1 This is a report of an academic quality audit of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth (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 co-operation 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, the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. The modified process
has been introduced following completion in 1997 of the original national
academic quality audit programme which began in 1991 under the auspices
of the CVCP’s Academic Audit Unit (AAU) and was subsequently taken
over by HEQC in 1992. The principal purpose of this revised process is
to offer an opinion on the extent to which individual institutions are
discharging effectively their corporate responsibilities for the academic
standards and quality of their awards and associated programmes of study.
The process takes as its starting point the assumption that institutions
have appropriate quality assurance policies and procedures in place, and
also assumes that they can provide convincing evidence that these are working
to good effect. The audit checks the extent to which this is the case and
that the methods used by the institution are sufficiently reliable to continue
to provide stakeholders with the necessary assurances for the future. The
audit process focuses on four main topics: the institution’s quality
strategy; academic standards; the learning infrastructure; and communications.
3 The University’s principal submission to the QAA for the present audit was an Analytical Account (the Account) of its quality assurance arrangements, together with a number of additional documents, chosen by the University, to support the statements contained in its Account and to illustrate the basis on which these had been made.
4 The University’s Account, submitted as part of the present audit, outlined the University’s educational objectives and quality strategy, the mechanisms used to assure the quality and standards of its academic awards, its learning infrastructure, and internal and external communication frameworks. In addition to an analysis of the strengths and limitations of its existing arrangements, the University made available to the audit team some 148 documents illustrating how the statements and analyses made in the Account are put into operation. While the University’s Account provided a large quantity of very helpful information, overall the team found it to be principally descriptive rather than analytical. The Account became the central focus of the team’s work and its systematic referencing to documents made available as operational evidence proved to be invaluable.
5 The audit team also consulted the academic audit report of 1991 produced by the then Academic Audit Unit (AAU) of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, and the University’s subsequent commentaries to HEQC, describing how it had responded to this report. The team made reference to the University’s documents on its World Wide Web site and the published reports of Teaching Quality Assessments (TQA) conducted by the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (HEFCW).
6 At a briefing meeting held to discuss the University’s submission, the audit team considered the commentary offered by the University in its Account and proposed a programme of meetings for a visit to the University. During the visit, the University made available a base room containing a substantial collection of original documents which were referred to in the Account, and some additional items of information requested by the team at its briefing meeting. On a small number of occasions during the visit, members of the University referred the team to information in documents which the team had not previously seen; helpfully, these were subsequently added to the collection in the base room.
7 The audit team visited the University from 9 to 13 February 1998. In addition to reviewing the documents provided in the base room, the team held meetings with 76 different members of the University, some of whom it met on more than one occasion. An overview of the institution, prepared by the University, is attached as appendix 1 (page 12) and a list of the University’s collaborative partnerships, current as at 1 February 1998, is included as appendix 2 (page 14).
8 The audit team comprised Dr F R Burnet, Professor K P Gee and Mr R P Williams, auditors, and Mrs M E Pawley, who acted as the audit secretary. The audit was co-ordinated for QAA by Dr C J Haslam, Assistant Director, Institutional Review Directorate.
9 The University of Wales, Aberystwyth is an autonomous higher education institution with its own Royal Charter, receiving funding directly from HEFCW for its teaching and research activities. The majority of the qualifications it awards are, however, those of the federal University of Wales, which consists of six constituent institutions, of which Aberystwyth is one, and two colleges of higher education. While Aberystwyth is responsible for the quality assurance and standards of these awards, the federal University has its own mechanisms to assure itself of the quality and standards of the qualifications offered in its name. Aberystwyth offers a broad profile of disciplines with some 6,700 full time equivalent students spread more or less evenly across its three faculties of Arts, Science, and Economic and Social Studies. In addition, there are some 2,200 students on non-accredited courses offered through the University’s Department of Continuing Education.
10 The 1991 AAU report commended the University’s caring and attentive attitude towards students; the monitoring of student attendance; student satisfaction with the quality of teaching; and its policy of departmental reviews. The AAU also suggested that a number of matters be given further consideration including the organisation and co-ordination of welfare facilities; the need to establish a stronger postgraduate culture; the feasibility of securing improved integration between academic planning and resource allocation mechanisms; and the establishment of procedures for following up departmental reviews. There were also several points for further consideration relating to the management of its external examining system. No separate audit of the institution’s quality assurance arrangements relating to collaborative provision was conducted, although those of the University of Wales were audited in 1994 (see also, HEQC audit report The University of Wales (August 1994)).
11 The University’s Account contained a section entitled ‘Developments
since the last academic audit in 1991‘which listed 41 initiatives
taken to further develop the institution’s quality assurance procedures
and promote the enhancement of teaching quality. The audit team learnt
with interest that, for example, a review of welfare provision had been
undertaken, although, at the time of the visit, the resulting recommendations
were under consideration by the institution. Initiatives taken to inculcate
a stronger postgraduate culture had included the appointment of a Director
of Postgraduate Studies and the introduction of a recommendation that all
research students attend a research training programme. Also, the team
spoke to members of a newly formed Postgraduate Association which had been
established to represent the views of that constituency within the University
(see below, paragraphs 48 and 54 to 56). The departmental review process
had been augmented by a requirement that structured action plans be drawn
up following a review. In addition, in 1996 an annual departmental quality
audit questionnaire was introduced as a means of verifying that departments
were adhering to institutional quality assurance policies. An Academic
Affairs Committee (AAC), chaired by one Pro-Vice-Chancellor and attended
by the other Pro-Vice-Chancellor, had been created with a remit to develop
cross-institutional quality assurance policies.
