Foreword
1 This is a report of an academic quality audit of the University of Central England in Birmingham (the University) undertaken by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA). QAA is grateful to the University and its partner institutions for the willing cooperation provided to the audit team.
2 The audit was carried out using a revised process approved by the former Higher Education Quality Council (HEQC), and endorsed by HEQC's successor body, QAA. The modified process has been introduced following completion in 1997 of the original national academic quality audit programme which began in 1991 under the auspices of the then CVCP's Academic Audit Unit (AAU) and was subsequently taken over by HEQC in 1992. The principal purpose of this revised process is to offer an opinion on the extent to which individual institutions are discharging effectively their corporate responsibilities for the academic standards and quality of their awards and associated programmes of study. The process takes as its starting point the assumption that institutions have appropriate quality assurance policies and procedures in place, and also assumes that they can provide convincing evidence that these are working to good effect. The audit checks the extent to which this is the case and that the methods used are sufficiently reliable to continue to provide stakeholders with the necessary assurances for the future. The audit process focuses on four main topics: the institution's quality strategy; academic standards; the learning infrastructure; and internal and external communications.
Method and process
3 The primary source of documentary information for the audit was an Analytical Account (the Account) prepared by the University, which described its procedures for managing the quality of its educational provision and for safeguarding the academic standards of its awards. The Account was submitted to QAA in advance of the audit, together with a number of supporting documents including the University's Strategic Plan, prospectuses and student guides, and papers on institutional organisation and quality procedures. Other material available to the audit team included the report of the HEQC quality audit published in 1995 and the report of the QAA audit of the University's arrangements to manage the quality of a link with a partner in Hong Kong, published in 2001. In addition, the team had access to the reports of teaching quality assessments and subject reviews conducted by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and QAA, and reports from professional and statutory bodies. Following a briefing meeting held to review this information, the team proposed a programme of meetings for the visit.
4 The audit team visited the University from 3-7 December 2001. For the visit the University made available a base room containing extensive information relevant to its quality procedures and in the course of the visit the team met the Vice Chancellor; the pro-vice chancellors; the deans of the faculties; the Director of the Academic Registry; the Director of Academic Quality and Support and other senior officers; heads of departments; members of the University's teaching, administrative and support staff; and undergraduate and postgraduate students. The team also met students following courses and programmes approved by the University and offered in partner institutions, and staff delivering and managing such provision. The team is grateful to all those who made themselves available to meet it.
5 The members of the audit team were Dr M Atlay, Dr S Jackson and Dr L Roberts, auditors and Mr S Murphy, audit secretary. The audit was coordinated for QAA by Dr D W Cairns, Assistant Director, Institutional Review Directorate.
The University context
6 The University of Central England in Birmingham, formerly Birmingham Polytechnic, was granted its degree-awarding powers and University title in 1992. It is a large metropolitan University offering a wide range of academic programmes, with a particular emphasis on vocational and professional education. The character of the University is defined by its commitment to the social and economic development of the West Midlands Region and to the promotion of widening participation, serving the needs of the local community, provision for a high proportion of part-time students, the enhancement of the employability of graduates, and a focus on applied research. The University is a multi-site institution distributed over eight campuses within the Birmingham area.
7 The University has a diverse student population. During the academic year 2000-01 there were 23,744 enrolled students, the greater majority of which were following undergraduate degree programmes (79 per cent), although postgraduate taught programmes account for an increasingly significant minority (14 per cent). The University has a high percentage of part-time students (46 per cent), particularly in vocational areas such as business, education and health care.
8 The University draws its students largely from Birmingham and the West Midlands region: 66 per cent of full-time students and 75 per cent of part-time students come from this area; 2.6 per cent of students are from other countries within the European Union and 4.9 per cent are from overseas. In line with its strategy for widening participation the University admits students with a wide range of entry qualifications and different ages: 57 per cent of full and part-time students were over the age of 21 on entry in 2000; 59 per cent of the student population is female; and 31 per cent are from the ethnic minorities.
9 The University and its predecessor developed through the amalgamation of a number of specialist colleges including institutions focusing on art and design, music, health care and business. These specialisms are reflected in the current faculty structure. At the time of the audit there were nine faculties: the Faculty of the Built Environment; Birmingham Institute of Art and Design; UCE Business School; Birmingham Conservatoire; the Faculty of Computing, Information and English; the Faculty of Education; the Faculty of Engineering and Computer Technology; the Faculty of Health and Community Care; and the Faculty of Law and Social Sciences.
Mission and values
10 The University's statement of educational character and mission was revised in May 1999. The University identifies its principal purpose as the promotion of its programmes to '...all who can benefit, irrespective of social, economic, cultural and ethnic differences', and to 'enhance the employability of graduates through the encouragement of independent and lifelong learning'. The mission focuses on seven key sets of values relating to quality, employability, community, learning and teaching, lifelong learning, research and scholarship, and partnership.
Governance and management
11 Senate is the University's principal academic decision making committee. Its remit and membership are defined in the articles of government and include responsibility for the admission of students, the appointment of examiners, the assessment of students, the content of the curriculum, the academic standards of awards and the validation and review of courses. Senate retains direct responsibility for the approval and reapproval of all programmes of study. It receives, on a regular basis, all reports from validation panels and considers conditions and recommendations.
12 Senate has three principal sub-committees: the Committee for Academic Regulations and Policy (CARP), the Collaborative Partnerships Committee (CPC) and the University Research Degrees Committee (URDC). There are also a number of Senate panels, committees and working groups which have specifically defined roles and functions. Faculty boards and examination boards are sub-committees of Senate.
13 Reports from faculty boards are a standing item on the Senate agenda and faculties are able to highlight items of concern for discussion and consideration by Senate. The University sees this structure as providing a short route from programme providers to Senate as the principal academic committee. Boards of Studies report to faculty boards which in turn report to Senate. Again, the University considers that this arrangement ensures that matters raised by subject areas can be followed-up at the appropriate level and information can be disseminated effectively.
14 The University's senior management team is the Directorate. In addition to the Vice Chancellor, it includes the two Pro-Vice Chancellors (one of whom is responsible for academic matters and one for external affairs), the Director of Finance, the Director of Estates and the University Secretary and Registrar. Each member of the Directorate has line-management responsibility for a number of University services.
15 Faculties operate within an institutional management framework of compliance and accountability. Deans report directly to the Vice Chancellor and have regular individual meetings with him to discuss faculty matters (referred to across the University as 'Dean Watch'). The deans also work closely with the pro-vice chancellors, the heads of central support services, and other members of the senior management team. This group forms the University's executive team and is referred to as the Deans/Directorate. The group meets regularly to discuss a wide range of operational issues and to consider policy development.
16 The faculties vary significantly in size and each has its own distinctive style and character. Faculties operate as single entities within the corporate structure of the University and some have retained a separate identity through their individual titles. In the Account the University stated that it had eschewed a 'one size fits all model' and that it recognised that 'the ways in which the faculties will relate to individual aspects of the Educational Character and Mission will differ'. Citing the Vice Chancellor the Account suggested that 'The Educational Character and Mission [of the University] is not designed to turn a supertanker, rather it is intended to guide a flotilla of differently sized yachts in the same direction'.
17 Each Faculty is led by an executive dean with responsibility for the management of financial matters, the provision of academic leadership, the quality and standards of the academic programmes, academic planning and resource allocation. Faculties have their own internal management and committee structures. Each has a faculty management team and a faculty board. Other committee and management structures vary between faculties, in accordance with their size and individual character.
Previous audits
18 HEQC conducted an audit of the University's quality systems, in October 1994 the report of which was published in March 1995 (the 1995 report). A full account of the actions taken in response to the recommendations in the audit report was provided for the current audit team. From this it was clear that a number of the matters raised in the report had subsequently been addressed by a working group convened to review the University's quality assurance processes. The recommendations from this group have led to the implementation of revised methods and procedures at both institutional and faculty levels.
19 The University's partnership with Informatics (Hong Kong) in the operation of a BSc (Honours) programme in Business Information Technology was included in an audit of overseas collaborative provision conducted by QAA in 2001. At the time of the continuation audit the University had received the report of this audit and was considering the matters it had raised.
Analytical Account
20 The Analytical Account which the University prepared to support the audit provided a description of the way in which it discharges its responsibilities in relation to the standards of its academic awards and the quality of education provided for its students. The Account also included a summary indication of the University's key strengths and its priorities for future action in each of the main areas of activity covered by the audit. The Account was prepared by a small group led by the Pro-Vice Chancellor responsible for academic matters, following discussion with a wide range of staff and representatives of the Union of Students. A draft document had been circulated within the University before submission to QAA. The Account primarily described the University systems and procedures, and offered relatively limited evaluation or analysis of their effectiveness; nonetheless, the audit team found it a comprehensive document and a useful guide to other sources of University information.
21 For the audit visit the University provided a base room with a wide variety of documentation and access to electronically held information on the University's intranet. The material was well-organised, and included many helpful explanatory notes for guidance. The care with which the base room had been organised assisted the audit team in checking the sources of information to which it was referred, and confirming the availability of relevant information to the University to manage and enhance its affairs. The papers and other materials provided by the University clearly demonstrated the University's access to and mastery of the information it uses to check its progress towards meeting its mission and objectives.
Quality strategy
22 The University's approach to the management of the quality of its educational provision and the academic standards of its awards is based on its Mission and its commitment to its students, employers and other partners. The procedures have been developed from previous Council for National Academic Awards (CNAA) arrangements, and involve the validation and periodic review of all programmes of study, together with annual monitoring. In addition the University has introduced an Internal Academic Audit (IAA) process to assure regulatory compliance and evaluation of thematic issues. These procedures had been reviewed by a working group established by Senate in 1998, and a number of developments have since been introduced to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the quality processes. Reports of QAA subject reviews over several years have confirmed that procedures for quality assurance and enhancement at the subject level are generally working effectively.
Devolution and control
23 The University has delegated to faculties the management of its quality systems for assuring the quality of provision and checking that the academic standards of awards are secure. Faculties manage the resources for academic programmes and their delivery and administration, and are directly responsible for the students' learning experience. Faculties also have responsibility for assuring the quality of programmes delivered by partner organisations. Within faculties there is further devolution to individual departments, which ensures that immediate responsibility for quality rests with those responsible for the delivery of learning to students.
24 Some subjects operate within requirements established by professional bodies and reflect different traditions in the style and approach to learning. However, the overall approach to the management of quality is defined by University requirements and procedures. All faculties operate the same quality system and the University has measures in place to ensure compliance with its procedures. The University has taken steps to strengthen the central monitoring of quality management since the publication of the 1995 HEQC audit report.
25 The central administration of quality management is the responsibility of the Academic Quality and Support Department (AQSD). The latter coordinates quality activity within faculties and manages the University's IAA process. It also has responsibility for maintaining the University's academic regulations and policies and for implementing amendments to these made by CARP. Guidance on procedures is provided in a University Handbook. This is the comprehensive and definitive source of information for staff on quality matters. In addition AQSD also has responsibilities for managing the quality assurance systems followed by collaborative partners.
