Foreword
1 This is a report of an academic quality audit of UHI Millennium Institute (UHI) undertaken by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (the Agency) and commissioned by the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council (SHEFC). The Agency is grateful to the institution for the willing cooperation provided to the audit team.
2 In 1999 the Agency carried out a special review of UHI, commissioned by the then Scottish Office Education and Industry Department (SOEID) on behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland. The report of that audit recommended that UHI had met the threshold requirements for designation as a higher education institution in relation to the management of quality and standards. The report recommended that there should be four conditions of designation, one of which was the requirement that UHI should undergo a further full audit of its management of quality and standards. Following dialogue between SHEFC, UHI and the Agency, it was agreed that this audit should take place in March 2003.
Methodology
3 The audit was carried out using a process approved by SHEFC and derived from the well-established Agency processes of institutional audit. The Agency (building on the work of one of its predecessor organisations, the Higher Education Quality Council) has completed two rounds of quality audits of the higher education institutions (HEIs) in the UK. The Agency audit framework is based firmly on a process of peer review using audit teams drawn, in the main, from senior staff from the wide range of HEIs across the UK.
4 The audit team comprised Dr S Jackson, Dr D E S Truman, and Professor P F Rogers, auditors, and Ms L Potter, audit secretary. The audit was coordinated for the Agency by Ms A K L Crum, Assistant Director, Scottish Office, QAA.
5 UHI provided the audit team with a self-evaluation document (SED) and a number of other key documents including: the Strategic Plan 2002-2006, the Academic Standards and Quality Regulations, the Staff Guide, Postgraduate Research Opportunities, and the Prospectus 2003. The SED was annotated with reference to documents cited by UHI as evidence to support its evaluation of the management of the quality of provision and the standards of awards. In addition, the team had access to the 1999 designation audit report (see above, paragraph 2), as well as to the Agency academic review reports relating to seven subjects (the reviews having been undertaken between 2001-03).
6 At a briefing meeting held to discuss UHI's submission, the audit team considered the SED in detail and proposed a programme of meetings for the audit visit. The team visited UHI from 16-22 March 2003. The team was based at the Executive Office in Inverness but also made visits to two of the Academic Partners. For the duration of the visit, UHI made available a baseroom containing the documents listed in the SED. The team was also able to access the UHI intranet. The team held a total of 19 meetings with UHI staff and students. These meetings, together with the documentation supplied by UHI, provided the information, examples and evidence upon which this report is based.
The institutional context
7 UHI has been developed from the University of the Highlands and Islands Project, which had its origins in a conference in Skye in 1992. The primary objective of the Project was to establish a university of the Highlands and Islands. In 2001, UHI was designated a higher education institution by the Scottish Parliament following the recommendations of the Agency designation audit (see above, paragraph 2) and a widespread consultation in Scotland. At the time of designation, the University of the Highlands and Islands Project was re-titled the UHI Millennium Institute.
8 UHI has aimed, from the outset, to develop a higher education institution that has no parallel within the UK higher education system. There is no central campus, neither does it concentrate principally on distance-learning. Instead UHI has developed as a partnership that, at the time of this audit, involved 15 colleges and research institutions known as Academic Partners. Thirteen are full Partners and two are Associated Institutions, each with its own mission and culture.
9 The majority of the Partners are further education colleges with experience of higher education delivery, primarily through Higher National awards. A number of the Partners are specialist research and teaching institutions, predominantly engaged in activities that are particularly relevant to the human or natural environment of the region such as a large marine sciences research establishment and an international centre for Gaelic studies. The partners all have close links with their communities, often through a variety of dispersed teaching locations.
10 The mission of UHI is to 'create in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland a collegiate university which will reach the highest standards and play a pivotal role in our educational, economic, social and cultural development'.
11 UHI seeks to achieve this by delivering a range of higher education provision including Higher National programmes (awarded by the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA)), undergraduate and postgraduate degrees, professional development, lifelong learning, and research activities. Its undergraduate and postgraduate degree provision currently is validated by the Open University Validation Services (OUVS). UHI intends to submit an application for degree awarding powers later in 2003 and to seek university title in 2007.
Distinctive aspects of UHI
12 There are four particular features of the nature of UHI provision that together provide the basis for a distinctive higher education institution. First, it seeks to build on and enhance existing facilities and infrastructure in association with its diverse Academic Partners. This includes substantial investment in physical plant across most of the Partners, rather than any kind of substantial investment in central provision. There is an Executive Office in Inverness that serves as an administrative and, to an extent, developmental hub of UHI, but this is not a teaching or research location. Second, UHI is concerned with developing 'new and innovative solutions to post-compulsory education', with a commitment to widening access for 'rural and remote learners'. While much of the emphasis is on pedagogy, a related feature is the provision of learning centres, mostly designed to support learning in the more remote areas. Third, UHI places considerable emphasis on the development and use of information and communications technologies (ICT) that seek to link students and staff across a wide geographic area. The use of video-conferencing in particular is a feature that aids the organisation and delivery of courses that run simultaneously in a number of Academic Partners. In some cases, staff involved in provision may be based primarily in a single centre while providing lectures, seminars and tutorials to students at other centres. In other cases, particular courses are provided by staff from several centres with a high degree of coordination essential to such a process. Fourth, a substantial part of the UHI provision has been developed in the form of courses that are particularly relevant to the social and economic development of the region. Indeed, an underlying feature of UHI is its commitment to the region, and it is argued that the importance of UHI to such development is recognised in the wider community. While UHI does seek increasingly to attract students from outside the region, this is not regarded as its primary role.
13 UHI would argue that it is developing a unique model of higher education provision suited specifically to the requirements of its student body, and it would further argue that bringing a high quality of higher education provision to such a remote and dispersed area is inevitably a high-cost endeavour. In developing UHI to date, very substantial capital expenditure has been possible, not least an initial sum of £33.35million from the Millennium Commission and further support from the European Union and other sources. The majority of the capital funding has been used for improved learning facilities in Academic Partners together with the provision of an advanced ICT network. This has been essential for the development of UHI and it is argued that this form of higher education would not have been possible otherwise. Nevertheless, UHI contends that the recurrent expenditure requirement is necessarily higher than the norm and that this presents ongoing challenges for its development, a situation made more immediate by the adverse financial position of some Partner colleges. Further, UHI highlighted that currently it does not receive full formula funding.
14 UHI would further argue that the assurance of quality is an intrinsically more complex matter for UHI than in the case of a standard higher education institution. It involves diverse forms of provision, complex delivery patterns that normally involve multiple collaborations across institutions and adherence to the requirements of the OUVS and SQA, in addition to the integration with the quality assurance processes of Academic Partners.
Context and extent of provision
15 The area covered by UHI stretches some 400 miles from north to south and 200 miles from east to west. While it does include a major educational presence in Perthshire, most of its provision is across the Highlands and Islands. A substantial part of the student provision is located in four colleges situated in fairly large centres of population such as Inverness and Perth, but a distinctive feature of UHI is its partnership with colleges in small centres of population that are serving extensive and remote areas. This includes over 100 inhabited islands with a total population of 100,000.
16 UHI has 3,557 full-time equivalent (FTE) students, making it one of the smaller higher education institutions in the UK, but any such comparison should take into account the unique features of UHI outlined above. Furthermore, it provides a wide range of courses currently comprising 98 undergraduate sub-degree courses, 24 degree/honours courses and six taught postgraduate courses. 91.5 per cent of students come from the Highlands and Islands, Perth and Kinross, 7.3 per cent from the rest of Scotland and 1 per cent from the rest of the UK with 0.2 per cent of the student body being international.
17 The great majority of the 5,538 (headcount) undergraduate students are enrolled on Higher National (HN) programmes, either full-time or part-time, with just over 1,000 students enrolled in undergraduate programmes, although many of the HN students are able to proceed to degree courses. Overall, enrolment is split almost equally between full-time and part-time students, and the gender balance is 45 per cent male and 55 per cent female. UHI is unusual in the age distribution of its students, with this reflecting the orientation to a dispersed population with little previous local access to higher education. Further details in the form of facts and figures are provided in the appendix to this report.
