The Quality Assurance Agency Promoting higher quality for ... · professional higher education...

Academic review: Institutional review

Thames Valley University

MARCH 2003

IRD 730

Promoting higher qualityThe Quality Assurance Agency

for Higher Education

Foreword 1

Introduction 1

The Self-Evaluation Document 2

The review process 2

Briefing visit 2

Review visit 3

Developments since the 1998 special review 3

Institutional approach to quality management 4

Quality strategy 4

Academic management at institutional level 4

The roles of the faculties in quality management 6

Student involvement in quality management 7

Approval and review of modules and courses 7

Modules 7

Courses 8

Annual monitoring 9

Professional, statutory and regulatory bodies 9

Internal audit 10

Learning and teaching initiatives 10

Learning and learner support 11

Collaborative arrangements 12

Adherence to QAA's Code of practice 13

Commentary on the awarding body function 14

Setting standards through validation 14

External examiners and their reports 14

Assessment guidance and practice 15

Data management 16

Annual monitoring 16

Research degrees 16

Admissions standards 16

Summary 17

Commentary on the University's self-awareness and its forward development plan 17

Summary 17

Action points 19

Appendix 1 20

Thames Valley University: facts and figures 2001-02 20

Appendix 2 21

List of the University's collaborative partnerships as at December 2002 21

Contents

Foreword

1 This is a report of an institutional academic reviewof Thames Valley University (the University)undertaken by the Quality Assurance Agency forHigher Education (QAA). QAA is grateful to theUniversity for the willing cooperation provided to thereview team.

2 The review was carried out using an institutionalreview process approved by the Higher EducationFunding Council for England (HEFCE), UniversitiesUK (UUK), and the Standing Conference of Principals(SCOP). The process is described in QAA's Handbook foracademic review. The process was introduced in 2002following completion of QAA's process of continuationaudit, which was itself a revised version of the originalnational academic quality audit programme that beganin 1991 under the auspices of the CVCP's AcademicAudit Unit and was subsequently taken over by HEQCin 1992.

3 Institutional review addresses the ultimateresponsibility for the management of quality andstandards that rests with the institution as a whole. It is concerned particularly with the way an institutionexercises its powers as a body able to grant degrees andother awards. It results in reports on the degree ofconfidence that may reasonably be placed in aninstitution's effectiveness in managing the academicstandards of its awards and the quality of itsprogrammes.

Introduction

4 Thames Valley University was formed in June 1992from the former Polytechnic of West London as a resultof the award to the Polytechnic of university status.The Polytechnic had itself achieved polytechnic statusin July 1991 following the merger of Ealing College ofHigher Education, Thames Valley College and QueenCharlotte's College of Health Care Studies to form thePolytechnic of West London in July 1991. The LondonCollege of Music became part of the Polytechnic laterin 1991. The University operates from two principalcampuses in Ealing and Slough.

5 The University's stated mission is to 'support theaim of widening participation in higher education as acontribution to lifelong learning, equality and socialjustice', and to 'play a significant role in the educational,cultural and economic life of the region'. It has some25,000 registered students of whom some 29 per cent areNHS (pre-registration and post-registration nursing andmidwifery). Another 29 per cent of the University'sstudents are studying for awards in further education(FE), for which the University is not the awarding body.These awards are offered under the aegis of a number

of external awarding bodies such as Edexcel. Thus onlysome 27 per cent of the University's students areundergraduate, and 15 per cent postgraduate andprofessional higher education (HE). Within its highereducation cohort, a particular feature of the Universityis that some 86 per cent of students are mature, 65 percent are studying part-time, and 49 per cent are fromminority ethnic communities.

6 The University's Self-Evaluation Document (SED)emphasised 'this distinctive student profile' aspresenting 'management and pedagogic challenges,increased by a complex operational context involvingthree funding councils, two Government Offices, twoDevelopment Agencies and two NHS WorkforceDevelopment Confederations'. The SED drew attentionto the combination of the high proportion of FE andpart-time students, the number of courses in low pricebands, and little research income resulting in theUniversity 'having the lowest unit, per capita, ofincome in the sector'.

7 Following the granting of University status in 1992,the University underwent a long period of almostcontinuous academic re-organisation. Furtherinformation on these early stages of the development ofthe University may be found in the report of the 1995HEQC quality audit and in the 1996 report of the HEQCaudit of the University's collaborative provision. Adversepress comment on student examination and progresspractices during the summer and autumn of 1997prompted the University's Board of Governors to requestQAA to undertake a 'special review' into the ways inwhich the University assured the academic quality andstandards of its educational provision (see below,paragraph 19). The report of the special review,published in November 1998, identified 'some significantmanagement failures', and recommended that theUniversity drew up an action plan to address the issuesidentified in the report. The report further recommendedthat the Agency should conduct a full institutionalreview of the University in 2002. The present report is theoutcome of that institutional review.

8 A substantial restructuring of the academic andadministrative organisation of the University inresponse to the special review was largely completedduring the 2001-02 academic year, and incorporated anew committee structure supporting Academic Board.The previous 'matrix' structure of academic schoolswas replaced by a faculty structure. The currentacademic organisation of the University comprisesthree faculties:

Health and Human Sciences;

The London College of Music and Media;

Professional Studies.


page 1

9 Each faculty is led by a Pro Vice-Chancellor/Dean(PVC/Dean) supported by a faculty executive whichincludes a faculty registrar. The faculties are supportedby a number of central departments which providefunctional support in areas such as Finance, Quality,Marketing, Academic Planning, Library andInformation Services, Access and FE, Corporate Affairs,Human Resources and International Issues. Theacademic year 2002-03 is the first year in which thecomplete new team and new organisational structurehas been in place.

10 A brief guide, Thames Valley University facts andfigures for 2001-02, prepared by the University, isattached as appendix 1. A list of the University'scollaborative partnerships, current at December 2002, isattached as appendix 2.

11 The institutional review took place in the contextof the current Vice-Chancellor's announcement of hisintention to retire in the summer of 2003, having ledthe University since September 1999. The appointmentof the new Vice-Chancellor was announced shortlybefore the review visit. The review team hopes that thisreport will provide a useful framework for action andguidance as the University enters a new phase of thecorporate and academic recovery that has been inprocess since the special review of 1998.

The Self-Evaluation Document

12 The University's SED provided a usefulintroduction to the University, its mission andgovernance; a description of its arrangements formanaging quality and standards; a commentary on thestudent experience; comments on the University'sresponses to subject reviews; a description of theprocess for managing institutional change; and somecomments on its strategy for the next three years. Itidentified how the University had developed its qualityassurance mechanisms since the special review of 1998.It highlighted the University's recent restructuring intofaculties, the reduction of its overseas collaborativeactivities, its intention to further develop UKcollaborative work, and to take forward plans forenhancing its regional mix of HE/FE work. It wasfrank about the extent to which the University was stillseeking improvements in its various responses toQAA's Code of practice, in staff developmentarrangements, and in the promotion of a better climatefor research and scholarship. The SED was helpfullyannotated with reference to documents cited by theUniversity as evidence to support its evaluation of themanagement of the quality of provision and thestandards of awards. The review team was given accessto the University's strategic plan, recently opened to allUniversity staff for consultation, to provide furtherbackground for its review activities.

13 The University's Students' Union took theopportunity offered by the University to provide itsown evaluative commentary, as an appendix to theSED. This appendix described how students wereroutinely involved in interactions with the Universitymanagement team, and how they had been consultedin the University's preparations for the review. Inparticular, the students outlined how the Universityprovided both academic and pastoral support for thestudent community, and how the Students' Union wasable to offer further, complementary support,principally from the main Ealing sites, but additionallyfrom their Slough office.

The review process

14 Key documents provided with the SED included:undergraduate and postgraduate prospectuses, theQuality Handbook, the University Calendar and theStudent Handbook. The review team had access to the1995 HEQC quality audit report; the 1996 HEQCcollaborative provision audit report; the 1998 QAAspecial review report; the 1998 HEQC overseaspartnership report of the University's partnership withthe Polish Open University; the 1998 QAA overseaspartnership report of the University's partnership withthe RM Institute, New Delhi, India; the 2001 QAAsummary report of the University's collaborativepartnership with Yozmot College, Tel Aviv, Israel; andto all the subject review reports in the period 1994-2001.

15 The review team comprised Ms M McMenemy,Professor I M Robinson and Dr D Timms, reviewers,and Mr J White, review secretary. The review wascoordinated for QAA by Dr D J Buckingham, AssistantDirector, Institutional Review Directorate.

Briefing visit

16 Following an initial reading of the documentationprovided by the University, the review team made abriefing visit to the University on 12 and 13 November2002. During the briefing visit, all the documents citedas evidence in the SED were provided to the team. Theteam asked that some further documentation be madeavailable for the review visit itself, in addition to thatalready cited. During the briefing visit, the team metthe Vice-Chancellor, senior members of the Universitymanagement team with particular quality assuranceresponsibilities, and students representing theUniversity student body. The team used the briefingvisit to clarify certain aspects of the University's qualityassurance arrangements, and to identify themes forfurther exploration during the review visit. Themesincluded the operation of the University's qualityprocesses; the operation of the University committeestructure and its relationship with operational

Quality Audit Report 2003

page 2

processes in faculties; the management of collaborativeprovision; validation processes; the student experience;student records and management information systems;and some aspects of learning and teaching. The teamalso wished to seek evidence of adherence to QAA'sCode of practice, and of how the University wasimplementing the Framework for Higher EducationQualifications (FHEQ).

Review visit

17 The review visit took place at the Universitybetween 9 and 12 December 2002. At the review visit,the University provided the review team with allpapers from meetings of Academic Board and itsprincipal committees over the last three years. Inaddition a range of records and papers relating tointernal audit and evaluation processes, to externalexamining activities, to validation processes in all threefaculties and to approval mechanisms for collaborativeprovision was made available. The team was givenaccess to the University intranet so that it might be ableto study the range of information routinely available toUniversity staff and students.