26 Matters of academic standards remain primarily the responsibility of Senate. Faculties provide the evidence for Senate that the University's standards are being maintained and Senate is provided with the information needed to allow it to compare performance between subjects and faculties in order to assure itself that there is a broad equivalence in awards between different disciplines and professions. From the evidence it saw in the base room the audit team was able to confirm that, generally, these devolved arrangements worked effectively, and that all staff were aware of their responsibilities at different levels within the University, at different stages of the quality assurance process. Sufficient evidence is provided for Senate to monitor activity in faculties and there are mechanisms in place for ensuring compliance with institutional requirements. However, in the Account the University identified its need to '...keep under review the balance between centrally determined processes and the autonomy needed at faculty level to ensure staff retain ownership of quality and take responsibility for its enhancement'. The team concurs with this view.
Committee structures
27 The audit team recognised the advantages of this structure and particularly the close attention that Senate pays to the key quality processes of monitoring and approval (see above). The team reviewed the Senate agendas, minutes and committee papers to which it had access in the base room. These showed the scale of the business conducted by Senate and raised doubts for the team that the volume of business permitted adequate attention to be paid to the detail of quality matters. At the time of the audit the sub-committee structure of Senate was relatively under-developed, particularly in the areas of academic quality and standards, and learning and teaching. The University may wish to consider whether its attention to the evidence of quality assurance would be enhanced by delegating the responsibility for scrutiny of the outcomes of quality assurance procedures to a quality sub-committee which could give detailed consideration to all issues raised and provide advice to allow Senate to make informed judgements.
Quality assurance processes
28 Senate requires an annual evaluation of all programmes of study. Faculties are allowed to define their own procedures for the conduct of annual monitoring, to reflect differences in academic disciplines and the varying requirements of professional bodies. The principles for annual monitoring are defined in the handbook on Academic Regulations and Policies (ARP). Faculties are required to ensure that reports are prepared by each course director and that they consider '...statistics of student retention, progression and achievement, student feedback, responses to external examiners' reports and outcomes of module evaluations'. Reports are also required to include an action plan and evidence of the achievement of previous actions. Reports are considered by boards of studies and by the faculty board. Each faculty presents a synopsis of the issues raised in the reports to Senate.
29 The University acknowledges that this practice has led to a lack of consistency in the level of evaluation of programmes and the report of the working group established to review quality assurance procedures, (see above, paragraph 22) recommended the introduction of a standard template for annual reports. Following discussion at CARP a template was introduced and used for the production of annual reports for the year 2000-01. In its discussions with staff the audit team noted that the new procedures had improved the quality and consistency of evidence provided for faculty boards and were working effectively.
30 The University considers that its procedures for the validation of new programmes provide assurance of the integrity of academic programmes and an opportunity to invite external input into the development process. They have remained unchanged since the HEQC audit. Arrangements for the periodic review of programmes have been considered by the working group on quality assurance procedures, which has recommended that the University extends the cycle for review from five to six years to align it with the procedures for academic review put forward by QAA in 1999-2000. For the future, there are proposals to shift the emphasis of periodic review from the critical appraisal of past performance to the revalidation of revised programmes, in order to encourage programme teams to reconsider the structure and purpose of programmes and provide an opportunity for revision.
Internal Academic Audit
31 As noted earlier, the University complements its quality assurance procedures with a process of IAA. This provides evidence for Senate and senior management that University procedures are being conducted effectively within each faculty and allows areas of the student experience to be considered across the faculties. There are two types of IAA: 'regulatory' and 'thematic'. Both are conducted in a similar fashion involving a small group of staff collecting evidence from existing documentation and discussing matters with staff and students.
32 A recent evaluation of IAA has confirmed its usefulness, but raised questions about the resource intensive nature of the process and the limited value of the outcomes of the process in some instances. The University intends to review IAA during the 2001-02 session, with the expectation that the procedure will be streamlined and the number of audits reduced.
33 In discussions staff described the benefits of IAA to the audit team; these included the dissemination of good practice and the promotion of consistency between faculties. In future the University intends to use the process to ensure compliance with the QAA Code of practice and to encourage quality enhancement. The team recognised the benefits of the process and would encourage the University to ensure that these are retained in any revisions to the process.
Research procedures
34 Senate has delegated responsibility for assuring the quality of research activity to URDC, which: ensures compliance with University research regulations; approves registrations for MPhil and PhD; considers proposals for research topics; confirms supervision arrangements; approves the transfer of students from MPhil to PhD; and oversees all examination arrangements. URDC reports annually to Senate on its monitoring of the progress of research students. Following recommendations in the previous audit URDC reviewed its mechanisms for monitoring the progress of research students. The decision was taken to devolve further responsibility for monitoring to faculties, with URDC monitoring their activities in this respect.
35 Research students are required to produce an annual report on their progress for their supervisors. However, not all students receive feedback on these reports, or receive copies of reports from their supervisors to URDC. The University will wish to further review its systems for monitoring the progress of research students to ensure not only that URDC receives regular and consistent information but also that all research students are provided with detailed feedback on their progress.
Academic planning
36 The primary responsibility for the planning and development of new programmes of study rests with faculties. Initiatives are identified by staff, or arise from external developments, and are discussed by boards of studies in the first instance. There is provision for the University's marketing unit to provide assistance with market research for new programmes on request. Faculties submit a schedule of proposed new developments to CARP and to Senate for approval and there is a 'fast-track' facility for new developments where this is appropriate. Resource allocation for new developments is discussed in Faculty Management Committees. Deans have ultimate responsibility for developments within their faculties and for identifying programmes which are no longer economically viable.
37 There is provision for the development of joint programmes between faculties, but to date developments of this kind have been limited. The audit team noted the rationale for retaining responsibility for academic planning within faculties but considered that the lack of a more formal process at institutional level might limit the capacity of the University to implement its strategic plan and that it appeared to discourage cross-faculty developments.
Widening participation
38 The University considers its track record on widening participation as one of its most distinctive features. It has clearly articulated its commitment to encourage students from the local community, and from non-traditional backgrounds, to enter higher education and succeed in achieving their chosen awards. These principles underpin much of its policy development and strategic planning and help to define the character of the University. By reference to HEFCE benchmark statistics the University is able to demonstrate that it is fulfilling this aspect of its mission. The audit team was able to identify evidence in both the University's documentation and from discussions with staff and students, that this commitment is well-established and shared by all members of the University community. The team would wish to commend the University for the way in which it has developed its approach to widening participation and consistently sought to implement its objectives through its systems and procedures for quality management.
QAA Code of practice
39 In checking the characteristics of its own arrangements against the relevant precepts of the QAA Code of practice, the University's approach has been to map its existing regulations and procedures against the sections of the Code, in order to make changes where necessary and to introduce a process for monitoring compliance. The detailed analysis of the University's position in respect of each section of the Code, are reported to CARP which has evaluated current practice and decided on the most appropriate course of action for the implementation of any needed changes. Monitoring of the consistency of faculty based arrangements with the precepts of the QAA Code of practice takes place through the revised annual monitoring process. The audit team was provided with sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the University had reviewed the current sections of the QAA Code of practice and is taking steps to ensure that its arrangements are consistent with its precepts.
Benchmark statements
40 The University is committed to reviewing its provision against QAA Subject benchmark statements as and when these are published. The procedure is for course teams to compare existing programmes against the detail in benchmark statements and identify any significant areas which are not covered. Details of this mapping exercise are reported to CARP. Where the need for change has been identified this has been managed through existing quality assurance procedures. Benchmark statements now form part of the documentation used by the University for programme validation and revalidation.
Programme specifications
41 One recommendation of the working group on quality assurance (see above, paragraph 22) was that the University should adopt a standard template for the definition of programme specifications. To implement this recommendation, Senate approved the establishment of a design group which consulted widely across the institution and won support for a standard template.
42 Following the report of the design group, Senate decided that all UCE award bearing programmes should have a completed programme specification by the start of the current session. To achieve this, each board of study, together with external examiners and other external advisers was asked to work with Subject benchmark statements and the approved template to produce a programme specification. The audit team was able to monitor the process of development for programme specifications, including the approval by faculties. The team noted the thoroughness with which this process had been conducted and commends the University for its commitment to the development of a comprehensive set of programme specifications for all its award bearing programmes.
Collaborative provision
43 At the time of the audit the University operated partnership links with 15 institutions in the UK and three partners overseas. The approach to collaboration has been based on a concentration of UK partnerships within the West Midlands Region and the development of selected overseas links. The local links support the University's Mission to widen participation and serve the needs of the community.
44 The University's chief UK-based partnership arrangements are with local Further Education Colleges (FECs). The majority of provision in FECs is defined by the University as franchised programmes (University programmes delivered at a partner college by its staff) although there are also a number of validated programmes (programmes developed by a partner, approved by the University, and delivered by the partner's staff) and some joint franchise programmes (University programmes delivered in the partner institution jointly by University and partner institution staff). Procedures for the quality assurance of all these programmes mirror those used for programmes delivered at the University. The University refers to its collaborative provision as its '10th Faculty'.
45 Links with the local FECs date back to the early 1990s, and are described by the University as the 'Greater Birmingham Scheme'. This Scheme defines the nature of the partnership arrangements in place and identifies a common set of strategic objectives in the areas of widening participation and student progression. The University has developed a number of foundation degree programmes with partners within the Scheme. Although the focus is on the Birmingham region the Scheme includes two colleges in Warwickshire that have well-established links with the University. Originally, separate academic and financial memoranda of cooperation underpinned the Scheme: more recently, these have been replaced by a single agreement approved by Senate.
46 Although attempts have been made to encourage a closer working relationship between the partners, the University finds it more effective to work with each separately within the broader network. In its discussions with staff from partner institutions the audit team identified the effectiveness of the working arrangements the University has developed and the shared commitment between the partners to common objectives. The University and its partners are to be commended for this joint approach to promoting wider access to higher education and supporting links with the local community.
47 The University defines its approach to overseas collaboration as 'cautious'. The limited number of links are in selected specialist subject areas and involve well-established partners. The procedures for the quality assurance of overseas links are based on those used for other University programmes. In March 2001 the University established a CPC to monitor collaborative provision on behalf of Senate. This committee now receives reports from partners and advises faculties and the Deans/Directorate about the strategic development of partnership arrangements.
48 Administrative support for quality management is kept under review by AQSD which is responsible for the management of the internal audit process, the development and maintenance of Academic Regulations and Policies and for the operation of quality procedures by partner institutions. AQSD also contributes to the development of academic policy through its support for the work of the Senate sub-committees. Each faculty has its own internal administrative arrangements for the support of quality activities. Faculty registrars are responsible for ensuring University requirements are fulfilled and meet regularly as a group chaired by the Director of Academic Registry. In addition there is a cross-institutional Quality Officers Forum for discussing common issues and sharing good practice. The audit team found these arrangements to be working well and to be effective.