18 The great majority of staff involved with UHI are college-based members of the Register of Academic Staff. UHI only directly employs 32 staff, most of whom are based in the Executive Office in Inverness with others located in the Academic Partners. A list of the Partners is provided in the appendix to this report.
19 At the time of the current audit, UHI had five faculties: Information and Engineering Systems; Business and Leisure; Arts and Humanities; Health and Social Studies; and Environmental and Natural Systems Sciences. The SED indicated that the faculties advised on 'curricular matters across the network' and each had a part-time dean who also retained a position in an Academic Partner. In terms of undergraduate student numbers, Environmental and Natural Systems Sciences is the smallest faculty with 334 students followed by Arts and Humanities with 717, but both faculties have relatively large numbers of full-time students. Each of the other three faculties has well over 1,000 students. The small numbers of taught postgraduate students are located in just two faculties: Environmental and Natural Systems Sciences, and Health and Social Studies.
20 To date, the emphasis in UHI provision has been on sub-degree and degree-level awards. While these levels of provision will remain dominant among the student body, there is expected to be a steady move towards honours provision.
21 Consequent on its designation as a higher education institution in 2001, UHI receives funds from SHEFC. This covers funding for undergraduate and taught postgraduate degree programmes, HN programmes and research undertaken by the Academic Partners, with UHI formally responsible to SHEFC for delivery of that provision. The funds are distributed to the Academic Partners on an agreed resource allocation model based primarily on student numbers, but including support for the UHI Executive Office. In 2001-02, UHI had income of £17.511million, of which £12.375million (70.66 per cent) came from SHEFC in the form of a block grant for teaching and learning. Of this income, £11.723million (66.95 per cent) was distributed directly to the Academic Partners, £3.887million (22.20 per cent) was spent on behalf of the Partnership by the Executive Office and £1.900million (10.85 per cent) was used to fund the Executive Office.
Structural developments since the designation audit
22 The SED indicated that 'in Spring 2000...serious difficulties arose in the [UHI] Executive Office'. Following the retirement of the Chief Executive, Professor Sir Alistair MacFarlane took over as Director and Chief Executive from August 2000 until September 2001 when Professor Robert Cormack took up the post. In December 2002, Professor Cormack's title was changed to 'Principal'. Throughout this period, UHI pursued vigorously its designation as a higher education institution, which was achieved in March 2001. Also during this period, the Executive Board was formed to 'involve all the principals and directors of the Academic Partners together with the senior managers in the Executive Office'. The operation of the Executive Board is considered in more detail later (see below, paragraphs 26-30).
Governance and management
23 In its SED, UHI indicated that it was reviewing its governance arrangements as a condition of designation as a higher education institution. The UHI Board of Governors had established a Constitutional Review Group to 'advise the Board on whether its 2001 governance arrangements [were] fit for purpose'. An external adviser had also been commissioned to produce a report of the UHI constitution, which was completed in April 2002; this became known as the Shattock Report. The report of the Constitutional Review Group itself was considered by the Board of Governors in December 2002 and therefore its outcomes were recent at the time of the current audit. UHI, helpfully, provided the audit team with an update to its SED immediately in advance of the audit visit, in order to outline the main developments.
24 The SED stated that the Shattock Report did not suggest 'any major restructuring of either the governance or management structures of UHI' but it did contain a number of recommendations aimed at 'streamlining and enhancing the operation of UHI's structures'. Central to the management and development of UHI are three groups, the Board of Governors, the Executive Board and the Academic Council. In addition to certain changes in the composition and operation of the Academic Council, the most significant change resulting from the work of the Constitutional Review Group, in the opinion of the audit team, is the decision to formalise the Executive Board in the UHI constitution (see below, paragraphs 26-30).
25 The Staff Guide states that the Board of Governors is 'ultimately responsible for the effective conduct of UHI's affairs and for strategic direction, reputation, financial health, well-being of students and for establishing and maintaining high standards of academic conduct and probity'. It has a membership of 25 and operates partly through a series of committees as well as receiving reports from the Academic Council and the Executive Board. The update to the SED indicated that a revision to the Board of Governors' membership was being considered to include as members: the Chairs of the Governing Bodies of the Academic Partners; two elected members of staff; the President of the Students' Association; the UHI Principal; and 12 independent members to be drawn from Highlands and Islands Enterprise, the UHI Foundation and co-option by the Board. The UHI Foundation involves representatives from numerous communities served by UHI and there is, in addition, a Forum that brings together the Principals of Academic Partners and their Chairs of Governing Boards. With the proposed revision of membership of the UHI Board of Governors, it is intended to abolish the Forum.
26 The SED indicated that the Executive Board was 'set up to engage the principals and directors of the Academic Partners more directly in the management of UHI as a whole'. It is not chaired by the UHI Principal but by the principal of one of the Academic Partners. It was created to provide a 'forum' in which all the principals and directors of the Partners could meet regularly with the UHI Principal and other senior staff of the Executive Office. It meets at least monthly and also has regular residential sessions. The Staff Guide describes the Executive Board as giving 'consideration to a range of strategic management and substantive issues relating to the development, operation and management of UHI' and providing 'coordination between the UHI Executive Office and Academic Partners'. The SED update set out the intention to enhance the Executive Board's operation with the establishment of three sub-committees covering: Marketing and Communications; Information Services; and, Resource and Equipment.
27 The Academic Council, which is chaired by the UHI Principal, has the 'final responsibility for the standard and quality of all higher education awards offered through UHI', subject to OUVS and SQA requirements. It operates through a series of sub-committees, the major ones being chaired by principals or directors of Academic Partners. The work of the Academic Council is considered in more detail later (see below, paragraphs 31-33).
28 The SED update outlined the proposal to establish an Academic Planning Committee (APC) as a joint committee of the Executive Board and the Academic Council. It was intended that APC would act as 'the major focus of the approval of UHI's Strategic and Business Plans'.
29 In its SED, UHI stated the view that the involvement of the Executive Board in 'all the major issues which face UHI has improved the cohesiveness of UHI and fostered the commonality of purpose required to operate a higher education institution across a diversity of Partners'. It was also acknowledged that while the Executive Board reported directly to the Board of Governors, it did not have its links to the Academic Council 'properly articulated'. This matter was identified in the Shattock Report where concern was expressed about the extent to which the Executive Board might weaken the powers of the Board of Governors on the one hand and the Academic Council on the other. The Report emphasised the importance of the Executive Board's position in the governance structure being understood and 'constrained'.
30 UHI has argued that the Executive Board 'acts like a senior management group in other higher education institutions, with senior executives offering leadership and guidance'. However, the audit team is aware that UHI is not like other higher education institutions, and the constituent members of the Executive Board have considerable power and autonomy. From the minutes of its meetings and from discussions with staff, it is clear that the Executive Board is playing a central role in the development of UHI. It is a widely held view among senior members of staff that the Executive Board has done much to ensure the cohesiveness of UHI, as intended. These benefits are almost certainly facilitated by the frequency of the Board's meetings and the detail of its considerations. At the same time, it is an unusual arrangement and the team remained concerned that the Executive Board could become the central management body of UHI, taking on roles that properly belong to either the Board of Governors or the Academic Council. The team, therefore, recommends that the Board of Governors should monitor carefully the development and function of the Executive Board in order to ensure that it does not hinder the responsibilities of the other governing and management bodies.
Academic Council
31 The SED described the Academic Council as the 'central academic decision making body' and indicated that it had 'extensive executive responsibility for academic development and quality'. Its intended membership includes the principals and directors of the Academic Partners, up to 10 members elected from academic staff, three elected student members and up to six co-opted members.
32 The Academic Council has six sub-committees which advise on key areas of UHI's academic activities: Academic Standards, Academic Development, Learner Support, Staff Development, Research, and Research Degrees. These subcommittees are all chaired by principals or directors of Academic Partners, an arrangement which further helps to strengthen the relationships across the partnership and emphasise the UHI-wide responsibilities of principals and directors. The SED update proposed a number of changes to this structure to 'streamline the operation of Academic Council' from 2003-04.
