Foreword
1 This is a report of an academic quality audit of the University of Paisley (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 for the audit was an Analytical Account (the Account), prepared by the University, which described its procedures for the management of quality and standards. The Account was submitted to QAA in advance of the audit, together with a number of supporting documents including the University's Strategic Plan, prospectuses and student guides, and documentation on institutional organisation and quality procedures. Other documentation available to the audit team included the report of the HEQC quality audit published in 1995 (the 1995 report); reports of the teaching quality assessments conducted by the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council (SHEFC); and reports from professional and statutory bodies, including the National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Scotland, provided with the agreement of the University. Following a briefing meeting held to review this information, the team proposed a programme of meetings for the visit, together with a request for additional documentation.
4 The audit team visited the University from 11-15 December 2000. The University made available to the audit team a base room containing well-organised sets of its working papers and internal reports. In the course of the visit the team met the Principal; the Vice-Principal; the assistant principals; the secretary; the deans of the faculties and the associate deans; the Academic Registrar and other senior officers; heads of the schools; heads of divisions; members of the University's teaching, administrative and support staff; and undergraduate and postgraduate students. The team is grateful to all those who made themselves available to meet it.
5 The members of the audit team were Dr R P T Aylett; Mr K P Griffiths and Professor F G McIntosh, auditors; and Ms T A S Barron, audit secretary. The audit was coordinated for QAA by Dr D W Cairns, Assistant Director, Institutional Review Directorate.
Institutional context
6 The University of Paisley developed from the Paisley Technical College and School of Art, founded in 1897. In 1950 the College became a Scottish Office Central Institution, funded directly through the Scottish Office. From 1966 the institution delivered programmes of study leading to awards of the former Council for National Academic Awards, (CNAA). Following the passage into law of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 the institution was designated the University of Paisley. The University operates on three campuses - Paisley, Ayr and Dumfries - the latter developed as a result of an initiative taken forward in partnership with the University of Glasgow and supported by SHEFC. In 1999-2000, 8,541 of the University's students were registered for study on the Paisley campus (81 per cent); 1,703 were registered for study at Ayr, at the campus of the former Craigie College of Education (16 per cent), and 233 at Dumfries, based on the Crichton University Campus (two per cent).
7 The University draws the greater part of its students from south and south-west Scotland, where many communities experience high levels of unemployment and social disadvantage. The University is committed to extending access to higher education to these communities and to addressing the needs of life long learning. In 1999-2000, 2,764 of the University's students were registered for part-time study (29 per cent of the total, not including students registered as completing postgraduate and research studies).
Governance and management arrangements
8 The Court of the University is responsible for overseeing its governance and management. Responsibility for the quality of the University's educational provision and the academic standards of its awards rests with Senate, which has delegated authority to its Policy and Resources Committee (PRC), its Academic Standards Committee (ASC), and the Teaching and Learning Committee (TLC) to implement policies and procedures on its behalf. TLC is responsible for 'maintaining an environment in which good practice and innovation is disseminated and staff secure the necessary support for effective teaching'. According to the Account, TLC works closely with ASC and, like ASC, is chaired by the Vice-Principal.
9 ASC is charged 'with ensuring the effectiveness of scrutiny and enhancement [of the University's academic provision] and with providing for Senate a strategic overview of the University's quality systems and how they need to develop'. ASC has established a Quality Assurance Review Group (QARG) to monitor the effectiveness of the University's quality assurance arrangements and make proposals for improvements; an Advisory Group on Distance Learning and, shortly before the present audit, an Internal Audit Subgroup (IAS).
10 The Research Degrees Committee (RDC) is responsible to Senate for the standards of research degree awards, and the Research Board is responsible for maintaining the University's infrastructure for the support of research degrees, the enhancement of the University's research culture, and the provision of training for research students and staff. The Research Ethics Committee considers the ethical implications of particular research proposals and all issues concerning the ethical implications of the investigation of human subjects. The Research Policy and Funding Committee has responsibility for allocating funding received from SHEFC and for developing policy for the enhancement of the University's research profile.
11 The Principal is the Chief Executive of the University and is responsible to the Court for the University's management. He is supported in his work by a Vice-Principal; three assistant principals; the University Secretary; a Registrar and a Director of Finance. Executive responsibility for academic standards and quality matters resides with the Vice-Principal. One Assistant Principal is responsible for the management of the Ayr Campus, one for Research Strategy and the third for the management of the Crichton University Campus. Prior to 2000-01, the University operated with a management structure in which its five faculties had been led by appointed deans. Under this arrangement, the deans and the 13 heads of the teaching departments remained active in teaching and research.
12 The University restructured its internal management arrangements in the course of the 1999-2000 session, with the final decisions on the nature of the new structure being confirmed in 2000. In its new arrangements, the University's central committee structure has been retained unaltered; however, the number of faculties was reduced from five to four (one of which is the Business School). As part of the same changes, the former departmental structures within the faculties were discontinued and teaching staff were regrouped into schools and divisions. The University's current Strategic Plan describes the objectives of the restructuring as being to: achieve larger planning units than departments; allow for some meaningful budget autonomy for faculties; promote efficient and economical support structures; and to assist in breaking down artificial barriers to interdisciplinary programmes and flexible modular pathways.
13 Under these new arrangements, responsibility has been delegated to deans for the operational maintenance of the quality of academic provision, and for ensuring that the academic standards of awards are safeguarded within their respective faculties. Deans discharge the latter aspects of their responsibilities chiefly through heads of school or division as appropriate, for whom they act as line managers. The increased responsibilities of deans have been recognised by designating their posts as full-time; appointments to these posts have been made on a three-year, fixed term, basis. Each Dean is supported by a faculty executive, the membership of which includes the associate deans and a faculty secretary. Deans report directly to the Principal and since August 2000 have been members of UMG.
14 Within the University's new arrangements, faculties are responsible for resource deployment and quality management, and schools are responsible for 'external subject profile', for links with other providers of the subject for which they are responsible, and for providing pastoral support and guidance for students. Within schools, module coordinators are responsible for the quality of delivery of a specific module and programme leaders are responsible for the delivery of programmes leading to named awards. Divisions are responsible for the delivery of teaching and support of learning. Divisions broadly correspond to Learning and Teaching Committee (LTC) groups which, in the University's quality arrangements, are responsible for managing the quality of all modules within a given area. LTCs had been established under the previous, departmentally-based, management system (see below, paragraph 33).
15 The Account stated the University's view that its restructuring had made it possible to create divisions and schools which map more closely onto the subject groupings defined by QAA and used in the UK-wide Research Assessment Exercise. The University also considers that the new structures it has adopted will enable decisions to be taken on resource allocation which are more directly informed by local knowledge of quality and enhancement needs. To accompany its new structures, the University has introduced a new model of resource allocation. In its previous model, departmental staffing levels were determined centrally, using student numbers, and application of the model was monitored by PRC on behalf of Senate. Under the new arrangements, central allocation of resources has been retained, but the University believes that 'the new, larger faculty units of resource will give more opportunity for a strategic redeployment of resources at this level'. Only the passage of time will enable the value of this point to be established. A note of the University's current configuration, provided by the University in the form of 'facts and figures', is attached to this report as appendix 1. A list of the University's collaborative partnerships as at 16 October 2001 is attached as appendix 2.
Previous quality audits
16 The University participated in an HEQC quality audit in 1994. The report of the audit, published in April 1995, commended a number of aspects of the University's quality arrangements including, inter alia: the existence of 'a culture of quality which is accepted at all levels'; the dissemination of the University's Quality Assurance Handbook; the work of QARG; its high level of commitment to the quality of learning and teaching; the systematic comparison of programmes across the University; and the overseeing of standards by faculties.
17 Among other items the 1995 report recommended the extension of the University's review procedures to encompass a wider review of the academic work of departments and faculties; reviewing the balance between staff development policies and practices and the role and impact of TLC. The University was also recommended to consider the merits of drawing more fully on available internal and external experience in seeking comparisons of procedures and outcomes, and of monitoring and enhancing academic standards on distance learning programmes.
The Analytical Account
18 Preparation of the Account was led by the Vice-Chair of ASC, on its behalf, detailed drafting work being carried out by the Registry. Drafting took place over more than six months, with various versions of the draft being given wide circulation. Following review of the final draft by UMG, the Account was considered and endorsed by Senate. In addition to the Account, the University provided the audit team prior to the briefing with its Quality Assurance Handbook, its Strategic Plan 2000-2004, its Regulatory Framework for the Maintenance of Quality Standards of Courses and Programmes, (the Regulatory Framework) and copies of its prospectuses and other promotional and information materials.
19 As noted above, the University had restructured shortly before the commencement of the audit and it would have been helpful to the audit team to have had more information on how this had affected faculty-based committee arrangements, although it was understandable that this was not available, and the description of the University's approach to the management of its learning infrastructure might helpfully have been expanded. In several passages in the Account the team noted that the terms 'quality' and 'standards' were used as equivalents (see below, paragraph 91).
20 The Account provided a starting point for the audit, setting out the University's perceptions of the strengths and limitations of its current arrangements, and identifying a number of limiting factors which, it considered, needed to be addressed for improvements to be made. In general terms the Account understated the complexity of the University's present quality arrangements and, in particular, did not assist the audit team to understand the interplay in the University's current arrangements between modules, programmes and subjects (see below, paragraphs 26-29).
Strategy for quality management
Introduction
21 The Account stated that the basis for the University's quality strategy continued to be as set out for the 1994 HEQC audit:
'quality assurance through peer review - a collegiate process that [is] internally and externally referenced to ensure awards that [are] relevant, professionally and academically valid, and comparable with others across the sector; quality assurance as a developing system - that [is] sensitive to indicators of performance, aware that quality in learning is developed in the process of education, and responsive to student need; and quality assurance as a process involving all staff - combining maximum devolution of responsibility with central monitoring of process and the creation of information systems that [ensure] comparability of standards and transparency across the institution'. [This strategy has] 'required structures which ensure that all staff [understand] the norms for standards across the sector, [are] aware of the standards and expectations of their subject disciplines and [engage] with them in ways which [result] in institution-wide learning and enhancement'.
