Foreword
1 This is a report of an academic quality audit of the University of Hull (the University) undertaken by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA). QAA is grateful to the University for the willing cooperation provided to the audit team.
2 The audit was carried out using a revised process approved by the former Higher Education Quality Council (HEQC) and endorsed by HEQC's successor body, QAA. The modified process has been introduced following completion in 1997 of the original national academic quality audit programme which began in 1991 under the auspices of the CVCP's Academic Audit Unit (AAU) and was subsequently taken over by HEQC in 1992. The principal purpose of this revised process is to offer an opinion on the extent to which individual institutions are discharging effectively their corporate responsibilities for the academic standards and quality of their awards and associated programmes of study. The process takes as its starting point the assumption that institutions have appropriate quality assurance policies and procedures in place, and also assumes that they can provide convincing evidence that these are working to good effect. The audit checks the extent to which this is the case and that the methods used are sufficiently reliable to continue to provide stakeholders with the necessary assurances for the future. The audit process focuses on four main topics, the institution's quality strategy; academic standards of programmes and awards; the learning infrastructure; and internal and external communications.
Method and process
3 Following discussions with QAA, the University provided an Analytical Account (the Account) of its arrangements to assure the quality of its academic provision and the standard of its academic awards, together with selected documents chosen to illustrate how it satisfied itself that its policies, strategies and procedures for these matters were being applied. In particular, the Account sought to outline the University's educational objectives and quality strategy, the mechanisms used to assure the quality and standards of its academic awards, its learning infrastructure, and its internal and external communication frameworks. In preparation for the visit of the audit team, QAA undertook a preliminary visit to the University to survey the evidence provided by the institution to support the Account and to gather additional information, copies of which were then provided by QAA to members of the team. In addition to the materials provided by the University, the team consulted the report on the academic audit of the University conducted by HEQC in 1993 and teaching quality assessment reports (now known as subject review reports) produced by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and QAA, together with other materials used by the University for internal communications (including information held electronically).
4 At a briefing meeting held to discuss the University's submission, the audit team considered the Account and supporting information made available by the University and proposed a programme of meetings for a visit to the institution. During the visit, the University made available a base room containing a substantial collection of original documents relating to the Account, and some additional items of information requested by the team at its briefing meeting and during the course of the visit itself.
5 The audit team visited the University from 8 to 12 May 2000. In addition to reviewing the documents provided in the base room, the team held meetings with more than 100 members of the University. An overview of the institution, prepared by the University, is attached as appendix 1 and a list of the University's collaborative partnerships, current as at 1 March 2000, is included as appendix 2.
6 The audit team comprised Dr R P T Aylett, Ms M E Challis and Professor N F Lemon, auditors; and Mr P D Watson, who acted as the audit secretary. The audit was coordinated for QAA by Dr C J Haslam, Assistant Director, Institutional Review Directorate.
The context for the audit
Background
7 The University of Hull was founded in 1927 as a university college of the University of London and received its Royal Charter in 1954. The institution has a long tradition of providing educational, cultural and professional services to the local communities and businesses in the city of Hull and the surrounding Yorkshire and Lincolnshire region, and has long-established and extensive academic affiliations with overseas institutions of higher education in Europe, North America, the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. Within Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, the University offers a wide range of off-campus credit-bearing part-time programmes. There are also off-campus validated, franchised and Access courses delivered by various members of the University's local and regional network of 'associate colleges'. The University also has a relatively large overseas teaching presence with distance-taught and validated courses offered in Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Australia, South Africa, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Ireland and continental Europe. Since the last audit undertaken in 1993, the University's student body has increased from 8,900 to 12,110 full-time equivalents and, following merger with Humberside College of Health in 1996, has become a dual-site institution. The character and geography of the University will change further following the planned merger with North Riding College in August 2000. Nevertheless, the University remains a medium-sized institution with a total of 14,722 students as at December 1999, comprising some 9,500 full- and 5,222 part-time students. Postgraduate students number 3,364 and there are 2,776 international students representing around 100 countries. The University's student numbers will further grow by approximately 1,400 in August 2000 following the merger with North Riding College. The institution's staff complement as at July 1999 was 1,895.
8 The Account provided by the University stated that it was the mission of the University to be a research and learning community of international repute; welcoming staff and students from diverse backgrounds and nationalities; thriving on the intelligent application of knowledge, skills and technology; working in partnership with organisations which share its purposes in the region and throughout the world. The Corporate Strategy 1999-2004 declares a determination to maintain and enhance a reputation for excellence, based on five commitments to guide decision-making and support the University's quality strategy. These are to respect [the institution's] past while modernising [its] processes and outlook; to sustain the intimate connection between teaching, research and scholarship; to continue to place a high value on student support for all [the institution's] students; to be businesslike in all [its] activities; and to win the support of all staff for the objectives of the University's strategy.
9 The University participated in an academic audit conducted by HEQC in 1993, with a further audit of collaborative provision taking place in 1994 (the subsequent report being published in August 1995). QAA undertook overseas audits of programmes offered through Emile Woolf College, Malaysia in 1996 and Global Business School, South Africa in 1999. Many of the recommendations made in relation to the 1993 audit have been addressed. These include the promulgation of guidelines for personal supervisors and training for research supervisors; improved structures for the support of research students; the implementation of systems for mentoring, appraisal and teaching observation for new teaching staff; enhanced staff development for senior staff; changes to examination boards, appointment procedures for external examiners and double internal marking of scripts; changes to Library resourcing, induction and access to computers; and enhancement and monitoring of the academic services provided to students.
10 The 1994 audit of collaborative provision raised a number of points which broadly related to the need for improved clarity and consistency in relation to the procedures governing partnership agreements for validated, franchised and accredited linkages; the desirability of improving the mechanisms used to monitor collaborative activities; and the need to improve communications with and support for students in partner institutions, including appeals procedures. Actions have been taken to meet these areas of need. However, the University recognises that there are still outstanding issues. The attempt to establish an External Programmes Division (EPD) within the Academic Office was less successful than had been hoped. Most former EPD functions have now been assigned to the International Office. The envisaged handbook for partners is still in the production phase.
11 The two overseas audits conducted in 1996 and 1999 indicated that many of the issues raised in the audit of collaborative provision also applied to overseas collaboration and, as a result of the report on Global Business School, the University has taken the decision to phase out its current operations in Southern Africa.
12 Some of the delay in responding to audit reports may be attributed to the fact that, since 1993, the University has undergone a series of major organisational changes, including a move to modularisation and semesterisation. From 1 August 1997 the then 15 schools of study were formally reorganised into five faculties (Arts; Engineering and Mathematics; Health; Science and the Environment; and Social Sciences) and the Institute for Learning (IfL) which, for most purposes, functions as a sixth faculty. Each faculty is subdivided into Sub-Faculty Units (SFUs), designated as schools or departments. The faculty structure is currently being reviewed by the Vice-Chancellor's 'Way Forward Group', with a view to proposing changes which will enable the University to achieve the objectives set out in its Corporate Strategy. The move to a faculty structure was followed in 1998 by the establishment of the University Review Unit (URU), which has a central quality assurance role, and reports via its Directorate to Senate. At the time of the visit, URU had undertaken two annual reviews of faculties and a quinquennial review of one faculty.
13 In October 1999, the University's Council approved a new committee structure that reflected a decision to separate institutional management and governance (see below, paragraphs 55 to 58). Various joint committees of Senate and Council were discontinued and seven 'master' committees established. These report to Senate via the Planning and Operations Committee (POC), which is chaired by the Vice-Chancellor. The terms of reference for these master committees make explicit the role of each committee in meeting the objectives of the Corporate Plan. Some of the master committees are replicated within faculties, and carry out a similar remit at local level. The audit team learnt that the new committee structure prevailing at the time of the visit was under review by The Way Forward Group, with a report anticipated during the summer of 2000. During the course of the visit, the team was able to trace the impact of the foregoing structural and operational modifications and analyse the responses made by the institution to previous audits. It was made clear, however, through documentation and meetings with staff, that many of the new structures and processes were still 'bedding down' and in transition.