Evaluation of quality management
49 The University's procedures for quality assurance have been developed from the foundations noted in the previous audit report which it characterised as sound. Subsequent refinements to annual monitoring, course validation and revalidation, together with the development of IAA have ensured that the University not only has a clearly articulated set of procedures but also the mechanism to confirm that they are being applied consistently across all its faculties. Recent developments in programme specifications, and the adoption of the QAA Code of practice and Subject benchmark statements, provide firm grounds for confidence that the University is able to meet external requirements for evidence to demonstrate that it is maintaining and enhancing the quality of its educational provision and the academic standards of its awards.
Academic standards
50 The Account describes a number of ways by which the University sets, maintains and monitors the academic standards of its awards wherever they are delivered. Associated with this are the mechanisms, defined by policies and procedures, whereby student attainment against the standards set by the University are measured and verified through the assessment process. The University describes internal comparability of standards as being assured through the application of a common regulatory framework set out in ARP. External comparability is claimed to be achieved through the use of external examiners and advisors in the University's processes for the definition and maintenance of academic standards and the involvement of University staff in the processes used by other institutions. The Account noted that the University takes careful note of the views of professional bodies and national frameworks such as the Framework for higher education qualifications (FHEQ), promulgated by QAA on behalf of the higher education sector, and Subject benchmark statements in relation to setting standards.
Strategic approach to the maintenance of standards
51 Central to the University's approach is its framework for the assessment of students. In 1996 Senate took a strategic decision to secure the University's control of academic standards through the introduction of a University-wide framework for the assessment of students following taught programmes called the Standard University Assessment Regulations (SUAR). Prior to the introduction of SUAR, the University had continued with the CNAA tradition of regulations for individual programmes framed within governing principles. The objectives stated by Senate for the introduction of SUAR were to: ensure that students were treated equitably and consistently, irrespective of their mode of study, programme, or the faculty in which they were located; introduce regulations that would be transparent to staff and students; ensure that the University's commitment to widening participation was reflected fully in the approach to the management of academic standards; ensure that students receive appropriate credit at every stage and that at their point of exit they could leave with an appropriate award; and achieve these objectives within a framework designed to ensure that academic standards were maintained.
52 SUAR was introduced in 1998, standard assessment regulations for postgraduate taught programmes and higher national programmes being introduced the following year. A recent addition has been regulations for the foundation degree. A second generation version of SUAR - SUAR 2 - was introduced in October 2000 and revised versions of postgraduate and higher national regulations are planned for 2001-02. The University provided copies of ARP together with detailed information on the development and implementation of the new regulations with the Account.
53 SUAR was developed by a standing group of CARP, the Standard University Assessment Regulations Group (SUARG) which is chaired by the Pro-Vice Chancellor with responsibility for academic matters; its membership is wide ranging, and includes the Vice Chancellor. The audit team noted with interest that wide consultation had preceded the introduction of the new regulations, including discussions with students. The team also noted the continuing role of SUARG in monitoring the implementation of the new regulations and making adjustments. The care with which the new regulations had been introduced was illustrated by the way in which the impact of new honours degree classification rules had been monitored at programme level and by CARP and Senate.
54 In the view of the audit team ARP provides clear and unambiguous regulations and procedures for the guidance of staff and students. For example, each of the University's awards is clearly defined in terms of credit (volume and level) and expected generic outcomes. Progression rules and methods of honours classification, award of distinction, and so on, are clearly laid out. Students who met the team confirmed that they found the regulations to be clear and easy to understand. The team concluded that the regulations contained in the ARP generally provide an effective framework for both the design of new programmes to appropriate standards, and the operation of existing programmes to clearly defined standards.
55 In relation to taught course provision the audit team considered that there was one limited area in which the University may wish to consider further development. Members of the University who discussed the setting of levels of achievement, in designing programmes and describing expected standards told the team that although awards are defined in terms of the amount of credit required at each level, staff, students, and external examiners were provided with little guidance on the expected achievements or outcomes at each level. In this context the team noted comments in the conclusions of a number of QAA subject review reports that there needed to be clearer connections between statements of learning outcomes and associated assessments. The team considered that improved guidance on how to write learning outcomes at appropriate levels might assist staff and help the University to address these matters. At the same time the University might wish to consider the merits of developing and adopting generic level descriptors to assist this process of enhancement.
56 Regulations for higher degrees by research are also set out in ARP and provide for the option of initial registration for MPhil, with later transfer to PhD. In practice, many research students registering with the University proceed directly to PhD having previously followed a master's level programme. In view of the advice offered in the FHEQ in connection with the practice of MPhil/PhD registration and transfer, the University may wish to consider the merits of making its MPhil a discrete award. Reviewing the University's regulations for higher degrees by research the audit team considered these to be clear and unambiguous, a view shared by research students who met the team. Overall, the team concluded that the ARP continued to achieve the objectives set by the University's Senate and that it provided the University with an appropriate framework for the safeguarding of academic standards.
Student admissions and recruitment
57 The University's Recruitment Policy reflects its mission to widen participation in higher education. It also clearly defines the minimum admissions requirements for all of its awards in terms of prior qualifications and/or equivalent experience. Procedures for accreditation of prior certificated learning (APL) and accreditation of prior experiential learning (APEL) are clearly defined and the audit team saw documentary evidence that they are followed. In the case of collaborative programmes, claims for APL/APEL are referred to the University for decision. Guidance on stated and required entry levels is clearly provided for prospective candidates in the University's prospectuses, and clear administrative procedures are in place for each stage of the application, offer and acceptance process. The team saw clear evidence that admissions and student entry profiles are regularly reviewed as part of the annual programme reporting procedure. Admission to many of the University's collaborative programmes is through the University's standard procedures; in other cases the University monitors admissions standards and all non-standard applications are referred to the University for decision.
Progression and retention
58 The definition of widening participation includes a recognition that the University needs to provide appropriate support for students to secure academic progression and minimise student withdrawal. An analysis of student progress by subject area has identified the variations in retention across the faculties and information from the Student Satisfaction Survey has highlighted a number of factors that may contribute to difficulties in some areas. The issue has been discussed by faculties and by central University committees. The principal focus for action has been on full-time undergraduate programmes and various initiatives have been instigated to provide additional support and guidance where necessary. Information in the Account and in the base room made it clear that although the initial focus for action was full-time undergraduate programmes the University intended to extend these activities to part-time and postgraduate programmes shortly.
The assessment of students
59 Assessment strategies for student work, course work, and the various forms of examination are approved in the validation process and are therefore tested by peer review and against the University's regulations. Procedures to check that appropriate standards are applied to assessing student work include double-marking and the moderation of course work, examination scripts and projects.
60 Academic staff new to teaching are required to follow the University's Postgraduate Certificate in Education and Professional Development which, inter alia, provides detailed information on assessment and assessment criteria (see below, paragraph 107). Staff who met the audit team were appreciative of the support they had been given in checking the standards they applied in the assessment of students' work. Similarly, research students who met the team and who were employed to teach undergraduates and diplomates were grateful for the support they had received. The team noted, however that at the time of the audit, research students were not offered such training as a matter of course, even when they carried considerable teaching responsibilities. Whilst acknowledging that double-marking with experienced staff would enable research students in due course to apply appropriate final standards, there remains the possibility that those who have not attained this understanding might apply standards incorrectly when assessing students' work or offering advice. The University is about to make training for those research students it appoints to part-time teaching positions a requirement: such a development is both welcome and advisable.
61 Overall, the University's practices in respect of student assessment appeared to the audit team to be consistent with the relevant precepts of the QAA Code of practice. Students following taught programmes and research programmes who met the team stated that, in general, they were provided with clear information on expected standards of assessed work in a form appropriate to the tasks concerned. They appreciated the care taken to provide them with feedback on assessed work but a number reported difficulties with the timeliness of feedback, for example, marked work not returned before the deadline for subsequent assessments and feedback on examinations not given before reassessment. These comments echoed similar observations on timeliness in the provision of feedback on student assessed work in a subject review report; similarly the most recent University-wide Student Satisfaction Survey (2001) indicated some difficulties in this area. The University might wish to review its policies, guidance and practices with respect to timing of feedback on student assessed work, whilst not reducing the quality of such feedback. The University's arrangements to handle appeals against assessment decisions are described in paragraph 132, below.
External examiners and their reports
62 In the Account the University stressed the 'crucial role' of external examiners in monitoring the academic standards of awards and in advising the University on the maintenance of academic standards and comparability of standards with those of other institutions. All award bearing programmes have one, and frequently two external examiners, one of whom may be a 'practitioner' to complement an 'academic' external. The University delegates appointment of external examiners to faculties, but the faculty boards are required to make appointments against clear criteria to ensure an appropriate level of experience, expertise and independence. Reviewing a large sample of material in the base room relating to the appointment of external examiners, the audit team saw ample evidence that appointment procedures were operating effectively and in a timely way.
63 Following appointment, all external examiners receive a comprehensive briefing pack which includes local material such as programme specifications and handbooks, together with University level materials such as SUAR and ARP and a useful document, Guidance Notes for External Examiners, produced by the Pro-Vice Chancellor with responsibility for academic matters. Additionally, and as a minimum, all external examiners receive a briefing from appropriate University staff on their roles and on local arrangements. Some faculties have introduced briefing workshops for new external examiners and the audit team considered this to be good practice which might be extended to other large faculties where external examiners are regularly appointed in numbers sufficient to warrant it. Because of the nature of its disciplines, the Conservatoire appoints assessors of student performance. The appointment and work of these assessors is carried out according to a separate set of procedures and guidelines in ARP which appeared to the team to be appropriate and fit for its purpose.
64 External examiners are full members of examination boards and, depending on the structure of the programme(s) and associated boards, may be involved with a group of modules, or at programme level, or at both in 'linear' programmes. External examiners are expected to comment on draft assessment questions and scrutinise samples of the range of assessed work including course work and examinations. There is clear guidance on how to sample assessed work and scripts where this is necessary and appropriate. Student work is discussed with module leaders and the external examiners may meet with groups of students.
65 The University has clear and appropriate guidance for external examiners concerning their role in advising whether standards set by internal examiners are appropriate and not acting as second markers themselves. External examiners are also asked to advise on effectiveness and fairness of regulations, the operation of examination boards, the nature of the assessments set, and general matters relating to teaching and learning that may arise out of the assessment process. The audit team saw ample evidence that the role of external examiners as defined by the University is effectively implemented, not least because this is confirmed by the external examiners themselves in their reports (see below), a considerable number of which were made available in the base room.
