1 An institutional audit of Loughborough University (the University) was undertaken during the week commencing 22 March 2004. The purpose of the audit was to provide public information on the quality of the University's programmes of study and on the discharge of its responsibility for its awards
2 The audit was carried out using a process developed by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (the Agency) in partnership with the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), the Standing Conference of Principals (SCOP) and Universities UK (UUK), and has been endorsed by the Department for Education and Skills. For institutions in England, it replaces the previous processes of continuation audit, undertaken by the Agency at the request of UUK and SCOP, and universal subject review, undertaken by the Agency on behalf of HEFCE, as part of the latter's statutory responsibility for assessing the quality of education that it funds.
3 The audit checked the effectiveness of the University's procedures for establishing and maintaining the standards of its academic awards; for reviewing and enhancing the quality of the programmes of study leading to those awards; and for publishing reliable information. As part of the audit process, according to protocols agreed with HEFCE, SCOP and UUK, the audit included consideration of examples of institutional processes at work at programme level, through discipline audit trails (DATs), together with examples of those processes operating at the level of the institution as a whole. The scope of the audit encompassed all of the University's provision and collaborative arrangements leading to its awards.
Section 1: Introduction: Loughborough University
The University and its mission
4 The University traces its origins to 1909 when Loughborough College was founded. It became a College of Technology in 1957 and became Loughborough University of Technology in 1966. In 1977 it amalgamated with the former Loughborough College of Education and was joined in 1998 with Loughborough College of Art and Design. As a consequence of the growing breadth of its subject disciplines, in 1996 the institution's title was changed to Loughborough University and its Charter and Statutes were amended accordingly.
5 The University is based in Loughborough and occupies an extensive campus on its western edge. The campus also houses the Henry Ford College, funded by the Ford Motor Company. At the time of the audit the University had recently acquired the former British Gas Research Centre at Holywell Park, next to its campus which has enlarged its facilities for research and business outreach.
6 At the time of submitting the self-evaluation document (SED) 14,303 students were registered to study at the University, of whom, 10,084 were registered for full-time undergraduate study; 335 for undergraduate part-time study; 1,293 for full-time study and 1,606 for part-time study leading to taught postgraduate awards. 733 research students were registered for full-time study and 252 by part-time study. Almost 2,000 of the University's students were from overseas. The SED noted that the University's staff numbered 2, 853 (actual) of whom 564 were in academic positions; 373 in academic-related positions; 372 in research positions; 182 were providing technical support; and 519 providing secretarial or clerical support.
7 In 1996 the University established a small campus at Peterborough with the intention of assisting partners, including Peterborough City Council, Peterborough Regional College (PRC) and Stamford College, to expand higher education (HE) provision in Peterborough and its hinterland. In January 2003, however, the University decided to withdraw from its current activities in Peterborough. Further information and discussion of 'Loughborough University at Peterborough' can be found in paragraph 141, below.
8 The University's Mission is:
'To increase knowledge through research, provide the highest quality of educational experience and the widest opportunities for students, advance industry and the professions, and benefit society'.
9 The University's Strategic Plan 2002-07 states that its ethos 'is characterised by:
- a physical and intellectual environment that allows academic freedom and scholarship to flourish, promotes the professional development of staff, and enables the comprehensive care and support of students in partnership with Loughborough Students' Union;
- a strong involvement with industry and the professions through research and teaching, consultancy and training, to provide direct support for wealth-creation, social advancement and cultural development;
- a unique contribution to the development of a wide range of sports, allowing exceptional opportunities for participation and achievement at every level'.
10 The University has developed a small portfolio of collaborative provision, the quality and academic standards management arrangements for which were included in the scope of the audit. The greater part of the University's partners lie within its region, but the University has also established partnerships with three overseas private HE institutions. The University's Register of Collaborative Provision was provided with the SED.
Background information
11 The published information available for this audit included:
- information made available through the Higher Education and Research Opportunities in the UK (HERO) portal, the web site of the Higher Education Statistics Agency and the University's own web site;
- published reports of teaching quality assessments and subject reviews conducted by HEFCE and the Agency; the unpublished reports of two developmental engagements, conducted by the Agency in 2003; the report of the Agency's continuation audit of the University published in 1998 (the 1998 report), and the report of an audit conducted by the Agency of the University's partnership with the PSB Corporation Pte Ltd Singapore, which was published in 2002.
The University initially provided the Agency with:
- an institutional SED together with its Governance Handbook and other regulatory information and illustrative papers;
- discipline self-evaluation documents (DSEDs) for the five areas selected for DATs.
The University provided electronic copies of the SED and further information on CD-ROM. In the course of the briefing visit and the audit visit, the University also provided the audit team with access to its intranet and the reports of professional accreditation visits (see below, paragraphs 71 and 233). In the course of the briefing visit and the audit visit the University provided the team with additional papers on request. The team is grateful to the University for the attention devoted to ensuring that the information required to carry out its inquiries was made available.
12 The institutional audit method provides for the recognised representative body for students to make a students' written submission (SWS) to inform the audit. The Loughborough Students' Union provided an SWS which followed the pattern offered in the Handbook for institutional audit: England, published by the Agency and had been shared with the University.
The audit process
13 Following preliminary meetings at the University in July 2003 with representatives of the University and students, the Agency confirmed that five DATs would be conducted during the audit visit. The Agency received the University's institutional SED in November 2003. On the basis of the SED and other information provided, the audit team selected the DATs, and the Agency confirmed to the University that the DATs would focus on: social science, sociology, communication and media studies, criminology and criminal justice; english and drama; sports science; economics; and civil engineering. The University provided the Agency with SEDs for the DATs (DSEDs) in February 2004.
14 The audit team visited the University in February 2004 and met the Vice-Chancellor, senior members of the University and students' representatives. The briefing meetings enabled the team to explore matters discussed by the University in its SED and to discuss with students matters they had similarly raised in the SWS. At the end of the briefing visit the team proposed a programme of meetings for the audit visit and requested some additional information. The programme for the audit visit was agreed by the University. No areas were specifically identified for thematic enquiries.
15 The audit visit took place from 22 to 26 March 2004. During the visit the audit team met staff and student members of the University. The team comprised Dr G Baldwin; Professor N Goddard; Professor S Hallam; Mr P Markey; Dr J D Owen; and Professor C J Smith, auditors, and Ms J Anstee, audit secretary. The audit was coordinated for the Agency by Dr D W Cairns, Assistant Director, Reviews Group.
Developments since the previous academic quality audit
16 The 1998 report commended the University for its management style and communication patterns; its faculty directorates, which were seen as flexible, practical, minimally bureaucratic and generally effective in facilitating upward and downward communications; the relationship between the Associate Deans (Teaching) (AD(T)s) and the Pro-Vice Chancellor (Teaching) (PVC (T)), which was considered generally effective in ensuring that the University maintained a detached and informed oversight of the quality of its educational provision; relations between the University and its industrial partners; the extent to which it assured itself of the effectiveness of its main procedures for ensuring the quality of education which it offered; the University's programme review system which the report described as thorough and effective; its comprehensive Guide to Good Recruitment Practice; and the contribution of officers and representatives of Loughborough Students' Union to quality enhancement.
17 The 1998 report offered several recommendations for the University's consideration. These included advice to consider whether its 'light touch internal quality assurance was sufficiently effective and reliable to inform the University of the nature and impact of variability of departmental educational practices'; whether planning 'for external collaborative and other activities [was] sufficiently robust to address the complexities of the activities themselves, and whether the development of formal guidelines for such activities would be of value'; whether 'the present understanding and implementation of double marking schemes require review if the University is to be confident as to the reliability of its practice in this area'; and whether 'the introduction of mandatory formal training for those participating in staff appointments of all kinds would lead to improvements in recruitment practices'.
18 The 1998 report also offered several recommendations which the University might find it desirable to consider. These included consideration of the merits of a 'formal document articulating the University's teaching learning and assessment policy'; the development of 'additional structures for University-wide collaboration in relation to the dissemination of good practice'; and checking whether 'major human resource planning needs are satisfactorily carried out under existing structural arrangements'.
19 The SED described the University's general responses to the 1998 report. While no structural changes had been made, it stated that more time had been allocated to the AD(T)s to perform their duties; that the University's internal programme review system had been revised to take account of Agency guidance on external participation and Teaching Quality Information (TQI) requirements; and that changes had been made to the approval process for modules and programmes to take into account the introduction of programme specifications, and there had been changes to the procedures for departments to respond to external examiners reports.
20 A University Code of Practice on Collaborative Provision was approved by Senate in June 2000 and there have been discussions of student assessment arrangements which have resulted in the dissemination of advice to departments with the intention of encouraging good practice. A formal Learning and Teaching Strategy had been developed and introduced, and the University was exploring how its implementation might be integrated into the production of departmental development plans. At the time of the audit, University structures for the dissemination of good practice continued to be largely dependent on the work of the AD(T)s, although it had become a requirement that those participating in staff appointments undertake prior formal training.
21 Among other developments traceable to the University's response to the 1998 report, a University Widening Participation Strategy and Action Plan had been developed the implementation of which is regularly monitored by the Widening Participation Monitoring Group. The University approved a new admissions policy in spring 2003 and its Student Recruitment and Admissions team is now responsible for assessing the progress and contribution of each department towards the University's overall targets. An International Office had also been established. This has enabled the University to increase its international recruitment activity and to give greater support to international students.
22 The SED stated that the establishment of a Research Office in 1999 had facilitated a range of new initiatives including the establishment of the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council EngD programme in the Centre for Innovative Construction Engineering, and membership of the New Route PhD Consortium. Policy development and quality matters in relation to the research students' academic experience are now overseen by the Research Team, consisting of the ADs (Research (R)) of each faculty, chaired by the PVC (R), and supported by the relevant administrative staff. A Division of Innovation, Business Partnerships and Knowledge Transfer supports innovative commercial knowledge transfer activities. An entrepreneurship lecturer and a student innovation manager have been appointed to support students wishing to exploit their intellectual property commercially.
23 Since 1998, the University has participated in nine subject reviews, two developmental engagements and an overseas audit conducted by the Agency, the latter of the University's partnership with an institution in Singapore (the 2002 report). The University has also participated in a significant number of professional, statutory and regulatory body (PSRB) accreditations. The reports of these engagements provide evidence of much good practice and the audit team was able to establish that matters requiring attention have generally been dealt with at departmental level. Similarly the team was informed by the University that the reports arising from Agency subject reviews, developmental engagements, and the overseas audit had been considered by the faculties and to confirm that they had been discussed by the Learning and Teaching Committee (LTC), and that appropriate adjustments had been made to the University's practices where matters of wider significance for its work had been identified. As the 1998 report found, however, the formal reports of accreditation visits conducted by PSRBs are not routinely received and reviewed by LTC (see below, paragraph 73).
24 Since the 1998 audit, as the SED observed, the University has continued 'to evolve its quality systems, building on the strengths and addressing the weaknesses identified in the Audit and in other QAA reviews'. Developments were said to have tended to be incremental as the University has become increasingly aware of the need 'to demonstrate that internal quality procedures are sufficiently robust to replace QAA Subject Review'. Throughout, the audit team was able to observe that the University has made considerable progress to this end. It encourages the University to continue with its existing work to undertake 'gap' and 'risk' analyses, to enable it to identify areas where its quality and academic standards management arrangements can be enhanced.
Section 2: The audit investigations: institutional processes
The institution's view as expressed in the SED
25 The SED expressed the view that the University had developed 'a well-documented and comprehensive range of quality assurance procedures, closely monitored and regularly updated by the Programme Development and Quality (PDQ) Team subject to the approval of the LTC and Senate.
The institution's framework for managing quality and standards including collaborative provision
26 The University's management framework is geared to the achievement of strategic and operational institutional objectives, underpinned by an organisational structure that provides for issues to be communicated both up and down, problems identified and solutions developed'. Senate is the body with the oversight of the academic work of the institution and is chaired by the Vice-Chancellor. The LTC advises Senate on matters of policy relating to learning and teaching, and has responsibility for the development and implementation of the Learning and Teaching Strategy and the maintenance and enhancement of quality in learning and teaching. The Curriculum Sub-Committee (CSC) of LTC scrutinises proposals for new programmes and significant changes to programmes, and has monitors changes to the portfolio of programmes overall. Reporting to the Vice Chancellor, the PVC (T) is a member of the Executive Management Group, Chair of the LTC and the Student Services Committee (SSC) and Executive Director of PDQ and the Student Recruitment and Admissions team (SRA). PDQ acts as a policy advisory group and steering committee for LTC.
27 The University's position is that: 'Responsibility for each programme rests unambiguously with a named department. That responsibility extends to all aspects of quality, currency and viability'. Each head of department is responsible for ensuring that University regulations and procedures are implemented through systems appropriate to the subject discipline(s) concerned. Within each department, the heads or directors of undergraduate, postgraduate, and research programmes, are responsible to the head of department. Each department is expected to have established a departmental LTC (DLTC) (or its equivalent). DLTCs are expected to consider matters to do with learning and teaching and proposals for the development of the curriculum and the department's portfolio of provision and to bring forward matters to full meetings of departmental staff, which are chaired by the head of department.
28 In the University's arrangements for quality management and academic standards overall it would be difficult to overstate the role of the departments. In the course of its meetings with members of the University and students the audit team noted that one consequence of the delegation of practical responsibility for quality management to the departments was that students, particularly students who studied in more than one department, might experience the side-effects of the variation in departmental practices the University's present arrangements permit. For example, in the particular instance of students following programmes of study leading to joint and combined honours, while overall responsibility rests with a single named department, the experiences of students following such programmes appeared to be characterised by variations in broadly similar procedures (such as for the provision of feedback on marked work and its return, and the timing of assessments) which have the potential to disadvantage some, and to affect their learning experiences. The University's arrangements for periodic programme review (PPR) are discussed in paragraph 48 below. At the time of the audit, the University had undertaken one PPR, the scope of which had included combined and joint honours provision. As the University works through its programme of PPRs, it would now be advisable for it to make systematic arrangements for joint and combined honours provision to be reviewed. This would assist the University to identify and address those areas where variations in practices between departments have the potential to affect the learning experience of joint and combined honours students detrimentally.
29 Within each of the three faculties an AD(T) supports and advises the Dean on learning and teaching matters. According to the SED, AD(T)s are the key conduit for the communication of information between the PVC (T), and committees and teams at the centre of the University and other departments in the Faculty. AD(T)s also provide the key means of communication between faculties in matters relating to learning and teaching. In each faculty the work of the Dean is supported by a Faculty Directorate, the membership of which consists of the heads of department within the faculty and the AD(T), together with the AD(R). Faculty Directorates provide opportunities for matters relating to teaching and programmes to be discussed or reported. The ADs also work directly with programme directors at undergraduate, postgraduate and research level. Reports by external examiners are considered within the department and responses are made by the Head of School. The University informed the team that digests were circulated to the AD(T)s and to: relevant heads of departments; deans; the PVC (T); the Director of Registry Services; the Manager of the PDQ team; the SRA manager and other Faculty secretaries. Digests are scrutinised by the AD(T)s and if they identify matters which require attention at institutional level these will be passed on to the relevant body. PSRB accreditations are also dealt with at departmental level (see below, paragraph 71). The chief concerns of the Faculty Directorates lie with strategic planning and financial management.
30 LTC and its subcommittees (chiefly CSC), advised by the PDQ team, formulate guidance in relation to a range of quality matters, including the University's responses to the elements of the academic infrastructure including individual sections of the Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education (Code of practice), published by the Agency, as they have been issued. The process of formulating such guidance will normally be informed by discussions and consultations with faculties and departments. The University expects guidance from LTC (and, if necessary, Senate) and any associated procedures to be followed by departments and faculties. There are regulatory frameworks for awards, progression and classification of degrees, standard University-wide formats for programme regulations, module and programme specifications and modular structures. Programme specifications have been drawn up with reference to subject benchmark statements and The framework for higher education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (FHEQ).
31 As each element of the academic infrastructure has been promulgated the University has followed a process of conducting a 'gap' analysis, checking where its current procedures do not fully address matters raised by, for example, a section of the Code of practice. For most sections of the Code this process appeared to be complete but some work is still underway, for instance, in relation to assessment matters and the updating of guidance relating to the quality management of validated and collaborative provision (see below, paragraph 151).
32 The University sets minimum levels of conformity with its guidance, with which departments must comply. It is at the discretion of individual departments, however, whether they exceed these minimum levels. The University publishes its own Codes of Practice in its Academic Quality Procedures Handbook (the Handbook). As the academic infrastructure continues to develop, the audit team would encourage the University to continue to follow its existing sound analytic practices and, at the same time, suggest that it would be desirable for the University to consider the merit of developing means whereby it can assure itself that its departments are responding in an appropriate and timely manner to its guidance.
33 Members of the University told the audit team that it was committed to what it described as a 'matrix approach' to quality management and to giving the departments considerable autonomy to adapt arrangements, beyond a University minimum, to their own subject specialisms. The concept of a matrix approach to quality management had not featured in the SED or discussions in the course of the briefing visit, but seemed to the team to be an apt and helpful characterisation of the arrangements the University operates in practice. The team therefore encourages the University to develop clear definitions of the roles and responsibilities of individuals, committees and groups populating the various levels of its matrix quality management arrangements, taking account of the need to develop systems which are less reactive to external demands and more forward-looking in reflecting on, managing, and enhancing quality management matters.
