Foreword
1 This is a report of an academic quality audit of the University of Nottingham (the University) undertaken by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA). QAA is grateful to the University and its partner institutions for the willing cooperation provided to the audit team.
2 The audit was carried out using a revised process approved by the former Higher Education Quality Council (HEQC), and endorsed by HEQC's successor body, QAA. The modified process has been introduced following completion in 1997 of the original national academic quality audit programme which began in 1991 under the auspices of the CVCP's Academic Audit Unit (AAU) and was subsequently taken over by HEQC in 1992. The principal purpose of this revised process is to offer an opinion on the extent to which individual institutions are discharging effectively their corporate responsibilities for the academic standards and quality of their awards and associated programmes of study. The process takes as its starting point the assumption that institutions have appropriate quality assurance policies and procedures in place, and also assumes that they can provide convincing evidence that these are working to good effect. The audit checks the extent to which this is the case and that the methods used are sufficiently reliable to continue to provide stakeholders with the necessary assurances for the future. The audit process focuses on four main topics: the institution's quality strategy; academic standards; the learning infrastructure; and internal and external communications.
Method and process
3 The primary source of documentary information available to the audit team prior to the visit about the University's quality assurance arrangements was an Analytical Account (the Account) prepared for the purposes of the audit. The Account provided examples of evidence used by the University to satisfy itself of the effectiveness of its procedures for the management of quality and standards. The University also supplied a number of supporting documents, including student prospectuses and information relating to quality assurance. Other documents available to the team were the CVCP AAU academic audit report of 1991; the HEQC validation audit report of 1993; published reports of the teaching quality assessments (TQAs) conducted by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), and subject reviews conducted by QAA. At a briefing meeting held to review this information, the team drew up a programme of meetings for the visit and requested a small amount of additional information.
4 The audit team visited the University from 27 November to 1 December 2000. For the duration of the visit the University made available to the team a base room containing the 236 documents referred to in the Account, and also provided access to the University's web site. The team held a total of 16 meetings with staff and students of the University. These meetings, together with the documentary material available to the team, provided the information, examples and evidence upon which this report is based.
5 The audit team comprised Professor E J Evans, Mr J A Forster and Professor P F Rogers; and Ms K A Powell, audit secretary. The audit was coordinated for QAA by Ms J M Cairns, Assistant Director, Institutional Review Directorate.
6 A brief guide, University of Nottingham - facts and figures 1999-2000 - prepared by the University is attached as appendix 1. A list of the University's collaborative partnerships, current as at November 2000, is attached as appendix 2.
Context for the audit
7 The University of Nottingham developed from University College Nottingham whose Charter of Incorporation was granted in 1903. The University itself was established by Royal Charter in 1948. In the academic session 1999-2000 it had 22,493 registered students (comprising 15,275 full-time, 6,407 part-time and 361 'year out'). Of these 18,129 were undergraduates, 2,543 postgraduate taught students and 1,793 postgraduate research students.
8 The University has three main campuses with the majority of students based at the University Park campus. In 1970 the University Medical School was established and was situated next to University Park, although the University's medical students are also placed at hospitals throughout the East Midlands. Most students from the School of Biosciences are based at Sutton Bonington, 10 miles south of Nottingham. As the University has expanded so construction of a third campus in 1997 was begun, with its first intake of students in September 1999. This new Jubilee Campus houses the Business School and the schools of Computer Science, Education and Continuing Education. In September 2000, the University of Nottingham in Malaysia (UniM) opened as a 'full and integral part of the University of Nottingham in the UK', although the University does not fully own the campus. In its first year UniM admitted 86 students to three academic divisions: Computing Science and Information Technology; Engineering and Business; and Management Studies.
9 The Account stated that in 2000-01 the University undertook teaching and research in 32 schools which are organised into six faculties: Arts; Law & Social Sciences; Education; Science; Engineering; and Medicine and Health Sciences. The Account also explained that the University operates as part of the Universitas 21 group of 18 universities across the world which have entered into an agreement 'to provide educational services supported by a strong quality assurance framework'.
10 The Account described the University as 'one of the leading research universities in the UK' and explained that in the most recent Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) the University's total of top-rated grade five research departments increased by nearly 50 per cent, from 11 to 16, and six of these obtained the star rating. The Account continued, 'we seek to build on the high standards we have achieved in teaching and research to enhance our national and international reputation'. The Account also explained how the Charter sets out both explicitly and implicitly the intentions of the University's founders. Included in the list of 'essential underlying principles and values' to which the Account claimed the University subscribed, were that 'in relation to teaching, teaching should wherever possible have a direct link with the research carried out by the teachers' and that 'in relation to the location of responsibility for action, wherever possible the exercise of responsibility should be devolved to a local level, provided that it is conducted within an agreed framework and is subject to appropriate report and monitoring'.
11 The Account stated that collaboration 'as expressed through validation and other similar activity [is] no longer appropriate as a strategic goal', and that the University had withdrawn from the majority of collaborative relationships. A discussion document on Protocol for collaborative agreements referred to 'our limited collaborative provision'. Full validation agreement is retained only with St John's College, Nottingham. However, the University has articulation agreements with six other institutions (five of them overseas) and offers joint awards with three (two of them overseas). The University's arrangements for overseeing the quality and standards of collaborative awards are explored elsewhere in this report (see below, paragraphs 21, 38, 40, 53, 54 and 55).
The University's Analytical Account
12 The University stated that the Account 'provides a critical and reflective self-analysis of our success in meeting the claims and aspirations set out in the Learning and Teaching Strategy', which had been 'the starting-point' for the Account. The Account described the main features of the institution in an extensive main text, together with substantial supporting evidence contained in a number of appendices. The Account stated that the views expressed in it may be taken as those of the University's Teaching Committee; a position which members of the Teaching Committee confirmed during the visit. The Account was divided into five main sections entitled: Context; the Management of Quality; Academic Standards; Learning Infrastructure; and Communications. With the exception of the Context section (which is predominantly descriptive) the other sections comprised separate 'descriptive' and 'analytical' sections. Within the latter, the University included comment on changes and prospective developments. Its analysis also included 'Improvement Points' as an indication that there are 'shortcomings in our present arrangements' and 'where further developments are planned'. These points were of two types, indications of developments in train which the University considered to be improvements and also, less commonly, suggestions for further improvement which had not yet been agreed. The Account indeed provided a comprehensive explanation of the arrangements for quality assurance, and set out both the University's wish to engage in critical self-reflection and a number of specific outcomes of that process. On significant matters in which the audit team found limited self-reflection in the Account, the University proved willing during the visit to engage in critical dialogue.
The 1991 academic audit and the University's response
13 The University of Nottingham underwent an audit by the CVCP AAU in June 1991. The 1991 report commented that the audit 'took place during a period of significant change in those management structures which will be closely involved with quality assurance in the future'. The University was commended for a number of activities, notably the work of the Teaching Quality Assurance Committee (TQAC) and 'the obvious enthusiasm and commitment of staff to quality control of teaching'. The audit also invited the University to give further consideration to a broad range of matters. It noted for example that 'existing quality assurance systems appear to be weak at the institutional level but relatively better developed at individual or departmental level'. It urged the University 'to move as rapidly as possible to a position where effective overarching quality assurance procedures are lodged in systems rather than in key people'.
14 The University responded positively to the suggestions made in the 1991 audit. In particular, its central quality assurance mechanisms were substantially enhanced. As a result, the Account claimed that the University believed that it now had 'a range of systems and processes for checking that agreed policies and procedures are complied with'. The audit team noted for example that the University published its first Quality Manual in 1995. The Manual has expanded in scope and is now in its third edition. It identifies the quality systems in place in the University, including those relating to collaborative provision, and provides a ready point of reference for both staff and students. A key feature of the Quality Manual is its use as a web-based resource. Users are warned that hard copy 'will very quickly become out of date as developments to policy and procedures are made'. The Manual is updated on the web each month by means of a What's new? section and the University sees this as a means of overcoming 'the traditional communications bottlenecks'.
15The 1991 audit report also recommended that the University gave further consideration to the new lecturers' courses, which at that time consisted of three pre-sessional days in September, and other matters linked to staff development. The Account described a programme of Staff Development and Accreditation for new lecturers which had started in 1990. Substantial further developments were made in the period 1996-1999 and the Account stated that the University believed that through such developments as the Training and Staff Development Unit (TDSU), now relocated to the Jubilee Campus, and its probation scheme, which includes a compulsory Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice accredited by SEDA, the University had 'addressed all issues raised' by the audit team around staff development, including induction procedures. In response to other matters which the University had been advised to consider further in the 1991 audit, the University had taken a number of steps to ensure that course evaluation procedures were improved. The Account stated that 'student feedback is achieved in a number of ways'. The Centre for Teaching Enhancement (CTE) manages a University-wide scheme for student evaluation of teaching (focused on the performance of individual teachers) and provides guidance to schools and individuals on the student evaluation of courses and student evaluation of modules schemes. The Account concluded, 'these are all the means by which students (by completing questionnaires) can air their views. This assists debate and evaluation at school-level and enables the school to act on the outcomes of the surveys'. The University has also attempted to address issues of widening access and participation by developing, via its Access and Participation Committee, an explicit Access and Participation Strategy.
The HEQC quality audit report on validation arrangements
1993 and the University's response
16 The HEQC quality audit report of April 1993 commented on validation arrangements and a number of recommendations were made. These included the suggestion that formal validation agreements should more fully reflect the University's particular relationship with each affiliated institution and that further consideration be given to determining how affiliate students might be helped to gain a clearer perception of their status as students of the University. The University has subsequently withdrawn from a large number of the 14 validation programmes which formed the basis of the quality audit report of 1993. The Account stated that the University now considers that its 'validation activity has been reduced to a minimum'. As a result of its review of available documentary evidence and from the outcomes of its visit, the audit team formed the view that the University had responded constructively to the recommendations contained in the 1991 and 1993 audit reports.
