Foreword
1 This is a report of an academic quality audit of The Robert Gordon University (the University) undertaken by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA). QAA is grateful to the University for the willing cooperation provided to the audit team.
2 The audit was carried out using a revised process approved by the former Higher Education Quality Council (HEQC) and endorsed by HEQC's successor body, QAA. The modified process was 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 communications.
Method and process
3 Following discussions with QAA, the University provided an Analytical Account (the Account) of its arrangements to assure the quality of its academic provision and the standard of its academic awards, together with selected documents chosen to illustrate how it satisfied itself that its policies, strategies and procedures for these matters were being applied effectively. In particular, the Account sought to outline the University's educational objectives and quality strategy, the mechanisms used to assure the quality and standards of its academic awards, its learning infrastructure, and its internal and external communication frameworks. In preparation for the visit of the audit team, QAA undertook a preliminary visit to the University to survey the evidence provided by the institution to support the Account and to gather additional information, copies of which were then provided by QAA to members of the team. In addition to the materials provided by the University, the team consulted the report on the academic audit of the University conducted by HEQC in 1995 and teaching quality assessment reports (now known as subject review reports) produced by the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council (SHEFC), together with other materials used by the University for internal communications (including information held electronically). The team also had access to an institutional profile agreed between the University and QAA in 2000.
4 At a briefing meeting held to discuss the University's submission, the audit team considered the Account and supporting information made available by the University and proposed a programme of meetings for a visit to the institution. During the visit, the University made available a base room containing a substantial collection of original documents relating to the Account, and some additional items of information requested by the team following its briefing meeting and during the course of the visit itself.
5 The audit team visited the University from 23 to 27 April 2001. In addition to reviewing the documents provided in the base room, the team held meetings with more than 90 members of the University. An overview of the institution, prepared by the University, is attached as appendix 1 and a list of the University's collaborative partnerships, current as at 1 May 2001, is included as appendix 2.
6 The audit team comprised Dr C J Haslam, Professor J M Masson, Mr G A Wright, auditors; and Ms S M Welham, who acted as the audit secretary. The audit was coordinated for QAA by Dr C J Haslam, Assistant Director, Institutional Review Directorate.
The context for the audit
Historical context and the Account
7 The origins of the University go back to 1750 when it provided the educational work of the Robert Gordon's Hospital. By 1903, the institution had become the Robert Gordon's Technical College, one of a number of Scottish Central Institutions. After a change of name to the Robert Gordon's Institute of Technology, it was accredited in 1989 by the Council for National Academic Awards to confer its own academic awards. Under the authority of the Privy Council, The Robert Gordon University was established in 1993 and, in 1996, the former Foresterhill College of Nursing was incorporated into the University. The University's Mission Statement outlines a desire to provide 'high quality, practice-based education and training programmes, research and consultancy services', with underpinning objectives embracing the promotion of access to educational opportunities to all sectors of the population, the promotion of appropriate personal development for all staff and the achievement of high professional standards in all activities.
8 The University has undergone a period of growth since the HEQC audit of 1995, the Account noting that at the time of the visit the institution had 9,365 students, comprising 8,084 taught undergraduate and 1,180 taught postgraduate students with a further 101 being registered as postgraduate students by research. In addition, the University had some 500 students registered for degrees by distance learning (see below, paragraphs 25, 26 and 42 to 43). The student community and the institution's 1,400 staff are located on six sites within Aberdeen and a small centre in Cromarty. The academic structure of the University now comprises 15 schools based in four faculties covering the areas of: Design; Health & Social Care; Management; and Science and Technology. In addition, there are 10 main support departments. The University's Academic Council has the statutory duty for the academic work of the University and its responsibilities in this regard are monitored through a process of regular reports to the Board of Governors. Responsibility for the executive management of the University is delegated by the Board to a Strategic Management Team (SMT) which comprises the Principal/Vice-Chancellor, four Assistant Principals/Deans, and the Directors of Finance, Human Resources, Information Technology, as well as the University Secretary.
9 The University's Account was produced following a process that involved senior members of the University, including the Principal, in a specially constituted Continuation Audit Steering Group. This Group established three working groups that undertook a number of wide-ranging audits from which a draft Account was produced. The draft Account was considered by the University's main committees before it was submitted to Academic Council and thence to the Board of Governors. The audit team considered that the Account offered a helpful and comprehensive coverage of the University's policies and activities in relation to academic quality and standards. It reflected in a positive and constructive manner on both institutional strengths and limitations, the recent past and the immediate future, and offered a clear and balanced rationale for the direction and detail of proposed organisational developments.
The 1995 HEQC audit and subsequent institutional developments
10 In 1995, the University participated in an academic audit conducted by HEQC. The University was commended for a number of matters including: its validation procedures; the extent of external involvement in work placement activities; the activities of its Educational Development Unit; its student support systems; the management of research students; and, its arrangements for the induction of new staff. The report additionally made a number of recommendations including the necessity of the University reviewing the operation of its formal quality assurance system, embracing, for example, an examination of its monitoring and review processes, assessment practices, systems for dealing with external examiner reports, and arrangements for monitoring collaborative activities. In its Account, the University noted that a formal response was produced one year after the audit which was accepted by HEQC.
11 The Account identified a number of institutional developments that had taken place since the 1995 audit. In particular, attention was drawn to the significant work that had been undertaken by the University to realign the institution's quality assurance arrangements to promote a more user-friendly and facilitative system. In addition, the Account drew attention to other institutional developments including the incorporation of the Foresterhill College of Nursing as a School of Nursing and Midwifery; the creation of a School of Hotel, Tourism and Retail Management within the Faculty of Management; the establishment of the Centre for Open and Distance Learning (CODL); the restructuring of all its undergraduate programmes in terms of a Common Course Architecture (CCA); and the establishment of a 'Virtual Campus'.
12 An Institutional Profile produced by QAA in September 2000, and agreed by the University, notes that the institution has participated in 15 teaching quality assessments since 1994-95 and that, of these, one had been graded excellent, six highly satisfactory, and seven satisfactory. The one subject assessed under a revised subject review methodology resulted in two grade 4s, three grade 3s and one grade 2. Student work has been graded as being excellent or highly satisfactory in each subject and, since 1995-96, no single aspect has been graded as unsatisfactory.
13 An overseas audit of the University's collaborative link with the Institut Teknologi Pertama (ITP) in Malaysia was undertaken by QAA in 1999. In drawing attention to a number of positive operational aspects, the report also suggested that, in some respects, the effectiveness of the University's control was deficient. Acknowledging the points made in the overseas audit report, since 1999 the University has introduced revised procedures relating to the quality assurance of its collaborative provision. These have included modulations to the mechanisms for assessing the viability of a proposed collaboration, revised review procedures and enhancements to the role played by external examiners. Following a period of reflection and debate the University has since taken the decision to withdraw from this and almost all its other overseas collaborative partnerships (see below, paragraphs 24, 42 to 43 and 64 to 65).
The University's quality strategy
The University's strategic objectives
14 The University's Strategic Vision espouses the institution's aim 'to be widely recognised as the premier vocational University in the United Kingdom'. The educational objectives of the University are set out in some detail in its Strategic Plan, which incorporates a series of inter-linked activities and targets relating to the institution's academic identity; academic profile; academic and administrative support systems; human resources; external relationships and partnerships; financial strategy; and estates strategy. The Account noted that the University is committed to ensuring that its Strategic Plan has wide institutional ownership. Inclusiveness, the audit team learnt, is encouraged through the involvement of central departments in the preparation of plans that feed directly from previously agreed school and faculty strategic plans. In response to feedback, the University has recently sought deliberately to de-couple processes associated with the formation of strategy from the mechanisms for scheduling and implementing the delivery of the strategy. Available documentation and discussions with staff indicated that a particular strength of the planning procedures underpinning the quality strategy of the University and the maintenance of quality and standards were clear performance indicators that were reported upon each year to the Board of Governors. These indicators included, for example, achievement of recruitment targets; financial performance; the management of diversity; student employment statistics; research activity and student satisfaction analyses. Base room evidence suggested that the Board of Governors plays an active role in the cycle of institutional appraisal. From the information made available to it, the team considered that the University's Mission and associated strategic objectives had broad and confident ownership.