The Analytical Account
14 The Account prepared by the University was organised under six broad headings, introduction; the University; the University's quality strategy; the academic standards of awards; the learning infrastructure; and internal and external communications. The audit team heard that there had been extensive consultation on the document with inputs from SFUs, Senate and the Students' Union. The Account was supported by sufficient and well-referenced documentation in the base room. The team considered that the Account was clearly written, and that it contained a concise overview of the University's history and ambitions. The Account, in providing evidence of the analysis undertaken by the University to review the effectiveness of its provision, also indicated an awareness of areas for further development and enhancement.
The University's quality strategy
The University's strategic approach to quality management
15 In its Account, the University stated that the maintenance and enhancement of institutional academic quality was the collective responsibility of the University and that its coordination and overview resided with POC. The Account identified the role of POC as being 'to advise the Vice-Chancellor, Senate and Council on the enhancement of quality and maintenance of standards in all aspects of the University's operations'. POC was described in the Account as the 'parent body' for the committees which regulate admissions, learning and teaching matters, programme approvals, academic monitoring and review, and academic and student support services. In fulfilling its responsibilities, POC has the support of two key committees, the University Research Committee and the Learning and Teaching Committee. In addition to POC, the Account drew attention to URU. As noted previously (see above, paragraph 12), URU was established in 1998 with the objective of bringing together academic and administrative units to enable a 'shared' review and audit framework. URU accordingly has two divisions, namely the Academic Sub-Unit (AcSU) and the Administrative Sub-Unit (AdSU). The Account further noted that faculties and SFUs shared collective responsibility for assuring the quality of educational provision within the University's framework, identifying the boards of faculty and the respective deans as playing a key role within this devolved structure for the delivery of quality teaching and learning. Faculties and SFUs discharge their responsibilities for quality assurance and the maintenance of standards within a common set of requirements and procedures for approval and review, articulated through a series of institutional codes of practice and guidelines.
16 The Account identified the resources available to support the University's quality strategy. These are provided through the committee structure and administrative provision in the Academic Office, the Registrar and Secretary's Office and the Graduate Research Institute. Attention was also drawn to the work of the Staff Development Unit in meeting staff training and development needs, the enhancement resources offered by the Education Development Team in IfL and the Merlin Development Unit (MDU) (see below, paragraphs 39 and 50). All the faculties and IfL have learning and teaching committees (or equivalent) and research committees which map directly onto the University's committee structure. In addition, the Account observed that faculty administrators and secretaries constituted a crucial link between central University review and approval bodies and those in the faculties. The University seeks to evaluate the quality of its educational provision through a combination of annual and quinquennial review, together with feedback and reports from students, external examiners, auditors, assessors and other interested stakeholders.
The development of the University's quality strategy
17 The Account drew attention to the means by which the University's quality strategy sought to relate to the realisation of the institutional mission and the delivery of its overarching Corporate Strategy. In this regard, a number of objectives were specified including the maintenance and enhancement of the University's reputation for the quality and standards of its learning and teaching. The University's Corporate Strategy identifies five fundamental principles underpinning the institution's activities, including a desire to respect institutional history while modernising processes and perspectives and the securing of support from staff at all levels for the objectives articulated in the University's strategy. The Account drew attention to the modifications that had been made to the University's quality assurance arrangements pursuant to the last institutional audit in 1993 and the audit of collaborative provision conducted in 1994 (see above, paragraphs 12 to 13). In particular, the audit team learnt that a unified and coordinated modular and semesterised system had been introduced during the 1995-96 academic session and that a major academic reorganisation of the University had been effected in 1997 with 15 schools of study being restructured into five faculties and IfL. The Account stated that the University anticipated that URU would remain a key part of the institution's quality assurance strategy, citing the forthcoming quinquennial review of Social Sciences as an important test of the capacity of URU to meet the expectations placed on it. Additionally, the Account emphasised the fundamental role of the four pro-vice-chancellors in providing leadership in quality matters at a senior level and the activities of deans in relation to the development of the University's devolved quality strategy. Under the University's devolved structures, faculties have notable budgetary flexibility and administrative resource to further develop quality assurance and enhancement frameworks and to ensure that programmes are adequately resourced. In this regard, the Account drew attention to the University's cross-institutional approach to quality assurance that operates on the basis of 'internal externality'. The Account also referred to improvements in the coordination and administration of institutional processes of programme approval, particularly the bringing together under one body of the scrutiny of on-campus and distance learning programmes as well as the approval of external partnerships and exchanges.
18 The Account observed that many of the University's procedures and practices were still evolving and that they would require further careful monitoring, review and consequent adjustment as necessary. In particular, the Account noted that, in preparing for the current audit, the Audit Planning Group had convened a series of consultation sessions which had helped bring into sharper focus the strengths and limitations of the University's current educational provision and its approach to the maintenance and enhancement of standards. Identifying specific matters requiring further attention the Account referred to the need for improvement in the quality, accessibility and availability of data to enable comparison of academic standards between subject areas in the institution and between the University and other institutions; and improvement in the management of some of the University's distance-taught and overseas validated programmes. In the latter regard, the University helpfully made available to the audit team the institutional commentary appended to QAA's published report of the recent audit of a partnership arrangement between the University and The Global School of Business in South Africa. The University, acknowledging that serious and fundamental mistakes had been made both in the design and subsequent management of the programme, sought to describe how it was seeking to address the various quality assurance and standards matters raised in the report. In particular, POC had commissioned a review of the University's full-cost distance taught and validated international programmes. The team was provided with a copy of the resulting Summary Report of the International Programmes Review Group and noted the actions now being taken to address the concerns identified in the QAA collaborative provision report. The team was, however, concerned that the Summary Report appeared to comprise largely of a re-evaluation of extant business opportunities with relatively little attention being paid to the serious quality and standards matters raised by the Report. Accordingly, the team was only partially persuaded that the serious difficulties that had arisen in relation to the University's collaborative activity in South Africa would not arise in a different context in the future (see below, paragraph 25).
The effectiveness of the University's quality strategy
19 From its discussions with senior staff of the University, it was clear to the audit team that the University's quality strategy was undergoing a period of notable development and change and that, during this phase, particular vigilance would need to be given to the maintenance and enhancement of institutional standards. Noting that future expansion of the University will in part be achieved through the development of off-campus and multi-site provision, the team endorsed the need for the considered and prudent development of such linkages. In this regard, the team explored in some detail the merger discussions taking place at the time of the visit with North Riding College, Scarborough, and noted the awareness demonstrated by both parties of the need to harmonise prevailing quality assurance arrangements. From its discussions with staff at all levels, it was apparent to the team that the merger with North Riding College would present a significant test of the robustness of the University's quality assurance procedures at both faculty and institutional levels.
20 Through its review of base room evidence and discussions with staff, the audit team considered that URU had made considerable progress in relation to the review and development of institutional procedures and practices. In particular, the team would wish to commend AcSU's early work in establishing a revised review system for academic units. The team considered, however, that in relation to matters of academic quality and standards, both retrospectively and prospectively, the relationship of URU to POC and the Learning and Teaching Committee might usefully be clarified. The team learnt of the developing role of URU, and recognised that the University was reviewing the resources made available to the Unit.