Overview of the Analytical Account, its organisation and key features
12 The University’s Account was the starting point for the audit team’s enquiries. Although the Account was principally descriptive in nature, containing a limited analysis of the effectiveness of prevailing processes and procedures, it did helpfully indicate the ways in which the University’s quality strategy had evolved since the last audit, identified key activities that underpinned its quality strategy, and drew attention to the personnel with designated responsibility for particular aspects of quality assurance and enhancement. The Account was annotated to include footnotes and linkages to the items of supporting documentation that were made available in the base room. The team requested that some additional documents be made available, principally the minutes of those committees with defined roles in the University’s quality assurance processes. The team would wish to record its thanks for the willing co-operation it received from the University during the audit process.
The institution's quality strategy
Overview
13 The University’s Account placed considerable emphasis upon the fact that eight of the institution’s 19 departments which had been subjected to teaching quality assessments undertaken by HEFCW had been rated as either ‘excellent’or, more recently, ‘worthy of recognition’. The Account also made clear that the University was seeking to adapt, rather than to replace, its existing procedures and provided a diagrammatic representation of the quality assurance framework through which it sought information as to whether the quality and standards of its awards were being maintained. The audit team was told that this framework pivoted around the AAC chaired by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor with responsibility for academic affairs. The Committee’s responsibilities are defined as being responsible for quality assurance, departmental reviews and the approval of new study schemes.
14 The Account also placed considerable weight on the key role played by departments in monitoring the quality of the student experience and stressed that all departments were required to apply consistently the institution’s agreed quality assurance procedures. At several points, the Account emphasised the significant contribution made by the departmental review process to facilitating cross-institutional accountability and the ways in which the institution, through the AAC, could evaluate the impact of its evolving quality strategy.
15 In addition to periodic review by the AAC, heads of departments, as budget holders, are required to submit plans annually to the Planning Group, a sub-committee of the University’s Planning and Resources Committee (PARC). These plans, the audit team learnt, must include clearly defined strategies for teaching and learning and the outcome of the planning process is the setting by PARC of specific targets for individual departments. The team heard that target setting had recently been extended to include consideration of the research output of individual members of staff within departments (see below, paragraph 47).
16 The Account made it clear that the faculties and their respective deans played important roles in the operation and maintenance of the University’s quality procedures and that the creation of a Deans’Office in 1994 had been a formal recognition of the important role played by such individuals in promoting consistency of practice across the institution. The audit team sought to verify whether such consistency of practice existed in key areas such as examination procedures and module and study scheme approval.
17 The Account outlined the role played by the federal University of Wales in relation to matters of academic quality and drew particular attention to the activities of University Subject Panels (USPs) in the approval of new schemes of study and of the University of Wales’s Academic Quality and Standards Committee (AQSC) in overseeing the quality related aspects of the activities undertaken by USPs. The team sought to establish the nature of the interaction between Aberystwyth and the University of Wales’s quality assurance procedures and the operational boundary that existed between them.
18 Recognising the growing demand to provide opportunities for life long
learning, within its academic aims the University has an explicit commitment
to widening access to students and to broadening the delivery mechanisms
for its provision. It has, as a result, developed a significant portfolio
of schemes for off-campus provision ranging from a Higher National Certificate
franchised to two regional further education colleges to an MScEcon offered
by distance learning in Hong Kong. The Account stressed that, irrespective
of the mode of delivery or location, the quality assurance mechanisms applying
to its collaborative ventures were the same as those which applied to its
internal provision (see below, paragraphs 39 to 40 and 59 to 60).
19 The audit team explored in detail the elements of the University’s quality framework as described within the Account. In relation to the engagement of students in the institution’s academic and quality assurance framework, the team learnt that while departmental meetings and staff:student consultative committees were being convened on a regular basis, there appeared to be some variation in the title, style, frequency and content of the former and with the reporting pathways and feedback to students associated with the latter (see below, paragraph 55). Guidelines governing the operation of staff:student consultative committees have been agreed by Senate and circulated to all departments, and recent departmental reviews have drawn attention to the need to improve student awareness of the role and decision making functions of such committees.
20 Faculty meetings appeared to the audit team to carry a very heavy load of business and their minutes contained several references to the desirability of refining and filtering the material they considered. For example, the Faculty of Arts had considered in some detail the best form in which to receive reports arising from department boards. Discussions had also taken place across the faculties about how to ensure that all module and study scheme proposals received appropriately detailed scrutiny. With regard to the latter issue, the team heard that all study schemes were also subject to approval by a University of Wales USP assessor with, in turn, recommendations being made to a full USP. The University intends to continue its existing practice of validating new schemes of study through a largely paper-based process with no requirement for any external participation, other than that provided by the USP assessor (see below, paragraphs 35 to 36 and 60).
21 In noting that the AAC was clearly making a crucial contribution to the development and maintenance of the University’s quality assurance framework, it appeared to the audit team that the Committee relied to a great extent on the thoroughness of faculty level processes and the attendance of the deans at both faculty and AAC meetings. The team noted that, although it had been intended that departmental reviews would follow a six-year cycle, the frequency of reviews had, in fact, varied from four to 10 years. The University advised that this variability had been occasioned by the use of the review process as a means of rehearsing for HEFCW subject assessment visits. The team also noted that, as a Committee of Senate, the AAC had no direct formal means of bringing quality assurance matters which had resourcing implications to the attention of PARC. The team was assured that the participation of both Pro-Vice-Chancellors at these two key committees meant that informal channels of communication were available. The team heard of instances where resource considerations had prompted University-level decisions variously resulting in the termination of a study scheme and modified module availability within a previously advertised degree scheme. Exploring the interrelationship between the two Pro-Vice-Chancellors and the role of PARC, the team observed that neither the Account nor the current Quality Handbook for Staff appeared to contain any reference to the procedures to be followed for the withdrawal of degree schemes.