34 One consequence of the degree of authority in quality control and quality management matters which the University has delegated to its departments, is that it has come to depend upon the work of the AD(T)s to monitor and check that departments are meeting its requirements. In the course of its review of the University's quality and academic standards arrangements, the audit team came to the view that the AD(T)s were discharging their considerable responsibilities energetically and conscientiously, and that the manner in which their work was conducted constituted a feature of good practice. Nonetheless, quality management and academic standards arrangements in which there is such heavy reliance on communications passed through the AD(T)s, may not have the robustness, over time, that the University might think is required. The University acknowledged the pivotal role of the AD(T)s in the SED, which noted that increased time had now been allocated to them for their work, and informed the team that, in one case, some responsibilities of one AD(T) had been delegated to another named individual. Nonetheless, the team would encourage the University to consider how it might develop a range of strategies and support arrangements to ensure that, for the future, communication horizontally and vertically through its matrix quality management arrangements will be less reliant than is the case at present, on the contributions of the AD(T)s. Such supporting arrangements might provide additional means for the identification and dissemination of good practice, and might be able to offer departments further assistance in ensuring that an appropriate balance is maintained between the efforts they devote to research and to teaching. Additionally, to support the work done by the AD(T) to keep the University informed of the work of its departments, the team suggests that the University might wish to consider introducing measures, such as, for example, audit trails, which will provide it with a further means of confirming that departments are responding to central initiatives and applying the University's own Codes of Practice and Regulations.
The institution's intentions for the enhancement of quality and standards
35 The SED set out two main lines of development for the enhancement of the University's quality management and academic standards arrangements: continuing improvements arising out of information and good practice identified through its quality assurance procedures, and a series of more strategically-based activities, deriving from the Learning and Teaching Strategy itself and other major initiatives. The SED stated that the University's strategy for quality assurance and enhancement was to 'operate effective procedures for setting monitoring and enhancing the quality and standards of learning, teaching and assessment; to publish information that is accurate, complete and reliable about the quality of its programmes and the standards of its awards; and to meet or exceed the benchmark standards in respect of degree classes, graduate employment, progression rates and other key quality performance indicators'. According to the SED, a range of strategies was being implemented to attain these aims under the auspices of the LTC.
36 Among the University's future plans for enhancement, the SED identified as particularly important the attention recently given to increasing the effectiveness of staff and educational development, through the formation of the Professional Development team. This has been formed from the merger of three former units: Learning and Teaching Development, Staff Development, and the Quality Enhancement Unit, with the intention that the merger will provide a more integrated approach to staff and educational development. For this new team, six main areas of activity have been proposed: Academic Practice and Quality, Diversity; Learning Technologies; Management and Organisational Development; Postgraduate Research Student Training; and Transferable Skills. The work of the team is also expected to facilitate the exchange and dissemination of good practice between departments. Paragraphs in the SED provided helpful and accurate descriptions of how these areas of activity were being taken forward.
37 The SED also described plans to expand and further develop the University's virtual learning environment (VLE) its 'Learn' server, which it has developed in-house, and enhance the Computer Assisted Assessment service. As these developments bed down, the University anticipates that they will enable it to undertake a broader review of its longer-term plans for its VLE. Reviewing the University's quality enhancement plans, the audit team came to the view that the establishment of its Professional Development department offers further opportunities for the institution to continue the development of more strategic approaches to quality enhancement and encourages it to take forward this work.
Internal approval, monitoring and review processes
Approval of new and revised provision
38 The University's procedures for the approval of new programmes or modules, and their revision are set out in the Handbook, the current version of which is available on the University's web pages, and which provides up-to-date examples of the current standard forms to be used by the University's various quality management and academic standards processes. The SED offered a concise summary of the University's procedures for the approval of new or revised programmes and/or modules. They provide for programmes to be approved in two phases, strategic and operational. In the strategic phase, an outline proposal for a new programme, together with a financial statement is scrutinised by the relevant faculty directorate and, subsequently, by the Operations Sub-Committee (OSC) of the joint Council and Senate Resources and Planning Committee (RPC). If the proposal is approved in principle by these bodies, it may proceed to further development through the operational phase, at which point, for collaborative programme proposals, a 'Quality Assurance Statement' must be provided. After development by the proposers, members of the relevant faculty board are expected to comment and advise on the proposal, before it is submitted to CSC for scrutiny. The University informed the audit team that any new module specifications, programme regulations and programme specifications must be provided in the operational phase.
39 The development process for new provision requires at least one senior external commentator (usually a member of another university) to indicate their support for the proposal. Those proposing the new programme may be invited to attend the meeting of the CSC at which it is discussed before CSC makes its recommendation to LTC. In the case of externally sponsored and/or professionally accredited programmes the audit team was able to confirm that the development involved extensive consultation with the relevant bodies, and the production of supporting documentation. In the case of programmes offered in collaboration with another institution, the University requires new programme proposals to be negotiated and approved in accordance with its Code of Practice for Collaborative Provision.
40 Across the University, there is an annual update process in the summer, during which module specifications are 'cloned' from the current year's module specifications on the central Corporate Information Services (CIS) database. Once new or revised modules have been approved the relevant module specifications are made available for viewing across the intranet. The University informed the audit team that module specifications are subject to this annual update process, prior to publication by departments in student handbooks, or by the Academic Registry on the University's web pages.
41 When major revisions to programmes, including collaborative programmes, are required, they may follow the operational route described above, unless the revisions proposed are sufficiently far reaching for the strategic route to be invoked. From the papers provided by the University it appeared to the audit team to be the case that substantial changes to programmes were not infrequently presented for the consideration of CSC to coincide with the University's routine updating of module specifications during the summer vacation period (see below). It was also not unusual for consideration of such revisions to be dealt with by post. The judgement as to whether a proposed revision constitutes a major or minor revision is made at first instance by the relevant AD(T), to whom the University has delegated authority to approve minor changes. Again, these are not infrequently considered over the summer period. Proposals for the introduction of new modules may also be approved by the relevant AD(T), acting with the approval of the Chair of CSC. Exceptionally, changes to programmes may be made to take effect in the current year, with the AD(T) seeking the consent of students before approving changes.
42 The University's view is that its procedures align well with the relevant sections of the Code of practice and in October 2003 it published more detailed guidance for staff, based on the Code, Section 2: Collaborative provision. With respect to the University's arrangements for scrutinising and approving new programme proposals, clear guidance is provided via the Handbook for all stages in the process, which includes standard forms setting out what internal consultations have been undertaken and soliciting the provision of evidence of some external peer support for the proposed development. Neither programme specifications or proposals can be approved unless reference has been made to the relevant external reference points in the academic infrastructure. Where, in the course of its consideration of a new proposal, CSC considers that action is required to improve or amend it, the AD(T) is expected to inform the relevant department or departments while the Chair of CSC is required to alert the LTC of any outstanding matters. The audit team noted that the University's close monitoring of its processes for updating modules and revising programmes provides it with the means to check whether departments are meeting its expectations in these matters, for example, that Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (SENDA) requirements have been met, and that the Registry provided a further check that the University's requirements have been met before newly-approved or revised programmes may be published.
43 The University considers that the detailed standard form which proposers of new programmes and major revisions of programmes are now required to complete, together with its current guidance to its staff provides a clear framework for the development of new programmes. The audit team concurs with this view, and considers that the University's procedures for scrutinising programmes to ensure compatibility with University regulations, and for taking account of the academic infrastructure are rigorous. One area of the University's programme approval procedures, however, might bear further consideration: the more effective involvement of external peers at the approval stage, which would now be advisable (see below, paragraph 58).
44 The audit team is convinced that the policy the University has adopted, of carrying out central checks on changes to programmes and modules, offers a sound means of ensuring a measure of consistency across departments and faculties. But the team also agrees with the University that these new procedures have added to the burdens on the AD(T)s. At the time of the audit, the University was intending to provide greater central support for departments, particularly in the area of taught postgraduate and research postgraduate provision. Again, the team agrees with the University that the latter's proposals would help to ensure closer engagement between departments and the centre of the University and encourages it to take forward its existing proposals to provide greater support for the AD(T)s, so that they can continue to ensure that the annual summer updating process for modules and programmes can remain robust.
Annual monitoring
45 The University's procedures for annual programme review (APR) were outlined in the SED. They follow closely the relevant sections in the Handbook and the procedures clearly align with the precepts of the Code of practice published by the Agency. Programme directors and others are required to provide data on admissions, progression and completion and employment destinations for the previous session. Accounts are required of action taken in response to feedback from staff, students, external examiners, external advisory bodies, accreditation bodies and employers of former students. Although arrangements vary from department to department, typically a departmental review body is responsible for overseeing the completion and accuracy of the APR report. The review body meets with the AD(T) who is expected, subsequently, to report any concerns to the relevant Faculty Board, and, if the concerns are of an institutional nature, to the LTC. The audit team was able to confirm that information from the APRs was monitored by the LTC and points of an institutional nature were followed up. Programmes offered by the University in collaboration with partners are subject to the same APR procedures, with the University department responsible for taking the lead for the University in the partnership being responsible for ensuring that the relevant documentation is submitted and that any follow-up action required is undertaken.
46 In the SED, the University stated that it regarded the APR as a useful method of monitoring provision between the PPRs and, in future, intended to use the APR to investigate the diversity and effectiveness of quality management procedures at departmental level. APR is also intended to provide necessary data sets for PPRs, although the University acknowledges there is a burden placed on departments to provide progression information and that centrally generated data is needed.
47 The audit team regarded the APRs, together with the departmental and faculty responses, as thorough and consistent in their analyses of the programmes. Consideration of external examiners' reports, staff and student feedback and, where appropriate, employers, was evident. Student progression information is used, but the data lacked detail on entry profiles and any cohort analysis. The team was told that the University intended to undertake an institution-wide analysis of progression. The AD(T)s again were the main conduits of information flowing upwards from departments to the faculty board and the LTC.
Periodic review
48 The University operates a process of PPR on a five-year cycle, and the SED provided details of the PPRs recently conducted in five departments. These had built upon the University's experience of conducting programme reviews in 2002, which had highlighted the need for greater rigour and formality in the review process. Changes approved by Senate took effect in 2002-03, and included the establishment of a review panel for each PPR, chaired by the dean of the relevant faculty; greater specification of the role of the external assessor in the PPR process; and the development of a single standard data collection form to be used for both APR and PPR.
49 Under the University's PPR process, departments are required to provide a SED together with programme specifications; admissions, progression and completion data; reports from external examiners for previous sessions and minutes from staff-student committee meetings. The review panel, chaired by the Dean of Faculty, visits the department for one day. The panel must include at least one member of another department (not necessarily in the same faculty); the Director of Quality Enhancement; the relevant AD(T); and an external academic who is not currently acting as an external examiner. The panel is expected to meet current students and review the learning resources available for the department's programmes. The University expects the independent external participant to assess and comment on the level and appropriateness of standards and quality of learning opportunities. The work of review panels is supported by panel secretaries, who are expected to produce detailed reports which identify matters for consideration and commendation using a standard template. Departments are required to produce written responses to PPR reports, together with details of how they intend to address any outstanding matters. The PPR process provides for return visits to departments to verify that actions required have been taken. PPR reports and departmental responses are provided to LTC for discussion and comment and feedback is given to departments.
50 Following the five PPRs undertaken in 2003 the University's Associate Director of Quality Enhancement, the Quality Enhancement and Assessment Administrator, and an Assistant Registrar met a group of PPR panel secretaries to review the effectiveness of the new procedures. In procedural terms, it was agreed that the PPR process would benefit from better procedures. From the findings of the PPR reports, a number of matters had been identified for further attention: lack of certainty on the part of some departments that matters of concern were being communicated to the University's senior managers; that the only institution-level participant in each review was the relevant faculty's AD(T); and that the AD(T)s themselves were generally overburdened. The University has since sought to address these matters by including the Dean as the institutional link to the Executive Management Group and including academic staff from outside the department (although, often from within the same faculty) to provide greater objectivity. With respect to enhancing the rigour and formality of the PPR process, the University believes that providing for the Quality Enhancement Director to attend panel meetings has improved operating procedures and provided greater institution-level input. The post of Quality Enhancement Director has now lapsed and the associated responsibilities have been assumed by a member of Professional Development, including participation in PPR. Care will be needed to ensure that the quality management and enhancement priorities of the former post are not lost in the new arrangements.
51 The audit team was interested to note that the University had monitored the effectiveness of external PPR panel members, and had paid particular attention to perceptions of their independence. The group referred to in paragraph 50, which had reviewed the PPR procedures, found that, although clearer guidance had been offered on the selection of external assessors, there was some, although not extensive, variability in the way in which assessors had interpreted their role. As a result, the University has now provided a clearer statement of its expectations of external participants in PPR. The SED stated that the University was confident that the procedures it has adopted for PPR align closely to the relevant recommendations offered for TQI by HEFCE.
52 From the evidence available to the audit team, over the past two years, departments have engaged constructively with the PPR process, as shown by their SEDs and their responses to PPR reports. From the latter, the team was able to confirm that departments have agreed to continue to address matters identified through PPR in forthcoming APRs and to identify action taken by the University in response to outcomes and findings from the PPR process. The team also noted the care taken by the University to review the effectiveness of the PPR process and the incremental changes it had made to improve its effectiveness. In what is generally a robust process, there is scope for its further enhancement, through the development of measures to disseminate the features of good practice which the PPR reports identify. At the same time, it might also be advisable for the University to consider whether the balance of the membership of PPR panels should be less weighted towards those with a direct interest in the programme or programmes under review (see below, paragraph 57). These recommendations, however, should not take away from the team's overall view, that the thoroughness with which the University conducts PPRs constitutes a feature of good practice.
53 As noted above, the University's PPR process provides it with the means to undertake a thorough scrutiny of the work of its departments. At the time of the audit, provision leading to the University's joint or combined honours awards to PPR had only been submitted for review on one occasion. In the view of the audit team, it would now be advisable for the University to step up its arrangements to review this provision through the PPR process.
External participation in internal review processes
54 At an early stage in the University's programme approval processes, as noted in paragraph 39, those proposing a new or substantially revised programme of studies are expected to provide external evidence for the demand for the proposed programme. Such evidence may come from academics in the same discipline, examiners, professional and industrial bodies or potential employers. Proposers are expected to respond to any comments provided. When starting a new collaborative programme in a subject area not offered within the University it also requires that external advice be sought. The audit team was able to confirm that external peers had been involved in two recent validations of programmes offered through partnership links.
55 The SED stated that the University was content that it had provided for a satisfactory level of external peer contributions to its arrangements for the development and approval of new programmes of study. In this particular instance, external peer views are intended to provide the University with evidence that the level of demand for the proposed programme, its content, the design of the curriculum, and the intended academic standards are appropriate.
56 With respect to the University's PPR process, revised arrangements for the participation of external peers were piloted in 2000-01 and 2001-02. From 2002-03, PPR panels were required to include, as their independent external participant, a person who was not a current external examiner in the department. At the time of the audit, the Handbook had not yet been updated and stated that the external peer member of a PPR panel should 'preferably' not be an external examiner for the department, but could be a former external examiner. The University informed the audit team that in all such cases, the relevant AD(T) is expected to discuss the appointment of the individual with the Director of the Quality Enhancement Unit or his successor (see above, paragraph 50). The SED provided examples of external participation in recent PPRs.
57 The audit team considered that the University had provided clear guidance on the selection and the duties of external assessors in PPR, and continues to monitor their effectiveness across departments. It noted that comparatively recently there has been a strategic move from allowing departments relative autonomy in the selection of external assessors, and from what the University had come to see as an over-reliance on the judgements of individual AD(T)s in approving selections, to a more centrally regulated process to ensure consistency. The team would encourage the University to update its procedures as set out in its Handbook, to make clear its intention that serving or recently retired external examiners should not be identified to act as external peers in PPR. In the case of programme development and approval, the external element in the process could be strengthened by allowing for external peer advice to be provided direct to CSC, and ensuring that individuals identified to act in such capacity are not directly connected with the proposal in question, and the team encourages the University to consider this suggestion.
External examiners and their reports
58 The SED noted that the University 'endorses the precepts of the QAA Code of Practice: External Examining' and that the University had developed an internal Code of Practice for undergraduate and taught postgraduate programmes which was 'compliant' with the Code, published by the Agency. The University's Code had been updated in June 2003, when LTC and Senate approved the revisions. These were designed to ensure continuing alignment with the Code and to develop the University's arrangements in light of the HEFCE requirements for TQI and matters identified by the University itself for attention.
59 The University's internal Code of Practice provides guidelines for the appointment and duties of the external examiner and external programme assessors (EPAs) which are published in its Handbook. The Code describes the external examiner role with regard to the award of degrees, diplomas and certificates and includes awards made in respect of collaborative programmes. External examiners and EPAs are normally appointed for three years in the first instance and their appointment may be extended for a fourth year. External examiners are involved in the assessment of each module and must submit an annual report, to which the relevant department is required to respond. As the SED noted, both the original report from the external examiner and the department's response feed into PPR.
