University of Bradford - JULY 2006 · 2012-07-03 · University of Bradford JULY 2006. Preface The...

University of Bradford

JULY 2006

Preface The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) exists to safeguard the public interest insound standards of higher education (HE) qualifications and to encourage continuous improvementin the management of the quality of HE.

To do this QAA carries out reviews of individual HE institutions (universities and colleges of HE). InEngland and Northern Ireland this process is known as institutional audit. QAA operates similar butseparate processes in Scotland and Wales. For institutions that have large and complex provisionoffered through partnerships, QAA conducts collaborative provision audits in addition toinstitutional audits.

The purpose of collaborative provision audit

Collaborative provision audit shares the aims of institutional audit: to meet the public interest inknowing that universities and colleges are:

providing HE, awards and qualifications of an acceptable quality and an appropriate academicstandard, and

exercising their legal powers to award degrees in a proper manner.

Judgements

Collaborative provision audit results in judgements about the institutions being reviewed.Judgements are made about:

the confidence that can reasonably be placed in the soundness of the institution's present andlikely future management of the quality of the academic standards of its awards made throughcollaborative arrangements

the confidence that can reasonably be placed in the present and likely future capacity of theawarding institution to satisfy itself that the learning opportunities offered to students throughits collaborative arrangements are managed effectively and meet its requirements; and

the reliance that can reasonably be placed on the accuracy, integrity, completeness andfrankness of the information that the institution publishes, (or authorises to be published)about the quality of its programmes offered through collaborative provision that lead to itsawards and the standards of those awards.

These judgements are expressed as either broad confidence, limited confidence or no confidenceand are accompanied by examples of good practice and recommendations for improvement.

Nationally agreed standards

Collaborative provision audit uses a set of nationally agreed reference points, known as the'Academic Infrastructure', to consider an institution's standards and quality. These are published byQAA and consist of:

The framework for higher education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (FHEQ),which includes descriptions of different HE qualifications

The Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education

subject benchmark statements, which describe the characteristics of degrees in different subjects

guidelines for preparing programme specifications, which are descriptions of the what is onoffer to students in individual programmes of study. They outline the intended knowledge,skills, understanding and attributes of a student completing that programme. They also givedetails of teaching and assessment methods and link the programme to the FHEQ.

The audit process

Collaborative provision audits are carried out by teams of academics who review the way in whichinstitutions oversee their academic quality and standards. Because they are evaluating their equals,the process is called 'peer review'.

The main elements of collaborative provision audit are:

a preliminary visit by QAA to the institution nine months before the audit visit

a self-evaluation document submitted by the institution four months before the audit visit

a written submission by the student representative body, if they have chosen to do so, fourmonths before the audit visit

a detailed briefing visit to the institution by the audit team six weeks before the audit visit

visits to up to six partner institutions by members of the audit team

the audit visit, which lasts five days

the publication of a report on the audit team's judgements and findings 22 weeks after theaudit visit.

The evidence for the audit

In order to obtain the evidence for its judgement, the audit team carries out a number of activities,including:

reviewing the institution's own internal procedures and documents, such as regulations, policystatements, codes of practice, recruitment publications and minutes of relevant meetings, aswell as the self-evaluation document itself

reviewing the written submission from students

asking questions of relevant staff from the institution and from partners

talking to students from partner institutions about their experiences

exploring how the institution uses the Academic Infrastructure.

The audit team also gathers evidence by focusing on examples of the institution's internal qualityassurance processes at work through visits to partners. In addition, the audit team may focus on aparticular theme that runs throughout the institution's management of its standards and quality.This is known as a 'thematic enquiry'.

From 2004, institutions will be required to publish information about the quality and standards oftheir programmes and awards in a format recommended in document 03/51, Information on qualityand standards in higher education: Final guidance, published by the Higher Education FundingCouncil for England. The audit team reviews how institutions are working towards this requirement.