These statements are consistent with the position stated in the University's Quality Assurance Handbook and its Staff Handbook, that all teaching and support staff have a responsibility for the maintenance and enhancement of academic standards.
22 As noted in paragraph 15, the University has sought to develop its internal quality arrangements in ways which will allow them to mesh effectively with the external arrangements for Academic Review developed by QAA. In its recent internal reorganisation, therefore, the University has sought to articulate its modular systems with QAA's arrangements for subject review, which are based on subject units. Similarly, the University has sought to develop processes for internal periodic reviews of subjects ('subject health reviews') which will mesh with those being operated in Scotland since Autumn 2000 by QAA, under Academic Review.
23 The Account identified a number of recurring themes in debates within the University on quality arrangements since the publication of the 1995 report. These included:
- the need for a more flexible and modular structure to meet the needs of a more diverse student body;
- the need to be able more easily to make comparisons with quality and standards across the sector in higher education; and
- the need to integrate combined awards students more effectively within University structures.
The Account noted 'an insistence that the University maintain its basic approach to quality, that of delegation of responsibility, within the new modular based structure' and stated that the approach the University had adopted to 'quality assurance...seeks to combine a rigorous process of central audit with the maximum delegation of those directly responsible for teaching delivery'.
24 In his Introduction to the Account, the Principal emphasised that since publication of the 1995 report the University had experienced continuous change, including changes to its composition, to its portfolio of provision and its organisation and management, and to its funding. Twice in his Introduction the Principal emphasised that among 'the more significant aspects of change have been...the marrying of a strong course-based tradition, particularly for students in professionally related disciplines such as teacher and nurse education, with a flexible modular approach, more appropriate for other students'. It followed from these changes, he suggested, that at the time of the audit 'a number of the University's key processes [were] in transition'.
25 The Principal's Introduction in the Account alerted the audit team to the need for it to understand the relationship between the University's 'strong course-based tradition' and more recently introduced modular arrangements. At the same time, the Account drew the team's attention to the University's intention to introduce 'single and joint honours in subject based degrees' in 2002, providing an additional level of complexity in the University's arrangements. In order to contextualise its enquiries, therefore, the team sought to understand at the outset how the University had introduced modularisation; how 'programmes', 'courses', and 'modules' related to one another; and where matters stood in respect of the University's intention to move to subject-based degrees.
Modularised and programmatic provision
26 The description of the University's arrangements for quality management in the Account stated that in 1995 the University had adopted a 'module-based teaching unit' as the basic element of its educational provision, and described the subsequent development of 'subject-based Learning and Teaching Committees (to which all modules were linked for quality assurance purposes)'. The Account also stated, however, that at the time of the audit the delivery of most provision continued to be organised in the form of 'programmes', a term which carries several meanings in the University's Regulatory Framework including: the 'approved curriculum followed by an individual student'; the curriculum 'defined by the regulations of a validated programme'; and 'one of a number of standard routes available within a validated programme or a scheme structure'. In retrospect, it appeared to the team that the latter two of these definitions were sufficiently close to one another in meaning for the answers it received to some of its questions to be capable of more than one interpretation. For future internal and external discussions it might be helpful to the University for use of the term 'programme' to be more closely defined.
27 The Account and the Regulatory Framework provided the audit team with a view of the University's quality management arrangements which gave primacy to modularisation, and accorded a 'critical' position in its approach to quality to the module coordinators. Diagrammatic representations of the University's quality arrangements provided in the Account indicated that there was a direct reporting line for quality management linking the module coordinators to Senate, via LTCs, through faculty standing committees for quality and standards (FSCs), and ASC. The same diagram indicated a complex reporting relationship between programme leaders, module coordinators and LTCs but one which was consistent with the important role identified for the module coordinator in the Account. Both the Account and the Regulatory Framework noted the continuing operation of validated programmes but provided no further information. The team therefore proceeded on the understanding that the greater part of the University's undergraduate students were following programmes of study (whether individually constructed or specifically validated) constructed from modules, and that most of the University's modular provision was organised into programmes leading to named awards. The team's discussions with members of the University supported this view, which was consistent with the texts of the Account and the Regulatory Framework.
28 Both module coordinators and programme leaders report to LTCs: the audit team therefore sought to understand the nature of their relations and responsibilities to each other and to LTC and its chair. It appeared to the team that whilst having modularised its provision, and having adopted a Regulatory Framework appropriate to modular structures of provision, in many areas of the University quality management, and the management of assessment processes (for example, in respect of external examiners and their reports, and decisions on moderation), continued to be governed by conventions and arrangements more usually encountered in linear programmes of study. This view was confirmed for the team when the University informed it that 'only 276 students were registered for combined awards (modular programmes) with a further 1,216 part-time students'. This restricted view on the part of the University of the extent to which it has modularised its provision sits uncomfortably with the texts of the Account and the Regulatory Framework, and the team's discussions with members of the University at all levels, which are consistent with the view that almost all the University's students are following module-based programmes of study.
29 In its own assessment of the strengths and limitations of its quality management arrangements, the University identified the persistence of 'two parallel perspectives' - programmes and subjects - as a matter it wished to resolve. To these two perspectives the audit team would add a third, modularity, where the full implications of having introduced a modular Regulatory Framework after 1995 still need to be worked through. The University might find it helpful to give further consideration to the implications of operating linear programmes on the basis of a Regulatory Framework designed for modular structures, and to do so in advance of any decision to manage programmes through programme management groups, acting as sub-committees of LTCs (see below, paragraph 34).
Faculty-based arrangements for programme approval and review
30 Until shortly after the HEQC audit, arrangements to validate and approve new programmes of study were operated centrally, under the authority of ASC, and largely followed processes developed under the former CNAA. Subsequently, the task of reviewing and approving the University's educational provision was delegated to faculties. New procedures for approval were introduced in the 1998-99 session, with the intention of encouraging those responsible for developing new provision, or reviewing existing elements of provision, to engage with matters of quality management throughout the development and review processes, rather than locate the importation of quality with the conduct of a final review, or validation event. The new procedures were also intended to facilitate contributions from external peers throughout the development or review processes rather than, again, confining them to a final review or validation event.
31 At the end of the 1999-2000 session ASC undertook a preliminary assessment of the devolved arrangements for programme approval described above. In one case, streamlined procedures for producing and disseminating documentation appeared to have enabled the review team based in the relevant faculty to achieve a better focus on key issues. Furthermore, in this instance, provision had been made for two leading external peers to contribute to the approval process by correspondence, an arrangement which appeared to have enhanced the review process. In other cases, however, the experience of using correspondence to involve external peers in the review process appeared to have been more problematic. In these instances, responses from externals seemed to those conducting the internal review to have been limited in scope, and approval committees appeared to have found themselves weakened by their inability to engage in active dialogue with external subject specialists.
32 The review of the University's devolved arrangements for programme approval and review conducted by ASC appears to have provided clear indications of good practice on which further development might be based, and limitations requiring attention, and to have demonstrated the effectiveness of the University's present arrangements for critical self-evaluation.
The contributions of LTCs, module coordinators, programme leaders and FSCs
33 Within each of the University's faculties LTCs are responsible for the quality management of all modules within a particular subject area. As noted in paragraph 27, individual modules are managed by module coordinators, who are responsible to the relevant LTC for the quality of delivery; organisation and use of student feedback; enhancement of the learning content of the module; and the assessment of students. Modules which make up named programmes may be widely available to students across the University. Within the University's quality arrangements, programme leaders are responsible for the delivery of programmes, and 'for ensuring the coherence of the student learning experience as a whole'.
34 As part of the University's move to extend the modularisation of its provision, LTCs based on subject groups were introduced in 1998-99; in the 2000-01 session these were in their second year of operation but the University was already beginning to consider the merits of managing programmes through programme management groups, acting as sub-committees of LTCs, a development which might throw into even sharper relief the difficulties of managing linear programmes within a modular framework. At the time of the audit, LTCs were not supported administratively by the Registry, but active steps were being taken to remedy this lack (see below, paragraph 51).
35 LTCs are expected by the University to monitor the quality of delivery and the standards of student attainment, using for this purpose annual reports from the module coordinators. According to the Account, annual reports from module coordinators are intended to cover: returns of marks giving the range of grades; marks, means and standard deviations for the relevant module; student questionnaire feedback for each module; and module success rates (data for each of which is processed centrally); comments from external examiners; and comments from programme leaders, including responses from staff-student committees and year meetings. From this information LTCs compile their annual reports to FSCs. Reports from external examiners are sent by the Registry to programme leaders who are required to provide them to the chairs of the relevant LTCs, although a report from the University's recently-established internal audit process provided in the base room indicated that this requirement was not always observed (see below, paragraph 45). External examiner's reports are not routinely sent to module coordinators, who depend for immediate access to them on receiving copies from programme leaders, or chairs of LTCs.
36 The audit team reviewed a wide sample of reports from LTCs to FSCs from across the University. The coverage and standard of reporting appeared to vary widely: many reports were brief and focused on returns of marks and module success rates. The University's quality arrangements, including its newly introduced internal quality audit process (see below, paragraph 44), should address this variability, and its newly appointed faculty secretaries have been directed to ensure that LTCs function in a more consistent fashion across the institution. The University's alertness to weaknesses in its arrangements is to be welcomed, as is its readiness to act to remedy perceived deficiencies in the provision of LTC reports to FSCs.