22 The audit team explored a number of issues relating to the management and co-ordination of off-campus provision. At the time of the visit, this aspect of the University’s work was expanding, mainly as a result of department-led initiatives. A number of actions aimed at promoting such developments have been taken by the University including, for example, the convening of a Distance Learning Forum to allow practitioners to share developing expertise, and the creation of an ad hoc Distance Learning Group by the deans in mid 1996. The Group had noted that distance learning courses had in the past not been integrated into the University’s quality assurance mechanisms as closely as was considered desirable. In 1997, the Group had accordingly developed, with the approval of the AAC, a Quality Checklist for Open and Distance Learning separate from that covering full-time provision. While the same pro formas are used in the approval of new modules, however and wherever delivered, from the information made available to the team there appeared to be some variation in the processes followed during the establishment of collaborative arrangements with other educational providers.
23 The audit team heard that the University had recently completed the
process of accrediting much of what used to be the programme delivered
by the Department of Extra-Mural Studies. The first steps in this process
had been the creation of a Department of Continuing Education within the
Faculty of Arts. This Department has a Board of Studies on which sit all
three deans. New courses are developed with the support of the relevant
subject department before being submitted to the Board for approval. The
team noted that these arrangements were significantly different from those
which applied to other academic departments, an anomaly that had recently
been discussed within the AAC. The Board also acts as an examination board
for the courses it has validated. In addition, there is a Continuing Education
Committee reporting directly to the University’s Council, an arrangement
which pre-dates the creation of the Board of Studies for Continuing Education.
24 The audit team formed the view that the institution’s de facto quality strategy was being prosecuted through a mixture of formal and informal means. In some areas, for example in relation to student support services, the moderate size of the University has facilitated the implementation of a quality assurance strategy that has a reliance upon informal networking. However, in other areas, for example in relation to the management of off-campus learning, the team did not believe that largely informal mechanisms were likely to prove adequate. The University will wish to consider whether more robust procedures should be established in relation to the initial development and subsequent monitoring of collaborative ventures (see below, paragraphs 40 and 50).
25 The audit team also concluded that an approach based upon the adaptation of existing procedures and processes to meet new challenges had tended to create a two-track system, with one track comprising academic discussion forums headed by the AAC, and another distinct, but not entirely separate, track involving interaction between budget holders, the Planning Group and PARC. Consequently, it appeared that academic planning initiated at departmental level could either follow a pathway involving faculty discussion, the AAC and then to Senate, or proceed via the Planning Group to PARC. This second pathway, the team heard, was more recent in origin and did not, for example, allow students or teaching staff representatives the same opportunity to register their views in the way that was still possible on the original development pathway. In addition, there was no provision for student representation within the AAC, constraining student input to the University’s quality assurance processes. The University may wish to consider ways of increasing student representation on its key deliberative committees (see below, paragraph 54).
26 The audit team was particularly conscious that the University had sought to respond rapidly to the outcome of the 1996 Research Assessment Exercise and noted the constructive manner in which it had discussed subsequent development strategies. However, on the basis of the information made available to it, the team concluded that the University’s quality assurance framework had been placed under some strain during this period and that, while it was premature to assess the consequences of the decisions that had been taken, it would nevertheless be desirable to establish clear procedures governing decisions by PARC either to close a degree programme or to promulgate departmental staffing modifications.
27 The audit team identified a number of activities carried out at, or below, faculty level (including, for example, module approval, assessment processes, and the monitoring of postgraduate research students), which did not appear to be conducted in a way that would make them readily open to full scrutiny by the University. In particular, the variability in the period between reviews conducted of different departments had reduced their usefulness as a key means of assuring departmental accountability, although adoption of the process as a means of preparing for HEFCW subject assessment visits may have had a beneficial impact on the outcomes of such visits. A further consequence of the approach to scheduling had been that individual departments were uncertain as to when their next review would take place. The University should establish a clear long-term timetable for departmental reviews and, in doing so, review the mechanisms it uses to monitor activities at this level.
28 The audit team experienced some difficulty in securing an overview of the full scope of the University’s collaborative provision and would strongly encourage the establishment of robust mechanisms for planning, resourcing and managing such activities. The team was unable to satisfy itself that the University’s policy of using the same quality assurance mechanisms and frameworks for study schemes wherever and however delivered took sufficient account of the special characteristics of, for example, the resourcing requirements occasioned by distance learning education. The team would endorse the University’s own desire to strengthen its procedures relating to collaborative provision. In this regard, the team would encourage the University to review the reporting mechanisms associated with the Department of Continuing Education.
Academic standards of programmes and awards
29 The audit team explored in some detail the robustness and reliability
of the means used by the University to establish, maintain and review
its academic standards. In particular, the team focused upon external
examining in relation to degree classification, the comparability of academic
standards, external contributions to programme quality evaluation, the
internal maintenance of standards policy and the monitoring of standards
in collaborative provision.
Degree classification and the external examining process
30 In its Account, the University referred to (undergraduate) modularisation as having ‘acted as a catalyst for reviewing and changing our existing procedures’. Prominent among these changes has been the introduction of a University-wide procedure for first degree classification. This has involved the uniformly-derived computation of a weighted average mark for every final year student, which is referred to as the ‘cascade’mean. A student whose cascade mean brings them to the borderline of two degree classes is said to enter the ‘window of opportunity’for the upper of these two classes, the outcome thereafter being at the discretion of the examining board. While acknowledging that the consequences of its application to particular cases might sometimes give rise to difficulties, the audit team would nevertheless wish to commend the University for the introduction of an institution-wide degree classification scheme, which seeks to promote equity of student treatment. The University is also to be commended for the thorough nature of its explanations of the scheme, both to the AQSC of the University of Wales and to its own external examiners. With respect to the latter, the team noted that a well-attended briefing day had been arranged, in which coverage of the ‘cascade’and ‘window of opportunity’had received particular prominence.