© The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education 2006

ISBN 1 84482 559 0

All QAA's publications are available on our website www.qaa.ac.uk

Printed copies are available from:Linney DirectAdamswayMansfieldNG18 4FN

Tel 01623 450788Fax 01623 450629Email [email protected]

Registered charity number 1062746

Summary 1

Introduction 1

Outcome of the collaborative provision audit 1

Features of good practice 1

Recommendations for action 2

National reference points 2

Main report 6

Section 1: Introduction 6

The institution and its mission as it relates to collaborative provision 6

Background information 6

The collaborative provision audit process 7

Developments since the institutional audit of the awarding institution 8

Section 2: The collaborative provision audit investigations: the awarding institution's processes for quality management incollaborative provision 10

The awarding institution's strategicapproach to collaborative provision 10

The awarding institution's framework for managing the quality of the students' experience and academicstandards in collaborative provision 10

The awarding institution's intentions forenhancing the management of itscollaborative provision 15

The awarding institution's internal approval, monitoring and reviewarrangements for collaborative provision leading to its awards 17

External participation in internal reviewprocesses for collaborative provision 22

External examiners and their reports in collaborative provision 22

The use made of external reference points in collaborative provision 24

Review and accreditation by externalagencies of programmes leading to the

awarding institution's awards offered through collaborative provision 26

Student representation in collaborativeprovision 26

Feedback from students, graduates and employers 28

Student admission, progression, completion and assessment information for collaborative provision 30

Assurance of the quality of teaching staff in collaborative provision; appointment, appraisal, support and development 33

Assurance of the quality of distributed and distance methods delivered through an arrangement with a partner 34

Learning support resources for students in collaborative provision 36

Academic guidance and personal support for students in collaborativeprovision 38

Section 3: The audit investigations:published information 39

The experience of students in collaborative provision of the publishedinformation available to them 39

Reliability, accuracy and completeness of published information on collaborative provision leading to the awarding institution's awards 41

Findings of the collaborative provision audit 43

The effectiveness of the implementation of the awarding institution's approach to managing its collaborative provision 43

The effectiveness of the awarding institution's procedures for assuring the quality of educational provision in its collaborative provision 45

The effectiveness of the awarding institution's procedures for safeguarding the standards of its awards gained through collaborative provision 49

Contents

The awarding institution's use of theAcademic Infrastructure in the context of its collaborative provision 51

The utility of the CPSED as an illustration of the awarding institution'scapacity to reflect upon its own strengths and limitations in collaborative provision, and to act onthese to enhance quality and safeguard academic standards 51

Commentary on the institution's intentions for the enhancement of itsmanagement of quality and academicstandards in its collaborative provision 52

Reliability of information provided by the awarding institution on its collaborative provision 52

Features of good practice in the management of quality and academicstandards in the awarding institution'scollaborative provision 53

Recommendations for action by the awarding institution 53

Appendix 55

The University of Bradford's response to the collaborative audit report 55

Summary

Introduction

A team of auditors from the Quality AssuranceAgency for Higher Education (QAA) visited theUniversity of Bradford (the University) from 6March to 10 March 2006 to carry out an auditof the collaborative provision offered by theUniversity. The purpose of the audit was toprovide public information on the quality of theprogrammes of study offered by the Universitythrough arrangements with collaborativepartners, and on the discharge of theUniversity's responsibilities as an awarding bodyin assuring the academic standard of its awardsmade through collaborative arrangements.

To arrive at its conclusions the audit team spoketo members of staff of the University and read awide range of documents relating to the waythe University manages the academic aspects ofits collaborative provision. As part of the auditprocess, the team met with three of theUniversity's collaborative partners, in the courseof which it spoke to students on the university'scollaborative programmes and to members ofstaff of the partner institutions.

The words 'academic standards' are used todescribe the level of achievement that a studenthas to reach to gain an award (for example, adegree). It should be at a similar level acrossthe UK.

Academic quality is a way of describing howwell the learning opportunities available tostudents help them to achieve their award. It isabout making sure that appropriate teaching,support, assessment and learning opportunitiesare provided for them.

The term 'collaborative provision' is taken to mean'educational provision leading to an award, or tospecific credit toward an award, of an awardinginstitution delivered and/or supported and/orassessed through an arrangement with a partnerorganisation' (Code of practice for the assurance ofacademic quality and standards in higher education,Section 2: Collaborative provision and flexible anddistributed learning (including e-learning), 2004,paragraph 13, published by QAA).