33 In its SED, UHI acknowledged that there was 'a need to ensure that all the principals and directors of the Academic Partners are fully involved in the work of [Academic Council]'. It went on to state that the role of deans, faculties and subject networks must be 'more fully identified and specified in regard to academic affairs and the functions of Academic Council and its committees'. The audit team recognised the significance attached to the Academic Council as the primary deliberative committee and its important role in defining the academic character of UHI. However, the team also recognised that UHI could do more to reinforce its position and, in particular, enhance its representation from the Partners. The list of current membership includes only four elected staff, out of a possible maximum of 10, and only one 'interim' student member. UHI will wish to review the membership of Academic Council and ensure that its full membership is implemented.
Faculty structure
34 Independent of the structures within individual Academic Partners, UHI has adopted a faculty structure to provide a degree of focus and coherence for academic disciplines. At the time of the current audit, there were five faculties which took an overview of academic delivery and advised on curricular matters across the network. The faculties have developed representative structures for dealing with academic matters, including faculty boards with staff representatives from the Academic Partners. UHI recognises that there have been some difficulties in establishing faculties as a significant cross-partner structure to provide academic leadership and coordination within disciplines. Partly as a consequence of these difficulties, changes are planned for the faculty structure in 2003-04. In particular, it is proposed that the current five faculties should be consolidated into three and that important roles should be delegated to the faculty level including matters relating to quality assurance and research. Alongside this development, it is proposed to establish subject networks, which will have a coordinating role across Partners that embraces HN and degree-level provision. The role of the faculties in relation to the management of quality and standards is considered later (see below, paragraphs 46-48).
Role of external advisers
35 At the time of the 1999 audit, UHI had established an Academic Advisory Board as a senior committee to advise the Board of Governors on a range of matters including the further academic development of UHI. A key feature of the Board was that its membership included experienced and senior external members from the higher education sector. The SED indicated that this Board had not met in recent times and that, instead, UHI had continued to involve senior academics from 'established universities' in the work of UHI. Such involvement includes three external representatives involved with the work of the Constitutional Review, and external representatives included in the membership of Academic Council and a number of its senior sub-committees. It was clear to the audit team, from its discussions with staff, that there was a widespread awareness and appreciation of the benefits of external involvement in a range of UHI work. It appeared to the team that external advice was eagerly and systematically sought. The team would encourage UHI to continue to seek ways to integrate external advice within its existing structures and commends the positive manner in which this has been implemented to date.
Academic partners
36 In its SED, UHI acknowledged that the 'diversity of the Partners, and the fact that their missions are focussed more widely than higher education, poses, for the governance of the institution, a significant challenge to ensure that their higher education activities are shaped to a common purpose and the necessary arrangements for their wider activities do not distract from their participation in UHI, and vice versa'. The audit team was interested to consider the manner in which the relationship between the Academic Partners has evolved, and explored this through discussion with staff from across all the Partners. The team found evidence that the Partners, largely, shared the vision of UHI. There was a particularly strong sense of commitment among the smaller colleges serving the more dispersed areas of the region. Such Partners already see real value in the improved provision of higher education and have frequently benefited substantially from the capital programmes and other additional resources following from their UHI linkage. It is also the case that the larger colleges shared the sense of ownership, even though UHI provision might be a relatively small part of their overall portfolio. In some ways, most significant, in the view of the team, was the commitment of specialist institutions that would otherwise be judged as successful free-standing research or teaching centres. What was apparent to the team was that these Partners, too, were heavily engaged in UHI and saw it as adding clear value to their own work and development.
37 Despite the period of turbulence three years ago, there is a sense that the value of UHI substantially outweighs the difficulties experienced. The period since then was described to the audit team as a time of successful consolidation in which the rather ambitious aims of the early phase of the project have been replaced by a greater sense of realism. As a result of discussions with teaching staff and senior managers from most of the Academic Partners, the team concluded that there are several factors which have brought this about. One obvious asset has been the capital funding in many of the Partners, such as the improved library and study facilities, and the gradual extension of learning centres. It is also the case that the use of video-conferencing and the many other examples of inter-collegial cooperation have taken time to mature but are now demonstrating considerable advantages in the extent and nature of provision, aided by the work of individual course teams operating across the UHI partnership (see below, paragraph 81). A further clear development is the maturing of UHI as students start to graduate in reasonable numbers; for many staff in the Academic Partners this is ready proof of the viability of the concept.
38 The audit team formed the view that the Academic Partners are substantially engaged with UHI and that there is a shared sense of ownership. There is evidence of considerable support for the further development of UHI by staff and students in the Partners. The team, therefore, commends UHI for the cohesive sense of direction which exists between the Partners following the period of uncertainty.
Systems for the assurance of quality and standards
Relationships with external bodies
39 UHI is an accredited institution of the Open University through arrangements managed by the OUVS. All UHI degree programmes are currently validated by OUVS. UHI also has Centre Approval from SQA. All Higher National certificate and diploma programmes are SQA awards operating under devolved responsibility to UHI.
40 The most recent accreditation agreement between the Open University and UHI was signed in 2001. UHI has a high level of devolved authority and is recognised as an appropriate organisation to offer higher education programmes leading to Open University validated awards. However, the agreement makes it clear that the Open University has 'ultimate authority for the academic standards of programmes leading to its Validated Awards'. The Open University exercises oversight of its quality and standards through institutional review and course validation, together with an annual report from UHI which includes details of individual programmes. In addition, there are periodic meetings of the UHI/OUVS Liaison Group, which discusses matters relating to quality assurance and which currently reports to the UHI Academic Standards Committee (ASC).
41 In its SED, UHI acknowledged the 'critical role' played by the OUVS in supporting UHI's development, in particular guiding the establishment of 'robust procedures for programme design, validation, examination and monitoring'. The SED went on to indicate that UHI now considered it has gained 'sufficient maturity to take independent responsibility for these procedures'. The audit team recognised the role that OUVS has played in assisting with the development of procedures, the team was less sure of how the Open University conveyed its expectations for the academic standards of the awards made in its name, and how these articulated with UHI's arrangements. UHI will wish to consider this as it develops its arrangements for securing the ownership of academic standards within the Partnership (see below, paragraph 45).
42 UHI received, from SQA, Centre Approval as a single organisation in 2001. Previously, Academic Partners delivering Higher National programmes had been separately designated by SQA. UHI is responsible for the registration of all students on advanced level SQA awards and for processing their results. Work is in progress to harmonise arrangements for managing SQA programmes across Partners and to provide cross-Partner moderation of assessment activities and student work. A common monitoring process for Higher National awards has also been developed. Operational responsibility for quality assurance of SQA awards rests with quality managers within the Partners. UHI has sought to develop the role of the quality mangers to act as key individuals for the management of quality processes more generally within the Partners and, as such, they are members of the UHI ASC. UHI has identified the rationalisation of SQA programmes and the streamlining of administrative systems as a current priority.
Responsibility for quality and standards
43 In its SED, UHI stated that, subject to the requirements of OUVS and SQA, the Academic Council had the 'final responsibility for the standard and quality of all higher education awards offered through UHI'. The terms of reference for the Academic Council include 'oversight of policies and procedures for the determination and maintenance of academic standards with attendant quality control, assurance and enhancement procedures as advised by the Academic Standards Committee'. ASC is chaired by the Principal of an Academic Partner. Its terms of reference include responsibility to 'act on behalf of Academic Council in assuring standards and quality of higher education courses/schemes in Academic Partners' which it carries out through the implementation of the UHI Academic Standards and Quality Regulations.
44 The membership of ASC includes nominated representatives from the Academic Partners (normally the chairs of the Academic Partner quality committee), externally appointed academic advisers, the UHI Principal, Academic Registrar, a student representative, a member of academic staff and a member of non-academic staff. The audit team noted that there were some differences between the stated membership and the list of members, current at August 2002. It was explained to the team that a number of revisions to the membership had been agreed, for example to include two representatives from each Partner and to allow the deans to attend. Nonetheless, from the documentation provided to the team, it appeared that there were a number of vacancies on the Committee, including the student representative.