31 Other aspects of the University’s external examining processes are, however, less satisfactory. The audit team was particularly concerned about the role of external examiners in examination boards at faculty level. In documentation examined by the team, it appeared that within departmental examining boards, external examiners were called upon to moderate and agree the marks assigned to individual modules. However, a complete array of these agreed marks was often not available to departmental examining boards, since agreed marks arising from modules taken in other departments and faculties had not been computed. External examiners were thus often unable to recommend degree classifications, leaving this to be done at faculty examining boards for joint honours and all BScEcon results. At faculty boards, external examiners were not present, as a matter of University policy. Yet, at these boards, final decisions were taken about the treatment of special cases and about the application of the ‘window of opportunity’to borderline candidates. Recommendations on the treatment of special (medical and compassionate) circumstances were, commendably, taken on a University-wide basis by the Deans’Special Cases Committee; however, this met subsequent to departmental examining boards. Moreover, the team was made aware of an instance where the ‘window of opportunity’had been applied to a candidate in a way not anticipated at departmental level. The team did not consider that degree classifications should be determined without the presence and active involvement of external examiners and would accordingly encourage the University to give urgent consideration to introducing a requirement that external examiners, representative of the three faculties, should be present whenever degree classifications are decided.
32 The audit team also explored the arrangements for providing feedback
to external examiners on the action taken by the University in response
to their comments and suggestions for improvement. While procedures existed
for the consideration of such comments at faculty level and the AAC, there
appeared to be no locus of responsibility within the University for ensuring
that external examiners were routinely apprised of the outcomes of such
discussions. The team noted an instance where substantial criticisms by
an external examiner of the purpose and conduct of viva voce examinations
for final year undergraduates had apparently not given rise to any formal
response, even though some six months had elapsed since the receipt of
the report. The University will wish to examine whether the mechanisms
it employs at present to record, either at faculty level or centrally,
the content of formal responses to external examiners’comments, could
be further improved, thereby ensuring that responses are timely, comprehensive
and constructive (see below, paragraph 59).
Comparability of academic standards
33 The University’s approach to securing comparable academic standards has two dimensions, internal and external. Internal comparability has been materially assisted by the common ‘cascade’and ‘window of opportunity’degree classification scheme (see above, paragraph 30). Another dimension to internal comparability is represented by the promulgation and development of case law on the application of the University’s degree classification scheme to individual student circumstances. In this context, the audit team noted with interest that the University had taken a decision to require the standardised recording of examination board minutes only immediately prior to this audit visit. In welcoming this development, the team would encourage the University to pay close attention to the precise content of pro forma minute recording forms.
34 With respect to the securing of external comparability, the audit team noted the constructive attitude adopted by the University towards the ‘additional layer of externality’in monitoring academic standards represented by the quality assurance mechanisms of the University of Wales. This was manifested in the contribution of University of Wales subject panel assessors to the validation of new or revised study schemes. The University’s Account stated clearly that the ‘federal University’s quality procedures supplement our own internal systems but in no way replace them’. In broadly endorsing this view, the team noted in particular Aberystwyth’s prohibition upon the appointment of external examiners from elsewhere within the University of Wales, an approach which is relaxed only in those cases where the restricted availability of expertise in a discipline renders it unavoidable.
35 The audit team was conscious, however, that there is a broader dimension
to comparability, involving the use of a wholly external contribution.
In this respect, the team observed that Aberystwyth was unique within the
University of Wales in not holding a ‘validation event’to consider
new course proposals, relying instead upon external participation through
correspondence (see above, paragraph 20). Whilst such an approach may help
to expedite approval processes, the University will nevertheless wish to
assure itself that the rigour typically associated with structured academic
debate is not compromised.
External inputs to programme quality evaluation
36 In respect of the external evaluation and improvement of existing programmes
of study, the audit team detected some variability of practice. While departmental
external liaison groups had been established to provide advice on course
development by reference to knowledge of employers’needs, the function
of these groups appeared, on occasion, to be confused with that of alumni
support for the University. The geographical location of the University
had, the team heard, also given rise to difficulties such that, with two
notable exceptions, the liaison groups existed more in conception than
in execution. The team was, however, made aware of the substantial involvement
of some external examiners in matters wider than year-to-year examining;
for example in relation to course development. The team would wish to acknowledge
such involvement and encourage its broader adoption across the University.
Internal maintenance of standards policy
37 In its Account the University advanced a principle of consistency, stating that ‘where best practice is identified and agreed upon, all departments are required to conform to the procedures according to the range and type of their teaching provision’. The audit team explored this matter when discussing the definition and treatment of student plagiarism at departmental level. Two points became apparent from these discussions. First, the definition of plagiarism employed was differently interpreted from one department to another; neither was there consistency of procedure, with some departments (but not all) having formal plagiarism committees. Second, the penalties imposed for this academic offence could vary considerably between (and even possibly within) departments, according to subjective judgements concerning the extent to which the offence had been committed with a conscious intent to deceive, as distinct from an innocent misunderstanding of the conventions governing citation.
38 The question of plagiarism had been referred in May 1997 to the AAC
for its advice, although the audit team learnt that its response did not
amount to the promulgation of a central University policy. Without such
a policy, the team considered that there existed the distinct possibility
that the treatment of two very similar cases might differ unacceptably,
depending on which department the case arose within. The University will
wish to reconsider this matter, with a view to assuring itself that its
principle of consistency is being followed (see below, paragraph 57).