15 The Account drew attention to those features of the University's strategy that were considered to underpin its distinctiveness and particular approach to quality matters. These included, for example, the promotion of diversity within the student body and the support of widened participation; the extensive involvement of external peers and the student body in standards assurance and the promotion of quality enhancement (see below, paragraphs 69 to 71); an explicitly defined system with clearly documented procedures (see below, paragraph 17); and the use of internal audit as a means of assuring implementation of its quality system (see below, paragraphs 22 to 23). From its enquiries, the audit team found these tenets to be securely embedded across the institution. For example, the team was made aware of performance monitoring in relation to staffing and student recruitment profiles and the effectiveness of student support services in satisfying a diverse range of user needs (see below, paragraphs 52 to 55, 58 and 60 to 63).
Quality policy and system
16 The essence of the University's quality policy is that all members of staff are expected to take personal responsibility for the quality of their contributions to the provision of students' educational experience within a supportive framework that respects the diversity of schools and faculties. In implementing its policy, the University seeks, as far as possible, to define objectives rather than dictate detailed mechanisms but also recognises the need for rigorous oversight at University level of school and faculty effectiveness and compliance (see below, paragraphs 22 to 23). The audit team noted with interest that the University's approach to quality was one that, quite explicitly, sought to go beyond an isolated focus upon academic quality assurance. Through its reading of the Account and discussions with staff, the team noted that the University's quality system had a number of specific dimensions: assurance, ownership, accountability and enhancement. Quality assurance takes place through review, monitoring and action planning. Quality ownership occurs at all levels, through individual academic staff, academic teams and service areas to faculty and central committees and those with management responsibilities. Quality accountability happens through, for example, professional accreditation, QAA review processes, performance indicators and student feedback and involvement; and quality enhancement occurs through staff development, action following peer review, research underpinning teaching, and the engagement of staff with professional development activities.
17 Three primary documents underpin the University's practices in relation to quality management. The Academic Quality Handbook (AQH), the Academic Regulations Handbook and the Organisational Regulations. Responsibility for the compilation and accuracy of these documents rests with the Academic Registrar. AQH is essentially a compendium of relevant institutional policies and procedural frameworks and forms part of the University's drive to spread awareness of quality issues and what was described to the audit team as 'making explicit, what was implicit'. These documents are also available on the web as part of what the team considered to be an accessible site relating to the University's quality systems. From its meetings with a wide range of staff members, the team concluded that the University's quality system was widely promulgated and well-understood, and that individuals knew where to find information of relevance to their role. The team would wish to commend the University for its clear and accessible institutional procedures and regulations including, for example, AQH.
18 Other ways of disseminating good practice, and hence enhancing quality across the University, include the circulation of summaries of good practice arising from the internal academic quality audit programme (see below, paragraphs 22 to 23) and the monitoring by the Committee on Teaching Learning and Assessment (CTLA) of initiatives at faculty and school level in respect of academic quality assurance and standards. The Centre for Learning and Assessment (CLASS, see below, paragraph 63) also organises a series of seminars with the objective of spreading innovation and good practice in teaching.
Central quality committees
19 The Account noted that the University's formal deliberative committees play a key role in the implementation, development and monitoring of the institution's academic quality system. As noted previously (see above, paragraph 8) Academic Council is ultimately responsible for determining the academic policies and framework within which the University's various faculties and schools operate. The Council seeks to provide a forum for debate, for communication of information on University and national policy developments, and for formal decisions on major policy proposals formulated elsewhere in the institution. The Council is supported in its work by a number of other bodies including, in particular, the Planning Committee, CTLA and faculty boards. The Account stressed that, like members of Academic Council, members of these committees are expected to adopt a University-wide approach to the issues before them rather than acting as representatives of their own school or subject area. This view was reinforced in subsequent discussions with senior institutional managers. The audit team noted with interest that each of the University's standing committees is required to undertake an annual review of its effectiveness. The team scrutinised a number of such reports and concluded that they provided helpful information on a number of administrative matters.
20 Following the 1995 HEQC audit, Academic Council approved changes to its committee structure, these changes being designed to clarify remits and reduce the number of committees. In 1997, a major review of the University's academic quality system led to modifications to the deliberative and executive structures at course and school level. Additionally, a Planning Executive Group (PEG) was established aimed at enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of approving course developments and collaborative partnerships. The audit team learnt that the University had recently reviewed the role of the Planning Committee and that, with effect from the 2001-02 academic session, it would become a joint committee of Academic Council and the Board of Governors and be retitled the Strategic Planning Committee. The Account explained that the rationale for this modification was the desire to 'enhance strategy formation', promote 'more effective oversight of [strategy] implementation' and to more clearly delineate the role of the Committee from its own sub-committee, PEG. From its review of available information, it was apparent to the team that both the Planning Committee and PEG played an important role in helping to shape the academic profile and character of the University. The Planning Committee has, for example, periodically commissioned course portfolio analyses and has also been instrumental in plans to develop an institutional risk management strategy. Discussions with staff suggested that work on an academic risk management strategy were at an early and formative stage.
21 While the minutes of a small number of institutional committees lacked detail, supporting papers evidenced that the University was a cohesive and self-critical academic community. The audit team noted that the minutes of key institutional committees were available through the web, thereby facilitating widespread knowledge of institutional quality assurance and enhancement matters.
Internal academic quality audit
22 In addition to the University's more general internal audit processes, the Account noted that the institution's Internal Academic Quality Audit Team (IAQAT) played 'a key role' in assisting CTLA in discharging its responsibility for monitoring and appraising the effectiveness of the institution's academic quality assurance systems. In addition to the annual appraisal process (see below, paragraphs 34 to 38) and the University's annual internal audit of processes undertaken by external consultants, on a sample basis IAQAT undertakes an annual audit of a particular aspect of the institution's academic quality assurance system. Since 1998-99 the work of IAQAT has been coordinated by the Academic Affairs Department. Seconded membership of IAQAT is drawn from across the University and includes both academic and non-academic staff. At the time of the audit visit, IAQAT had undertaken four audits on matters ranging from staff/student liaison arrangements to the effectiveness of school executives and course/programme management team arrangements. IAQAT's five-year forward schedule proposes reviews of the feedback given to students on assessment, an audit of the institution's distance learning materials and infrastructure, and, in the 2003-04 academic session, a major audit of the institution's academic quality system. IAQAT seeks to secure a wide-ranging evaluation of the quality assurance operations of the area being audited, the process involving scrutiny of briefing documentation and a visit to allow interviews with appropriate staff and students. IAQAT operates according to a set of prescribed guidelines that are issued to the members of appointed scrutiny teams. IAQAT produces summary reports of its main findings for CTLA, with more detailed reports being issued to the relevant schools. Faculty boards are subsequently required to monitor the actions taken to address any identified shortcomings. The Account noted that examples of good practice identified through the IAQAT process are disseminated through faculty administrative officers.
23 The audit team reviewed the various reports that had been prepared by IAQAT and met staff from a number of academic areas whose activities had been subject to scrutiny. It was clear from these discussions not only that staff viewed the process as being a constructive one but that staff views had been sought and actively taken into account in the development of the audit scheme. The University is to be commended for its continuing development of its internal academic quality audit process in a manner that has led to its widespread ownership across the institution. In reviewing the evidence available to it, the team was, however, unable to satisfy itself regarding the extent to which IAQAT, independently of CTLA, sought to engage with emerging management information to inform the forward schedule of internal reviews. The team wondered also as to whether the outcomes of internal academic quality review might be used to inform the development of emerging institutional policies, such as an academic risk strategy presently being overseen by the Strategic Planning Committee in association with external consultants. In seeking to maximise the value of IAQAT as a strategic tool promoting institutional level monitoring, decision making and effective intervention to enhance quality and secure standards, the University may wish to reflect further how the generic outcomes of internal academic quality review might be disseminated to a wider audience. In discussion with the team, members of IAQAT recognised that the institution's web or newsletter might constitute an appropriate vehicle for such dissemination. The University may wish also to consider how IAQAT might usefully offer informed and independent comment on the University's quality assurance processes (and the IAQAT process itself), for example through the engagement, where appropriate, of external representation on IAQAT panels.
Collaborative and open learning programmes
24 As noted previously (see above, paragraph 13), drawing upon the concerns raised in the 1999 QAA audit of the University's collaborative provision arrangements in Malaysia and the outcomes of its own internal critical review, the institution has taken a strategic decision to withdraw from most of its collaborative provision. At the time of the visit, the University had one overseas collaborative venture in India. Though the audit team was not in a position to undertake a detailed review of this particular collaboration, from the written evidence made available by the University and its discussions with staff, the team formed the view that the collaboration was being managed with due diligence. During the course of its visit, the team learnt that the University had recently embarked upon the delivery of a distance learning MBA in Brazil and was exploring a targeted development in Africa.