60 The University has delegated responsibility to the AD(T)s for the appointment of external examiners, and it is they who are responsible for approving the nominations of heads of departments or referring them back for further consideration. The audit team considered that it was unusual for such key appointments for the security of a University's awards not to be subject to more open scrutiny. While there is evidence that the AD(T)s have exercised their responsibilities in this matter conscientiously, the team suggests that the University might wish to consider how the appointments process for its external examiners might be made more visibly the responsibility of a senior committee, such as LTC. This would now be advisable.
61 For each programme, the University appoints an EPA, who will usually be an examiner for a number of modules within the relevant programme. The SED noted that the University had appointed most of its EPAs and external examiners from other HE institutions but, that where appropriate, appointments could be made from outside HE. As part of the University's programme of measures to develop its quality management and academic standards arrangements to enable the publication of TQI, it is providing for the EPAs to summarise the findings of external examiners.
62 In the case of postgraduate research awards, the University requires that at least two examiners are appointed, of whom one must be external to the institution. The criteria for such appointments are set out in the University's 'Notes for the guidance of Research Students, Directors of Research, Supervisors and Examiners'. A written submission is required in support of the appointment, demonstrating that the proposed examiner is research active and has experience of research degree examination and supervision. At the time of the audit, criteria for future appointments of external examiners for research degrees were being considered; the University's Research Office had consulted widely, and sought the views of the Research Committee, and a paper had been submitted to faculty boards for their consideration.
63 A wide sample of external examiners' reports, associated departmental responses, and the digests of external examiners' reports prepared by each of the three secretaries to the faculty boards was included in the evidence provided by the University to support the audit. The University's arrangements for receiving and responding to the reports of its external examiners were also discussed with members of staff in the course of the DATs. In general, the external examiners' reports consulted by the audit team met the University's expectations. The reports seen by the team commented on the modules and programmes with which the author was associated, on how the University's assessment processes were being operated by departments, and identified action taken in response to earlier reports. Where reports from external examiners had highlighted matters for action which lay within the purview of a department, it appeared to be the case that departments had responded appropriately. Where matters requiring action at institutional level had been identified, the expectation was that the relevant AD(T) would take forward the matter. Again, the team was able to confirm that where such action was required the AD(T)s had dealt with the matters and that, through their work, and the digests prepared by the Secretaries to the faculty boards, the University was able to take an overview of the findings of its external examiners. The team has some concerns, however, that the University's arrangements for ensuring that matters of institution-wide relevance are brought to its attention, and addressed, might be too dependent on the energy and effectiveness of the AD(T)s. While the team had no doubt that the AD(T)s were performing their roles conscientiously, and in a timely fashion, it considered that it would be helpful to arrange for the digests prepared by the secretaries to the faculty boards to be routinely and formally considered each year by LTC.
64 In summary, from the evidence available to the audit team it was clear that the University's arrangements for appointing external examiners, and for dealing with their reports were being conscientiously followed, and that the reports and their comments were considered at programme, department and faculty level. It was also clear that the University had taken steps to assure itself that its procedures for appointing, receiving and considering reports from its external examiners are working as it intends. The team came to the view that the University's external examining arrangements are scrupulously operated and that measures have been put in place to use the external examiners' advice to enhance the University's provision.
External reference points
65 Since the promulgation of the FHEQ the University has advised its departments to 'make use of the framework in the process of formulating their programme specifications' and also suggested that the FHEQ be used as a reference point for framing programme and learning outcomes. The audit team noted that one of the outcomes from each of the two developmental engagements in which the University participated in 2003 was a suggestion that programme specifications, as formulated under the University's then arrangements, might benefit from being more closely aligned with the relevant levels in the FHEQ. After reflecting on these findings, the University, through PDQ, had asked its departments to review their references to the FHEQ and to highlight any areas for further consideration. At the time of the audit, the outcomes of this consultation were being considered by PDQ.
66 The University's standard minimum requirement for a student to progress is that, of the 120 credits studied in each stage, 100 should be passed with a mark of at least 40 per cent. The other 20 credits may have a mark of 0 per cent, although many awards - particularly those subject to accreditation by PSRBs - impose a higher requirement. The audit team was told that the University was considering raising the minimum level of attainment for progression at each stage to 100 credits at 40 per cent and 20 credits at 20 per cent. When determining the approach that it will take, the University will no doubt wish to take into consideration the implications of its chosen course of action for demonstrating that its awards are aligned with the FHEQ.
67 The University's programme specifications are expected to make reference to the 'lower qualifications that could be awarded to students who failed to complete' (or who choose to withdraw before completing) the full degree programme; internal papers commented on the possibility that, in the future, the BEng could become a 'fallback' for the MEng award. The audit team also noted that the University has continued to make provision for the award of Pass degrees for those students who do not fulfil the requirements for a classified honours award, although this provision is now rarely used. With respect to the latter arrangements, the team encourages the University to keep its provisions for Pass degree awards under review so that, when reviewing assessment with respect to learning outcomes, it can satisfy itself that its awards are fully consistent with the provisions of the FHEQ and reward positive achievement.
68 The role and use of subject benchmark statements in the University's arrangements were reviewed in each of the DATs. The audit team found that whereas some of the programme specifications it consulted included specific references to the relevant subject benchmarks, other departments had included a more general statement that the appropriate benchmark(s) had been taken into account during the design or review of the programme. In each case, however, it seemed to the team that the departments had reviewed their provision against appropriate benchmarks.
69 The approach taken by the University to matching its notes of guidance and internal Codes of Practice to the guidance offered by the Code of practice, published by the Agency has been to use its own internal documents as the starting point for reflecting on relevant sections of the Code and, on the basis of such reflection, to amend its internal guidance and procedures where necessary. The University considers, not unreasonably, that this approach renders it unnecessary for members of staff in its academic departments to have a close familiarity with the precepts of the Code. The SED described the practical steps taken by the University to map its regulations and internal Codes of Practice onto the guidance offered by the precepts of the Code through the conduct of gap analyses. The supporting documents for these gap analyses were provided by the University in its evidence to support the audit.
70 Overall, the audit team found that the University's internal practices were broadly consistent with the guidance offered in the Code of practice, other than in some detailed areas to do with external examiners, in programme approval, in assessment arrangements and in collaborative provision, in each of which there is scope for further enhancements which are identified elsewhere in this report. The team encourages the University to take further its gap analyses and to follow up their findings, so that it can be confident that its internal quality management and academic standards arrangements are consistent with the precepts of the Code, published by the Agency.
Programme-level review and accreditation by external agencies
71 Since the publication of the 1998 report, the University has participated in a number of subject reviews, developmental engagements, and an audit of one of its overseas partnership links in Singapore as noted in paragraph 23. The University has also participated in a significant number of accreditation visits by PSRBs. The SED explained that after each Agency subject review, the department which had hosted the review had produced a report which had been submitted to LTC, although the audit team noted that the length, tenor and timeliness of these reports have varied. The SED stated that the reports of reviews and audits by external agencies had mainly been directed at particular departmental shortcomings, and that they had raised few matters for consideration at institutional level. As a result, the SED stated that the University had 'generally looked to the department concerned to remedy such matters as quickly as possible'.
72 Reviewing the findings of the relevant reports, the audit team found that the University's view was broadly correct, but that there were two trends in the outcomes, particularly of the Agency subject reviews, which were worthy of note. Firstly, that a number of reports had made suggestions for the improvement of the University's quality management arrangements which together indicated that the latter might not be as well embedded in departments as the University might wish and, second, that the attainment of greater consistency in the provision of feedback to students in their work might bear further consideration. Whilst none of the comments were severely critical the team noted with interest that the University had taken note of the assessment matters raised in the reports, and intended to address them in its response to the Code of practice, Section 6: Assessment of students, which deals with assessment matters. On this matter, the SED noted that deliberations across the University were 'in progress'. This remained the case at the time of the visit.
73 In the accreditation of its programmes and awards the University works with more than 20 PSRBs. A supplement to the SED provided details of each award, and the relevant accrediting PSRB. The SED itself noted that the University's bids for accreditation had been uniformly successful. When seeking accreditation the University expects the department concerned to take responsibility for compiling and making the submission. All communication with the relevant PSRB is conducted at this level with, it appeared to the audit team, little involvement by the University, which simply received notice of the outcome of the accreditation from the department at the end of the process. The University's current arrangements allow for a minimum level of institutional participation in the reviews and accreditation visits of PSRBs, which nonetheless have the potential to provide the University with important external perspectives on much of its provision and valuable information on good practice. With the ending of universal subject review, the University might now find it desirable to integrate reviews by PSRBs more fully into its quality assurance and enhancement processes, to ensure that reports from PSRB reviews are formally considered by LTC, on behalf of Senate, and to consider how good practice identified in such reports could be disseminated institution-wide.
Student representation at operational and institutional levels
74 The University makes provision for its students (chiefly through their elected representatives) to participate in its governance and quality management arrangements at institutional level. For example, students elected by the Students' Union attend meetings of Council and Senate; LTC; RPC; SSC; Equal Opportunities Committee and the Faculty Boards. Students' representatives may also sit on working groups such as that recently convened by the University to examine the structure of the academic year. Senate and faculty board business is divided between 'ordinary' and 'special' meetings to ensure that personnel matters are only discussed when students are not present. The Students' Union also receives papers of the PDQ and SRA teams, and the Vice President for Education and Welfare of the Students' Union attends their meetings on request.
75 At programme level student representation is secured by the departmental staff/student liaison committees (SSLCs) (referred to in some departments as 'Staff Student Consultative Committees' (SSCCs)). SSLCs are formal committees and their working is governed by a University requirement that students from each year of all undergraduate programmes, students from each year of all postgraduate programmes, and research students should participate in their work. Departments are invited to consider additional representation for minority groups such as mature students, part-time and international students.
76 The SED affirmed the value that the University attaches to student contributions to its governance and stated that all students were made aware of their rights with respect to representation in the student Handbook. The SED considered that the relationship between the University management and the Students' Union was one of 'trust, respect and pursuit of a common purpose'. The University's governance and quality management arrangements accord the Students' Union an important role in the representation of student interests, which seemed to the audit team to be working effectively within them, although the team would encourage the University to work with the Students' Union so that the latter can extend its services and representation to students who are studying for the University's awards away from the Loughborough Campus (see below, paragraph 154)
77 The SWS was informed by the results of a questionnaire survey conducted by the Students' Union, to which about 5 per cent of students overall had responded. The SWS did not specifically address institutional representation, but reported broad student satisfaction with programme representation at the departmental level. The overall adequacy of student representation at the institutional level was confirmed in meetings with Students' Union representatives at the briefing visit, where instances were cited where students had been able to contribute to University-wide discussions on current matters, such as, for example, the structure of the academic year, the University's policy on the treatment of impaired performance claims, and the treatment of condonement. In general, it appeared to the team that the Students' Union was right to consider itself a full part of the University's decision-making processes, and that its contributions had been valued by the institution. International students, who met the team in the course of the visit, were able to confirm separately their confidence that they could readily make representations on matters of concern and individual problems, for example, via the Loughborough International Students Association.
78 At departmental level, discussions with students enabled the audit team to confirm the important part played by SSLCs in quality management and that teaching and support staff treated the outcomes of their meetings as significant. The minutes of such meetings provided the team with evidence of lively and constructive dialogue between staff and students. In some cases, departments have established separate SSLCs for postgraduate students, and the team noted with interest that departments gave careful consideration to the membership of SSLCs, in order to ensure that students attending were not outnumbered by members of staff, as the University's Code of Practice requires. Students who were members of SSLCs spoke highly of the training programme for SSLC representatives provided by the Students' Union.
79 From its scrutiny of the minutes of SSLCs the audit team found that the matters they addressed included matters of detail pertaining to the operation of particular programmes such as, for example, submission dates for assignments, timetabling matters, and the scheduling of examinations, to more long-term structural changes such as the credit weighting to be assigned to modules. The importance assigned by departments to the views of their students is signified by the fact that matters raised by the latter are also considered at departmental staff meetings and 'away days'.
80 Formal mechanisms exist for the SSLCs to contribute to the broader maintenance and enhancement of quality and standards: for example faculty boards receive the minutes of the SSLCs for their constituent departments, and minutes from SSLCs are routinely scrutinized by AD(T)s. Feedback information from SSLCs also contributes to APR where the standard form for the completion of the report requires a statement of any concerns expressed in the SSLC in the course of the year together with a record of any departmental responses and actions. The records of SSLC meetings for the past three sessions also inform PPRs, to which students are invited to make a separate and formal contribution. Overall, the audit team came to the view that the University's SSLCs made a distinctive and positive contribution to the institution's quality management and academic standards arrangements and that, collectively, their work constituted a feature of good practice.
Feedback from students, graduates and employers
81 Across the University, information is gathered from students on their learning experiences, normally prior to the completion of the unit of study or programme, through standardised questionnaires designed to elicit information at the level of the module. Specially designed questionnaires are also used to gather feedback from students on their experiences of undertaking placements and carrying out projects and dissertations. The analysis of the resulting data has formerly been conducted centrally by the Quality Enhancement Unit (QEU), using an optical mark reader, in conjunction with CIS, which together provide a simple digest for departments. With the closure of the QEU, responsibility for its part in analysing feedback data has been assumed by Professional Development.
82 Feedback from students on key areas of the learning environment such as library provision, computing support and careers advice is sought by each of the relevant central support services (see below, paragraph 117). In addition, the Students' Union also conducts an independent Annual Student Survey of student's experiences. The SED stated that feedback information was also sought from students on programmes of study in partner institutions which lead to the University's awards and the audit team was told that feedback questionnaires were received from students studying for the University awards overseas.
83 Module questionnaires across the University share the same basic features. They consist of 18 questions divided into three groups which seek the students' views about the module in question, learning resources (including library assistance, teaching rooms, visual aids and information technology (IT) support), and the performance of those delivering the module. Questions for response are scored on a five point scale and members of the University who met the audit team shared a clear understanding that poor scores would result in rapid remedial action, based on staff development in the first instance. The University invites students to provide 'constructive' qualitative feedback on the reverse of the standard form questionnaire. In the course of the DATs the team was able to review samples of completed questionnaires. These were invariably supportive of lecturers and tutors, and comments from many students testified to the enthusiasm and expertise of their teachers. From the sample of completed questionnaires seen by the team, however, the newly introduced facilities for providing qualitative feedback were relatively under-used.
84 Members of staff and students were able to confirm for the audit team that the full range of feedback information secured through the University's various arrangements is discussed in staff meetings and away days, and is regularly considered in DLTCs. The evidence available to the team demonstrated that feedback information constitutes an integral part of APR and PPR, and that information from student feedback is also used in the probationary process.
85 The SED stated that the University's formal arrangements for seeking and analysing feedback from students work well, and are valued by departments and students. The SED also frankly stated the University's reservations about the ultimate robustness of its feedback arrangements at the programme level (as distinct from feedback at the module level and for projects and placements). These arise from the difficulties that it has experienced in persuading students who are coming to the end of their studies to complete questionnaires, when any changes that will result will be to the benefit of their successors, rather than to themselves. The SED reported that there had been some consideration of discontinuing the collection of student feedback at programme level, but that it had been decided not to take action until developments at the national level were more clear, including those associated with the proposed national student survey. Evidence made available by the University enabled the audit team to confirm the limited extent to which feedback at the programme level informs the University's enhancement activities.
86 The University has extensive connections with employers, especially in the areas of science and engineering, where placements with employers form key components of many programmes. In such areas, employers provide feedback to the University not only on the performance of individual students but on the appropriateness of the range of skills the latter have acquired prior to the placements. There are also opportunities for employers to contribute to the design and enhancement of the curriculum. These are features of good practice. As with feedback from students, there is provision for reports from employers of recent graduates to contribute to APR and PPR, where this is relevant and appropriate.
87 In addition to the University's regular processes for gathering information from students and employers, shortly before the audit the University commissioned an 'International Students Study', in conjunction with the East Midlands Development Agency. The research was conducted by the University's Department of Social Sciences and consisted of a post-arrival questionnaire and follow-up focus groups. Members of the University told the audit team that this study had raised a range of important matters for its consideration, relating to industrial links, cultural matters, integration, segregation and accommodation. Although essentially a pilot study, the University considers that it has generated important information for dissemination across the institution and an agenda for future action.
88 Reviewing the University's overall arrangements for gathering and analysing feedback information from students and employers, the audit team was able to endorse the University's own view of the strengths of its arrangements and those areas meriting further development. Overall, however, the University's feedback arrangements are sound and appeared to the team to make a positive contribution to the University's management of the quality of its provision and the academic standards of its awards.
Progression and completion statistics
89 The SRA team reports regularly to Senate on student applications and the admissions process and reports through AD(T)s and the PVC (T), as appropriate, to faculty boards and directorates. The data it provides are used to inform the University's planning and budgeting for the next session. The audit team noted that the admissions data it saw comprised three (rolling) years of information on applications and intake, and that it was possible to identify separately UK/EU and overseas students, and whether students entered with GCE A-levels. The data did not, however, appeared to be broken down further, for example, to provide information on the gender, age, ethnicity, nationality or special needs of those admitted, or to provide more information on the qualifications of those entering the University without GCE A-levels.
90 With respect to progression and classification data, the SED noted that the information departments are required to provide for APR included 'data on recruitment progression and completion, withdrawals from the University, degree classifications, and employment destinations' and that standard templates were provided for capturing this data. For PPR, the SED noted that departments were expected to include in their analytical commentary an evaluation of the ways in which students' progression is supported and monitored, from intake to completion, and that the report of the review panel was expected to address these topics. It is the University's view that the progression data provided by departments is sufficiently detailed to enable it to pinpoint any poor progression rates and undertake further analysis.