45 From consideration of the minutes and committee papers, the audit team noted that ASC routinely considers matters relating to the quality assurance of UHI programmes including reports of academic approval and review, course monitoring, and Academic Partner Review (APR). It also ratifies the appointment of external examiners and considers their reports and required follow-up actions. More generally, it discusses matters relating to good practice and enhancement and contributes to the development of the UHI Strategic Plan. In discussion with members of ASC, the team was less clear about the Committee's role in securing academic standards. There appeared to be little debate within the Committee about matters relating to academic standards or consideration of external reference points in the definition of standards, such as the Agency's Code of practice, subject benchmark statements or the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework. From the documentation provided and its discussions with staff, the team was unable to establish a clear view of the locus of responsibility for academic standards within UHI. Although coming within the remit of ASC for UHI as a whole, the responsibilities for standards at the level of Academic Partners and faculties was less apparent. Academic Partner quality committees have a focus on quality assurance matters and related processes. Faculty boards are relatively new and appear to have a limited influence on developments within the Partners (see below, paragraphs 46-48). This, in part, reflects the developing nature of the academic infrastructure within UHI and the identified need to strengthen the role and function of the faculties and subject networks. As these developments are implemented, UHI should consider how best to ensure that ASC fulfils its responsibilities as custodian of academic standards, within the OUVS context, and encourages a greater sense of awareness of standards matters across the UHI partnership.
Faculties and subject networks
46 Currently the operational management of quality assurance rests with the Academic Partners, with oversight from ASC and guidance from the Executive Office. Each Partner has its own quality committee which considers matters relating to the programmes for which it has lead responsibility. UHI is proposing to establish subject networks, and revise the faculty structure, in order to provide a cross-partner structure for the management of academic programmes. In its update to the SED, UHI indicated the expectation that subject networks would be operational by the start of the 2003-04 academic year, with the implementation of the revised faculties planned for the end of the same year. Subject networks will have responsibility for the development of courses, course monitoring, internal and external moderation and enhancement of course quality. Faculties will have primary responsibility for quality assurance including the management of validation and approval, monitoring of examination boards, taking an overview of course monitoring, making recommendations for the appointment of external examiners and the monitoring of quality indicators.
47 In its SED, UHI acknowledged that faculties have 'faced difficulties in fulfilling their envisaged role of providing cross-partner leadership and coordination within clusters of cognate subjects'. In its discussions with various staff groups, the audit team identified that there was a continuing debate about the role of the faculties and particularly their relationship with the Academic Partners. The new faculties will be headed by deans who will have the running of the faculties as their primary responsibility, and who will carry responsibility for quality assurance. It is proposed that the faculties should assume some of the academic authority that currently lies with OUVS, in preparation for UHI's application for degree awarding powers. However, matters relating to resources and course provision will remain with the Academic Partners. It is recognised that the faculties will require an administrative infrastructure to fulfil their functions and an additional three administrative posts are proposed, to be based in the UHI Academic Registry.
48 The audit team recognised the potential benefits of subject networks and faculties in establishing a clearer focus of responsibility for programmes and a shared ownership across the UHI network. However, the shift in responsibility for the management of quality to faculties is a significant step and one which is likely to impinge on the effective operation of procedures if there are continuing concerns about the credibility and authority of the faculties. UHI will need to clarify the roles and responsibilities of the deans within the management matrix of UHI and establish and embed the structural underpinning for the faculties to secure standards and assure continuing confidence in the quality of programmes. Although the location of responsibility at the faculty level is not uncommon in other higher education institutions, it is normally within the context of a well-established faculty structure. The unusual feature here is the proposal to devolve responsibility to a structure which is, as yet, untried and untested and where UHI has acknowledged difficulties in the past in establishing effective authority. It is likely that the new structures will take some time to become firmly established and for the responsibilities for quality and standards to be fully implemented. Consequently, there is a significant element of risk associated with the proposed devolution of responsibilities to faculties and subject networks, unless this is managed in a structured and progressive manner. UHI will wish to consider the ways in which it can reassure itself that its proposed new structures are working effectively before entrusting faculties with responsibility for quality and standards. It is, therefore, recommended that UHI should review its current proposals for the faculty structure including those for the delegation of responsibility to the faculties, in order to ensure that the standards of awards and the quality of provision are safeguarded.
QAA academic review of subjects
49 In its SED, UHI acknowledged that participation in the external academic review of its subject provision through the Agency had presented it with a number of 'organisational challenges' but that these had ultimately been beneficial to the maturity of the institution and had 'tended to accelerate developments in academic structures already taking place'. Since 2001-02, seven subject areas have been reviewed. Judgements of 'confidence' in the academic standards of degree programmes have been recorded for all seven reviews. The quality of learning opportunities have variously been judged 'commendable' or 'approved'. UHI has acknowledged the value of the subject review process in forging links across subject networks and cites the outcomes as evidence of its continuing oversight of the standards achieved on degree programmes.
50 The reports of the subject reviews conducted in 2001-02 have been considered by subject leaders, subject review facilitators and staff in the Academic Registry with a view to providing guidance for staff in subject areas undergoing review in the future. The outcomes of the reviews have been discussed by ASC and noted by the Academic Council. The need for follow-up actions has been discussed by ASC which has progressed matters using a number of mechanisms including asking for a report from Academic Partners, referring matters to the relevant course monitoring committee and passing matters to the Academic Council for attention. It was not clear to the audit team how these matters were subsequently tracked by ASC, or whether follow-up actions were completed. Matters relating to one of the Partners were identified as part of the UHI APR process. The APR report highlighted a lack of awareness of how the Partner might address the matters raised and recommended that the Partner should give the matter 'some thought'. The report indicated that the lack of clear process was not specific to the individual Partner but the team could not find any evidence of the matter being considered more widely within the UHI committee structure. As it continues to evaluate the benefits of subject review, UHI should consider how best to ensure that actions arising from the subject review reports are followed through by subject teams and Partners, and that mechanisms are available to ASC to ensure that this process is completed.
Course development and approval
51 Arrangements for the initiation, approval, development and validation of new courses and schemes are clearly explained in the Academic Standards and Quality Regulations. Proposals are considered by a faculty board of studies before submission to the UHI Academic Development Committee. After due consideration they are referred to the Academic Council for approval. The development of a proposal is carried forward by a course/scheme development team with oversight from an ad hoc advisory group nominated by the faculty board of studies. Membership of the advisory group includes the Academic Registrar or nominee, external academic advisers, and non-academic advisers, together with a member of an existing course team who has previous course development experience.
52 The outcome of the development process is a validation document which is submitted to an internal validation panel. The chair of the quality committee of the Academic Partner that will have lead responsibility for the course/scheme is responsible for chairing the internal validation panel. In addition, the membership of the panel includes one representative from each Academic Partner contributing to the course/scheme and an external member. On successful completion of the internal process the proposals are presented for approval by a joint UHI/OUVS panel. This joint panel reviews not only the academic integrity of the proposals but also the arrangements for its delivery across the UHI network. The joint panel is chaired by an external member and there are two additional external members with subject expertise.
53 The audit team was provided with evidence which confirmed that these procedures are generally operated effectively and that they address the principal matters of standards, student support and learning resources. As evidence of the procedures' effective operation, the team was told of a recent validation for an honours degree proposal that had been turned down because, in the panel's view, there were insufficient staff resources available to support honours level delivery. However, the team learnt about programme delivery at one of the UHI learning centres which raised concerns about the quality of learning provision and the adequacy of resources (see also below, paragraph 87). In particular, the learning resources available for students at the learning centre were more limited than those available to students studying the same award at one of the Partner colleges. It appeared that the question of differential learning resources being made available in the different locations where the programme would be delivered had not been foreseen by either the internal or the UHI/OUVS validation processes. UHI will wish to reflect on whether its processes for validation are sufficiently searching to identify potential difficulties with new courses/schemes and that due consideration is given to identifying potential risks to the effective delivery of learning opportunities. It is therefore recommended that UHI should ensure its validation processes are able to consider all modes and locations of delivery of courses/schemes being validated to ensure adequate learning resources will be in place to support them.
Academic Partner Review
54 UHI described the APR process as 'an essential component of its quality assurance activity that is complementary to that which is provided through course validation and monitoring'. It provides assurance about the quality of learning infrastructure in the Partners and seeks to support the development and enhancement of quality across the UHI Partnership. Partners are normally reviewed on a five-year cycle. It is essentially an audit process based on the production of a self-evaluation document supported by evidence gained from documentary sources and a visit by a review team. The topics covered include the strategic mission of the Partner, its academic organisation, the quality assurance strategy and processes, staff resources, learning and research environments, student support and feedback on UHI policies and procedures. The report of the review identifies commendations, urgent requirements, requirements and recommendations.