66 All external examiners are required to write an annual report which covers the various aspects of their work noted above, and are specifically asked to provide feedback on standards set and standards achieved by students. The audit team noted that the University had undertaken a review of its common external examiner report form during the 2000-01 session and had undertaken a trial of a new format. Papers made available to the team in the base room showed the care with which this exercise had been carried out, and that the evaluation of the new format had been positive, a view which the team shares. In particular the team considered that the introduction of variants of the report form, designed to clarify the contributions of external examiners in respect of safeguarding academic standards, monitoring the quality of provision, and assisting with its enhancement, was a valuable and commendable innovation. The proposed new report forms provide external examiners with a full opportunity to comment on matters relating to academic standards and the assessment process.
67 Reports from external examiners are received by the Pro-Vice Chancellor with responsibility for academic matters, and are read by both the Pro-Vice Chancellor and the Vice Chancellor. Each may require responses from deans relating to matters they consider significant. The audit team saw clear evidence that these responses were carefully followed-up. Reports from external examiners are also circulated to deans, heads of school, programme leaders and other staff of faculties with key responsibilities for academic programmes. The reports are considered as part of the annual monitoring process and proposed actions in response to reports are approved at faculty level (including ensuring that issues raised by the Pro-Vice Chancellor with responsibility for academic matters and the Vice Chancellor have been addressed and responded to appropriately). External examiners are routinely provided with annual monitoring reports to indicate how responses to their own reports have been made and to keep them informed of ongoing programme developments. Overall, the team concluded that the University's arrangements for its external examiners and their reports are robust and working well. They are regularly reviewed, they are consistent with the precepts of the relevant section of the QAA Code of practice and should continue to serve the University well in safeguarding the academic standards of its awards.
68 The University's regulations for the examination of research degree candidates are clearly laid out in ARP and include the requirements and procedures for external examining. The audit team concluded that these requirements were sound and effectively operated.
External and internal comparability of academic standards
69 The University has adopted a number of means to ensure internal and external comparability of academic standards. Of these, perhaps the most important is the use of external peers in validation (to set standards) and, in assessment, as external examiners to monitor standards. In addition, the Account noted that the involvement of University staff in similar activities in other institutions provided an important means whereby the University could benchmark its own provision and academic standards with those of others and the audit team noted that the University maintains a register of its own staff who act as external examiners elsewhere.
70 Senate plays an active role in monitoring standards, for example through the receipt and consideration of reports from faculties which routinely compare performance across modules, across external examiners' reports, and so on. In this connection the audit team noted a number of instances of good practice, for example, a paper on 'Quality Issues from Annual Reports & External Examiners' Reports', prepared for the Academic Quality Committee of the Faculty of Computing, Information and English, which provided a detailed programme by programme analysis. The team also noted evidence from a recent meeting of the Academic Planning and Development Committee of the Business School, where detailed module by module comparisons against performance indicators and overview statistics had been undertaken.
71 Institution-wide harmonisation of academic standards has also been assisted by the work undertaken by the University to introduce programme specifications across all its provision (see above, paragraph 41) and to review the extent to which existing institutional definitions coincide with the Subject benchmark statements issued by QAA on behalf of subject communities. Members of staff told the audit team that this programme of activities had provided a useful opportunity to update standards statements across the University.
72 In addition to receiving the monitoring reports prepared for it at faculty level, Senate also receives overviews of such reports from AQSD designed to enable it to identify matters of institution-wide significance. The University provided a wide cross-section of such reports in the base room which the audit team sampled. It concluded that the sum of the information provided to Senate enabled it to monitor how academic standards were being safeguarded across the institution and that where reports indicated that action was needed it was taken. Such action might be detailed, such as the investigation of a single module, or broad brush, such as initiating studies of progression and retention with a view to providing additional support and guidance institution-wide.
73 Overall, the evidence available to the audit team led it to the view that the University has in place sound and effective means to set, monitor, and maintain the academic standards of its awards as it pursues its mission of widening participation and combating social exclusion from higher education. Similarly, the evidence available to the team justifies the extension of these judgements to the soundness of arrangements for maintaining the academic standards of awards achieved by students studying through partnership links.
The learning infrastructure
Strategic approach
74 The University aims to provide a high quality learning infrastructure to support its educational character and mission and to deliver its programmes at times and in places which suited the learning needs of its varied communities. The University's approach is to ensure that the development of central support services is informed by the needs of the faculties, and complements provision at faculty level. It aims to achieve this by involving staff from the central services in the work of appropriate committees, thus allowing them to reflect institutional and faculty priorities in the development of the services for which they are responsible. At the time of the audit the University had recently reorganised its management structure, so that some central services reported to the Pro-Vice Chancellor with responsibility for academic matters and some to the Pro-Vice Chancellor with responsibility for external affairs.
75 In general, faculty boards provide for attendance by locally-based Library and ICT staff. Below the level of the faculty boards arrangements to secure liaison between central services and faculty-based services vary between faculties. Members of central services are therefore represented on some faculty sub-committees and in some cases Library staff are members of boards of studies. Staff from central services who discussed their ability to contribute to discussions at faculty boards, and in faculties generally with the audit team were able to confirm that they were actively involved in the University's quality processes within the faculties.
76 The evidence available to the audit team suggests that systems for linking central services with faculty developments work effectively, although present arrangements do not provide a systematic or integrated means of involving all areas of central services in the working of the faculties and in institutional and course planning. At the time of the audit the University had recently reorganised its arrangements to manage its central services. The team is therefore not in a position to comment on the likely effectiveness of the newly introduced measures, and suggests that the University might find it helpful to monitor the effectiveness of its new arrangements, in order to ensure that the management and direction of its central services is appropriately informed by information on the needs of the University, the faculties and students.
Estates, accommodation and facilities
77 The University operates across eight teaching campuses and keeps its Estates Strategy under regular review to ensure that it is responsive to the external environment and its course portfolio, student population and size. At the time of the audit the Board of Governors had recently approved a revised strategy for the Estates. The Estates Strategy concentrates on four principal areas: accommodation for learning, teaching, research and collaborative activity; residential accommodation for students; social, sports and other facilities; and strategic acquisitions.
78 The audit coincided with major planned improvements to the University's Estates which involved a number of campus moves. Student views on the Estate and facilities are gathered through the annual student questionnaire and indicate a generally high level of student satisfaction with the Estate across all sites. Where particular issues had been identified there was evidence that the University had responded appropriately. The views of students on their accommodation are gathered independently, through a separate questionnaire.
79 In the Account the University indicated that further work was needed to improve the quality of its Estate. From the evidence available to it in the base room it appeared to the audit team that the University was systematically gathering information to inform the planning and development of its Estate to meet the changing needs of the faculties, the educational provision they provide and students studying with the University.
Library services
80 The Library operates on all teaching sites and faculty learning resource centres complement the resources provided centrally. The overall strategy for the development of the Library is set out in the Library Development Plan (1999). This identifies a number of priorities appropriate to the institutional mission, corporate plan and student body. The Library produces annual operating plans and has recently assigned the development of a Digital Library a high priority. Members of the local community who are not necessarily students are able to use the Library for reference.
81 Each faculty has produced policies for the development of the learning resources for the operation of which they are responsible and in some cases a sub-committee of the faculty board has been established to monitor learning resources and gather the views of their users. As noted above, Library staff are generally invited to attend boards of studies, and while the minutes of such boards do not always identify those present by responsibility, discussions with members of staff enabled the audit team to confirm that Library staff generally attend such meetings and are therefore in a position to respond to queries or expressions of concern from staff or (more frequently) students.
82 Feedback information on users' perceptions of the provision and management of learning resources (particularly the Library) is regularly gathered through surveys, evidence from which suggests that satisfaction with the services is steadily increasing. Recent surveys have allowed the identification of users' concerns in respect of learning resources at the level of particular modules and programmes, for example, where there were large student numbers, or broad programme areas where student numbers were smaller. The audit team was able to confirm that these findings had been discussed by the relevant faculties and boards of studies, and action recommended. There was evidence in the base room that where areas of dissatisfaction had been identified through surveys and questionnaires the University took care to check that action recommended in previous sessions had remedied the perceived difficulty. Where the annual survey questionnaire provides no evidence of improvement the University has established focus groups to discuss directly with students the nature of their concerns.
83 Students to whom the audit team spoke confirmed that Library opening hours and access were generally seen as appropriate, although there were difficulties in accessing up-to-date texts in some areas and the recent relocation of some subjects had caused difficulties. The introduction of the Digital Library is intended to provide flexible access to a wide range of learning resources and associated information. Research students confirmed that if the resources were not available in the University they were able to get access to appropriate specialist texts through arrangements made by the University with other libraries, or by using the inter-library loan system.
84 QAA subject review reports have consistently expressed confidence in the University's learning resources. On the basis of the evidence available to it the audit team considers that the University has effective systems for the allocation of resources to library provision, for monitoring the quality of the service provided and for enhancing arrangements for learning resources and that there can be confidence in this aspect of its quality management overall.
Information and communication technology (ICT)
85 The University's Information Strategy was initially developed in 1994 and its primary focus had been on the installation and development of the ICT structure to support learning and teaching and the development of the University's MIS. The Strategy has been regularly revised and was about to be reviewed at the time of the audit. Current priorities were seen as: the continued development of the Digital Library; the integration of data and processes between and across systems in order to improve the flexibility and responsiveness of systems and access to management information; and making data accessible on and off campus. Implementation of the Information Strategy is the responsibility of the University's Information Strategy Implementation Group (ISIG), the IT Standards Committee and the Learning and Teaching Forum.
86 The University has played a leading role in the development of the regional Metropolitan Area Network (MidMAN) which also included the partner colleges. The University's Information Technology Department provides the infrastructure and support for the administrative, electronic communications and information systems of all central departments and the faculties. Its aim is to maintain the current (high) level of availability of network services.
87 Some faculties rely to a greater degree than others on computing and information technology and therefore provide additional ICT support for staff and students. Where faculties provide such additional facilities their operation and management is monitored at faculty level through the faculty board, usually through a sub-committee. Student satisfaction with ICT provision is monitored through an annual survey, the outcomes of which demonstrated some variation in student approval across the different sites and from faculty to faculty. From the evidence available to the audit team it was clear that the University was aware of such variations and was taking appropriate steps to address them, although it is an area where the University acknowledges there are growing student expectations. Students who discussed ICT provision with the team did not identify any specific concerns. As with library services, the team formed the view that the University had effective systems for planning and managing its ICT provision generally, for monitoring the quality of the service provided, and for effecting quality improvements.
88 Until recently the University operated a free-standing Learning Technology Group which has now been amalgamated with the more recently formed Teaching and Learning Forum. Whilst some areas of the University have been particularly active in developing ICT systems for teaching and learning, and some of the University's teaching fellows who met the audit team were carrying out projects in this area, it appeared to the team that support and advocacy for ICT developments to support teaching and learning rested on the endeavours of a group of interested individuals and lacked strategic direction. Given the emphasis placed on the use of ICT in teaching in the University's staff development priorities, it may wish to consider whether its present arrangements, centred on the Teaching and Learning Forum, will enable it to meet its own expectations.