37 From the papers it reviewed, and from its discussions with members of the University, the audit team was able to confirm the University's view that LTCs occupy a pivotal position in its quality arrangements. However, the variability in the standard of the reports produced by LTCs does not enable the team, or the University, to confirm that they are working effectively. There is scope for confusion between the duties in respect of quality management of module coordinators, programme leaders and LTCs. Clarification of the role of the module coordinators vis-à-vis that of the programme leaders, and of the latter in relation to chairs of LTCs would be advisable, together with careful monitoring of the contributions of each to managing the quality of the University's educational provision.
Faculty standing committees for quality and standards
38 FSCs are expected to use annual reports from LTCs and programme leaders to satisfy themselves each year that the academic provision for which the faculty is responsible is being satisfactorily managed, and that the academic standards of the University's awards are secure. This arrangement entails a certain measure of duplication: reports from LTCs and programme leaders therefore act as 'checks' on each other in the University's quality arrangements. FSCs are expected to report on a regular basis to faculty boards and to report annually to ASC. The Account stated that from such reports, FSCs will 'assess the adequacy of quality management and, as part of [their] audit function, require further information as necessary'.
39 The audit team discussed the work of FSCs and LTCs with members of the University in a position to know their work at first-hand, and reviewed a number of reports produced by such committees. At the time of the audit there had been insufficient opportunity for the newly-established FSCs and re-established LTCs to provide definitive evidence of the effectiveness of their work and their links with ASC. The University was, however, able to bring to the team's attention some of the action lists and decisions made by FSCs in the brief period since their establishment: these suggested that FSCs had been quick to set about their work. In due course internal reviews, and internal audits of changes made in response to action lists drawn up by FSCs, should enable the University to satisfy itself that the former are meeting its expectations (see below, paragraph 44).
Academic Standards Committee
40 According to the Account, ASC is responsible for 'ensuring the effectiveness of scrutiny and enhancement and for providing for Senate a strategic overview of the University's quality systems and how they need to develop'. Its terms of reference state that its responsibility is 'to give advice, to make recommendations and report to Senate on all matters relating to maintenance and development of academic standards, the evaluation and development of new programmes of study, the monitoring and review of existing provision and its use relating to the external quality framework of the QAA'. ASC is chaired by the Vice-Principal and its membership includes: the University's Registrar; the Director of the Centre for Learning and Teaching (CLT); student representatives; the chairs of FSCs and additional members from each faculty appointed by Senate. According to the Account, ASC meets every two months and throughout the second part of the session its activities are 'focused on audit and monitoring functions' drawing chiefly on the annual reports from FSCs.
41 ASC has been charged by the University with leading its response to the promulgation of successive sections of the QAA Code of practice. It has developed a standard procedure for receiving and discussing draft sections of the Code of practice prior to establishing subgroups or working parties to review the University's arrangements against the precepts of individual sections. Similar arrangements have been adopted in respect of subject benchmarking; programme specifications; the qualifications framework; and distance learning. In each case, these arrangements appeared to the audit team to be well- conceived and working effectively.
Quality Assurance Review Group
42 ASC discharges a key part of its remit for monitoring the effectiveness of the University's quality management and academic standards arrangements through QARG. The remit of QARG is to 'consider the University's quality procedures and to make recommendations for [their] development'. It is chaired by a member of ASC identified by it for the purpose and its membership is drawn from the associate deans with responsibility for academic quality in each faculty and a small number of other individuals 'with relevant University-wide responsibilities of specialist expertise'.
43 According to the Account, a review of an aspect of the University's quality arrangements can be sparked by changes in the University's internal or external environment, from 'a desire for continual improvement', or from the outcomes of internal audit procedures. QARG is described in the Account as the University's 'principal vehicle for assessing current practice and initiating strategic change'.
Internal Audit Subgroup
44 In May 2000, on the recommendation of QARG, ASC established an IAS, with a formal remit to monitor compliance with respect to devolved quality assurance procedures; to enhance quality by the dissemination of good practice; and to advise on matters referred to it by ASC. As part of its first programme of work, conducted early in the 2000-01 session, IAS audited the work of one LTC from each faculty throughout the previous session.
45 Working papers from IAS were provided in the University's base room, from which it was apparent that the internal auditors had identified a number of areas where enhancements might be made to existing quality arrangements. For example, in the course of its preparations to audit the work of a sample of LTCs, IAS had identified that the chairs of LTCs were expected to comment in their annual reports on the content of reports from external examiners, but that in cases they had scrutinised some chairs had not been provided with copies of such reports. Subsequent reports to IAS suggested that the audit process was assisting in the identification of areas of inconsistent practice among the sample of LTCs with which it was working.
46 The audit team reviewed IAS working papers in the base room, from which it was clear that those charged by the University with conducting internal audit activities were carrying out their responsibilities conscientiously. Whilst recognising that the University's internal audit arrangements were at an early stage in their development, nonetheless it appeared to the team that they had the potential to become a powerful quality assurance and enhancement tool, and there was evidence to show that QARG and ASC had already acted on matters brought to their attention by internal audit.
Distance learning and collaborative provision in the University's quality strategy
47 At the time of the 1995 audit the University operated a small number of partnership links with institutions in the UK and several distance learning arrangements with partners (or through agents) overseas. Since 1995 the volume of the University's distance learning activities has gradually reduced although at the time of the audit small numbers of students in Bombay, Dubai, Singapore, and Hong Kong continued to be supported from Paisley. A list of the University's partnership links, provided by the University, is appended to this report.
48 In 1995, the organisation of distance learning and its support in the University relied on arrangements within each of the existing faculties, supported by a central Distance Learning Unit. A review of the University's arrangements to support distance learning in 1998, carried out by a working group, recommended the transfer of responsibility for the support of distance learning students to the faculties, and the transfer of staff in the Distance Learning Unit to CLT. The rationale for this move was to consolidate experience with this mode of delivery and provide support for a newly launched BSc Health Studies programme delivered in the UK by distance learning. At the same time, the working group was asked to confirm that the framework for the University's distance learning provision conformed broadly to the Guidelines on the Quality Assurance of Distance Learning published by QAA, which it did.
49 The Account fairly described the range of collaborative provision in the University at the time of the audit as 'relatively restricted', and stated that the policies guiding the quality management of such arrangements mirrored those for directly delivered programmes. The University has developed a number of partnership links with local further education colleges, including articulation arrangements to allow students from such colleges to progress to study at the University with advanced standing. The University has also established a number of articulation arrangements with partner institutions in China and Greece.
50 At the time of the audit the major programme validated by the University for delivery by a partner institution was with the Scottish Baptist College, where an honours degree in Divinity and Pastoral Studies was approved in 1996. The audit team reviewed the original validation reports and those of the review visit conducted on behalf of ASC in 1999. Annual review arrangements had been conducted by one of the University's faculties through its standard quality assurance procedures and these arrangements were clearly described in a formal 'Academic Memorandum of Cooperation'. The University has reviewed its quality management arrangements for its collaborative provision against the precepts of the QAA Code of practice and has concluded that they are consistent with its recommendations.
Administrative support for quality management
51 Administrative support for the University's quality assurance and enhancement arrangements is provided centrally from within the Registrar's Office, which provides support for ASC, TLC, faculty boards and FSCs. The University has recently strengthened its arrangements for quality management at faculty level by appointing full-time faculty secretaries, to provide administrative support for the Dean and the work of FSC and the faculty board, and to provide support for the University's faculty-based programme approvals process and its newly introduced subject health review process.
52 The audit team found clear evidence in the University's papers in the base room, and from its discussions with members of staff, that the Registry supported the work of members of staff in the faculties by actively tracking external developments in quality management and in securing academic standards. The team considered that the University's recent decision to enhance the administrative support provided to faculties by the Registry, by the appointment of faculty secretaries, responsible through a senior member of the Registry to the Registrar, was both appropriate and timely. In view of the substantial tasks delegated to the faculties by the University, however, it appeared to the team that the appointment of one individual to each faculty, though to be welcomed, might not be sufficient to meet the needs generated by devolution, and to address the areas of inconsistency identified by its own internal audit arrangements. This is a matter the University will wish to keep under review.
The management of change
53 Since the publication of the 1995 report, the University has experienced changes in its external environment, in its internal organisation brought about by the incorporation of the Ayrshire and Arran and Argyll and Clyde Colleges of Nursing and Midwifery, by the development of the Dumfries based Crichton University Campus, and through the internal management changes referred to in paragraph 12 above.
54 Evidence provided by the University on its incorporation of the former nursing and midwifery colleges showed the process to have been handled well. Evidence on the University's establishment of the Crichton Campus also showed that the process of establishing the Campus as a presence in the locality was proceeding well. The University has also taken energetic measures to take forward its work to promote access to higher education. These are considerable achievements.
55 In respect of changes to the University's academic management, the Account emphasised that the present audit was taking place at a moment of transition, as the institution implemented the management arrangements it had introduced in September 2000, and as it switched from provision organised in linear programmes and courses to 'flexible subject-based single and joint honours degrees'. There is evidence in the Account that the University is keenly aware of some aspects of the consequences of delivering provision through linear programmes supported by a Regulatory Framework designed for a modular system, for example, in the maintenance of dual systems of reporting from chairs of LTCs and programme leaders. There is also evidence to suggest, however, that the full implications of the interplay between a Regulatory Framework based on the concepts and arrangements of modular provision, and delivery based very largely on linear validated programmes, have yet to be tackled by the University.
56 At the time of the audit, the University had begun to focus its attention on the new 'flexible subject-based single and joint honours degrees' which it intends to adopt by 2002. Before advancing to this next stage in its academic development, however, it might be wise to determine to what extent it might wish to bring its Regulatory Framework, which is designed to facilitate modular delivery, into greater harmony with its academic management arrangements.
Summary
57 In reviewing the University's arrangements for quality management the audit team found that there were effective arrangements for identifying individual quality processes for review and was able to establish that such reviews (though in their early stages) were being carried out thoroughly, with active and effective support by staff from the Registry. Action lists prepared following the meetings of FSCs provide evidence that the latter can identify matters for attention. As its new FSCs become more established it should be possible for the institution, through its internal academic audit process, to satisfy itself that the action lists FSCs produce can be linked to subsequent outcomes, and so close the quality loop.