The University's quality strategy
Principles and objectives
17 The Account stated that the key aim of the University's quality strategy is 'to have effective means of ensuring that high quality and standards are set and maintained, and to improve continuously' and that the Learning and Teaching Strategy 'sets out how the University achieves this'. The Account explained that the 'Learning and Teaching Strategy sets out policies in relation to quality and standards, our claims as to how far these policies are already in operation, our strategy for change where change is needed for a policy to be fully delivered and the process by which policies once agreed and introduced, are maintained'.
18 According to the Account the University's main aim for learning and teaching 'is to sustain and continuously improve the high quality of our educational provision across all our campuses'. The University considers itself to be one of the leading research universities in the UK and seeks to enhance its reputation by building on the high standards achieved in teaching and research. Accordingly, the University Plan 'commits the University to provide a learning environment and teaching of high quality for all students and to set and maintain high standards for all its awards'. The Account stated that 'this can only be achieved by the effective management of the quality and standards of its learning and teaching provision'. The Account explained how the University had consolidated its core approach to the management of its quality and standards into its Learning and Teaching Strategy, which had been developed and agreed in 1995, and subsequently revised in October 1995 and February 1998. The University's Teaching Committee agreed to a further review and revision in 1999, some 18 months prior to the present continuation audit, and this was subsequently conducted in the latter months of that year and agreed in January 2000.
The University's central management and administration
19 The 1991 audit noted that 'existing quality assurance systems appear to be weak at the institutional level but relatively better developed at individual or departmental level' (see above, paragraph 13). The audit team therefore began its review of the University's arrangements for the assurance of quality and standards at the central level of its management and administration. The central management and administration of the University centres on the Vice-Chancellor and five Pro-Vice-Chancellors, including a Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Teaching Quality and Standards and Staffing. Pro-Vice-Chancellors also have responsibilities for particular faculties, although not in their own areas of academic specialisation. The Account stated that two key members of the University Management Group are the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Quality and Standards) who is also Chair of the overarching Teaching Committee, and the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Student Affairs). The Account also detailed the remaining membership of the University Management Group which meets weekly and which comprises the Vice-Chancellor, Pro-Vice-Chancellors, the Registrar and the Bursar. There is substantial cross-membership of key committees by Pro-Vice-Chancellors.
Central management and accountability for quality
assurance
20 The Account stated that Senate, which is answerable to the Council, 'is the supreme academic body' in relation to quality and standards. The University's core responsibility for quality assurance is vested in Senate. Although the work of most Senate committees is relevant to aspects of quality, for example, the Promotions and Academic Policy Committees, the core Senate group is the Teaching Committee. The Account described the Teaching Committee's terms of reference as, 'to advise Senate on the University's teaching, learning and assessment strategies and policies and the allocation of certain resources to achieve those strategies and policies, and monitor implementation of the University's teaching and learning strategies on behalf of Senate'. In support of the maintenance of quality, the Teaching Committee has two groups reporting to it: TQAC has particular oversight of 'quality assurance monitoring of provision' through the University Quality Audits (UQA); and the Teaching Enhancement Committee, which 'deals with the identification and dissemination of good practice in teaching'.
21 More generally, the Account described the ongoing oversight of quality assurance which is provided by the Undergraduate Studies Committee (USC) and the Postgraduate Studies Committee (PSC). These are 'sub-committees of Teaching Committee and have specific responsibility for the management of quality and standards, through the development of policy and its application'. The Academic Board for the Humanities (covering schools in Arts, Law and Social Sciences and Education), the Academic Board for Science and Engineering (covering schools in Science and Engineering) and the Faculty Board of Medicine and Health Sciences report to these Committees. The Account explained the specific remit of the Boards is 'to assure the quality and standards of academic provision in the schools allocated to them'. Further responsibilities ascribed to them are 'to provide responses to consultations by the Teaching Committee and its sub-committees relating to quality and standards issues, considering both internal and external reviews of schools and subject areas, and make recommendations when appropriate'. There is some overlap between them, not least in the connection between undergraduate and postgraduate taught courses, and there have been joint sessions as well as consideration being given to the organisational sharing of responsibilities. Concerning collaborative provision, the Account noted that 'in 1999 the Collaborative Courses Committee (CCC) was established as a joint committee of USC and PSC, with their powers as delegated by Senate'. The Account continued 'it has a particular remit to scrutinise the "learning infrastructure" element of collaborative proposals and existing arrangements, using a "collaborative checklist".
Overview of central management and accountability
for quality assurance
22 The audit visit confirmed that central systems for the management and enhancement of quality and standards have remained stable in recent years. Therefore as a result of their examination of substantial documentary evidence, and of their meetings with members of Senate committees and the University Management Group, the audit team was able to come to the view that it had overall confidence in the University's central approach to quality assurance.
The University's use of the QAA Code of practice
for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education
23 The Account explained that the University 'generally regards the QAA Code of practice as helpful' and that 'as far as possible the University's Quality Manual should be consonant with the precepts' in it by the time 'each set of precepts becomes mandatory'. During the visit the audit team learnt that the University had established a system for relating its own practice to the Codes of practice published by QAA, following a procedure established by the Teaching Committee a few months prior to the audit. The Quality Assurance Administrator in the Registrar's Department formally logs receipt of a new Code; it is considered by the Teaching Committee; and it is then passed on to the relevant University group or committee in order to relate it to current University practice and, if necessary, adapt such practice. While the team recognised this to be a relatively new procedure, it would wish to commend the University for establishing such a detailed process in order to ensure that its internal quality processes take due regard of national terms of reference for the assurance of quality and standards.
Recent developments in the devolved quality assurance system
24 The audit team noted that there had been substantial recent changes in the devolved organisation and management of quality and standards at the level of academic boards, faculties and schools and paid particular attention to them. A series of changes had taken place starting in 1997 with the reorganisation of small departments into schools, and the renaming of existing large departments as schools. Responsibility for the management of quality and standards at faculty level had been delegated to two new academic boards in 1999-2000, and the Board of the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences had been restructured to the same end. The role of vice-deans had been clarified and written down. The University considers that these changes have been essentially incremental and represent careful modifications to particular processes for the management of quality and standards.
The academic organisation of the University
25 The Account drew attention to the principles underlying the University's organisation. These included the 'extensive devolution of budgetary and quality/standards responsibilities to schools, with coordinating and monitoring processes at both faculty and central levels'. There is also 'a strong strategic and policy lead from the centre, while strategy and policy development is guided by consultation and consensus of both staff and students, where appropriate'. The Account described how at the time of the first audit, and up to 1997, the University had an organisational structure effectively composed of three layers - departments, faculties and a central organisation, the latter overseen by the Council and Senate, with certain Senate committees having particular responsibility for quality issues. Departments and faculty boards each had significant responsibilities for quality assurance, and budgets were allocated to the deans at faculty level, for allocation to departments. In 1997, there were substantial changes in the University's organisation, primarily relating to the reorganisation of some 71 departments into 31 academic schools (now to be 32) which became budget units. This change did not affect resource allocation in the Medicine and Health Sciences Faculty, which retained its budget unit, primarily for organisational reasons in part connected with its relationship to the National Health Service.
26 The Account explained that a school 'comprises a single discipline or a grouping of cognate disciplines in order to achieve an appropriate minimum in terms of staffing, students and resources'. Further, the Account described how a school is 'a budgetary unit for resource allocation and planning purposes, except in the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences where the Dean is the budget holder, and is advised by a strategy committee that includes all the heads of school in the Faculty'. At the same time the Account stated that there is 'no single or standard model for the internal organisation of schools', although there will 'normally be a Teaching Committee' and there 'will always be one or more Student-Staff Consultative Committees'. In each school the head of school has 'primary responsibility for all matters concerning the operation of the school, including responsibility for teaching quality and standards'. In addition, the Account explained 'both budgetary and quality responsibilities are also devolved to schools as far as possible'.
Modification of the University's quality assurance
procedures
27 The audit team accepts that following the reorganisation the University took the opportunity to modify its quality assurance procedures. The Account explained that until 1997, 'Faculty boards had a very broad remit, with quality and standards forming only a part of that remit'. The Account continued to discuss how 'internal and external demands regarding the development of teaching and learning strategies, policies and procedures placed considerable strain on the ability of faculty boards to deal effectively with such specialist business' and that it 'became more common for business committees of the parent committee to deal with routine business, and for individual cases to be dealt with by the vice-dean'. The Account acknowledged there had been 'some inappropriate variations in practice across faculties'. There was a perceived need to use the opportunity of reorganisation to make improvements. At the time of the audit, some specific procedures had only been in place for a limited time and it was, therefore, difficult for the team to establish that they were working effectively and judgements must be provisional. The University accepted this and stated that it would be reviewing the effectiveness of specific modified processes, such as the role of academic boards in its revised processes for course review and approval, when these had had an opportunity to bed in.