25 The Account noted that the University has embarked upon a major initiative to offer programmes on an open learning basis through the internet. The initiative, which is being overseen by CODL reporting to the Dean of the Faculty of Management, seeks to 'develop a learning community where attention to flexibility, quality and support will make [the institution] the university of choice for lifelong learning, irrespective of where an individual lives and works'. In addition to the promotion of flexible, innovative and lifelong learning, the audit team observed that other important drivers for the initiative include a desire to increase the institution's student intake and decrease a 'reliance on traditional students' and '[to do] more with less at a time of rapid change'. At the time of the visit, the University had opened some 3,000 learner accounts with in excess of 500 students studying on seven courses, mainly at a postgraduate level. Initial planning envisaged some 4,000 students studying on an open learning basis by 2003-04, although the team heard that these projections had recently been revised to some 2,000 students by 2003-04. University staff stressed that although different delivery mechanisms were being employed, open learning programmes were subject to broadly similar quality assurance and control arrangements as applied to more conventionally delivered programmes. The University has indicated that its virtual campus is to be subject to review by IAQAT during the 2002-03 academic session. In addition the University is hoping to secure accreditation of its virtual campus by the British Association for Open Learning.
26 Discussions with staff at all levels revealed that the University acknowledged that this innovative development presented a number of significant challenges ranging from, for example, the development of tailored learning materials through to revised tutorial support arrangements. The audit team would wish to commend the University for its alertness and strategic commitment to the educational and market opportunities presented by the use of emerging technologies. At the same time, however, from its review of the available evidence the team was unable to satisfy itself whether, in developing and then implementing its 'virtual campus', appropriate attention has yet been given to the special demands imposed by this particular means of programme delivery and whether the experience gained by the University in the context of introducing new modes of delivery off-campus had been effectively applied (see above, paragraph 13). The team noted, for example, that the minuted discussions of some programme validation events suggested that only limited consideration had been given to the quality and standards issues associated with new forms of delivery (see also above, paragraph 21 and below, paragraph 38). Further, none of the 'main challenges' identified in CODL's most recent business plan, covering the period 2000-04, appeared to address some of the matters which the team considered to be of particular relevance in relation to electronic delivery. In discussion, University staff acknowledged the dangers of 'learning by doing' and accepted that careful attention would need to be given to the particular quality assurance and enhancement arrangements required to underpin the effective delivery, assessment and maintenance of quality and standards in this innovative learning environment. Clear and identified leadership will be needed to underpin the virtual campus initiative.
The QAA Code of practice
27 The audit team noted with interest that the University has undertaken a particularly extensive and comprehensive 'compliance mapping' of its quality assurance procedures to all of the precepts in the sections of the QAA's Code of practice that have been published to date. With the exception of the section of the Code relating to students with disabilities (see below, paragraph 58), the University expressed strong confidence that it could demonstrate adherence to the Code. From the information available to it, the team would endorse this view and would acknowledge also the work undertaken by the University in this particular area.
The academic standards of programmes and awards
Definition and maintenance of academic standards
28 The Account noted that academic standards are defined by the University in terms of three aspects: the entry standards of students on entering programmes of study; the intended standard of the proposed programme of study; and the output standards achieved by students on completion of their programme of study.
Entry standards
29 Minimum entry requirements for admission to programmes are defined within the University's Academic Regulations Handbook and these, the University states, create a consistent framework upon which individual cases may be considered. Specific admission requirements for particular courses are identified at the time of course validation or review. Additionally, 'going rates', which reflect the level of demand for courses, are set annually, normally above the minimum standard, by course teams in conjunction with recruitment staff. The University's admissions policy provides for students to be admitted without standard entry qualifications provided there is a 'reasonable expectation' that they can achieve the standard required for the award. The University's Academic Regulations Handbook also specifies the standards required for those seeking entry to research degrees although the Account stated that the Research Degrees Committee would also consider those with non-standard entry qualifications, on an individual basis.
30 The audit team enquired about how entry standards were monitored and the ways in which the University satisfied itself that the 'going rates' were appropriate indicators of the applicant's ability to successfully complete the course. The team also explored whether the University was recruiting an appropriate quality of students. One response drew attention to possible geographical constraints whilst others responded that entry grades were not necessarily a good predictor of student performance and that, in some cases, schools had 'pretty much an open doors policy'. The team was told that entry standards had been relatively stable although for some courses higher entry grades were being used to stem the growth of student numbers. The team was, therefore, interested to know how the University addressed the potential dichotomy between the aim of increasing entry standards and, at the same time, achieving its wider-access objective, especially where a central admissions office was involved in making offers. The team was told that course leaders set entry standards in relation to 'the going rate', sometimes in association with a professional body, and that entrants included mature and wider access students. Furthermore, the team was advised that there was little correlation between entry grades and exit results. Staff noted, however, that professional bodies were now setting input standards at levels that were 'starting to close down diversity'.
31 The University undertakes an analysis of entry standards that identifies the average entry grades, by course, and the number and proportion of applicants admitted with non-standard qualifications. The audit team enquired how applications from wider access students were handled in the context of rising entry grades. Staff explained that wider access applicants were all interviewed and that the University was currently developing a 'Pathways Plan' to recognise applicants from particular social and family backgrounds. The team queried how non-standard applicants would avoid being rejected since the Account had indicated that the central admissions office made routine offers to applicants. It was advised that, although the Admissions Office of the Customer Services Department would reject a small number of applicants, most would go to the course leader, as would applications from mature applicants or those seeking accreditation of prior learning.
32 The University produces and reviews data that shows, for each course, the average Scottish Highers points, the proportion of those entering with relevant Scottish Highers and the intake of non-standard entrants. The audit team enquired about the University's capacity to track the performance and progress of students by category or entry qualifications as a means of testing the appropriateness of particular entry standards (the 'going rate' for courses). It was informed that, at present, no such systematic analysis or tracking of entry standards took place but that the University's Wider Access Task Force had identified this as an issue requiring further attention (see below, paragraph 45). The team sought clarification about the entry standards required for admission to courses offered through the virtual campus and was advised that the regulations governing virtual delivery courses were the same as those for the home based courses (see below, paragraph 38), except where special provision was made at course validation. From its scrutiny of the procedures used for the admission of taught and research postgraduate students, the team considered that the University's procedures were clearly specified and appeared to operate smoothly.
33 From the documentary evidence made available to it and its discussions with staff, the audit team formed the view that the standards required of those entering the University's programmes are established within an approved framework and are explicit, with actual entry qualifications being reviewed against intended entry standards.
Validation and review
34 The University stated in its Account that it secures the academic standards of its awards through a procedure for the validation and review of courses which involves external peers and, where appropriate, representatives of professional bodies. This process seeks to ensure that the intended curriculum is appropriate to the standards of the award(s) being offered.
35 The validation process has undergone a number of developments since the HEQC audit in 1995 which resulted in the University being invited to consider the necessity of 'reviewing the operation of its formal quality assurance system in the light of emerging informal arrangements'. New courses, and proposed changes involving more than 25 per cent of the course credits, are now evaluated at an early stage by PEG in terms of the resource implications and strategic fit of the proposal. With PEG approval, and in dialogue with CLASS, draft course documents are produced and checked by a scrutineer (usually the faculty administrator). Following scrutiny by CLASS, the dean of faculty authorises the issue of the course documents. A validation panel (with membership agreed by the Convenor of CTLA) is then established to carry out the validation process. The University's regulations require that validation panels must comprise at least two members external to the institution and two external to the proposing school in order to ensure that a wide spectrum of external advice and comment is available to the panel. The University intends that the validation event tests the coherence, validity and appropriateness of the structure, content and assessment of the course; the general subject authority and intellectual quality of the staff; the ability of the University to monitor, critically evaluate and maintain the standards of the course; the effectiveness of the learning process; and the deployment of resource provision.