Management and student information systems
89 Papers in the base room showed that the University had identified some difficulties in providing timely and appropriate information from the student record system (SRS). Discussions with central services, faculty and other staff indicated that although the timely provision of accurate management information had at times been problematic this had not compromised the management of the University's educational provision, a view which the audit team shares. At the time of the audit the University was developing a new SRS to address these difficulties which will be in operation by 2003 and will integrate with existing University management information systems (MIS). Members of staff who discussed the development process for the SRS with the team told it that the University had recently consulted the faculties and central services on the specifications for the SRS and amplified statements in the University's papers on the process which had been followed to survey similar systems in other Universities prior to the identification of a preferred supplier.
Student support and guidance
90 Responsibility for student support and guidance is shared between the University's central Student Services, the Staff and Student Development Department (SSDD, formerly the Learning Methods Unit), and the faculties. In addition, there are arrangements within the Union of Students to provide advice and support.
91 Within Student Services overall, provision has been tailored to meet the needs of the University's diverse student body and includes: Careers and the Student Job Shop; the Chaplaincy; Childcare; Counselling; Disability; Health; and Student Finance. They are provided across all campuses. As noted elsewhere in this report, each student is provided with a copy of the Student Services Handbook on enrolment and a wide range of other materials relating to individual services is available both through leaflets and on the University's student web site (see below, paragraph 119).
92 The University stated in the Account that Student Services works closely with other central departments and the faculties to support students, including international students and students with disabilities, and to develop initiatives to enhance the employability of the University's graduates. The Director of Student Services is a member of the Deans/Directorate group and the Senate Committees of CARP, CPC and International Students, and is also part of the Learning and Teaching Forum and is required to submit an annual report to CARP. It is through this means that the University is able to check the consistency of its own student support arrangements with the precepts of the relevant sections of the QAA Code of practice, including the sections relating to Students with disabilities, Career education, information and guidance, and Recruitment and admissions. Specific support is provided for students with disabilities and the University has clear procedures for admitting such students and for monitoring the effectiveness of the arrangements made for them. The audit team noted that at the time of the audit the Senior Careers Advisor was leading a working group to take forward the University's initiative on student progress files.
93 The University has developed a range of systems to support the specific needs of its diverse student body in line with its mission to widen participation in higher education. For example, a section within SSDD is responsible for learner development: it provides support for overseas students, study skills advice, and sessions on a range of topics including effective reading and examination technique. SSDD is also developing innovative activities working with potential students before they join the University to increase their preparedness for study in higher education.
94 Recent subject review reports have commented on the multi-layered nature of the University's student support systems but have also indicated that their availability is energetically communicated to students. The views of students on the support provided by the University through Student Services and SSDD, are gathered through the annual student satisfaction survey, the outcomes of which indicate a generally high level of student satisfaction with this particular aspect of the University's provision. Students who met the audit team confirmed that information on student support services was made available to them and that, where they had used the services, they had found them helpful and supportive.
Personal tutoring
95 The Account stated that full-time students had access to academic support from personal tutorial systems and that part-time students had access to a range of additional mechanisms including telephone help lines, telephone tutor office hours, and email support. This was amplified by information in student handbooks and through discussions with staff and students. Collating this information, the audit team noted considerable variation between programmes of study, some of which operated systems of year tutors whilst others had personal tutoring systems.
96 Across the University the audit team found that roles and responsibilities of tutors with responsibility for providing academic counselling and support to students varied considerably. In some areas it was clear that the onus was on the student to contact their tutor when seeking advice or experiencing difficulties. In some cases, where part-time staff had been allocated tutoring responsibilities, students reported difficulties in contacting them for academic advice. In other areas, however, the team heard that tutors went to considerable lengths to contact and provide academic support and guidance to students who were failing to progress with their studies, or who were believed not to be achieving their potential.
97 The audit team formed the view that whilst a degree of local variation in practice might be appropriate in an institution with such a wide portfolio of provision, and catering to students with many different needs, the role the University had set for the personal tutoring system overall, and its expectations of the system, remained unclear. From its review of the University's papers and from its discussions with staff and students, it was not clear to the team how the University presently monitors and reviews the effectiveness of its personal tutor arrangements across the institution. The University may therefore wish to consider the merits of reviewing and stating its expectations of the personal tutoring system and the minimum student entitlement to personal tutoring support. It may also wish to consider the possibility of identifying and disseminating some of the examples of good practice which exist internally in personal tutoring arrangements, and it may also wish to consider whether it has in place appropriate mechanisms for monitoring the effectiveness of its personal tutoring systems.
International students
98 International students represent a small but growing part of the University's student population. At the time of the audit, Senate had recently established an International Students Committee (ISC) to advise on University strategy for the recruitment of international students and on policies relating to their admission and educational well-being. The audit team did not meet representatives of ISC; it was, however, able to consult its papers and minutes in the base room and noted that ISC had agreed proposals for an International Students Care Package, with a particular emphasis on staff development. Some amendments to this paper had subsequently been agreed by ISC with the intention that it would then be sent to Senate although it was not clear to the team how the matters identified for action in the paper were to be addressed by the University. Discussion of this matter with members of staff did however indicate that staff development on the teaching of international students was being taken forward as a result of informal links developed in the Teaching and Learning Forum. The University may wish to consider how the work of ISC might be appropriately supported and what measures will be required if it is to continue to be responsive to the needs of its growing population of international students.
Part-time students
99 Seventy per cent of the University's taught postgraduate students and 40 per cent of its undergraduate students are registered to study part-time. The University aims to deal with all its students in a similar manner and, in discussions with the audit team, staff observed that the distinctions between full-time and part-time students were becoming increasingly blurred. The University's student satisfaction survey allows for a differentiation of response on the basis of mode of study, which helps the institution to identify the particular concerns of part-time students. The team noted that part-time students were allocated two places on Senate but that these had been difficult to fill.
100 In the course of the visit the audit team did not meet part-time undergraduate students and hence it was not possible to gauge directly the level of their involvement in boards of studies; nor was it possible to check this in the papers of boards of studies, since the status of student representatives was not always recorded. Given the difficulties the University and the Union of Students appear to have experienced in engaging part-time students in the work of boards and committees, the University may wish to consider whether its procedures for engaging with this group of students might benefit from further development.
Research students
101 The total of research students registered for study with the University has steadily increased and in the session before the audit stood at 219; their numbers are spread across the faculties. AQSD has prepared a Research Students' Handbook which is provided to all research students and covers the University's regulations for postgraduate awards and the roles and responsibilities of the supervisory team and students. Research students receive training in research skills through faculty based programmes and SSDD. New research supervisors are required to be part of an experienced supervisory team and the associated staff development programme was being reviewed by the University at the time of the audit.
102 From its review of materials in the base room, and its discussions with staff (including supervisors) and research students, the audit team formed the view that current procedures for the support of research students were at different stages of development across the University, reflecting the varying amount of research undertaken in particular faculties. Staff stated that it was University policy to provide students with copies of the supervisor's report which forms part of the annual monitoring process. However, students reported that they did not always see this feedback, and the Research Students Handbook makes no reference to the detailed annual monitoring procedures staff discussed with the team (see above, paragraph 35).
103 Research students told the audit team that they were involved in teaching at various levels and that some were acting as module leaders. The team was told that the University was planning to introduce a 'Teaching Skills' programme for postgraduate research degree students from January 2002, a development which is to be welcomed. The University may wish to confirm for itself that its 'Teaching Skills' programme for research students engaged in teaching meets the needs of the varying roles which they have in supporting and delivering the curriculum, including assessing the work of students.
Staffing and staff development policies
104 At the time of the audit the University was reviewing its personnel policies. The principles outlined in the University's human resources strategy and the University's framework for pay and conditions stated the University's commitment to:
- equal opportunities and rewarding work of equal value with equal pay;
- being a single status employer offering the same conditions of service and benefits to all staff and applying a single system of individual performance review (IPR) for all employees;
- meeting specific staff development and training objectives that not only address the current needs of staff but also prepare them for future changes, for example, in relation to the use of IT in the curriculum;
- supporting staff research and scholarship;
- the continuing development of a high quality, high productivity culture;
- regular reviews of staffing needs across the institution.
The strategy states how resources are to be targeted to support the realisation of these priorities, confirms the University's commitment to invest further resources in the development of its staff, and sets targets for the institution, for example, to achieve a gender balance of 50:50 amongst teaching staff by July 2004.
105 The University has ceased to be a member of the Universities and Colleges Employers Association and its policy is to determine pay and conditions locally. The staffing requirements of faculties are reviewed annually as part of the budget setting process. Each faculty has its own staff development policy, derived from institutional and faculty priorities, and these are reviewed regularly; larger faculties have established their own staff development committees. The University's recently established Technology Innovation Centre (TIC) is an independent employer able to set its own pay and terms and conditions of service and to determine its own human resources strategy.
Appointment and induction arrangements
106 The University has clear appointment procedures for new staff which have been defined by its Personnel function. The audit team was told that most areas of the University operated mentoring procedures for new members of staff as part of good practice but that this was not institutional policy. Recently appointed members of staff confirmed that they had received centrally and locally delivered induction programmes, and that these had been helpful. At the time of the audit the University was reviewing its personnel procedures and may wish to consider whether to make mentoring for new staff available institution-wide and how it might monitor and review its effectiveness.
Staff development and appraisal
107 As noted in paragraph 60, above, the University provides a programme of study for its teaching staff which leads to a Postgraduate Certificate in Education and Professional Development, accredited by the Institute for Learning and Teaching. Additionally, staff are given opportunities to progress to a master's award. Newly appointed members of the academic staff are required to complete this programme successfully, unless granted exemption from this requirement by the Pro-Vice Chancellor with responsibility for academic matters. The audit team was told that this Postgraduate Certificate, which is open to all academic staff, was regarded by the University as a considerable success and that nearly 300 participants had been involved in it since its commencement. Staff who discussed the programme with the team spoke highly of the benefits which they perceived and observed that it was heavily over subscribed. The University is to be commended for its commitment to the development of its teaching staff, as instanced in its provision of the Postgraduate Certificate in Education and Professional Development.
108 In keeping with the University's delegation of tasks to faculties, the latter have developed their own job descriptions for key roles and responsibilities to reflect local priorities and practices. All members of staff undergo an annual appraisal known as the IPR process which also allows staff development needs to be identified. Deans are responsible for ensuring that IPR takes place and for monitoring the quality of the process. The Vice Chancellor also monitors the process closely.
109 The audit team was able to view the staff development policies and IPR procedures across the faculties and talk to staff about their implementation. The team reviewed the content of staff development policies across the faculties. It noted considerable variation in current practices across the University but found that staff who discussed IPR with the team were clear about their duties. The team was able to confirm that the IPR system was operated across the University and that it enabled staff development issues to be identified at the institutional and faculty levels. The University acknowledged in the Account that IPR was at different levels of development across the University. At the time of the audit the implementation of IPR had recently been discussed at a Deans/Directorate meeting, in the course of which institutional policy for IPR had been reaffirmed.