18 During the visit, the review team conductedmeetings with the Vice-Chancellor; senior Universitystaff with quality management responsibilities;representatives of the University's Board of Governorsand of Reading College; staff from the Faculty ofHealth and Human Sciences; staff from the LondonCollege of Music and Media; staff from the Faculty ofProfessional Studies; staff with a range of particularsupport responsibilities from faculties and centraluniversity departments; staff, both academic andadministrative, with responsibilities for thedevelopment and operation of collaborative links; andpart-time students and research students.

Developments since the 1998 special review

19 The University's most recent engagement withQAA at an institutional level had been the specialreview of 1998, which the Agency had been asked toundertake by the University's Board of Governors. The report of the special review noted that the Universityhad established for itself a clear mission as a regionalinstitution, aiming to extend opportunity and widenparticipation in further and higher education. It wenton to say that the University was primarily committedto teaching and learning, for which it had securedstrong staff commitment. The report recognised thatthe University had made substantial progress inbringing together the four separate institutions whichhad merged to form the Polytechnic of West London,had invested heavily in developing learning resourcecentres to support student learning, and had focused

its research effort on work directly supportive ofteaching, learning and curriculum development. Thereport noted that the University had made considerableadvances in commercialising its activities, haddeveloped some important partnerships with externalorganisations, and had become one of the largestproviders of health education in England.

20 However, the report of the special reviewdescribed a situation in which, particularly with regardto its undergraduate programmes, there had been abreakdown of the assessment processes, to a largeextent deriving from a breakdown of trust between theUniversity management and the academic andadministrative staff. In consequence, the reportconcluded that 'academic standards and the quality of[the University's] students' experience, especially in itsCollege of Undergraduate Studies, were and are underthreat, and can now only be maintained by specialmeasures and herculean efforts, rather than by routinesystems and the kind of professionalism which isnormally found in a university'.

21 The report made a series of recommendationsconcerning the University's management informationrequirements and structures; the role and effectivenessof Academic Board committees with responsibility forquality and standards matters; validation procedures;student support mechanisms; the student assessmentprocess; the University's practices in respect of externalexaminers; and the University's recruitment andadmissions systems.

22 The University's SED for the present institutionalreview gave detailed information on all actions takenin response to the recommendations made by thereport of the special review, and noted that:

all senior postholders had been replaced since the1998 review and a completely new managementteam was in place;

there had been a complete academic andadministrative reorganisation including thedisestablishment of the 'College of UndergraduateStudies' and the introduction of a new three-facultystructure, each faculty with its own administrativesupport in addition to the support provided atUniversity level by two newly constituted offices,the Academic Office and the Quality Audit Office;

the subcommittee structure of Academic Boardhad been revised, and the terms of reference of allstanding committees clarified and published in aCalendar;

there had been a refocusing of the University'sportfolio of programmes, with a closerconcentration on the vocational and professional;


page 3

a new impetus had been given to research andscholarship supportive of the University's mission;

there had been a dramatic reduction in the scale ofthe University's overseas operations and acorresponding increase in its partnerships in theregion;

increased collaboration was established with arange of FE colleges in the region, and a mergerplanned with Reading College.

23 The SED stated that one of the outcomes of thespecial review had been for the University deliberatelyto strengthen its quality assurance systems, and, inparticular, to maintain an exhaustive practice ofvalidation, operating at both faculty and at Universitylevels. The SED also stated that the University hadlonger-term aims to support decentralisation of qualitymanagement from the University centrally to thefaculties, once it had reached a point at which it hadconfidence that a self-governing 'enhancement culture'had replaced what it described as the present 'auditculture'. The SED went on to explain that theUniversity wished to develop better synergy betweenthe information generated for quality assuranceprocesses, and the information used in strategicplanning, and also wished to develop processes for thequality assurance of collaborative activity, and the useof performance indicators for all its programmes, inresponse to changes in the national environment. Theactions taken by the University to respond to theoutcomes of the special review, and the ways in whichit is approaching its longer-term aims, are addressed inthis report.

Institutional approach to qualitymanagement

Quality strategy

24 The SED outlined the University's quality strategyas being to 'guarantee academic standards in an explicitpublic fashion', to 'use the findings of quality assuranceprocesses to remedy weaknesses and seekimprovements' and to 'use evidence from evaluationsto understand the quality of the students experiences inorder to improve them'. The primary source of centralguidance on the University's quality assurancearrangements is provided through the QualityHandbook, which the review team considered to be acommendably clear and comprehensive document.

Academic management at institutional level

25 The SED set out the respective roles of the Boardof Governors, Academic Board, the Core Executive andthe faculties, with particular reference to the academic

management of the University and its deliberativecommittee structure. Since 1998, the University hasundergone considerable organisational change inresponse to the action plan developed as a result of thespecial review, and in response to nationaldevelopments in higher education. This organisationalchange has had an impact on the academicmanagement structure and the work undertaken bykey groups and individuals in the University.

26 The Board of Governors takes an overview of allthe activities of the University, and has had aparticularly close engagement in the implementation ofthe action plan and in the University's strategicdirection following the special review of 1998. Thereview team had the opportunity to meet representativesof the Board of Governors who had played a significantrole in discussion, scrutiny, approval of the action planand subsequent strategic plans. The team noted thateach meeting of the Board of Governors received reportsfrom Academic Board, thus enabling the Governors tomonitor the University's progress with academicplanning and outcomes. Regular reports have also beenreceived from sub-committees of the Board ofGovernors, such as its Student Liaison Committee,which have allowed it to keep abreast of issues whichconcern the student body. The SED noted that, in 2001,the Board had 'embarked on a self-evaluationproject…designed to enable the Board to evaluate itsown performance against a range of criteria', and that'the process will continue in the light of the new draftstrategic plan and will take account of the proposedmerger with Reading College'.

27 The SED stated that the Board had worked closelywith the Vice-Chancellor and members of the CoreExecutive (see below) in addressing 'many of theserious deficiencies of the University in the recent past'.The review team formed the view that the Board ofGovernors had taken seriously, and effectively, itsresponsibility to maintain a watchful eye on therecovery of confidence in the security of theUniversity's management of quality and standards.

28 The Core Executive has the status of an advisorycommittee to the Vice-Chancellor and is comprised of ateam of executive staff from faculties and central teamswho meet weekly to consider matters, according to theSED, which affect 'every aspect of the University'sactivities'. The SED noted that eight of the executivestaff had joined the University since the time of thespecial review. Strategic issues perceived by theUniversity as critical to its academic and financialhealth, such as retention and recruitment, are standingitems on the agenda of the Core Executive, and itreceives draft agendas of Board of Governors andAcademic Board committees 'thus ensuring that it isaware of the issues and reports to be considered'.


page 4

The review team noted and was supportive of therationale for establishing the Core Executive, which,the SED stated, was designed to ensure that there was'an integrated approach to the ways in which theUniversity plans and conducts its business'.

29 The review team recognised that the CoreExecutive had played a pivotal role in the last fouryears in ensuring that the University's senior managerswere kept well-informed about all aspects of themanagement of quality and standards. Indications ofthis 'hands on' approach were evidenced in a numberof ways. For example, the Vice-Chancellor reads allexternal examiners' reports, the Core Executive is keptfully up to date on all academic planning issues by theAcademic Office and PVC/Deans keep the CoreExecutive well-informed of concerns emerging from thefaculties. It was clear to the team from its reading of therecords of Core Executive meetings that the role ofPVC/Deans, working in close collaboration with theVice-Chancellor and central services officers on theCore Executive, had provided a powerful driver forconstructive change and positive action. The team was,however, mindful that the centrality of the CoreExecutive, though necessary during the last four yearsof challenge for the University, carried a danger that itcould encourage staff to over-utilise the executive routein seeking to address issues, thus reducing the role ofthe deliberative committee structure and potentiallyinhibiting its autonomous development. In the view ofthe team there were some indications of such over-utilisation emerging in annual review processes and inthe operation of Academic Board's sub-committees.

30 Academic Board has overall responsibility foracademic affairs, including academic policy andstandards, research and scholarship, curriculum, teaching,learning and assessment. The review team saw evidencethat, in addition to its standard agenda of receivingreports from faculties and its other sub-committees,Academic Board had been closely engaged inconsideration of a wide range of matters of fundamentalimportance to the work and development of theUniversity. The Board had, since the spring of 2002,been undertaking a project like the Board of Governorsto evaluate its own performance against criteria. TheSED explained that 'a structured questionnaire wasused to survey the responses to various facets of thebusiness of the Board', and that 'matters arising fromthe questionnaire are being pursued during theacademic year 2002-03'. The team considered that theseself-evaluation projects of Academic Board and theBoard of Governors were features of good practice.

31 Many operational matters in the management ofquality and standards are delegated to two key sub-committees of Academic Board - the Academic Policyand Planning Committee (APPC) and the Academic

Standards Committee (ASC). The review team wasinformed that a key principle underlying theUniversity's committee structure was a deliberateseparation of roles between the planning function ofAcademic Board, discharged through APPC, andresponsibility for the assurance and control of qualityand standards, discharged through ASC.

32 Organisationally, this division is reflected in theestablishment of the Academic Office and the QualityAudit Office. The SED explained that it was alsoreflected in the administrative support for qualityassurance functions, where the work of the AcademicOffice, responsible inter alia for advising on regulatoryand assessment matters, is separate from that of theQuality Audit Office, responsible for advising on andauditing processes. The Academic Office facilitates awide range of academic development activities to boththe Core Executive and the Academic Board sub-committees, while the Quality Audit office offersan important service in its audit activities across theUniversity (see below, paragraph 59). It was alsoevident to the review team from its discussions withstaff that there is a large involvement by staff invarious cross-University groups tasked with proposingpolicy. It became clear to the team from its discussionsand from the available documentation that both officesprovided effective support at a number of levels.