In an audit of collaborative provision bothacademic standards and academic quality arereviewed.

Outcome of the collaborativeprovision audit

As a result of its investigations, the audit team'sview of the University is that:

broad confidence can reasonably beplaced in the soundness of the University'spresent and likely future management ofthe academic standards of its awardsmade through collaborative arrangements

broad confidence can reasonably beplaced in the present and likely futurecapacity of the University to satisfy itselfthat the learning opportunities offered tostudents through its collaborativearrangements are managed effectively andmeet its requirements.

Features of good practice

The audit team identified the following areas asbeing good practice in the context of theUniversity

the way in which the University'sconventions for furnishing its school-leveland institution-level committees withsupporting information enables them tocheck, from primary data, thatresponsibilities for approval, monitoringand review of programmes and courses,including in collaborative provision, whichhave been delegated to departments,centres, and programme teams, havebeen properly discharged in line with itsstated expectations

the processes used to ensure that, indischarging their substantial duties formonitoring and supporting collaborativeprovision, the workloads of those who actas course coordinators (or theirequivalents) across the University aremonitored, and dynamically adjustedwhen appropriate

the work of the University's CourseApproval and Review Panel and the

Collaborative provision audit: summary

page 1

approval, monitoring and review teamsdrawn from it, which enables experienceof good practice to be shared

the establishment by the School ofManagement of its School Advisory Board,the membership of which includes seniorexternal academic peers, practitioners, andalumni from programmes offered throughcollaborative provision

the steps the University has taken to ensurethat members of staff of its partners in itsregion, who are delivering its collaborativeprovision, have the opportunity to becomeassociate lecturers of the University, and tobenefit from its facilities and learningsupport arrangements

the measured and purposefulmanagement by the University of the roll-out of its virtual learning environment,and the use to which this is being put insupporting collaborative, distance, andflexible learning provision

the induction arrangements adopted byone Centre to prepare postgraduate-levelstudents, whose first language is notEnglish, to work to UK norms; and thesteps taken by the same Centre toprovide back-up learning resources onCD-ROM to compensate for difficultieswith internet access

the way in which prospectus, programme,and other information provided tostudents studying through partnershiplinks, encourages their strong and positiveidentification with the University.

Recommendations for action

The audit team also recommends that theUniversity should consider further action in anumber of areas to ensure that the academicquality of programmes and standards of theawards it offers through collaborativearrangements are maintained. The teamconsiders it advisable that the University should

within its present annual monitoringarrangements for collaborative provision,enable partners to comment formally, and

independently of the course coordinator,on the annual monitoring report

review its internal arrangements forFoundation Degrees offered with itspartners, to ensure that there are noinformal or unintended impediments to progression from FDs to its honours-level awards

continue and complete its review ofstudent representation arrangements, so as to ensure effective and equitablerepresentation for students studying for its awards through partnership links

The audit team considers it desirable that theUniversity should

actively explore ways of enabling studentsstudying through collaborative programmesin the UK and further afield to contribute inperson to course continuation reviews, inorder to afford for them the same level ofparticipation in such reviews as for studentsbased on its campuses.

ensure that its current review of itsengagement with students explicitlyextends to support and otherarrangements for students studying for itsawards through partnership links.

National reference points

To provide further evidence to support itsfindings the audit team also investigated theuse made by the University of the AcademicInfrastructure which the Agency has developedon behalf of the whole of UK higher education.The Academic Infrastructure is a set ofnationally agreed reference points that help todefine both good practice and academicstandards. The findings of the audit suggestthat the University's response to all aspects ofthe Academic Infrastructure has been timelyand appropriate.

In due course, the audit process will include acheck on the reliability of the teaching qualityinformation (TQI) published by institutions inthe format recommended in the HigherEducation Funding Council for England'sdocument 03/51 (HEFCE 03/51), Information


page 2

on quality and standards in higher education: Final guidance. The published information setwill include the recommended summaries ofexternal examiners' reports and of feedbackfrom current students for each programme. The evidence provided for the audit shows that the University has taken the necessarysteps to be able to meet the requirements of HEFCE 03/51.