55 The audit team saw clear evidence that the process is beneficial in identifying and sharing good practice between Partners and for promoting consistency of quality assurance processes. However, it was apparent to the team that its effectiveness was, to an extent, dependent on the willingness of the Partners to respond positively to the recommendations made. Where outcomes were challenged there did not appear to be any mechanism for the Executive Office, or any other body, to require the Partners to address the recommendations. UHI should consider the effectiveness of the process as a means of ensuring agreed practice between Partners and ways in which the outcomes of these activities can be more closely related to decision making at executive level.
Internal subject review
56 In pursuit of its objective to acquire university title in 2007, UHI has identified the need to establish a 'robust internal periodic review of programmes...that will examine both standards and the quality of learning opportunities within a subject area'. The responsibility for these reviews will be located with the faculties and the proposed subject networks. It will align with arrangements for course approval and monitoring. From discussions with staff the audit team learnt that these proposals are still at an early stage of discussion. Responsibility for the development of the process will rest with ASC. While appreciating the potential benefits of these proposals, not least for consolidating the organisation and management of subject networks, the team was also aware of the comments made in the SED about the multiplicity of audit requirements placed on Partners. UHI will, therefore, wish to give consideration to the manner in which this process links to the other quality assurance processes in operation.
Accreditation of prior learning
57 The Academic Standards and Quality Regulations do not currently cover procedures for the award of credit for prior learning. Validation documents define the specific criteria for accreditation in relation to individual programmes and reference is made, in the postgraduate section of the Academic Standards and Quality Regulations, to this process being overseen by course leaders/directors or a nominated tutor. However, the audit team was unable to locate a definitive statement about the mechanisms for dealing with claims for credit. The team's discussions with ASC indicated that the Committee had little involvement in the process. Since the accreditation of prior learning involves the award of credit it might be considered that it should be subject to a level of scrutiny equivalent to that of an examination board. It is, therefore, recommended that UHI should ensure that partnership-wide regulations for the accreditation of prior learning, including learning from experience, are put in place and that they define an appropriate process for the evaluation of claims which guards against decisions relating to the award of credit being made by individual members of staff.
External examiners
58 The procedures and criteria for identifying, nominating and appointing external examiners are set out in the Academic Standards and Quality Regulations. External examiners are formally appointed by OUVS but UHI, through its External Examiners Subcommittee (which reports to ASC), ensures the identification of appropriate individuals, approves nominations and liaises with OUVS over the approval of these appointments.
59 Newly appointed external examiners are briefed on the structure and organisation of UHI as well as the specific arrangements for the courses for which they are responsible. UHI also organises an annual External Examiners' Forum to discuss matters arising from external examiners' reports and the assessment process, as well as more general matters relating to the development of UHI. This has been well-received by both externals and UHI staff.
60 External examiners' reports are sent to the chair of the Academic Council (the UHI Principal) and are considered by course leaders, chairs of examination boards, the External Examiners Subcommittee and OUVS. Matters raised at course level are addressed through annual course monitoring. The 1999 designation audit report recommended that UHI should consider the strategic matters arising from external examiners' reports. This has been achieved through a joint working group reporting to ASC. From the evidence available, the current audit team was assured that appropriate arrangements are in place for external examining and that these meet the precepts of the Agency's Code of practice. UHI will wish to continue to ensure that this level of rigour is maintained and that UHI continues to debate external examiner comments and share good practice across its provision.
Research students
61 UHI's management of research students is determined by procedures that are defined by the Open University. These cover entry requirements, the composition of supervisory teams, resources and facilities, and the arrangements for reporting on progress and transfer from MPhil to PhD. Both proposals for research and progress reports are scrutinised by the UHI Research Degrees Committee (RDC) before submission to the Open University. The opportunity for additional monitoring is provided by an independent interview, by a member of staff not associated with the student's research, which covers matters relating to progress and support. This applies particularly to students during their probationary year. UHI holds an annual Research Conference at which students are encouraged to present their work and share experience across the UHI network. UHI has a very small number of research students, nonetheless, on the basis of the information considered by the audit team, the systems in place for supporting these students appear to be in line with the precepts of the Agency's Code of practice.
Student feedback and participation
62 The SED stated that 'the major stakeholders in UHI are its students' and the Strategic Plan makes it clear that UHI is committed to becoming a 'student-centred institution'. The SED also acknowledged that much work would be required to achieve this objective. The appointment of a Student Development Officer in August 2002 is indicative of UHI's intention to progress in this area and to actively involve its dispersed student population in its formal structures (see below, paragraph 64).
63 All course teams are required to reflect on the matters raised by students as part of the annual monitoring process. Currently, students have the opportunity to provide information on their learning opportunities through an end of module questionnaire, although the use of these questionnaires appears to be variable between courses and study locations. In discussion with representative groups of students, the audit team was unable to establish the effectiveness of this method. It was not clear whether it fulfilled the objective of providing useful evidence to enhance the learning experience. Some feedback is collected by informal means, particularly in the smaller Partners. The team learnt that UHI intends to move towards universal on-line student evaluation for all degree programmes from December 2003. It seemed to the team that this method was likely to fit the dispersed nature of the student population.
64 Students are members of course committees and are offered training for this role. Student representation is also included on all of the senior UHI committees but, as yet, a number of vacancies remain unfilled. The first UHI student president was elected in December 2002. The president will be a member of the UHI Board of Governors and will play a role, supported by the Student Development Officer, in establishing the UHI Students' Association. This will help to identify student representatives for other committees. It was clear to the audit team that UHI had recognised the need to encourage greater student representation at all levels and was making practical efforts to address the situation. On the basis of the information provided to the team relating to the range of work carried out in a short space of time and which is likely to have a significant impact in this area, the team commends UHI for the steps taken so far to encourage student participation.
Management of quality and standards
65 The audit team found evidence of the work that had been carried out since the 1999 designation audit in monitoring and systematically reflecting on the outcomes of the operations of the quality assurance framework across UHI. The procedures for quality assurance are set out in the Academic Standards and Quality Regulations which are produced in the form of a detailed handbook. It was clear to the team that UHI had taken a serious approach to the development of consistent practices and procedures for the quality assurance of degree and higher national programmes. Since the previous audit, a great deal has been achieved with regard to the specification of procedures and the widespread acceptance of their management and implementation. The team commends the progress made in the development of quality assurance procedures.
66 As it continues to develop its quality strategy, UHI will wish to consider the ways in which it can build on this foundation to further secure the standards of the academic awards provided. In particular, its procedures are largely derived from the practice encouraged by OUVS, itself derived from CNAA. This is essentially a reflective approach looking at past experience and identifying needs for refinement or correction. There is less evidence, currently, of a more pro-active approach to quality focused on enhancement and improvement and based on action planning. As systems acquire more maturity UHI may wish to consider a more forward looking approach to quality assurance. In addition there is a strong focus on quality procedures, perhaps to the exclusion of more general matters relating to academic standards and the shared ownership of the well-being of the academic portfolio of UHI. This is a matter which could be addressed through a review of the remit and membership of senior committees (see above, paragraphs 33 and 44).
67 At an operational level, procedures are very effective at detailing academic practice and reporting on progress within the committee structure. Because of the structure of UHI there is a less effective link between quality assurance and the management of resources. Currently Academic Partners are responsible for the programmes that are provided on their sites. Proposals for the new faculty structure will result in the responsibility for quality resting with the faculties and control of resources remaining with the Partners. As noted earlier (see above, paragraph 48), this is likely to pose a significant challenge for the continuing assurance of quality and standards.
Academic staffing
68 UHI is most unusual among higher education institutions in that it is not the employer of its teaching staff. The SED indicated that 'with the exception of Executive Office staff, all staff working with UHI are employed by UHI Academic Partners'. The SED also indicated that all staff in the Partners who were involved with UHI programmes were entered on the UHI Register of Academic Staff, following criteria approved by the Academic Council.