21 While noting the University's various statements in relation to quality and standards assurance, the audit team observed that, rather than being regarded as central University regulations, some of the operational guidelines and codes of practice issued by the University were open to local interpretation. In discussion with senior staff, the team learnt that while there remained a desire to respect the cultural differences prevailing among the faculties, this arrangement was presently under review. From the evidence made available to it, the team nevertheless concluded that the lack of a clear central authority had led to the development of a wide variety of localised practices within an insufficiently prescriptive framework. As a result, there appeared to be a lack of clarity within the University regarding a collective understanding of the differing requirements of quality assurance and standards assurance and, allied to this, the desirability of establishing a definitive institutional authority in matters relating to quality and standards. In this regard, the team noted with interest that a sample job description for a dean made no reference to responsibility for quality and standards matters. In its discussions with staff, the team learnt of the need for further time to allow the 'bedding down' of the new faculty structure and the 'acclimatisation of staff to new processes and arrangements'. While recognising that a degree of diversity in quality assurance arrangements can, in certain situations, be beneficial, from the information made available the team would nevertheless strongly encourage the University to secure enhanced clarity in relation to the locus of responsibility and authority for quality and standards matters (see below, paragraphs 22 to 24, 29, 31, 35, 48, 51, 53 and 56).
The academic standards of programmes and awards
The definition of academic standards
22 The Account drew attention to the University's concern to define the academic standards of its awards well before the publication of the 1997 Dearing Report into Higher Education. The University, however, acknowledged that the publication of the Report and other subsequent national developments had helped to focus its formal commitment to the articulation and maintenance of institutional academic standards. Thus, in 1997 the Learning and Teaching Committee established two sub-groups, the Academic Standards Sub-Group (ASSG) and the Academic Framework Sub-Group (AFSG) to give detailed consideration to matters of academic standards. In turn, the University's modular and regulatory framework was further developed. The University then sought to secure enhanced procedural consistency within its revised organisational framework through the development of a number of codes of practice. In this regard, the Account noted that the University had chosen to adopt a model which, in the context of developing national subject benchmarks, facilitated diversification within a general institutional framework. The University thereby sought to balance the devolution of responsibility to faculties with consistency of practice within University regulations and guidelines. The audit team learnt that ASSG had been replaced at the beginning of the 1999-2000 academic session by a group entitled the Academic Standards and Frameworks Group.
23 The University has made some progress in articulating the criteria to be applied in the evaluation of student performance. During the visit, the audit team was able to find considerable evidence that the University has engaged with wider national debates on subject benchmarking and programme specifications. It was also clear that ASSG had made some progress towards identifying a number of matters requiring further consideration. Nevertheless, the team would wish to encourage the University to assimilate the outcomes of these processes in a more expeditious manner, thereby informing institutional strategies for the assurance of quality and standards. The Account also identified areas where the University has made progress in trialling programme specifications. The scope of these initiatives remains somewhat limited, and the team would accordingly wish to support the University's own analysis that progress at the level of module specification is unnecessarily slow. In addition, observing that only a limited number of module specifications fully articulate the aims and objectives of each module, the team would urge the University to continue to seek greater cross-faculty procedural consistency in relation to the development of modules.
Academic approvals process
24 The Account specified that all programmes, wherever they are taught, are subject to the same degree of scrutiny during the approvals process and identified AAC as holding primary responsibility for the vetting and approval of new programmes. Operational responsibility for the different phases of the approval cycle is, however, shared between AAC, faculties and SFUs which are each responsible for the approval of a proposal before progressing it onwards for further consideration by the higher body. Under the auspices of AAC, slightly different approval procedures operate in respect of validated programmes although both SFUs and faculties play a significant role in these processes. Both approval processes require an external input, either from the relevant professional body, prospective employers or potential external examiners. AAC does not evaluate the academic content of individual proposals, this being done at SFU and faculty level. It is, however, asked to evaluate the business case for new proposals and to make judgements as to whether the necessary support is available. Where the University is validating a new proposal involving an external collaborator, AAC establishes a validation panel to consider the proposal and may undertake a site visit.
25 In discussion, the audit team learnt that the workload of AAC was heavy and delays in granting approval could be experienced. Any such delays were typically ascribed to deficiencies in the required documentation and the sometimes lengthy negotiations which took place between AAC and the relevant faculty. The team was able to identify two cases involving overseas collaborators where the complexity of the approvals process had led to unfortunate misunderstandings. In one case, the conditions for approval had resulted in protracted negotiation over a two and a half-year period between the University and the partner. This had resulted in confusion regarding the status of students recruited to the programme. The team also examined a more recent case in which students had been recruited by an overseas agent who had then commenced teaching activities before the validation process had been formally completed. In taking account of the recent report of the audit of a partnership arrangement between the University and a business school in South Africa (see above, paragraph 18), the team was concerned to learn that similar, and equally serious, difficulties had arisen with other collaborative ventures. While recognising that the University was engaged in a detailed review of its overseas collaborative portfolio, the team nevertheless formed the view that the institution's current approval and monitoring arrangements in relation to such provision were insufficiently robust. Having regard to its Code of Practice for the Academic Approvals Process, the University will wish to ensure that its approvals and monitoring processes operate consistently and effectively.
Admissions
26 The Account emphasised that responsibility for 'the best possible fit between student and programme' was shared and that only those students likely to benefit from the course of study were selected. A summary of the University's arrangements for student admissions, at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels and in respect of collaborative programmes, was helpfully made available to the audit team. Responsibility for the admission of students is shared between academic units, the Student Recruitment and Marketing Committee (SRMC) and the Admissions Office in association with the Schools and Colleges Liaison Service. Responsibility for assuring the suitability of prospective students rests with faculty and programme admissions tutors, whose respective roles are carefully defined. Training sessions are held for undergraduate and postgraduate admissions tutors, and an extensive briefing pack includes information about the acceptability of a range of alternative qualifications for University entry. The University appoints faculty admissions tutors who have normally previously held a position as a programme admission tutor. In turn, such tutors are able to provide guidance to newly appointed programme admissions tutors thereby promoting continuity. The Account stated that the University believed 'it to be prudent to treat admissions to collaborative programmes, both distance-taught and validated' separately. Such student admissions are accordingly administered through the International Office by staff who support external programmes.
27 The Account further emphasised the need to provide clear guidance to prospective applicants. In discussions with faculty admissions tutors, the audit team learnt that, where possible, they sought to promote the admission of students with non-traditional entrance qualifications. However, although the University has developed guidance notes for academic staff on the Accreditation of Prior Learning (APL) and the Accreditation of Prior Experiential Learning (APEL), it is acknowledged by the institution that these are not extensively used. In seeking to promote the admission of mature and non-traditional learners the University will wish to encourage a sustained and consistent application of its APL and APEL mechanisms. In the view of the team, the University does, however, have well-established processes for the admission of students with special needs. The University has published an Equal Opportunities Code of Practice for Admissions which provides clear guidance to admissions tutors. Under the terms of the Code, SRMC is required to monitor applications to ensure that the admissions process is consistent with the University's stated policies and strategies. While the team found that SRMC had, on an annual basis, considered the pattern of student recruitment against targets, there was little evidence to suggest that systematised monitoring of equality of opportunity had taken place. The University will wish to ensure that its admissions practices operate in accordance with its Equal Opportunities Code of Practice for Admissions.
Assessment criteria
28 The Account argued that the detailed regulatory framework for the University's modular system helped to promote consistency in approval and decision-making processes across faculties. The Account also provided a summary of the work that had been undertaken by the University to develop general descriptors of classifications arising from its participation in the Northern Universities Consortium for Credit Accumulation and Transfer. These descriptors are now being developed by faculties to provide subject specific descriptors of classifications which can be used by SFUs. The audit team found evidence to suggest that information about such descriptors is included in some, but not all, SFU handbooks. Discussions with staff also indicated that formal marking criteria are not widely used outside mathematical and scientific disciplines. Recognising the work already undertaken by some faculties in working with their SFUs to develop such subject specific descriptors and marking criteria, the team would wish to encourage the University in its commitment to increasing the extent and pace of such developmental activity.