91 The SED stated that each year the University produces a full statistical breakdown of the undergraduate degrees it awards, which shows the distribution of degree classifications for the current year and for the preceding four years. It stated that this was circulated to all departments in full, together with HESA data on degrees awarded by other HE institutions. The SED indicated that departments were expected to use this information to carry out annual comparisons of the performance of their own disciplines with others across the University, and with comparators in other universities. Although data for other undergraduate awards - such as the Certificate and Diploma of Higher Education - are not included in the University's analyses at present, there are plans for their future inclusion.
92 Commenting on the strengths and limitations of the University's systems, the SED noted that departments had previously to provide progression data for programme review themselves, as the central student records system 'has been unable to produce the analysis required', and noted that CIS was working with the Academic Registry to develop the data information services needed to support the departments. In the course of the visit, members of the University provided the audit team with a demonstration of the internet-based system it is enhancing to enable departmental staff and students to retrieve information from a central database, using a number of standard reports. These include, for departments, lists of students on modules and awards; data on applications and admissions, and on first destinations; the reports used by programme boards to determine progression; and for students the modules for which an individual is registered and the marks achieved to date and transcripts.
93 The audit team reviewed a sample of the reports provided to Senate on student admissions, progression and completion, and the statistical information included in APR and PPR reports. The team was also provided with a report produced in 2001 on progression statistics for cohorts of students who had entered the University between 1994 and 1999, and a statistical digest which had been produced for 2002-03. The latter had been widely circulated but the team was told that it did not have the status of a formal Senate paper. The team, assisted by members of the University, explored how the reports and data referred to above were used centrally and by departments. It noted that while the University expects departments to follow up any disappointing aspects of performance which statistics and data bring to light, members of some departments lack confidence in the reliability of the data with which they are provided. As a consequence, they have not used the data to explore student performance on a regular basis.
94 The University has acknowledged that the provision of consistent data through its existing arrangements has presented difficulties and is working to address the matter. In the case of the 2001 report on progression statistics, the audit team was told that this had been reviewed by PDQ in 2001, but that the exercise had not been repeated. In the case of the 2002-03 statistical digest, while providing useful information by faculty and department on such matters as undergraduate and postgraduate admissions, and student populations, the scope and detail of this analysis could have been widened, for example, to include information on the University's progress towards meeting its targets for widening participation, and it was as yet too early for the team to be able to identify any subsequent action or enhancements.
95 As the University continues to enhance its support, through CIS, for the provision of statistical information to central committees, faculties and departments, the audit team advises it to consider how it might produce more detailed admissions data and trend analyses to inform APR, to monitor diversity and widening participation, and what measures might be required to enable it to undertake routine analyses of progression, completion, withdrawal and transfer by cohorts of students.
Assurance of quality of teaching staff, appointment, appraisal and reward
96 The University's approach to staffing is set out in its Human Resources Strategy. Procedures for the appointment of teaching staff are set out in the Handbook and were described in the SED. Appointments to the teaching staff are made by a specially convened joint committee of Council and Senate chaired by a dean of faculty or PVC with a member of the University's Personnel Services in attendance to support the appointment process. Those required to chair interview panels are provided with formal training as required by the University's procedures for recruitment and selection. The SED stated that, all academic appointments below senior lecturer (and appointments in that grade where appropriate) were subject to an initial probationary period of three years, and noted that the University issued guidance for probationer staff. It reported that more than 500 University staff had received training in interviewing, and that the guidance given on probation was designed to ensure that all parties knew what was expected of them, and that adherence to the guidelines was firmly enforced by the Human Resources (HR) Committee.
97 The audit team, through its scrutiny of the University's papers, and its meetings with members of the teaching staff, was able to confirm the care and attention paid to appointment processes. It noted with interest the expectation that many of those appointed on probation, and with limited experience of teaching in HE, would be given teaching loads restricted to one-third of the norm in their first year. It seemed, however, that pressure on members of the teaching staff had meant that this had not been fully applied in all cases. Members of staff in a position to comment on the University's probation processes confirmed for the team that departments took care to provide newly-appointed staff with practical assistance and that mentors were invariably identified to support them throughout their probationary period. The SED noted that targeted support and training was provided for probationer staff by a thorough programme of activities which has been accredited by Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (ILTHE).
98 Heads of departments, who met the audit team, also drew attention to the emphasis placed on probationer staff attaining their individual research goals within the period of their probation, and considered that this was an additional incentive to line managers to ensure that newly-appointed staff had sufficient time to carry out their research. Heads of departments described the University's requirements for satisfactorily completing probation as 'tough' and considered that it was a rigorous introduction to the University. One of the deans of faculty told the team that the probation process was one way in which the University introduced staff to its 'culture of quality'. In this connection, many members of staff who met the team acknowledged the contributions of Professional Development in providing guidance to temporary and probationary staff, those applying for promotion, and those preparing for appraisal. Staff development support for probationer teaching staff is also discussed in paragraph 107, below.
99 Reviewing the University's arrangements for recruiting and appointing members of the teaching staff, and for supporting them throughout their probation, the audit team identified the remission from teaching given to probationers to enable them to settle into their career, take advantage of training and staff development, and the care given to supporting staff at the beginning of their careers as researchers; as features of good practice
100 Staff appraisal and reward arrangements are overseen by the HR Committee. As the SED noted, responsibility for the operation of the University's Reward Review process has in practice been devolved to the faculty directorates with the aim of ensuring that decision-making is closer to, and made with more knowledge of, subject-specific matters. Within the University's promotion and reward arrangements excellence in teaching is an acknowledged criterion, and the audit team was informed that the University was exploring the possibility of introducing an internal Teaching Fellowships scheme.
101 Until July 2003 the Reward Reviews took place three times annually. At that point, however, the University introduced a new job evaluation and planning process as part of which the HR Committee agreed to move Reward Reviews to an annual cycle. In the SED, the University claimed that its promotion procedures for those progressing to the senior lecturer grade were respected among staff for their transparency while acknowledging that the importance attached to performance in specific aspects of research as a criterion in promotion varied between the faculties. The audit team noted that the ILTHE had accredited the University's promotion route to senior lecturer on the basis of teaching excellence.
102 At the core of the University's staff appraisal arrangements is a biennial appraisal interview, conducted by trained senior members of staff. According to the SED, the purpose of the interview is 'to allow the appraisee to reflect upon their performance during the period since the last appraisal interview, and to arrive at a set of proposed actions that will, in the context of stated departmental objectives, further the appraisee's development'. The University's view of its appraisal arrangements is that they are working well and enable it to produce an overall analysis of its staff development needs to inform its forward planning. Members of staff who met the audit team confirmed that appraisal interviews took place in line with the University's expectations, at the set intervals, and that individual and generic needs identified through appraisal interviews were met by the institution's staff development programme. The team considers that the University's confidence in its appointment, probation, appraisal and reward arrangements is fully justified.
Assurance of quality of teaching through staff support and development
103 The SED provided a brief introduction to the University's approach to staff support and development, much of which was devoted to arrangements to support and monitor newly-appointed teaching staff undergoing probation. Information on the University's HR Strategy, which was provided with the SED, noted the University's commitment to 'strengthen and promote an approach to staff development that is explicitly linked to the achievement of our strategic objectives as well as providing individuals with the opportunity to further their own personal and professional development'.
104 The University's HR Strategy was promulgated in 2002 and sets out the framework for the full range of personnel and human resources policies, including recruitment, equal opportunities and equal pay. The HR Strategy stated that the University's 'overall aim [was] to move from a staff development model based predominantly on personal development through individual initiative, to a staff development programme which is explicitly linked to the achievement of the University's strategic objectives, as well as providing individuals with the opportunity to further their own personal and professional development. It will ensure that all staff undertake appropriate training and development.' In support of this aim the HR Strategy required faculties, departments and sections to 'develop, implement and evaluate Human Resource Development Plans as part of [their] overall Strategic Development Plans'. Through its meetings with members of the University and scrutiny of the University's papers the audit team was able to confirm that staff across the institution were familiar with the broad terms of the HR Strategy and that the latter has been subject to University-wide debate. All staff who met the team recognised the University's commitment to staff development.
105 In support of its HR Strategy, at the beginning of 2004, the University changed its support arrangements for staff development by merging teams in Learning and Teaching Development, Staff Development and part of Quality Enhancement, together with one faculty-based colleague, to form a new team: Professional Development. These changes have been partly funded through external sources. The SED noted that for staff other than those undergoing probation, 'training opportunities are linked to new initiatives or to expressed needs', and noted the central part played by departments in identifying and meeting staff support and development needs, assisted by the Director of Professional Development where appropriate (see above).
106 The University's plans for staff development in the HR Strategy place considerable emphasis on the development among staff of communication and IT skills for new learning environments, particularly to support the deployment of the University's internally developed VLE: 'Learn' to support learning and teaching (see below paragraph 121). The HR Strategy also identified the need to provide staff development to support the University's aims to increase the diversity of its staff and student bodies and to enhance the management of research. Overall, the audit team came to the view that the programme of activities identified by the University constituted a far-reaching and important package of measures designed to enable it to achieve its strategic goals and that it provided a sound framework for staff development.
107 Staff development for members of the teaching staff undergoing probation includes attendance at mandatory workshop sessions on assessment. More recently mandatory training activities for research have been added to this programme. At department level, the SED stated that 'support...includes formal - and recorded - meetings between the new lecturer and their probationary adviser and required observations of the new lecturer's teaching by colleagues. The workshop programme includes observation by the new lecturer of an experienced teacher'. In the final year of their probation, staff are observed by a trained assessor, and are required to submit a reflective portfolio for assessment which is moderated internally and externally. Postgraduate research students and research assistants who carry out paid teaching duties in departments are required to attend a programme of training on teaching skills and are not allowed to commence teaching until they have attended these sessions, which are offered over three half-day sessions by Professional Development.
108 Among more senior staff, the HR Strategy provides for the delivery of a wide range of support and development modules for academic managers, many particularly aimed at heads of departments. In the HR Strategy the audit team was also interested to note sections on supporting the 'well-being' of staff through developing strategies to combat occupational stress and providing additional support for the University's Counselling Service. This is a feature of good practice. In its discussions with members of the University, the team noted that the achievement of fair treatment among staff when allocating workloads was assisted by the general use of transparent workload modelling techniques, which enabled managers and staff to strike, and maintain, an appropriate balance in activities between teaching and learning, research and administration. This, too, is a feature of good practice.
109 The SED noted that the University hosts the Learning and Teaching Support Network Centre for Engineering, which works closely with the University's Engineering Education Centre (EEC), and described the range of staff development opportunities that the latter offers to staff. These include the development of multimedia and flexible learning resources and staff development and technical training sessions. Staff within the Engineering Faculty are able to bid for support from EEC staff in order to develop learning and teaching materials. The SED stated that over 60 such projects had been undertaken by summer 2003 and the audit team noted with interest that several were directly relevant to support for learning and teaching, for example: the development of an 'online tutorial companion to assist in the administration, monitoring and recording of personal tutorial meetings' (referred to by the University as Co-Tutor) and an 'online step-by-step form to enable the easy production of high-quality accessible (SENDA compliant) teaching materials on "Learn"'. Co-Tutor is discussed further in paragraph 127, below. The Mathematics Education Centre (MEC) works closely with EEC to provide support for students needing advice and guidance on mathematical skills (see below, paragraph 123); it also provides staff development sessions across the University on good practice in mathematics support for students, and on recognising and supporting students in mathematics with dyslexia and dyscalculia. Having discussed the work of the EEC and the MEC with members of staff across the University, the team came to the view that their contributions to the University's resources for staff development, and their work more generally, constituted a feature of good practice.
110 Reviewing the University's staff support and development arrangements the audit team was able to confirm the accuracy of their description in the SED. Notwithstanding the many features of good practice in staff support and development observed by the team or brought to its attention, the SED noted that the University was continuing to review its staffing and staff development arrangements, spurred on by its view that this was needed if the University was to respond successfully to demographic changes and external pressures. For the future, the SED stated that the University intends to increase the volume of training and that more of it will be mandatory, and to maintain a rigorous appraisal and peer review process through probation and promotion, with continuing levels of peer observation of teaching.
Assurance of quality of teaching delivered through distributed and distance methods
111 The University has developed a small portfolio of modules and programmes for delivery by distributed and distance learning (DDL), which is growing in line with the University's Learning and Teaching Strategy 2002-05. Modules available via DDL are specially flagged on the University's module data base. The audit team found that the provision developed by the University to date has given special attention to niche markets in engineering, the security sector, water resources in non-industrialised countries, renewable energy technology, and digital animation, all usually at postgraduate level, and leading to certificate, diploma and masters awards. At the time of the audit, the University was offering 87 full modules by distance learning with a further 21 modules offered partly by distance learning. A total of 612 students were registered for study through these modules some of which - in packaging technology - are offered in collaboration with Brunel University. The development of materials for DDL and support for student learning is supported across the University by the Learn system together with another, proprietary, system. Manuals for Learn are regularly up-dated and tool kits for web-tutors have been developed.
112 The SED stated that the programmes and modules delivered through DDL methods are subject to standard University procedures of internal approval, monitoring and review but, in addition to these, the University requires all proposals to give details of the developmental costs, provide evidence of long term market demand, and make a commitment to regularly update materials and make use of expertise in this area from elsewhere across the University. Proposals, including conversions of conventional programmes, are supported throughout their development by the PDQ team and, when ready, are sent to CSC for consideration and approval. Support for developments is available through a bespoke web site, a specially developed staff resource pack, an electronic discussion facility, and workshops. Working definitions of DDL are identified in a flow chart. From these materials, it was clear to the audit team that assessment is considered by the University to be a key matter in the development and delivery of DDL provision. In the University's arrangements there is an emphasis on the provision of frequent exercises for students with prompt formative feedback on their performance. Assessments are subject to the University's internal Code of Practice on Coursework, and protocols have been developed which govern the conduct of examinations for overseas students. External examining for programmes delivered through DDL follows the University's normal procedures. A range of supporting documentation is provided for students including handbooks, study skill guides, advice sheets such as Studying at a Distance and Branching Out. Specially tailored student module feedback forms are used, and an on-line version has been piloted to increase the response rate. The team encourages the University to continue to enhance its arrangements for gathering feedback from DDL students.
113 In 2000, an institution-wide survey of the DDL provision came to the view that the University 'lacked procedures that would enable it to be assured of the quality of any distance learning proposals'. Since then the University appeared to the audit team to have put several measures in place (including those described above) to strengthen the quality and academic standards management of provision and programmes delivered through DDL. These have also included the University's agreement to adopt the Guidelines on the quality assurance of distance learning, published by the Agency; to appoint a Distance Learning Co-ordinator in the Professional Development Unit, to be involved in the development and approval processes, and to provide a distance-learning guide. A second survey of the University's quality and academic standards management in its DDL provision was conducted in 2003. On the basis of the outcomes of the survey, further proposals for strengthening the University's quality and academic standards management arrangements in this area were being developed by the PDQ Team for the consideration of the University's Executive Management Group.
114 Overall, the University appeared to the audit team to have established effective measures to enable it to monitor and enhance its quality and academic standards management for DDL. The available evidence indicated that across the University the strategies being followed by departments developing DDL were in close alignment with the University's overall position. There are well-defined guidelines and excellent support for staff developing programmes. Full account is taken of the considerations specific to DDL, and to support and disseminate good practice the University has established a Distance Learning Forum. The quality and academic standards management measures the University has put in place for its DDL seemed to the team to constitute features of good practice.
115 As part of its inquiries in the DATs the audit team considered one instance of the University's DDL provision in civil engineering. This provision is described more fully in paragraph 233, but the team's inquiries allowed it to establish that the DDL provision has been subject to robust quality and academic standards management arrangements and that it had been well supported by the PDU and the Engineering Education Centre.
116 On the basis of the evidence available, the audit team came to the view that the University had adopted a cautious approach to the development of its DDL provision and that proposals developed thus far had drawn on the considerable expertise developed by individual departments. In its Current Corporate Planning Statement the University sets out its intention to expand its DDL provision. On the evidence available from past and present developments any such future expansion in the University's DDL provision is likely to be soundly managed.
Learning support resources
117 The SED noted that across the University learning support resources might be provided centrally, by faculties, or at departmental level. Centrally provided learning resources including the library; computing services; media services; and CIS are managed within the University's Division of Information Services and Systems (DISS). In addition to central arrangements managed through DISS, learning support is also provided through the EEC and the MEC and students have access to study skills support, English language tuition and dedicated support facilities for students with dyslexia. The SED provided a clear and informative guide to the University's centrally provided learning support arrangements in which substantial sections provided information on the library and computing services, media services and learning technologies. A further detailed section provided information on support for students' learning and their personal development planning (see below, paragraph 127).
118 While recognising that many of its learning support services would benefit from additional resources, the University considers that its current arrangements for allocating resources to learning support represent a 'reasonable and realistic attempt' to meet the needs of users. Users' needs are identified through their feedback and, together with forecasts of future needs based on institutional strategies, provide the basis for planning the future development of learning support across the University. In addition, AD(T)s are responsible for identifying learning support needs identified through module evaluations, APR and PPR, and from proposed new developments. These are conveyed via the deans to the University's senior managers.