The audit team was satisfied that theinformation the University and its partners arepublishing currently about the quality of itscollaborative programmes and the standards ofits awards is reliable and that the University ismaking adequate progress towards providingTQI data for its collaborative provision.

Collaborative provision audit: summary

page 3


page 4

Main report

Main report

Section 1: Introduction

The institution and its mission as itrelates to collaborative provision

1 The University of Bradford was establishedby Royal Charter in 1966. It developed fromthe Bradford Institute of Technology (foundedin 1957), which was itself the successor ofBradford Technical College (1882). At the timeof the collaborative provision audit 7,245 full-time undergraduate students and 852 full-timepostgraduates were registered to study for itsawards on its campuses. Programmes of studyleading to these awards are delivered throughthe University's eight schools, which aresupported by two administrative service areas.

2 At the time of this audit the University'sportfolio of collaborative provision comprised awide range of programmes delivered withseven partners in the UK (chiefly within its localregion) and 17 partners overseas. A number ofthe University's awards were being delivered atthis time in collaboration with BradfordCollege, although this provision and thearrangement between the partners was in theprocess of being discontinued.

3 The University's partner links in the UKinclude several leading to the award ofFoundation Degrees (FDs), delivered withfurther education colleges in its home regionand several postgraduate programmes in healthcare. The University's register of its collaborativeprovision shows that the greater part of itspartnership links are overseas in the areas ofundergraduate and postgraduate business andmanagement. At the time of the audit, morethan 4 , 000 students were registered to studyfor the University's awards through partnershiplinks, of whom 154 were studying part time. Of these, almost 800 students were registeredto study for the University's MBA.

4 At the time of the audit the University wasactively developing its portfolio of collaborativeprovision as one means of fulfilling its strategicobjective of 'achieving growth in student

numbers'. This objective included a number ofkey targets, one of which was 'developingpartnerships with institutions locally, nationallyand within Europe and the broader internationalcommunity in order to maximise access andprogression, and to make programmes availableto a wider population'. The University was alsoin the process of implementing a number ofactions as part of its response to the InstitutionalAudit that had taken place in 2003.

5 In December 2005, the University installedas its fifth Chancellor Imran Khan, Leader of the Pakistani Justice Movement. The Universityand its Chancellor have since signalled theirjoint intention for the future to developadditional higher education links betweenBradford and Pakistan.

Background information

6 The published information available forthe collaborative provision audit included thefollowing recent documents:

the report of an overseas collaborativeprovision audit conducted by QAA of apartnership link between the Universityand the Management DevelopmentInstitute of Singapore, published inNovember 2002

the report of the institutional auditconducted by QAA, published inNovember 2003

the reports of an overseas collaborativeprovision audit conducted by QAA of apartnership link between the Universityand the Social Scientists' Association (SriLanka) published in May 2004

the reports of Academic Reviews at thesubject level in the following partnerinstitutions linked to the University

Bradford College: (Social Policy andAdministration and Social Work), April2002; Accountancy; Law (December 2002);Computing; Engineering (April 2003);Allied Health Professions (March 2004)

Calderdale College: Computing, January2003; re-visit Computing, March 2004;Art and Design, June 2004

Collaborative provision audit: main report

page 5


page 6

Wakefield College: Computing;Engineering, June 2002

the reports of a review of FoundationDegree (FD) provision offered at ThomasDanby College leading to the University'sFD award which was undertaken inFebruary 2003 was provided for theinformation of the audit team

the report of a review of FD provisionoffered at Bradford College, WakefieldCollege, Bishop Auckland College andSouth West Durham Training Ltd leadingto the University's FD award wasundertaken in February 2005 andprovided for the information of the audit team.

