Introduction
A team of auditors from the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (the Agency) visited the University of Reading (the University) from 10 May 2004 to carry out an institutional audit. The purpose of the audit was to provide public information on the quality of the opportunities available to students and on the academic standards of awards.
To arrive at its conclusions the audit team spoke to members of staff throughout the University, to current students, and read a wide range of documents relating to the way the University manages the academic aspects of its provision.
The words 'academic standards' are used to describe the level of achievement that a student has to reach to gain an award (for example, a degree). It should be at a similar level across the UK.
Academic quality is a way of describing how well the learning opportunities available to students help them to achieve their award. It is about making sure that appropriate teaching, support, assessment and learning opportunities are provided for them.
In institutional audit, both academic standards and academic quality are reviewed.
Outcome of the audit
As a result of its investigations, the audit team's view of the University is that:
- broad confidence can be placed in the soundness of the University's present and likely future management of the quality of its programmes and the academic standards of its awards.
Features of good practice
The audit team identified the following areas as being good practice:
- the use of directors of teaching and learning at faculty and school level. These roles have served as a catalyst for implementing change; embedding institutional quality assurance procedures across the faculty and school structure; and have encouraged the effective identification and dissemination of good practice;
- the Certificate in Further Professional Studies in Higher Education. In particular, the way this is flexibly integrated with teaching; is used to disseminate good practice in teaching, and is used to familiarise staff with institutional quality assurance procedures;
- links with practice at school and departmental level. In particular, the variety of links with industry, professional bodies and practice used to inform the curriculum, assist student employability and support research; and
- the Annual Award for Teaching Excellence. In particular, the involvement of students in institutional processes for identifying, supporting and rewarding good practice in learning and teaching.
Recommendations for action
The audit team also recommends that the University should consider further action in a number of areas to ensure that the academic quality and standards of the awards it offers are maintained.
The team advises the University to:
- develop more transparent processes for monitoring and reviewing the diversity of practice where institutional policies allow for interpretation and variation in their implementation at faculty and school level; and
- develop and promote the systematic collection and analysis of student feedback and the effective communication of responses back to the user group(s).
It would be desirable for the University to:
- further develop mechanisms for identifying and sharing good practice where the implementation of procedures and policies for the enhancement of teaching and learning and quality assurance is devolved;
- provide an institutional overview and response to professional body reports; and
- take a strategic overview of the development and use of virtual learning environment technologies.
Discipline audit trails
To arrive at these conclusions, the audit team spoke to staff and students, and was given information about the University as a whole. The team also looked in some detail at several individual programmes in the five discipline areas of chemistry, construction management, economics/management, food biosciences, and typography and graphic communication to find out how well the University systems and procedures were working at programme level. The University provided the team with documents including student work and, here too, the team spoke to staff and students from each discipline area. As well as supporting the overall confidence statements given above, the team was able to state that the standard of student achievement in the programmes was appropriate to the titles of the awards and their place within The framework for higher education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (FHEQ), published by the Agency. The team was also able to state that the quality of learning opportunities available to students was suitable for a programme of study leading to the awards.
National reference points
To provide further evidence to support its findings the audit team also investigated the use made by the University of the Academic Infrastructure, which the Agency has developed on behalf of the whole of UK higher education. The Academic Infrastructure is a set of nationally agreed reference points that help to define both good practice and academic standards. The findings of the audit suggest that the University has responded appropriately to the Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education, the FHEQ, subject benchmark statements and programme specifications.
From 2004, the audit process will include a check on the reliability of information about academic standards and quality published by institutions in a standard format. At the time of the audit, the University was making progress towards fulfilling its responsibilities in this area. The information it was publishing about the quality of its programmes and the standards of its awards was found to be reliable.
>> Main report
>> Findings
ISBN 1 84482 165 X
Top
QAA updates
QAAtweets
QAAtube