119 In describing the University's quality management arrangements for the library, the SED noted that a 'comprehensive picture of current library concerns was built up during a 2002-03 strategic planning exercise involving all staff'. This had identified pressures arising from: demands for library services to be made available 24-hours throughout the year and for there to be more multiple copies of textbooks to support larger student groups; increasing moves from print to electronic delivery of information; requests for greater access to PC workstations; the need for better support for research, locally and remotely, and for a variety of study environments. The 2002-03 planning exercise had also indicated concerns arising from the increasing costs of academic journals and associated with managing an ageing building, including energy consumption. Further information on the management of the library, including its Strategic Plan, the annual reports of the Librarian, and a number of policy documents, was available to the audit team via the University's intranet.
120 Although the availability of core texts within the library was identified as a matter of concern in the SWS, the latter also noted that this had been raised by a relatively small number of respondents to its questionnaire survey. The audit team discussed the availability of core texts with students in the DATs, none of whom considered that this was a significant concern. To balance its comments on core texts, the SWS noted that, overall, more than 90 per cent of those who had responded to its survey questionnaire had expressed satisfaction with the learning resources provided by departments. Only one matter to do with learning resources was raised with the audit team in the course of the DATs (see below, paragraph 190).
121 The University has invested considerable resources in its information and communication technology (ICT) support for learning and teaching. The SED noted that in addition to providing access to general purpose PC workstations across the campus, specialist facilities were provided by the University in partnership with departments. The SED also described the University's development of its own VLE, Learn, which provides students on the University's campuses and further afield with access to internet-based teaching materials. Students who met the audit team were able to confirm that their views on the level and nature of the University's ICT provision were regularly sought and appeared to be generally satisfied with their access to ICT. Members of staff who met the team were able to confirm that the introduction of the Learn VLE had been supported by staff development and training. Overall, it appeared to the team that the University's systematic work to develop and support the introduction of its Learn VLE was a feature of good practice.
122 The SED described the work of the University's English Language Support Unit (ELSU), which also provides dyslexia support and the Disability and Additional Needs Service (DANS). Students who met the audit team confirmed the view expressed in the SED that these services made a valued contribution to the University's learning support arrangements. International students who met the team commented on the University's supportiveness on their arrival and throughout their studies and particularly noted the assistance offered by the International Student Adviser, who is based in ELSU, part of the Central Department of Student Guidance and Welfare (see below, paragraph 135). In 2000, the University commissioned a report from an external consultant on its strategy and arrangements to recruit international students which recommended that more central involvement and direction be given to the University's international recruitment activities. The SED described the measures taken by the University since receiving the consultant's report and noted that the International Office had since been encouraged to work more closely with faculties, and departments and that plans for future activities included sharing knowledge and expertise and giving greater pre-arrival support. Members of staff with whom the team discussed the University's plans to recruit international students in larger numbers commented that although they welcomed international students to their programmes, their special needs for support needed careful underpinning and resources. The team welcomes the direction the University is taking in encouraging closer working between the International Office and departments, and encourages it to ensure that support arrangements for its international students continue to meet their needs.
123 Other central learning support facilities include the EEC and MEC. The contributions of the EEC to staff support and development are noted in paragraph 109 above. In addition, it provides an engineering student support desk and student workshops on such matters as writing technical reports and making presentations. EEC works closely with MEC to provide guidance and support for students entering engineering programmes who lack a firm mathematical grounding. MEC also provides support and guidance for students elsewhere across the University who need to develop their mathematics skills, for programmes such as those in economics (see below, paragraph 229) and advises and supports tutors dealing with dyslexia and dyscalculia in students on mathematics-related programmes.
124 More generally, through its meetings with staff and students and its scrutiny of evidence provided by the University, the audit team came to the view that the University's arrangements to identify the learning support needs of its students are robust and that when needs are identified it responds in a positive and effective manner. Two areas, however occasioned critical comment from students: variations in formal contact hours between departments and faculties; and general access to sporting facilities. With respect to variations in formal contact hours the team noted that a recent PPR had identified student concern in one area that contact hours with members of staff were unacceptably low. The report of the PPR indicated that the relevant department had been encouraged to keep this matter under review and the team suggests that the University should continue to monitor contact hours across departments (see below, paragraph 161).
125 With respect to general access to sporting facilities, the audit team was told by students in an early meeting that although the University's sporting facilities were outstanding, non-specialist students might experience difficulties in gaining access to them. In view of the fact that the University's sporting facilities feature prominently in its recruitment literature, the team took care to raise this matter with students throughout the visit, and sought additional evidence from the University. Those students who met the team, particularly in the DATs, considered that the earlier comment was incorrect. They stated that not only did they benefit from access to the facilities themselves but that they also had the benefit of coaching, and access to employer and professional body links. On balance, and reviewing all the evidence available to it, the team came to the view that the sporting facilities available to the University's non-specialist students were of a high standard and that their availability made a significant contribution to the quality of life and the learning opportunities for students across the University and, as such, is a feature of good practice.
Academic guidance and support, and supervision for postgraduate students
126 The SED noted that it has long been the University's policy that 'all taught students should have timetabled access to personal tutors'. In accordance with this policy, the SED stated that 'all departments [were] expected to have effective support mechanisms in place for both undergraduate and postgraduate taught students, and publish details of their arrangements in Departmental Handbooks'. Departments are expected to review the effectiveness of their personal tutoring systems through PPR. In 2002-03 the University offered departments a closer definition of its expectations in the provision of personal tutorial support. This stated that each department was 'expected to invite undergraduate students to attend a minimum of two scheduled face-to-face meetings per year and specify the timing of these meetings'. Further guidance was also offered to individual personal tutors, who were now expected to keep written or electronic records of formal meetings with their tutees, and to take follow-up action where tutees failed to attend scheduled meetings. The advisory role of personal tutors was also clarified as being a first point of reference when students encounter difficulties in their studies which might lead them to consider changing their programme of studies or withdrawing.
127 Responsibility for ensuring that their personal tutors know where to turn for advice and support for students is identified as resting with departments. The SED also noted that the EEC had recently developed a internet-based package, Co-Tutor, which enables tutors to administer, monitor and record personal tutorial meetings and that another tool, developed under the University's project to support Recording Academic Professional and Individual Development (RAPID) had been successfully trialled and was now being developed to provide a 'generic personal development planning tool'. The development of Co-Tutor and its wider employment across the University appeared to the audit team to be a feature of good practice.
128 The University's view of the changes it has made to its personal tutor support arrangements is that they have altered the nature of the personal tutor system from one which was formally demand-led (by students), to one 'based on regular meetings between tutor and tutees whether required or not.' It observed that with the introduction of '"supply-led" scheduled meetings and recording of discussion between tutors and tutees, it will become more evident whether students are getting the support they need'. The audit team encourages the University to monitor these new developments in its personal tutor arrangements.
129 The audit team discussed the University's academic guidance and support arrangements, including its personal tutor arrangements, with staff and students in the course of the visit. The SWS had noted some concerns on the part of students about variations in the levels of personal tutor support between departments and in the light of these comments the team took care to establish the nature of the personal tutor support available, particularly through meetings with students in the DATs. The team noted the comments of some staff that the rise in enrolments was putting personal tutor arrangements under stress and students who met the team acknowledged that there were variations from department to department, in the frequency with which tutors met their students, although none considered that this was a cause of disadvantage. Overall, there was clear evidence that departments were taking particular care through their personal tutor arrangements to support students known to be in difficulties. There was also evidence that with the support of the DANS, departmental disability coordinators were working actively to provide academic support to students with special needs, in line with the University's responsibilities under the SENDA. Personal tutor arrangements for taught postgraduate students broadly follow those for undergraduate students.
130 In general, students were able to confirm that academic guidance and support was readily available to them, chiefly through the personal tutor system. International students were able to confirm that additional academic guidance, and support was also available from the International Office. Students based on the University's campus at Peterborough were similarly positive about the academic guidance and support available to them.
131 In view of the importance of placements in the University's programmes of study the audit team took care to check the levels of access those on placements enjoyed to academic support and guidance. Students in a position to comment on these arrangements confirmed that academic guidance and support arrangements were available to them throughout their placements and that departments monitored their progress through the minimum of two visits to them that their tutors made in the course of their placement. Students who had been on placements were also able to confirm that they had enjoyed continuing access to their personal tutors throughout their placements.
132 The SED described the University's supervision arrangements for its research postgraduate students and referred the audit team to the University's Notes for the Guidance of Research Students, Directors of Research, Supervisors and Examiners (the Notes) a copy of which was provided with the SED. Research students are normally allocated to a named supervisor (or supervisors), and to a director of research, when formally offered a place at the University. The University normally expects research supervision to be undertaken by experienced staff, but the Notes provide for probationer lecturers to be appointed as supervisors, with the support of another colleague. Again, research students were satisfied that these requirements were observed. Periods of registration and submission rates for research theses are monitored by the Research Committee.
133 According to the Notes, responsibility for ensuring that meetings with the supervisor or supervisors take place rests both with the research student and with the supervisor or supervisors. Research students, supervisors, and directors of research, who met the audit team were able to confirm that the arrangements prescribed by the University were generally followed. Research students told the team that the number and frequency of meetings between research students and their supervisors varied from department to department (but not unacceptably), although some research students considered that the effectiveness of supervision arrangements were sometimes more open to question, a matter the University might wish to keep under review.
134 The audit team concluded that the Univesity was justified in its confidence in the quality of academic guidance and support provided for students, including research students. In the view of the team, the role of the Co-Tutor system within the personal tutor system, and the operation of the International Office, were particular features of good practice.
Personal support and guidance
135 The SED drew attention to the work of the University's Department of Student Guidance and Welfare which has overall responsibility for managing and planning the work of the careers service, the chaplaincy, the counselling service, DANS, ELSU, the Medical Centre, and the wardens service (for the halls of residence). The Department also provides a base for the International Student Adviser, for a community warden who liaises with local residents in an area of the town of Loughborough with a high-density of student occupation, and a Mental Health Officer. The SED provided an informative introduction to these services and pointed the audit team to additional information which was made available during the briefing and audit visits. The SED generously acknowledged the work of the Loughborough Students' Union Students Advice Centre in providing advice to students and support in representation.
136 The University regards the high levels of employment of its graduates as a key indicator of their attractiveness to employers, and considers that its Careers Service has made a significant contribution to this achievement. Many departments across the University have frequent contacts with employers, and employers' representatives, and representatives of the latter are able to advise the Careers Service through their membership of its Advisory Board. The number and closeness of the University's links with employers have put it in a good position to ensure that the curriculum enables students to readily demonstrate their employability. Likewise, the number of the University's programmes in which placements form a key feature ensures that tutors and students are well placed to canvass opportunities for further placements and for other forms of cooperation between the University and employers. The SED drew the audit team's attention to a number of independent external surveys which have reported favourably on the University's careers provision.
137 The audit team discussed the services provided by the Department of Student Guidance and Welfare with members of staff and students in the course of the visit, and reviewed a number of the annual reports prepared and submitted by the individual services to the Council, through which the University monitors their activities. The annual reports follow different reporting routes to Council. For example, the report from the Careers Service proceeds via the Careers Service Advisory Board, which has employer representation, in addition to being presented to the SSC; the reports from the other services proceed to Council via SSC alone. The team noted that in all cases the individual services took care to seek the views of their users and to respond to feedback and found that the annual reports prepared by each of the services provided a detailed review of the work of the past year and included detailed statistical breakdowns of the work undertaken together with qualitative accounts, plans for future developments, and requests for resources.
138 The audit team noted with interest that this section of the SED provided clear evidence that the University drew on reports and advice from staff in the Department of Student Guidance and Welfare to inform itself of external developments, such as the promulgation of relevant sections of the Code of practice and proposals for the legislation which was to become the SENDA. It was also clear to the team from its discussions with students, members of the Department and other staff, that the University paid close attention to well-argued cases, supported by clear evidence, for additional resources to meet new needs, for example, in the area of mental health. The team came to the view that the considered manner in which the Department had made these cases and the University had responded to them constituted a feature of good practice.
39 Students who met the audit team spoke appreciatively about each of the services but were particularly warm in their praise for the work of the Careers and Counselling Services. The team was interested to learn that the University has provided transport to ensure that students based at the Peterborough Campus have access to the Careers Service among others. The University considers that bringing together the individual services listed in paragraph 135 has assisted it in its aim to provide 'a seamless personal support service for students' and enabled it 'to ensure a greater emphasis on strategic planning for welfare services.' Several of the examples cited in support of this view are noted above and include the University's responses to demonstrated cases of need, for example for an additional student counsellor, and the appointment of the Mental Health Officer and to support its strategy for widening participation.
140 The audit team found that the work of the Department of Student Guidance and Welfare encompassed many features of good practice from among which it would particularly identify the counselling support available for students, the work of the Careers Service and, as noted above, the dialogue between the department and the University aimed at ensuring that the former is able to meet the latter's strategic needs.
Collaborative provision
141 The SED described the collaborative provision of the University as 'modest' and indicated that the larger part of its portfolio of partnerships was with further education (FE) colleges in the region. The University's work with Loughborough College and New College, Nottingham is largely based around the development of Foundation degrees while that at PRC and Stamford College originated with the University's involvement in the project to develop a HE presence, leading to the establishment of a HE institution in Peterborough. The University's decision in January 2003 to withdraw from direct higher education provision in Peterborough has resulted in PRC and Stamford College looking to Anglia Polytechnic University as their new higher education partner to take over the validation of programmes based in the colleges. As part of the transitional arrangements to wind down its presence in Peterborough, the University will continue the validation of programmes at the PRC and Stamford College until existing students have completed their studies. A part-time MA in Contextual Theology, delivered by the East Anglian Ministerial Training Course is also being wound down, with the intention that the programme will be merged with a masters programme in the related area of pastoral theology, currently offered under the aegis of Anglia Polytechnic University.
142 The University validates an MA in Islamic Studies at the Markfield Institute of Higher Education (The Islamic Foundation), Leicester, with pathways in Islamic Management, Banking and Finance, and Muslim Community Relations. In parallel with the validation agreement, a protocol for the joint supervision of research degrees has also been agreed at institutional level. There is also a long-standing, though small scale, validation link with the RAF College, Cranwell in respect of an MSc in Aerosystems Engineering. Other collaborative provision includes an MSc programme in Packaging Technology offered jointly with Brunel University, where students can register at, and graduate from, either University, and articulation arrangements with the Engineering Management Partnership (EMP) allowing EMP Certificate holders to enter the MBA (Engineering Management) with credit for prior learning.
143 Overseas, the Business School collaborates with the Productivity and Standards Board Corporation in Singapore to deliver a BSc Honours Programme, and the Centre for Hazard and Risk Management delivers postgraduate programmes in Security Management, mainly by distance learning to students nominated by the Singapore Ministry of Home Affairs. The University also organises a 30-credit module at postgraduate level delivered at the International Olympic Academy in Athens, and has a collaborative agreement with the University of Shandong (Peoples' Republic of China) in the area of mathematical sciences, providing for the award of joint research degrees. Students will follow a programme of study involving 18 months at each institution and will be cosupervised by academic staff from both institutions.
144 The link between the University, via the Business School, and the Productivity and Standards Board Corporation in Singapore is the most significant of its overseas partnerships and formed the focus for the University's participation in an overseas audit by the Agency conducted in 2002. In general terms, the outcomes of the report of that audit indicated that the academic standards of the award were sound, as was the administration of the link, the selection and admission of students, and the moderation of assessed work.
145 The University has established a series of industrially-sponsored 'closed' programmes delivered for industrial clients where the operational responsibility for the quality of the provision and for safeguarding the academic standards of the awards rests with the Department in the normal way. These include the continuing professional development programmes delivered through the Ford Faculty within the Business School. There are also programmes incorporating a study year abroad under Socrates or other bilateral exchange arrangements.
146 The audit team noted that the University maintained clearly documented procedures for the approval and quality assurance of validated provision, which are set out in the Handbook, and which had been drawn up with reference to the Code of practice, published by the Agency. When a proposal is made, either from within the University or from another institution, it is discussed by the Executive Management Group, including the PVC (T) and the dean of the faculty in which the programme might be expected to be located. Their consideration includes the overall standing of the institution seeking validation or collaboration and the nature of the particular programmes proposed. When the Executive Management Group comes to the view that a proposal should be pursued, this is reported to LTC, which establishes a validation panel. Validation panels in such circumstances are chaired by the PVC (T) and their findings are reported to LTC and Senate. If there are recommendations or requirements to be met their fulfilment is monitored by the AD(T) for the relevant faculty. If the validation is approved, formal agreements are drawn up setting out respective responsibilities.
147 Responsibility for monitoring validated provision in partner institutions is delegated by Senate to the relevant faculty board. All quality management arrangements for validated programmes in partner institutions follow those for the University's own programmes. External examiners for collaborative programmes are appointed by the University. Formal agreements are time-limited, and the University requires that the relevant programme or programmes are reviewed prior to the renewal of any agreement.
148 Liaison and communication between the University and partner institutions is supported by the relevant AD(T) and the University's HE/FE Coordinator who is able to advise FE and other partners. The two represent the University on programme boards for student assessment at validated institutions. They are supported in their work by the PDQ Team Manager who is the chief administrative link-person for validated programmes, secretary to the validation panels and responsible for monitoring institutional agreements.