Examination boards
29 The University operates a two-tier system of assessment involving separate examination boards for modules and programmes. The Account emphasised the development of a central Code of Practice for the Conduct of Boards of Examiners and, in accordance with its policy to balance central prescription with devolved responsibility to faculties, the University has encouraged faculties to develop their own codes of practice suited to their local circumstances (see above, paragraph 21). The University's Code of Practice defines the areas in which faculties are expected to draw up procedures, but allows faculties discretion to determine what these procedures should be. The Account suggested that the process by which the University had arrived at such faculty codes of practice represented a good example of how central consistency had been achieved within the framework of devolved responsibility. The faculty codes had been formally approved by the Teaching and Learning Committee on behalf of the University following a process of close and protracted scrutiny. Although they share many common characteristics, the audit team noted that variability was permitted in respect of some matters. These include the necessary quorum which is required for meetings of examination boards, the number of external examiners which are expected to be present, and the discretion which is allocated to boards in determining whether they are required to include an external examiner from another SFU where there is significant input of modules from that SFU into the programme. The team recognised that these variations had been introduced to allow for the different circumstances of the different faculties but nevertheless considered that the transparency and consistency of the process would be more effectively demonstrated on such central issues by incorporating provision for the needs of each of the different faculties within a common framework which would apply to all (see above, paragraph 21).
30 The Account made clear that for some time the University has had conventions in place for dealing with plagiarism. These have recently been revised and incorporated into a more general statement in the University's Code of Practice on the Use of Unfair Means. The audit team noted that this Code had been developed following extensive consultation across the University. The team considered that this particular outcome of a purposeful iterative process between the University and its faculties had established commendable good practice.
External examiners
31 The Account identified that one of the key roles of external examiners was to ensure the comparability of academic standards. To support the activities of external examiners the University has provided guidelines on the nomination and appointment of such individuals, their role within the University's tiered examination board structures, and on the procedures for considering their reports. The audit team considered that the guidelines served to promote uniformity of practice. The Guidelines for the Nomination of External Examiners take account of the HEQC Guidelines, as well as the longer established CVCP Code of Practice. In observing the many responsibilities of AAC, the team considered that their scrutiny of external examiner nominations prior to their consideration by Senate was an example of good practice. The team further considered the University's requirement that external examiners provide an annual report on a standard form to be a further example of good practice. Extensive evidence was also found that reports by external examiners are carefully considered and that the processes applied for responding to comments are carried out with appropriate care and consistency. The team, in scrutinising the recently revised procedures for receiving and considering external examiners' reports, would accordingly wish to commend the University for developing a useful and informative system that seeks to make effective use of the contributions made by external examiners to the assurance of institutional academic standards.
The definition of standards in postgraduate provision
32 The Account stated that the Postgraduate Research Handbook and the Postgraduate Taught Handbook, both of which are circulated among staff and students, are the key documents by which the University seeks to operationalise its policies and practices on postgraduate quality and standards. The audit team examined both these Handbooks and found them to be consistent with QAA's Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education: postgraduate research programmes. The team noted, however, that while such documents clearly provided valuable information about the University's facilities and procedures, they did not seek to define the standards required to attain the University's postgraduate awards. The University may wish to address this matter.
33 In the Account, the University noted that structured supervision was the principal mechanism through which the institution's postgraduate degree standards were conveyed to research students. In addition, the University stated that it maintained the standards of its research awards through the promotion of peer judgement and consistency of approach. In particular, the University expects that two members of academic staff, one of whom will be designated as the principal supervisor, will jointly supervise each research student. The University requires that supervisors have recognised subject expertise and appropriate skills and experience. Senior staff, in discussion with the audit team, underlined the importance of this arrangement but also put forward the view that supervisory skills were best learnt through 'osmosis'. In discussion with staff, the team learnt that the training course provided for new supervisors addressing their duties and responsibilities was of relatively short duration and did not, as yet, specifically address standards matters within its objectives. The team also heard that, as yet, not all new supervisors attend this course. Having regard to its own guidance on supervisor training, the University may wish to review these matters.
34 The Account stated that external examiners for postgraduate research degrees operated in accordance with the guidelines described in the University Code of Practice for Research Students and drew attention to the importance the institution places on external peer judgement in the examination of a thesis. The Account further stated that only in exceptional circumstances would a student's supervisor be appointed as an internal examiner. The audit team recognised the need to preserve some flexibility to deal with unforeseen circumstances. Nevertheless, having regard to the guidance contained in the QAA's Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education: postgraduate research programmes, the University may wish to specify further for its students the circumstances which might give rise to the exceptional appointment of a supervisor as an internal examiner.
Comparability of standards
35 The Account drew attention to the University's lack of full and recent information about the patterns of its degree and module results, with the consequence that it is not presently able to compare its recent performance with national trends. The Account argued, however, that on the basis of the available information it was believed that the University followed national trends in relation to the distribution of degree classes. Nevertheless, the audit team would wish to encourage the University to undertake more sustained work to produce, analyse and act upon comparative data at SFU, faculty and University level. In this way it will help ensure that it is maintaining an appropriate institutional overview of the setting and monitoring of academic standards.
36 University statistics on the employability of its students show a commendably low proportion of students still seeking employment six months after graduation. On the basis of this data, the audit team would endorse the University's conclusion that the skills of its graduates and the general standards of its degrees are widely recognised by employers.
The learning infrastructure
Context
37 The University's Corporate Strategy states that the institution needed 'to do much more in practice to enable students to learn where they want, when they want and how they want'. The Account also made it clear that the University takes an increasingly integrated approach to the development of the institution's learning environment and to placing the learner at its centre. In particular, the University argued that it would need to take account of the demands imposed by the changing profiles of the student population, by the growth of distance learning and the prominence of international students in its population. Additionally, the Account indicated the need for the enhancement of some of the University's teaching facilities. At the same time, the Learning and Teaching Strategy emphasised the need to improve the status of teaching within the prevailing institutional academic culture. In recording the University's response to these challenges, the Account stated that the University had initiated significant changes in its quality assurance arrangements, in order to promote an integrated approach to the development of all aspects of the institution's learning environment.
Library and information technology resources
38 One of the measures which the University has undertaken in order to bring about this more integrated approach to the learning, teaching and assessment environment has been the creation of the Academic Services Directorate. The Account indicated that the Directorate has managerial responsibility for Library services, together with both the academic and the administrative computing infrastructure, training programmes aimed at staff and students, support for staff in the deployment of technology in learning and teaching, the emerging corporate intranet and the planned student intranet. In addition, the Account made it clear that the Directorate also carries out its function in close collaboration with MDU, which is housed in IfL, and supports and develops the University's electronic learning environment. The Account further stated that the University had increased student access to computing facilities on campus and in University owned accommodation and established schemes by which its students might lease or purchase computers on attractive terms. In addition, the audit team learnt that the Library has also extended opening hours to facilitate access to workstations. The Account further stated that the Academic Services Directorate supported the acquisition of appropriate computing and information handling skills through the provision of a range of training courses and that a number of departments had adopted a centrally developed Communications and Information Technology skills module.