33 However, the review team was less convincedabout the extent to which APPC and, in particular, ASCfulfilled their stated purposes. These committees areintended to engage the academic community ininvolvement in University-level quality assuranceprocesses, promote ownership of quality and standardsand disseminate information beyond faculty confines.Whilst it was clear to the team that a substantialamount of work was undertaken by APPC and ASC,and that deliberations of these committees played animportant role in guiding the work of Academic Board,academic staff who met the team did not universallyrecognise these committees as representing the voice ofthe academic community at University level. Staffexpressed a range of understanding of the purposes ofthese central committees, and some seemed unclear asto which business should go to which committee, andwhether that would be for receipt, discussion or action.

34 Reports relating to the University's regular annualprocesses (see below, paragraph 53 et seq) are receivedby the committees and monitored by them, but thereview team heard little evidence from staff with whomit discussed the work of the committees about thecommittees' undertaking sustained activities aimed atpromoting continuous improvement. From its readingof some aspects of the University's quality assuranceprocedures such as annual monitoring and internalaudit, and from discussion with faculty staff, the team


page 5

gained the impression that the operation of regularquality assurance is sometimes undertaken by the CoreExecutive at institutional level, or by PVC/Deans atfaculty level, rather than via the routine committeeprocesses. The team also noted that membership ofAPPC and ASC was small, although expanded by anumber of staff 'in attendance', who would often beofficers rather than academic representatives drawnfrom the faculties. The team formed the view that theUniversity might usefully consider the advisability ofextending the self-evaluative project of Academic Boardto encompass a reflection upon the terms of referenceand membership of the Board's senior sub-committees.One of the points for action identified in the 1998 reportof the special review concerned the role andeffectiveness of Academic Board committees withresponsibility for quality and standards. It was felt bythe team that further reflection upon the work of APPCand ASC would help to ensure the best use of thesecommittees whilst also extending ownership of qualityand standards at University level and enabling their fullpotential to be used in terms of continuous improvement.

The roles of the faculties in quality management

35 The faculties came into being at the start of theacademic year 2001-02, and whilst the SED indicatedall of them worked within a 'framework of definedresponsibilities and committee structures', itnevertheless also recognised that, at the time of thereview visit, faculties were at 'different stages ofevolution'. Each faculty is led by a PVC/Dean, and theacademic business of a faculty is led by heads ofsubject and course leaders. The SED explained that 'theformer are responsible for ensuring that the teams ofacademic staff based in subject groups are properlysupported and working to appropriate standards',while 'the latter are responsible for coordinating thedelivery to students which may include modules frommore than one subject area'. Faculty academicstandards committees (FASCs) have been established toreflect at faculty level the role of the University ASC.The SED noted that 'it was initially proposed that theAPPC…should be mirrored at faculty level', but that'academic policy and planning issues, however, appearto be dealt with most directly and appropriately byfaculty boards'.

36 The SED went on to explain that the principalpurpose of the re-formation of the previous 'matrix'structure into the new faculty structure had been toclarify academic responsibilities and reporting lines,and to make faculties the centre for academic planning,development, delivery and quality assurance forcourses, support of students and development ofresearch, so that 'a range of activities now take place ina student-centred environment'. Faculties areincreasingly taking responsibility for much of the work

previously undertaken by central services. They haveresponsibility for much of the admission process, andfor student data and records. Faculty boards and theircommittees are responsible 'for the implementation ofacademic and business planning and includeappropriate staff and student representation'. Thereview team noted that the current draft strategic plan,which will be submitted to HEFCE in 2003, anticipatedan increasing level of decentralisation of functionstogether with some devolution of responsibility.

37 During the course of its meetings with staff drawnfrom within faculties and across the institution, thereview team heard many expressions of support for theemerging devolution to faculties, and the underlyingstrengths of such devolution. The team was told thatthe previous matrix structure had tended to inhibitdevelopments at the subject level, and the team tookparticular note of the emerging strength of subjectdevelopment in faculties. The team noted thecommitment of the University to continue the transferof aspects of quality management to faculty level, andobserved that faculties, though only recentlyestablished, were already showing considerableacademic maturity and increasing ownership ofmatters relating to quality and standards. However, theteam also noted the recent expansion of studentnumbers in some faculties. This, together with theplans for merger with Reading College and therecognised differential in levels of responsibilitycurrently in place in the three faculties, suggested tothe team that the University should continue to becautious in the pace at which it allows devolution totake place. While the team formed the view that theUniversity intended to monitor with care the emergingacademic management structures across the faculties,the University might nonetheless find it advisable todevelop transparent criteria to enable Academic Board,and the faculties, to assess the readiness of individualfaculties to accept their new responsibilities.

38 Overall, the review team was impressed by theeffort that had been made by the University since the1998 special review to recover stable and effectivemanagement of quality and standards. However, inorder to ensure the sustainability of qualitymanagement in the future, the team, whilst wishing toaffirm its confidence in the University's stagedapproach to devolution of responsibility to theevolving faculty structure, was less convinced that theacademic community had yet found the most effectivemedium of expression through the Academic Boardsub-committees at institutional level.


page 6

Student involvement in quality management

39 Students are represented throughout theUniversity on senior committees of the University andat faculty level. Students' Union sabbatical officersserve on University-wide committees including theBoard of Governors, Academic Board and ASC. Studentcourse representatives are elected by and from studentson courses. They are trained and supported by theStudents' Union, with help from University centralservices. All are issued with a Student RepresentativeHandbook, and are offered support and guidance intheir roles by Students' Union staff. The Students'Union evaluates the student representative system,including the effectiveness of the training.

40 The Quality Handbook states that studentrepresentation is considered to be 'a vital source ofinformation and advice to course teams', and courseteams are encouraged to work actively withrepresentatives to find effective ways ofcommunicating with students. At the beginning of theyear 2000-01 the Students' Union took the step ofplacing all faculty student representatives on theStudent Council, which the students' commentary inthe SED referred to as 'the main democratic forum ofthe Students' Union'.

41 Student evaluation is required of all modules, andstudent feedback forms are part of module evaluation.In addition, course leaders are expected to organiseperiodically an evaluation process, although there isno centrally-prescribed method. At the time of thereview visit, an intranet-based method of studentevaluation of courses was in development, aimed toaddress the question of systematic course evaluation.This development of electronic communication anduse of electronic interactive forms is intended tobecome a standard part of the interaction the studentshave with the University. It was suggested to thereview team that an advantage of this system will beto improve communication with the large numbers ofpart-time students who have little time available forattending meetings.

42 The review team met groups of full-time and part-time students as well as sabbatical officers of theStudents' Union. Students who met the team confirmedthe strength of both the representative structure andthe University's responsiveness to student feedback,and it was clear that these systems were working wellat undergraduate and postgraduate level. The teamalso gained a positive impression of the way in whichthe University and the Students' Union workedtogether on a number of initiatives aimed at improvingthe student experience. The Students' Union hadworked closely with the University on the recentlyapproved assessment policy and system of anonymous

marking (see below, paragraph 93). It had also beeninvolved in discussions on implementation of QAA'sCode of practice, particularly on matters relating tocomplaints and appeals procedures, and it wascurrently working closely with the Academic Officeand the Quality Audit Office on a range of studentfeedback initiatives.

43 The one area in terms of student representationwhere the review team considered that there was aneed for improvement and review was in the area ofrepresentation of research students on the University'sresearch committees. Research students who met theteam were unclear about the representative structureavailable to them. In view of the University's aim todevelop its research cohort, it might wish to considerthe advantage of ensuring appropriate representationto enable students to participate fully in this process.Apart from this, on the basis of evidence available anddiscussions with staff and students, the teamconcluded that the University was working effectivelyand in close association with the Students' Union tofoster a culture of close collaboration with its students.The team formed the view that the level ofcommunication that had been established was apositive force for managing change.

Approval and review of modules and courses

44 The academic health of courses, the SEDexplained, was 'assured through review mechanismswhich include annual reporting by module leaders,course leaders, subject heads, regular studentevaluation and formal review events as specified at thepoint of initial approval'. The procedures formonitoring and review are set out in detail in theQuality Handbook, which includes helpful templatesproviding guidance for those writing reports.

Modules

45 The module is regarded as the fundamental unit ofacademic courses. Module approval is the responsibilityof faculties, coordinated by the head of subject workingwith the subject group, and always involving an externaladviser. A module specification and module study guideis produced for each module submitted for formalapproval and reported to the relevant faculty board, orto the FASC acting on behalf of the board. The QualityHandbook requires that 'before a [module] validationevent the subject head should consider carefully theresource implications …and should consult with centralservices to ensure sufficient resources will be available todeliver the module'.

46 Modules are reviewed by the module leader in thelight of module evaluations, and any proposals forchange within the module are forwarded to the head of


page 7

subject who checks with the course leader that therevised module continues to support the overallintended learning outcomes of the course to which themodule contributes. Module changes are reported tothe relevant faculty board. The review team, on thebasis of documentary evidence available to it, formedthe view that faculties took a thorough and carefulapproach to module validation which reflected theprocesses described in the Quality Handbook.

Courses

47 The procedures for validation, approval andreview of courses are set out in detail in the QualityHandbook. The SED confirmed that 'approval for thedevelopment of any new course, includingcollaborative provision is sought from APPC on thebasis of an academic rationale and an analysis ofresources'. The validation of new higher educationcourses is a standardised two-stage process conductedon a model familiar from CNAA practice. The firststage is managed by the relevant faculty, and thesecond stage by the Academic Office on behalf ofAcademic Board. There is a formal requirement at thesecond stage to ensure the involvement of externalexpertise, and the review team noted from its study ofapproval documentation that external advisers wouldalso frequently be involved at the first stage. Theresults of approval processes and any conditions arereported to ASC, and all conditions need to be fulfilledbefore the course is approved. Compliance withrecommendations is not mandatory, but the team wasinformed that a course team is expected carefully toconsider whether to adopt any recommendations. Theteam was reassured to note that recent initiativescharged the Quality Audit Office with the task ofmonitoring responses to recommendations ofvalidation and approval reports.