149 Proposals for collaborative provision other than validation are handled through procedures set out in the University's internal Code of Practice for Collaborative Provision, which was drawn up with reference to Section 2 of the Code of practice, published by the Agency and had been approved by Senate in 2000. The procedures are similar to those for validated programmes.
150 In 2002, LTC initiated a debate at Senate on the underlying matters of principle relating to collaborative provision. This led to the promulgation of a 'Policy Statement On Collaborative Programmes'. A PDQ working party has reviewed the University's position in relation to the Code of practice undertaking a gap analysis and identifying ways of strengthening existing procedures. This analysis indicated that the initial scrutiny given to proposals was robust, but the working party had concerns with arrangements after the initial validation or collaborative agreement had been made. At the time of the audit work was being undertaken to address this matter.
151 The working party has prepared a draft handbook for validated and collaborative provision which has been circulated for comment, with a view to subsequent approval by Senate. An extensive list of areas for strengthening departmental involvement in support of validated and collaborative provision has been developed, which will form the basis of a protocol setting out the responsibilities of staff in the University and the partner organisation. The expectation of departmental involvement has led to a reappraisal of some existing arrangements and is likely to limit the further expansion of validated provision in partner institutions. The University also intends to develop a policy statement on Foundation degrees as a point of reference for any future discussions on this matter. The University is likely to seek to limit the further expansion of validated provision in partner institutions.
152 Although the University's collaborative provision is modest in size it is widely distributed through the University. The University is advised to consider identifying more clearly for its staff, where responsibility rests for overseeing the quality management of collaborative provision and reviewing whether, and how, the University's routine quality management arrangements might require enhancement to support collaborative practice.
Loughborough University at Peterborough
153 For some years, the University has been developing a small campus at Peterborough. This is wholly operated by the University and does not involve partners directly. In early 2003, the University decided not to proceed further with the development of its campus at Peterborough, and by 2005 it should have fully withdrawn from the venture. The audit team was told that the appointment of a Loughborough Programme Co-ordinator for the final year has helped to reassure students as to the University's continuing commitment to their welfare as it runs out its provision.
154 The audit team met University students based at the Peterborough Campus in the course of the visit. They expressed some concerns about continuing access to appropriate library facilities on the Peterborough Campus for the 2004-05 session and the team took care to raise this matter with members of the University. The latter undertook, on behalf of the University, to ensure that appropriate library access for the Peterborough students would be maintained until they had completed their programmes. The University students at Peterborough did not appear to have day-to-day contact with members of the Students' Union on the Loughborough Campus, and the team encourages the University to work with the Students' Union to ensure equitable representation for all students, including those studying for the University's awards at the Peterborough Campus, and to explore with the Students' Union how best the latter might support the representation of students studying for the University's awards with partner institutions.
Section 3: The audit investigations: discipline audit trails
Discipline audit trails
155 In each of the selected DATs, appropriate members of the audit team met staff and students to discuss the programmes, studied a sample of assessed student work, saw examples of learning resource materials, and studied annual and periodic review reports relating to the programmes. Their findings in respect of the academic standards of awards are as follows.
Social science, sociology, communication and media studies, criminology and criminal justice
156 Programmes leading to the following award titles were identified as comprising the scope of the DAT: BSc (Hons) Sociology; BSc (Hons) Social Policy; BSc (Hons) Communication and Media Studies; BSc (Hons) Social Psychology; MSc Criminology and Criminal Justice; MA Media and Cultural Analysis and MSc Social Research (Social Science). From these the audit team identified the following sample for scrutiny: BSc (Hons) Sociology, BSc (Hons) Communication and Media Studies and MSc Criminology and Criminal Justice.
157 To support the DAT, the Department provided the audit team with a SED to which were appended programme specifications. The additional information which the Department provided to support the DAT included its proposals for major revisions; criteria for assessment; a portfolio of proposals for future developments; progression data supplied for the APR conducted in 2001-02; the report of a recent PPR and the Department's responses to the report. In the course of the DAT members of the team met teaching staff, the Head of Department and programme leaders and a representative group of students following programmes within the chosen sample. The team's findings in respect of academic standards were as follows.
158 Printed copies of the programme specifications were readily available; electronic copies were also available on the University's web site. In each there was clear reference to the relevant subject benchmarks and the FHEQ. Student handbooks did not include the specifications, but provided comparable information for students, supplemented by module specifications. The audit team concurred with the views of the recent PPR report which considered that the learning outcomes in the programme specifications were well-matched to the educational aims. Likewise, the team concurred with the Department's view that the structure and curriculum of the programmes supports the aim of providing interdisciplinary study across social science disciplines.
159 The audit team was able to see progression and completion data for each of the programmes in the sample. The data covered applications, intake (with geographic origins), initial qualifications, programme board decisions, withdrawals, final awards and first destinations. The use of more refined data to indicate ethnic, age and gender profiles and better use of cohort analysis would enable more accurate monitoring of aspects of quality management and the maintenance of academic standards. The collection of more discriminating data would also assist the University to monitor the progress of its strategy for widening participation.
160 As noted above, the Department had recently participated in an internal PPR. Judging from the PPR report, the process had been rigorously conducted. The report commended the Department on, among other things, its enthusiasm for intellectual inquiry and debate, particularly by injecting its research excellence into teaching (the Department has achieved Research Assessment Excercise rating of 5*). The PPR report also included recommendations for enhancements to personal tutoring, assessment arrangements and to address the implications of increases in student numbers, particularly at postgraduate level. It also recommended that the Department evaluate the impact of the programme restructuring which had been introduced in 1999-2000, particularly on the learning experience of the students and student performance, and consider whether more should be done to encourage and reward the production of and more varied and demanding coursework'. The Department's response to the PPR report indicated careful consideration of the recommendations which it intends to continue to address in the forthcoming APR for 2003-04. The audit team was able to read APRs prepared by the Department in previous years which indicated the latter had adopted a conscientious and evaluative approach to monitoring its provision.
161 The SWS commented on students' perception that contact hours in the Department were low in comparison with others in the Faculty. Students who met the audit team also commented on this matter, which had been discussed at the departmental SSLC and a Departmental Staff Meeting (DSM) (and had also been remarked on in the report of the recent PPR). The minutes of each of these meetings were provided for the team. The Department had restructured its programmes and reduced the number of contact hours in 1999-2000, but the information available to the team did not allow it to determine whether the level of contact hours for the Department's undergraduate programmes had been reduced to the extent that it was no longer appropriate. Nonetheless, in view of the frankly stated concerns of the students, the team agrees with the report of the PPR that the Department should continue to keep the matter under review, via meetings of the SSLC and DSM and through APR. The University might also wish to consider the desirability of bringing forward measures which will ensure that the learning support of students (including contact hours) is always appropriate to the demands of the learning outcomes of programmes.
162 From the sample of external examiners' reports it saw it was clear to the audit team that the former took a positive view of the way in which the Department managed its assessment processes. External examiners' reports indicated that they received appropriate samples of student work in good time, and that assessment boards were properly and fairly conducted. Recent examiners' reports seen by the team complimented the Department on the manner in which matters which they had raised had been discussed by programme teams, and the subsequent detailed responses made to them. The team came to the view that this constructive engagement between external examiners and programme teams demonstrated that the external examining process offered a secure means for monitoring and enhancing the Department's provision.
163 The Department provides students with the criteria it follows in assessing their work and a marking scheme which relates percentage marks to grades. The PPR report referred to above recommended that the Department review the similarities between undergraduate and postgraduate assessment criteria. The team noted that the assessment criteria for undergraduate and taught postgraduate work had since been made more distinctive and had been published in the Departmental Handbook.
164 Students told the audit team that they were appropriately informed about the Department's assessment arrangements, that their marked work was returned promptly, and that they found the feedback they received helpful. The Department has adopted a firm stance in handling academic malpractice and students told the team that they were fully aware of the penalties for plagiarism.
165 The audit team was able to review a broad sample of assessed student work which showed clear evidence of double marking. The team noted, however, that assessments and feedback were not always clearly connected to learning outcomes. The recent PPR report had commented on the diversity of the assessment methods adopted by the Department and suggested that the latter should review the case for maintaining its present variety of arrangements. At the time of the audit the Department was consulting with subject teams on how best to address this matter.
166 The samples of assessed work seen by the audit team matched the expectations of the associated programme specifications and there was clear evidence of progression through the levels. All external examiners have commented in very positive terms on the academic standards attained by students in the Department. The team was able to confirm that the standard and content for the assessed work it saw for all programmes was appropriate to the titles of the awards and their location in the FHEQ.
167 The audit team considered that the programme handbooks, and the Departmental Handbook, provided students with comprehensive information on the operation of the Department. Typically, the handbooks seen by the team contained information on contact details, the work of the SSLC, teaching and learning, personal tutors, assessment and resources. Joint honours students have two handbooks from their respective departments. Students said that they found the handbooks useful points of reference during their studies.
168 The learning resources available to students and staff in the Department are regularly monitored and reported on through agenda items on the Departmental Teaching Development Committee. There are regular contacts with library liaison staff. Locally, the Department has made substantial investments in learning resources including the provision of an open access IT room, several tutorial rooms, and upgraded PCs in the Communication and Media Studies Laboratories. Student learning is supported by some challenging handouts for classes, for example, in the Criminology and Criminal Justice programme, and in Popular Culture modules.
169 Students and staff told the audit team that the library resources available were comprehensive and that there was a wide range of books covering the core and specialist options in the programmes. Students told the team that multiple copies of key texts and an extensive range of academic journals were available to them although they commented that when busy, the hubbub in some areas of the library was sometimes distracting. The students who met the team praised the computing facilities available to them and the availability of the Learn server. The team noted that the Department had systematically encouraged staff to train to use and support the Learn server. Overall, the team came to the view that the learning resources available to the Department's students supported the achievement of the intended learning outcomes.
170 The arrangement for the participation of students in the Department's quality management arrangements is consistent with the University's expectations. The SSLC meets regularly and is well attended. Students were aware of who their representatives were and how to contact them. The audit team noted that the agenda for Departmental meetings has a standing agenda item reporting matters raised by the SLCC. In discussions with members of the team, students were able to point to instances where they considered that their views were listened to and had been addressed by staff.
171 Postgraduate research students spoke positively about the support they received from staff. In particular, they referred to the extensive range of research experience and specialisms in the Department, which enabled them to receive expert guidance for their own research. Research students, who are sometimes engaged as graduate teaching assistants, are required to undertake training provided by the University and the Department carefully monitors their workload. Taught postgraduate students told the audit team that they appreciated the ready access they had to members of the Department and that while they found the lectures given by staff enjoyable and intellectually challenging, they would welcome more opportunities for tutorials to follow up matters raised in lectures. The recent PPR of the Department recommended that it should keep under review the implications for its learning and teaching methods of potentially large increases in the number of its taught postgraduate students and the team agrees that this would be wise.
172 Module questionnaires provide the Department with quantitative and sometimes qualitative data on students' views. From the sample of questionnaires seen by the audit team it was clear that students conscientiously completed the questionnaires and there was evidence that outcomes and findings from analyses of the questionnaires were discussed in the Department.
173 On the basis of the evidence provided by the University and the Department, including assessed student work, and from its meetings with staff and students in the Department the audit team came to the view that the quality of learning opportunities is suitable in each case for the programmes of study leading to the awards identified in paragraph 156, above.
English and drama
174 The scope of the DAT comprised programmes of study in English and drama leading to the following awards: BA (Hons) Drama; BA (Hons) English; BA (Hons) English (part-time mode); BA (Hons) Drama with English as a minor subject; BA (Hons) English with a Minor in North American Literature and Film; BA (Hons) English and the History of Art and Design; MA in Modern and Contemporary Writing; together with programmes of study leading to research postgraduate awards.
175 To support the DAT the Department of English and Drama provided a specially written DSED which was accompanied by programme specifications for the undergraduate provision. In February 2004, the University had received separate reports on the English and Drama Sections of the Department, which it had commissioned from external advisers and which were made available to the team.
176 The programme specifications provided with the DSED referred to the relevant subject benchmark statements and provided substantial generic information. The programme specifications were consistent with the recommendations of the subject benchmark statements and in alignment with the recommendations of the FHEQ. The programme specifications referred to the University's Handbook.
177 Progression and completion data for the programmes in the DATs were available in the information provided by the Department in APRs. Members of staff told the audit team that the data was used to monitor the academic standards attained by successive cohorts of students in their degree awards. The data appeared to show little variation in the classes of awards attained by students from year to year and enabled the team to confirm that completion rates are high. From the materials it examined and from its discussions with members of the Department, the team formed the view that progression and completion data were regularly discussed.
178 The Department has yet to benefit from participation in PPR and the audit team encourages the Department and the University to consider undertaking an early PPR in the Department. The DSED noted the contribution of APR to quality management in providing an opportunity for the Department to reflect on progress but provided little other information on quality management Reviewing the APR reports it appeared to the team that they contained progression and completion data, consideration of student questionnaires, and external examiners' reports, and that these had been discussed by all staff. This information enabled the team to come to the view that the Department's internal review processes were working satisfactorily. For example, the external examiners' reports and the APR reports described how the Department had picked up matters to do with the spread of assessment marks from the external examiners' reports and how this had been addressed.
179 The recently conducted external reviews of the Department had drawn attention to a number of matters which the Department had begun to address, such as the spread of assessment marks noted above. The external reviews had also assisted the Department to consider matters such as staffing and space; the scope of the curriculum at first-year level; the development of MA programmes and the status of compulsory final-year dissertations. These matters were being taken forward by the Department supported by the Faculty and the AD(T).
180 Recent external examiners' reports were generally positive but have contained some areas relating to specific matters, for example, the scope of plagiarism; the legibility of staff handwriting and the inclusion by students of their names on examination scripts, against the University's advice. The materials available to the audit team allowed it to be confident that in all cases, the Head of Department had discussed the external examiners' reports with the Department and had responded individually to each with a copy of his letter being sent to the Faculty Secretary. In all cases, it seemed to the team that matters raised by external examiners had evoked an appropriate response. In the reports that it saw the team noted that the external examiners had expressed their satisfaction that matters raised in earlier reports had been addressed. An example of such responsiveness has been the planned introduction of a dissertation in English.
181 Until recently, the assessment instrument most commonly used by English has been the essay. The Section's maintenance of this approach to assessment has been endorsed by its external examiners and is consistent with the advice offered in the subject benchmark statements. This approach has not been without its critics, however, and difficulties with plagiarism and pressure from students have led the Section to adopt more varied methods of assessment, which now include assessments of oral presentations and debates. The Drama Section's adoption of a plurality of approaches to assessment is more longstanding, and includes the assessment of activities such as group work, playwriting, costume design and performance. The audit team was able to consult a substantial sample of students' written work which had been subject to marking and moderation. The team noted that the University's arrangements to deter plagiarism require students to complete and sign a declaration that the work presented is their own when submitting work for assessment.
182 The audit team found evidence across the sample of students' work it saw that double-marking was being carried out, and that standard forms were being used to record markers' comments and provide feedback to students. The sample of feedback comments seen by the team made little explicit reference to learning outcomes but comments related both to content and to more generic skills. From the sample of assessed work that it saw, the team was able to confirm that the standard of student achievement is appropriate to the titles of the awards and their location within the FHEQ.
183 Students told the audit team that while the comments on some of the standard forms they received were illegible (see above, paragraph 180), they were grateful for the care with which their work was generally marked and for the instances of helpful feedback they received. Where they were unable to decipher or understand the feedback they received, students told the team that they commonly had recourse to their personal tutors for advice and guidance. The Department might consider the function of the feedback sheets, which currently contain both feedback to the student and are used by first and second markers to agree marks: this may not be the most appropriate place for disagreements between markers to be aired. The Department might wish to consider whether it should restrict information on the feedback sheets to formative comments.
184 Marking of students' work is carried out with reference to stated criteria; however the criteria provided are very broadly stated and it would be possible for two different markers to form widely varying expectations. The audit team was not surprised, therefore, to observe occasional wide disparities between the marks assigned by first and second markers to the same piece of work. Members of staff with whom the team discussed marking arrangements stated that such disparities were commonly resolved through meetings between the first and second-markers, but that differences could also be referred to external examiners for resolution. Samples of marked work completed by taught postgraduate students enable the team to confirm that the manner in which such work is assessed is in line with the practices adopted by the Department for undergraduate assessments.
185 In the DSED, the Department noted that it relied on a large number of dedicated and professional part-time staff to support learning and teaching. The audit team discussed the Department's arrangements for supporting its part-time teaching staff and particularly, how it ensured that they followed the consistent marking practices. It was told that many of the part-time staff had worked with the Department over a considerable period, that second-marking and monitoring across staff was used to ensure a shared awareness of academic standards, and that assessments marked by part-time tutors on the taught postgraduate programmes were carefully monitored. Students who discussed the marking of their work with members of the team were satisfied that the grading was, on the whole, consistent. External examiners have consistently commented on the fairness and accuracy of marking and the practices followed are in line with the University's policies.
186 On the basis of the programme specifications, the sample of marked and moderated student work that it saw, including coursework and examination scripts, and the comments of external examiners the audit team was able to confirm that the standard of student achievement is appropriate to the titles of the awards offered by the Department and their location within the FHEQ.