36 Alongside other Scottish institutions, the University has had an active involvement in helping to develop generic level descriptors. Undergraduate course programmes are structured around a CCA which, since 1999, has resulted in courses comprising standard modules, each of 15 SCOTCAT credits. Allied to the significant amount of work that has been undertaken by the University to develop and promulgate generic level descriptors, CCA has provided the means of expressing curricula in terms of learning outcomes which, in turn, more clearly specify the intended standards for taught provision. Within CCA, learning level outcomes (LLO) are established for courses and modules and these are then mapped against the generic template for level descriptors.
37 On the basis of the exemplar course validation documents which it reviewed; the reports from validation panels; and the notes of meetings which evidenced that the recommendations of validation panels are implemented, the audit team formed the view that the University's validation process was generally effective in establishing and testing the academic standards of the institution's programmes. The team did wonder whether, on occasion, institutional planning timetables had allowed sufficient time between the approval event and the proposed start date of a course. The team would wish to commend the University on the clarity of its validation procedures and course documentation.
38 Arrangements for the approval, monitoring and review of programmes to be delivered through the virtual campus are embedded in the University's standard quality control and quality assurance arrangements (see above, paragraph 25). The Account explained that CODL played 'a key role in advising on developments and approving learning materials distributed by the virtual campus'. The audit team learnt, however, that CODL's involvement was largely restricted to the presentation and 'look' of materials. The team was subsequently told by the University that CLASS had responsibility for pedagogical developments, with academic departments being responsible for addressing and managing the particular academic quality and standards issues peculiar to distance learning.
Assessment
39 The Account noted that the University was committed to improving and sharing best practice in assessment and exemplified this by drawing attention to 'Year of Assessment' events held in 1996 and 2000 and the Assessment Handbook, published in 1997. The Handbook seeks to keep staff 'abreast of developments in good assessment practices and high academic standards' and to 'facilitate the adoption of effective and efficient assessment methodologies'. The University also made reference to teaching quality assessment reports which had indicated that 'student assessment was well-managed [and that] the requirements were well-understood by students'. In relation to the internal comparability of academic standards, the Account stated that the adoption of LLOs has given the University greater confidence in the consistency of the intended standards of its taught courses. Staff reported that the University had gone a long way to ensuring that these levels were now 'on a par across the courses'. The University's Assessment Practices Sub-Committee has, in the audit team's view, provided an effective means of addressing strengths and limitations in the institution's assessment practice. The University recognises that its assessment processes have, in some areas, been 'over-elaborate and sometimes excessive' and it further acknowledges that the introduction of CCA may have increased the amount of over-assessment. It also appreciates that high assessment loadings may increase the workload for staff and students and can adversely affect student performance and achievement rates.
40 At the time of the visit, a criterion-referenced grading scheme was being implemented with the objective of ensuring that 'across subjects/disciplines academic standards are more transparent, consistent, equitable and assured'. The scheme additionally seeks to promote 'enhanced assurance of output standards in terms of their consistency and explicitness'. The introduction of the scheme has raised some challenges for the management of the assessment process and a revised position paper has subsequently modified the time scale for implementation and the algorithm used to generate final grades. Nevertheless, the scheme appeared to the audit team to be generally well-thought out and to provide a helpful framework to complement CCA. In the light of changes in assessment methodologies, the expansion of distance learning provision, and the use of alternative technologies and media in the assessment process, the University is considering matters regarding the authenticity of assessment (see above, paragraph 35). The team would wish to support the University in further seeking to benchmark its policies and practices and to identify examples of good practice.
41 In relation to the assessment of research degrees, the Account noted that the University, in response to the QAA Code, has recently added a section to AQH codifying procedures relating to research degrees. Where previously much institutional practice was informal with considerable dependence upon individual directors of studies, research students are now provided with structured support. The audit team found that clear guidance notes are provided for research degree students, available through the University's intranet, which make explicit the relative responsibilities of students and their supervisory team. An annual report of the Research Degrees Committee provides a range of performance information including, for example, entry qualifications and details of completion rates. From the information available to it, the team considered that the University's examination procedures and those governing the appointment of external examiners were consistent with the maintenance of appropriate academic standards for research degrees.
42 Noting that the University's Assessment Handbook includes a section dealing explicitly with the assessment of open and distant learning, the audit team was advised that the assessment regulations for virtual campus students were the same as those for the home course. The team was accordingly interested in identifying where broader issues concerning the assurance of academic standards were considered, for example the mechanisms for conducting examinations across different time zones, and was advised that the matter was being looked into by the University's Assessment Practices Sub-Committee. The team inquired as to whether those students studying on the virtual campus would be assessed in the same boards as home students and whether they would also be separately identified. Documentation seen by the team suggested that, in relation to those programmes that were presently offered both 'traditional' and 'distance learning/virtual campus' modes, no formal decision had yet been taken since 'students [had] not got to an assessment board yet'.
43 In their discussions with the University, the audit team asked about the location of examination centres for those distance learning students who might have difficulty attending examinations held in Aberdeen. At one stage it had been suggested that 'all students, including those undertaking distance learning courses, would be expected to attend the University to take examinations' but the Assessment Practices Sub-Committee recommended that 'there was a need to develop a separate policy for distance learning students undertaking examinations outwith the University in approved centres'. During the validation of a distance learning programme the course team had indicated that an 'examination centre would be identified for each student'. At a meeting of the Assessment Practices Sub-Committee shortly before the audit visit, a draft Policy for the Approval of External Testing Centres was discussed. The Sub-Committee noted that when students, for valid reasons, could not attend examinations in any of the University's approved centres, guidance would be given on finding an alternative and appropriate venue. The Sub-Committee further noted that such guidance had not been drafted and that 'developing a policy covering both traditionally delivered distance learning provision and that delivered through CODL/the virtual campus was problematic'.
Classification of awards
44 The Account noted that a University-wide 'pass-mark' and a more consistent application of assessment regulations has been introduced, facilitated by the introduction of a new management information system and credit accumulation management system. Recently, the University has introduced an internal double-marking policy 'to further enhance the assurance of output standards'. The audit team considered that clear and comprehensive regulations existed in relation to the conditions for student progression and awards, compensation for failure and re-assessment.
Non-progression rates
45 The University recognised in its Account that an area requiring 'more development' was the analysis of the non-completion rates in both taught and research programmes. A report, presented to the Board of Governors and Academic Council late in 1999 together with a progress report in late 2000 reported on a number of actions that might increase student progression rates. An analysis of course completion rates for all taught courses was produced and considered by the Planning Committee at its March 2001 meeting. Whilst it was premature for the audit team to determine the effectiveness of the actions taken, the team was encouraged by the attention that the University was giving to the issue of student progression. The intention to link such work with the University's Wider Access Task Force was also welcomed by the team given Academic Council's observation that, although 'attracting more "first choice" students would be desirable, the University had a commitment to widen access'.
External examiners
46 The University believes that external examiners 'play the central role in the assurance of output standards' and this prominence is reflected in the regulations governing their appointment, their authority and responsibilities, and the Principal's scrutiny of all external examiner reports. The Account observed that external examiners are relied upon by the University to ensure comparability of the institution's awards 'with those of other awarding bodies'. The audit team explored the mechanisms used by the University to satisfy itself that its externals were able, collectively, to bring to their task a national perspective on academic standards. The team learnt that, in relation to each school, the University undertakes an analysis of the geographical and sectoral origin of its external examiners. The team would wish to commend the University for seeking to ensure that it has a suitable range and spread of external examiners to provide an appropriate overview of the standards of its awards.
47 The Account noted that the University attaches particular importance to the analysis of external examiner reports. A recently revised standard template provides, the audit team considered, an effective means of seeking external examiner comments and a careful and thorough process of mapping examiner responses ensures that University-wide issues are identified and addressed. As part of this mapping process, faculty administrative officers undertake an audit of all external examiner reports and produce analyses identifying strengths and matters requiring further attention. These reports are considered by the respective faculty boards and, in turn, by CTLA. In addition, an annual audit of the quality of the responses made by course management teams to matters raised by external examiners is carried out by IAQAT (see above, paragraphs 22 to 23). In response to issues identified through its own external examiner report monitoring processes, the University has taken action to ensure that its external examiners comment on all relevant matters.