Monitoring of standards in collaborative and off-campus provision
39 While the audit team considered that the scale of the University’s collaborative and off-campus provision was currently modest, the range of this provision is extremely wide, including distance learning programmes provided by University staff remotely; outreach programmes taught predominantly by further education college staff under the University’s guidance; franchising of University Higher National Certificate programmes; and overseas provision taught exclusively by University staff. No single body within the University is responsible for quality assurance and the monitoring of standards across the whole gamut of this provision; instead, a variety of arrangements has developed (see above, paragraph 22). As a consequence, the team detected some operational anomalies. By means of example, while the University’s engagement as yet remains slight, at present there is no organisational locus within the University for the development of policy in relation to the accreditation of prior learning or prior experiential learning.
40 In the absence of a clearly articulated policy on collaborative and off-campus provision, the audit team was unable to determine whether the University was able to satisfy itself that the resource implications of maintaining or expanding such provision were always fully considered and judged against alternative deployments of available resources. While the team was told that identical standards were applied to distance learning and on-campus modes of delivery of programmes bearing the same name, the team was unable fully to substantiate this view. The team heard of instances where programme content, mode of assessment and the identity of the external examiner varied as between one mode of delivery and another. As noted above (paragraph 24), in the interests both of ensuring appropriate resourcing and of monitoring of standards, the University should give further consideration to the mechanisms used to develop and monitor its collaborative provision activities.
The learning infrastructure
Introduction
41 The audit team explored aspects of student induction and support; information services; staff induction, probation, training and promotion; administrative support for quality management; and support for postgraduate students.
42 A weekend induction programme is provided for all new students, satisfaction with which is monitored through the Student Satisfaction Questionnaire. The responses seen by the audit team indicated widespread student satisfaction with the University’s induction programme. Noting that a review of the induction programme would shortly be reported to the Senate Executive Committee, the team considered that the University’s student induction arrangements were working satisfactorily and that adequate mechanisms existed to enable the institution to assure itself of the quality of such arrangements.
43 From its discussions with staff and students the audit team found evidence
to support the claims made in the Account that close academic and
personal staff:student relationships were a particular feature of the University.
The Account drew attention to a wide range of University level provision
for student welfare which complemented that available at other levels.
At University level, the Account specifically identified the Welfare
Co-ordinator/Senior Tutor, the Students’Guild Welfare Service, the
University Medical Centre, the Childcare Officer and the Mature Students’Counsellor.
These services are co-ordinated by the Welfare Co-ordinator/Senior Tutor,
a post established in response to the 1991 AAU audit report. The team heard
that welfare provision had been the subject of a recent University review,
the review panel including external representation. On the basis of the
information made available to it, the team considered that as a consequence
of the Student Satisfaction Questionnaire, the regular meetings
between the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Student Affairs) and the President of
the Students’Guild and the activities of the Welfare Co-ordinator/Senior
Tutor, the University was well informed regarding the quality of student
welfare provision. The team did, however, learn of concerns expressed by
the Students’Guild regarding the proposed reorganisation of the counselling
service from the Guild to the University under the management of the Welfare
Co-ordinator/Senior Tutor. The team considered that the concentration of
potentially conflicting and onerous responsibilities (including, for example,
student disciplinary matters, the allocation of hardship funding, and counselling
duties) under one individual merited further careful review by the University.
44 In 1995, management of the University’s previously separate information
technology and library services was combined under the aegis of a single
structure, Information Services. The Account stated that the University
had ‘above average’levels of expenditure on both these aspects
of learning services. The audit team encountered considerable evidence
to suggest that the quality of both information technology and library
provision was highly valued by academic staff and students. The team noted
that Information Services employed a range of mechanisms, including annual
surveys and liaison groups, to secure feedback on performance and identify
development needs. The team also noted that the Vice-Chancellor chaired
a committee which oversees the work of Information Services. The team was
reassured that the University had effective mechanisms to assure itself
that the significant resources committed to both the library and information
technology activities were being appropriately deployed.
Staff induction, probation, training and promotion
45 The Staff Development Office is responsible for organising a programme of staff development for all University staff. This programme is delivered by members of the Staff Development Office both centrally and, increasingly, at departmental level. A Staff Development Committee, comprising the deans, an academic from each faculty and representatives of various University services, meets twice a year to ‘ensure that the planned programme....adequately meets the needs of all staff’. Information on staff development needs is assimilated from the outputs of the staff appraisal process, surveys and planning discussions with departments.
46 All new teaching staff appointed to the University are required to undertake a teaching and learning training programme recognised by the Staff and Educational Development Association (SEDA) organised by the Staff Development Office. Individuals following the programme can opt to submit their portfolio for a SEDA accredited teaching qualification. Each probationer is also provided with a mentor. Individual progress of lecturing staff on the programme is monitored and the results of such monitoring are fed into the University’s Probationary Appointments Committee. The audit team learnt that, at the time of the visit, the induction arrangements for newly appointed staff were being reviewed by a working party. Responsibility for staff induction, as for staff development in general, is with the Staff Development Office, whose activities are overseen by the Staff Development Committee chaired by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Academic Affairs). The team heard that a survey of recently appointed staff had revealed a high degree of satisfaction with the introductory training provided by the University. The team considered that the University’s induction programme was working effectively and that clear mechanisms existed to assure the quality and appropriateness of such provision.