187 Students in the Department receive a Departmental Handbook, which provides information on the Department and University level information, including information on complaints and appeals procedures. Students who met the audit team confirmed that they were aware of the processes referred to within the handbook. Students also receive handbooks for each specific module, which generally contain reading lists details of assignments and set out the expected learning outcomes. Students noted that although the information they received was useful, from time to time the Department might change the details of modules after they had commenced their studies. The University may wish to consult with the Department to consider how it might ensure that late changes to module requirements are kept to the minimum.
188 For students in the Department (particularly English students) their main learning resource is the library. Each of the module questionnaires seen by the audit team provided students with opportunities to comment on the support they received from the library. Reviewing the questionnaire responses the Department provided, it seemed to the team that some students were dissatisfied with the library provision available to support their studies, although students with whom the team discussed this matter were less negative in their views. Members of staff based in English Section, with whom the team discussed library provision acknowledged that students had been critical of their learning resources but were able to point to work in progress to address these concerns through amending Departmental and library purchasing strategies and providing packs of information to support modules. The Department already subscribes to LION, an on-line resource of texts, and intends to extend this subscription in the near future. The work of drama students is supported by two full-time members of technical staff which enables the Drama Section to provide a supportive learning environment for the performance aspects of its work. Students and staff told the team that they considered that the wide range of options offered by the Department to students in English and drama ensure that the curriculum was distinctive and relevant to a wide range of interests. The team identified the breadth of provision as an element of good practice.
189 The DSED noted that the number of postgraduate students based in the Department had increased 'fivefold' in the past year. Postgraduate students based in the Department who met the audit team told it that the library's own holdings, together with a good interlibrary loan service provided a sound basis for most work. Postgraduate students did, however, comment critically on the PC and computing facilities available to them: the Department provides a room for postgraduate students which contains five PCs, which students considered to be inadequate for the rapidly growing number of postgraduate students based in the Department. This is a matter the Department and the University will wish to address at an early date.
190 In the course of its discussions with members of the Department and their students, it was apparent to the audit team that space for all purposes was at a premium, and that external examiners, and the external adviser who had reported earlier in 2004, shared the concerns of staff which had been expressed in the Departmental Plan and in minutes and reports of departmental meetings. From all these sources it was plain that lack of office space, rehearsal space (for drama) and communal space to provide a base for students, and to enable the use of presentations in group work, was causing real difficulties. These difficulties had been reported to the Faculty and via the Faculty to the University. From papers made available by the Faculty it was clear that its Directorate recognised the nature of the Department's need and the urgency that it should be addressed, and was taking practical steps to resolve the matter. It would now be helpful for the University, the Faculty and the Department to take forward these measures to address the constraints caused for the Department's activities by lack of space.
191 Students who met the audit team stated that they had ready access to the advice and support of their personal tutors and that they considered this to be a strong feature of the Department. Members of staff with whom the team discussed personal tutor arrangements acknowledged their importance to students and considered the provision of personal tutor support an essential, albeit costly, element in the Department's ethos and approach to learning and teaching. The DSED noted that the pressures on staff sometimes made it difficult for them to follow-up students who failed to attend meetings with their personal tutor.
192 Examples of the business of SSCCs were provided to support the DAT. The DSED commented that the contributions made by the SSCC to the Department's quality management arrangements were viewed more positively by staff than by students although the minutes of successive SSCCs seem to indicate to the audit team that there were regular exchanges between staff and students and that requests for modifications to Departmental arrangements were met, where possible and within the Department's sphere of authority. As noted above, students are regularly asked to complete module questionnaires to provide feedback to staff on their experience of learning. Return rates for module questionnaires seemed to the team to be low but students who met the team suggested that this was a sign of general satisfaction rather than apathy. On the basis of the evidence available to it the team came to the view that students in the Department had suitable opportunities to play an active part in its quality management arrangements.
193 The audit team came to the view that the quality of learning opportunities available to students is suitable for the programmes of study which lead to named awards identified in paragraph 174, above.
Sports science
194 The DAT comprised programmes leading to the following awards: BSc (Hons) Sports Science and Mathematics; BSc (Hons) Sports and Exercise Science; BSc (Hons) Sports and Leisure Management; BSc (Hons) Sports Science with Management; BSc (Hons) Sports Science and Social Science; MSc Sports Science; MSc Sports and Exercise Nutrition; MSc Physical Activity and Health; MSc Sports and Leisure Management; MSc Sociology of Sport; MSc Physical Education; MSc Exercise Physiology; MSc Sports and Exercise Psychology; MSc Sports Biomechanics. From these programmes and awards the audit team identified the following for closer scrutiny: BSc (Hons) Sport and Leisure Management; BSc (Hons) Sport and Exercise Science; MSc Sport and Leisure Management; and MSc Sports Science.
195 The DSED was prepared specifically by the School to support the DAT and drew on the aims and objectives set out by the School in the self-assessment document it had submitted to support the Agency subject review which had taken place in 2001. The DSED referred generally to all aspects of provision within the School and was predominantly descriptive. Although the DSED could usefully have provided a greater degree of evaluation of the School's implementation of University processes it provided a helpful context and basis to support the DAT.
196 Detailed programme specifications were included for all programmes offered by the School. These made clear references to the FHEQ and to relevant subject benchmark statements. The audit team discussed the formulation of the programme specifications with members of staff in the course of the DAT who described how programmes had been mapped to the relevant specifications and how the transition from writing learning objectives to learning outcomes had been managed. Staff referred the team to the helpful guidance notes for the preparation of programme specifications which the University had drawn up and noted that the School had disseminated this advice to all module leaders. Staff told the team that a member of the School had contributed to the compilation of the relevant subject benchmark statement and that the additional insight that this individual had been able to provide on how the statement might be used had been helpful. Students who met the team were able to confirm that the programme specifications were available on the University's intranet and considered that they were a helpful guide for students planning the direction of their studies.
197 From the evidence available in the DAT the audit team found it possible to confirm that the School had referred to the FHEQ and subject benchmark statements in compiling programme specifications. The team was also able to confirm that arrangements at School level with respect to assessment and external examiners were broadly consistent with both the University's Code and the Code of practice, and was not surprisingly less explicit than the reference to the FHEQ and benchmark statements.
198 Progression and completion data to support quality and academic standards management is made available to the School by the University, and is used by the former in APR. The data in the APR reports provided little detail although the School was nonetheless able to demonstrate how it was used to inform the development of learning opportunities. The data indicated that in terms of both progression and completion students were successful, but provided little evidence on which the School and the University could draw to judge whether their intentions for widening participation are succeeding. In this respect the provision of more finely detailed admissions, progression and completion information would be helpful.
199 The audit team discussed the University's and the School's approach to widening participation with members of staff in the course of the DAT. It noted that the School had produced a clear statement of its strategy for widening participation and that it had undertaken a number of activities aimed at attracting applications from students who might otherwise have been deterred by the School's widely perceived image as an 'elite' centre. Although still in the early stages of its development, the School's widening participation strategy seemed to the team to be making good progress and represent a development which deserved encouragement.
200 The School provided papers on internal review and annual monitoring to support the DAT. From these papers, together with the DSED, it initially appeared that internal review in school was essentially a reactive process. Discussions with members of the School showed, however, that the process of APR involved discussion at individual programme committees, the preparation of a report that considered student and staff evaluation, comments made by external examiners in their reports and the progression and completion data referred to above. Individual reports are subsequently scrutinised by the School's LTC which is responsible for monitoring progress in addressing any associated action plan.
201 Responsibility for overseeing the academic standards obtained in each module rests with external examiners. In line with the University's recommendations, for each programme leading to a named award the School appoints one of its external examiners to act as an external programme assessor, who is charged with providing an overall summary of comments made in their reports by the external examiners.
202 Reports from external examiners which were considered by the audit team were strongly supportive of the School's provision and the awards, and confirmed that the academic standards achieved by students were not only appropriate and aligned with the FHEQ, but also equivalent to, or in many cases better than, equivalent programmes elsewhere. The team noted with interest comments from several external examiners stating that the School's programmes were at the 'leading edge' and 'a benchmark for others' in sports and exercise science.
203 Matters raised by external examiners in their reports are discussed by members of the School in meetings at programme and department level. Where action is required or advised and there is scope for the School to take action, the evidence available to the audit team suggested that steps were immediately taken. Actions in response to external examiners reports are checked and confirmed through APR. In the evidence provided to support the DAT the School provided a number of examples of how it had responded to comments made by external examiners on assessment processes. For example, external examiners had identified inconsistencies in the volume and nature of the feedback provided to students on their assessments as a matter which required attention. In response, the School has now introduced a standard coursework feedback sheet. Reports by external examiners confirmed the detailed consideration given by the School to points raised in previous sessions.
204 A varied sample of work was made available for the four programmes evaluated. The overall standard of the work was high and was generally commended by the external examiners. The standards achieved by the students were appropriate for the relevant awards and their respective level within the FHEQ. Students told the audit team that the School provided them with useful and relevant information on its assessment practice and that they understood its requirements.
205 As noted above, external examiners had previously commented on inconsistencies between modules in the feedback provided to students on their work and the audit team was able to confirm the appropriateness of these remarks. This matter had been partly addressed via the introduction of a standard coursework feedback sheet but, at the time of the audit, this procedure had not been uniformly adopted across the School. Comments on individual items in the sample of work provided to support the DAT continued to show inconsistencies between modules with respect to the volume and detail of the comments themselves. In some cases there was also a poor match between the comments given and the mark awarded. The team encourages the School to continue the development of its assessment practice and to work towards ensuring that expectations with regard to assessment are implemented more consistently by its staff across all its programmes. Further improvement would bring the quality of assessment closer to the high levels of attainment achieved in learning and teaching.
206 The learning opportunities available to students following programmes of study in sports and exercise science are significantly enhanced by the outstanding facilities available on the University's campus. In many cases, the provision of specialist facilities has been undertaken in collaboration with the professional and governing bodies for particular sports, with the twofold advantage to students of access to the facilities themselves, and to the experience and knowledge of those working with the professional and governing bodies.
207 The University's sporting facilities cater to the needs of a range of users, but those with specialist needs directly related to their programmes of study generally receive priority access. Reviewing its learning and teaching facilities in the DSED the School indicated that while its laboratory provision in some areas remained fit for purpose and 'functionally adequate', it would benefit from enhancement to enable further development of the curriculum, particularly at postgraduate level. Students who met the audit team in the DAT were generally satisfied with the sports and exercise science laboratory facilities available to them but agreed with staff that further development would be welcome. Technician support for staff and students within the laboratory resources appeared to the team to be readily available; undergraduate students using the laboratories are generally supervised by postgraduate research students who have received appropriate training.
208 Discussions with members of the School and students, and information in the School's papers, demonstrated the benefits accruing from the School's and the University's attention to staff development. The audit team was able to confirm that support and guidance is provided to lecturers undergoing probation and noted with interest the care taken by the School to ensure that leading researchers make a widespread contribution to teaching at all levels. This undoubtedly enriches the curriculum, is appreciated by students.
209 The DSED stated that students provided feedback to the School through module evaluation questionnaires and SSLCs. At postgraduate level, small group sizes and the design of the curriculum allows for a degree of 'informal' review in the taught postgraduate programmes. Students who discussed the attendance of representatives at SSLCs confirmed their usefulness. Students are also invited to attend School-wide staff meetings where, although considerably outnumbered by staff, they considered that their attendance was welcomed and that due consideration was given to any points they raised.
210 In the course of the DAT the audit team inquired into the nature of the learning experience for students on joint honours programmes. Students told the team that the approaches to such matters as deadlines of the submission of assessed work, feedback, and the provision of personal tutor support could vary markedly between the School and other departments. Joint honours students considered that the School provided an open and supportive environment in which their comments were welcomed and listen to, but that this was not always the case in the other 'half' of their studies where representation might be less effective.
211 The audit team discussed monitoring, support and advice arrangements for joint honours students with members of the School. It learned that the progress and development of joint honours provision was only reviewed once in each session, and that the process through which this is undertaken was less formal than for single honours provision. Reflecting on these matters the team considers that it would be desirable for the University to systematically apply PPR to joint honours provision.
212 Overall, the quality of learning opportunities available to students is suitable in each case for programmes of study leading to the awards identified in paragraph 194, above.
Economics
213 The provision included within the DAT is located within Department of Economics. It consisted of undergraduate (BSc) programmes leading to the awards of BSc (Hons) Economics; BSc (Hons) Business Economics and Finance; BSc (Hons) International Economics; BSc (Hons) Economics with Accounting; BSc Combined Honours Economics with a Language or Social Science (French, German, Spanish, Human Geography, Politics, Sociology, Social Policy). Postgraduate programmes within the scope of the DAT included MSc Economics and Finance, MSc Banking and Finance, MSc International Banking, MSc Islamic Economics, Banking and Finance and a Diploma in Economics.
214 The DSED took the form of a Commentary, provided by the Head of the Department together with a range of departmental reports. The supporting evidence also included the report of a PPR undertaken in the Department in May 2003, together with the Department's response and a full set of programme specifications.
215 The audit team found that the programme specifications aligned closely to the subject benchmark statement for Economics (2000) in terms of aims, subject knowledge and understanding, and subject specific skills. The programme specifications make reference to the FHEQ and the framework of the University Learning and Teaching Strategy which is itself aligned with the Code of practice. The relevant sections of the Code were cited in support of the structural changes the Department proposes to make to its MSc programme (see below).
216 Progression and completion data in terms of applications, intake qualifications and completion by year is provided in the APR which in turn informs the PPR. On the basis of the data seen by the audit team very few students have their studies terminated due to failure to complete assessment successfully and data supplied to the team supported the Department's view that students graduating in Economics from the University are highly employable in graduate-level occupations.
217 As noted above, the Department participated in a PPR in May 2003. The report of this process indicated that the PPR had been thoroughly conducted, that an external member (whose role had been clearly specified), had participated in the work of the review panel, and that the views of Economic students had been sought through a meeting with the review panel. The report of the PPR complimented the Department on its innovations and good practice, the quality of its provision and the academic standards of the related awards, and the currency and validity of the content of the programmes. The report also highlighted a number of difficulties being experienced by the Department and threats to the future maintenance of quality and academic standards, chiefly stemming from the high student staff ratio which was said to be one of the highest in the University.
218 The audit team noted that at the core of these difficulties lay the rapid increase in international students recruited to the taught postgraduate programmes offered by the Department. A particular difficulty arose from the structure of the MSc curriculum which, until recently, had involved the completion by students of a compulsory dissertation. Supervision of a greatly increased number of MSc dissertations had then posed two challenges for the Department: matching staff expertise to the dissertation topics chosen by students, and ensuring that supervision was available to students throughout the summer months without overburdening staff. A further unanticipated consequence of the expansion of the Department's taught postgraduate provision appeared to have been that instances of plagiarism appeared to be more frequent (but more difficult to detect) and that standards of scholarship in dissertation work appeared to have declined. Students who met the team were aware of the Department's concerns in these respects.
219 Evidence of the difficulties which had arisen following the rapid expansion of the taught postgraduate programmes could be found in the adverse comments made by students at the postgraduate SSLC. The Department's first attempt to address these matters took the form of a proposal to introduce a 'Comprehensive Examination' to replace the dissertation. This proposal had been initially rejected by the University, but the report of the PPR encouraged the Department to make an academic case for restructuring the MSc programme. This led to the alternative proposals for examinations in 'Specialist Subject Knowledge' and 'Research Skills' to replace the dissertation, proposals which were later accepted by CSC as an option for current students. The Department considers this development to be innovatory and capable of enhancing academic standards; its implementation will be subject to future monitoring.
220 Four external examiners share responsibilities for monitoring the academic standards attained by students following the Department's programmes of study. An Agency subject review report in 2001 commented that Department's responses to its external examiners' reports were not always timely. Accordingly, the audit team took care to review how the Department had responded to subsequent reports by external examiners and found that responses were now both appropriate and more timely. For example, in 2003, one external examiner had recommended that the Department should change from carrying out double-marking on a sample of scripts to double-marking all scripts and that the University should consider changes to its degree classification arrangements. On the first matter, which lay within the remit of the Department, the team was able to observe that changes had since been made to ensure that all assessed work counting towards final awards is subject to double marking. On the second matter, a senior member of the Department had prepared a detailed paper on the classification system, which favoured the status quo (final degree classification based on average mark rather than paper count). The Department had found these arguments persuasive and had agreed not to refer the issue to the appropriate University committee.
221 At the time of the audit one outstanding matter which had been raised by an external examiner concerned the desirability of preserving the anonymity of students on results sheets. The Department recognises that this matter has wider implications for the treatment of impaired performance claims, and has undertaken to the external examiner who raised the matter that it will be discussed at a forthcoming staff meeting. This is a matter on which the University might wish to give the Department support and guidance.
222 Overall, the reports from external examiners seen by the audit team confirmed the robustness of the administration of the Department's assessment procedures and the close engagement of the externals with the Department constitutes a positive feature of the way in which it is working to safeguard the academic standards of the awards to which its provision leads.