The learning infrastructure
48 The Account noted that members of the University's Strategic and Top Management Teams have executive responsibility for overseeing the development and operation of the institution's learning infrastructure. The institution's formal committee structure has 'primary responsibility' for monitoring the effectiveness of the learning infrastructure. The University has recently approved a Strategy for Learning. The Strategy notes that the institution is committed to creating 'a dynamic, modern, supportive and flexible environment in which students can develop as learners with an enthusiasm for life long learning'. The Strategy goes on to note that the University 'will endeavour to provide barrier free access and appropriate support for all those who have an ability to benefit from a programme of study'. Nine themed action areas have been identified by the University embracing, for example, mechanisms for providing an environment that is supportive of learning where high quality teaching and learning material is available in a range of delivery media with associated assessment being matched to learning outcomes. From its review of base room documentation and discussions with staff, the audit team would endorse the University's view that the successful implementation of the Strategy will pose challenges, not least because of existing pressures upon staff and the apparent absence of a clear and phased implementation plan.
Library facilities
49 The University's library service provides some 800 study places, in excess of 200 computer workstations and has a stock of over 200,000 books and 2,000 journals. Liaison between the library and individual schools is arranged through subject librarians. While AQH requires that new course proposals must be discussed with the library as part of the validation process, the audit team noted references in the minutes of University committees to concerns expressed by the library that such liaison did not, in fact, always take place. The team learnt that the University had recently sought to address this matter. The Account observed that the institution's Library Services receives 'consistent praise' from students despite the fact that the University's own analysis of its Student Course Evaluation Questionnaire (SCEQ) indicates that student satisfaction varies across the faculties (see below, paragraphs 69 to 71).
50 The Account advised that 'close liaison' between the library and CODL has led to an 'improvement in the services provided to students who are not able to visit the Library in person'. The audit team was encouraged to learn that students studying via the virtual campus can access data bases and request books on-line; the library posts books to UK based students and has offered to provide 'sample disks of material' to open learning students overseas.
Information technology
51 The Account acknowledged the strategic importance of IT and identified
as a strength the substantial investment presently being made in new and
improved facilities. Alongside the establishment of a virtual campus (see
above, paragraphs 25 to 26), the audit team learnt of the development,
for example, of
'a state-of-the-art learning environment' in the Faculty of Management through
use of the Faculty's intranet. Staff recognised that IT development in the University
was being established from a relatively low base, characterised until recently
by unclear internal organisation and an unstable system infrastructure. This,
the Account acknowledged, had impacted negatively on course administration
and the student learning experience and had resulted in critical comments being
received from students. The team considered that the University's recognition
of the importance of reliable IT services for all its activities, and of the
need to implement effectively information systems and business processes, together
with its allocation of substantial resources to IT should provide a foundation
for successful development. Allied to these developments, the University has
also recognised the desirability of developing appropriate guidance governing
the roles and competencies of on-line tutors and moderators.
Learning support in schools and faculties
52 The Account described the University's systems for providing student support within schools and faculties, embracing induction, subject guidance and placement. The University has a formal policy on personal tutoring, supported by what the audit team considered to be a helpful Guide to the Personal Tutorial System and a Handbook. It is a requirement that all students are allocated a personal tutor and those met by the team were clear on how to secure appropriate support and expressed satisfaction with the services that they had received. From its analysis of the University's SCEQ, the team noted that 'approachability of staff' was one of the areas of greatest satisfaction but also learnt that substantial numbers of students in some schools did not appear to be assigned a personal tutor. The team noted with interest that this matter did not appear to have been picked up in the dean's reports of the faculties concerned or by CTLA.
53 An induction event is held for research students in the Autumn of each year and is followed by an optional research methods course. The University has also developed what the audit team considered to be a comprehensive handbook for research students. Support for research students is provided by a supervisory team who, in the light of the QAA Code, are regarded as being 'crucial'. Institutional regulations specify the required experience of the supervisory team. While supervisor training is made available, it is not mandatory. The team noted that a recent survey of research supervisors had reported that there was no University-wide system of time allowances for supervising research students, potentially undermining their ability to give sufficient attention to tasks related to supervision.
54 The University has established a Study Support Centre whose services are available to all students to assist with the development of study skills. The University, through its Account, suggested that the Centre was regarded as a particular institutional strength. In the light of institutional interest in monitoring student progression rates, the Centre has undertaken a detailed analysis of its activities and concluded that it makes a positive contribution to the success of those students who use it. The audit team considered that the various action points identified in the recent operational review including, for example, the development of enhanced links with the faculties, were sensible and would help to encourage students to use the various facilities made available through the Centre.
55 The Account noted that, via a 'One-Stop Shop', the University's Customer Services Department is 'one of the key providers' of student support providing advice on, for example, accommodation, careers, funding and special needs. The University monitors this aspect of its provision through an annual report presented to the Staff and Student Affairs Committee and through the outcomes of SCEQ. From its review of available documentation and discussions with staff and students, it was evident to the audit team that the activities of the University's Careers Service were held in high regard. In reviewing the effectiveness of its management information, the University might, however, wish to consider whether enhanced clarity could be secured from combining customer satisfaction information with usage statistics into a single report.
Student placements
56 As noted previously (see above, paragraph 14), the University's Vision is to be widely recognised as the premier vocational University in the United Kingdom. The institution's strong vocational orientation is reflected in its portfolio of courses and the emphasis given within these courses to student placement activities as part of the student learning experience. In respect of a number of programmes offered in association with professional and statutory bodies, student work placement forms a mandatory part of the study programme. The audit team examined guidance materials produced for students and employer placement supervisors from two schools, and met students who had undertaken placements and employers who had provided placement opportunities. Both students and employers were, overall, positive about their experiences and the support provided by the University. External examiner reports scrutinised by the team were supportive of the institution's student placement activities, although it was noted that a small number had suggested that improvements might be made in relation to the assessment of placement practice for particular study programmes.
57 Despite the institution's vocational emphasis, the Account made little reference to student placements or the processes employed by the University to support them. While AQH contains no special section relating to the quality assurance of student placements, placement issues are considered as part of validation and annual appraisal processes and staff noted that it was routine practice to ensure, wherever practicable, that proposed placements were visited before being approved. Reviewing the information available to it, the audit team considered that despite the diversity of objectives and duration of placements on different courses, there could be advantages in developing University-wide guidance for staff on placement practice, covering issues such as visits and assessment.
Students with special needs
58 At the time of the visit, the University had in excess of 350 students with recognised special needs. The University has appointed an Adviser to Students with Disabilities and written guidance has also been made available on the intranet. The institution's Account stressed the University's commitment to improving support for students with disabilities and noted that it was participating in two SHEFC funded projects. While considerable effort has been invested in making buildings safe and accessible, in raising staff and management awareness of disability issues, and in mapping 'compliance' against QAA's Code of practice on students with disabilities, the University recognised in its Account that 'further developments across all areas of the University' will be necessary in order to satisfy the QAA Code. It has accordingly established a Disabilities Working Party to formulate an appropriate action plan. From the evidence available to it, the audit team was satisfied that the University was giving appropriate recognition to the needs of students with special needs and was making appropriate progress in providing for disabilities issues.
International students
59 The International Office provides advice and support to overseas students and the European Office provides support for EU students and those on SOCRATES and ERASMUS programmes. The Counselling and Advisory Service runs a pre-sessional English Language course, a 'meet and greet' scheme and a social programme. The audit team learnt that while the University does not, at present, have explicit mechanisms for tracking the performance of its overseas students attention was being given to this matter.
60 The Director of Human Resources is a member of SMT, reflecting the importance the University attaches to staffing matters. The University has secured Investors in People accreditation, and has recently been successful in securing re-accreditation. Institutional recruitment policies and practices were reviewed in 1999 and changes implemented in 2000 with a view to enhancing objectivity. The Account noted that there had been a number of important changes in relation to the University's complement of academic staff, including a reduction in the proportion of staff on fixed term contracts from 40 per cent to 13 per cent. While regarding recent developments in its human resources strategy and policies and Investors in People re-accreditation as particular strengths, the Account also noted that the University recognised a need to give more attention to its human resources management information system and to workforce planning.
61 In response both to internal feedback received from new staff and feedback received from Investors in People assessors, the University has refined further its staff induction programmes. In noting that the training and probation requirements for new academic staff have been limited (typically two days training on teaching with a three month probationary period), the audit team learnt that institutional policy and practice on probation is currently under review. With effect from the 2001-02 academic session, probationer academic staff will be required to complete a Postgraduate Certificate Tertiary Level Teaching course (PGCTLT) within two years of appointment. The PGCTLT, accredited by the Institute of Learning and Teaching, is provided as a self-study course through CLASS and will also, the team learnt, shortly be available for study through the virtual campus (see above, paragraphs 25 to 26). Having regard to concerns expressed about historically low completion rates for the PGCTLT, the University will wish to ensure that a realistic assessment is made of the time required to undertake the PGCTLT so that new staff are not overburdened.