47 A Council committee, the Probationary Appointments Committee (PAC),
considers each case of a lecturer coming to the end of their probationary
period. The audit team examined the minutes of this Committee and discussed
its proceedings with several members. The arrangements adopted by PAC for
securing information on probationers from departments and for feeding its
decisions upward to more senior levels in the University appeared to the
team to be clear and to allow the institution to have confidence that the
calibre of academic staff was being maintained. In noting that teaching
related elements had been clearly entered into the promotion criteria for
all academic grades, the team was nevertheless slightly concerned regarding
some of the operational practices adopted by PAC. The University’s Procedure
for Reviewing Academic and Related Staff Probationary Appointments draws
attention to both teaching and research related criteria, together with ‘initiative
shown in departmental work’. From several sources, including the
Vice-Chancellor, it became clear to the team that there had been a heightened
emphasis placed upon research activity at the University following the
1996 Research Assessment Exercise. The increased emphasis upon research
performance was evident in the proceedings of PAC where detailed research
plans had been requested from several of the probationers whose cases were
under consideration (see above, paragraphs 15 and 26). This had resulted
in more protracted considerations of many cases than had been the pattern
in previous years. In assuring itself that the emphasis placed upon the
research activities of newly appointed academic staff is not having an
adverse affect on teaching quality, the University will doubtless wish
to continue to monitor the activities of PAC and ensure that the expectations
placed upon probationary staff are clear and transparent at the time of
appointment.
Support for postgraduate students
48 The 1991 AAU audit report commented on the need to develop further the postgraduate culture at the University. Since 1991, significant attempts have been made to address the support systems for research students. Each research postgraduate student at the University is provided with a copy of a Code of Practice for Research Postgraduates and General Information and Sources of Advice. In addition to support at departmental level, students are encouraged to approach the University’s Director of Postgraduate Studies. Amongst other matters, the Director of Postgraduate Studies is responsible for the organisation of a research training support programme to which all postgraduate research students have access. Those postgraduate students whom the audit team met spoke highly of this programme. A Postgraduate Association has recently been established to provide a point of contact within the student community and also between students and the University. Whilst conscious of the potential contribution to be made by the Society to the University’s postgraduate community, given its recent formation the team was not in a position to review its success.
Internal and external communication
Introduction
49 As part of its mission, the University espouses a particular commitment
to Wales and the Welsh community. As part of this commitment, both Welsh
and English are freely used as media of communication. The audit team investigated
aspects of promotional material; communication with academic staff; student
representation and communication with students; and communication with
external partners.
50 The audit team examined a range of documentation used by the University
to promote its activities and to recruit students, and noted the increasing
use being made of electronic media for these purposes. While most of the
material seen by the team was both well produced and accurate, the Account made
no mention of the means by which the University sought to assure itself
of the quality and accuracy of its promotional materials. During the visit,
the team was told that all ‘authorised’University material
was cleared by the Recruitment and Admissions Office. There did not, however,
appear to a systematic mechanism for checking the accuracy of publicity
material issued by partner institutions (see above, paragraphs 24 and 40).
The University may wish to review the mechanisms it employs for checking
on the accuracy and quality of publicity materials issued by its collaborating
partners.
Communication with academic staff
51 Every member of academic staff is issued with a copy of the Handbook for Members of the Academic and Related Staff which outlines employment-related issues and details the services available to staff. Additionally, all academic staff are issued with a copy of the annually updated Quality Handbook for Staff. The audit team learnt that staff also receive a wide variety of other newsletters and circulars produced by the University and its service departments. Increasing use is made of electronic means of communication between the central University administration, departments and individual academic staff (see below, paragraph 58).
52 All members of the academic staff are members of a department board and faculty and about one-quarter of the Senate consists of elected staff members. At faculty board meetings staff have the opportunity of engaging with current policy developments as well as more routine matters. The Account indicated that poor attendance of staff at faculty meetings was ‘a cause of concern’, a view reaffirmed to the audit team during the visit. The team was told that the University was aware of this problem and was exploring possible remedial strategies.
53 The Account noted that the relative smallness and intimacy of
the University made informal face-to-face communication between various
levels of staff both possible and an important contributor to efficient
communication within the institution. This view was also expressed on several
occasions during the visit. While the audit team considered it difficult
to gauge the validity of such observations within the scope of the audit,
it nevertheless considered that the extent of the reliance upon informal
means of communication, and their efficacy, merited further review by the
University.
Student representation and communication with students
54 The Guild of Students is represented at faculty meetings, the Senate and the Council. It is also represented on some other University committees including, for example, the Information Services and Finance and General Purposes Committees. It is not, however, represented on the AAC (see above, paragraph 25). From the information available in the Account and from its discussions with staff and students, it was unclear to the audit team what rationale applied regarding representation of the Guild of Students at University committees. Noting the desire expressed by members of the Guild for wider representation, the team would urge the University to review its policy on student committee representation, particularly in relation to those committees concerned with quality assurance and enhancement matters.
55 Each department has a staff:student consultative committee which is supposed to operate according to prescribed University procedures and to report to the department boards. Poor student attendance at some of these meetings was reported to be a problem. While there appeared to be some variation between departments in the speed and quality of response to issues raised by these committees, the general view of those students met by the audit team was that they functioned effectively. The University relies on its own departmental reviews together with HEFCW subject assessment reports to assure itself of the adequacy of departmental level communications with students (see above, paragraph 19).
56 The University has taken an explicit decision not to issue a comprehensive student handbook. At induction all new students are issued with copies of the University’s Student Charter and the Student Study Guide. In addition, at the beginning of each session each student receives a copy of the Rules and Regulations & Information for Students, the Academic Regulation on Academic Progress, a student record form, and relevant modular and departmental handbooks. The materials seen by the audit team appeared to be both clear and constructive. There was, however, significant variation between departments in the presentational form, coverage and detail in the material which they issued to students. It was not made clear in the Account where responsibility resided for ensuring the accuracy of such publications or for achieving inter-departmental consistency. During the visit, it became apparent to the team that the deans, severally and jointly, played an important role in relation to such matters. The material presented to the team as being representative of the departmental material held in the Deans’Office indicated considerable variation in the range of material held for different departments. The University may wish to review the means by which it assures itself that the written guidance issued to students is clear, comprehensive and consistent.
