, as supporting this primary role.

105 In parallel with the rapid growth in the number of students on its taught courses, considerable efforts have been made by the University to develop its resource base. Resources have accordingly been allocated within a carefully developed and prioritised framework, supported by fully established systems of quality assurance and an overt recognition of the need to be flexible and responsive when tackling operational difficulties. The audit team noted several innovative developments including, for example, the development of a student-centred learning policy and a number of work-based learning initiatives. In addition, it has reinforced its strong commitment to supporting the extension of opportunities for higher education to all who can benefit, and to actively supporting such students.

106 These are significant developments, which serve to fulfil the University's mission. Nevertheless, the audit team formed the view that the speed and nature of change at the University have had an effect, in the past few years, on the quality of the student experience. There have been, for example, some difficulties in accessing learning resources, instances of overcrowded teaching accommodation and administrative problems with the conduct of examinations (see paragraphs 57 to 60 and 72 to 73 above). The team also noted questions relating to the maintenance of standards in some areas, of the impact of the access mission on levels of academic achievement, and the effectiveness of responses to some external examiners' reports (see paragraphs 24, 46 and 72 to 73 above). The University has, however, readily responded to such matters, considerably improving its quality assurance systems and, in turn, the standards of its academic programmes. Students have appreciated the improvements made by the University in relation to the quality of their learning experience. The team has concluded that the systems of course quality assurance being developed by the University are now founded upon robust principles and are well understood and actively supported by staff. Staff met by the team demonstrated a high morale, a particularly strong commitment to the University's operational aims, and confidence in the institution's ability to fulfil its mission.

107 In its discussions with the audit team, the University recognised that, as it continued to grow and consolidate its position, some problems remained to be addressed. In dealing with such difficulties the University will, in the view of the team, be assisted by its commendable openness, by a commitment to continuous improvement, and its ability to identify, and increasingly to anticipate, problems affecting the quality of provision.

108 The audit team considered that there were a number of features of the University's approach to the quality of its educational provision which it would wish to commend as well as others which it would wish to bring to the attention of the University for further consideration. The team commends the University in particular for:

(i) the clarity and utility of its Quality Assurance Handbook (paragraphs 21 and 44);

(ii) seeking to establish an explicit policy in respect of the setting of academic standards and for developing a clear general framework for its various assessment activities (paragraph 22);

(iii) the vigour and evident commitment it has shown in seeking to understand and address the various difficulties which it has faced in the light of its transition from a college of higher education to University (paragraph 25 et seq.);

(iv) seeking to establish rigorous processes for the planning, validation, monitoring and review of its programmes of study (paragraphs 29, 40, 41 and 44);

(v) its attempts to create a working environment within which its staff feel that they are being encouraged to be innovative and for developing, through extensive consultation, an explicit strategy designed to achieve important pedagogical improvements (paragraph 50);

(vi) the initiatives it has taken in collaboration with the local community to address matters related to student hardship, accommodation and personal security (paragraph 54);

(vii) its commitment to supporting postgraduate research students (paragraph 67);

(viii) the introduction of an external examinations audit in order to review the effectiveness of its various assessment mechanisms (paragraph 73);

(ix) its organisation of staff induction and monitoring arrangements, and the explicit inclusion of visiting lecturers in these activities (paragraph 81);

(x) the scope, comprehensiveness and relevance of its staff development activities (paragraph 85);

(xi) its innovative developments in establishing work-based learning programmes, and, in this regard, for the successful partnership that has been formed with Vauxhall Motors (paragraph 103).

109 As the University continues to review and develop its quality assurance processes, and in the light of the findings of the audit team, it is invited to consider the necessity of:

(i) ensuring that responses to the specific concerns of external examiners are referred to in a course team's subsequent action plan, even if such plans merely state that the course team believed that no specific remedial action was necessary (paragraph 72);

(ii) continuing to scrutinise carefully the underlying reasons of the concerns identified through external audit of its examination processes (paragraph 73);

to consider the advisability of:

(iii) reaffirming the requirement on course and field teams to be more self-critical when reviewing the operation of their course and fields, and to outline in their annual reports what action has been taken to implement the previous year's action plan (paragraph 41);

(iv) seeking to clarify for its students the intended purposes of securing performance feedback; reviewing whether staff teaching performance should be specifically identified in questionnaires; and reviewing whether the distribution of questionnaires could be made more uniform (paragraphs 45 and 74);

(v) requiring that the content of the information given to newly arriving international students is reviewed with a view to ensuring that the intended objectives and outcomes of the University's international student induction programme are clear (paragraph 55);

(vi) continuing to keep under careful review the availability and access to learning resources for both full- and part-time students (paragraphs 59 and 61);

(vii) continuing explicitly to encourage its stated policy regarding the prompt return of assessed work to students and to review performance in this regard, particularly in the light of its decision not to produce a student charter (paragraph 63);

(viii) keeping under careful review the mechanisms used to encourage external examiners to submit more timely monitoring reports (paragraph 71);

(ix) keeping under review the staff development activities presently undertaken by the Staff Development Unit and by the six faculties (paragraph 85);

(x) producing and promulgating a more explicit written procedure for the appointment of readers (paragraph 89);

(xi) reviewing whether the otherwise clear procedures for ensuring the accuracy and content of its own promotional materials could be consistently extended to embrace its collaborative activities, thereby reducing the potential for student dissatisfaction (paragraphs 92, 97, 98 and 99);

(xii) developing and then promulgating updated guidance on its collaborative provision addressing matters such as, for example, programme planning and design; programme management; assessment activities; programme monitoring; and student rights and responsibilities (paragraph 102);

and to consider the desirability of:

(xiii) keeping under review the effectiveness of its processes for resourcing new and expanded course provision, and keeping under review its course review procedures (paragraphs 33 and 42);

(xiv) reviewing whether its validation and review processes might be revised, thereby reducing the demands placed upon staff (paragraph 35);

(xv) keeping its policy of encouraging students to purchase their own copies of a key set text for each module under review (paragraph 58);

(xvi) making the post-compulsory certificate in education more widely known and available to new staff (paragraph 81);

(xvii) analysing, in the light of its stated equal opportunities policy, equal opportunities data received from applicants to University posts and seeking, where practicable, to eliminate single gender appointment panels (paragraph 86);

(xviii) establishing a formal student complaints mechanism and keeping under review its decision not to promulgate a student charter (paragraph 94).