Accountability of heads of schools
28 Under this system, the Account made it clear that primary responsibility for the operation of a school, including teaching quality and standards, rests with the head of school, although patterns of organisation within a school may vary (see above, paragraph 26). The Account explained that the head of school is 'directly responsible to the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for their faculty, who acts with the Vice-Chancellor's authority'. The Account also pointed out that each Pro-Vice-Chancellor 'has responsibility for the schools from one or more faculties, which cannot be the faculty in which the Pro-Vice-Chancellor's own discipline is located'. During the visit the audit team noted that as schools are budget units, the administrative and other support for quality assurance, not least in terms of support offered directly to heads of schools by their own staff, can vary across the University, dependent not least on the financial status of a particular school. The team therefore enquired how this central plank in the maintenance of coherence between central and local oversight of the maintenance of quality and standards might be affected by the variation in funding arrangements for quality assurance at school level. In discussion with school and faculty administrative staff, and through examination of available documentation, the team found noteworthy the competence, commitment and capabilities of current staff (see below, paragraph 73). The University, in seeking to maintain and assure its present devolution of quality assurance matters to schools may, therefore, wish to consider requiring minimum levels of support for school-level quality assurance, whatever the resource constraints on a school, even if this were to be achieved through some system of central support.
Faculties and vice-deans
29 In the new structures the Account stated that apart from Medicine and Health Studies, deans and faculties do not now have resourcing responsibilities, yet deans do retain some responsibilities for quality, not least in matters of staff promotion. The Account however highlighted the 'important role in the University's arrangements for the management of quality and standards' of the vice-deans. The vice-deans are responsible 'for ensuring broad compliance with University policies on quality management' within 'the context of a new system of academic boards that are central to the University's quality assurance processes'. Each faculty typically has vice-deans for undergraduate and postgraduate studies and the vice-dean 'normally' acts as chair of USC and PSC in each faculty. At academic board level, the vice-dean is 'responsible for ensuring broad compliance with University policies on quality management and standards in regard to those matters that come within the scrutiny of the relevant academic board (while recognising that schools are primarily responsible for the implementation of these policies)'. The vice-dean also approves nominations for external examiners. Finally as members of the University-level USC and PSC as appropriate, vice-deans 'act as a channel of communication between USC and PSC and the academic board'. In their meeting with vice-deans and chairs of academic boards, the audit team was able to confirm the centrality of the role of vice-dean in articulating and transmitting quality and standards.
Academic boards
30 Two academic boards have been established, one covering the faculties of Arts, Education and Law and Social Sciences, and a second covering the faculties of Science and Engineering. The Account stated that the specific remit of these boards is 'to assure the quality and standards of academic provision in the schools allocated to them'. During the visit the audit team understood that the University believed that, because these academic boards cover areas of academic endeavour that are substantially wider than the faculties, they represent an important means for promoting good practice and assuring wide oversight of quality issues. At the same time, the team understood that the boards were also intended to address the University's previous concern over the consistency of quality assurance across faculties.
Evaluating the effectiveness of the modified quality
assurance procedures
31 Throughout the visit and in its Account, the University had contended that its modified systems were fully appropriate for the requirements of quality assurance. In reviewing that claim, the audit team found substantial support for the newly evolving system across much of the University, together with a belief that the combination of the two new academic boards, with the responsibilities of the vice-deans, was indeed appropriate for exercising quality assurance in the schools. The team formed the view that it broadly supported the University's contention that its modified systems were fully appropriate for the requirements of quality assurance, not least in terms of the evident advantage in having cross-faculty involvement in those quality assurance arrangements. The team, however, found that such involvement does not extend in the same way to the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, which effectively constitutes its own academic board, and the University may therefore wish to encourage increased cross-faculty involvement in this Faculty. Also, the team learnt that much of the University's confidence in the quality of its provision stems from the high academic standards and commitment of its staff, supported by effective staff development, mentoring and appraisal arrangements. During the visit, the team was able to collect substantial evidence and engage in discussions that would support the University in claiming with some confidence that the quality of its provision was in no small way dependent on the high standards and commitment of its staff (see below, paragraphs 42, 44, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68 and 73).
The review of schools and courses
32 The Account stated that the University has 'a range of systems and processes for checking that agreed policies and procedures are complied with'. The audit team therefore set out to review a range of processes by which the University maintains its confidence in the quality of provision in individual schools, in particular a system of reviews and audits of degree programmes and of schools. These processes are underpinned by the University's Quality Manual and also include external examiners' reports, reports from QAA subject reviews and accreditation visits (see below, paragraphs 47 and 50) and Diagnostic Questionnaires (see below, paragraphs 34 and 35). At the level of individual degree programmes, each school is required to undertake an annual review of each programme, although such a review may not cover all of the features of a programme in any one year, nor is there a requirement to report the results of the review to the relevant academic board or faculty. Thus, year-to-year responsibility rests firmly with the school. There is, in addition, a more comprehensive five-yearly review of courses that does require reporting to academic board or faculty, with provision for reporting through to central committees.
33 The Account drew attention to the requirement on schools as resource centres to update their plans on an annual basis. Discussion of the plans take place between the Pro-Vice-Chancellor and the head of school. The 'key points arising out of the plans are reported to the University Management Group'. While these are concerned with a wide range of resource issues, they interrelate with research strategy and matters of teaching and learning. In a review of a number of such plans the audit team learnt that the teaching and learning sections of school plans typically indicate the intentions of schools and are therefore of value in the quality assurance process. Nevertheless the school plans do not constitute reviews of actual performance, nor do they involve externality, and they may not necessarily identify matters that need to be addressed.
34 In respect of a review of performance and an identification of matters which need to be addressed, the Account described the evolution of a UQA system from the Faculty Audit introduced in 1991. UQA 'provides a systematic check on schools' level of understanding of, and compliance with, the Quality Manual'. The Account claimed that the 'key change' in this evolved system was a 'gradual move from a "developmental" stance to one of compliance checking' while throughout trying to emphasise the identification of good practice. While a UQA takes place 12 to 18 months before an external subject review, this would have entailed a seven to eight year UQA cycle which the University did not feel sufficient, and discussion had taken place about an appropriate form of 'interim audit'. The University has now decided to align course review, UQA and resubmission of courses as programme specifications with the shorter QAA academic review cycle. There is provision for more detailed auditing if required, as well as for unscheduled audits if particular circumstances warrant such action.
35 The Account explained that UQA involves an internal team of auditors drawn from a group of approximately 60 academic and administrative staff and students, who receive UQA-specific training. Prior to a UQA, a school completes a thorough Diagnostic Questionnaire and the UQA team is able to use this, and other documentation, to focus during the discussions with staff and students at the audit visit on particular aspects of a school's work, if there is any evidence of difficulty. Once a UQA report on a school has been completed, an immediate response is required together with a follow-up report six to 12 months later. All UQA results are considered by TQAC, which reports to Senate's Teaching Committee and thence to Senate, as well as passing on findings to other policy making bodies if appropriate. UQA reports are also sent out to the appropriate academic board. In examining the whole UQA system, including Diagnostic Questionnaires and UQA reports, the audit team was able to discuss the development and current working of the system with University auditors. From those discussions and from available documentation, the team formed the view that the system was already operating with considerable effect, and noted especially the commitment of auditors and the engagement of academic, administrative and student members of UQA teams. The University is therefore to be commended for the UQA system as a whole, and particularly for the cross-University nature of the system and the level of training which is made available to auditors, as a means of monitoring and establishing compliance with its quality procedures across the institution.
36 Nevertheless, the examination of course reviews and school audits during the visit gave rise to other particular concerns. In those areas of the University's activities that are subject to review and approval from professional and statutory bodies, the audit team was not able to find evidence of the systematic use of the results of such external reviews in the course review and UQA process. The University will no doubt wish to consider the further integration of the findings of such reviews conducted by external professional and statutory bodies, as they continue to maintain and monitor the level of assurance provided to the central University of its quality and standards, by course reviews and school audits. Furthermore, the University may wish to consider additional benefits which the annual course reviews might yield in terms of providing a means of obtaining immediate and regular feedback on the quality of provision. During the visit the team learnt that annual course reviews are not comprehensive and do not go beyond the confines of particular schools. The University may wish to consider developing further the annual course review into a systematic reporting process that can be passed on to the relevant academic board. In addition, the University may wish to consider the expansion of the annual course reviews with brief annual reports on courses, and combine them with full UQAs on a seven to eight year cycle, coupled with five year reviews and possible interim audits, in order to ensure a rigorous system able to identify immediate issues and longer-term factors in its maintenance and management of quality provision.
Course approval
37 The University's Quality Manual stated that the institution's basic policy for course approval is scrutiny 'by appropriate bodies outside the originating school'. Proposals for new courses normally originate in schools, but may also be in response to external factors such as requirements of employers. Following internal school consideration, a formal course submission document is then presented to academic board which has responsibility for detailed examination before making a recommendation to USC or PSC. These Committees tend to concern themselves with matters of principle, but all of the examining groups can call for further information or clarification. The audit team learnt that the course approval mechanism thus required detailed faculty-level consideration by academic board, a system which ensures cross-faculty inputs at an early stage in the development of the course. The team understood from their discussions that the course approval mechanism was supported by staff; that staff were familiar with the processes; and staff found them effective. Overall, the team were of the view that the University's course approval system is appropriate for the structures, policies and organisation of the institution. Additionally, although this system had undergone recent development, not least as a result of the clarification of the initial responsibilities of schools and the roles of the academic boards, the team had confidence in this aspect of the University's quality assurance system.