57 As noted above (see paragraph 37), the audit team was concerned that, while students are issued with the Students’Examination Handbook which details University policy on unfair practice (of which plagiarism is taken to be a part), the University did not appear to have a clear and consistent statement on plagiarism and its consequent penalties. References to plagiarism in departmental handbooks varied markedly in both length and detail. Although a definition of, and statement on, plagiarism is contained within the Quality Handbook for Staff, during the visit the team was told on several occasions that one of the reasons for the absence of a central statement on plagiarism was the difficulty in agreeing a statement which could apply to all subjects and departments. The team would strongly urge the University to review central and departmental level statements on plagiarism and its consequences, to ensure clarity and consistency.
58 The University is seeking to make greater use of electronic modes of
communication between the Registry and students. With effect from the 1997-98
academic session both module choices and first semester examination results
will be available to students electronically. In its discussions with students
and staff, the audit team heard of concerns regarding the ability of the
existing electronic network and available facilities to meet the demands
expected to be placed upon them. The team was reassured to learn that the
University was aware of the potential limitations and had in place mechanisms
to monitor performance.
Communication with external partners
59 Although the audit team was made aware of many positive features of the communication arrangements between the University and its external examiners, there appeared to be no systematic means of centrally recording communication between external examiners and departments (see above, paragraph 32). The University may wish to review this matter.
60 The Account stated that ‘departments [had] external liaison groups’which were ‘invited to comment on development on course content and on new degree schemes’. From the information available to it, the audit team detected some notable variability in departmental practices (see above, paragraph 36). The University may wish to review the operation of such groups and the mechanisms used to disseminate best practice across departments.
Conclusion
61 The University of Wales, Aberystwyth is an institution that, over recent
years, has undergone considerable changes in structure and size. It nevertheless
remains relatively small. The University describes its ‘quality expectations’in
threefold terms. It aims to ensure openness so that all staff have access
to documented procedures and are able to contribute towards their development
and implementation in a spirit of collegiality and co-operation; it seeks
to ensure consistency of operation where best practice is identified and
all departments are required to conform to the procedures according to
the range and type of their teaching provision; and it has a commitment
to objective monitoring to ensure accountability of operation.
62 The University should continue its concerted efforts to improve the ways in which it underpins the quality of its work. It places considerable store by, and reliance on, informal communications networks, and these are unquestionably valuable. It is not clear, however, that the balance between the formal and informal has been consciously and carefully struck. Individual faculties appear to have established robust mechanisms for monitoring departments’activities, but it is less clear how the University assures itself of the faculties’operations. The University does not have a clear framework for disseminating good practice or for identifying weaknesses of practice within and amongst the faculties. Nor is it in a position to inform itself reliably about inter-departmental inconsistencies or variability of practice in some areas, such as liaison with external examiners, which are central to the assurance of quality and standards. Despite the encouragement given to informal communications networks, it appears that both horizontal and vertical information flows can, on occasion, be restricted. This suggests a possible vulnerability which should be addressed. Having said this, it must be emphasised that the University’s stewardship over the quality of its educational provision and academic standards of its awards does not give rise to serious concern.
63 The University may wish to review how it might secure the greater involvement of its staff in the development of its quality assurance policies and practices to help ensure that they are in harmony with the strong personal and informal traditions distinctive to the institution. In this context, it should consider exploring how it might secure a greater degree of externality in its operations, possibly through an enhanced role for external liaison groups and more prominent involvement of external peers in course approval and review processes.
64 The University is aware of the challenges that lie ahead of it. In dealing with these matters it will be assisted by the strong sense of community and its commitment to improvement.
65 The audit team wishes, in particular, to commend the University for:
i the introduction of a clearly articulated institution-wide degree classification scheme (paragraph 30);
ii the training given to external examiners (paragraph 30);
iii the involvement of some of its external examiners in programme development activities (paragraph 36);
iv its student induction and research training induction programmes (paragraphs 42 and 43);
v its information technology and library provision (paragraph 44);
vi its staff induction programme (paragraph 46).
Points for further consideration
66 As it continues to develop its systems and arrangements for assuring the quality of its educational provision and the academic standards of its awards, the University may wish to consider the necessity of reviewing:
i the role of external examiners in examination boards at faculty level
(paragraph 31).
The University may also wish to consider the advisability of reviewing:
i the clarity of the mechanisms used to terminate study programmes (paragraphs 21 and 26);
ii the benefits of establishing a clear long-term timetable for departmental reviews and, more generally, examining the mechanisms employed to monitor departmental and faculty level activities (paragraphs 21 and 27);
iii whether the use of informal means of communication is appropriate in respect of certain matters of academic import (paragraphs 21, 23, 24, 53 and 56);
iv the mechanisms for developing and then monitoring its collaborative partnerships (paragraphs 24, 40 and 50);
v student representation on its key deliberative committees (paragraph 25);
vi the mechanisms used to respond to comments made by external examiners (paragraphs 32 and 59);
vii the operation of external liaison groups and, more generally, its approach to securing external views on its processes and developments (paragraphs 35, 36 and 60);
viii its approach to plagiarism and means of ensuring that the guidance given to students is clear, comprehensive and consistent (paragraphs 38 and 57);
ix the functioning of the Probationary and Appointments Committee in relation to the explicitness of expectations held of the performance of probationary academic staff (paragraph 47).