110 SSDD provides specialist staff development sessions which are run centrally or in response to faculty needs. The University also provides staff development to support new initiatives such as the introduction of the new undergraduate regulations, subject benchmarking and programme specifications. Wider teaching and learning issues relating to the needs of the University's diverse student population might be covered in the Teaching and Learning Forum but the audit team formed the view that there was no formal arrangement to ensure that such issues were systematically debated within the University.
Teaching observation
111 For experienced teaching staff IPR involves observation of teaching at least once every three years and annually for new academic members of staff. In connection with teaching observation, the audit team noted a range of views across the University. Most faculties appeared to the team to support the view that the purpose of teaching observation was to help and support staff in enhancing teaching quality, while the view at the centre was that the primary purpose of the teaching observation scheme was to ensure the quality of teaching. For the benefit of its staff the University may find it helpful to clarify whether it considers teaching observation as primarily ensuring the standard of teaching or as a procedure to help and support staff in enhancing teaching quality, or vice-versa. Having defined the central principles of its teaching observation scheme, the University will then be in a position to satisfy itself that its own expectations and those of the faculties are in alignment.
Teaching fellowships
112 Excellence in teaching is recognised through personal chairs and through teaching fellowships, which are a key element in the University's teaching and learning strategy. Teaching fellowships are awarded competitively, as a result of an open process and involve members of staff putting forward proposals for specific projects to enhance teaching and learning. Teaching fellows receive additional payments and funding for their projects, and they are required to disseminate their findings locally and through the Teaching and Learning Forum, an open meeting for the discussion of teaching and learning issues. The audit team was told that the progress of the projects associated with each teaching fellowship is rigorously monitored and that an evaluation of their outcomes was being undertaken.
Learning resources in partnerships
113 It is the University's aim to ensure that the learning experience of students on collaborative programmes and those studying at the University are comparable. The suitability and availability of learning resources at partners is a key matter during programme approval and students studying for University awards at partner institutions have access to the former's learning resources.
114 The audit team discussed the learning resources available to students registered for University awards at partner institutions with such students during the visit. It was told that they were aware of the resources that the University made available to them and that they were confident that they had access to these. Wherever possible, students are provided with opportunities to visit the University prior to transfer or progression for further study.
115 Staff in partner institutions who are involved in the delivery of programmes of study and courses leading to University awards are notified of developments in the University by AQSD and through the link tutor system. A group of such staff who met the audit team confirmed that they were involved in moderation meetings, internal verification, and meetings of boards of studies, and that they met their link tutors on a regular basis. The team was also told that there was some joint teaching between University and partner institution staff which helped to establish consistency of expectations and delivery.
116 Staff from partner institutions confirmed that they had participated in workshops organised by AQSD to disseminate information on changes in University regulations and that they were working on programme specifications with assistance from University staff. They also confirmed that they were able to participate in staff development events provided by faculties and the University and the audit team noted with interest that the University had awarded a teaching fellowship (see above) to a member of staff from a partner institution.
117 From its discussions and the evidence available, the audit team formed the view that students and staff at collaborative partners were strongly supported through the links that the University had established at a variety of levels and the development and dissemination opportunities it made available.
Internal and external communications
Communication with students
118 The University produces a number of prospectuses and publicity materials. In addition, it provides a number of guides to those applying or about to join the University including: Additional Information for Applicants, a Pre-Arrival Guide for New Students, a Pre-Arrival Guide for EU Students, and a UCE International Students Guide.
119 In the Account, the University acknowledged that its size, complexity and multi-campus location presented a challenging environment in which to operate effective communications. The University is in the process of establishing systems that will allow electronic communication with students to become one of the major forms of communication and told the audit team that the new SRS would be an important element in this (see above, paragraph 89). At the time of the audit all students were provided with a copy of the regulations (ARP) on CD-ROM. The University is well-advanced in developing its presentation of information to students via web browsers and the student web site provides a direct link to the Student Services site.
120 The University expects that all students will receive handbooks related to their programmes and that they will incorporate module, course and University information. The University considers it important that students should receive comprehensive and informative student handbooks and at the time of the audit CARP had recently established a working group on student handbooks, involving staff from across the institution. Papers in the base room dealing with the work of this group showed that it had taken advice from a student focus group and, at the time of the audit, it had produced a first draft of a template for student handbooks. Once approved by CARP the intention is that the template will be circulated to staff for implementation for the commencement of the 2002-03 session.
121 Communications between the University and the Union of Students is well-established at senior manager level. The President of the Union of Students has regular fortnightly meetings with the Vice Chancellor and the full-time secretary of the Union of Students is involved in Deans/Directorate meetings. Most communication with students occurs at the programme level and QAA subject review reports support the view that informal contacts between students and members of teaching teams are good. Students who met the audit team confirmed that the University used a variety of means to communicate with them and that these systems provided them with the information they needed in a timely and accessible fashion. The team was able to confirm that the University's means for communicating with its full-time undergraduate, taught postgraduate and research students are effective. In the absence of confirmatory information from part-time students, however, the team is not in a position to extend that view to communication arrangements with them.
Student induction
122 In the Account the University stated that its induction programme is designed to give information about students' chosen programmes, support services, library and other information services, and health and safety. International students are given a longer induction programme which addresses their particular needs and which requires the testing of their English language skills. The content of the induction programme is reviewed annually by ISC.
123 Students who met the audit team confirmed that they had undergone an induction process although the formats they described varied considerably. Some described arrangements which had helped students adjust to their course and the demands of university study and which appeared to represent good practice. Other students described inductions which appeared to involve minimal student engagement which they had found less satisfactory. Given the nature of its student body, and the work being undertaken to improve student retention, progression and achievement, the University may wish to consider how it might ensure that good practice in the organisation of active and engaging induction processes for all students is identified and disseminated.
Student feedback
124 The University considers that student feedback is crucial in maintaining and improving quality and standards and has a variety of mechanisms in place to enable this to be gathered. Students are represented on the major University and faculty committees and boards, although the University acknowledges that finding suitable representation, particularly from the part-time student body, has been problematic. At the time of the audit the places reserved for part-time students on Senate were unfilled.
125 The membership of boards of studies includes student representatives and the audit team noted that 'patchy' student representation had been identified in the report of the HEQC audit. The records of the boards of studies available to the team indicated that students were generally present at their meetings; however, the minutes did not always indicate the roles of those present, which prevented any detailed analysis of patterns or trends in attendance.
126 Records of meetings of boards of studies showed that matters raised by students were often discussed, and that in many instances student feedback items were placed at the beginning of the agenda to ensure that they were given sufficient time. The audit team considered this good practice and noted that CARP was giving further thought to securing student representation. The University may wish to ensure that this review by CARP gives consideration to establishing how the views of part-time students can be heard in its boards and committees.
127 The student representatives who met the audit team had not received any formal training or induction into their role but the team was told that the Union of Students was developing an accredited training programme for student representatives. The University may wish to consider how, either directly or through partnership with the Union of Students, training and support to student representatives might best be provided.
128 The University gathers student feedback at institutional level through the annual student questionnaire which provides detailed feedback on a wide range of programme related issues and on the performance of the University's central services. Items for inclusion in each questionnaire are taken from those of concern to the University and to students and outcomes are considered at all levels in the University. Senate considers the outcomes of the annual questionnaire and planned improvements and the final report is discussed by the Board of Governors, together with responses from the faculties and central services. The University ensures that the outcomes of the questionnaire are fed back to students at both an institutional and course level.
129 Feedback at the module level is gathered through questionnaires designed by module leaders. Some of these were available to the audit team, and whilst there was considerable variation in their content, they generally enabled detailed feedback on the module to be gathered. A recent thematic audit conducted by the University (see above, paragraph 31) had considered student feedback mechanisms in two faculties, including franchised provision, and had also noted differences in practice at the module level. The University may wish to consider what minimum expectations it might wish to establish in respect of the content of module questionnaires.
130 At the time of the audit, outcomes from the collection of student feedback on collaborative programmes had been considered by Senate. The precise arrangements for gathering such feedback had varied from partner to partner, and CPC had been asked to consider whether there should be greater consistency in the collection and presentation of student feedback from partner colleges but at the time of the audit had not had the opportunity to debate this matter.
131 The audit team considered the University's systematic approach to the use of student feedback added considerable value to its monitoring and decision making processes. In particular, there was clear evidence that feedback on central services and facilities had led to significant enhancements to the quality of services provided.
Student appeals and complaints
132 The University's procedures for dealing with student appeals against assessment decisions and allegations of cheating have recently been drawn together and enshrined in one disciplinary procedure to reduce the complexity of the process. These are detailed in the ARP which all students receive (see above, paragraph 119). Procedures for lodging appeals and complaints are also covered in some student handbooks and feature in the draft template for student handbooks currently under development.
133 The Account described what the University considers to be an innovative way of dealing with cases of extenuating circumstances presented by students for consideration of assessment outcomes. This involves a formal sub-committee of Senate, the Representations Committee, which considers cases presented after examination boards have announced results. Students may submit requests to the Committee, information is sought from the faculty concerned and cases are considered by formally constituted sub-committee panels. All students are informed of the procedure and clear and comprehensive guidance notes are available for those who wish to present a case. If the case is upheld, the original mark is set aside and the student concerned is allowed to be reassessed. The original examination board is informed of the decision but cannot vary it. External examiners are only involved to the extent that they, together with other examination board members, will be informed of the decision.
134 The University considers that the procedure has two clear purposes: to free examination boards from considering large numbers of often trivial cases; and to ensure equity of treatment of students across the University. The University considers that both of these have been achieved. In the papers seen by the audit team procedures were clearly set out and it was able to confirm with students that the latter were aware of the procedures. Scrutiny of a considerable number of reports from external examiners revealed no negative comments on the procedure. From the evidence available, the team concluded that the University's procedures for addressing appeals in connection with extenuating circumstances were operated satisfactorily, as described in its papers.
135 The Representation Committee also considers requests to set aside examination board decisions on the grounds of material error or irregularity of the conduct of an assessment, usually referred to as 'appeals' against an assessment decision. The procedures are broadly similar to those used to consider extenuating circumstances, although in this instance the outcome of a sub-committee's deliberations are passed back to the examination board concerned which is required to reconsider its original decision (which it may consequently change or uphold). In this instance external examiners are required to be involved. The audit team observed that the procedures were clear, including information for students, and noted that students were aware of the existence of the appeals process.