Quality assurance for collaborative provision
38 The Account stated that the University has a relatively limited system of collaborative provision, 'with the only substantive area of validated activity comprising certificate and degree courses in Theology at St John's College' and a number of relatively small and specialised arrangements. The development of UniM is seen very much as an additional campus of the University, operating in a somewhat different environment but involving University of Nottingham staff and following quality assurance procedures that are virtually identical to those at the UK campuses. Nevertheless, the University has established a UniM Quality and Standards Committee which has 'a particular brief to scrutinise and advise USC and PSC as appropriate on the adequacy of resources and the learning infrastructure'. During the visit the audit team learnt that the University has put substantial resources into UniM, and is setting levels of quality assurance that are, in the team's judgement, more rigorous than those in UK-based campuses of the University of Nottingham, not least in terms of issues such as the frequency of staff-student consultation. Nevertheless, the University will no doubt wish to continue closely to monitor and review the particular environment of UniM in order to ensure success. While UniM will be subject to the normal processes of course review and UQA, the University will wish to consider the advice offered in relation to annual course review, (see above, paragraph 36), particularly in relation to the newly-established courses there, by which an annual review process might feed directly into appropriate academic boards.
39 In discussions with senior staff, the audit team received somewhat diverse views as to the likely rate of expansion of UniM. Most commonly, the planning indicated a fairly rapid yet linear rate of expansion over the coming five years, from a figure of 86 in 2000-01 through to 475 in 2001-02 and to approximately 2,300 three years later. The team was of the view that the current UQA system, with the modifications recommended in this audit report, would be appropriate to such a development, although UniM is envisaged as an international campus and, as such, requires appropriate student support. There were indications, however, that the rate of expansion might tend towards the exponential rather than the linear, leading to a campus with 6,000 - 8,000 students within eight years, drawing on recruitment from many countries, not least in the Middle East. If this were to happen, the University will wish to evaluate the possible strains on the quality assurance processes which might result from this latter type of expansion and will, no doubt, in any case, maintain careful monitoring of the situation.
40 During the visit the audit team understood that quality assurance in respect of St John's College has been progressively integrated into that of the University. The team found that the relationship was stable and generally effective in terms of quality assurance although there was scope for further integration, not least in terms of having clear lines of responsibility. The University has a limited number of other forms of collaborative provision and there is some risk, although the team found no evidence that this was the case, that the small size of many of the programmes means that they receive relatively little attention, not least in terms of ensuring broad equivalence in matters such as personal tutoring. Further the University will no doubt wish to ensure continuing quality of educational provision and student support for the final cohorts of courses that are being withdrawn.
The effectiveness of the University's quality
strategy
41The Account stated that the University does 'not believe there is any one single best way' to ensure 'high quality and standards and to improve continuously'. In the course of the visit the audit team learnt that the University has made a number of changes to its quality assurance procedures in the past three years, consequent in part on changes in academic organisation and, in part, from a perceived need to make improvement. The team reviewed both the changes and the current practice and offered advice through a number of recommendations for further improvements. Nevertheless, the team came to have overall confidence in the systems as they are now established, and would wish to encourage the University to monitor and review these coherently in line with the present mechanisms for internal audit established within the institution. The University may wish to consider the involvement of external participation in the process.
The definition and maintenance of academic standards
Principles and strategy
42 The Account stated that the University 'aims to set high standards' for all its awards and drew attention to a number of key elements for establishing, maintaining and reviewing standards. Among the 'key factors' in ensuring that high standards were maintained for all University awards were 'the expertise and high quality of [its] academic staff', 'the expertise and high quality of [its] administrative, clerical and technical staff' and 'the expression of a commitment to high quality learning and teaching at the most senior management level', 'making heads of school directly accountable to the Vice-Chancellor', 'appropriate policies and procedures' and 'means of ensuring that they are working as intended'. The Account also explained that 'the setting of standards rests in the first instance on a shared understanding by academic staff, moderated by systems which provide a set of internal points of reference and allow these to be calibrated against standards in comparator institutions'. The Account drew attention to the role of the vice-dean 'in the University's arrangements for the management of academic quality and standards' (see above, paragraph 29).
Setting standards
43 The Account described the University's offer of 'a broad range of awards, both in terms of subject spread and level' and it continued 'since we aim to provide research-led teaching, this provides a major driver for both the wide subject spread and for the provision of courses at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels'. The University has adopted 'as far as possible' a framework of awards and common sets of regulations, firstly in relation to modular undergraduate courses (encompassing all of them except the medical degree course), and subsequently for taught master's degrees, postgraduate diplomas and certificates. The Account also commented that 'an essential component for the successful modularisation of our courses was the introduction of a single set of degree regulations' setting out the rules for admission, progression and award of all degree courses across all faculties. The Account claimed that the introduction of such regulations was 'an important first step forward in ensuring that students in different departments were treated equitably'.
Admissions
44 In documentation related to its committee structure, the University stated that the authority 'to determine policy and make regulations concerning admissions to, and continuance on, undergraduate courses' is delegated to USC. Similar powers concerning postgraduate admissions are delegated to PSC. The Account explained that these committees ensure that heads of school (or those acting with their authority) 'set out clear criteria for each course based on academic and, where appropriate, professional considerations, and provide clear, accurate and adequate information on courses and awards to potential applicants'. Within this framework, and within the overriding ethos of the University reposing confidence in its high-quality staff, detailed implementation is delegated to school level. The audit team was satisfied by the University's own view that the admissions process was working well, and being supported by 'a good balance between academic and administrative staff'.
Course and module approval
45 The Account explained that following the decision to develop modular programmes in 1992, the University introduced a standardised system for course and module submissions and also a common credit tariff for undergraduate courses. The Quality Manual requires all schools to have mechanisms for developing and critically appraising new course proposals and a uniform procedure is in place for the completion of course submission documents at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels. Course submission documents must include objectives in the form of student learning experiences and student achievement on successful completion. Detailed scrutiny of course and module proposals is the responsibility of the faculty to which the school belongs. Academic board (or its relevant undergraduate or postgraduate sub-committee) ensures that proposals comply with University policies and regulations and then submits them for approval to USC or PSC. The audit team was initially confused about these arrangements, but received reassurance on this point in discussion with vice-deans and the chairs of academic board who provided clarification on the nature of the roles. The Account had stated that 'at academic board level, the vice-dean is responsible for ensuring broad compliance with University policies on quality and management and standards in regard to those matters that come within the scrutiny of the relevant academic board (while recognising that schools are primarily responsible for the implementation of these policies)'. In discussion it was represented that the practice of vice-deans managing course approval for schools other than their own was of positive benefit since the new procedure was designed to ensure a degree of comparability of treatment concerning course submission. The team also heard that the new system at the same time increased opportunity for dissemination of good practice concerning articulation of standards. The team was persuaded of the cogency of the arguments presented. Nevertheless, the University will no doubt wish to continue to monitor the benefits of the new system which had been in place for less than a year.
Degree classification
46 The Account stated that the University aimed 'to apply conventions for the award of first degree classifications and other course regulations uniformly and fairly' but that it had discovered 'over 30 different conventions within the University for computing degree classifications from the marks'. A Standards of Degrees Working Party had been established in 1996, which had consulted faculties and reported to USC. This consultation brought to light concern, among other matters, that 'parallel subjects' might be 'giving different percentages of firsts'. The Account explained that in 2000 the University agreed to a new system of degree classification. Classification is now determined by one of three different methods, based respectively on arithmetic means, an ordinal scale, and thresholds which translated marks into numerical integers. Each school was required to indicate which method it intended to use, with effect from 2001. In discussion, the audit team was made aware of the different traditions which underpin degree classifications in different subjects, as well as hearing that external examiners had offered conflicting advice in attempting to assist the University to resolve the difficulty. The Account further explained how 'it would not be feasible to take a simplistic approach to the proposition that the distribution of degree classes between disciplines should be roughly equivalent within the University'. The University has therefore determined to analyse in 2001 'the classifications across schools and faculties in order to assess the extent of the differences'. Nevertheless the University will wish to remain vigilant in ensuring that the new classification system removes the possibility of inequity between students, and fulfils its commitment within the Account that 'students will have the best chance of understanding how their own degree class had been determined'.
The role of external examiners
47 The Account stated that the University placed 'great store on the efficacy of external examiners' views in relation to maintaining the comparability of standards between our courses and those across the sector'. Also, the University's Quality Manual explained that 'the external examiner's report is a key document in the quality assurance process'. The Quality Manual set out, too, how the University is to encourage its external examiners to comment on a wide range of issues concerning assessment, programme design and teaching quality in so far as this can be revealed by student performance. In practice, the audit team found, in reviewing external examiners' reports, that they tend to concentrate on examination performance. The Account also suggested that schools which had a number of five-credit modules would be encouraged to reappraise their modes of teaching and assessment in order to address the matter of 'disproportionate assessment process load'. The University will wish to ensure that this reappraisal does not reduce the range of valid assessment opportunities. Especially since the University sees the external examiner's report as a key document in its quality assurance processes, it will wish to consider the desirability of requiring external examiners to comment on a wider range of assessment, as most of their reports in practice, when commenting on assessment, have tended to concentrate on the evidence provided by examination work.
48 The Account indicated that 'final responsibility for the assessment of students lies with Boards of Examiners'. During the visit the audit team judged that procedures concerning the composition and work of boards of examiners were generally secure and appropriate. However, it noted in the Quality Manual that it was possible for awards to some joint honours undergraduate students to be determined by the examination board of one school only, on the receipt of definitive marks from the other. The team was concerned about the issues of equity and comparability which this practice raised. The University may wish to consider the desirability of requiring representatives from both schools, including external examiners from both, to be present at examination boards concerning awards to joint honours undergraduate students.
Assessment
49 The Account noted that the University had experienced practical problems in completing the process of undergraduate examination assessment efficiently, referring to difficulties related to 'examination congestion'. The University's evaluation was confirmed by the evidence of a number of external examiners' reports which commented on the limited time available to them for completion of the process and consequent difficulties in meeting the range of demands placed upon them. During the visit the audit team learnt that the University intends to make more use of computer mark processing for examinations from 2001 in the Faculties of Science, Engineering and Medicine and Health Sciences. The team recognised the efforts being made by the University to deal with this severe practical problem.