62 The Account noted that 'the prime responsibility for staff development and appraisal lies with the relevant line manager and the employee to "own" the process'. There is an annual process of Staff Development and Career Review (SDCR) which is used to identify individuals' training needs and, flowing from this, the Human Resources Department identifies staff development provision required more generally across the institution. In 1999, the University undertook a staff training needs analysis and obtained responses from 38 per cent of those surveyed. In its Account, the University recognised the desirability of revising the SDCR scheme which, in its view, has become 'process rather than output oriented' and 'is not well-regarded'. The audit team learnt that little further work has been done in this regard due to pressures on the Human Resources Department.
63 The Account indicated that the University has given considerable attention to staff development. The implementation of CCA and the development of a criterion referenced grading system have, for example, been accompanied by the provision of targeted staff development programmes by CLASS. The University has recognised 'a strategic need to develop computing and information technology skills' and during the 2000-01 session these areas were given the 'highest priority'. The audit team learnt, however, that staff development provision has not always been available to meet perceived requirements and that some staff have been unable to attend events due to pressure of teaching duties or because they were overburdened with other tasks (see above, paragraphs 53 and 61). With some exceptions, staff development has largely been undertaken on a voluntary basis. From the evidence made available to it, the team considered that the University may not have routinely addressed the adequacy of provision and the priority given to staff development over other demands placed upon staff. Accordingly, the team learnt that some staff had taken on tasks without the benefit of appropriate training. The University acknowledges the need to ensure that sufficient, timely and targeted staff development is provided to underpin the full range of the institution's activities.
64 The Account stated that 'the learning infrastructure for students studying at collaborative partner institutions is investigated' before applications for approval are submitted to the University's PEG. The audit team examined reports which confirmed that resources were monitored through the annual course appraisal exercise. As noted previously (see above, paragraph 13), following the QAA audit of the collaborative link with ITP Malaysia the University has given more attention to the real costs of collaboration and has terminated most of its links. The team was satisfied that the University's monitoring procedures paid sufficient attention to the physical resources made available by partner institutions.
65 Concern about limited developmental support for staff teaching on franchised courses was amongst the criticisms made in the QAA overseas audit report of the University's collaborative provision in Malaysia. Documentation scrutinised by the audit team indicated that partner institutions are required to submit a staff development plan as part of their annual course appraisal reports, with the costs of ongoing staff development being an element in determining the ongoing viability of proposed collaborations. While University staff recognised the need to provide staff development support to collaborative partners and drew attention to planned induction events, the team noted the apparent absence of a staff development plan in respect of the University's ongoing Indian collaboration. The University will wish to keep this matter under careful review.
Internal and external communications
66 In its Account the University acknowledged 'the need for effective communication' with staff, students and all the institution's various stakeholders. Regular, timetabled meetings form part of the University's formal strategy for communication with the minutes (and some papers) of selected committees being published on the web, together with monthly digests of SMT meetings. University regulations require that each school holds, on at least an annual basis, a staff meeting and the Account observed that communication between the Academic Affairs Department, the Human Resources Department and individual faculties has been assisted by locating administrative staff from those central departments in the faculties. The audit team also noted that the Principal visits all sites, schools and departments annually. The Account advised that informal networking provided an important means of staff communication and helped 'overcome the significant drawbacks' of multi-site operations. The University circulates a newsletter widely both within and outwith the institution and some schools and departments additionally circulate their own newsletters within the institution. The Account indicated that the University regarded the range of newsletters provided for differing audiences as constituting one of its principal communication strengths.
67 During its visit, the audit team was able to examine a wide range of documents produced by the University and examine web-based material on its homepages and intranet. Amongst the documents read by the team was a report by the University's IAQAT on the Effectiveness of School Executives and Course/ Programme Management Teams during 1999-2000. This report drew attention to a number of strengths. The report also drew attention to 'poor feedback in downward channels of communication' and suggested improvements in the transmission of information between school executives and faculty boards. The report made several recommendations for improvements in recording meetings and providing feedback on action taken (see above, paragraphs 19 and 21). The team discussed the availability and accessibility of particular information with staff, students and employer organisations. With the exception of employers providing practice placements, those individuals the team met were generally positive about the information provided by the University. Some employer placement supervisors, while satisfied with placement handbooks, expressed a desire for enhanced communication, including opportunities to meet with other employer organisations receiving students from the same courses. In relation to web-based material, it appeared to the team that web pages might not always be updated sufficiently frequently.
68 The audit team was generally satisfied that the University was seeking to communicate effectively with its staff using both printed and web-based materials and agreed with the University's own assessment that further work was needed on the implementation of a clear web development strategy. The institution's practice of deploying staff from the Academic Affairs Department and the Human Resources Department in faculties did, in the team's view, facilitate improved central communication with faculties, and through informal meetings between these staff, enhanced inter-faculty communication. The work of IAQAT has been helpful in supporting the improvement of communications by identifying and addressing shortcomings in recording and providing feedback from meetings (see above, paragraph 22). Current practices and the ongoing review and development of communication mechanisms within the University gave the team confidence in the institution's general ability to manage effectively communication with its staff.
69 The Account noted that students are represented through elected, course and year representatives who take part in staff/student liaison groups and faculty boards. The President of the Students' Association represents the student body on the Board of Governors, the Academic Council and most of their standing committees. In addition, together with the Students' Association Executive, the President has regular meetings with the University Secretary and ad hoc meetings with the Customer Services Department. Similarly, a representative of the research student community is a member of the Research Degrees Committee. During the 2000-01 session training was introduced for student representatives and this training has been supplemented by an information booklet.
70 The audit team examined documentation made available by the University. They also discussed representation with students and staff. Students commented that they felt they could get their views across and would attend meetings if they wished to raise issues or respond to particular agenda items. The team noted that consideration had been given in the Staff and Student Affairs Committee to strengthening student representation through cooptions. One faculty board, with a view to encouraging student attendance, has changed its practice to include a standing agenda item specifically to enable students to raise issues of interest to the student community. In relation to the University's collaborative partnership in India, the team was led to understand that while student questionnaires were employed, slightly less formalised arrangements existed for student consultation based around discussions between students and personal tutors or course leaders rather than a specifically constituted staff/student liaison group. The appropriateness of these arrangements had been considered and approved by the University. On the basis of the evidence available to it, the team was satisfied that both students and staff were taking formal student representation seriously.
71 The Account noted that 'student feedback is considered vital to effective course operation and development' and went on to recognise that 'feedback mechanisms to students' were an area for further development. In addition to committee-based processes for receiving students' views, the University seeks to monitor student opinion through questionnaires. The audit team examined copies of SCEQ, the Module Evaluation Questionnaire, institutional analyses of student feedback, and discussions which had taken place at Academic Council, CTLA and at faculty boards. It also noted that the University had revised its Calendar of Statistical Information to ensure that faculty boards could discuss the SCEQ results. The team learnt that over the past three years response rates have varied considerably between schools and courses. The University has recognised the desirability of improving response rates and has considered the mechanisms that are used to keep students informed about actions arising from the evaluation of questionnaires. It was clear to the team that the University took seriously the findings of SCEQ and sought to address students' concerns. The development of draft guidance on the provision of feedback was drawn to the team's attention as an example of action that had been informed by analysis of SCEQ. The use of questionnaires is, the team considered, an example of the University's willingness to reflect critically on and be responsive to the student experience. The University will, however, wish to reflect carefully on the ways in which it might secure increased student participation in the monitoring and enhancement of the institutions' provision.
72 The Account noted that all schools arranged induction sessions for new students which were 'supplemented' by student handbooks. The audit team learnt that while student induction events and handbooks presently varied between schools, a standardised handbook template has been devised for the 2001-02 session with handbooks also being made available on the intranet. The team examined materials provided for induction, a sample of student handbooks and other relevant documents, and discussed induction with both staff and students. The handbooks seen by the team were well-written and informative and students recognised that the provision of web-based handbooks would facilitate enhanced access to information. Students expressed satisfaction with the information they had been provided with and were particularly supportive of the early engagement of the Careers Service. Noting the positive comments made in respect of the induction of undergraduate students, the team noted that similarly robust schemes did not appear to have been developed in respect of postgraduate and direct entry students. In its Account, the University recognised that induction arrangements for direct entry, postgraduate and International Students required further development.