136 Its review of the University's papers in the base room, together with its discussions with staff and students confirmed for the audit team that the University's policy and procedures for complaints and appeals against academic decisions are consistent with the precepts of the QAA Code of practice on appeals and complaints on academic matters. The Representation Committee (the membership of which includes a student representative) meets after examination boards, however, and it was not altogether clear to the audit team how the boards were informed of recommendations or decisions made by the Committee. Furthermore, the quoracy requirements of the Representations Committee could lead to appeals and/or complaints being heard by one staff member of the University and one student. The University may wish to confirm for its own benefit that the balance of membership of the Representations Committee, and the way it works are acceptable.
Student Charter
137 Each faculty has a Student Charter which sets out its commitment to and expectations of its student body. These are published in student handbooks. Although there is some variability in the statements in student handbooks, these have been reviewed by the University and found to be consistent with the broad tenor of the Charter for Higher Education and the University's Equal Opportunities Policy.
Communication with staff
138 As with students, the University's multi-campus organisation presents a challenging environment for communications with staff. The University does not have a defined communication strategy: communication occurs at a number of different levels and through a variety of different means. Residential or 'away day' briefings constitute one such means and there are annual meetings for all staff between the Vice Chancellor and, within faculties, between deans and their staff. The University also uses a range of printed information sheets and of electronic channels to communicate its thinking and its policies to staff. There was evidence in the University's papers in the base room that staff from across the institution and at all levels are involved in debates about its strategy and corporate planning.
139 The Vice Chancellor holds a series of assemblies to which all staff are invited and many deans hold similar meetings in their faculties. For senior staff the University organises an annual residential meeting where policy issues are discussed and, again, most faculties have adopted a similar system. Senior staff also have opportunities for direct discussions with the Vice Chancellor termed by them 'Dean Watch'. Those who participated in Dean Watch meetings viewed them positively as a means of maintaining effective communication at senior levels.
140 A major plank in the University's communications system is JAWS (Just Another Web Site) which hosts electronic versions of the Academic Regulations and Polices, strategy and agenda papers for Senate, CARP, CPC and Deans/Directorate, and minutes for the Board of Governors. The University newsletter Newsline is published six times annually both in paper and electronically and email is a routine means of communication amongst staff.
141 The University provides newly appointed staff with a Staff Handbook which each faculty supplements with its own information. The audit team was able to view these handbooks; it noted that, typically, they covered staff roles and responsibilities; faculty boards and committees; support services; policies and procedures (including the Student Charter, equal opportunities, faculty learning and teaching strategies, staff development, and staff mentoring); and general staffing matters. The content of the handbooks made available to the team did, however, vary considerably. At the time of the audit the University was revising its Staff Handbook and its expectations of faculty handbooks.
142 Staff who met the audit team considered that they were properly involved in the decision-making processes of the University and saw themselves as being fully informed of relevant and general developments. The audit team formed the view that the University had effective communication structures in place to ensure that its staff were informed of developments.
Communication with partner institutions
143 Communication with partner colleges occurs at a number of different levels. The Pro-Vice Chancellor who deals with academic matters has a responsibility for institutional-level contacts and at the faculty level the role of the link tutor is seen as critical. Some faculties have identified a member of staff to coordinate the work of the link tutors. The audit team were able to talk to link tutors about their roles and to staff and students at collaborative institutions who spoke positively of their experiences. The team considered that the University had established strong and effective communication links with its partner institutions.
Publicity and recruitment materials
144 The University has a central marketing function, the University Marketing Unit (UMU), which has a marketing officer associated with each faculty. The audit team was told that UMU also provided some elements of market research to inform the development of potential new courses. The University's prospectus is prepared by UMU in conjunction with the faculties, either through the faculty registrar or course directors, and with AQSD for collaborative programmes. Information prepared by collaborative partners is subject to the approval of the sponsoring faculty in terms of content and UMU in relation to the use of the UCE logo.
145 Recruitment activities for international students, postgraduate and post-experience provision and research degrees are determined and organised at faculty level. From the material available and its discussions with members of staff throughout the visit the audit team was able to confirm the steps taken by the University to ensure the accuracy of any information produced in its name are as represented in its Account and that they are sound.
Conclusions
146 The University of Central England in Birmingham is a large metropolitan university with a central commitment in its mission to widen participation and serve the needs of the local community. The University's policies, procedures, strategies, infrastructure and values all contribute effectively to the achievement of its broad objectives of combating social exclusion from higher education. The University works closely with local FECs which deliver a number of its courses. The make up of the University's student population clearly indicates that it is succeeding in widening participation.
147 The Analytical Account provided by the University to support the audit provided a detailed description of the University's organisation, together with an analysis of practices and procedures relating to quality management, maintenance of academic standards, the learning infrastructure and internal and external communications. The Account proved to be an accurate reflection of the University; it provided a helpful starting point for the audit.
148 The University provided additional information with its Account and a wide range of further materials (many of which were provided electronically) in the base room which it established for the audit. The papers and other materials provided by the University were comprehensive and well-ordered; they clearly demonstrated the University's mastery of the information it uses to check its progress towards meeting its mission and objectives.
149 The University's arrangements to manage the quality of its educational provision are sound. It has a well-defined quality strategy, which comprises clear processes for developing, testing, and approving new provision, and for monitoring and reviewing programmes, together with procedures for approving changes. During the audit it became clear that the procedures operated effectively and provided a secure and robust framework for quality assurance. These processes and procedures are complemented by a system of internal academic audits which is used by the University to check compliance with its procedures and investigate thematic issues and which appears to work well.
150 The University is alert to external developments and pays careful attention to the advice and recommendations of external quality scrutinies such as QAA academic audits and subject reviews. Similarly, it has paid close attention to addressing external quality developments such as subject benchmark standards, and the issue of successive sections of the QAA Code of practice and of the Framework for higher education qualifications. The University has made a significant investment in developing programme specifications for all awards in a timely manner, an activity that has also provided it with a useful enhancement tool.
151 Arrangements to safeguard the academic standards of the University's awards are well-developed and robust. The University has adopted a clear and comprehensive framework of regulations for all its taught and research programmes which provides unambiguous reference points. These guide curriculum design, the assessment of students and peer involvement in the setting and maintenance of academic standards. There are clear recruitment and admissions policies for students in place and entry qualifications are carefully set and monitored, both within the University and in its partner institutions.
152 There is external involvement in testing and approving new provision and reviewing existing provision, and external examiners are appointed to all award-bearing programmes of study. The University's external examiner arrangements are effective and robust. External examiners report that the University maintains academic standards that are equivalent to those found in other higher education institutions. The University's Senate pays close attention to the regular review of academic regulations and monitors the standards of awards, including those attained through links with other institutions. Overall, the University has in place effective ways of setting, monitoring and maintaining the academic standards of its awards whether these are delivered in-house or with collaborative partners. There can be confidence that the University is well-placed to pursue its mission of widening participation and combating social exclusion from higher education, whilst maintaining the academic standards of its awards.
153 The University's teaching and learning infrastructure is closely geared to meeting the needs of its diverse student population. A range of student support services is provided centrally and at programme level there are effective links between programme development and resource planning, although links could be made more systematic in the planning process. Again at programme level, arrangements to provide students with academic and personal guidance vary in their effectiveness. The establishment of a clearly defined set of student entitlements for support and guidance would provide the University with a touchstone which would assist it to be confident that all students have access to the support they need. Students studying for University awards through partnership arrangements are well-served by a range of University services.
154 The University has developed a wide range of mechanisms for obtaining student feedback. These range from module questionnaires, through student representation on programme boards of studies, to an overall, institution-wide, student satisfaction survey. There is clear evidence that these arrangements to gather feedback are effective, that their findings are acted upon, and that students receive appropriate information on what has been done to respond to their views. A variety of handbooks and guides is available for staff and students, and the University is undertaking further development of web-based information services. The University and its partner colleges produce a large number of print and web-based materials and it has controls in place to ensure their accuracy. Overall there was evidence of open and effective communication processes throughout the University.
155 On the evidence of the audit, the University's capacity to manage and review its arrangements to assure the quality of its educational provision commands broad confidence. The University's arrangements to set, monitor, and maintain the academic standards of its awards are robust and merit confidence.
Points for commendation
156 Many aspects of the University's approach to maintaining and enhancing the quality of its educational provision and safeguarding the academic standards of awards are worthy of commendation, in particular:
i the clear evidence that the University's systems, procedures and values are well-matched to its mission of widening participation (paragraph 38);
ii the active approach taken to the introduction of programme specifications for all courses which has also facilitated an effective means of reviewing and restating required academic standards (paragraph 42);
iii the effectiveness of the working arrangements the University has developed with its partner institutions and the shared commitment between them to common objectives, particularly the promotion of wider access to higher education and support for links with the local community (paragraph 46);
iv the care with which new University-wide academic regulations have been introduced and reviewed and their impact monitored (paragraphs 53 and 54);
v the care with which revised external examiner report forms have been produced with three useful variants to match differing roles of external examiners across programmes of study (paragraph 66);
vi the demonstrable commitment over a number of years to providing a Postgraduate Certificate in Education and Professional Development in Higher Education resulting in large numbers of staff achieving the qualification and evident added value to the student experience (paragraph 107).
Points for further consideration
157 As the University continues to review and develop its quality assurance processes it is invited to consider the advisability of:
i ensuring that all research students who have teaching responsibilities receive appropriate training and support (paragraphs 60 and 103).
158 In addition the University may wish to consider the desirability of:
i reviewing the workload of Senate and its standing committee structure, particularly with respect to a formal forum for discussion of wide-ranging issues relating to learning, teaching and assessment (paragraph 27);
ii introducing more detailed guidance for staff in relation to level descriptors and writing learning outcomes (paragraph 55);
iii reviewing the guidelines to its staff, and implementation of the guidelines, relating to the timeliness of feedback to students on assessed work (paragraph 61);
iv reviewing and stating its expectations of the personal tutoring system and the minimum student entitlement to personal tutoring support and identifying and disseminating some of the examples of good practice which exist internally in personal tutoring arrangements; and considering whether it has in place appropriate mechanisms for monitoring the effectiveness of its personal tutoring systems (paragraph 97);
v further reviewing its systems for monitoring the progress of research students to ensure there are consistent arrangements across the faculties to ensure that URDC receives regular and consistent information, and that all research students are provided with detailed feedback on their progress; and providing information for students on the procedures in the handbook for research students (paragraph 102);
vi clarifying the objectives of the teacher observation scheme with a view to further development of the scheme in line with these objectives (paragraph 111);
vii making available training for student representatives or supporting the Union of Students in providing such training (paragraph 127).