58 At the time of the audit, QARG had mainly confined its activities to reviews of individual elements of the University's quality management arrangements. Other than through its participation in external reviews, such as those conducted by QAA, the University does not as yet appear to have the means to review for itself, from time to time, how effectively its quality management arrangements, and its systems to safeguard the academic standards of its awards, work together as a unified system. The University might wish to consider the merits of introducing such periodic holistic internal reviews.
Academic standards
The University's present approach to the definition of academic standards
59 The Account stated that the University's approach to developing and safeguarding the academic standards of its awards was in transition, from the approach to the definition and maintenance of academic standards operated throughout the UK for some time, to the UK-wide approach promoted by QAA based on outcomes, drawing on subject benchmarking and programme specifications which was to be achieved by October 2002.
60 The Account also stated that the University's current approach to defining and maintaining academic standards relies on multiple points of reference including: the shared norms and values of Scottish higher education; the judgement and experience of external examiners; the knowledge of external standards secured by those of its teaching staff working as examiners and reviewers in other higher education institutions; and, where relevant, the scrutiny of professional accrediting bodies. Of these reference points, the Account noted that the University's current arrangements to set, monitor and maintain the academic standards of its awards relied on its external examiners whose work 'is seen as of critical importance'.
61 The University defines the Bachelor's degree with honours as the chief yardstick for the academic standard of awards 'in terms of the achievement expected of a person entering a programme of study of specified length with the appropriate skills and knowledge' in this case 'the equivalent of four academic years of full-time study and a demonstration of capacity for sustained independent and high quality work'. These expectations are set out in the University's Regulatory Framework.
Admission of students
62 The University's Mission commits it to widening access to higher education; at the same time it sees the maintenance of academic standards at the point of entry as central to the effective discharge of its Mission. It acknowledges the potential for tension between the two aims, and the need to ensure that the implementation of positive policies to encourage wider participation in higher education do not lead to the recruitment of students who are not fitted to progress successfully to an award. The University has adopted a threshold standard for the entry of school-leavers which the Account stated was 'standard throughout Scotland: three passes at Higher and two passes at Standard grade to include English and Mathematics'.
63 General and specific entry requirements are published in definitive programme documents and the University's prospectuses. In line with its commitment to widening access, the University makes provision for entry to its programmes with a range of other qualifications (including recognised Access courses), with credit (both specific and general) and with prior learning (including experiential learning). The procedures for admission of such applicants are specified in the Regulatory Framework, together with appropriate guidance notes. As part of its approach to widening access and social inclusion the University offers a number of modules designed to encourage participation, namely 'First Steps at University', 'First Steps in Science, Engineering and Technology' and 'First Steps in Business'.
64 Admissions Officers are appointed at faculty and school level and may have duties in respect of more than one programme of study. Where a programme of study is offered on more than one of the University's campuses the designated Admissions Officer has cross-campus responsibility for admission to that programme. Throughout the year the University operates a call centre and advice line, referred to as 'University Direct'. According to the Account, University Direct staff 'liaise closely with admissions staff across the University to ensure that accurate and up to date information is provided to callers...(any)... non-standard information requests are transferred to academic or Registry colleagues'. Offers of admission to programmes are issued centrally through the University's Admissions Office, based in the Registry. Offers are monitored by the Registry for consistency and compliance with the Regulatory Framework.
65 Admissions officers and programme leaders are responsible 'for assessing the relationship between specific entry requirements and student success'. The articulation between admissions functions and student support and guidance functions is explored elsewhere in this report (see below, paragraph 108), and is of particular significance in an institution where the University's own analyses of acceptances to full-time undergraduate programmes for the 1999-2000 session, made through the UK-wide Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS), demonstrate that it relied heavily on admitting students through clearing. In that year, the University's own analysis showed that applicants registered late in the admissions cycle comprised 21 per cent of the overall total whereas, for the same period, the average figure for registrations arising from late applications for UK higher education institutions was 6.2 per cent.
Admissions arrangements for part-time students: the Combined Awards programme
66 According to the Account, most of the more than 2,000 students who study with the University on a part-time basis do so through the Combined Awards programme, which is managed by the Centre for Continuing Education. The operation of the Combined Awards programme is monitored by the Combined Awards Programme Committee (CAPC). The programme provides for applications to be received for entry to a specific module or modules rather than for a prescribed programme.
67 Applications for admission to the Combined Awards programme are scrutinised by an Educational Guidance Adviser, who is responsible for ensuring that the individual programme of study constructed by a combined awards student demonstrates both coherence and progression and is in accord with the University's Regulatory Framework. In making a recommendation on an application for entry to the Combined Awards programme, the Educational Guidance Adviser may take evidence of prior learning into consideration where appropriate.
68 As the Combined Awards programme has developed, 'case law' has been established, on matters such as coherence and progression, for routine combinations of module choice. In such cases, individual Education Advisers are authorised to pass combinations for formal approval by the Programmes Approval Committee (PAC), a sub-committee of the University's Modular Programmes Board. In exceptional cases, PAC will consider the application directly; in such cases its decisions may be either added to the record of 'case law', or may be referred to CAPC for further discussion.
69 In the Account, the University provided clear evidence that statistics on the characteristics of its students at entry are carefully gathered and given full weight in its internal planning and quality arrangements. Similarly, detailed information is kept on student progression and the reasons offered by students for ceasing study with the University. The University's own studies clearly demonstrate the economic, health, and family problems experienced by a significant proportion of its students which hinder their ability to commit themselves to their studies and to progress satisfactorily to an award. A study used by the University in its own analysis of non-progression showed that '75 per cent of those students who did not progress at the end of their second year in [a named programme] failed to do so for known economic, health or family reasons'.
70 The audit team discussed the University's admissions arrangements with staff at all levels and with students. Staff demonstrated a clear awareness of their obligation not to admit students unlikely to be able to progress, even when under pressure to meet recruitment targets immediately before registration. Students spoke of the widespread appreciation for and support of the University's Mission among the student body. The University's Access Strategy makes commitments to students with consequences for the level of student guidance and support provided and for student progress and retention. The University's Access Strategy has provided ASC with a sharpened focus for discussions of student admissions; guidance; support; retention; and progression. Following these discussions, measures have been introduced to tackle poor progression rates, the effectiveness of which the University intends to keep under close review.
Current arrangements for the assessment of students and the classification of
academic awards
71 Under the University's arrangements to delegate authority to its faculties for the maintenance of academic standards, decisions on assessments, and on the classification of honours awards are taken by module panels and programme panels, respectively. The membership and terms of reference of module panels and programme panels set out for each in the Regulatory Framework. The function of the module panel is to agree the marks for the module concerned, and to present these to the programme panel, with recommendations for clear passes, borderline cases and reassessments. A module panel may apply 'standardisation' to a cohort's performance, under exceptional circumstances, with the consent of the relevant external examiner, but this action must be reported to the relevant programme panel or panels.
72 Meetings of module panels are convened by module coordinators. External examiners are not expected or required to attend meetings of module panels, therefore not all external examiners are in a position to verify that the correct procedures have been followed at such meetings, or that results have been accurately stated at this level. Some module panels keep full records of their deliberations and decisions; in other cases module coordinators simply confirm that the decisions of the panel have been approved by the module moderator. In the case of a request from a module panel for 'standardisation' of marks, in the absence of a formal record it was not clear to the audit team how external examiners would be able to satisfy themselves of the reasonableness of the request without having attended the meeting. In the view of the team the lack of a formal record of the meeting of a module panel might present significant difficulties for the University were an appellant to allege maladministration, or procedural irregularities in its conduct.
73 The University is aware of weaknesses in its assessment arrangements at module level. In June 2000 Senate accepted recommendations for the codification of good practice for the internal moderation of assessment, specifying more clearly than hitherto the transactions to be expected between module coordinators and module moderators. These developments are timely and welcome; they do not, however address the absence of a formal record of proceedings at the level of the module panel. Nor do they address the current absence of an independent perspective on those proceedings for example, from an external examiner.
74 At its meeting in August 2000, QARG noted that the University did not as yet have a mechanism whereby a recommendation from an external examiner at a programme panel that marks for a module be changed could be disseminated to other programme panels using the module in question. The discussion of this matter at QARG provides further evidence of the valuable work it is undertaking on behalf of the University. On that occasion QARG recommended urgent action to address this matter - a view with which the audit team strongly concurs. The University will wish to consider, as a matter of necessity, how it might ensure that the conduct by all its module panels of their business is more formally recorded, how decisions on the attainments of students taken at module panels might be made subject to independent scrutiny, and that there is an appropriate mechanism for ensuring that relevant decisions of programme panels are relayed to module panels and other programme panels.
Responsibility for awards
75 The University's Regulatory Framework states that Senate is required 'to maintain and enhance academic standards' and 'to maintain the regulatory framework for the maintenance of quality and standards of programmes leading to the awards of the University'. Under its devolved arrangements, the University has delegated authority for managing the academic standards of its awards to programme panels (also termed 'programme assessment panels' in the Account), based in the faculties, which are responsible for the conduct of all assessments which contribute to academic awards. The Regulatory Framework states that no other body (than such a panel) shall have the authority to recommend to Senate the conferment of an award, other than as the outcome of an appeal. In practice, decisions made by programme panels on the classification of awards are passed to the relevant faculty executive, and thence to the Registry for publication: an arrangement which did not appear to be consistent with the provisions of the Regulatory Framework. The University will wish to satisfy itself that these arrangements do not set aside the authority of Senate.