Student complaints and academic appeals
73 Copies the University's student complaints and appeals regulations are made available through the Academic Affairs Department web site and in libraries. The audit team examined this documentation and was satisfied that the procedures were clear and accessible.
Publicity and recruitment material
74 The Account described the University's systems for publicising courses and recruiting students, noting that the institution regarded its 'user-friendly and comprehensive prospectuses' as one of its strengths. The University also publishes material on the web which is supplemented by school homepages. The institution recognises that the 'quality of these materials is variable'. Although marketing and recruitment activities are coordinated through the Recruitment Office, the audit team learnt that schools and faculties are increasingly developing their own materials. The maintenance of cohesion and corporate identity in these materials was a matter being considered as part of a review being undertaken by the University Secretary at the time of the audit visit. The University is a member of the British Council Educational Counselling Service (ECS) and has recently elected to adopt the ECS Code of Professional Standards and Ethics.
75 The audit team examined printed publicity and recruitment material and also information presented on the University's web site. They also discussed the process for approving such material with University staff. Although the team learnt that the validation process involved the approval of course documentation, it did not appear that this routinely included publicity material to be placed on web pages. The team was also told that faculty project officers liaised with schools to ensure that marketing information was correct and that responsibility for the accuracy of information resided with heads of schools. The University's own compliance mapping with the ECS Code has identified the need to introduce quality assurance procedures for the validation of information used by University recruitment representatives. The team also noted that sections of some school 'Homepages' and publicity information on the virtual campus did not always state the date when material had been placed on the web (see above, paragraph 67). From discussions with staff, it was unclear to the team how the University satisfied itself as to the accuracy of publicity published in languages other than English. The team noted some examples on University and school web pages where information about courses was inaccurate and possibly misleading.
76 The University, in acknowledging the importance of web-based media, is presently reviewing its marketing activities. In undertaking this review, the University recognises that the adoption of the ECS Code will require the institution to refine further its approval and monitoring procedures if it is to assure the quality of its publicity materials, whether paper-based or via the web. The audit team would wish to encourage the University in this activity.
Course and programme information
77 Schools typically distribute course and programme information, including module descriptors, through relevant student handbooks. Research students and their supervisors are issued with a Research Student Management File containing guidance notes, regulations and a booklet on good supervisory practice. With the exception of the booklet, this material is also available on the web. As noted previously (see above, paragraphs 41, 53 and 76), the audit team examined a number of exemplar student handbooks and documentation relating to research supervision. The team was generally satisfied with the quality of the information provided, although it did note that the University's own survey of research supervisors had established that some 20 per cent of those who had responded to the survey were not aware of the Handbook for Research Supervisors. Consequently, the team could not be completely satisfied that the information provided by the University was in fact informing institutional practice.
The provisions of the Charters
78 The University published a Student Charter in 1994. The Account noted that the information contained in its Charter largely repeated that found in other University documentation. For this reason, at the time of the visit the University was reviewing whether, and in what format, to republish the Charter for the 2001-02 session. Accepting that information contained within the present Charter is also available in other documentation accessible to students, the audit team would nevertheless encourage the University to facilitate ready access to this information through ensuring appropriate 'signposting' in both its paper and electronic documentation.
Conclusions
79 The University, which was granted University status in 1992, has actively striven to promote the provision of high quality practice-based education and training, aimed at enabling its students to secure and retain rewarding employment. Underpinning its learning and teaching activities, the University has progressively developed its portfolio of research and advanced scholarship. In recent years, the University has experienced notable growth in student numbers, resulting from the incorporation of a college of nursing together with expansion in the number of part-time and overseas students. The Analytical Account, produced by the University for the audit, recognised in a structured and constructive manner the institution's strengths and limitations. It also identified a number of opportunities and challenges facing the institution. In discussion, senior management evinced a particularly strong commitment to continued improvement in an increasingly diverse institution.
80 A prominent theme within the University's Mission Statement is quality, with the aims and objectives of the institution's quality strategy being articulated in a series of key institutional policy documents. The University has established a clear framework for assuring the quality of its provision, these being supported by a committee structure and management reporting mechanisms. The institution's quality assurance and enhancement agenda is promulgated through a detailed and regularly updated Academic Quality Handbook. The effective maintenance and enhancement of academic quality is regarded as being the collective responsibility of all University staff. Evidence of a strong and supportive institutional commitment to quality assurance and a culture of enhancement emerged from the visit.
81 Since its first institutional audit visit in 1995 and the 1999 audit of its collaborative provision arrangements in Malaysia, the University has undertaken a significant and extensive amount of work to refine and enhance its quality assurance systems. In particular, the institution has actively sought to develop a facilitative and supportive quality assurance framework that has widespread institutional ownership. Drawing upon the matters raised in the Malaysian overseas collaborative provision audit and the outcomes of the University's own consideration of its collaborative operations, the institution has taken a strategic decision to withdraw from most of its collaborative provision.
82 One of the major ways in which the University attempts to support and guarantee standards is through the use of external benchmarks and advice. Available evidence suggests that the University makes appropriate and systematic use of the information arising from its external examiner system and carefully analyses the external examiner profile to ensure an appropriate match to its stated institutional objectives. It has developed a robust system for internal quality audits and has progressively extended the range of performance data used to inform decision-making processes. The institution has put particular effort into encouraging student feedback and student representation on its committees. It has also explored carefully how student questionnaire response rates might be improved. More explicit linkage between students' views and subsequent University action, and better communication of these, might promote enhanced student engagement.
83 The University has embarked upon a major initiative to offer programmes on an open learning basis through the internet. The University acknowledges that this innovative development presents a number of challenges ranging from, for example, the development of tailored learning materials through to revised tutorial support arrangements. The University is to be commended for its alertness and strategic commitment to the educational and market opportunities presented by the use of emerging technologies. It was less clear whether, in developing and then implementing its 'virtual campus', sufficient attention has yet been given to the special and significant demands imposed by this particular means of programme delivery. In taking forward its virtual campus initiative, the University will wish to have regard to the lessons learnt from its earlier experiences in delivering programmes at a distance. The University acknowledges that very careful attention will need to be given to the particular quality assurance and enhancement arrangements required to underpin the effective delivery, assessment and maintenance of quality and standards in this innovative learning environment. Clear and identified leadership will be needed to underpin the virtual campus initiative.
84 In taking forward the University's development of a virtual campus and other initiatives, particular attention is being given to developing staff expertise and ensuring appropriate investment in new information technologies. A number of training programmes have been introduced aimed at improving awareness of information technologies and the skills necessary to provide open learning. At present, some staff training is optional and there are indications both of variable take-up of opportunities and of insufficient provision to meet demand. The University is addressing these matters.
85 Reflecting its vocational focus, the University has sought to develop a range of study programmes that, through an extensive, creative and well-received placement system, provide students with first hand experience of relevant work environments. While the nature and context of student placements necessarily vary across the institution, there may be opportunities for securing enhanced consistency in relation to the establishment and monitoring of such placements.
86 Overall, there can be general confidence in the University's ability properly to discharge its responsibility for the academic standards of the degrees awarded in its name and for the quality of the programmes of study that lead to those awards.
Points for commendation
87 The audit team would wish to commend the University for a number of good practices, in particular:
- the actions taken by the University since the HEQC audit of 1995 to refine and enhance its quality assurance systems, including the extensive 'compliance mapping' of its quality assurance procedures to all of the precepts in QAA's Code of practice (paragraphs 11 and 27);
- its clear and accessible institutional procedures and regulations including, for example, the Academic Quality Handbook (paragraph 17);
- its internal audit and review procedures (paragraph 23);
- in relation to the establishment of a virtual campus, its alertness to educational and market opportunities, its responsiveness to technological developments, and its strategic commitment to the project (paragraphs 25 and 26);
- the effectiveness of the institution's validation process in establishing and testing the academic standards of the proposed programmes (paragraph 37);
- the efforts made by the institution to ensure that it has a suitable range and spread of external examiners to provide an appropriate overview of the standards of its awards (paragraph 46).