223 The Department's assessment strategy places greater emphasis on examinations rather than coursework, modules typically having a 80:20 or 70:30 weighting towards examinations, although recent structural changes have raised the contribution of the coursework component. Examinations, however, often have a number of different components including essays, short answers, and problem solving which reflect the discipline's range of subject matter and skills. The Department provides its students with clear guidance on its expectations in the individual module guides. Students were satisfied with the feedback they received on their written work and performance and appreciated the provision of generic feedback via the Learn server.
224 The University's regulations do not, at present, allow the Department to return marked examination scripts to students and feedback on their examination performance is provided to students through their personal tutor. If the existing system is to continue, it seemed to the audit team that it would be helpful to students, and the personal tutors advising them (who will sometimes necessarily be non-specialist), for rather more comment to be provided on the examination scripts, particularly indicating how a particular mark has been arrived at. Examples of assessed work seen by the team at undergraduate and postgraduate levels consisted of examination and projects/dissertations. There was evidence that the full double-marking procedure recently adopted was being followed.
225 External examiners' reports confirm that academic standards achieved by students in the Economics Department are entirely comparable with standards encountered elsewhere across the sector. The audit team found clear evidence of progression in achievement between undergraduate modules at levels B and C although the differentiation between honours and masters levels might be more clearly articulated. The economics dissertations seen were accompanied by helpful supervisors' report sheets, which commented on such areas as the inherent difficulty of the topic undertaken, skills involved, and the initiative and self-reliance demonstrated. The team concluded that the standard of student achievement was appropriate to the title of the awards and its location with the FHEQ.
226 The Departmental Handbooks are comprehensive and student-friendly. The undergraduate handbook is comprehensive and leaves no room for doubt regarding student rights and responsibilities. Information is provided on departmental procedures and how they link with institutional structures. The departmental ethos towards teaching and learning is presented as 'reading for a degree' and detailed advice is provided on skills and good academic practice, including explicit warnings against plagiarism.
227 Library and computing resources are adequate, although some expressions of concern on the part of students were observed in feedback and questionnaire returns, chiefly relating to the availability of multiple copies of texts. The Department has recently extended its use of the Learn server, and has encouraged members of staff to attend development courses to extend their expertise in this area. Students have welcomed the introduction of this facility, although there is variation between different staff members in the way in which it is employed to support teaching and learning. There is some concern among staff that the more general employment of Learn has had a negative effect on students' attendance at tutorials, which in some areas is reported as being less than 50 per cent.
228 The audit team explored learning resources and support arrangements for economics students to acquire and extend their mathematical skills. The Subject benchmark statements for economics require an understanding of quantitative methods and applications, and while there are non-quantitative options available within the syllabus, certain of the core modules offered by the Department demand mathematical understanding. The student meeting conducted by the PPR panel described the nature of some economics subjects as 'challenging' and considered that GCE A-level mathematics should be an entry requirement.
229 About one-half of the undergraduate entrants to the Department have no mathematics qualification higher than GCSE, and the Department considers that to insist on a higher qualification in mathematics would depress the overall quality of entrants and have implications for its work in widening participation. It has therefore developed a strategy for Mathematics Support, which includes additional tutorials provided by the Department with support available from the MEC (see above, paragraph 109). The audit team asked the Department to provide an assessment of the impact of this support programme which it kindly provided. This indicated that the progress of non-mathematics entrants was not significantly depressed and that amongst the 2003 finalists, only one student without a post-16 mathematics qualification had failed to graduate. Students spoke appreciatively of the mathematics support, and the team found that the student concerns articulated at the PPR were no longer current. On the basis of the evidence available to it, the team came to the view that there was good support in mathematics available to students in the Department.
230 All students based in the Department can expect to have their progress regularly reviewed, and those identified by tutors as 'at risk' are sent letters indicating the grounds for the Department's concern. The audit team noted with interest that students whose progress is identified as being particularly good also receive letters commending their endeavours. On the basis of the evidence provided by the Department it appeared to the team that the University's expectations for personal tutor support are met by staff, who publicise the times when they are available in their offices; most are also contactable by email. Students and staff confirmed that, in general, the former readily take advantage of opportunities to meet their personal tutors.
231 The audit team saw a range of module questionnaires which were supportive of the subject provision and its delivery: comments testified to the enthusiasm and expertise of the Department's staff. Students spoke highly of the undergraduate and postgraduate SSLCs supported by the Department and representatives were appreciative of the training provided by the Students' Union. Records of meetings of SSLCs showed that they were well attended by student representatives and that a recommendation in the 2003 PPR that the Department should review the balance of membership between staff and students had now been addressed. From the sample of SSLCs records it was able to consult, the team was able to identify the matters discussed, and on which the views of students had been sought, had included: changes to the structure of undergraduate programmes; the structure of the examination timetable; and clarification of award criteria. In the postgraduate SSLC topics addressed had included library provision and availability of dissertation supervisors of choice. Departmental responses to matters raised at SSLCs are included within the APR. The team concluded that both the feedback questionnaires and the work of the SSLCs were an integral and effective component of the Department's quality management arrangements.
232 The audit team came to the view that that the overall quality of learning opportunities was suitable for the programmes of study leading to the named awards in paragraph 213, above.
Civil engineering
233 The scope of the DAT in the Department of Civil and Building Engineering comprised: BEng (Hons) and MEng Civil Engineering, accredited by the Joint Board of Moderators for the Institution of Civil Engineers and the Institution of Structural Engineers; BSc (Hons) Transport Management and Planning and BSc (Hons) Air Transport Management, accredited by the Institute of Logistics and Transport; BSc (Hons) Commercial Management and Quantity Surveying, accredited by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors; BSc (Hons) Construction Engineering Management and BSc (Hons) in Architectural Engineering and Design Management, accredited by the Chartered Institute of Building; BSc (Hons) Logistics and Transport Planning, which recruited its last cohort in 2002; MSc Construction Project Management; MSc Construction Management; MSc Airport Planning and Management; MSc Construction Innovation and Management; MSc Building Services Engineering.
234 In line with the way in which the University groups its programmes for the purposes of PPR, the scope of DAT also included provision leading to a number of awards offered by the Water, Engineering and Development Centre (WEDC), which is part of the Department. These comprised programmes of study leading to the MSc Planning and Management of Urban Services; MSc Water and Waste Engineering*; MSc Urban Engineering; MSc Water and Environmental Management*; MSc Urban Water Supply; MSc Technology and Management for Rural Development; Diploma Technology for Development (*also offered by distance learning). All programmes are vocationally oriented, and allow students to gain employment in the appropriate profession. Consequently, continuing PSRB accreditation is of fundamental importance to the Department.
235 From the programmes and awards listed above the audit team identified the following sample for closer consideration: BEng (Hons) and MEng Civil Engineering, accredited by the Joint Board of Moderators, together with the MSc Water and Environmental Management and the Diploma in Technology for Development; each of the latter is also offered by distance learning and these modes of study also formed part of the DAT.
236 Programme specifications in civil and building engineering make specific reference to the relevant subject benchmark statement, Standards and Routes to Registration, accreditation guidelines, and the FHEQ. Programme handbooks contain relevant sections of programme specifications, including intended learning outcomes and programme regulations. Programme specifications were made available to the audit team for each of the awards offered, and these were also available on the University's internet site; however, the team did not find it easy to appreciate the links between the various awards because a separate programme specification was provided for each. Subject benchmarks statements had been used to inform the design of programmes, although there were no specific links to the benchmark statements from the programme specifications themselves. The team was told that staff and students invariably used the programme handbooks as their initial source of information about the awards and the associated modules, and that they relied heavily on the use of the Learn server. As it continues to develop its use of programme specifications, the team encourages the Department to consider the merits of further embedding their use in its quality management procedures and to consider how they might be developed as a primary source of information, to supplement the facilities provided by the Learn server (see above, paragraph 121).
237 WEDC programmes comprise a number of pathways through a set of modules. The DSED acknowledged that the WEDC Diploma in Technology for Development (60 credits) was not consistent with the University's definition of a postgraduate diploma, and it is the Department's intention to rationalise the structure of the WEDC awards when the first APR for the provision is conducted in 2004. This will also allow the awards to be brought into line with the University's qualifications framework and FHEQ. Although the number of students based at Loughborough, and following WEDC programmes has fallen over the last 10 years, this has been balanced by an increase in the number of those who study by distance learning.
238 Progression and completion data were not included in the DSED, but are routinely available in the documentation provided to support APR (and, by extension, PPR) and for professional body accreditations. The latter also require that cohort analyses be included and it seemed to the audit team that it might be helpful to staff in departments if the information made available by CIS could be extended to provide cohort analyses routinely. This would relieve them of the burden of preparing this information manually.
239 Each year the leader of a module reviews its delivery with two student representatives and another member of staff, and the outcomes of this review feed into the APR, which is good practice. The audit team reviewed reports from APR, however, and did not find it easy to establish how actions called for in the APR for the previous year had been followed up.
240 Reports from external examiners for the Department's programmes were made available to the audit team. The reports stated that course objectives, structure and content were 'most appropriate for the award of BEng and MEng degrees' and confirmed that the attainments of the students equalled, or in some cases exceeded, those at other comparable institutions. They also confirmed the academic standards of the awards were, in all cases, being safeguarded. External examiners' comments on the work of MEng students were complimentary with the MEng research project and its presentation being identified for praise. The team followed up responses to comments and advice in external examiners' reports and was surprised to find some instances where the Department had not responded in a timely fashion. The team encourages the University to work with the Department to ensure that responses to external examiners are made more promptly.
241 Assessment is undertaken through a combination of unseen written examinations and coursework, including laboratory reports, problem-solving exercises, design projects, design calculations, field course reports, oral presentations, essays, multiple-choice questionnaires, and a research project dissertation and presentation. The Department held an away day focusing on teaching in April 2002, at which a number of issues were highlighted, including the need to revise procedures for the assessment of the Diploma of Industrial Studies awarded to students who spend a year in industry. Some matters related to assessment identified as requiring attention by the Department, remain to be tackled. Within the context of its response to the Code of practice, Section 6: Assessment of students the team encourages the University to finalise its consideration of assessment linked to learning outcomes, and how assessment strategies might better underpin the current levels and types of assessment being used.
242 The Department provided a substantial sample of students work to support the DAT, which in all cases had been subject to marking and moderation by the external examiners. From this material, together with the advice provided to the external examiners and the reports of the latter, the audit team was able to confirm that the examples of marked work matched the expectations of the relevant programme specifications. The team was also able to confirm that the standard of student achievement is appropriate to the titles of the awards and their location within the FHEQ.
243 The audit team inquired into the learning resources and support available to students following programmes in the Department and Centre. Students and staff were able to confirm that they have ready access to the laboratory, library and ICT support required by their programmes, and that technician support was sound. The team noted the Department's expectation that researchers will contribute to the undergraduate programmes, and that group work features in the undergraduate curriculum from very early in the programme through to the final year. As part of their programmes of study, most undergraduate students undertake a placement. The latter are supported by the teaching staff who may make up to two visits to each student in the course of a placement.
244 The Department has introduced a distinctive module, worth 10 credits, into Part C of the MEng award, entitled Teamwork and Leadership. This involves an outdoor event, with students producing written reflections on their expectations and experiences before and after the event. It was clear that, despite certain individual apprehensions, this was an effective module that was highly valued by students, by staff and by employers.
245 One of the key features of learning support provided for engineering students is the availability of assistance from the MEC for those requiring support in the development of their mathematical skills. All students undertake a diagnostic test in mathematics on entry which enables the Department to identify those who require support. Students referred to the MEC work with the latter to produce an action plan to address their needs and may undertake a bridging mathematics module in their first semester, or take advantage of other, targeted, support. As noted elsewhere in this report, the audit team came to the view that the work of the MEC and the support it provides to students and, in this case, engineering students, was a feature of good practice. Learning support arrangements for engineering students have directly benefited from the work of the EEC: the Co-Tutor system described elsewhere in this report was originally developed by the Department and EEC to allow staff to monitor the attendance of students at tutorials. Students following programmes provided under the auspices of WEDC who met the team spoke highly of the programmes they were following and the learning support available to them in this area, both of which are designed for those who already work, or plan to work, in low and middle-income countries.
246 The handbooks the Department provides for students set out aims, and intended learning outcomes; coursework and laboratory schedules; programme regulations, comprising lists of modules, tables of curricula, and progression requirements; and module specifications. In some cases, sources of information are given through uniform resource locators (URLs) to the Department's page on the University's web site. Handbooks for provision offered by WEDC also provided an overview of University facilities. The handbooks provide information on complaints and appeals. As required by the University, the Department is introducing a special board to hear claims for impaired performance and students who met the team were aware of arrangements for making such claims, and of where information could be found on making an appeal.
247 There are strong links with employers at undergraduate level. This is highlighted not just by the large numbers of placements that are offered by industry, but also that MEng students are often sponsored by an employer, and that the curriculum is informed by input from the employers.
248 Samples of minutes from SSCCs were provided to support the DAT, together with feedback questionnaires completed by students at the module level. The audit team noted that module questionnaires are completed by students on a five-point scale, but that these appeared to be subsequently consolidated onto a three-point scale as percentages. Under the Department's arrangements for analysing the module questionnaires, any scores below 3.0 are required to be addressed as part of APR, but no analysis of polarised opinion is undertaken, and the consolidation onto a three-point scale undermines more effective analysis. Few students at undergraduate level took the opportunity to respond to the open questions on the module questionnaires, and it was not clear to the team where matters raised on the questionnaires were addressed and feedback provided to students. The team encourages the University to work with the Department to ensure that information can be more reliably derived from completed feedback questionnaires. The team discussed the work of SSCCs with students, who were of the view that it was a useful forum and were able to point to minor changes in programmes and arrangements that had been made following discussions. Students also reported ready access to staff.
249 Overall, the audit team came to the view that the quality of learning opportunities is suitable for the programmes of study leading to the named awards listed in paragraphs 233 to 235 above, and that the standard of student achievement is appropriate to the titles of the awards and location within the FHEQ, with the exception of the WEDC Diploma in Technology, the status of which is in the process of being reviewed.
Section 4: The audit investigations: published information
The students' experience of published information and other information available to them
250 To support the audit, the University provided paper copies and internet-based versions of the information it makes available to students, including undergraduate and postgraduate prospectuses, programme specifications, and handbooks for each of the programmes considered in the DATs. Programme handbooks and regulations were available for each award which provided clear guidance to assessment procedures and progression requirements and how to gain access to the University's complaints and appeals procedures.
251 The SWS noted that from time-to-time module descriptors were issues with students contact hours which were either incorrect or misleading and through separate inquiries the audit team was able to confirm that this was the case. The SWS also disputed whether the access non-specialist students enjoyed to sporting facilities was consistent with the claims made for it in the University's promotional documents. As noted elsewhere in this report the team took particular care to look into this matter and was able to establish that, in general, students were satisfied that access to sporting facilities was not a problem.
252 In the course of the visit, the audit team inquired into the University's measures to confirm the accuracy of the information it publishes for students. It was told that ultimate responsibility for the accuracy and currency of published information rested with the Registrar, and that departments, central units and the AD(T)s were involved in producing and checking the information made available to students. While there is no evidence to suggest that the University's published information is, or has been, inaccurate, the team considered that it would now be desirable for the University to clarify and makes more widely known the procedures to be followed at University, faculty and departmental level in checking and confirming the accuracy of published materials.
253 At the time of the audit, the University's VLE, Learn was in use by across the institution but there was also a parallel system, Co-Teach which had been established separately by the Department of Computer Science. Students spoke to the audit team enthusiastically about the easy access to authoritative and up-to-date information Learn provides. The team considered that this aspect of the Learn system constituted a feature of good practice in its own right.
Reliability, accuracy and completeness of published information
254 The SED provided a useful listing of the TQI the University is expected to provide in response to HEFCE's document 02/15, Information on quality and standards in higher education, and Final guidance 03/51 and where such information can currently be found. The University has established a TQI Action Group to oversee the development of TQI on its behalf. On the basis of the information in the SED, supplemented by discussions with members of the University during the visit, it appeared to the audit team that much of the information specified in HEFCE 03/51 was already available, although some material will requirere-organisation and re-formatting before it can be up-loaded to the HERO portal. The team were satisfied that the University's plans for meeting its commitments to provide TQI were progressing in line with the institution's expectations.
255 Of the individual components of the TQI information set, programme specifications were made available on the web before the audit visits, though not all were complete, and it appeared that they were not used routinely as a source of information about programmes of study, with many staff and students preferring to access the same information but in a different form in the handbooks and programme regulations. The TQI Action Group has acknowledged that programme specifications were 'essentially written for an academic audience rather than for prospective/current students' and that 'they would need to be developed in future both for publication and for a student audience'. The audit team encourages the University to seek ways of embedding the use of programme specifications more consistently across departments. At the time of the audit the University was working to modify the standard form it uses to capture comments and advice from external examiners in line with the advice offered in the Code of practice, published by the Agency, with a view to introducing a revised standard form in the current session. As noted elsewhere in this report, summaries of findings from external examiners reports are already made by faculty board secretaries. The University's has completed work on its Learning, Teaching and Assessment Strategy, but there are plans to review it and make some minor amendments.
256 On the basis of the information available to it, the audit team came to the view that the University was taking all reasonable steps to ensure that it would be able to meet its commitments to provide TQI to the national site when this is ready to receive data.
ISBN 1 84482 133 1
next >> Findings
Top
QAA updates
QAAtweets
QAAtube