Appendix 1
University of Wales, Aberystwyth –facts
and figures
History
The University of Wales, Aberystwyth was established in 1872 and is a founder member of the federal University of Wales, established by Royal Charter in 1893. The degrees it awards are those of the federal University, of which it is one of six constituent institutions.
Mission
Aberystwyth aims to be a first-class teaching and research University. We play a full part in the international research scene. We provide students with learning opportunities to the highest academic standards, a distinctive environment for study and a high quality of life. We respond to the needs of society for research and for skilled and educated graduates. We have a special responsibility for the needs of Wales and remain deeply aware of our role in sustaining the native culture of Wales and the Welsh language. We are conscious of our responsibility to the community in which we are based and place great value on collaboration with local institutions, as well as our other contacts in Britain, Europe and the wider world.
Academic aims
In organising and implementing our wide portfolio of teaching, research and other activities, the institution seeks to achieve the following series of aims:
- to maintain and develop our reputation as a high-quality University institution of international standing which provides a distinctive learning opportunity from sub-degree to postgraduate level across a range of subjects balanced between Arts, Sciences and Social Sciences;
- to carry out research which satisfies intellectual, cultural, scientific and economic needs and which earns esteem in the public arena;
- to foster a culture of excellence in research, rewarding those areas that have achieved the highest research standards and supporting other areas of research that are working towards similar levels of excellence;
- to continue to widen access for students from diverse backgrounds, including students from the local community, and to play our part in the educational and cultural life of the community;
- to broaden the delivery mechanisms of our provision in order to widen access to higher education and support the demand for life-long learning;
- to fulfil our special responsibility for the educational needs of Wales;
- to maintain and develop close partnerships with industry and employers, responding to their needs by equipping graduates with the skills and flexibility which they will require in future life to adapt to an ever-changing workplace;
- to take a full part in developing academic co-ordination and collaboration in teaching and research between the constituent parts of the University of Wales, and with other educational institutions and research institutions throughout the world;
- to maintain and develop links with institutions within the local area with a view to maximising the total resources available for teaching, scholarship and research in Aberystwyth;
- to make effective use of new technology to further our aims in teaching and research;
- to make the optimum use of all our assets; physical, financial and human, and to maintain the current balance of resources, notably of staff time, between teaching and research;
- to maximise income from a wide range of sources and to manage our affairs efficiently so as to sustain our future growth and development;
- to contribute to both regional and national wealth creation and economic development through collaborative activities with commercial, industrial, professional and public sector organisations.
Faculties and Departments
Faculty of Science
Institute of Biological Sciences
Department of Computer Science
Institute of Geography and Earth Sciences
Department of Mathematics
Department of Physics
Welsh Institute of Rural Studies
Faculty of Economic and Social Studies
Departments of:
Accounting and Finance
Economics
Information and Library Studies
International Politics
Law
Faculty of Arts
Departments of:
Continuing Education
Education
English
European Languages
History and Welsh History
School of Art
Theatre, Film and Television Studies
Welsh
Key statistics 1997-98
Full-time - 6,150
Part-time - 2,963
European Union full-time - 360
International - 351
Gender by faculty
Arts
- 33.9 (men); 66.1 (women)
Faculty of Economics and Social Studies
- 53.8 (men); 46.2 (women)
Science - 58.9 (men); 41.1 (women)
Awards 1996-97
First degrees - 1,444ND - 7
HNC - 7
HND - 78
PGCE (Initial teacher training) - 278
Taught masters - 340
Masters by research - 21
PhD - 74
University staff (May 1998)
Academic - 355
(full-time); 26
(part-time)
Research - 97 (full-time); 17 (part-time)
Academic-related - 194 (full-time); 34 (part-time)
Clerical and secretarial - 213 (full-time); 101 (part-time)
Technical - 96 (full-time); 8 (part-time)
Ancillary and others - 246 (full-time); 379 (part-time)
Total - 1,201 (full-time);565 (part-time)
Financial data
Income 1997
Funding Council grants
- 24,581 (£000); 45.14
(%)
Academic fees and support grants - 10,086 (£000); 18.52 (%)
Research grants and contracts - 6,459 (£000); 11.86 (%)
Other operating income - 11,732 (£000); 21.55 (%)
Endowments income and interest receivable - 1,591 (£000); 2.92 (%)
Total income - 54,449 (£000);100%
Expenditure 1997
Staff costs - 29,796 (£000); 54.90
(%)
Depreciation
- 3,876 (£000); 7.14
(%)
Other operating expenses
- 19,135 (£000); 35.26
(%)
Interest payable - 1,466 (£000); 2.70
(%)
Total expenditure - 54,273 (£000); 100%
Appendix 2
List of the University’s collaborative
programmes at 1 February 1998
Foundation year collaboration
Level 0 of BSc Life Sciences, taught wholly by staff from Ceredigion College of FE at that institution
Level 0 of BSc Physics, some modules taught by staff from Ceredigion College of FE in the Physics Department of University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Franchised provision
HNC schemes in Agriculture, Countryside Management and Equine Studies franchised entirely to Carmarthenshire College of Technology and Art and Pembrokeshire College
Outreach provision of the Department of Continuing Education
Certificate of Higher Education
English and History | Coleg Powys
Diplomas of Higher Education
Culture and Society | Coleg Powys; Pembrokeshire College
Managing Land for Nature Conservation | Pembrokeshire College
* Welsh People/ Welsh Landscape | Coleg Meirion Dwyfor
* Wales and Europe | Coleg Harlech
* not operating in 1997-98
Overseas provision
MSc Computer Science, offered in conjunction with ‘Informatics’, Singapore
Top