7 The University provided a self-evaluationdocument (SED) produced by the Universitycovering its arrangements to manage thequality of its collaborative provision andsafeguard the academic standards of theassociated awards (CPSED) and gave the auditteam access to its intranet and virtual learningenvironment (VLE) site. It also provided, reportsfrom recent annual course continuationreviews, annual monitoring reports (AMRs) and programme specifications for all provisionincluded in the scope of the visits to partnerlinks (see below).

The collaborative provision auditprocess

8 Following a preliminary meeting betweenmembers of QAA and the University in June2005 it was agreed that the audit wouldinclude three partner links and that theUniversity would support the collaborativeprovision audit by providing a self evaluationdocument (CPSED). This was received by QAA in October 2005 together with a limitedamount of additional information, including its register of collaborative links, which QAAforwarded to the audit team.

9 From the CPSED and the register ofcollaborative links the audit team identifiedthree partner links through which to explorethe University's arrangements to support thequality of its collaborative provision and

safeguard the academic standards of theassociated awards. The University providedQAA with information on the chosen partnerlinks (two of which were outside the UK) atthe beginning of January 2006. Theinformation provided included some frominternal reviews

10 The briefing visit to the University as theawarding institution took place between 24 to 26 January 2006. The audit team wasaccompanied for this visit by the QAA AssistantDirector. In the course of the briefing visitmembers of the team were able to check theirunderstanding of the University's CPSEDthrough meetings with staff and students,including a member of the University's StudentsUnion, and students studying with several ofthe University's partners in the region. Theteam was also able to consult a number ofinternal papers made available to it through the University's intranet.

11 At the end of the briefing visit, members of the audit team and the Assistant Directorproposed a programme of meetings for each ofthe three visits to partner links and for the auditvisit. For the 'virtual visits' to two of theUniversity's partners overseas the team agreedwith the University that these would beconducted using the latter's facilities in Bradford.

12 Visits to the University's partner links wereundertaken in the week beginning 13 February2006. One virtual visit was undertaken usingaudio conferencing, the other using videoconferencing. In each case the team was ableto conduct discussions with members of staffbased with the partner and supportingprovision leading to the University's awards,and with students registered for the University'sawards. In addition to the two 'virtual visits',members of the team were able to conductmeetings with students and staff of one of theUniversity's locally-based partners and to meetsome University-based staff supporting therespective links.

13 The visit to the University as the awardinginstitution took place in the week beginning 6 March 2006. In the course of the visit the


page 7

audit team was able to conduct meetings withmembers of staff, to read papers which it hadrequested from the University, and to browse itsintranet. The team is grateful to the University'sstaff, its partners and their staff, and itscollaborative provision students for makingthemselves available to meet it in the course ofthe briefing, partner link and audit visits, and tothe University for its assistance in arranging andsupporting the briefing visit the partner linkvisits and the audit visit.

14 The audit team comprised Ms LBuckingham, Professor J Cowan, Dr J Hostlerand Professor R J Slater, auditors, and Ms MFurness, audit secretary. The audit wascoordinated for QAA by Dr DW Cairns,Development and Enhancement Group.

Developments since the institutionalaudit of the awarding institution

15 The University's institutional audit tookplace in 2003 and included in its scope itspartnership link with Bradford College. Theinstitutional audit report which was publishedin November 2003 expressed the judgementthat 'broad confidence can be placed in thesoundness of the University's current and likelyfuture management of the quality of itsprogrammes and the academic standards ofits awards'. With respect to the University'spartnership links with Bradford College theinstitutional audit report stated thatconfidence 'in the capacity of the University tomanage the quality and standards of theawards in collaborative provision, the focus ofwhich for the purposes of this audit isBradford College (the College), is limited'. Theinstitutional audit report also stated that 'thejudgement on collaborative provision is madein the context of the need to formaliseexisting arrangements'. The audit reportcontinued that in coming to both thesejudgements 'the team considered that thecontinuing validity of the statements ofconfidence is dependent on a fundamentalreview of the University's quality strategy andarrangements for quality assurance'.

16 In the institutional audit report thejudgement of 'limited confidence' was linked toa recommendation that it was 'essential' thatthe University 'on the basis of the evidencerelating to the partnership with the College,reviews and modifies monitoring processes toensure effective oversight of its collaborativeprovision and secures appropriate and formalagreements with the College'.