Current arrangements for external examiners and their reports
76 The University's procedures for the appointment of its external examiners are consistent with the relevant section of the QAA Code of practice. Newly appointed external examiners receive a written briefing on the University's requirements in the form of a letter and handbook provided by the Registry. It is the responsibility of programme leaders to ensure that on their appointment external examiners receive any additional briefing that they might require, and to notify external examiners of any subsequent changes to regulations or to the content of modules or the programme.
77 From 1999-2000 the University decided to offer an induction day for newly appointed external examiners. This is intended to provide appointees with a comprehensive and uniform understanding of the University's assessment procedures, and the principles underpinning its Regulatory Framework, and an opportunity to meet relevant members of the teaching and support staff in the faculties. The first such induction was scheduled to take place in January 2001.
78 The Account stated that the University viewed the reports of its external examiners as key documents in its arrangements to manage the quality of its provision and safeguard the academic standards of its awards. Such reports are expected to provide critical appraisals covering the academic standards of the relevant awards, programme organisation and content, and the administration of the assessment process. In 1999-2000 a revised template for the production of external examiners' reports was introduced, with the intention of securing greater consistency in the coverage of reports.
79 Reports from external examiners are received by the Registrar. They are referred to the Vice-Principal as Chair of ASC, and to programme leaders for consideration at that level. The audit team was told that the Vice-Principal scrutinised reports from external examiners for any institution-wide matters requiring his attention but that responsibility for taking remedial action in response to individual reports rested with programme leaders and chairs of LTCs. As noted earlier, copies of external examiners' reports are not immediately supplied directly to module coordinators and in the past may not have always been provided for chairs of LTCs. An annual Report Workshop, chaired by the Vice-Principal, was introduced in January 1999; it allows for a review of institution-wide themes and affords staff development opportunities for staff working with external examiners.
80 Comments from external examiners on the conduct of assessments, on levels of attainment and on procedural matters must be addressed by programme leaders in their annual reports to FSCs, which must also set out actions taken in response to such comments. Programme leaders' annual reports, including responses to external examiners, are monitored by FSCs.
81 The audit team was provided with all the external examiners' reports received by the University in the previous three years and reviewed a large sample of the reports, which took in all faculties and campuses. With few exceptions, the University appeared to be well-served by its external examiners: many reports were detailed and incisive, with few instances of inadequate reporting. The team noted that the submission by one external examiner of identical reports in two successive sessions had been spotted by the Registry. At programme and faculty level, exchanges with external examiners appeared to the team to follow prescribed norms.
82 The audit team also noted the explicit statements of external examiners in their reports that the standards of the University's academic awards are comparable with those of other UK institutions within their experience. However, individual reports (and some joint communications from external examiners) spoke of concerns with the University's assessment arrangements. One annual report to ASC from an FSC, covering the 1997-98 session, identified complaints from 10 external examiners that insufficient time had been allocated in the assessment diet to allow them to do full justice to their scrutiny role and that this matter had been brought to the attention of the University in two previous Annual Reports, with 'imperceptible' effect.
83 The audit team explored the contents of this report in exchanges with the University, which informed it that action had been taken and that an 'Academic Standards Working Group on Assessment' had been convened in 1999-2000 to make recommendations to address some of the matters raised by externals and reported through FSC Annual Reports: these steps are timely. The team welcomed the commitment of the University to implement recommendations made by the Working Group, but considered that in several instances the nature and range of the criticisms it encountered in reports from external examiners had merited swifter responses. The University will wish to consider the advisability of ensuring that matters raised by external examiners are dealt with more speedily.
84 The Account stated that the University's 'annually up-dated Regulatory Framework and Quality Assurance Handbook and the use of evidence-based decision making to drive regulatory improvement', together with its 'effective use of External Examiners' reports and of the External Examiner workshop to identify common concerns and to disseminate good practice' constituted strengths of its current arrangements: these features will continue to play an important part in safeguarding the academic standards of the University's awards.
Professional and statutory bodies
85 The measures taken by the University to ensure that the academic standards of its awards are comparable with those of other higher education institutions in the UK include the reports of its external examiners; its quality arrangements in respect of the admission and progression of students; and its participation in the national arrangements for promoting quality and academic standards put forward by QAA on behalf of higher education institutions throughout the UK. In addition, programme validation takes account of the requirements of professional and statutory bodies where appropriate; and in respect of its Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting provision the University is able to demonstrate that its arrangements meet the requirements of the NBS Quality Assurance Handbook, October 2000.
86 Until recently, the University's quality arrangements have lacked provisions for it to satisfy itself directly that its vocationally relevant provision and awards meet the requirements of the professional and statutory bodies (PSBs) into which its graduates and diplomates may progress. Hitherto it relied upon programme leaders, LTCs and FSCs to respond to the requirements of PSBs; under arrangements introduced in 1999-2000 ASC now receives and considers accreditation reports from PSBs together with any response from the relevant LTC, Programme Leader and FSC. This is a welcome enhancement to the University's arrangements to safeguard the standards of its awards.
Academic standards of awards for research
87 According to the Account, RDC is responsible to Senate for the standards of research degree awards and the Research Board is responsible to Senate for maintaining the University's infrastructure for the support of research degrees, the enhancement of the University's research culture and the provision of training for research students and staff. In addition, the Research Ethics Committee considers the ethical implications of particular research proposals and all issues concerning the ethical implications of the investigation of human subjects whilst the Research Policy and Funding Committee has responsibility for allocating funding received from SHEFC and for developing policy for the enhancement of the University's research profile.
88 The audit team discussed the University's arrangements to support the work of its postgraduate research students and to secure the academic standards of their awards with students, and with staff with experience of supervision. The Account stated that the University had benchmarked its internal procedures against the precepts of the relevant section of the QAA Code of practice, and that it had found that its own procedures were broadly consistent with those set out in the Code, a view with which the team would agree.
89 The training provided for research students to equip them for undertaking research activities appeared to the audit team to be generally satisfactory, a view confirmed by students who had experienced such training. Some of the research students who met the team had been involved in the tuition of undergraduates. The team discussed with research students the arrangements made by the University to prepare them to teach undergraduates, and to ensure that they had an adequate understanding of teaching and learning procedures and (in the case of laboratory demonstration) Health and Safety provisions. In the view of the team, the arrangements described to it were insufficient to safeguard the quality of the educational experiences of the undergraduate students. This is a deficiency it would be desirable to remedy.
Future developments in the management of academic standards
90 The audit team discussed the University's plans for the development of its approach to academic standards with members of staff throughout the audit and reviewed a range of relevant documents in the base room. Overall, it appeared to the team that key members of central and faculty committees were familiar with the terms of current national debates concerning academic standards, and alert to the challenges posed for the management of academic standards by the modularisation of academic provision. Teaching and support staff were strongly committed to seeking to define and monitor standards.
91 Not all those with whom the audit team discussed the University's academic standards arrangements were able to use the relevant terminology confidently. That a lack of confidence in differentiating between 'quality' and 'academic standards' might be a more general difficulty was suggested by the formal remit of TLC, which commits it to 'enable staff to maintain the highest possible quality and standards of teaching and learning within available resources'. The University may wish to revisit the terms of reference of its Senate and faculty committees in order to ensure that there is clarity in the use of terms, where 'quality' refers to academic provision and 'academic standards' to the standards of academic awards.
92 In the Account the University stated that LTCs would have an increasingly important part to play in developing the management of academic standards. The University anticipates that LTCs will come to act as subject communities, accepting collective responsibility for setting and maintaining the academic standards of the awards to which their modules lead in active dialogue with FSCs. The University sees the part LTCs currently play in responding to QAA subject benchmarking statements as a means of accelerating the development of their newly emerging role in the University's arrangements to secure the academic standards of its awards. In the view of the audit team, this is an interesting development and the team agrees with the University that LTCs have the potential to play a key part in future arrangements to safeguard the academic standards of the University's awards. As this promising development unfolds, however, the University might find it advisable to ensure that a proper separation is maintained between the responsibilities of LTCs for managing the quality of provision, and their emerging obligations to the University to safeguard the academic standards of the awards to which that provision leads.
Monitoring evaluation and improvement of procedures for academic standards
93 The University is faced with a number of challenges in ensuring that measures to secure and safeguard the academic standards of its awards operate effectively within the new managerial framework and arrangements which it has recently introduced. The timing of the continuation audit in relation to these innovations in the University's management arrangements makes it difficult to offer a reliable judgement on the extent to which quality management and academic standards arrangements will require modification in the light of experience; the University is, however, already aware of certain limitations in its current arrangements. These were identified in the Account as the lack of regular procedures for consideration by LTCs and FSCs of cross-sector comparative data on degree profiles by subject; and the recently remedied absence of arrangements for the central consideration of reports on University provision from PSBs (see above, paragraph 86). The capacity of the University's quality management arrangements to identify these matters for its own attention is to be welcomed.
The learning infrastructure
Policy formulation for the learning infrastructure and its management
94 According to the Account, the University's Court is responsible for the provision of resources 'for the operation of the University: staffing and staff development, equipment and physical infrastructure; and student welfare, residential and recreational facilities', whilst Senate is responsible for academic policy. The interface between policy for resources and academic policies, according to the Account, is provided by the University Management Group (UMG) and by PRC, which reports to both the Court and Senate. PRC is responsible for advising the Court on the distribution of the University's non-staffing recurrent budget and advises the University on student/staff ratios. According to the Account, such advice 'exercises a large influence on the distribution of resources by the Court between staffing and non-staffing expenditures'. PRC receives recommendations on the distribution of funds for capital equipment from a subgroup, the membership of which includes Deans of faculty, the Librarian, the Director of Network Information Systems Management and either the Assistant Principal with responsibilities for teaching and learning or the Director of CLT. The University also has an Executive Committee for Information Services (ECIS) and a Library Users Committee (LUC) to advise Senate on the application of information and communication technologies and the efficient functioning of the library in the institution's work.