48 Any proposal for the development of a new courseis asked to comment on whether all or part of it is to bedelivered through open learning. The review team wassupplied with documentation which confirmed thatvalidation procedures for modules and courses to bedelivered through open learning followed the sameprocesses as for validation of modules and coursesdelivered through conventional means. The team wasinformed by staff whom it met, and by thedocumentary evidence, that open learning initiativeswere underpinned by a developing pedagogicalframework supported by an e-learning representativein each faculty (see also below, paragraph 66).

49 Study of a range of recent validationdocumentation confirmed to the review team thethoroughness of course validation and approvalprocedures at both faculty and institutional levels. One of the points for action identified in the report of

the special review concerned the effectiveness of theUniversity's validation procedures. The team sawevidence of a robust approach being taken by theUniversity to validation, an approach which includedreference to QAA's FHEQ, calibration against SEECdescriptors at module level, and consideration ofrelevant subject benchmarks where appropriate. TheUniversity requires all courses to have programmespecifications, which are agreed as part of the coursevalidation process, and has now embarked upon a five-year programme of mapping and developing key skillswithin all courses. Consistency of events is aided bythe presence of a representative from the AcademicOffice. ASC is provided with detailed reports onvalidation conditions and recommendations. Theteam's discussions with staff in faculties and with thoseinvolved in collaborative activity confirmed the claimmade by senior staff that courses are only consideredready to run after a check has been made on thecompletion of conditions.

50 The Quality Handbook states that 'in normalcircumstances, the University will approve a course for amaximum of five years with the maximum extensionperiod of one year'. The SED confirmed this five-yearperiod for formal review, but was otherwise silent on theeffectiveness of revalidation. Given that the University hasnot had a stable five-year interval since the 1998 specialreview, the review team did not pursue the University'sexperience of the revalidation process, but noted theeffective monitoring role played by the combination ofannual monitoring (see below, paragraph 53) and internalaudit (see below, paragraph 59).

51 Staff who discussed the approval process with thereview team expressed the view that they saw thevalidation process as key to the maintenance anddissemination of academic standards. However, theteam observed that full reports of validations were notmade available to ASC, and that there was littleevidence of discussion of validation reports acrossfaculties. In view of the importance it attaches tovalidation, the University might wish to reflect uponthe current process of dissemination of good practice invalidation across the faculties, and consider theadvisability of including full reports to ASC and otherappropriate committees to assure itself that it is fullyutilising the potential for academic debate,disseminating good practice and generating a commonunderstanding of standards across the University.

52 The University's ASC has been consulting on aproposed revision to the validation process asdescribed in the Quality Handbook since July 2001. Themain change under consideration is the devolution ofmore responsibility to faculties, and in particular tosubject groups, for the validation of modules. However,ASC took the view that as the faculties are still


page 8

'bedding down' their academic infrastructures,including their faculty-level quality committees, itwould be unwise to implement changes until ASCcould be assured of their readiness to do so. Thereforeat the time of the review visit no firm agreements hadbeen made to change the existing procedures. Thereview team would endorse the University's cautiousand considered approach in this matter.

Annual monitoring

53 The process of annual monitoring culminates atfaculty level in a report prepared by the PVC/Dean ofthe faculty on quality and standards, which is presentedto the relevant faculty board. All such monitoringreports, including reports on collaborative provision,are forwarded to the Quality Audit Office. That Officereports to ASC on the effectiveness of the monitoringprocess for maintaining quality and standards, anddraws the attention of ASC and other committees andpersons to issues arising from the monitoring process.The review team studied selected documentation of themost recent monitoring reports, from which it formedthe view that the University had in place a systematicand robust approach to identifying important issues fordevelopment and action within faculties in order toassure the quality of provision.

54 The review team found that monitoring reportswere well-presented, linked to performance indicatorsand included evaluative comments from externalexaminers and students, and noted with interest thatfaculties were increasingly using colleagues as 'criticalreaders' to monitor the quality of reporting. Staff whomet the team confirmed that this system was provinguseful in aiding faculty discussion on key areas fordevelopment and action, as well as helping todisseminate good practice in writing monitoring reports.

55 From its reading of a range of faculty-level reports,however, the review team had some concerns about theaccessibility of statistical data, in both the presentationof the information provided for Programme AssessmentBoards and in the management information providedfor monitoring reports (see also below, paragraph 96).Shortcomings in the effective use of managementinformation were confirmed by the team's discussionswith faculty staff. Further discussions with senior staffreassured the team to some extent that this issue hadbeen identified for action, and that a schedule forimprovement was in hand. However, given that the 1998report of the special review had identified managementinformation as a key area requiring action, the teamwould encourage the University to expedite its progresstoward making better use of management informationand statistical data in the management of quality andstandards.

56 Issues for action which do not fall within the remitof faculties for resolution are supposed to be directedto other appropriate areas of University-levelmanagement. Discussions with faculty staff, andexamination of faculty-based documentation, left thereview team unclear as to how this process occurred.For example, it appeared to the team that, in somefaculties, issues for action in resource matters wereforwarded to the appropriate PVC/Dean and FacultyExecutive to discuss with members of the CoreExecutive, while in other faculties issues for action inthese matters were raised at Academic Board level. TheUniversity will, no doubt, wish to review how itresponds to issues identified for action that extendbeyond faculty responsibilities, and how best to use thecommittee structure to ensure matters are discussed,addressed and 'loops closed'.

57 The review team had some observations on thetiming of monitoring reports. It noted that monitoringreports were presented for University level scrutinyvery late in the academic year, and considered thatthere would be benefit in earlier reporting so that amore timely composite report could be seen by ASC. It also noted that some monitoring reports oncollaborative provision had not been completed at thetime of the review. Senior staff who met the teamacknowledged that the timing of receipt of monitoringreports was an area requiring improvement. The teamwould encourage the University, as it considers how toimprove the scheduling of annual course monitoringreports, also to ensure that all faculties impress upontheir collaborative partners the need to observe theUniversity's annual monitoring schedules.

Professional, statutory and regulatory bodies

58 The University has many links with professional,statutory and regulatory bodies (PSRBs), particularly inits faculties of Professional Studies and Health andHuman Sciences, and has a history of considerablesuccess in meeting the various accreditationrequirements. The review team was interested toexplore how the University reflected upon andresponded to the outcomes of such accreditationexercises. Staff who discussed these matters with theteam described how PSRB reports were considered indepth at subject level, and at faculty level by FASCs.However, the team formed the view that limited usewas made of the reports of PSRB accreditations outsidethe faculties to which they specifically applied. Theteam noted, for example, that ASC saw only asummary of the outcomes of such reports, as a result ofwhich the Committee was not able easily to draw fromthe full reports outcomes that may be of use elsewherewithin the University. As the University reflects uponthe work of the key sub-committees of its AcademicBoard, it might wish to consider ways in which it could


page 9

reliably derive maximum value from the outcomes ofaccreditation by PSRBs.

Internal audit

59 The University uses a methodology of internalacademic audit, with similarities to QAA subjectreview, further to reassure itself of the continuingquality and standards of its course provision. Internalaudits are conducted by the Quality Audit Office incooperation with the faculties, which are used in threedifferent modes:

investigating 'fitness for partnership' and theappropriateness of resources prior to the approvalof any new collaborative arrangements;

assisting subject teams to audit their provisionprior to subject review; and

investigating provision which may have beenidentified as 'at risk' by other indicators.

60 Senior staff who met the review team explainedthat the fundamental principle of the University'sinternal academic audit is that external agencies shouldnot find issues within the University about which theUniversity is not already aware. Internal audits have, forexample, been commissioned by the Vice-Chancellor orPVC/Deans as an outcome of discussions at ASC. Inanother example, where a significant number ofconditions at a validation had led to a delay in thelaunch of a postgraduate degree, an internal audit wasinstigated, and the evidence thus gathered enabled thefaculty to establish a way forward. It was reported tothe team that the University's long-term plan was todevolve audit to faculties, when Academic Boardconsidered them ready to own and exercise thefunction with objectivity. The team would encouragethe University to move as soon as possible from thepresent, somewhat reactive, approach to the schedulingof internal audits towards one that is more systematicand planned jointly with the faculties.

61 The review team heard from faculty staff thatcourse and subject teams found the audits helpful. The process involves gathering the data available fromnormal annual monitoring, and producing a self-evaluation document. An audit panel comprises bothinternal University members and external peer experts.The panel meets for a day, which involves formalmeetings with staff from the area being audited. It hasaccess to student feedback outcomes, and will normallyinterview students. The formal audit report wouldnormally be presented to FASC before being consideredat ASC. The University believes that by making internalaudit reports available to these audiences, audit itself isbecoming more supportive and capable of assisting

enhancement of quality and standards. The teamconsidered that the University was exercising the auditfunction wisely, and would encourage it to continue touse internal audit as a quality enhancement tool as wellas the more normal quality assurance instrument.

Learning and teaching initiatives

62 One of the strategic aims of the University is to'strive for the highest standards in teaching andlearning for all students', and Academic Board has beenengaged in developing a number of initiatives tounderpin and work towards this aim. In 2000-01 aproject was set up to research and develop a scheme torecognise and reward excellence in teaching andlearning, led by Academic Board's approval of theUniversity Teaching Fellowship Scheme. Principles forthe development of a peer observation scheme werealso approved by Academic Board in 2001. TheUniversity's professional development strategy is partof a broader human resource strategy (May 2001)approved by HEFCE. The SED stated that 'theUniversity has a vision of academic and administrativestaff empowered to manage and lead their ownoperations in an increasingly decentralised environment',and the team saw evidence that the University wasdeveloping initiatives to achieve this aim.