Appendix 1*
University of Central England - facts and figures 2001
*As supplied by the University of Central England in Birmingham
History
The University of Central England, formerly Birmingham Polytechnic, was designated a polytechnic in 1971 and, following the Education Reform Act (1988), was incorporated in 1989. It was granted degree-awarding powers and formally acquired the title of university in 1992 following the passage of the Further and Higher Education Act (1992). The Polytechnic had been created through the progressive amalgamation of a series of local colleges, both technical colleges and those specialising in art and design, music, commerce and education. This emphasis on vocational education remains central to the University's provision. Since incorporation the range of the University's provision has expanded through the inclusion of new subjects and new subject areas, many of which are related to the use and management of new technologies, and through mergers with local NHS Colleges of Nursing and Midwifery and Radiography. The academic year 2001-02 has brought further developments. The Technology Innovation Centre, which includes the University's Faculty of Engineering and Computer Technology, has moved to purpose-built accommodation in the centre of Birmingham at Millennium Point, the largest UK Millennium project outside London, and the University has formally begun a partnership with the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine, enrolling its first armed service students. In addition to the programmes offered on campus, the University has established a number of collaborative arrangements with external organisations in the UK and overseas in respect of its academic provision.
Mission
UCE's mission is to develop in accordance with the following values:
Quality
The University aims to be excellent at what it does. This is a responsibility shared by all who work in UCE. We want our students, their employers and our other partners in the educational enterprise to be highly satisfied with their experiences of UCE. Graduates should remember their time at UCE with affection and should want to return. Our quality assurance and monitoring systems have a high profile and are designed to ensure that we have timely and thorough knowledge to guide development. UCE's performance will also be judged by state agencies, professional bodies and our peers in other universities.
Employability
The success of UCE's graduates over their professional lifetimes is of major importance in guiding what we do. This is tested not merely by the employment of graduates but also by their ability to be reflective and creative practitioners who can respond positively to the changing needs of their organisations and professions and who show commitment to continued personal and professional development. Education for professional practice requires the highest level of academic rigour, and the development of moral and ethical integrity, and the highest general powers of the mind.
Community
UCE serves a wide variety of communities. Located at the heart of a highly diverse and changing region, UCE's programmes and services should be available to all who can benefit from them, irrespective of social, economic, cultural and ethnic differences. UCE is active in reaching out to all parts of the community and will continue to be a major force in the struggle against social exclusion. We try to identify and overcome institutional barriers to the progress of particular sections of the community, including those who face obstacles caused by their economic situation, racism, disability, gender, age or sexual preference. The University will also try to be a good neighbour to those who live near its campuses and to play an active part in the provision of service to those communities, including securing improvements to the local environments.
Learning and teaching
In serving the needs of such a diverse community, the University has to bring together a wide range of services. Excellence in teaching and the promotion of independent learning take priority. The University encourages and rewards excellence in teaching and will continue to stimulate innovation in this field, including the application of new technologies to teaching and learning. Student support arrangements will continue to develop in ways tailored to the diverse values, experiences, expectations, and specific learning needs of our students. Progression and retention are key measures of the University's effectiveness and will be closely monitored, with timely action where difficulties are encountered. The University exists to promote success and should be judged by the value it adds to the lives of its students.
Lifelong learning
The University has a tradition of promoting lifelong learning. The provision of education in as many modes and styles as are appropriate to the particular needs of its diverse clientele is a characteristic of programme provision at UCE. As far as is possible, we will continue to develop our programmes to be delivered through systems and at times and in places which suit the learning needs of our varied communities. The University will also, in all its programmes, encourage the desire for independent and lifelong learning to meet the changing professional needs of individuals and the economy.
Research, scholarship and development
Research and scholarship are essential for the support of academic programmes and will continue to be actively encouraged. Consultancy is also encouraged for the contribution it can make through direct professional practice to the needs of the regional economy. Most research at UCE is near market and applied, and thus in some disciplines has a particular emphasis on wealth creation and technology transfer. In other disciplines the emphasis will be on work with public sector bodies in developing the social infrastructure to improve quality of life. Research is a planned activity and particular areas of specialism and excellence will be identified and supported. UCE is committed to academic freedom and inquiry, and will vigorously oppose attempts to limit them.
Partnership
UCE cannot act alone in pursuit of these values. We need the active participation of partners of all kinds. UCE will continue to work closely with employers, community groups, and other educational institutions, for the development and delivery of its services. Partnership is also valued in and for itself.
Faculties
The University has nine Faculties:
Birmingham Institute of Art and Design
Faculty of the Built Environment
The Business School
Faculty of Computing, Information and English
Birmingham Conservatoire
Faculty of Education
Faculty of Health and Community Care
Faculty of Law and Social Sciences
The Faculty of Engineering and Computer Technology at the
Technology Innovation Centre
Number of students (2000-2001)
|
Faculty
|
FE
|
FT u/g
|
PT u/g
|
FT p/gt
|
PT p/gt
|
Research
|
Total
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Built Environment |
0
|
594
|
486
|
133
|
373
|
29
|
1,615
|
| Birmingham Institute of Art & Design |
1,027
|
1,714
|
69
|
292
|
145
|
34
|
3,281
|
| Business School |
0
|
1,647
|
1,832
|
96
|
635
|
38
|
4,248
|
| Computing, Information & English |
0
|
1,153
|
476
|
38
|
235
|
22
|
1,924
|
| Conservatoire |
23
|
381
|
0
|
20
|
47
|
21
|
492
|
| Education |
285
|
444
|
252
|
165
|
323
|
22
|
1,491
|
| Health & Community Care |
0
|
2,913
|
2,676
|
84
|
259
|
16
|
5,948
|
| Law & Social Sciences |
0
|
915
|
303
|
108
|
209
|
10
|
1,545
|
| Technology & Innovation Centre |
0
|
967
|
995
|
81
|
139
|
27
|
2,209
|
| Greater Birmingham Franchise Scheme |
0
|
605
|
371
|
0
|
15
|
0
|
991
|
| Total |
1,335
|
11,333
|
7,460
|
1,017
|
2,380
|
219
|
23,744
|
Student characteristics
| Gender |
Full-time
|
Part-time
|
Total
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Male |
5,129
|
4,528
|
9,657
|
| Female |
7,704
|
6,383
|
14,087
|
| Total |
12,833
|
10,911
|
23,744
|
Mature students
Proportion of full-time undergraduate population aged 21 or over on entry - 35% Proportion of part-time undergraduate population aged 21 or over on entry - 89%
Domicile
|
UK
|
Other EU
|
Overseas
|
Total
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Further Education |
1,283
|
17
|
35
|
1,335
|
| Undergraduate |
17,306
|
600
|
887
|
18,793
|
| Postgraduate (taught) |
3,005
|
148
|
244
|
3,397
|
| Postgraduate (research) |
174
|
8
|
37
|
219
|
|
21,768
|
773
|
1,203
|
23,744
|
Institutional staff
Number of academic staff (ftes) 730
Number of professional and administrative staff (ftes) 990**
**includes researchers and technical staff
Appendix 2*
University of Central England - collaborative partnerships as at November 2001
*As supplied by the University of Central England in Birmingham
UK Partnerships
|
Partner Organisation
|
Programme Title
|
Nature of Collaboration
|
|---|---|---|
| Birmingham College of Food, Tourism and Creative Studies | BA Hospitality Management | Joint Franchise |
| Birmingham School of Speech and Drama | BA Acting | Validation |
| Diploma in Professional Studies in Acting | Validation | |
| City and Guilds of London Art School | BA Fine Art | Validation |
| BA Conservation Studies | Validation | |
| MA Fine Art | Validation | |
| Josiah Mason College | HNC/D Computing and Information Studies | Franchise |
| HNC/D Business and Management | Franchise | |
| Foundation Degree in Management | Foundation Degree Prototype | |
| Matthew Boulton College | BEng Engineering Foundation/BSc Computer Technology Foundation | Franchise |
| North Warwickshire College | HND Visual Communication | Franchise |
| Cert/Dip HE Art and Design by Negotiated Study | Franchise | |
| HNC/D 3D Design Practice | Franchise | |
| HNC/D Design for Fashion and Textiles | Franchise | |
| Pershore College | HND Horticulture | Joint Franchise |
| Sandwell College | Diploma in Management Studies | Franchise |
| Media Technology Foundation | Franchise | |
| BSc Television Technology | Joint Franchise | |
| Solihull College | BA Fine Art | Validation |
| South Birmingham College | HNC Building Studies | Franchise |
| HND Media and Communication | Franchise | |
| HNC/D Computing and Information Systems | Franchise | |
| HNC/D Music Performance | Franchise | |
| HND Multimedia | Franchise | |
| HNC/D Business and Management | Franchise | |
| HNC Legal Studies | Franchise | |
| HNC/D Early Childhood Studies | Franchise | |
| HNC Public Services | Franchise | |
| Foundation Degree in Management | Foundation Degree Prototype | |
| Foundation Degree in Property and Construction | Foundation Degree Prototype | |
| South Nottingham College | Cert/Dip HE Art and Design by Negotiated Study | Franchise |
| Stourbridge College | Dip HE Art and design by Negotiated Study | Franchise |
| HND Design (Textiles) | Franchise | |
| Foundation Degree in Property and Construction | Foundation Degree Prototype | |
| Sutton Coldfield College | HNC Electronics and Control | Franchise |
| HNC/D Computing and Information Systems | Franchise | |
| HND Fine Art | Franchise | |
| HND 3D Design | Franchise | |
| HND Textiles | Franchise | |
| HND Media and Communication | Franchise | |
| HND Graphic Design | Franchise | |
| HNC/D Business and Management | Franchise | |
| HNC/D Legal Studies | Franchise | |
| HND Criminal Justice | Franchise | |
| BEng/BSc Engineering Foundation | Franchise | |
| Foundation Degree in Management | Foundation Degree Prototype | |
| Warwickshire College | HND Visual Communication | Franchise |
| Cert/Dip HE Fine Art | Franchise | |
| Worcester College of Technology | PG Cert/PG Dip/CMS/DMS/MA Management Programme | Joint Franchise |
| BSc Management Top-up | Joint Franchise |
Overseas Partnerships
|
Partner Organisation
|
Programme Title
|
Nature of Collaboration
|
|---|---|---|
| Informatics Hong Kong | Advanced Diploma in Computer Studies | Articulation |
| BSc (Hons) Business Information Technology | Franchise | |
| Informatics Malaysia | BSc (Hons) Business Information Technology | Franchise |
| Informatics Singapore | BSc (Hons) Business Information Technology | Franchise |
| LASALLE-SIA College of the Arts | BA (Hons) Multimedia Art | Franchise |
| BA (Hons) Interior Design | Franchise | |
| BA (Hons) Graphic Design | Franchise | |
| PG Cert/PG Dip/MA Interior Design with Information Technology | Franchise | |
| PG Cert/Pg Dip/MA Design for Communication | Franchise | |
| Pg Cert/Pg Dip/MA Multimedia Art | Franchise | |
| Diploma in Design (Communication Design) | Articulation | |
| Diploma in Design (Interior Design) | Articulation | |
| Diploma in Multimedia Art | Articulation | |
| Nanjing University | Certificate in Engineering Studies (part of the Joint Education Programme) | Articulation |
Top
QAA updates
QAAtweets
QAAtube