Teaching and Learning Committee
95 In 1995, TLC was established by Senate with a remit to 'develop, implement, monitor and review a University Policy and associated Strategy for Teaching and Learning, inter alia, to: sustain and enhance the quality of teaching, learning and assessment in all the University's programmes; provide an inclusive curriculum aimed to help all students to achieve their maximum potential, consistent with a commitment to lifelong learning; acknowledge the key role of staff in provision and support with respect to teaching and learning; enable staff to maintain the highest possible quality and standards of teaching and learning within available resources; enable staff to select and use appropriate methodologies and technologies which will contribute to improve student learning'.
96 Following its establishment, TLC developed a University Policy For Teaching and Learning which was completed and agreed in December 1995; this was revised during 1999-2000 and an updated version was adopted by Senate in September 2000. The main features of the updated policy document cover the goals of the policy; a strategy for achieving the goals; and guidelines for implementing the policy. The goals of the 2000 Policy For Teaching and Learning remain largely those of its 1995 predecessor; the strategy for achieving the goals addresses what individual members of the teaching staff should undertake to support teaching and learning; what staff teams should similarly undertake; what students require in order to be able to learn effectively and develop personally; and the need for decisions on resources to recognise the priority to be accorded to teaching and learning. From the detail in each of these sections, the audit team noted with interest that the University expects individual staff to keep abreast of developments in teaching and learning across the sector, both in their subject and generically, and expects staff teams to promote learning environments 'which maximise student retention and assist progression' and evaluate and review assessment methods. The Account noted the substantial number of staff applying for membership of the Institute for Learning and Teaching (ILT) with the support of the University, which it considered to be an indication of its commitment to learning and teaching as a core activity.
97 Papers in the base room stated that there was a 'University-wide commitment' to the implementation of the revised policy for the academic year 2000-01. To support this initiative TLC developed a wide-ranging implementation strategy, some of the aims of which included: enhancing accountability through monitoring teaching and learning through LTCs; promoting quality in teaching by providing teaching staff with up-to-date information on developments and innovative practices in teaching and learning; and supporting staff seeking membership of ILT.
98 At the beginning of the 2000-01 session the University invited LTCs to reflect in their annual reports to FSCs on the implications of implementing the newly revised policy and chairs of LTCs were told that such annual reports were intended to form 'the primary focus for the University's annual monitoring [of the implementation of its policy for teaching and learning]'. They were therefore advised to 'be mindful of this when drafting reports which should not be minimalist quantitative listings of module activity but a reasoned and critical review of operation'.
99 The audit team reviewed a substantial sample of the annual reports from LTCs provided in the base room and noted that the manner in which reflections on the implications of implementing the teaching and learning policy had been recorded by individual LTCs varied widely across the institution. In some of the annual reports seen by the team, LTCs had clearly attempted to engage with the implementation of the policy; in others the approach was more cursory. Such variations in approach had been identified by the University through its own quality procedures, and it will no doubt continue to encourage a more consistently positive approach on the part of LTCs to the implementation of its teaching and learning policy.
Information and communication technology support
100 ECIS is responsible for advising Senate on the application of information and communication technology; it works closely with TLC and has formulated a development strategy for information technology in teaching and learning. The University's longstanding recognition of the contribution ICT can make to the attainment of its objectives, particularly in teaching and learning, was clear from the University's papers in the base room and from the audit team's discussions with members of staff at all levels. Initiatives such as support for distance learning and widespread use of the University's intranet were well-documented; however, discussions of the University's aim to develop a 'virtual learning environment' to support the work of its students revealed some unresolved tensions. Senior members of the University have recognised that its messages to staff and students that 'technology should not become a substitute for people' require further reinforcement.
101 Reviewing the range of developments in the use of ICT to support teaching and learning which the University has undertaken, guided by ECIS, the audit team judged that the University had constructed an effective strategy for integrating information technology into teaching and learning, and that ECIS continues to provide sound advice on ICT to Senate, drawing on carefully gathered, reliable and valid evidence.
Library provision
102 The audit team noted that library provision at the University is guided by a mission statement which is displayed on the library's web site. With regard to the supporting committee arrangements, the brief of LUC is to advise Senate on efficient functioning of library services and whilst the Committee was described to the team as engaging in 'very lively debate' at the time of the audit this had yet to result in a formal policy for library development. Senior managers who discussed this lack with the team considered the absence of a formal policy for library development as a weakness: this is a view with which the team concurs and the University may wish to consider the advisability of developing such a policy. As part of the same process, it might also be advisable to revise the terms of reference of LUC to ensure that in future it adopts a more strategic approach to its responsibility for overseeing the development of the University's library provision.
103 The Account identified that a principal concern of LUC since 1996 had been 'the creation of an integrated library service that can meet student needs across all campuses'. The audit team recognised that the University remained committed to this aim, and noted that in the University's view, the development of its Robertson Trust Library and Learning Resource Centre at Paisley, opened in 1998, 'had radically improved information services' to students and staff. To set against this, an internal report to LUC brought to the team's attention the existence of continuing difficulties with access to library resources, particularly at the Ayr and Crichton campuses. The University can point to solid achievements in developing collaborative ventures to improve access to library provision across its campuses - for example, via the Ayrshire Libraries Forum and through the extended provision of electronic access; as yet, however, the aim it set itself in 1996 of creating an integrated library service across all campuses remains to be achieved.
Student guidance and support
104 The University has sought to develop its student support policies with the particular characteristics (and needs) of its students in mind. Its recruitment in relatively large numbers of part-time students who are not school leavers, or who live at home, have been considered by the University as important matters to be taken into consideration when developing its student support arrangements. A similarly high priority has been accorded to the requirements of students with special needs.
105 In the Account, the University described its student guidance procedures as 'relatively strong', noting the favourable comments made on this area of its work in the 1995 report. In 1997, the University undertook a critical review of its guidance procedures, acting on its perception that personal tutoring arrangements were operating unevenly, that its student population was becoming increasingly diverse and that it needed to address the matter of student retention in the context of the University's new modular structures. The Account stated that following the introduction of modularisation the University had needed to grapple with the problem of combining the strengths of the old system which had provided personal tutorial support with arrangements to meet the requirements of students in the modular structure who also needed guidance in the choice of modules and pathways.
106 Following an extended period of review, which provided the opportunity for research including staff and student surveys to inform its deliberations, a new Guidance Policy was adopted for implementation across the University in 2000-01. The basis for the Policy is the inclusion within its scope of all aspects of pastoral support and academic guidance; it establishes the principle that students at every level should have a personal tutor and that each School should have a Guidance Coordinator. The preamble to the Policy states that the University considers it to be 'integral to our commitment to wider access and social inclusion'.
107 At the time of the audit the University fairly described the arrangements to implement its new Guidance Policy as 'bedding-in'; the audit team was therefore not in a position to reach a firm judgement on their effectiveness. The team was able to note, however, that significant resources had been made available for staffing and staff development to support the new arrangements, and to note the enthusiasm of staff for the training they had received, and their support for the benefits the new guidance arrangements would provide for students. Although a few staff who met the team were not completely familiar with the features of the new Guidance Policy, the team formed the view that the overwhelming majority of the staff it met supported the development, and that the means employed by the University to monitor the implementation of the Policy, through TLC, were likely to provide Senate with reliable information on its progress. At the time of the audit, one faculty had retained its original guidance procedures for one session, but this in no way called into question the University's commitment to the universal implementation of its Guidance Policy.
108 The audit team found clear evidence that the University was taking care to monitor the progression rates of its students. Comparative studies by the University of its own progression statistics and those of other institutions with similar missions and student profiles have identified that student progression is lower than the Scottish average. Senate has established an Advisory Group on Student Progression which has taken a number of initiatives, one of which involves the careful monitoring of students, particularly during the first five weeks of study. The team considered this to be commendable practice, worthy of wider notice. The team was made aware of the significant activity undertaken across the University in preparing students for study, through the 'First Steps' modules (see above, paragraph 63), the annual provision of information booklets for new students, and the induction programmes conducted centrally and within faculties. The considerable care taken in evaluating these activities, and revising them to fit student needs, was evident to the team.
Support and guidance for international students
109 The University's Strategic Plan states its intention to increase its recruitment of international students and has identified China, USA, and possibly India, as areas within which it intends to recruit vigorously; the Account noted, however, that to give effect to this intention it would need 'to enhance support services for international students as their numbers increase'. With the aid of materials in the base room, and information from its discussions with staff and students, the audit team reviewed the University's current arrangements to support its international students and noted isolated examples of good practice in this area, but that there appeared to be no arrangements to identify such practice, or to disseminate information about it across the institution. In the view of the team, the University's recognition of the need to improve its support arrangements for its international students is soundly based. The arrangements that have alerted the University to this gap in its support arrangements for international students should therefore prove adequate to inform it of progress in their further development, which would now be desirable.
Appointment, recruitment, induction and probation arrangements for teaching staff
110 The University has clear policies for staff recruitment, appointment, induction and development, which are monitored for compliance by its Personnel Office which reports annually to the Court. Formal induction sessions for newly appointed staff are held every two months and have recently been extended to include part-time teaching staff. Procedures for staff induction are monitored regularly by CLT; evaluations of induction events has recently led to the introduction of an induction page on the University's intranet.
111 Recently-appointed members of the teaching staff told the audit team that they had found the contributions of the senior staff to the induction programme valuable and that they had appreciated the commitment to induction they had shown by attending the events. Although there might be a case for checking that the large volume of information provided to new staff at induction is required, the audit team noted the evident satisfaction of new staff and the commitment of the University to this process. Newly-appointed members of the academic staff with little or no prior experience of teaching may be required to undertake elements of the University's Postgraduate Certificate in Teaching and Learning.