63 The SED stated, and staff who met the reviewteam confirmed, that there has been significantinvestment in staff development to support therestructuring of the University. The team discussedwith faculty staff the strengthening of the role of thesubject leader and subject teams, which was supportedby documentary evidence of validation, annual coursemonitoring and subject reports to faculty boards. Arecently established leadership development course forsubject leaders and other academic staff holdingcomparable responsibilities was commented onpositively by staff who met the team. The team, inaddition, noted the staff development opportunitiesprovided to faculty registrars by the Academic Officeand the Human Resources Department, and theencouragement they were given to attend AcademicBoard committees.

64 The University's Postgraduate Certificate inTeaching and Learning in Higher Education, the reviewteam noted, is now a contractual requirement for allnew teaching staff who have no suitable qualificationsor relevant experience, although the contractualrequirement does not extend to research studentsundertaking teaching duties. Whilst research studentswho met the team indicated they were made aware ofthe opportunity to study for the PostgraduateCertificate, they had not interpreted this opportunity asa requirement. Given that students working as tutorialassistants can teach up to 10 hours per week, the team


page 10

would encourage the University, as part of its emergingresearch strategy, to clarify the status of theirengagement with the Postgraduate Certificate to ensurethat such students are appropriately supported to carryout their teaching duties.

65 The SED stated that faculties were currentlyengaged in implementing peer observation schemes inways best suited to their needs and purposes. Academicstaff who discussed these matters with the review teamwere clear about the University's wish to embed a peerobservation scheme within all faculties, anddocumentation made available to the team providedevidence of staff development activities that had beenarranged to support this. Staff in all faculties indicated tothe team that some progress and wider involvement inpeer observation had been made, but discussionsrevealed some variability in implementation. The teamnoted the potential for a systematic peer observationscheme to be an effective vehicle for disseminating goodpractice in learning and teaching across and withinfaculties, and would support the University's wish toembed peer observation in line with action areasidentified in its updated Teaching, Learning andAssessment Action Plan (2002). The University will, nodoubt, wish to assure itself that development andmonitoring of a peer observation scheme is occurringconsistently in all faculties.

66 Another of the University's strategic aims inrespect of learning and teaching is to 'develop anextensive e-learning service'. The University's teaching,learning and assessment strategy identifies theintention to 'review teaching, learning, and assessmentmethods in the light of new education technologies, thenature of students and employment expectations'. In2001, the University's e-learning strategy was approvedby Academic Board, and since then several staffdevelopment activities have been funded to provideskills to work in the virtual environment. Documentedinformation on these was made available to the reviewteam. Progress towards an expansion of e-learning hasaccelerated with the appointment of e-learning projectcoordinators in each faculty. These coordinators aredeveloping faculty-level plans to promote e-learning inthe curriculum, and are identifying associated staffdevelopment needs.

67 From its study of the available documentation,and from its discussions with staff, the review teamcame to the view that the University was making asignificant contribution to the enhancement of learningand teaching through a range of initiatives promotedby Academic Board and the Core Executive. Suchinitiatives include the expansion of e-learning, theintegration of key skills into the curriculum and otherlearning and teaching developments linked to theUniversity's overarching student retention strategy. The

development of a virtual learning environment washighlighted by staff as having been particularly well-managed - a view shared by students who reported tothe team that they were increasingly seeing the benefitsof this. The team would encourage the University tocontinue its strategy of embedding and supporting keyinitiatives in learning and teaching, and to extend thisto include staff in its planned developments with'strategic alliances' and Reading College.

Learning and learner support

68 The SED outlined the range of services andsupport mechanisms available to students, someprovided by University central services, some by theStudents' Union and some by faculties. In terms ofacademic support this range includes an infrastructureof information services based on a multiple mediaapproach, extending traditional library provisions withvideo, IT and e-learning modes of study. These facilitiesare concentrated on resource centres managed byInformation Services on each of the main campuses.The needs of part-time students are taken into accountthrough, for example, extended opening hours and, atthe St Mary's Road site, 24-hour opening on the groundfloor of the Learning Resource Centre.

69 Student Services provides student advice,accommodation and financial support, a careers andemployment service, health and counselling services,support for international students, and a range ofsupport services for special needs students. The StudentHandbook provides a reference guide to the key supportservices available and regulations. The Learning andSkills centre managed by the Centre for Access andFurther Education (CAFÉ) provides a key skillsdiagnostic screen for all new full-time undergraduateentrants at the start of the academic year, enablingsupport needs to be identified. Support is offered incommunication, numeracy and IT skills. The reviewteam met a number of full-time and part-time studentswho reported on the benefits they had gained from thisservice.

70 The review team was provided with substantialevidence of documentation and publications whichillustrated the support made available to students. Thedocuments also illustrated work in progress aimed atimproving aspects of student support, for example theaction plan aimed at meeting the needs of theDisability Discrimination Act, recommendations fromthe key skills working group and supportive initiativeswhich had been implemented in response to theUniversity's retention strategy. In meetings with full-time and part-time students, the team was informedthat individual services were effective, and thatstudents felt well-supported by academic tutors whowould allocate office hours for tutorials and respond


page 11

appropriately to voice-mails and e-mails. Theeffectiveness of the University's approach to learnerand learning support has received positive comment inrecent subject review reports. The Students' Unioncommentary in the SED noted that 'most students feelwell-supported by the University both academicallyand non-academically', and this view was supportedby student groups who met the team. The team heardfrom the Vice-Chancellor and from representatives ofthe Students' Union that future plans were beingdiscussed to enhance the student experience bydevising and managing a more integrated supportenvironment, possibly based on 'one-stop-shop' accessat each major centre.

71 The review team formed the view, supported bythe findings of QAA subject review reports, that theUniversity was providing a well-integrated andinnovative approach to learner and learning support,aimed at maximising potential for students from wideand varied social and academic backgrounds. The teamconsidered that the University was exhibiting goodpractice in the care it takes in offering effective supportand guidance, valued by the student community, atboth institutional and operational level.

Collaborative arrangements

72 The SED stated that the key feature of theUniversity's approach to collaborative provision was 'to develop a set of UK-based (mainly regional)"strategic alliances" with colleges of further education,within which the University will be involved in a rangeof activities, operating within a strong contractualframework'. In addition to strategic alliances alreadyestablished with Kingston College and with ReadingCollege and School of Arts and Design, the Universitywas, at the time of the audit visit, seeking to mergewith Reading College and School of Arts and Design.In contrast to its local provision, the University hassought to reduce international franchises. The SEDconfirmed that the University's policy was now to'facilitate progression of students from overseas to theUniversity's courses offered in the UK'.

73 Since the time of the QAA special review in 1998,the University has greatly reduced the number of itsoverseas partnerships. Of those that remain some,involving about 110 students, are in the process ofbeing 'managed out'. The University has madearrangements for withdrawal from these partnershipsand is now working to ensure that residual studentsare not disadvantaged. Ongoing partnerships involvesome 1,300 students, most of them within a partnershipwith a private education provider, Informatics, in SouthEast Asia, and all engaged in subjects related to theinterests of the Faculty of Professional Studies, which isnow responsible for the management of all overseaspartnerships in the University.

74 The review team saw documentary evidence thatgave it confidence that the remaining partnershipswere being managed responsibly. The team learnt thatUniversity staff visit the partners and report backregularly, and staff of the Faculty of ProfessionalStudies responsible for partnership links explicitlycalibrate the performance of students overseas withthose on similar programmes in the UK. The link withInformatics in particular had a significant intake ofstudents via an APEL route. From its study of availabledocumentation and from its discussions with relevantstaff, the team considered that this process wasmanaged with care. The University's APPC is regularlyupdated at institutional level on the progress of theoverseas partnerships.

75 Assessment boards (see below, paragraph 85) arealways chaired by staff of the University. The sameexternal examiners operate for analogous programmesin the UK and overseas. The review team noted thatthis resulted in the external examiner for level 3 of theBSc Information Systems programme having a veryheavy burden of examining owing to student numbers.The University informed the team that it would beincreasing the number of external examiners next yearto alleviate this problem. The University will wish tokeep under review the workload of external examinerson programmes involving collaborative arrangements.

76 The University has reconsidered an earlier decisionto withdraw from all collaborative partnershipsoverseas. The review team's understanding of theUniversity's present position was that, where its regularquality assurance processes indicated that a partnershipremained healthy, it would assume that there would beno a priori reason to withdraw. As a partnership comesup for periodic review, the University automaticallyconsiders whether the partnership should be continued.The team learnt that the most numerically significantpartnership, with Informatics, is to be reviewed in thenear future. The University will wish to keep its policyon overseas partnerships under review, in the context ofits new stress on UK partnerships, and its plannedregional developments.

77 Although the University is taking considerablepains to protect the interests of students in partnershipsfrom which it is withdrawing, the review team observedthat agreements covering at least one recently establishedpartnership made no reference to the residual academicresponsibilities of the partners to the students affected(see also below, paragraph 82). In general, however, theteam saw evidence that withdrawal from the overseaspartnerships was being managed with considerablesensitivity and attention to detail.

78 In the UK, the University's range of partnershipactivities with local further education colleges isexpanding within a strategy for more local links. At the


page 12

time of the audit visit the University was at anadvanced stage of negotiations on merger withReading College. There are also some more distantlinks where the partner institution shares a closesubject interest with the University. An audit of thepartner institution followed by a formal partnershipreview is a necessary stage in setting up a partnership.This partnership audit is conducted by the QualityAudit Office, and may make recommendations whichhave to be addressed in the main validation exercise.Contracts and memoranda of cooperation govern themanagement of the partnerships. It is University policythat prior to review and revalidation, all collaborativeprovision is preceded by another partnership audit.