Professional accreditation
50 In its review of documentation the audit team found that a number of schools and faculties receive reports from professional and statutory bodies (PSBs) after accreditation visits. During the visit the team learnt that there was no agreed mechanism for consideration of these reports outside the school which received them. The University may wish to consider a more standardised approach to the treatment of such evidence within its central quality assurance system.
Programme specifications
51 The Account drew attention to the fact that the University is about to begin a process of resubmission for approval of all its taught courses and modules in order to ensure that these take note of relevant national benchmarking statements and define specific learning outcomes. The Account also noted that some schools will need more support than others in making the transition to new forms of course description. Funds for this purpose had been earmarked via CTE to support the work. The Account explained that the process of revalidation will take place over a four-year period. Existing pro formas for courses and modules will be replaced by programme specification templates. These will require learning outcomes to be specified and an explanation of how assessment tests these outcomes. The audit team did not examine one of these templates but instead reviewed some current course submission documentation which revealed some variation in practice in the way course objectives were described. Some closely anticipate the language of learning outcomes; others do not. In particular, the team, as a result of its review of course submission documentation and assessment requirements, would wish the University in its forthcoming review of the curriculum to consider the desirability of reviewing how modules at different levels of its undergraduate qualifications framework reliably assure progression in student learning. The team would therefore encourage the University to take forward its initiative concerning course specification in order to ensure that the standards required by courses and modules are more consistently and explicitly articulated across the University.
Overview of standards
52 The Account had argued that 'in a large institution with a wide subject base there are different cultures and a need for some flexibility'. The University therefore 'tried wherever possible to recognise these differences and to have policies which are sufficiently flexible to meet these different needs'. The University's approach has therefore been to combine devolution of responsibility and authority to academic boards and schools with central oversight and accountability at institutional level. During the visit the audit team formed the view that academic standards at the University are generally secure. However the security is dependent on substantial recent changes which are still under development. The University will therefore wish to consider a close review of the new systems over the next two to three years as staff and students become accustomed to their use.
Standards in collaborative provision
53 The Account explained that the University had established a CCC in 1999 (see above, paragraph 21) whose pattern and scope of work had taken some time to establish. Part of the remit of CCC was 'to approve on behalf of USC/PSC proposals for courses involving collaborative partnerships with such institutions and/or involving off-campus delivery, to ensure that standards and quality of such courses and awards are the same as equivalent courses and awards delivered on the University campus'. A review of the documentation from this Committee indicated that procedures for course review should operate in the same way as for courses taught at Nottingham. The University required partner institutions to provide 'clear quality assurance information...to demonstrate that off campus/collaborative provision will provide equivalence in standards to traditional University of Nottingham-based provision'. Thus the collaborative programmes fall within school reviews which are considered annually at faculty-level meetings involving the relevant schools. Formal presentation to the relevant faculty committee is intended to occur at five-year intervals. During the visit, however, the audit team learnt that knowledge and implementation of this review procedure was inconsistent, not least perhaps because as yet there is no guidance on course review and monitoring in the section of the University's Quality Manual that deals with collaborative provision. The University will therefore wish to give further attention to setting out the procedures for review, so as to ensure that there is an explicit procedure defined in the Quality Manual, and that the outcomes of monitoring and review are reported to the University centrally on an annual basis.
54In discussion with staff involved in collaborative provision the audit team learnt that the University attempted to achieve the same levels of student feedback by much the same mechanisms as in Nottingham. The University also used local tutors to elicit informal student feedback. Further the team learnt that Nottingham staff regularly visit institutions with whom the University has collaborative provision. Most institutions were visited at least once a year although there did not appear to be a formal timetable for visits. These visits are also an opportunity to ensure that the University's Quality Manual is being used to assure standards of provision. The team noted the University's evaluation that St John's College, 'the only remaining substantive area of collaborative provision' in partnership with the University, (see above, paragraphs 38 and 40), has the potential to achieve close integration with University systems, particularly when matters such as the University system for the reporting of annual monitoring, have been addressed.
55 In the course of the visit the audit team also learnt that several collaborations had been allowed to operate recently without having signed agreements. In the light of the precepts contained in the QAA Code of practice on collaborative provision, the University will no doubt wish to ensure that in future all collaborative agreements should be signed prior to the commencement of activity. With regard to collaborative provision in general however, the team was of the view that the mechanisms now being put in place by the institution had the potential to achieve the close equivalence of standards which the University seeks, but that it was too early in the process of their implementation to make a clear judgement about their effectiveness.
Learning infrastructure
Student support
56 The Account stated that the University's overall objectives in relation to teaching and learning are 'to help students take responsibility for their own learning and to develop their capabilities, skills and competencies essential for further study and future employment'. The Account explained that the University encouraged students to be successful by 'helping them to think critically and develop a deep understanding of their subject area(s), and by helping them, to reflect on their personal and academic development and to learn how to learn'.
Personal tutoring
57 The Account stated that among the 'essential factors' in the University's strategy for setting and maintaining high quality and standards are the 'high quality and commitment of our students'. The Account went on to explain that the University's stated objective is 'to nurture the well-being and personal development of all students'. In addition the Account set out the University's intention of providing a personal tutor system that makes academically-based support and guidance available to all students and pointed to the University's belief that the tutorial system is 'an important feature of Nottingham courses'. However, the Account acknowledged that the level of support in different schools is 'variable' and that there are no University-wide standards. In discussion the audit team found that monitoring of this area of support is infrequent and irregular since it is dependent on a combination of three modes of expression which are not as yet fully aligned; student expressions of concern, the institution-wide Student Omnibus Survey (see below, paragraph 59) and the periodic UQA. The Account stated that the new Personal Academic Record Process (PARS) would be 'the route to setting minimum standards and records of personal tutorial contacts'. However, during the visit, the team heard differing views from academic and administrative staff as to the likely success of the PARS system in achieving the setting of standards in this area.
58 In further discussion the audit team learnt that to address these concerns the University has agreed to develop a new pastoral policy which, amongst other matters, will set minimum standards for the provision of personal tutors for students on taught courses and clarify and develop the roles of those with responsibilities in this area. The team noted this initiative. In view of the importance attached to personal tutoring in the overall setting and maintaining of standards within the institution's Learning and Teaching Strategy, the team would urge the University to implement in a timely and effective manner this new pastoral policy. In this way, the University will be able to ensure the achievement of minimum standards in the provision of tutors for students on taught courses.
Other student support services
59 The Account explained that a new student administration system is being implemented which makes use of the recently developed Student Administration System for the University of Nottingham (SATURN). The Account also set out the range of specialist support services for students covering finances; counselling; study support; accommodation; health and child care; careers advice; disability support; and support for international students. There are close links between the University in the provision of this support and services offered by the Students' Union. The Account drew attention to the University's commitment to 'the need for equity of treatment for all students as paramount' and at the same time pointed to the University's vehicle for monitoring the operation of these services which is through the annual collection of student opinion in the annual Omnibus Survey. The Account explained that it had initiated a Student Omnibus Survey, which is organised by the University's survey unit, to collect general feedback from a random sample of students about the operation of its central services. After analysis the results are published and given wide circulation. The data is used to improve the performance of central services and also provides a benchmark against which to measure performance on an on-going basis. During the visit, the audit team came to understand that this was a powerful tool which had potential for monitoring and enhancing quality. The University is therefore to be commended in general for the activities of its survey unit; and in particular for the implementation of the Student Omnibus Survey from which data can be used in the setting of benchmarks for the institution as a whole and which can monitor on a regular basis the quality and standards of the student experience.
60In discussion with senior staff, the audit team learnt that the provision of support for students on the UniM Campus is also an important concern for the University and has been addressed in the first instance through the appointment of a Student Support and Welfare Officer. The team learnt that the campus has few students as yet and is at an early stage in its development. Nevertheless the University, in wishing to secure the same standards of provision as on the Nottingham campus, will no doubt choose to involve professional staff from Nottingham at an early stage and on a continuing basis, with the planning and implementation of the student support services on the Malaysian campus.
61 During the visit the audit team was able to review the data collected through the University-wide benchmarking survey about the quality of student support, as well as hold discussions with students and with service providers. This led the team to form the view that the provision of these services was well-managed and effective. The team noted too the particular quality and value of support offered to international students. The University is therefore to be commended for its setting and maintenance of overall standards within its student support services as a particular means of ensuring the success of its Learning and Teaching Strategy.
Widening participation
62 The Account stated that the University had recently begun a review of initiatives intended to widen participation by increasing enrolments from under-represented groups and that this work is overseen by the Access and Participation Committee, which reports to the Teaching Committee. The audit team learnt that an internal review had confirmed that the undergraduate intake 'includes proportionately few students from non-traditional backgrounds'. So far initiatives had been taken by the University 'aimed at undergraduate 18-21 year old students, mature students and postgraduates'. The Account explained that 'efforts made in recent years in the areas of collaborative provision, flexible learning and programmes introducing sixth-form pupils to university life, have increased the focus on 'access' as a central part of admissions policy. The aim was now to reach agreement on a University-wide framework which would leave policy details to schools and faculties. Proposals will be considered by the Teaching Committee. A University Access and Participation Strategy is already in place, which encourages both student mentors working in local schools and also Summer Schools designed to attract students from less privileged backgrounds. During the visit the team learnt of a number of significant initiatives that the University was making to improve access and participation. Current policy had been effectively communicated to staff with responsibility for admissions and staff spoke with enthusiasm about plans for widening access, particularly since the market for mature students was now reducing.