Staff development
112 The University has a formal Staff Development Policy in which staff are stated to be 'the University's most important resource'. Staff development is considered to flow from a partnership between the University, the faculties, and the individual. The University's annual Staff Development and Career Review (SDCR) is a central feature of its staff development arrangements in which an important element is the self-assessment which staff are expected to undertake. Following the University's recent internal reorganisation, some staff who met the audit team were unsure who would be responsible for conducting their SDCR interview suggesting that, at this level, the University's reorganisation had still to be completed.
113 Central support for staff development is provided by CLT, which offers a programme of staff development activities the content of which is directly informed by the annual outcomes of SDCR. Teaching staff who met the audit team were particularly appreciative of CLT courses on the use of information and communication technologies to support teaching and learning, and the team noted with interest arrangements to provide management training for staff carrying new responsibilities in the revised academic structures. Development for support staff is the responsibility of the Personnel Office.
114 The University monitors the effectiveness of the arrangements described above through the Staff Development Committee (SDC), which reports to Senate and the Court as appropriate. The remit of SDC is to advise Senate and the Court on all aspects of staff development; to promote 'a proactive approach to staff development and the identification of staff development needs' and to receive reports 'from Heads of Schools, Subject Divisions [and] Academic Support Departments'.
115 The Account stated that 'excellence in teaching is an established criterion in merit recognition for academic staff' and noted that 'awards of promoted posts, including Professorships and Readerships, accelerated increments and extended upper limits recognise achievements in teaching as core to the University's ethos', together with the development of various Awards for Excellence.
116 Having reviewed information provided in the base room, and conducted discussions with members of staff, the audit team came to the view that the University's staff development arrangements were clearly set out, that there were effective mechanisms to monitor their effectiveness, and that CLT was making a signal contribution to meeting the development needs of teaching staff.
Learning infrastructure of collaborative provision
117 As noted in paragraph 47 above, the University currently participates in a relatively small number of partnership links. In each case, the policies it follows for monitoring the learning infrastructures supporting the link mirror those for provision delivered directly by the University. The audit team discussed the part played by support units within the University in the development of its collaborative partnerships, and noted the role of the University's Student Advisory Service, and the Estates and Buildings Department, in vetting the suitability of parallel arrangements in partner institutions and in providing support and advice.
Internal and external communications
Communication with staff
118 In 1998, following publication of the Dearing and Garrick Reports, the University commissioned research from members of staff to locate inconsistencies in communication and to form a basis for future policy. From this work the University identified the need to enhance the use made by its staff of its intranet, and to build on the existing programme of annual visits by the Principal to all faculties and support departments.
119 The communication initiatives described above have augmented the University's publication of a wide range of printed materials, including a University Newsletter, ad hoc news sheets, and papers and other communications from the Registry. The audit team examined material produced by the institution in both printed and electronic forms and was able to discuss the University's approaches to communication with its staff throughout the visit. Staff considered that they were well-informed, and stated that the growing use of the intranet had led to improved internal communications. Staff also stated that the Principal's visits to the faculties and support departments were worthwhile and appreciated. The Account noted that the University was aware of the potential dangers of 'information overload'.
The contribution of committee arrangements to internal communications
120 In the Account the University stated that three factors which had the potential to limit its success were: its complexity of procedures; the congestion of business in its committees; and pressure of work on participants in its formal structures. The Account also noted that the University's recent reorganisation had provided an additional challenge to the clear communication of its policies and priorities to staff. Senior members of the University told the audit team that the institution's 'very active committee structure' played an important part in communications between staff and the institution and vice versa and underpinned the University's confidence in the quality of its educational provision and the academic standards of its awards. The team was surprised by this view, since the committee arrangements it observed seemed to it to be overly complex, and the minuting conventions appeared not to promote clear statements of decisions taken, the grounds for decisions, and what action should be taken and by whom.
121 Following its recent restructuring, the University intends to review its committee arrangements at the end of the 2000-01 session. In the view of the audit team this would now be advisable and timely. In the team's judgement, the scope of such a review should extend to central and faculty-based committees (including those associated with LTCs and modules). This review should enable the University to address the three limiting factors that it identified for itself in the Account - complexity of procedures, congestion of business and pressure of work on participants. The review should also enable the University to revisit its conventions for minuting the work of its committees; the remits of and terms of reference of committees; and should provide an appropriate context within which to review the administrative support required to enable LTCs to make the central contribution to the University's quality management arrangements required of them.
Communication with students
122 The University intends that all information communicated to students should 'be accessible but that specific information should be targeted and made available at the points where it is most needed'. Information for students is provided by the University in a number of forms, including programme handbooks and electronic communications. Both printed and electronic means of communication were reviewed by the audit team and were discussed with students who were at different stages of their programmes of study.
123 The content of student handbooks is governed by guidelines produced centrally by the University although, notwithstanding such central guidance, the audit team found significant variability in the content and coverage of the handbooks it reviewed in the base room. Some, for example, cross-referred to assessment regulations while others provided them in full. Consequently the team considered that the audit of student handbooks that had been agreed by ASC was timely and would be likely to identify a need for greater consistency in key areas, such as those relating to assessment.
124 The University has developed an electronic 'module browser', which provides a complete set of module outlines for use by students and staff. To ensure that information presented via the module browser is current and accurate, the Registry works closely with faculty-based staff. Members of staff and students with whom the audit team discussed their use of the module browser considered that its introduction met a real need, and that it was developing into a significant and useful resource for the University. The University is to be commended for this development.
Student participation in quality management arrangements
125 Student representatives, identified through the Students' Association, are entitled to attend meetings of the Court and Senate, their Standing Committees, and faculty-level meetings. The University has recently evaluated the effectiveness of student representation at faculty level and found this to be 'somewhat uneven'. Recent developments in participation arrangements have attempted to address this variability, and the induction programme for new students now includes presentations on the value of participating as a representative in the University's committee structure.
126 Student representatives who met the audit team were confident that their contributions to meetings, including those of staff-student liaison committees, were heeded. Representatives of taught and research students considered the Students' Association to be both active and productive in securing effective representation and in ensuring that student issues were addressed seriously. Senior members of the Students' Association were satisfied that they had ready access to senior managers of the University, including its Principal. The team noted with interest the Association's production and circulation of 'survival guides' for use by students attending Senate and other committees.
127 Student representation at programme and subject level is organised by the appropriate student constituencies but students do not have a consistent right of attendance at meetings of LTCs since, notwithstanding the stated importance of LTCs in the University's quality arrangements, authority has been delegated to faculties to determine (within guidelines) how best to achieve student participation and seek feedback. From its review of LTC annual reports, the audit team formed the view that student participation in the meetings of LTCs on a consistent basis across the institution would now be advisable.
Student feedback
128 Student feedback on their experiences of programmes and modules is formally received through questionnaires, which are produced and analysed centrally, but circulated locally. The results of analysing the questionnaires are set out in the annual reports of LTCs and programme leaders and are sent independently to ASC. The audit team found evidence that the University had used student surveys on several occasions to inform the development of its services, including those relating to guidance systems, student services, assessment procedures and the part-time student experience.
129 Although the University devotes substantial resources to the provision and analysis of student questionnaires, response rates are low, ascribed by some students who met the audit team to 'questionnaire fatigue' and by others to the belief amongst their fellows that the circulation of questionnaires was 'tokenism'. In view of the clear evidence seen by the team of the University's use of feedback information from students to improve its services, it found this view surprising. Such unwarranted scepticism on the part of students does not encourage their wider participation in quality-related activities. The University may wish to consider the desirability of providing students with clearer information on the steps it has taken, and continues to take, to improve its services on the basis of the information they provide. In light of these observations, the review of Student Feedback Strategy by ASC is timely and would be likely to address these concerns.
Student complaints and appeals
130 The Account stated that the University's academic appeals procedures were long-established and that a complaints procedure had been introduced in 1995. Procedures for both complaints and appeals against academic decisions are described fully in an information booklet provided for taught and research students which is also available electronically through the University's 'Students' Infopoint'.
131 Appeals are administered through the Registrar's Office which presents an annual analytical report to ASC which evaluates the number of appeals received under various categories. From the evidence available to the audit team it was clear that the number of appeals has remained broadly stable over a number of years. The team considered that the procedures for addressing complaints and appeals within the University were appropriately presented and monitored. Students who discussed their access to appeals and complaints procedures with the team appeared to lack a full understanding of the complaints procedures that might be available to them; they were, however, confident that the Students' Association would provide appropriate information and support should it be needed and that relevant information would be in the handbooks with which they had been provided.
132 The University has drawn up a statement of 'Rights and Responsibilities' for its students in line with the framework provided by the Further and Higher Education Charter for Scotland. As with complaints and appeals students, despite being unaware of the existence of the Student Charter, were confident that they had received 'Rights and Responsibilities' at registration.
Accuracy of published materials
133 The audit team sought to establish ways in which the University assured itself of the accuracy of material communicated in its name. The Department of Corporate Communications is responsible for publishing a comprehensive range of marketing and recruitment materials including prospectuses and the University's web site and the University employs settled procedures operated by Registry staff to check the accuracy of materials produced in its name. The procedures used across the University for developing and ensuring the accuracy of promotional materials appeared to the team to be sound.
Conclusions
134 The University of Paisley is located in the middle of communities that suffer from high unemployment and social disadvantage. It is committed to offering to these communities better access to higher education and to lifelong learning. In part furtherance of this aim it has been developing since 1995 the Crichton University Campus in Dumfries, in partnership with the University of Glasgow. The University's student information confirms that it is attracting students from disadvantaged backgrounds and that its policies in this area are working. Students and staff are intensely loyal to the University and both rightly see its work as making a positive difference to the communities it serves.