69 In its meetings with senior staff the audit team learnt that the indirect nature of the relationship between teaching staff and UHI limits the freedom of senior UHI managers in the appointment of staff. However, there are important indirect means whereby UHI is able to influence staff appointments and staff development in the Academic Partners in order to meet the teaching needs of its courses. In particular, it is a requirement of validation that staffing needs must be specified and the relevant Partner must confirm staff availability. If staff with the expertise required are not available, they must be appointed, or existing staff developed, in order for the validation to proceed successfully. The process of APR also provides an opportunity for UHI to reassure itself that the Partner has 'processes in place to ensure that its staff are appointed, developed, and deployed in accordance with the demands of the higher education courses that are being provided'. Staff development is considered in detail later (see below, paragraphs 71-75).
70 The role of the Executive Office was described in the SED as being to support the executive and professional requirements of UHI and to coordinate UHI network functions. The office, based in Inverness, has undergone considerable changes since the previous audit; 16 of the current 38 staff were appointed since August 2001. The team met a range of staff from the Executive Office and noted the extent to which there was an enthusiasm for their work and the mission of UHI generally.
Staff development
71 Following recommendations in the 1999 audit report, UHI has made a 'major strategic commitment' to staff development. The SED stated that 'systems are in place to coordinate support and activities' and that 'financial support for this continues to be generous'. The UHI Staff Development Committee provides strategic oversight of the development of staff on the UHI Register of Academic Staff, setting priorities which are reviewed by the Academic Council. The Staff Guide identifies the categories of UHI-funded development that staff on the Academic Register are eligible for: support for course fees, places at UHI workshops, support for conference attendance, support for ILT membership, participation in the UHI annual staff conference and support for research.
72 The audit team explored the theme of staff development and the identification of staffing needs in its discussions with several groups. The team heard that clear procedures are in place for staff to apply for funding of development activities, with both UHI and the Academic Partners providing resources. A link between UHI and the Partners in approving development activity is provided through the requirement for line managers to indicate their support for proposals made by individual members of staff. UHI monitors and analyses the uptake of staff development activities, and the team had the opportunity to scrutinise anonymised records. Many of the staff with whom the team met spoke in very positive terms about the way in which their involvement with UHI had enabled them to develop their skills and professional competencies. This applied to the staff development programme and to the development opportunities provided through participation in a number of UHI groups and events, such as the Quality Managers' Forum, Course Leaders' Forum, External Examiners' Forum, Registry Forum, Staff Conference, and the Research Conference.
73 The range of development activities in which staff engage covers the categories set out in the Staff Guide. The audit team noted that there was an emphasis on learning new ICT skills and gaining expertise in pedagogic techniques aimed at meeting the special requirements of the modes of study in place at UHI. There appeared to be comparatively less involvement of staff in scholarship activities relating to their academic disciplines, with the exception of study for higher degrees. The Staff Guide states 'UHI believes that it is essential for all staff to undertake scholarly activities, and for some staff to undertake research which can be benchmarked nationally, and in some cases internationally'. From its discussions with staff and its consideration of APR documentation, it appeared to the team that there may be some difficulties within UHI in the area of defining and evaluating scholarship activity. While it appeared to the team that some specific matters could be addressed through ensuring action is taken in response to the APR process (see above, paragraph 55), UHI should also ensure that there is a shared understanding of the importance of scholarship across its Partners.
74 The Strategic Plan 2002-2006 indicates the intention to expand the current provision for honours teaching into new subject areas. In discussion with senior staff, it was recognised that this will entail a need for the further development of the capabilities of teaching staff. It was noted that funds have been obtained from Highlands and Islands Enterprise to support a number of staff to take sabbatical leave so they can undertake research. This is to be welcomed. Providing staff with the opportunities to pursue research and scholarship interests is important to support teaching at the honours and postgraduate levels in particular. As UHI seeks to develop its provision, it will be advisable to ensure mechanisms are in place to encourage the involvement of staff in research and scholarship, and to monitor this involvement, to ensure honours and postgraduate teaching is adequately supported.
75 The SED acknowledged that, despite the commitment to staff development, there were difficulties in releasing staff from teaching duties to become involved in development activity and to undertake study in particular. This matter was raised by staff in a number of meetings with the audit team. The team learnt that Academic Partners are responsible for ensuring that staff have time to engage in development activity. However, the situation is complex as many staff have both higher and further education teaching responsibilities. The team learnt that the matter was discussed at length at the Executive Board 'retreat' in November 2002 following which agreement was reached to develop common guidelines on human resources for staff teaching higher education. The team would encourage UHI to implement these arrangements as soon as practicable.
Appraisal and professional review
76 The audit team was told that appraisal of individual teaching staff is the responsibility of their employing Academic Partner. All staff asked by the team had undergone a staff appraisal within the previous year. In addition, the Staff Guide states that all staff on the Register of Academic Staff, including part-time and learner support staff, are 'required to take part in a professional development review at least annually'. These reviews are also carried out by staff within the Academic Partners and their purpose is to assess the professional development needs of individual staff in relation to UHI work. The team noted the complementary roles played by UHI and the Academic Partners in providing staff appraisal and development guidance. As an aid to enhancing the effectiveness of the Professional Review, a programme has been introduced for the training of those conducting the process. The team considered this to be a positive development.
Staffing: overview
77 Subject to its unusual position as an indirect employer of its academic staff, UHI has been diligent in developing staffing policies and promulgating them amongst staff on the Academic Register. As noted earlier, however, arrangements should be put in place to encourage staff involvement in research and scholarship to support teaching (see above, paragraphs 74 and 75). The meetings with staff in a range of positions and working in various centres indicated that there was a clear awareness of what UHI means to staff and how it can help them fulfil their academic responsibilities. Nevertheless it appeared that many staff saw their prime association as being with the Academic Partner who employs them. This is not necessarily detrimental to the interests of UHI and the direction of developments, given the growing awareness among the Partners of the benefits of participation in UHI (see above, paragraph 37). Senior staff in the Partners with whom the audit team met seemed aware of the possibility of divisions between those of their staff involved with UHI and those working solely on further education teaching. It appeared to the team that there was a commitment to avoid any such divisions, despite the inherent complexity of the situation.
Administrative systems
Communications
78 UHI has, by reason of its geographical dispersion, a very special need for effective internal communications, and it has available a thoroughly developed system of electronic communications, especially with regard to video-conferencing facilities. Staff and students alike are skilled in the use of these facilities. Electronic communication is supplemented by more traditional means, for example there is an internal newsletter Wavelength, which is published five times a year.
79 In its external communications, UHI is faced with the challenge of ensuring that its unique nature is understood by all those concerned, especially potential applicants to its programmes of study. UHI has responded to previous concerns raised in the 1999 audit report, and in subsequent correspondence with the Agency and SHEFC, about its ability to assure the accuracy of documentation, especially that directed at student recruitment. It has introduced a mechanism whereby the Executive Office has the responsibility for the scrutiny and approval of all publicity material. Course leaders now have the systematic opportunity to check statements about the courses for which they are responsible. The audit team heard that the Academic Partners take care, through publicity material and through providing opportunities for potential students to visit before applying, to ensure that applicants are aware of the nature of the courses and facilities provided by UHI. Nonetheless, the team considers that UHI should be sensitive to the capacity of potential applicants to misunderstand the literature. The team noted a small number of detailed examples where promotional material could have been misinterpreted. For example, material referring to a series of occasional lectures given by staff from other universities might have been interpreted as implying endorsement of the course concerned by the other universities. The team also met a small number of students who felt that they had been misled by recruitment material, particularly when applying through the UCAS clearing process. Further, a very small number of students indicated that they had thought they were coming to a university.
80 In view of the difficulty of explaining the particular characteristics of UHI, it must continue to be vigilant in ensuring the accuracy of its promotional literature. It is, therefore, recommended that UHI should take further steps to ensure that its promotional material is not capable of being misinterpreted and that the nature of UHI and its study facilities are clear within all such material.