Staff policies and probationary staff
63The Account explained that 'our objective is to recruit and retain academic staff who engage in high quality research, scholarship and teaching'. The Account described how the University normally operated a three-year probationary period for all new lecturers and explained how, whilst on probation, lecturers have a structured process of support and review of their work under the auspices of a probationary committee. During the probationary period and at the end of three years, the Probationary Committee assures itself that new staff are achieving the required standard of teaching proficiency, research progress and administration input. At the end of the period, the great majority of probationers have their appointment confirmed. Probationary lecturers are supported through being assigned to a trained mentor and through taking part in the Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice (PGCAP), which has been accredited recently by the Institute for Learning and Teaching. The audit team noted that mentors act in support of their mentees' work on the PGCAP as well as in a broader capacity. The PGCAP was introduced in its present form in 1998-99, and virtually all of the probationary staff in the University are required to take part in it. Discussion with probationary staff and an examination of the evaluation suggested that the scheme was well-liked. In general, the team considered the design and operation of the PGCAP to be particularly well-adapted to the needs of the University and its staff, with due weight being given to prior learning and experience, and with significant elements based on the development of a portfolio. However, the team noted that probationary clinical staff are only required to take one module of the PGCAP and were told that this was because of the heavy pressures on clinical staff at early stages in their careers. The University may therefore wish to require clinical staff to undertake more modules within the scheme in order to ensure equality of teaching and learning provision across the University. The University is however to be commended for its general management of probation and in particular, the appropriateness of the University's PGCAP and its effective use of peer observation through the use of mentors.
Appraisal and staff development
64 The Account stated that there is a 'structured appraisal system' which 'provides developmental appraisal for the individual by their line manger'. The appraisal process is 'based on a structured discussion of previous performance against agreed goals and the setting of agreed goals for the following period'. The earlier AAU audit in 1991 singled out staff development as being an area particularly in need of attention. The 1991 report raised questions about reporting lines and indicated that the link between staff development and teaching quality 'needed to be clear and demonstrable'. The Account explained that 'the lines of authority were clarified' and 'subsequently a Teaching Committee was formed and the Head of Training and Staff Development was included 'in attendance'. The Account set out the measures which the University had undertaken to enhance the development of its staff. These included a significant extension of the role and work of TSDU; as well as its relocation in 1999 to the Jubilee Campus. There had also been new activities at school level including 'the designation of school-based staff development officers, and school-based staff development plans'. The latter are audited every five years through the University's quality assurance process. In addition to work in Nottingham, the audit team ascertained that staff from TSDU had visited UniM and undertaken work with new staff appointed there.
65 During the visit the audit team learnt that the involvement of two academic staff from each school throughout the University as trained auditors for the internal quality assurance process had significant beneficial effects in spreading awareness of good practice and a knowledge of quality assurance processes across the University. Within the Faculty of Medicine the team ascertained that there was a significant commitment to increasing the teaching skills of staff and that a special introductory teaching course -TIPS - had been provided for all clinical teachers - including those who were not academic staff of the University, though the team were of the view that TIPS is not an adequate substitute for the participation by probationers in the PGCAP. In addition, since 1994-95, schools have been able to bid annually on a competitive basis for funding to develop special staff development initiatives. In discussion the team learnt that the University has placed emphasis on the quality of its staff as it has pursued its quality strategy, and that this quality is underpinned by the provision of development and enhancement that seeks to enable staff to respond positively to the continuous pressures on them to deliver high quality teaching in a time of significant change. During the visit the team were able to confirm on the basis of the evidence available to them that these wide-ranging initiatives were working effectively. The University is therefore to be commended for its ability to assure itself of the quality and standards of its provision through its commitment to the development of its staff and the effective means it uses for providing this.
The enhancement of teaching
66 The Account stated that the University's objective is to 'encourage the dissemination of good practice in teaching through appropriate means such as workshops, peer observation of teaching and mentoring'. The University had appointed in 1993 a Director of Teaching Enhancement on a professorial equivalent grade, responsible to the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Quality and Standards), and responsible for the Teaching Enhancement Office. That Office has now been renamed as CTE, 'to emphasise its expanded role' and is divided into two divisions, 'Research and Development' and 'Implementation and Support', working under the direction of the Teaching Enhancement Sub-Committee of the Senate's Teaching Committee. In addition, the Account highlighted the University's introduction in 1998 of the Lord Dearing Awards for Teaching and Learning, 'which are intended to provide public recognition of excellence in teaching'. The Awards are made by the Teaching Committee and 31 have been made in the two years the scheme has run. The audit team noted the range of specific initiatives undertaken by the University to underline the importance of maintaining and enhancing the quality and standards of its provision by the enhancement of teaching and pedagogical skills through the work of CTE.
Postgraduate teachers
67 The Account made no reference to the development of hourly-paid teachers such as postgraduates acting as demonstrators or tutors, and teaching assistants. During the visit the audit team found that training in teaching has been available through the Graduate School since the autumn of 2000. Take up of this training varied widely between schools and there seemed to be no University-wide policy relating to development for this group of teachers. In order for the University to maintain the quality of its teaching provision across all of its programmes it will wish to consider requiring all postgraduates with teaching responsibilities to be given training in the support of student learning.
Promotion and reward
68 The Account stated that 'we recognise that in appropriate circumstances a full contribution to the University may be made by individual staff who focus on teaching and administration rather than research'. The Account also summarised the policy whereby staff are appointed to senior lectureships based on the demonstration of evidence for exceptional performance in at least two of the three areas of research, teaching and administration, one of which must be teaching. It pointed out that to ground the case firmly on evidence, the outcomes from the Student Evaluation of Teaching process that apply to the candidate must be included in the promotion application. In discussion the audit team ascertained that this was indeed the policy and found that senior staff were able to identify staff who had been promoted on the grounds largely of their capability as a teacher. However, during the visit, the team was told that there was a significant number of more junior staff who questioned whether teaching capability would be rewarded on the same basis as research capability, given the emphasis throughout the University's mission on research capability. The team was unable to verify this from the evidence available, but nevertheless encourages the University to continue its efforts to inform staff that the quality of teaching is highly regarded in decisions affecting promotion.
Physical resources - space planning and new buildings
69 The Account set out the University's belief that 'the well-being of students and staff and their ability to learn and work effectively are substantially enhanced by a favourable environment'. The Account described a variety of planning and management processes that help to ensure these aims are secured. These include the University Plan, the work of the Space Management Committee, and the linkages to school plans. With regard to teaching rooms, the Account described the work of a sub-committee of the University's Teaching Enhancement Committee, the Teaching Room Standards Committee, which has determined a set of standards for teaching rooms and the means of ensuring that these standards are met. In discussion the audit team heard that these processes worked effectively and were responsive to issues identified through such means as school plans, the outcomes of subject reviews, and internal quality assurance activities.
70 The new Jubilee Campus close to the main University campus was opened in December 1999 and has received several construction-industry and architectural prizes for its design and construction. The audit team learnt that the University set up an effective process to take into account the views of users in determining improvements needed once the building had come into use. This process included a specialist review of disability matters which identified improvements needed to make it easier and safer for those with a range of disabilities to use the Campus. During the visit the team noted that the recommendations from this review had largely been implemented.
Library and computing
71 The Account set out the University's commitment to providing a high quality information technology service and to maintaining and expanding high quality library resources. The Account also explained that 'library services work with schools to identify and meet the information needs of research, learning and teaching through the provision of access to print and manuscript collections, electronic data sets and services and local, national and international document delivery services'. These and other related services are managed by one integrated provider - the Information Service Directorate - which was formed in 1996. Several sources of feedback on the quality of this provision are available to the University. For example, the University's internal programme of quality assurance considers judgements on its adequacy from the standpoint of individual degree programmes, as does the external subject review process. However data from these sources are gathered only periodically. Annually, more generalised views are available from the Omnibus Survey of student views. From discussion the audit team understood that there is also the potential for retrieving feedback from the annual course review process, and the work of staff-student liaison groups.
72 In reviewing such feedback as was currently available, the audit team considered that user opinion of provision of both library services and information technology is generally high and that users and providers found investment in these services is responsive to their needs. Inevitably there are some areas that can be improved, and the University itself acknowledged in the Account, that within the context of a generally high standard of provision, core texts are sometimes only available on a limited basis, the opening hours of the smaller libraries are too limited and there are in some areas limitations on access to PCs. In noting these minor concerns the team was encouraged to learn from the Account that the service is also committed to making itself more aware of, and answerable to, the needs of its users through the introduction of an annual User Satisfaction Survey and through the development of an undergraduate and postgraduate charter for library services.
Administrative support for quality
73The Account discussed in some detail the provision of administrative support for the management of quality and standards in the University. This is provided by staff who are part of the office of the Academic Secretary (and based both centrally and in faculties) and also by staff employed directly by schools. The Account acknowledged that the larger schools are able to employ administrators in this role, whilst the smaller ones rely on senior clerical staff. During the visit, the audit team learnt of the very positive and helpful working relationship that had developed between faculty-based and school-based administrators. Further the team were of the view that those two groups of administrators performed an essential role in implementing the University's quality assurance processes. In discussion it became apparent to the team, that those schools which lacked resources to employ a dedicated administrator in this role might find it harder to implement fully the University's developing quality agenda. The University may therefore wish to consider ensuring that all schools are able to employ dedicated administrative support to assist in the processes integral to the maintenance of quality assurance.