79 The process of mounting a particular programmein the partner institution is governed by validationarrangements as comprehensive as those for theUniversity's own programmes, with additionalattention paid to resource matters. The review teamlearnt that development of staff in partner institutionsis an important part of collaborative arrangements, isbuilt-in during initial discussions, and is considered atvalidation. Reports of validations generated by theseprocesses had limited circulation. Although the reportsof partnership reviews were seen at University-levelcommittees, the team considered that such reports maywell have a more general usefulness and applicationwithin the University. Documentary evidence seen bythe team suggested that such reviews and thevalidations were carried out meticulously. TheUniversity reassured the team that it invariablyretained the right to veto the appointment of staffteaching within the partner institution on coursesleading to the University's awards. It was clear fromthe documentation that the University pays particularattention to the capability of partner staff in relation toprogrammes, and is ready to provide extra staffingitself pending staff development activities to preparepartner institutions to take fuller roles.

80 Partnership arrangements are also subject to annualmonitoring requirements similar to those forprogrammes delivered in-house, although the reviewteam noted some evidence in partnerships managed bythe London College of Music and Media that partnerinstitutions were less forthcoming with their annualreports than the University's own academic staff.Partnership programmes are revalidated periodically,using the same validation process as initially, except thatthe revalidation documents and discussions areinformed by the information generated by the qualityassurance processes during the operation of theprogramme. Partner institutions are reviewedperiodically, using the methodology of internal academicaudit. The team considered that the University wasmanaging effectively its UK partnerships, and thecurrent portfolio of its remaining overseas partnerships.

Adherence to QAA's Code of practice

81 The SED described the ways in which theUniversity had evaluated its policies and proceduresagainst the appropriate sections of QAA's Code ofpractice. As each section of the Code had been published,it had been reviewed at Executive level and viaAcademic Board committees. The relation between theCode's precepts and the University's practice was auditedby ASC, which sometimes established working partiesfor the purpose. ASC also undertook a complete reviewof all the precepts following the publication of the finalsection of the Code. The University provided the reviewteam with detailed references to the ASC meetings atwhich sections of the Code had been considered, and theSED described a range of actions taken to bringUniversity practice in line with the Code, particularly inthe area of assessment. Other changes included inter aliathe strengthening of the roles of FASCs in relation tomodule approval, annual reports and externalexaminers' reports; new arrangements for externalexaminers' appointments and dealing with reports atUniversity level; revisions to approval procedures;revisions to placement arrangements; revisions toprovision for collaborative work; and an audit ofprovision for students with special needs. The University made clear to the team that it was alsoaware of areas where changes were not yet fullyimplemented, particularly in elements of some areas ofstudent evaluation, student complaints, and careers.None of the acknowledged present omissions appearedto the team seriously to compromise quality orstandards. The University stated clearly its intention tomake progress on such omissions, and the University'sgeneral willingness to comply with such instruments asthe Code gave the team confidence that such matters thatremained outstanding were being addressed effectively.

82 From the evidence available to it, the review teamconcluded that QAA's Code of practice had beenthoroughly considered by the Executive, by relevantAcademic Board subcommittees and working partiesappointed by them, and that procedures had beenrevised appropriately in the light of the findings. TheSED demonstrated a clear and self-aware process forensuring that all elements of the Code would beaddressed, and a clear awareness of matters in whichfurther progress is needed. In relation to the section ofthe Code on collaborative arrangements, the teamconsidered that the University's contracts andassociated memorandum of cooperation did not, insome cases, conform to the Code's precepts on residualarrangements for students following withdrawal ofeither party. However, the team saw ample evidencethat the University took seriously its responsibility forcaring for the interests of students affected by suchwithdrawal in the case of overseas collaborativearrangements. The University will, nonetheless, no


page 13

doubt wish to ensure that all new contracts andassociated memoranda of cooperation cover sucharrangements adequately.

Commentary on the awarding body function

83 The SED confirmed that 'the Academic Board hasultimate responsibility for the academic standards ofawards granted in the University's name', butexplained that 'responsibility for academic standards isshared by all who support students' learning…andthrough the deliberations of committees and workinggroups'. The framework within which Academic Boarddischarges its responsibilities is articulated within theUniversity Calendar and the Quality Handbook.

84 All undergraduate courses, and the majority ofprofessional and postgraduate courses delivered by theUniversity are operated within a modular framework.Modules are defined by learning outcomes, againstwhich are mapped specific assessment criteria. Academiclevels, within and outwith courses are determined byreference to QAA's FHEQ and SEEC levels descriptorsand, where appropriate, to relevant professional bodyrequirements and subject benchmark statements.

85 APPC has agreed and promulgated a Universityguide to assessment, Assessment Policy and Good Practice,giving general guidance on assessment, minimumacceptable requirements and exemplars of good practice.Faculties have evolved their own policies on feedback tostudents, and with the full support of the Students'Union, the University operates an agreed policy onanonymous marking. At first degree level there are twotiers of assessment boards, organised through faculties; asubject assessment board (SAB) which agrees marks,followed by a programme assessment board (PAB)which determines progression and awards. Inpostgraduate and post-experience courses, theUniversity normally operates a single tier of boards,since the modules are generally unique to the specificprogramme. The detailed University assessmentregulations are articulated within the Calendar.

Setting standards through validation

86 Course approvals require a two-stage validationprocess, outlined in paragraph 47 above. The reviewteam considered that exposure to external peer scrutinyin the validation process provided a sound basis forjudging the academic standards that should be achievedby students successfully completing the course. Thevalidation reports seen by the team, each with a detailedset of conditions and recommendations, appeared to beuseful tools for faculty, subject groups and course teamsto enhance the ability of their courses to deliver

appropriate academic standards, and the team sawevidence of active tracking of validation conditions andexternal examiners' comments in the records of FASCmeetings. A summary of the conditions set by avalidation report, and consequent actions, is presented toASC, and is updated at each meeting of the Committee,thus enabling the Committee to re-assure itself that thecourse team had prepared itself fully to deliver thecourse. Nevertheless, the team noted that the fullvalidation report was not subsequently considered byASC, and it considered that this might result inopportunities lost for dissemination of good practice. The records of ASC showed evidence of discussion aboutconditions set at validations, but the team noted thatsome of the conditions relating to resources were referredto APPC. It seemed strange to the team that detailedconsideration of validation outcomes from a single eventshould be 'partitioned' for discussion at two separateUniversity-level committees. The University might wishto reflect upon where the holistic consideration of suchoutcomes would best be considered.

External examiners and their reports

87 The process for the nomination and appointmentof external examiners is fully described in the QualityHandbook, which describes examiners' duties in full.Initial recommendations for appointment are madethrough faculty boards to the External ExaminerAppointments Committee of ASC. The review teamread reports from this committee which clearlyindicated a detailed scrutiny of such appointments atUniversity level, and saw evidence that externalexaminers without appropriate or sufficient experiencewere either rejected, or appointed to work in parallelwith more experienced examiners. The team formedthe view that the University had a clear, open androbust process for the nomination and appointment ofexternal examiners.

88 External examiners report to the Vice-Chancelloron a standard template report form. Their reports areseen by the Vice-Chancellor, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor,the Director of Academic Audit, the PVC/Deans, andrelevant subject and course teams. The Director ofQuality Audit produces a summary report for eachfaculty and a consolidated summary for the University.The complete summary is considered and discussed byASC. The summary reports themselves areaccompanied by a detailed commentary whichidentifies trends and issues of importance to theUniversity or faculty, and highlight particular issueswhich might be regarded as a threat to academicstandards, and to which faculties or course teams mustformally respond to the examiner. Faculties arerequired to report such follow up actions to the QualityAudit Office, which monitors them and informs ASC oftheir status.


page 14

89 The review team saw external examiners' reportsthat confirmed that academic standards at theUniversity were comparable with those in other similarinstitutions. One of the points for action identified inthe report of the special review concerned 'theUniversity's current practices in respect of the role ofexternal examiners'. The team considered that theUniversity had established commendably thoroughmechanisms for identifying and tracking issues raisedby external examiners. It observed, however, that some20 per cent of external examiner reports were receivedvery late in the annual cycle, thus seriously diluting theevidence base upon which the University was able todraw to assure itself of standards. The Universityreported to the team that it has instituted a mechanismwhereby an annual agreement is formulated for eachexternal examiner, which impresses upon them theimportance of timely submission of reports, and notedthis already has had a positive effect.

90 The summaries of external examiners' reports for1999-2000 and 2000-01 had highlighted the threat ofplagiarism to the security of standards. Using this as anexample, the review team found evidence that thisproblem had been identified at University level, andhad engaged in a wholesale review of its regulationspertaining to cheating. ASC is conscious that there is agrowing national concern regarding plagiarism, and isalready committed to reviewing the University'sprocedures again in 2002-03. The team considered thatthe University's existing regulations provided a robustmechanism for dealing with students accused ofcheating or plagiarism but, given the national debateon such issues, would encourage the University tocontinue with its plan to engage in greater consultationwith staff and students in its further review of itsregulations in this area.

91 From its discussions with staff, and from itsreading of relevant documents, the review team foundthat internal reflection at University level on commentsfrom external examiners was becoming more useful. Inearlier years, the function of the Quality Audit Office inthe loop appeared to be one of 'ensuring action'. Thereis now a more explicit quality enhancement focuswithin the report form, and responses to externalexaminers were generally more pro-active and forwardlooking. Other indicators of a sound and robust systemincluded the recent introduction of training days forexternal examiners, the identification of 'senior'external examiners within teams, and the practice ofusing the same external examiner for collaborativecourses as for 'home' courses at the University.

Assessment guidance and practice

92 The University has a clearly defined set of standardassessment regulations, published in its Calendar. It

recognises that its standard assessment regulationssometimes do not meet the needs of the PSRBs withwhom it works; in such cases, clear alternativeframeworks for assessment are established and alsopublished in the Calendar. Within its regulations, there isno longer a concept of 'progressing' from one academicyear to another, since this does not rest comfortablywithin a 'multi-mode of study' framework. Instead,students progress from one module to another, withchecks being made so that all pre-requisites are metbefore a student can enrol for a module. Whilst this hasmany positive advantages for students, and for theUniversity, it does require a robust data managementsystem to underpin the University's ability to trackstudents throughout their studies.