39 During the visit, it was clear to the audit team that the use of computer-based learning had increased in line with the development of new provision. For example, in the Language Institute, which gives English language support to native speakers of other languages both before they begin their studies and during their degree studies, expanded provision has included the establishment of an advisory service and a dedicated building. The team formed the view that the University had provided an innovative and secure base for the development of computing facilities and competence among members of the University. Further, the visit provided evidence of the commendable work of MDU in enhancing the delivery of the curriculum through the use of technology across SFUs (see below, paragraph 50). MDU provides a strong focal point for learning and teaching innovation, as well as staff and curriculum development. However, there appeared to the team to be scope for further development with regard to addressing the potential differences in learning outcomes for learners being assessed as a result of IT based provision as distinct from those experiencing more traditional teaching methods. As the University continues to encourage innovative development of technology-based learning, and to use this alongside more traditional teaching methods, it may wish to ensure that the alternative or additional learning outcomes arising from technology-based learning are reflected in module descriptors.
40 The Account stated that the University is 'justifiably proud of its learning resources', and added that 'the Library environment provides sufficient study space for [its] students'. Further, the Account explained that satisfaction with the Library is monitored through regular surveys of users and that it holds the award of the Government's Charter Mark for excellence in public service, a scheme which promotes the demonstration of effective quality assurance standards. In particular, the Account emphasised that effort had been expended to ensure that distance learners, wherever they are located, have access to the services of the Library, and its electronic resources. The audit team learnt from discussions, however, that part-time students in some associate colleges had encountered difficulties in respect of computing facilities and the borrowing of books. The University will wish to keep this matter under careful review, especially in the light of the proposed increase in part-time and off-campus learners.
Student support and guidance
41 The Account emphasised that student support is made available through partnership between the University and the Students' Union, together with other local and national support agencies. The full range of services on offer is clearly set out in the booklet Help! Where to Find It. The Account further stressed that the partnership arrangements allow for greater flexibility in meeting individual needs and, in turn, enable the University to draw upon a wide range of skills and competences. In addition, the Account set out how responsibility for liaison between central support services, academic departments and the services provided by the Students' Union lies with the Student Services Committee. This newly established Committee had been formed to support the institutional Corporate Strategy which seeks to give higher visibility to student services through a formal committee structure.
42 The Account stated that 'personal supervisors and senior tutors are at the heart of the University's arrangements for providing support and guidance on academic matters'. Following the 1993 HEQC audit, a review of the undergraduate supervisory system was conducted, and new guidelines were incorporated into the Student Handbook and referenced in SFU handbooks. The Account described how, on arrival at the University, each undergraduate student is allocated a personal supervisor who is available to provide advice and guidance on all academic matters. The personal supervisor maintains this relationship throughout the student's time at the University, although mechanisms exist to enable the change of personal supervisors if circumstances make this necessary. The Account added that the University provides a training course for staff, covering the roles and responsibilities of personal supervisors. Senior tutors were described in the Account as having the role of a 'welfare dean'. The senior tutors come from a different faculty from the student and are available to assist with difficulties that cannot be satisfactorily resolved within the personal supervisor system. In discussion, staff highlighted the value of this example of the University's commitment to 'internal externality'. The audit team would wish to commend the framework for student support and guidance that the University has sought to establish.
43 In discussion, the audit team found, however, that student satisfaction with their personal supervisors varied, primarily as a result of inconsistency of practice experienced by students. The team also learnt that a significant proportion of the complaints dealt with by the Students' Union related to the operation of personal supervisors. In the light of such divergence in practice of how supervision is undertaken among supervisors and between faculties, the University will wish to encourage inter-faculty staff development in relation to personal supervisory practices and further develop means of disseminating examples of good practice. At the same time, the University may wish to consider how best to achieve a stronger integration between its senior tutor and personal supervisor systems.
44 The Account described the University as 'very much an international institution, with students from around 100 countries on its campuses and having exchange and partnership arrangements with over 100 other universities and colleges'. The audit team learnt that international students are offered a dedicated induction programme that introduces them not only to the University but also to the cultural environment in which they will be working. During their studies international students receive support from a number of University officers and the International Students Association. In its Account, the University described how it was aware that support for international students demanded continued monitoring and development since 'it [was] all too easy in a University with a long tradition of attracting international students to imagine that we do everything well automatically'. From its analysis, it was not clear to the team how the International Committee interacted with the Student Services Committee and, therefore, how strategic planning to meet the needs of international students was specifically assured. The team would urge the University to clarify this relationship in order to avoid unnecessary lacunae in respect of its strategic planning for international students.
45 The Account described the facilities which the Graduate Research Institute, established in 1996, offers to postgraduate students. Responsibility for overseeing facilities for postgraduate students resides with the Institute and the Research Committee. Students receive pastoral support and academic guidance from their research supervisors. The Account also described the Postgraduate Training Scheme which is compulsory for all research students, although in discussion the audit team learnt that some students who already have research experience are, in practice, exempted from at least part of the programme. From the evidence made available to it, the team noted that the University is aware of the need to promote improved coherence of practice across the faculties in relation to the provision of postgraduate training and, in turn, to provide clarity both to postgraduate students and staff.
46 The Account drew attention to the particular efforts which have been made to meet the requirements of students and staff with special needs. Of particular note was the Miriam Hebron Centre which provides a range of IT resources designed for use by students with a variety of special needs, and the Dyslexia Service which offers a screening programme and a range of course related and technology-based methods of support. The range of student support services, the Account stated, is augmented by a programme of training events for staff offered by the IfL Staff Development Programme, under its Supporting Students Programme. The audit team noted that the teams involved in this work undertake regular monitoring and evaluation of their provision, and would wish to commend the University's continued commitment to supporting students and staff with special needs.
47 Reviewing a recent discussion paper Student Services: Moving Forward, the audit team learnt of the University's awareness of the need to establish a new vision for Student Services. The paper outlined a range of initiatives currently under way, but acknowledged that a more strategic approach would be necessary, a view endorsed by the team following its discussions with staff and students. The team did learn, however, that in response to concerns regarding the level of interaction with part-time, mature or postgraduate students or learners from other campuses, a handbook for mature students had recently been produced. As the University takes forward its Corporate Strategy to increase in size and diversity, it will wish to remain vigilant in all matters pertaining to student support and guidance so as to ensure parity of services for all, regardless of background, learning mode or study location.
Transferable and key skills
48 The Account drew attention to the development of institution-wide facilities aimed at enabling students to develop a broad range of key skills. In doing so, the University reflected that there was a continuing need to embed these developments effectively into programmes of study, to raise awareness of the need formally to assess such skills and to coordinate a variety of campus-wide initiatives (see above, paragraph 23). The Account sought to identify the various initiatives that have been taken including, for example, the development of literacy and numeracy skills and the promotion of employment skills. Module descriptors seen by the audit team did not, however, demonstrate how key skills were integrated into the University's mainstream teaching, learning and assessment processes. In its Account, the University acknowledged the desirability of further cross-institutional development in this regard and, in particular, in ensuring that the acquisition of key skills was made more explicit. The team would wish to support the actions being taken by the University to promote the development of increasingly transparent and explicit statements of module delivery and anticipated outcomes, including key skills acquisition.
Staff recruitment, development and training
49 The Account stated that the University sought consistency and clarity in relation to the recruitment, selection, induction, appraisal and career development of staff. It also explained that the University's recruitment policies and practice were publicised in the University's Code of Practice on the Recruitment and Selection of Staff. During the visit, the University made it clear that it saw successful application of this Code as an important element in its strategy for implementing the institutional mission. The Account explained that consideration was being given to the mandatory training of staff involved in recruitment and selection. New members of staff are given a two-day induction programme and each is allocated a mentor. In discussion, the audit team noted some lack of clarity around which of the University's recruitment and induction processes applied to part-time teaching staff or graduate teaching assistants. Equally, there appeared to be some uncertainties regarding the length of what was referred to as the 'probationary period' for staff and there seemed to be variation between faculties as to when the 'post-probation' appraisal should be undertaken.