Teaching and learning
81 The SED stated that UHI 'is not a "virtual university" but deploys the tools and techniques of virtual learning across its network of physical locations'. UHI has invested in both the technology to support learning across its network of Academic Partners and in the development of appropriate learning approaches. Significant progress has been achieved in the development and dissemination of good practice in the delivery of learning - particularly through the use of techniques for distributed learning. The number of degree modules which are available on-line remains relatively small, but the audit team noted the extent to which the experience of their development and delivery is being effectively shared with staff across the Partners. Some Partners now have much of their provision supported by on-line materials. UHI's LEARN Unit, based at Perth College, has played a central role in the monitoring and evaluation of these approaches to learning and has identified both strengths and weaknesses in current methods. The team noted that this evaluation has informed new course development. However, UHI recognises that there is more to be done in this area, particularly in the dissemination of project outcomes more widely across the network. While it is clear that not all the experiments in distributed learning have resulted in widespread adoption of new methods, the team, nevertheless, would commend the willingness to reflect on what does and does not work effectively. It also appeared to the team that the focus on supporting students' learning with an appropriate blend of methods had the overall impact of enhancing learning and teaching. The team commends UHI for its activity in this area and would encourage it to pursue the planned work to disseminate project outcomes more widely.
Student Information Systems
82 The SED identified the implementation of the Student Information Systems and the collection of 'robust data on student numbers' as a key development since the 1999 audit. The student record system was also identified as one of the aspects of ICT infrastructure which was targeted as part of the overall policy of developing systems common across the UHI Partnership. The staff with whom the audit team spoke appeared to be confident that they now have an information system in place which is able to support their work in an effective manner.
Student support
83 The SED indicated that support for students was provided by the Academic Partner where the student was enrolled. The nature of the support to be provided is specified in the funding and service level agreements between UHI and the Partners. This support includes: pre-entry guidance, induction, library and IT access, study skills support, exit and careers guidance, as well as providing for any additional support needs the student may have.
84 In relation to the library, the SED indicated that while individual Partners were responsible for the library resources, UHI provided central support, such as the provision of electronic information services. The majority of the library stock is represented on an on-line catalogue which can be searched for 'whole-network or individual-location holdings'. Students in remote areas are also able to make use of inter-library loans and have books posted to them.
85 The SED claimed that 'through a network of over 50 learning centres...UHI is well-suited to provide locally based higher education to national standards'. Each learning centre is linked to an Academic Partner and is, essentially, intended to complement the provision available at the main campus of the 'host' Partner.
86 The APR process provides an opportunity for the evaluation of the quality of student support provision. As part of the APR process, Partners are asked to demonstrate that they have in place a 'systematic strategy for the proper support of all...students on higher education programmes...taking account of the nature of the student body, the partner's recruitment policies and the nature of courses provided'.
87 Because the support facilities are provided via the Academic Partners, they can vary according to location. In the case of the large colleges, the facilities appear to be fairly comprehensive, but for students who are mainly working by on-line study, or on courses based in one of the learning centres, the provision may be distinctly limited. It was evident, for example, that the library resources in at least one learning centre were only gradually developing to meet the needs of newly introduced courses. With the diverse circumstances of the different locations, there is a challenge to UHI to ensure equivalence, not necessarily equality, between different locations. In general the students who met with the audit team were broadly content with the level of provision, though some difficulties were identified in the availability of library texts.
88 Overall, the student support facilities in the Partners are generally less developed than those that students would expect traditionally in higher education. The range of needs of UHI students is particularly great because of the diversity of the student population. The difficulties of dispersed provision where there is a need to provide learning resources across a number of centres, sometimes to very small numbers of students, provide further strain, not least because it may be challenging to cope with contingencies while protecting the student experience. UHI will wish to keep this feature of its operation under review (see above, paragraph 53).
Student advisers
89 The SED indicated that the requirement for every UHI student to have a student adviser was 'ratified' by the Academic Council in 2001. The Learner Support Committee commission support materials for staff undertaking this role and training materials, based on case studies, were also produced for use in the Academic Partners. The work of the student advisers was praised in all the meetings the audit team held with students. The students expressed their appreciation for the advisers' knowledge of support and administrative matters, and emphasised the extent to which staff performing the role made themselves available to meet with students. It appeared to the team that the training and back up support provided to the student advisers enhanced their capacity to provide effective guidance to the students. UHI is, therefore, to be commended on the effectiveness of its student adviser system.
Complaints and appeals
90 UHI has established academic appeals and student complaints procedures. Those students who met with the audit team were generally unaware of the details of the procedure but most indicated that, in the event of problems, they would seek the help of their student adviser. The team noted that the Student Advisor Resource Pack contains details of the complaints and appeals procedures.
Student support: overview
91 The dispersed student population and diversity of mode of study gives an especial challenge to UHI in meeting student support needs. Considerable ingenuity has been exercised in an effort to optimise provision, and this has been supported by some significant blocks of capital funding in the past. The cost of maintenance and necessary replacement in the future are recognised but will not be easy to meet. While noting some existing difficulties (see above, paragraph 87), it was nevertheless clear to the audit team that there is a wish to improve provision. It was evident from discussions with staff that there is a very powerful commitment on their part to support the students and, the vast majority of the students who met with the team were very appreciative of the opportunities provided by UHI.
Conclusions
92 The UHI Millennium Institute (UHI) is a unique institution. It is a partnership of 15 colleges and research institutes, together with an Executive Office, which offers higher education programmes and research opportunities throughout the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. It has developed a distributed model of higher education, appropriate for the highly dispersed population that it serves, and it utilises information and communications technologies to provide, where necessary, access to learning opportunities within local communities. Initially known as the 'University of the Highlands and Islands Project', UHI received designation as a higher education institution in April 2001, whereupon it adopted the title 'UHI Millennium Institute'.
93 UHI's mission is to 'create in the Highlands of Scotland a collegiate university which will reach the highest standards and play a pivotal role in our educational, economic, social and cultural development'. It is anticipated that, in so doing, UHI will make a significant contribution to the economic, social and cultural regeneration of the region. UHI also has a commitment to extend opportunities for higher education to those members of society previously excluded from such opportunities. The current audit found that there is strong support for these aspirations among UHI staff and students, and from other stakeholders. There is also evidence to indicate that the mission is being progressed.
94 The previous QAA audit, in 1999, found evidence of 'highly innovative and commendable practice' in the development of new approaches to learning, together with 'a basis for the effective monitoring and review of programmes...and maintenance of appropriate academic standards in partnership with UHI's validating and awarding authorities'. The report also signalled the need for a period of consolidation for the processes and policies developed by UHI to become 'firmly embedded within the structures of UHI and its Academic Partner institutions'. Despite a period of turbulence in the senior management of UHI, the evidence of this audit indicates that it has made good progress towards achieving this position and that its arrangements for the management of standards and quality are now on a firmer footing. However, there remains a need to ensure that matters relating to academic standards are fully addressed at an institutional level through the senior committees, particularly ASC, and that awareness and ownership of standards fully permeates all levels across the partnership. In one specific area, the accreditation of prior learning, there is a need to put in place clear cross-partnership procedures. Staff development has been energetically and effectively brought to prominence in UHI. It is, however, recognised that there remain very significant challenges to the creation of a true higher education ethos with an adequate commitment to scholarship and research, which will be especially important to match the intended expansion to the course portfolio.
95 The 1999 audit report commended UHI for 'establishing an effective basis for productive collaboration between colleges and advanced research institutes'. It recognised the coherence of the partnership and the strength of commitment from the Partners to ensure the stability and success of UHI. Following the changes in senior management further steps have been taken to reinforce the links across UHI and to provide a greater sense of involvement from the Academic Partners. In particular, the establishment of the Executive Board, chaired by a principal of one of the Partners, is regarded by the Partners as a positive step towards engaging them more directly in the management of UHI. However, there is also an identified need to accommodate these arrangements more formally within the governance and management structures of UHI. The developing role of the Executive Board and its relationship with the Academic Council will need careful monitoring, particularly with regard to the ownership and management of academic standards. In addition, the effectiveness of the Academic Council itself needs to be strengthened by ensuring it achieves its full membership and acts as a truly representative body of the full range of academic interests of UHI. It will be important to ensure that an appropriate balance is achieved between the interests of the Academic Partners, as the principal resource holders and providers of learning facilities, and the UHI executive as the focus for institutional level developments and strategic direction.