Appendix 1 UNIVERSITY OF LUTON

Constitutional and management structure

The University of Luton is the newest university in England, having been awarded the title by the Privy Council in July 1993 under the provisions of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. In April 1994, Luton became the first university to achieve Investors in People recognition.

Academic staff are allocated between six faculties (Business, Design and Technology, Health Care and Social Studies, Humanities, Management, and Science and Computing) and three professional centres (Learning Resources, External Affairs and Quality Assurance) each of which is led by a dean or equivalent and contains between three and eight departments. The four members of the Directorate (Vice Chancellor, Deputy Vice Chancellor, Director of Finance and Information and Director of Support Services) are supported by 12 other senior members of staff.

The Academic Board carries overall responsibility for the quality of the University's educational provision and for the standard of its awards. Directly reporting to it are the six faculty boards, the Modular Scheme Committee, and other functional central committees (Academic Standards, Research, Research Degrees, Staff Development, Learning Resources). A substantial link between the academic and managerial lines of reporting in the University is made through the Academic Executive, chaired by the Deputy Vice Chancellor and composed of the deans and other senior academic managers, which also reports to the Academic Board (table A).

Resources are distributed to faculties broadly pro rata to student numbers, and as far as possible responsibility for their deployment is devolved to departments. Accountability for the effectiveness with which the resources available have been used to support students' learning experiences is accomplished through the academic committee structure (table B).

Virtually all the University's undergraduate provision is contained within the Modular Credit Scheme, introduced in 1991 and now one of the largest modular schemes in the country. The Scheme is semester-based, using the national norm of 360 credit points for an Honours degree. The design of the Scheme places high value on student choice and flexibility, and named awards are available in single Honours, major, joint or minor subjects. Students construct programmes built up of individual modules of 15 credit points: full-time degree students therefore take 8 modules during each of their three years of study. Modules may be core (compulsory to the programme of study), optional within the field, or elective (additional to those prescribed for an award). Combinations of subjects and elective modules may be chosen from anywhere in the scheme, subject to timetabling restrictions.

A University-wide modular framework has also been approved for taught postgraduate courses, using the new national standard of 15 M level credit points for each module and 180 for a Master's degree (with intermediate awards of postgraduate certificate and diploma).

RWH70072200

April 1996

Collaborating Institution	Programme of Study
Aylesbury College	Diploma in Management Studies
Barnfield College	HND Business and Finance HND Motor Vehicle Engineering and Management
Dunstable College	HND Graphic Design HND Product Design BTEC NVQ level 5 in Management with Diploma in Management BTEC NVQ Level 4 in Management with Certificate in Management
Havering College	Diploma in Management Studies BTEC NVQ Level 4 in Management with Certificate in Management
Kensington Consultation Centre	Postgraduate Diploma in Systemic Therapy MSc in Systemic Therapy
Vauxhall Motors	BSc Business Systems Management
Waltham Forest College	Diploma in Management Studies

Collaborating Institution	Programme of Study
N Avgerinopolou Centre of Liberal Studies, Athens, Greece	Dip HE in Business Administration
Bristol Consultants, Singapore	MSc Human Resource Management

Higher Education Quality Council

University of Luton Quality Audit Report June 1996

CONTENTS

FOREWORD

THE REMIT

THE UNIVERSITY CONTEXT

Origins and recent development

The University's mission

Academic provision

University structure

THE AUDIT PROCESS

SYSTEMS AND ARRANGEMENTS FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE

Quality assurance organisation

Overview of quality assurance systems

ACADEMIC STANDARDS

THE DESIGN, APPROVAL AND REVIEW OF PROGRAMMES OF STUDY

The design and development of programmes

University scrutiny and approval of new or substantially modified programmes

Course monitoring and review

Monitoring of fields in the Modular Credit Scheme

Conclusions

TEACHING, LEARNING AND THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Identification of quality in teaching and learning activities

The policy for teaching and learning

Support for, and monitoring of, teaching

The promotion of innovation in teaching and learning

Advisory, tutorial and counselling services

Student induction

Learning resources

Monitoring individual student progress

Postgraduate research student monitoring, supervision and training

Conclusions

STUDENT ASSESSMENT AND THE CLASSIFICATION OF AWARDS

External examiners

FEEDBACK AND ENHANCEMENT PROCESSES

Student questionnaires and representation

Review of teaching performance

STAFF APPOINTMENT, DEVELOPMENT, PROMOTION AND REWARD

Introduction

Appointment and induction

Staff development and appraisal

Equal opportunities in staffing

Promotions and appointments to special posts

CONTENT OF PROMOTIONAL MATERIAL RELATING TO ACADEMIC PROVISION

STUDENT CHARTER

VALIDATION, FRANCHISING AND OTHER FORMS OF COLLABORATIVE PROVISION

Collaborative policy

Work-based learning

CONCLUSIONS AND POINTS FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION

Appendix 1 UNIVERSITY OF LUTON

Constitutional and management structure

Appendix 2

UNIVERSITY OF LUTON

Collaborative Arrangements

UK Institutions

Overseas institutions

University of Luton
Quality Audit Report
June 1996