93 The review team formed the view that theUniversity reflected carefully upon its assessmentpractice, and was striving to achieve fair and equitableassessment practice. Examples of such reflectionhighlighted during the review included the recentintroduction of anonymous marking in order tominimise 'unconscious bias' in assessment, and swiftaction to remove ambiguity in the printed regulationsregarding mitigation, with clear guidance being madeavailable to all staff and students on the University'sintranet. An example of reflection upon apparentinconsistencies in progression rates led, within onefaculty, to five cross-site programme leaders being giventhe task of addressing issues of cross-site consistency inassessment practice. The team learnt with interest thatstaff of the Academic Office had conducted an audit ofassessment board practice, which later resulted in aprogramme of staff training to ensure greaterconsistency in board record keeping across theUniversity. One of the points for action identified in thereport of the special review concerned 'the nature,structure and function of all aspects of the studentassessment process'. Overall, the team formed the viewthat the University had established a sound assessmentframework, which enabled consistent decisions to bemade about learning outcomes and academic standards,and that it was active in ensuring that the frameworkwas refreshed and updated as needed.

Data management

94 All student data, including that for studentsenrolled on collaborative provision, is held in thecentral University system (HEMIS). Collaborativepartners are permitted to develop their own localsystems for use on their own sites, although thestudent records are later transferred into HEMIS,thereby ensuring that the University has a compatibleset of data for all programmes leading to its awards.The 1998 special review identified issues surroundingthe integrity of, and confidence in, the data used toinform assessment decisions. The University has put


page 15

much effort and resource into improving the situation.However, its new Credit Accumulation Scheme (CAS),upon which its academic framework rests, reliesentirely upon possession of a robust and reliable datamanagement and student record system. The reviewteam therefore wished to discuss with staff the currentstatus of data management systems.

95 The review team heard consistently from staff atall levels that the accuracy of student data was nowsecure, and that staff no longer had concerns regardingits integrity. The team read of errors that had occurredsome two years ago, and noted that they had beenrapidly identified and resolved. It also heard that,although the data was now reliably accurate,considerable human effort was still required to inputand check information before it could be used fordecision making in assessment. Staff who met the teamindicated that they found the system cumbersome, andwere pleased that the University had decided toprocure a new data management system, and wasconsulting widely on the necessary functionality.

96 Performance indicators, such as pass rates,admissions statistics and analysis of resit outcomes, areroutinely presented to University and facultycommittees, to give a statistical underpinning of themonitoring and review of modules, courses andstudent performance. The level of detail is substantial,but the team found that in some cases papers werepresented to University committees with little, if any,covering analysis, summary or recommendations, andconsidered that more evaluation and use of executivesummaries would make the data more accessible andeffective in its use. The University might wish toconsider the merits of presenting the analysis ofassessment and management information to academicstaff, committees and boards in ways that enable themost effective use of available data.

Annual monitoring

97 The processes of annual monitoring have beenoutlined in paragraph 53 above. It was noted there thatthese processes are generally completed late in theacademic session. The review team felt that the Universitywas making good use of its annual monitoring data tosupport the assurance of academic standards, butbelieved that consideration of the monitoring data earlierin the academic year would facilitate timely remedialaction, were such action necessary.

Research degrees

98 The University's research community is currentlysmall, although it plans to grow research activityselectively within the University. The monitoringprocesses for research degrees appear sound, annualreports on every project, agreed by the entire

supervisory team, being made to RDC. The reviewteam learnt that at least one of the supervisory team foreach student was external to the University. The teamconsidered this is good practice, whereby internalexpertise is strengthened from elsewhere, and to beencouraged during the next few years of developmentof supervisory experience.

Admissions standards

99 Admissions threshold standards are set centrally,and faculties then impose higher minimum standardsfor their various courses. Course teams may admitstudents with non-standard qualifications, and in suchcases, well-defined APEL mechanisms are in place.Cases of APEL are generally approved by a cross-University APEL committee, but increasingly suchdecisions are being devolved to faculty committeeswith University-level representation. The volume ofadmission by APEL varies significantly between thefaculties, with significant APEL in the admission to theoverseas courses in Business IT. All such APEL casesare considered by both the partner and Universitycourse leaders. It was explained to the review team thatresults for students admitted through APEL procedureshad been good, as a result of which course teams hadnot seen a need routinely to carry out correlation ofAPEL admissions against student performance.Nevertheless, the team would encourage the Universityroutinely to carry out such correlations in order tosupport its continuing confidence in the effectiveness ofits APEL procedures.

100 One of the points for action identified in the reportof the special review concerned the effectiveness of theUniversity's recruitment and admissions systems.Overall, the review team felt that the University hadestablished a firm grip on the maintenance of its entrystandards. The team noted that the University'sanalysis of progression and retention statistics hadgiven it some concern over first year progression rates,but there was no strong correlation between entryqualifications and progression. The team wouldencourage the University to continue to monitor thisposition closely.

Summary

101 In discussions with the review team, Universitystaff expressed their view that the University hadsignificantly developed its grasp on academicstandards since the 1998 special review. Senior staffconsidered that the University had put in place reviewand monitoring arrangements that worked effectively.An example quoted to the team was of how a 'long-tail'of weak students had been identified by externalexaminers; the issue was given a special focus by ASC,and had been taken forward with effect by the Core


page 16

Executive and faculty teams. The team studied recordsof discussion at ASC that demonstrated a goodawareness of issues of import and potential concern tothe University in respect of the academic standards ofits awards. The team formed the view that theUniversity had developed a mature and confidentapproach to establishing and maintaining the academicstandards of its awards.

Commentary on the University's self-awareness and its forwarddevelopment plan

102 The SED included a substantial section on theUniversity's main policy directions for the next threeyears, based upon the draft strategic plan that will besubmitted to HEFCE in the summer of 2003. It notedthat the University's performance had been 'regularlyand consistently monitored by its Board of Governors'against the 1999 strategic plan; that the majority of itsobjectives had been achieved; that QAA subject reviewshad demonstrated improving academic outcomes; andthat its academic structure had 'been fundamentallychanged and re-established in a more traditionalfaculty format'.

103 The University recognised in its SED that many ofits problems in the late 1990s 'were the consequence ofa rapidly weakening resource base', and that 'the needto stabilise itself as a business was an over-ridingimperative at the turn of the millennium and a pre-requisite for improving its education performance'.It reported that, while the financial situation wasimproving, significant pressure remained to improvespending in high-cost areas, particularly buildings andmanagement information systems. In the context of adeclining unit of resource, the University consideredthat the need to achieve greater financial stability 'canonly be satisfied through growth'. This is key to theUniversity's strategic imperative for its proposedmerger with Reading College, with a consequentexpansion of the potential recruitment base through abroadening of the academic portfolio and 'a fullintegration of FE and HE'.

104 Given the substantial changes to management andacademic structures and cultures in the past four years,the University might at this stage have been expectedto plan to enter a period of consolidation of thesuccesses that it had achieved. Instead, it has barelyhad time to see 'light at the end of the tunnel' beforeembarking on another major development. Theproposed institutional merger will, as the SEDacknowledged, demand a strategy of 'strengthening ahigher education culture in those academic teams thatderive from a largely FE background' even while theUniversity is itself still evolving its own devolved

quality management structure, and seeking to secureand develop a culture of quality enhancement tosupplant one of quality control. However, given theUniversity's mission and its distinctive student profile,the review team could understand the strategicdirection that the University had chosen to take, and,indeed, the lack of alternatives open to it. The teamgained increasing confidence from its study ofdocumentary evidence and from its discussions withstaff at all levels that the University was well-aware ofthe challenges facing it in its strategy for growththrough merger and regional partnerships. TheUniversity is also well-aware of how a combination ofover-rapid change and poor risk-assessment under aprevious regime contributed to the events that led tothe special review. The findings of the present reviewsuggest that the University now has an understandingof its strengths and limitations, and of the challengesand opportunities ahead, that should enable it to makea success of its development plan.

Summary

105 Thames Valley University is a major provider ofvocational higher and further education in the regionsof West London and the Thames Valley. Its mission is towiden participation in higher education as acontribution to lifelong learning, equality and socialjustice. It aims to play a significant role in theeducational, cultural and economic life of the region.The University has a small and diminishing number ofoverseas partnerships, and is seeking to expand a rangeof 'strategic alliances' with UK based further educationproviders, particularly those in its region.

106 The Vice-Chancellor's Core Executive takes a closeinterest in quality assurance matters and has been theUniversity's primary, as well as initial, driver for actionon quality and standards matters, particularly thoseperceived to constitute threats. The Academic Officeeffectively facilitates academic development activities,and the Quality Audit Office offers an excellent andvalued service in its audit activities at several levels inthe University. There is large involvement by academicstaff in various cross-University groups tasked withproposing policy.

107 The University's Academic Board is an importantforum for the discussion of new developments instrategic matters. Its deliberations are informed by twokey subcommittees, the Academic Policy and PlanningCommittee and the Academic Standards Committee,which demonstrate a deliberate separation of policyand development from matters of audit and assurance.The committees are intended to distribute academicinvolvement in University level quality assuranceprocesses more widely, in order to reduce the volume ofbusiness for Academic Board, and to promote ownership


page 17

among the academic community, but they do not seemto make fullest use of their potential for promotingcontinuous improvement or for representing the voice ofthe academic community at University level.

108 The University wishes to embed quality assurancemore securely in faculty-level arrangements, and it issteadily devolving to faculty level responsibility foraspects of the management of quality and standards.Different faculties have achieved different levels ofresponsibility, but Academic Board does not yet haveexplicit criteria by which it can judge the readiness offaculties to undertake these responsibilities.

109 A comprehensive range of data, some of it highlydetailed, is received by key committees involved in theoversight of academic quality and standards. TheUniversity has had some difficulties in the past inensuring that the data received by examination boardsis always accurate and has made real and continuingadvances in this area, though at present considerablehuman effort must still go into ensuring accuracy. Thisdata could be analysed better in accompanying reports,to enable committees to use it more effectively. Someexcellent data, such as the information contained inreports from the comprehensive validation processes,could receive wider circulation.