17 In addition to the matters describedabove, the institutional audit report alsoadvised the University 'without delay' to'progress the work to define assessment levelsto ensure consistent standards across theUniversity; and to 'initiate a review of thestrategy and structures for the management ofquality and standards'. The University was alsoadvised to 'review the effectiveness of thestructures and processes for annual monitoringof academic provision; in collaboration with thestudent body, develop effective and transparentarrangements for student participation in allappropriate quality assurance processes' and'ensure that the current review of the tutorialsystem delivers an effective and appropriatelevel of support across the University'. Theinstitutional audit report also suggested to theUniversity that it would be desirable to'consider how it could improve the extent towhich students feel they are informed of theoutcomes of the feedback they provide and themanner in which it is employed; and considerfurnishing either the Academic PolicyCommittee or the Quality AssuranceSubcommittee with statistical analyses ofstudent progression and completion across thefull range of the University's provision,including that which is offered in partnershipwith other organisations'.

18 In the University's response to theinstitutional audit report to QAA, and in thecollaborative provision self-evaluationdocument (CPSED) it provided for the presentcollaborative provision audit (CPA), it focusedon the action plans it had developed to addressboth the matters raised by the judgement oflimited confidence associated with its link withBradford College and other recommendations.

Thus, the CPSED described the University'sestablishment of a Continuing CollaborationStrategy Group (CCSG) the role of which wasto bring about a closer alignment of those partsof the University's and College's qualityassurance frameworks which dealt withprovision delivered by the College leading tothe University's awards. The institutional auditreport had noted the decision of the Universityand the College not to proceed with theirplanned merger. Subsequently, the Universityand the College also decided to end theirpartnership link and the University has sincefocused its attention on monitoring theprogress of students at the College whocontinued to be registered for its awards. Thismonitoring is undertaken under the directsupervision of Senate.

19 In addition to the measures describedabove, following the institutional audit theUniversity undertook a review of the costs andrisks associated more generally with itscollaborative provision. As a result of this reviewit established a Collaborative Provision AuditCommittee (CPAC), reporting to the CoursePlanning and Review Committee (CPRC) andthence to the Planning and Budgeting Sub-Committee (PBSC) of Planning and ResourcesCommittee (PARC).

20 In December 2004 the University approvedarrangements to enter into formal agreementsof association with some providers of educationand training (chiefly in its home region) and todesignate such partners 'associate colleges'. Thegranting of associate college status signifies theUniversity's preparedness to enter into severalforms of collaboration including delivery of partor all of a programme of study leading to itsaward, sharing of facilities, collaborativeresearch and consultancy.

21 As noted above, the institutional auditrecommended the University to consider theadvisability 'without delay' of initiating 'a reviewof the strategy and structures for themanagement of quality and standards'.Through its considerations of the University'spapers and its discussions with members of staffthe audit team was able to establish that the

University had given this matter someconsideration but had decided to eschewundertaking the 'holistic' review of itsarrangements, suggested at four points in theaudit report, in favour of a gradualist approach.

22 In addition to the inclusion of an elementof its collaborative provision in the institutionalaudit, the University has also participated in anumber of overseas audits of partnership linkssince 2002. Partnership links in India (1997)and in the Gulf States (1998) were the focus ofoverseas audits undertaken by the former HEQCand QAA, respectively. More recently, in 2002the University's arrangements for one of itspartnerships, in Singapore, were audited and in2004 QAA published an overseas audit reporton the University's arrangements for a link in SriLanka. Key comments in these more recentreports relate to deficiencies in the University'sapplication of its own procedures; timelyrenewal of contractual arrangements; formalmeans for gathering student feedback; and theworkload of course coordinators. To set againstthese observations, the reports also noted manypositive features, including work beingundertaken to strengthen the University'smanagement of partnership links; itscommitment to comparability in the students'learning experiences between its students inthe UK and elsewhere; and the attachment ofits students to the University, which had alsobeen noted in earlier overseas audit reports onthe University's partnership links.