50 The Account stressed the University's strong commitment to staff development and asserted that the institution had developed a robust framework that encompassed a broad and varied approach to developmental activities. The Account also stated that demand for staff development courses exceeded the University's capacity to supply them and that, as a consequence, it was currently investigating a model of provision delivered in situ in faculties. During the visit, the audit team learnt that the Educational Development Team provided a clear focus for staff development and was exploring innovative ways of promoting the institution's learning and teaching agenda with both new and experienced staff. The team also noted the work of MDU in supporting staff in internet-based open and distance learning (see above, paragraph 39). In noting the heavy demand for staff development courses, the team would wish to encourage the University to take forward such initiatives and, as part of such developments, encourage the central evaluation of the achievement of identified training needs. The team formed the view that the development of IfL represented a significant step in bringing about the cultural changes sought by the University and noted also the work of MDU. The team would wish to commend the energy, expertise and commitment displayed by staff within the Unit.
51 The Account described how the University had put in place an appraisal scheme for both its academic and support staff and outlined the challenges that had arisen in implementing the scheme. A full evaluation has been undertaken following an earlier review of the operation and usefulness of the scheme. A particular difficulty expressed by staff who met the audit team had been the apparent isolation of the appraisal activity, which was not perceived to link in with other procedures such as performance management or staff development funding. The Account stated that similar challenges had been encountered in the implementation of teaching observation schemes, a view endorsed by staff who reported that implementation was 'patchy' and not closely monitored within faculties. The variable nature of mentoring, appraisal and teaching observation was noted by AcSU in its second annual review report together with a lack of consistency in the way in which staff development funds were used and monitored at SFU and faculty level. The team would urge the University to secure a coherent and consistent application of its appraisal processes across and between faculties.
52 The Account stated that the University had clearly articulated criteria for staff promotion and staff whom the audit team met expressed satisfaction with promotion mechanisms and the feedback provided to unsuccessful candidates. The team noted that, through its Learning and Teaching Strategy, the University is actively seeking to promote the status of teaching activities thereby reinforcing previously expressed views that 'published work and Research Assessment Exercise prospects are not the sole determinants of [promotional] success'.
53 In supporting the University's commitment to integrate its policies for staff appointment and development with its planned strategy for the fulfilment of the institutional mission, the audit team considered that success would be linked to the further clarification of a number of procedures relating to staff induction, appraisal and career development. In particular, the University will wish to give further consideration to the establishment of clear monitoring procedures aimed at promoting improved coherence between central strategies for the achievement of the institution's mission and local implementation of agreed strategies.
Internal and external communications
Context
54 The Account and the Corporate Strategy emphasised the University's understanding of the critical place of communications at a time of considerable institutional change. Both documents set out how communications have been reshaped, covering a broad spectrum of matters ranging from governance to the generation of operational guidelines. The audit team was considerably helped in its task of evaluating the place of internal and external communications in the University's assurance of quality and standards both through the lucid descriptions and analysis offered in the materials made available to it and in its discussions during the visit.
The University's policy-making voice
55 During the visit, the audit team heard how recent organisational changes and external stimuli have presented the University with the opportunity to clarify matters relating to institutional governance. The team noted in particular reported discussions between the University's Governance Review Group and the Privy Council concerning the establishment of a 'clear and undisputed governing body' for the institution and, in this regard, the need for clarification of the roles of the Council and Court. This discussion at the highest levels of governance and management led the team to reflect with the University about the importance of clarifying 'the voice of authority' at all levels within the institution.
56 In seeking to understand the way policy is made, disseminated and executed
within the University the audit team paid particular attention to the working
of the University's committee system. In October 1999, the Account explained,
the University Council approved a new committee structure 'which reflected
the decision to separate management and governance'. In March 2000, definitive
compositions and terms of reference for the seven master committees of
POC (see above, paragraphs 12 to 13) were published, together with notes
on the operation of the committees. A close linkage was formed between
committee terms of reference and individual elements of the Corporate
Strategy. In discussion, the team learnt how the committee system is
considered to be a key component in the University's ability to deliver
and re-shape its Corporate Strategy. At the time of the visit, the
team was concerned to learn that there appeared to be a lack of clarity
about how best to separate the role of senior academics as committee chairs,
from their role as University managers. In evaluating the effectiveness
of its committee system the University will wish to have regard to the
balance it wishes to secure between the deliberative and executive functions
exercised by its various committees and the way in which any resultant
policies are implemented and monitored. The team also learnt of the Council's
recent concern 'about the amount of University resource being consumed
within the committee structure'. In addressing this matter, the University
may wish to consider further how best to ensure effective communications,
other than by cross-membership between and among committees. The team noted,
for example, that the University's prevailing minuting convention of labelling
minutes as 'restricted' might serve to restrict communications between
University committees and their cognate bodies at faculty level.
Publications
57 The Account stated that the University's Guidelines for SFUs: Student Handbooks encouraged good operational practice. It was also noted that the University has required the development of student handbooks which 'speak to the specific needs of part-time students and distance-taught students'. The audit team noted, however, that the Guidelines published in October 1998 recognised that particular attention should be paid to the information needs of students taking joint or integrated degrees, but recommended only that 'a separate, jointly-produced handbook may be the answer'. The team, in noting the resource implications of a proliferation of bespoke information for students, also took note of the problem identified by the University's SRMC of providing, within available resources, reformatted information to ensure compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act. Nevertheless, in seeking to meet the particular requirements of specific categories of students, the University will wish to continue to develop adequate monitoring procedures to ensure equality of opportunity for all students in terms of access to programme and course information.
58 During the visit, the audit team learnt that the general information given to students in the form of the Undergraduate Handbook and the Postgraduate Handbook sought to provide a clear, accurate and user-friendly guide to the University. In examining the two examples provided, the team found them to achieve this purpose admirably: both of the examples delineated rights and responsibilities; outlined appeals procedures; described University systems and structures; and contained appropriate sections on regulations. The team also found that the Undergraduate Handbook provided another comprehensive Guide to Life at the University. Intended as a source of information throughout a student's career, these handbooks are supplemented from time to time with information published on the University's web site. The team would wish to commend the structure and content of the Undergraduate and Postgraduate Handbooks.
59 The Account drew attention to the University's Student Charter,
issued jointly by the Senate and Council of the University and the Students'
Union. The provisions of the Charter extend to all registered students
of the University, including those in affiliated or associated partner
institutions. The Charter delineates essential commitments, such
as that to equality of opportunity and to the provision of accurate information.
It also outlines appeals and complaints procedures and makes a general
statement concerning student responsibilities. The audit team found the
information contained in the Charter to be clear and precise.
Communications: the future
60 The Account explained that the University, given its strong regional, national and international profile, was aware that it needed to sustain effective communications with its wide range of audiences and stakeholders. The Account went on to describe how structural changes had been made to further strengthen communications, following an administrative review in 1997. This involved locating basic corporate information in more accessible sites and formats and allocating clear strategic and operational responsibilities, in terms both of production, ownership and control of publications, to committees and individual officers. Academic reorganisation, the Account observed, had necessitated the production and dissemination of a range of new publications, from a handbook for the guidance of deans to various guidelines and codes of practice for use at faculty and SFU level. The audit team found that notable among the latter was the Quality and Standards Documents pamphlet, which has been designed as a reference source for staff. The team would wish to commend the University on the generally high production quality of these publications.