110 Validation of courses is thorough, with activities atthe faculty and institutional levels. The system iseffective in ensuring faculty accountability for thefulfilment of conditions and the consideration ofrecommendations, but is in practice under-used interms of its potential for the common understanding ofstandards and spreading of good practice. Monitoringis undertaken on an annual cycle within whichinformation is transmitted upwards with increasingselectivity through programme, school and facultylevels to the University. Annual monitoring reports arepresented at University level very late in the year,limiting the opportunity to draw together in a timelyway any consequences for the University as a whole.

111 Over the last three years there have beenprogressively fewer critical comments in externalexaminers' reports, and recent reports confirm thatstandards achieved by the University's students aresimilar to those achieved by students in similarprogrammes elsewhere in UK higher education. TheVice-Chancellor and other key senior members of staffread all external examiners' reports, and the Director ofQuality Audit presents an overview of externalexaminers' comments to the Academic StandardsCommittee. The most recent overview is acomprehensive document, confirming to the Universitythe general good health of academic programmes, andreminding individual subject groups of actionidentified by the external examiners. Individual

external examiners' reports are followed up vigorously,and information is returned from faculties to theUniversity confirming when responses have beenmade. The overview report and the framework withinwhich it is considered seem less effective at initiatingaction on matters of cross-University importance.

112 The University has addressed QAA's Code ofpractice in a comprehensive way. The relation betweenthe Code's precepts and University procedures isaudited by the Academic Standards Committee, whichsometimes establishes working parties set up for thepurpose. Course teams provide evidence that they haveengaged with the subject benchmarks at the point atwhich programmes are validated. New courses arerequired to have programme specifications atvalidation, and at revalidation, so that all courses willeventually have programme specifications. Modulesare calibrated against the SEEC level descriptors, andawards against the QAA's Framework for HigherEducation Qualifications.

113 Student views are routinely sought at modulelevel, and through a system of student representationat faculty and University levels. Research students,however, do not have formal representation onUniversity-level committees. For almost all groups ofstudents, including part-time students, there is aneffective mechanism for students to present their views,and for improvements to be made and to be madeapparent. The University responds to studentspromptly and effectively with personal support, and ithas made innovative use of the connections betweenthe support services it provides direct and thoseprovided by the Students' Union.

114 The University has significantly reduced itsoverseas collaborative partnerships in recent years,though it has decided not to complete an originalintention to reduce them to zero. There is evidence ofconsiderable care in the way in which the University is'managing out' the overseas collaborative programmesthat it is closing. The University has a large array ofstrategic alliances with UK partners, especially localfurther education colleges, and is committed toextending its range of links in this area, in line with itsmission, supported by an effective framework for themanagement of partnerships with strong day-to-daylinks between partner organisations and Universityfaculties. The contracts and memoranda of agreementwith some UK partner institutions contained noreference to residual responsibilities to students in theevent of either partner's withdrawal. The faculties ofthe University are diligent in securing quality andstandards of the provision offered remotely, wheneverpossible using exactly the same assessment materialand machinery used by the 'home' courses. Plans for amerger with Reading College are at an advanced stage.


page 18

115 Following the 'shock to the system' of the 1998QAA special review, the Board of Governors and themanagement of the University have made great stridesin restoring the quality of education for students, andsecuring the standards of the University's awards.Though it made extensive references to the University'sresponses to the critical 1998 special review, the SEDcould legitimately have made greater claims about theimprovements that had taken place, particularly inrelation to the very positive reaction of students topost-1998 arrangements, and the successes of thesubjects and faculties in improving the quality of theireducation in the eyes of their students.

116 This process of recovery has been greatly helpedby the cooperation and commitment of academic staff.The recovery process has required the Vice-Chancellor'sCore Executive to take a very directive role in ensuringthat the University's procedures for quality assuranceare properly fulfilled, and its responses to nationalquality assurance arrangements carefully considered.For the same reasons, the emphasis has been onensuring accountability through these processes. Thereare signs that the faculties are differentially ready totake an increasing part in managing these processeslocally, though the University has not yet been explicitabout the criteria it will use to judge their states ofreadiness. It will, however, be important to developthem in the context of bringing into the University adifferent institution, with different traditions. Inaddition, the University will wish to consider how itcan ensure that the faculties retain a sense ofresponsibility for the whole University as a coherentacademic community, more than a confederation offaculties, and to reflect on how best to enable thefaculties to take their collective responsibility for thecontinuing good management of quality and standards.This will be vital to developing a culture of continuousimprovement that will be self-sustaining. It will beeven more important in the context of the plannedmerger with a large further education college, with adifferent culture of management, different subjects anda different tradition of academic responsibilities inrelation to quality and standards of provision.

117 The findings of this review provide broadconfidence that Thames Valley University is managingeffectively its policies and procedures for determiningand assuring the quality of its educational provisionand the standard of awards granted in its name.

Action points

118 As the University continues to develop itsprocedures for the management of the quality of itsprovision and for the security of its awards, it shouldconsider the advisability of:

i reviewing the terms of reference and membershipsof the subcommittees of Academic Board with aview to best fulfilment of the intended purposes ofthose subcommittees; making fullest use of theirpotential for continuous improvement; andconsolidating the academic ownership of themanagement of quality and standards atUniversity level (paragraphs 29, 34, 51, 56 and 86);

ii developing explicit criteria to enable AcademicBoard to assess the readiness of individualfaculties to accept new responsibilities for theassurance of quality and standards in its stageddevolution of aspects of quality management tofaculty level (paragraphs 37, 52, 60 and 65);

and the desirability of:

iii supporting the growth of the research communitythrough greater research student representation atUniversity level (paragraph 43);

vi presenting the analysis of assessment andmanagement information to academic staff,committees and boards in ways that enable themost effective use of available data (paragraphs 55 and 96);

v ensuring that all faculties impress upon theircollaborative partners the need to observe theUniversity's schedules for quality managementprocedures (paragraph 57);

iv formulating a clearer framework for the trainingand support of tutorial assistants in their teachingrole (paragraph 64).


page 19

Thames Valley University was inaugurated in June 1992. Its origins lie with the Polytechnic of West London which receivedpolytechnic status in July 1991 following the merger of Ealing College of Higher Education, Thames Valley College, andQueen Charlotte's College of Health Care Studies. The London College of Music became part of the Polytechnic in 1991.The University is situated within two sub-regions: West London and the Thames Valley, and has its principal locations inEaling and Slough.

The University's mission is to 'support the aim of widening participation in higher education as a contribution to lifelonglearning, equality and social justice. The University aims to play a significant role in the educational, cultural and economiclife of the region'.

The current academic organisation of the University comprises three faculties, each led by a Pro Vice-Chancellor/Dean:

Faculty of Health and Human Sciences;Faculty of The London College of Music and Media;Faculty of Professional Studies.

Each faculty contains a number of subject groups; each subject group contains a number of programme teams.

Number of students - academic year 2001-02

Headcount

Professional Studies 7,834LCMM 2,847HHS 7,186Total 17,867

Student characteristics [total population]

Gender Full-time Part-time Total

Male 3,567 2,529 6,096Female 5,164 6,607 11,771Total 8,731 9,136 17,867

Mature students

Proportion of full-time undergraduate population aged 21 or over on entry - 74%Proportion of part-time undergraduate population aged 21 or over on entry - 98%

Domicile

UK Other EU Overseas Total

Undergraduate 15,307 181 593 16,081

Postgraduate (Taught) 1,511 27 219 1,757

Postgraduate (Research) 23 0 6 29Total 16,841 208 818 17,867

Institutional Staff 2001 - 2002

Full-time Part-time

Number of staff employed 884 461

Number of academic/research staff 336 353


page 20

Appendix 1*

Thames Valley University: facts and figures 2001-02

*As supplied by Thames Valley University

Validated programmes

External institution Programme title

Ballyfermot College, Dublin BA (Hons) Media and Production ManagementPembrokeshire & Derwin NHS Trust Dip HE & BSc Psycho Social Intervention for Psychosis

Franchised programmes


Apeejay School of Management, India Business Administration (BBA Hons)Apeejay School of Management, India Master of Business AdministrationRM Institute, India BSc (Hons) Hospitality ManagementInformatics, Open Institute, Hong Kong Business Administration (BBA Hons)Informatics College, Malaysia BSc (Hons) Information SystemsInformatics Group, Singapore BSc (Hons) Information SystemsInformatics Holding Ltd, Singapore Business Administration (BBA Hons)Kingston College of Further Education BA (Hons) Digital ArtsKingston College of Further Education BA (Hons) Music Technology Marie Curie Cancer Care Dip HE/BSc (Hons) Cancer Care NursingMarie Curie Cancer Care Dip HE/BSc (Hons) Palliative CareNewry & Kilkeel Institute of FE & HE Adv Dip/BSc (Hons) International Culinary ArtsReading College HND ComputingReading College HND MultimediaReading College HND Music ProductionYozmot College, Israel Business Administration (BBA)Yozmot College, Israel Master of Business Administration

Other collaborative programmes


Kingston College Master of Business Administration (Jointly taught)Reading College Master of Business Administration (Jointly taught) Reading College Computing Foundation Degree (Consortium)Reading College Music & Media Technology Foundation Degree(Consortium)Stratford College Hospitality Management Foundation Degree (Consortium)


page 21

Appendix 2*

List of the University's collaborative partnerships as at December 2002

*As supplied by Thames Valley University

ISBN 1 85824 874 4

© Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education 2003

Published byQuality Assurance Agency for Higher EducationSouthgate HouseSouthgate StreetGloucester GL1 1UB

Tel 01452 557000Fax 01452 557070Web www.qaa.ac.uk

Printed byLinney Direct Digital

The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education isa company limited by guarantee

Date post:	30-Sep-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

The Quality Assurance Agency Promoting higher quality for ... · professional higher education...

Documents