74Overall the audit team had general confidence in the standards through which the University sought to implement its Learning and Teaching Strategy by maintaining quality in its staff appointments and development, its admission of students who were able to succeed in their chosen programmes, and in particular its provision of a range of support services for them, its enhancement of teaching and pedagogical skills, and its reflective use of library and information technology in a well-maintained environment. As the University continues to implement its newly emerging policies designed to widen access and participation and continues its expansion in Malaysia, it will no doubt wish to pay particular attention to the maintenance and monitoring centrally of the infrastructure which it has so far carefully developed. In this way the University will ensure that its learning infrastructure continues to support its quality strategy whose aim is 'to have effective means of ensuring that high quality and standards are set and maintained'.
Internal and external communications
Communication processes and publications
75The Account argued that 'the most difficult part of introducing change through new or significantly amended policy is to communicate it to those who will operate it, and to make sure that it is being applied as intended and comprehensively'. During the visit, the audit team found that staff at all levels in the University were engaged actively in the life of the institution through a wide number of committees and groups operating at departmental, school and faculty level. A noteworthy feature is the creation of a 'University Forum' which meets termly to discuss items of current interest and which is open to all members of staff. This engagement through committees and meetings is reinforced by the high quality of electronic and paper communications with staff. The use of the web is particularly well-developed with the great majority of policies and the papers relating to University committees readily available.
University promotional literature
76 The Account stated that definitive information about courses is provided in the University's Undergraduate Prospectus and Postgraduate Prospectus and faculty handbooks and taught courses handbooks (for postgraduates) which are produced centrally under central editorial control. The Account indicated also that schools generate publicity for courses and the Quality Manual stated clearly that responsibility for accuracy and clarity of publicity for this material rests with the appropriate head of school, though there is some 'low-key' monitoring. In discussion, the audit team ascertained that schools would not expect to have to seek approval for the content of the promotional material that they produced - whether related to Nottingham-based, UniM or collaborative provision - in the UK or overseas; nor could the team during the visit find evidence of the 'low-key' monitoring. The team formed the view that it would be important for the University centrally to exercise more direct oversight of the material produced in its name that described courses leading to awards of the University and that it may wish to consider more overt monitoring of the material produced by schools, particularly during the annual course review process.
Student involvement
77 The University stated that in considering student participation it started from the perspective that students are adult learners who deserve to be treated with the same respect as the University would expect from them. To fulfil this principle, students have representation on school-based student-staff liaison committees, academic boards, and all University-level quality committees. Student representatives are also appointed as members of internal audits of provision; cooperate fully over the provision of student advisory services; and provide training for the student members of staff-student liaison committee meetings. The University had also in 2000 made available to students the Quality Manual via the web. In the Account the hope was expressed that 'the spreading of knowledge and understanding of these matters among students will enhance the effectiveness with which they will be able to comment on and participate in improving the quality of the experience they receive'. In discussion with both staff and students the audit team learnt of the close and effective collaboration between the Students' Union and the University. In particular, the team heard about the joint provision of training by the Students' Union and the University for student course representatives and the development of the UNU Academic Forum as a means of facilitating discussion between students and staff on quality matters from the students' perspective. The University is to be commended for ensuring specific and effective means of engaging in partnership with its Students' Union in order to maintain and enhance the quality of the Nottingham educational experience and the standards of its awards.
Student feedback on courses and teaching
78 During the visit the audit team learnt that there are four main formal vehicles by which feedback is obtained on the quality of provision of teaching and learning: a centralised student evaluation of teaching scheme (SET); school-based staff student consultative committees; any feedback mechanisms on modules and courses used at school level or below; and the Omnibus Survey. The Account explained that SET is a University-wide scheme introduced in 1998-99 which enables students to evaluate at least one quarter of each teacher's teaching every other session. The data is processed centrally and the output is used to inform the identification of outstanding teachers as a basis for the Lord Dearing Awards, and for promotion and appraisal purposes. The team were of the view that this mode of student evaluation as it cohered with University recognition of outstanding teaching achievement provided an unusually rigorous vehicle for identifying and rewarding exemplary teaching. It also provided a means of identifying and remedying teaching performance that falls short of the necessary standards.
79 In discussion with students and staff, the audit team understood that the University placed significance on the work of school-based student-staff consultative committees (SSCC). The Quality Manual set out requirements for the operation of these, specifying a minimum frequency of meetings and requirements for publicising the minutes. From their discussions with staff and students the team ascertained that this is regarded as an important process but evidence reviewed by the team pointed to variability in the working of these specified processes in different schools and there was concern from some of the students interviewed that the minimum frequency of meetings set out is inadequate. During the visit the team also learnt that feedback processes below the school level, for example at the level of department or module, are very much dependent on the inclination of individual module teams. The team learnt of very good practice on some modules involving the regular use of student feedback to enable continuous improvement of courses to take place, based, at least in part, on students' concerns. In other places, the team learnt that no feedback other than that obtained through the SSCC was collected. The team formed the view that given the central role of this process, the University will wish to give consideration to increasing the specified minimum frequency of meetings of SSCCs. The team were also concerned that apart from the periodic internal quality audit there was no systematic way by which the University monitored the work of these committees. The University will therefore wish to ensure that in future it conducts more effective annual monitoring of the operation of those committees so as to confirm that they operate in accordance with central University policy.
Complaints
80 The Account indicated that the University has had a formal written complaints procedure since 1995, which had been revised in 1999-2000 based on the outcomes of extensive consultation across the University. The new procedure is set out clearly in the web version of the Quality Manual and Guide for Students. The audit team learnt that because the initial steps in the procedure are devolved to the level of schools the University had perceived the danger that there would be no central perspective on the volume and nature of complaints. To avoid this risk, in 1998, the University introduced the requirement for schools and service units to make a formal annual report to the Student Affairs Committee setting out details of each complaint and the way in which it was resolved. Further information on complaints is also provided routinely to the University through its Student Omnibus Survey (see above, paragraph 59). Recently, in the light of a University review of the relevant section of the QAA Code of practice on complaints and appeals, the University has identified the possible need to transfer all academic matters from the complaints procedure to the appeals procedure. Both in the Account and in the records of the Teaching Committee, the University has recorded its belief that it is constrained by its statutes from changing the role of the visitor; nevertheless, it is giving active consideration to making the procedures immediately below that level more explicit for students. In discussion with student representatives the team learnt that there was general satisfaction with the procedures, though there was strong support for attempts to provide more explicit guidance for students during the final stages of the procedure (that is, immediately prior to the involvement of the visitor). Following the University's extensive reviews of the complaints' procedures that had taken place over the last five years, the team came to the view that the University now had an effective and well-publicised procedure which it was keeping regularly and effectively under review.
Appeals
81 The appeals procedure is described fully in the Quality Manual and Guide for Students with different processes being required for different types of appeals. However, students appealing about other academic matters have to use the complaints procedures (see above, paragraph 80). Consequently, in order to ensure that the procedure complies with the QAA Code of practice, the University has identified the need to extend its present scope so that it deals with all academic matters. The Account explained that like the complaints process, the appeals procedure is kept under regular review by the University and is revised frequently. Though the procedures are described fully in the Quality Manual and Guide for Students, the University may wish to review the somewhat cursory description of the procedure in the Guide for Student Handbook, particularly against the well-structured account of the complaints process in the same document (see above, paragraph 80). The team was of the view that it will be important to have an improved description in the Guide for Students when the University comes to require complaints about academic matters to be dealt with as appeals.
Conclusions
82 The University of Nottingham is one of the UK's largest universities with some 18,000 undergraduates and 4,500 students on postgraduate courses. These are taught on three campuses in and around Nottingham (including the recently-opened Jubilee Campus) and the University also offers a substantial programme of continuing education operating throughout its region. The University has, in the main, well-equipped campuses including good IT and library provision and provides a high level of support for students through its central services.
83 The University's approach to quality management combines devolution of responsibility and authority to academic boards and schools with central oversight and accountability at institutional level. The academic board organisation, especially with its cross-faculty emphasis, clearly has potential for effective quality enhancement, and the University may wish to consider extending its current arrangements in this regard to the Board of the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, which does not currently have cross-faculty membership in the same way. A number of changes in the University's strategic approach to quality management have been recent. In particular, the University has undertaken a major academic re-organisation during the period 1998-2000 and its consequences are still working through the system. They have involved both a re-casting of responsibilities within new structures within the University, and the production of a revised Quality Manual setting out procedures in a more extended and explicit form. The University's emphasis on the calibre of its staff in pursuing its quality strategy is underpinned by the provision of development and enhancement systems that have enabled staff to respond positively to the continuous pressures on them to deliver high quality teaching during a time of significant change. Staff at all levels seem to be actively engaged in the life of the University and this engagement is reinforced by the institution's outstanding communication with staff, particularly that mediated through the web. The University itself believes that the maintenance of the quality of education and standards provided in its name rests on the strong foundation of its academic and administrative staff and this reliance appears securely grounded.
84 The University also believes that the maintenance of standards is vested in a combination of high quality staff and students and other positive features. These include effective external examination procedures, accreditation by professional and statutory bodies, and the cross-school nature of its academic boards. A key assurance mechanism is the University's own centrally-organised University audit system in which schools are subject to substantial periodic internal audit. Audits are scheduled to take place every five to six years, with provision for intermediate auditing when deemed necessary. This process maps onto annual and five-yearly course reviews undertaken by schools. While the findings of this audit report generally support the University's claim to secure the standards of its awards through this combination of features, it is also clear that there is still some way to go before all recent changes are fully bedded in. A coherent monitoring of the new systems within the University's established internal audit processes would be desirable over the next two to three years as staff and students become accustomed to their use. Nevertheless the audit indicates that academic standards at the University are generally secure.