61 The University's General Information Strategy sets out the institution's framework for optimising its management of information. The Corporate Strategy envisages an increasing use of emerging information technologies, not just as a means of providing a supporting infrastructure but also as a mechanism for managing information and knowledge. In this context, the Account stated that the University's intranet will play an increasingly important communications medium. The Account and the Corporate Strategy both described the University's concern with the difference between providing information and communicating effectively. The audit team learnt from its discussions that the University's commitment to consultation, for example, is tempered by an understanding that a surfeit of information (with routine requests for feedback) can have negative repercussions. The team noted also the University's understanding of the need to improve the quality and effectiveness of communications in order to strengthen the engagement of members of staff with the mission of the institution. During the visit, the University provided clear evidence of its awareness of a range of complex matters concerned with communications and demonstrated a serious strategic commitment to address them purposefully. The team formed the view that, in seeking to develop a communications capability which will allow the institution to inform and interact with all its stakeholders effectively, the University has developed a coherent strategy which will support its management of a major programme of operational change.
Conclusions
62 The University of Hull was founded in 1927 as a university college of the University of London and received its Royal Charter in 1954. The University has a long tradition of providing educational, cultural and professional services to the local communities and businesses in the city of Hull and the surrounding Yorkshire and Lincolnshire region, and has long-established and extensive academic affiliations with overseas institutions of higher education in Europe, North America, the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. Within Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, the University offers a wide range of off-campus credit-bearing part-time programmes. There are also off-campus validated, franchised and Access courses delivered by various members of the University's local and regional network of 'associate colleges'. The University also has a relatively large overseas teaching presence with distance-taught and validated courses offered in Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Australia, South Africa, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Ireland and continental Europe. Since the last audit undertaken in 1993, the University's student body has increased substantially and, following merger with Humberside College of Health in 1996, has become a dual-site institution. The character and geography of the University will change further following the planned merger with North Riding College in August 2000.
63 The aim of the University's quality strategy is 'to develop [the institution's] quality culture', this commitment being embedded in the institution's Corporate Strategy. The University believes that the maintenance and enhancement of academic quality is the collective responsibility of all University staff since the quality of the student learning experience is a product both of the overall environment in which students work and of staff development and student support. The University remains particularly mindful that mechanisms and agencies for quality assurance and enhancement cannot be fully effective without the commitment of the entire University community. The aims and objectives of the University's quality strategy, which flow from the Corporate Strategy, are articulated in a series of key institutional policy documents embracing, for example, performance and quality review, learning and teaching, research, staff development, and student services.
64 Since the last institutional audit, responsibility for academic quality assurance and the maintenance of academic standards has been overseen and coordinated by the Academic Planning Committee and, more recently, by POC. These committees have constituted the 'parent' bodies for the committees which, in turn, have responsibility for overseeing admissions, learning and teaching, programme approval, academic monitoring and review, and academic and student support services. The University claims that its four pro-vice-chancellors, as chairs of the major University committees with quality assurance responsibilities, play a fundamental part in providing leadership [in quality matters] at a senior level. Quality assurance arrangements and practices are generally observed at faculty and sub-faculty levels and major University committees devote considerable attention to matters of quality and standards assurance. However, there remained some uncertainties regarding the effectiveness of the University's quality strategy and its ability, in turn, to deliver the objectives identified in the Corporate Strategy. In particular, following the reorganisation of the University into faculties and the attendant devolution of certain quality assurance responsibilities, some notable ambiguities remain within the University community as a whole regarding the locus of regulatory and/or advisory authority. Additional clarity concerning the University's responsibility for the establishment, maintenance and monitoring of standards and the extent to which latitude in these matters can be granted to faculties and their constituent parts, either expressly or assumed through local custom and practice, would be beneficial. The University's recent experiences in South Africa are, in this regard, cautionary. Symptomatic of the desirability for improved operational clarity is the recent issuing of a number of important codes of practice by the University and their variable interpretation at faculty level. While the University's community as a whole is concerned to respect historical practice while modernising current processes and perspectives, the University's quality strategy may be biased towards being reactive and problem-solving rather than pre-emptive and prospective.
65 In respect of the setting, maintenance and monitoring of academic standards, the University recognises that there has been a clear need to balance the devolution of operational responsibility to faculties with consistency of practice in relation to institutional regulations and guidelines. The latter have been of primary importance, partly in ensuring fairness to students through promoting mechanisms which encourage consistency of practice, but also as a necessary guarantor of the University's awards. Based upon a culture of trust in individual academic integrity, one interesting feature of the University's efforts to calibrate standards internally has been the conscious use of 'internal externality'. However, some academic developments may have progressed in a manner which have subsequently been revealed as being unhelpful to the University and which might have benefited from a more rigorous and testing analysis at senior University committees. Overall, there are no indications to suggest that individual programmes are not meeting expected standards of delivery and outcome but the University is rightly beginning the process of reviewing the means by which it can satisfy itself centrally with respect to such matters.
66 The Corporate Strategy recognises, in a clear, focused and positive manner, the University's strengths and limitations and identifies the opportunities and challenges facing the institution. The document espouses a clear sense of community and teamwork and a commitment to reinforcing this further and to eradicating 'inappropriate individualism'. The Corporate Strategy recognises the need for the University, in the current climate of change, to further improve its communications strategy and, in particular, to enhance staff engagement with and commitment to the mission of the institution. Recognising the importance of clear information and the avoidance of 'information overload', the University will need to keep under review the mechanisms used to generate timely, accurate and appropriate information.
67 There is strength to be found in the various manifestations of the University's learning infrastructure. The University's stated aim is to move towards an increasingly learner focused environment and it is recognised that the achievement of this goal requires changes to the infrastructure and the coordination of effort across a range of service providers. There is clear evidence that innovative practice in teaching and learning is being fostered, notably within IfL and through the activities of the Student Services Committee. Arrangements for the personal support and guidance of students are a strength.
68 There are several enabling strategies that the institution has developed which should allow it to address some of the challenges that it presently faces. On balance, there can be broad confidence in the University's ability properly to discharge its responsibility for the academic standards of the degrees awarded in its name and for the quality of the programmes of study that lead to those awards.
Points for commendation
69 The audit team would wish to commend the University for a number of good practices, in particular:
i the extensive consultative processes involved in the adoption of the Corporate Strategy and the Analytical Account (paragraphs 8, 14 and 17);
ii the work undertaken by the AcSU of URU in establishing a revised review system for academic units (paragraph 20);
iii the recent development of a statement on the Use of Unfair Means in examinations and other forms of assessment (paragraph 30);
iv for developing a useful and informative system that seeks to make effective use of the contributions made by external examiners to the assurance of institutional academic standards (paragraph 31);
v the various activities of MDU (paragraphs 39
and 50);
vi the framework for student support and guidance (paragraph 42);
vii the continued commitment to supporting students and staff with special
needs
(paragraph 46);
viii the emerging work of IfL in delivering the University's teaching and learning agenda (paragraphs 46 and 50);
ix the quality of the University's publicity materials and information provided to students (paragraphs 58 and 60);
x the development of a coherent institutional communications strategy (paragraph 61).