135 Since 1995 the University has experienced continuing change in its circumstances. Two former colleges of nursing and midwifery have been incorporated successfully into the institution, together with new and challenging vocational and professional activities, and the new campus at Dumfries. The impact of these changes is still being felt by the University, but they have generally been managed well. Other changes made by the University since 1995 include the institution-wide introduction of modular provision. Here the evidence points to change being less well-managed. The University has adopted regulations appropriate to modular provision, but ambiguities in the way it describes the structures it has adopted to manage its provision have led to confusion. This is to be seen most clearly in the handling of assessments, where there is evidence to show that upward reporting arrangements are not wholly secure, although it should be emphasised that there is no evidence that any student progression or degree classification decisions have been made incorrectly. The University is aware of this weakness and has begun to tackle it: further action is now needed.
136 There are other concerns about aspects of the assessment arrangements which the University would do well to deal with as soon as possible, including the way external examiners' reports are considered (the examiners themselves serving the University well), and the confirmation in practice of degree results by faculty executives, rather than by the University acting corporately. Although the University is attending to these shortcomings, at the present they limit the degree of confidence that can be placed in the security of the University's academic standards. That having been said, the external examiners express themselves generally satisfied that the academic standards of the University's awards are comparable with those of other institutions in the UK.
137 The University's management of the learning environment it offers is sound overall. Its objective since 1996 has been to create an integrated library service across all its campuses. Work on attaining this objective continues, and would be assisted by the development of a formal library policy, as the University recognises. The University has strong and effective arrangements to provide students with pastoral and academic guidance and support. Some of the initiatives taken by the University to induct and retain students, and to support their progression are commendable, and worthy of wider notice.
138 Informal communications arrangements between the University and its members, and between staff and students are good. Care appears to be given to ensuring the accuracy of published materials, and work has begun to ensure that the contents of student and module information is accurate. The University's development of an electronic module browser for students seeking to plan their future studies is a noteworthy and commendable development. Formal communication arrangements work well on the whole, but are not helped by a complex committee structure, or by reporting styles which are inconsistent and not focused on the needs of student and staff readers. Students cannot at present attend Learning and Teaching Committee meetings, however, and it would be advisable for this policy to be reconsidered. Student feedback arrangements are good, although some students complain of 'questionnaire fatigue'; however, the University gives such information great weight when evaluating its educational provision and students can be confident that their views are attended to.
139 At present there can be broad confidence in the University's management of its educational provision. Broad confidence in the University's discharge of its responsibilities for the academic standards of awards arising from its taught programmes will also be merited once steps have been taken to improve its assessment arrangements, and the manner in which it deals with comments from external examiners.
Points for commendation
140 From the instances of good practice seen by the audit team or brought to its attention it would wish to commend the University for:
- the work of its Quality Assurance Review Group and its Internal Audit Sub Group (paragraph 46);
- the clear vision shared by its support services, and particularly its Registry, of the agenda for learning and academic standards which confronts the University, and the contribution they are required to make to enable that agenda to be addressed (paragraphs 52 and 57);
-
its development of coherent policies in support of its commitment to
extend social inclusion and access to higher education, in line with
its Mission; its work to identify and (within the limits of its resources)
address difficulties with student retention; and its establishment of
an Advisory Group on Student Progression
(paragraphs 104 -108); -
its staff development arrangements and the work of its Centre for Learning
and Teaching
(paragraph 116); - its arrangements to support informed choices by students of modules through the development of its 'module browser' (paragraph 124).
Points for further consideration
141 As it continues to develop its systems and arrangements for assuring the quality of its educational provision and the standards of its programmes, the University will wish to consider the necessity of:
- ensuring that the transactions of its module panels are formally recorded and open to independent scrutiny; and devising a mechanism which would allow changes made to module marks by an external examiner to be fed back to all programmes using the module in question (paragraph 73).
142 The University will also wish to consider the advisability of:
- clarifying the respective responsibilities of module coordinators, programme leaders and chairs of LTCs for managing the quality of academic provision and for contributing to the safeguarding of the academic standards of the University's awards (paragraph 37); revising the terms of reference of its Senate and faculty committees in order to ensure that there is consistency in terms where 'quality' refers to academic provision and 'academic standards' to the standards of academic awards (paragraph 91); ensuring that a proper separation is maintained between the responsibilities of LTCs for managing the quality of provision, and their emerging obligations to the University to safeguard the academic standards of the awards to which that provision leads (paragraph 92);
- keeping under review the staff support needs of its faculties, following devolution of quality management and academic standards tasks to that level (paragraph 52);
- undertaking periodic holistic reviews of how its arrangements to manage the quality of its educational provision, and safeguard the academic standards of its awards, work together, and how their coherence might be enhanced (paragraphs 58 and 121);
- revising its Regulatory Framework in the light of current assessment practice in order to make clear how its Senate discharges its responsibilities for the University's awarding powers (paragraph 75);
- ensuring that matters raised by external examiners are dealt with more speedily (paragraph 83);
- revising the terms of reference of its Library Users Committee to ensure that in future it adopts a more strategic approach to its responsibilities for overseeing the development of the University's library provision and developing a formal policy for library development (paragraph 102);
- considering how students might be represented on the membership of its Learning and Teaching Committees, on a consistent basis across the institution (paragraph 127);
and the desirability of:
- keeping under review the effectiveness of the measures it has taken to address student progression and retention rates (paragraph 70);
- devising a means of assuring itself that all research students are trained in relevant aspects of health and safety, and given general training in conducting seminars, tutorials and laboratories (paragraph 89);
- devising a more consistent and equitable system of support for overseas students than is present in the current pattern of practice (paragraph 109).
Appendix 1*
University of Paisley - facts and figures 2000
History
The University was founded in 1897 as the Paisley Technical College and School of Art and became a Scottish Office Central Institution in 1950. Since 1966 it has delivered its own degree programmes, initially under the CNAA and since 1992 as a University. The University has three campuses. The original campus at Paisley has in excess of 8,500 students. The Ayr campus arising from the merger with Craigie College of Education in 1993 has 1,700 students. The newly developed Crichton University campus at Dumfries, arising from the joint SHEFC-funded initiative with Glasgow University in 1999, currently has some 250 students.
The University now has four Faculties: the Business School, the Faculty of Communications, Engineering and Science, the Faculty of Education and Media and the Faculty of Health and Social Sciences. Health and Social Sciences includes Nursing and Midwifery for which the University was awarded the NHS Management Executive contract in 1996 with respect to Argyll and Clyde and Ayrshire and Arran.
The University draws the bulk of its students from the historically heavily industrialised areas of west and south-west Scotland. For most of the twentieth century Paisley College provided technical and professional qualifications for the textile, chemical and engineering industries of Renfrewshire and Ayrshire. Today these industries have seriously contracted and have been only partially replaced by electronics and associated services. In consequence, many communities still suffer high levels of unemployment. The isolated, semi-rural ex-coal mining areas of Ayrshire have the worst unemployment in Scotland. Relative to other universities, Paisley draws a very significant proportion of its students from communities of this type.
The University's commitment to widening social access seeks to comprehend the demands of social inclusion and of life long learning and the issues of geographical isolation as experienced in the west and south-west of Scotland. The University has a substantial number of students undertaking part-time study while remaining in full-time employment. It also draws significant student numbers from the further education sector.
Mission
The University of Paisley aims to be a leading provider of vocationally orientated higher education in Scotland.
In the realisation of its vision the University will continue to exercise the highest educational standards in its chosen area of activity, providing challenging opportunities to a wide and socially representative constituency of students, enabling them to fulfil their potential through the pursuit of high quality, vocationally relevant structured courses.
Key statistics - 2000
| Number of students |
9,538
|
| Number of staff (full-time) |
1,133
|
| Number of taught courses |
177
|
Faculties (from August 2000)
Business School
Faculty of Education & Media
Faculty of Communications, Engineering & Science
Faculty of Health & Social Studies
Number of students (including research) - Listed by faculty 1999-2000
| Business | 1,868 |
| Education & Media | 800 |
| Engineering | 1,819 |
| Science & Tech | 782 |
| Health & Social Sciences | 2,724 |
| Combined Awards | 1,545 |
| Total | 9,538 |
Student characteristics (by mode of attendance and gender) - 1999-2000
Gender
| Gender | Full-time | Part-time | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Male | 2,942 | 998 | 3,940 |
| Female | 3,692 | 1,891 | 5,583 |
| Total | 6,634 | 2,889 | 9,523 |
Age by all modes of attendance - 1999-2000
Proportion of student population aged under 21 - (30 per cent)
Proportion of student population aged 21 or over - (70 per cent)
Full-time University staff - August 2000
| Full-time | |
|---|---|
| Academic/Research | 448 |
| Administrative | 130 |
| Clerical | 311 |
| Technical | 99 |
| Manual | 145 |
| Total | 1,133 |
Finances 1998-99 accounts
| Income | Expenditure |
|---|---|
| £41,935,000 | £41,894,000 |
*as supplied by the University of Paisley
Appendix 2*
List of the University's collaborative partnerships as at October 2001
| External Institution | Programme Title |
|---|---|
| Validated programmes | |
| Scottish Baptist College | BD/BD (Hons) Theology & Pastoral Studies |
| Local Delivery | |
| Stow College |
CertHE Science BSc Music Technology |
|
TEI of Pireaus Local delivery (by University of Paisley staff supported by TEI of Piraeus staff) |
PgD/MSc Information Technology (with Web Development) PgD/MSc International Marketing PgD/MSc Quality Management PgD/MSc Management of eBusiness |
Local Partnerships
The University engages in partnership with a wide range of Further Education colleges including:
- Anniesland College
- Ayr College
- Borders College
- Cardonald College
- Central College of Commerce
- Clydebank College
- Dumfries & Galloway College
- Falkirk College
- James Watt College
- Kilmarnock College
- Langside College
- Reid Kerr College, Paisley
- South Lanarkshire College
- Stow College
China - Articulation
Beijing Union -
University
BA Business Accounting
BA Business Administration
BSc Computing
(direct entry to Level 3)
*as supplied by the University of Paisley
Top
QAA updates
QAAtweets
QAAtube