96 Fundamental to the achievement of this objective is the development of more 'horizontal' structures which will help to bind staff and students together within a common framework. Proposals for the development of subject networks address the need for greater cooperation between staff and students in the different Partners within a shared academic discipline. They will also form the basis of the revised faculty structure. The faculties cut across the existing structures within the UHI network. If they are to fulfil the expectation of providing a strong institutional underpinning, careful consideration will need to be given to the responsibilities, especially those relating to quality assurance, that can be delegated to the faculties by both the UHI executive and the Academic Partners.
97 In preparation for the audit, UHI produced a self-evaluation document which outlined the principal features of its quality assurance procedures and identified both existing strengths and areas for further development. This was a very helpful document both as a clear statement of how UHI viewed its own development and as a succinct summary of its structure and organisation. It contained a mature and self-critical reflection on the effectiveness of its current systems and provided an honest account of future challenges. It also proved to be an invaluable source of reference to the comprehensive set of documentation that UHI provided to support the audit.
98 UHI has made a considerable achievement in developing and sustaining a model of higher education provision which is providing learning and research opportunities for the communities in the areas it serves. Of particular note is the tremendous willingness and commitment from both staff and students to make this model a success. There have been positive developments, too, in the establishment of quality assurance processes. However, there is a need to secure a sound framework of academic management to ensure that a firm basis exists to secure academic standards and to establish confidence in their likely future maintenance, and in the future development of quality enhancement.
Points for commendation
99 The audit team wishes, in particular, to commend UHI for:
i the extent to which external advice has been integrated within its governance and management processes to date (paragraph 35);
ii the achievement of a cohesive sense of direction among the Partners following a period of uncertainty (paragraph 38);
iii the steps taken to date to encourage student participation (paragraph 64);
iv the progress made since 1999 in developing quality assurance procedures (paragraph 65);
v the extent to which good practice in teaching and learning is shared across the partnership (paragraph 81); and
vi the effectiveness of the student adviser system (paragraph 89).
Points for further consideration
100 As it continues to develop its systems and arrangements for assuring the quality of its educational provision and the academic standards of its awards, UHI should address the necessity of:
i reviewing its current proposals for the faculty structure, particularly those for the delegation of responsibility to the faculties, in order to ensure that the standards of awards and the quality of provision are safeguarded (paragraph 48);
consider the advisability of:
ii monitoring the development and function of the Executive Board in order to ensure that it does not hinder the responsibility of the other governing and management bodies (paragraph 30);
iii reviewing the membership of the Academic Council ensuring that its full membership is implemented (paragraph 33);
iv ensuring that the Academic Standards Committee fulfils its intended responsibilities as custodian of academic standards and that a greater sense of awareness of standards matters is promoted across the UHI partnership generally (paragraph 45);
v ensuring the validation processes are able to confirm the availability
of learning resources across all modes and delivery locations
(paragraph 53);
vi putting in place partnership-wide regulations for the accreditation of prior learning and ensuring that decisions relating to the award of credit are not made by individual members of staff (paragraph 57);
vii ensuring mechanisms are in place to encourage the involvement of staff
in research and scholarship, and monitoring this involvement, to support honours
and postgraduate teaching
(paragraph 74);
viii taking further steps to ensure that promotional material is not capable of being misinterpreted and that the nature of UHI and its study facilities are clear within all such material (paragraph 80);
and the desirability of:
ix ensuring that actions arising from the subject review reports are followed
through by subject teams and Partners, and that mechanisms are available to
the Academic Standards Committee to ensure that this process is completed
(paragraph 50);
x considering the effectiveness of the Academic Partner Review process as a means of ensuring agreed practice between Partners and considering the ways in which the outcomes of the APR process can be more closely related to decision making at executive level (paragraph 55);
xi adopting a more forward-looking approach to quality assurance (paragraph 66); and
xii proceeding with the existing plans to implement arrangements for freeing staff time to engage in development activity, especially that related to staff academic disciplines (paragraph 75).
Appendix
UHI Millennium Institute - Facts and Figures 2001-02*
UHI Millennium Institute (UHI) provides higher education courses and research opportunities through an Academic Partnership of 15 colleges and research institutions that have strong roots in their local communities. It builds upon existing facilities and infrastructure, rather than developing a central green field campus. UHI is an innovative tertiary institution, providing routes through higher education that are student centred. To support this it utilises information and communications technologies to link together students, lecturers and researchers across a wide geographic area.
In 2001, UHI Millennium Institute was designated as a higher education institution by the Scottish Parliament. Before designation, UHI was known as the University of the Highlands and Islands Project. Students have been graduating with UHI degrees, validated by the Open University Validation Services, since 1999.
UHI's Mission is:
- To create in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland a collegiate university which will reach the highest standards and play a pivotal role in our educational, economic, social and cultural development.
In July 2002, UHI had 5,610 students, which equates to 3,557 full-time equivalents
(FTEs) (in ratio 1:1.23 male:female) studying on 98 undergraduate sub-degree
courses, 24 undergraduate degree/honours courses and
six taught postgraduate courses.
Student profile for UHI Millennium Institute, 2001-02
Gender
| Male | 2,518 | 44.9% |
| Female | 3,092 | 55.1% |
Age
| 19 and under | 267 | 4.8% |
| 20-24 | 1,892 | 33.7% |
| 25-29 | 586 | 10.4% |
| 30-39 | 1,469 | 26.0% |
| 40-49 | 1,009 | 18.0% |
| 50 and over | 399 | 7.1% |
Geographical Origins
| Highlands & Islands (inc Perth & Kinross) | 5,132 | 91.5% |
| Other Scotland | 409 | 7.3% |
| Other UK | 56 | 1.0% |
| European Union | 6 | 0.1% |
| Worldwide | 6 | 0.1% |
Student profile by faculty and research school
(Full time 49.2%; Part time 50.8%)
Faculty/Research School
Undergraduate
| Degree FT |
Degree PT |
HN Level FT |
HN Level PT |
Total | |
| Arts and Humanities | 183 | 136 | 358 | 40 | 717 |
| Business and Leisure | 116 | 20 | 682 | 762 | 1,580 |
| Information and Engineering | 51 | 84 | 542 | 1,106 | 1,783 |
| Environmental and Natural Systems Sciences | 75 | 70 | 115 | 74 | 334 |
| Health and Social Science | 177 | 138 | 429 | 380 | 1,124 |
| Total | 602 | 448 | 2,126 | 2,362 | 5,538 |
| Taught postgraduate | |||||
| Environmental and Natural Systems Sciences | 5 | 0 | - | - | 5 |
| Health and Social Science | 0 | 37 | - | - | 37 |
| Total | 5 | 37 | - | - | 42 |
| Research postgraduate | |||||
| Language, Culture and Heritage | 8 | 0 | - | - | 8 |
| Learning Environments and Technology | 0 | 1 | - | - | 1 |
| Natural Systems Sciences | 15 | 1 | - | - | 16 |
| Sustainable Rural Development | 5 | 0 | - | - | 5 |
| Total | 28 | 2 | - | - | 30 |
| All Student Total | 5,610 |
(In addition, 30 research
students are registered with UHI)
1Number of staff on the UHI Register of Academic Staff, October
2002
2Student headcounts, July 2002
3Students studying at these colleges are registered through other
Academic Partners
| UHI Academic Partners | Number of Staff on UHI Register1 |
Number of UHI Students2 |
|
| Perth College | 112 | 1,723 | |
| Inverness College | 81 | 1,418 | |
| Moray College | 58 | 1,046 | |
| Lews Castle College | 42 | 574 | |
| The North Highland College | 46 | 361 | |
| Shetland College | 32 | 162 | |
| Orkney College | 31 | 144 | |
| Sabhal Mòr Ostaig | 20 | 87 | |
| Highland Theological College | 12 | 48 | |
| Scottish Association for Marine Science | 22 | 12 | |
| North Atlantic Fisheries College | 17 | 5 | |
| Executive Office | 18 | 0 | |
| Argyll College | 14 | 03 | |
| Seafish Aquaculture | 7 | 0 | |
| Lochaber College (Associated Institution) | 6 | 03 | |
| Highland Pschiatric Research Foundation (Associated Institution) | 6 | 03 | |
| Totals | 520 | 5,580 | |
Top
QAA updates
QAAtweets
QAAtube