Points for further consideration
70 As it continues to develop its systems and arrangements for assuring the quality of its educational provision and the standards of its programmes, the University will wish to consider the necessity of:
i developing, promulgating and monitoring a clearly understood and accepted strategy, operational responsibilities and accountabilities for the assurance of quality and standards (paragraphs 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 29, 35, 48, 51, 53 and 56);
the advisability of:
ii reviewing the operational effectiveness of its deliberative and executive committee structure (paragraphs 20, 44 and 56);
iii ensuring that its approvals and monitoring processes operate consistently and effectively (paragraph 25);
and the desirability of:
iv ensuring that its admissions procedures operate in a clear and consistent manner and in accordance with its Code of Practice for Admissions (paragraph 27);
v ensuring that, in developing its policies and practice in relation to the supervision and assessment of postgraduate degrees, it continues to build upon the guidance offered in the QAA's Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education: postgraduate research programmes (paragraphs 32, 33 and 34);
vi ensuring that its learning resource provision continues to be appropriate for the needs of an increasing and diverse student population (paragraph 40);
vii encouraging inter-faculty staff development in relation to personal supervisory practices and further develop means of disseminating examples of good practice (paragraph 43);
viii remaining vigilant in all matters pertaining to student support and guidance so as to ensure parity of services for all, regardless of background, learning mode or study location (paragraph 47);
ix securing a coherent and consistent application of its appraisal processes across and between faculties and undertaking a central evaluation of the achievement of identified training needs (paragraphs 50 and 51);
x continuing to develop adequate monitoring procedures to ensure equality of opportunity for all students in terms of access to programme and course information (paragraph 57).
Appendix 1
University of Hull - facts and figures
History
The University of Hull was founded in 1927 as a College of the University
of London with the aid of a £250,000 endowment from Thomas Robinson
Ferens, a leading local industrialist, and received its first students
in 1929. The University received its independence with the granting of
a Charter in 1954. In recent years the University has significantly expanded
through mergers with the then Humberside College of Health (1996) and North
Riding College (2000). The main campus of the University comprises 94 acres
(38 hectares) of buildings and sports fields on the northern side of Kingston
upon Hull. There are additional campuses at Cottingham
(East Riding Campus) and Scarborough. Halls of Residence are located within 3
miles of the University at Cottingham and the Scarborough Campus.
Mission
The University's corporate strategy of 1999-2004, Enriching a World of Learning confirms the University's mission as:
"It is the mission of the University of Hull to be a research and learning community of international repute, welcoming staff and students from diverse backgrounds and nationalities, thriving on the intelligent application of knowledge, skills and technology, and working in partnership with organisations which share its purposes in the region and throughout the world".
A refinement of that strategy and mission has distilled three key objectives:
- to enhance the quality and volume of research;
- to sustain and develop quality and innovation in learning and teaching;
- to develop credible and profitable Reach Out activity
The University is a major employer and plays a significant role in the academic, economic and cultural life of the City and region. The University is a partner in CityLearning, which seeks to widen participation and raise educational standards, and works closely with locally based businesses ranging from multinationals to SMEs. The University is the location for one of the UK's most successful Science Parks.
Vision
The University intends to become 'a top 20 University' within the decade.
Faculties and Departments
In 1999-2000, the University of Hull comprised five academic Faculties and the Institute for Learning; the academic structure will be revised during 2000-01.
Faculty of Arts
School of European Languages and Cultures; Dutch Studies, European Studies, French, German, Hispanic Studies, Language Institute, Italian, Scandinavian Studies
Department of American Studies
Department of Drama
Department of English
Department of History
Department of Music
Humanities; Philosophy, Theology
Faculty of Engineering and Mathematics
Department of Computer Science
Department of Mathematics
School of Engineering
Faculty of Health
School of Community and Health
School of Medicine
School of Nursing
Institute for Learning
Centre for Educational Studies
Centre for Lifelong Learning
Centre for Professional Development
Faculty of Science and the Environment
Department of Biological Sciences
Department of Chemistry
Department of Geography
Department of Physics
Department of Psychology
Faculty of Social Sciences
Department of Politics and Asian Studies
School of Comparative and Applied Social Sciences
Business School
School of Economic Studies
Law School
Staff statistics as at June 2000
Staff data
| FT | PT | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Academic | 418 | 73 | 491 |
| Academic-related | 124 | 51 | 175 |
| Clerical | 281 | 210 | 491 |
| Technical | 118 | 16 | 134 |
| Other | 480 | 520 | 1,000 |
| Total | 1,421 | 870 | 2,291 |
Student statistics as at 1 December 1999
| UG | PG | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Full time | 7,544 | 1,419 | 8,963 |
| Part time | 2,946 | 1,627 | 4,573 |
| Total | 10,490 | 3,046 | 13,536 |
| FTE | 9,356 | 2,232 | 11,588 |
Includes:
- 274 incoming exchange students
- 1,303 University Foundation Award students
- 938 Distance Taught students
Mode of study:
- Full-time 66%
- Part-time 34%
Students by faculty
| Full-time | Part-time | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UG | PGT | PGR | UG | PGT | PGR | Total | |
| Arts | 2,056 | 37 | 51 | 422 | 12 | 38 | 2,616 |
| Eng & Maths | 846 | 30 | 52 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 942 |
| Health | 869 | 111 | 38 | 844 | 55 | 28 | 1,945 |
| IFL | 64 | 173 | 16 | 1,523 | 153 | 29 | 1,958 |
| Sci & Env | 1,308 | 83 | 122 | 109 | 5 | 22 | 1,649 |
| Soc Sci | 2,127 | 260 | 76 | 48 | 43 | 46 | 2,600 |
| Total | 7,270 | 694 | 355 | 2,946 | 268 | 177 | 11,710 |
(excludes incoming exchange students, distance taught students and postgraduates 'writing up')
Students by gender
| Female | Male | |
|---|---|---|
| Full-time | 56% | 44% |
| Part-time | 73% | 27% |
| All students | 59% | 41% |
Proportion of full-time undergraduates aged 21+ - 25%
Proportion of full-time undergraduates from the local region- 31%
Students by fee status
| Exchange | UG | PGT | PGR | Total | % | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UK | 0 | 8,329 | 625 | 328 | 9,282 | 87% |
| EU | 186 | 121 | 95 | 59 | 461 | 4% |
| Non-EU | 88 | 463 | 242 | 145 | 938 | 9% |
(Distance taught students and postgraduate students who are 'writing up' are excluded)
*as supplied by the University of Hull
Appendix 2
List of the University's collaborative partnerships as at May 2000
(programmes are located in the UK except where indicated, summary excludes programmes which are phasing out)
Affiliated Colleges
| Bishop Grosseteste College | A range of undergraduate and postgraduate programmes principally in Education |
| Greenwich School of Management | A range of undergraduate and postgraduate programmes principally in Management |
Associate Colleges of the University principally offering foundation
awards providing progression routes to University programmes
| Hull College | Biology, Chemistry, Engineering, Physics, Mathematics, French and Business Studies |
| Wyke College | Science, Engineering, Mathematics, Business Studies |
| Franklin College | A range of modules |
| John Leggott College | A range of modules |
| Selby College | A range of modules |
| Wilberforce College | Social and Behavioural Studies |
Links where programme(s) are offered in the partner institution
| Blackburn College | MBA, BA Management |
| Christian Leadership in Education Centre, Cork | Adv Dip Applied Educational Studies |
| Doncaster College/Dearne Valley Business School | A range of undergraduate and postgraduate programmes principally in Management |
| North Lindsey College | Health Services Management, PGCE (FE) |
| Centre for Strategic Management Development | Strategic Health Services Management |
| NHS Trusts | Health Services Management |
| East Riding of Yorkshire Council | Management Studies |
| CLL Custom Manufacturing | Improvement Management |
| BeNelux University, The Netherlands | Psychology and Counselling |
| Dubai Polytechnic, Dubai | MSc Computing & Information Systems |
| Nowy Sacz Graduate School of Business, Poland | MBA Finance |
Programmes delivered by the University utilising an administrative partner
| Asia Pacific Management Institute Ltd, Hong Kong | Postgraduate Management and Education programmes |
| Asia Pacific Management Centre, Singapore | Postgraduate Management programmes |
| Management Development Centre International, Middle East | Postgraduate Management programmes |
*as supplied by the University of Hull
Top
QAA updates
QAAtweets
QAAtube