Points for further consideration
88 As it develops 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 advisability of:
-
ensuring that, as it continues to take forward its virtual campus initiative,
careful attention is given to the particular management and quality assurance
arrangements required to underpin the effective delivery, assessment
and maintenance of standards in this new learning environment, applying,
where relevant, experience gained from earlier institutional initiatives
to deliver programmes at a distance (paragraphs 25, 26,
38 and 42 to 43); -
ensuring that sufficient, timely and targeted staff development is provided
to underpin the full range of the institution's activities
(paragraphs 53, 61, 63 and 65); - exploring opportunities for securing enhanced consistency of procedure and practice in relation to the monitoring of those student placements not governed by professional and statutory body requirements to ensure greater comparability in learning experiences (paragraph 57);
- exploring ways in which it might secure greater student participation in the monitoring and enhancement of the institution's provision (paragraph 71);
and the desirability of
- reflecting further how the generic outcomes of internal academic quality review might be disseminated to a wider audience and how, where appropriate, the outcomes of IAQAT reviews might be used to inform the development of emerging institutional policies (paragraph 23);
- keeping under review the appropriateness of its student admissions arrangements given the potentially competing objectives of securing both wider access and higher entry standards (paragraphs 33 and 45);
- ensuring that its systems for approving publicity and recruitment material, whether paper or electronically based, are sufficiently robust to guarantee the accuracy of such materials (paragraph 76).
Appendix 1*
The Robert Gordon University - facts and figures 2001
Background
The Robert Gordon University (Scotland) Order received Privy Council consent in April 1993. Prior to receiving university status, the University was one of a number of Scottish 'Central Institutions' under the name Robert Gordon's Institute of Technology (RGIT) and was accredited by CNAA to confirm its own awards in 1989 when it became The Robert Gordon Institute of Technology. Throughout its development, the University has had as a key aim to provide high quality vocational education and training to enable its students to secure and retain rewarding employment. In recent years the University has been one of the leading UK universities in terms of graduate employment statistics, confirming that it is successful in meeting this aim.
Mission
The University's Vision is 'To be widely recognised as the premier vocational University in the UK'. Its Mission is:
To provide high quality, practice-based higher education and training programmes, research and consultancy services.
The University's key objectives in meeting this Mission are:
- to provide initial and continual higher education and training that encourages entrepreneurship and professionalism, and enables students to gain and retain employment and enhance their careers;
- to provide research, development and consultancy in support of industry, the arts, the professions, commerce and the public sector;
- to offer access to educational opportunities to all sectors of the population;
- to recognise the aspirations of staff and to enable them to give excellent service to all customers of the University, through the provision of appropriate personal development in good working conditions;
- to observe high professional standards in all activities.
Structure
The University's academic structure comprises 15 Schools grouped into four Faculties as follows:
Faculty of Design
Gray's School of Art
Scott Sutherland School of Architecture
School of Construction, Property and Surveying
Faculty of Health and Social Care
School of Applied Social Studies
School of Health Sciences
School of Nursing and Midwifery
School of Pharmacy
Faculty of Management
Aberdeen Business School
School of Hotel, Tourism and Retail Management
School of Information and Media
School of Public Administration and Law
Faculty of Science and Technology
School of Applied Sciences
School of Computer and Mathematical Sciences
School of Electronic and Electrical Engineering
School of Mechanical and Offshore Engineering
The University also has a Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies and School of Graduate Studies
In Session 2001-02, the Faculties of Design and Science and Technology are to be amalgamated leaving the University with three Faculties namely:
Design and Technology
Health and Social Care
Management
The following changes to Schools will also take place:
The School of Construction, Property and Surveying and the Scott Sutherland School of Architecture will be amalgamated to form The Scott Sutherland School.
The Schools of Electronic and Electrical Engineering and Mechanical and Offshore Engineering will be amalgamated to form the School of Engineering.
The School of Computer and Mathematical Sciences will be re-titled School of Computing.
The School of Applied Sciences will be re-titled the School of Life Sciences and become part of the Faculty of Health and Social Care. The School of Life Sciences will also incorporate Nutrition and Dietetics (currently under the School of Health Sciences).
Key Statistics
In Session 1999-2000 the University had an income of £60.64m, of which 47.5 per cent was attributable to Scottish Higher Education Funding Council (SHEFC) Grants. The University currently has approximately 1,400 staff and 9,500 students and its portfolio of award-bearing courses consists of 38 sub-degree courses, 85 degree/honours degree courses and 56 postgraduate courses.
Student profile of the University 2001-02
| Undergraduate | PG taught | PG research | Total | |||||
| Faculty | FT | PT | FT | PT | FT | PT | FT | PT |
| Design | 1,191 | 238 | 67 | 5 | 9 | 2 | 1,267 | 245 |
| Health & Social Care | 2,339 | 562 | 69 | 110 | 14 | 16 | 2,422 | 688 |
| Management | 1,956 | 104 | 170 | 433 | 9 | 13 | 2,135 | 550 |
| Science & Technology | 1,462 | 232 | 204 | 122 | 26 | 12 | 1,692 | 366 |
| Total | 6,948 | 1,136 | 510 | 670 | 58 | 43 | 7,516 | 1,849 |
Student characteristics (excluding collaborative programmes) 2001-02
| Gender | UG | PGT | PGR | Total |
| Male | 39% | 55% | 57% | 42% |
| Female | 61% | 45% | 43% | 58% |
Age
Proportion of full-time undergraduates aged 21 or over on entry: 20%
Geographical origins
| UK | Other EU | Overseas | Total | |
| UG | 93% | 4% | 3% | 100% |
| PGT | 74% | 4% | 22% | 100% |
| PGR | 60% | 16% | 24% | 100% |
| Total | 89% | 4% | 7% | 100% |
Qualifications awarded 2000-01
| Level of Award | No of Awards |
| PG Research Awards | 27 |
| Taught Master's | 282 |
| PG Diploma/PG Certificate | 345 |
| Undergraduate Degree | 1,257 |
| Diploma | 415 |
| HNC/HND | 186 |
| Total | 2,512 |
University Staff 2000-01
| FT | PT | Total | |
| Academic | 418 | 68 | 486 |
| Academic Related/Clerical Support | 399 | 150 | 549 |
| Research | 73 | 15 | 88 |
| Ancillary and Other | 47 | 181 | 228 |
| Technical | 56 | 10 | 66 |
| Total | 993 | 424 | 1,417 |
Finances (1999-2000 Accounts)
| Income | £000 | % |
| Funding Council grants | 26,773 | 44.15 |
| Tuition fees and education contracts | 14,958 | 24.67 |
| Research grants and contracts | 2,047 | 3.38 |
| Other income | 15,095 | 24.89 |
| Endowment and investment income | 1,766 | 2.91 |
| Total | 60,639 | 100.00 |
| Expenditure | £000 | % |
| Staff costs | 34,966 | 58.03 |
| Other operating expenses | 19,179 | 31.83 |
| Depreciation | 5,640 | 9.36 |
| Interest payable | 465 | 0.77 |
| Total | 60,250 | 100.00 |
*As supplied by The Robert Gordon University
Appendix 2**
List of the University's collaborative partnerships as at 1 May 2001
The Robert Gordon University collaborative partnerships as at 1 May 2001
| VALIDATED COURSES: A course designed, delivered and assessed by the staff of the partner institution | |
| *Moray College | BA Business Administration |
| Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences (MSSES), Russia | PgDip/MSc Cultural Management |
| FRANCHISED COURSES [DOMESTIC]: A whole course, or part of a course, designed by the University, but delivered in the partner institution | |
| *Dumfries and Galloway College | BA Design and Craft (Stage 3 Visual Communication Specialism) |
| FRANCHISED COURSES [OVERSEAS]: A whole course, or part of a course, designed by the University, but delivered in the partner institution | |
| Institute of Advanced Management (IAM), India | BA Hospitality Management |
| JOINT COURSES: A course designed, and/or delivered, and/or assessed by the staff of the University and one or more partner institutions | |
| *Northern College | BSc (Hons) Mathematics and Computing with Education |
| Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire Councils' Social Work Departments | HNC Social Care incorporating Level III SVQs |
Students on Collaborative Programmes registered for University Awards (2001-02) Partner Institution
| UG | PGT | PGR | Total | |
| Overseas Institution | 155 | 68 | 0 | 223 |
| UK Institution | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 156 | 68 | 0 | 224 |
* In final year of operation.
** As supplied by The Robert Gordon University
Top
QAA updates
QAAtweets
QAAtube