85 Apart from a relationship of formal affiliation with St John's College, the University has few students on courses run with partner institutions, but it is developing a major initiative, the University of Nottingham in Malaysia. UniM is not regarded by the University as collaborative provision but is seen as an additional campus of the University itself, intended to operate similarly to those in Nottingham. In continuing to assure the quality of education and standards of awards as UniM continues to expand, the University will wish to ensure that the special quality systems that it has set up specifically there remain in place and are well-used.
86 An audit of the University's collaborative provision was undertaken by HEQC in 1993, but since then the University has reduced the number of such collaborative arrangements and focused on developing a higher quality of interaction with those that remain. Within the last two years the arrangements for setting-up and reviewing provision have changed significantly, in parallel with changes to on-campus quality assurance. However, the details are not as explicit for collaborative provision as they are for that on-campus, and it is advisable for annual course reviews of collaborative provision to be reported beyond the school concerned. Even though provision is small, the University will wish to ensure that the collaborative activities are monitored closely on an annual basis if it is to retain confidence in the standards of its awards.
87 In conclusion, the University has recently made a number of significant changes to its quality assurance procedures. These have been undertaken partly as a consequence of academic reorganisation and partly because of internal concerns over the effectiveness of the previous quality assurance system, especially at faculty level. There is evidence of innovation at a number of levels, not least in initiatives such as the Lord Dearing Awards for teaching excellence. The University has substantial and varied strengths and the evidence to date indicates that its current organisation with its associated quality assurance arrangements should prove to be effective. Overall, the findings of this audit are that the University's approaches to quality management support broad confidence in its ability to continue to discharge effectively the quality of the education that it provides, and to secure the standards of the awards made in its name.
Points for commendation
88 The audit team wishes to commend the University in particular for:
- the quality of its communications with staff and students, particularly the very effective use which it makes of the web (paragraphs 14, 75 and 77);
- the University Quality Audit, including its strong student participation and the training which the University provides for auditors (paragraphs 20, 34 and 35);
- the robust systems which have been put in place to review sections of the QAA Code of practice in order to facilitate adherence within the University (paragraph 23);
- the activities of the University's survey unit (paragraph 59);
-
the quality of student support services
(paragraph 59); - the management of probation and the development of probationers (paragraph 63);
- its commitment to the development of its staff and the effective means it uses for providing this (paragraphs 64, 65, 66 and 68);
- its provision for the enhancement of teaching across the University, including systematic central institutional support including the giving of the Lord Dearing Awards (paragraph 66);
- the close and effective collaboration between the Students' Union and the University (paragraph 77).
Points for further consideration
89 As it continues to develop its systems and arrangements for assuring the quality of its educational provision and the academic standards of its awards, the University may wish to consider the advisability of:
- extending the involvement and role of staff from other faculties on the Faculty Board of the Medical School (paragraph 31);
- strengthening the scope of the annual course review and its required submission to academic board (paragraphs 32 and 36);
-
introducing coherent monitoring and review, in line with the present
mechanisms for internal audit established within the institution, of
the efficacy of its evolving quality assurance systems, including the
level of administrative support given to heads of schools to support
their key role in the process of quality assurance
(paragraphs 41 and 52); - clarification by the Quality Manual of the procedures for the monitoring and review of courses within the University's arrangements for collaborative provision, and means of ensuring that the outcomes are reported centrally on an annual basis (paragraph 53);
- requiring external examiners to comment on a wider range of assessment than examination work (paragraph 47);
-
systematic integration of PSB reports into the University's quality assurance
systems
(paragraph 50); - considering, during the impending review of the curriculum, how modules at different levels within the University's undergraduate qualifications framework reliably assure progression in student learning (paragraph 51);
- timely and effective implementation of the new pastoral policy to ensure the achievement of minimum standards for the provision of tutors for students on taught courses (paragraph 58);
- requiring all postgraduates with teaching responsibilities to be given training in the support of student learning (paragraph 67);
- continuing its efforts to inform staff that the quality of teaching is highly regarded in decisions affecting promotion (paragraph 68);
- centrally exercising more direct oversight of the material produced in its name which describes courses leading to awards of the University, and to consider more overt monitoring of the material produced by schools, particularly during the annual course review process (paragraph 76);
- increasing the specified minimum frequency of meetings of the staff-student consultative committees and ensuring that there is effective monitoring of the operation of these committees within stated University policy on an annual basis (paragraph 79).
Appendix 1*
University of Nottingham - facts and figures 1999-2000
The present University started with the establishment of the Adult School in 1798 and the opening of the University College, Nottingham in 1881 on a site in the City Centre, with the Charter of Incorporation granted in 1903. After 1945, there was a greater demand for university education, leading to the establishment of an Institute of Education and the awarding of the Royal Charter in 1948 establishing the University of Nottingham. A School of Agriculture was established when in 1947 the Midland College of Agriculture at Sutton Bonington merged with the University. In 1964, a grant was awarded to the University to establish a Medical School in 1970. In 1995 the Mid-Trent College of Nursing and Midwifery merged with the University Department, and subsequently the present School of Nursing was formed.
Expansion continued throughout the late part of the century. The new Jubilee Campus, situated 10 minutes from University Park on a former industrial site, opened in September 1999. In September 2000 the University opened the University of Nottingham in Malaysia (UNiM) based in Kuala Lumpur. In the immediate future the new National College for School Leadership will be co-located on an extended Jubilee Campus.
Mission
The University of Nottingham is committed to excellence in the advancement and communication of knowledge. It aims to advance knowledge by undertaking research of international standing across a wide range of disciplines. The University aims to communicate knowledge by providing a rich and varied learning experience for students in a research-led environment, by staff at the forefront of their discipline equipping students with a deep understanding of their subject, a critical approach and skills relevant to their future careers.
In addition, the University aims to:
- work with regional, national and international partners to enhance its research and teaching and apply the outcome of its research;
- be a welcoming, flexible and developing institution, responsive to economic and social change and having appropriate regard for social inclusion;
- respond appropriately to the development of new technologies, especially in the area of information technology.
Faculties
Faculty of Arts
Faculty of Law and Social Sciences
Faculty of Education
Faculty of Science
Faculty of Engineering
Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences
University statistics 2000-01
Number of students registered 2000-01
| Faculty | |
|---|---|
| Art | 2,703 |
| Law & Social Sciences | 4,599 |
| Education | 4,945 |
| Science | 4,696 |
| Engineering | 2,305 |
| Medicine & Health Sciences | 4,271 |
| No Faculty (Nottm) | 138 |
| UNIM | 86 |
| Total | 23,743 |
Gender
| Full-time | Part-time | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Male | 52% | 63% | 45% |
| Female | 48% | 37% | 55% |
| Total | 100% | 100% | 100% |
Mature students
| Full-time undergraduate population aged 21 or over on entry | 6.1% |
| Part-time undergraduate population aged 21 or over on entry | 74.5% |
Domicile
| UK | Other EU | Overseas | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Undergraduate | 16,901 | 440 | 1,515 | 18,856 |
| Postgraduate (taught) | 1,862 | 242 | 838 | 2,942 |
| Postgraduate (research) | 1,178 | 189 | 578 | 1,945 |
| Institutional Staff 2000-01 | Full-time | Part-time | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of staff employed by the institution | 4,003 | 1,501 | 5,504 |
| Number of academic/research staff | 1,773 | 119 | 1,892 |
*as supplied by the University of Nottingham
Appendix 2*
University of Nottingham
List of the University's collaborative partnerships as at November 2000
| Type of Course / Partner | Subject |
|---|---|
| Validation | |
| St John's College, Bramcote, Nottingham | BA in Ministry |
| MA in Theology of Mission & Ministry | |
| Cert/Diploma in Theology Ministry | |
| Cert/Diploma in Theology of Mission & Ministry | |
| Professional Certificate in Pastoral Care | |
| Professional Certificate in RE Policy | |
| Professional Certificate in RE Practice | |
| Professional Diploma in RE | |
| Diploma in Religious Education | |
| MA in Religious Education | |
| Instituto Politecnico Castelo Branco, Portugal | MEd in Education |
| Franchises | |
| The University of Nottingham does not offer franchise programmes | N/A |
| Articulation | |
| Arab Academy for Science & Technology & Maritime Transport | BEng/MEng Mechanical Materials & Manufacturing Engineering |
| Alexandria, Egypt | BEng/MEng Electrical Engineering |
| Thammasat University, Bangkok, Thailand | BEng & MEng |
| Electrical Engineering, Civil Engineering | |
| Chemical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering | |
| INTI College, KL Malaysia | BEng & MEng in Electrical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Mechanical Engineering |
| Information Technology Institute, Egypt | MSc in Information Technology |
| Informatics Holdings Ltd Singapore | BSc in Information Technology |
| Sheffield Hallam, Hull, Loughborough (IGDS) | MSc in Materials Engineering |
| Joint Awards | |
| University of Birmingham | PGDIP/MSc in Power Electronics and Drives |
| University of Birmingham (IGDS) | PGDIP/MSc in Food Science |
| University of Natal, Durban, South Africa | EdD in Education |
| National University of Singapore | LLM in International Commercial Law |
| Universiteit of Maastricht, The Netherlands | LLM in European Law |
| University of Bielefeld, Germany | LLM in European Law |
| Srinakharinwirot University Thailand | MPharm in Pharmacy |
| Off-site Delivery | |
| Hong Kong (off-site delivery) | MEd, (in service) in Education, EdD in Education |
| Singapore Productivity and Standards | BoardMaster of Business Administration Programme |
*as supplied by the University of Nottingham
Top
QAA updates
QAAtweets
QAAtube