23 The CPSED discussed each of the previousoverseas audit reports, noting that theUniversity 'had responded positively' to thefindings of each and 'learning from them wherenecessary and addressing identifiedweaknesses'. The evidence cited in the CPSEDto support this statement referred chiefly to theestablishment of CPAC but also referred to anumber of meetings which had been convenedto address particular matters, following upparticular overseas audit reports and moregenerally addressing the workload and role ofthe course coordinators. On the basis of theevidence it saw in the University's papers, andits discussions with members of the University,


page 8


page 9

the audit team came to the view that themeasures the University had taken to addressthe difficulties identified in its arrangementswith Bradford College demonstrated itscommitment to rectify anomalies in the qualitymanagement arrangements between the twoinstitutions, and to safeguard the academicstandards of its awards. Likewise, there weregood grounds to accept the University's viewthat it had taken careful note of the findings ofQAA reports (including the institutional auditreport) and had responded suitably to them.

Section 2: The collaborativeprovision audit investigations:the awarding institution'sprocesses for qualitymanagement in collaborativeprovision

The awarding institution's strategicapproach to collaborative provision

24 The CPSED highlighted two significantdevelopments in the University's approach tocollaborative provision, one being the cessationof its earlier plans for a merger with BradfordCollege, the other being its adoption of a morestrategic approach towards its collaborativeprovision. According to the CPSED, theUniversity's collaborative provision had formerlybeen 'allowed to grow organically from thoseareas of the University that perceived mostbenefit in terms of academic exchange and thegeneration of discretionary income'. Thisapproach had since been replaced by aconscious desire on the part of the University toalign the development of collaborativeprovision with objectives and priorities in itsStrategic Plan. Of these, one priority wasfurther growth in the number of studentregistrations and another was wideningparticipation in higher education. In both areasthe University was actively seeking to developpartnership links and elements of collaborativeprovision which could help it to address thesepriorities, while at the same time bringing to a

close a number of collaborations that wereconsidered to be not well aligned with them, ornot to be cost-effective.

25 At the time of the audit the University wasimplementing this approach by assessingproposals for developments in collaborativeprovision (both new programmes andproposals for new partnership links) againstthree criteria derived from its Strategic Plan.These were: whether the proposal was likely todeepen and strengthen an existing successfulpartnership; whether it contributed to wideningparticipation in higher education; and whetherit contributed to the development of academiclinks with a partner organisation which wouldenhance the University's reputation for highquality teaching and research.

26 Notwithstanding this newer emphasis onstrategic oversight and direction, the auditteam was told that the 'engine' for developingcollaborative provision remained with individualschools. Throughout the audit, the team alsolearned that each school was seen as havingdeveloped its own distinct 'brand' and that themaintenance of the identity of these brandswas considered to be important for marketingand student recruitment. Overall, the teamcame to the view that the University's approachto the development of its collaborativeprovision took the form of discipline-levelinitiatives managed within an institutional-levelframework of strategic priorities.

The awarding institution's frameworkfor managing the quality of thestudents' experience and academicstandards in collaborative provision

27 The University's approach to managingthe quality of the students' experience andacademic standards in collaborative provision is founded on its commitment to ensure the'comparability of the learning experience,equivalence in academic standards and theproper enforcement of the principle of Duty ofAcademic Care for all students registered onUniversity of Bradford courses, wherever taught'which is set out at the beginning of the

collaborative provision section of its QualityAssurance Handbook (the Handbook). This statesthat the achievement of such comparabilityshould be seen as 'the responsibility of bothpartners', although the CPSED commented thatthe balance of responsibilities between theUniversity and the partner might vary indifferent partnerships.

28 The University's general approach tomanaging the academic standards and qualityof the students' learning experience incollaborative provision was described in theCPSED as being to 'follow the practice forcourses delivered on-site by the University, with amendments and extensions to existingpractices only… where necessary to reflect theinvolvement of partners'. However the auditteam learned that another factor underlyingsuch 'amendments and extensions to existingpractices' derived from the University'sawareness that in comparison with provisiondelivered on its own campuses, collaborativeprovision carried additional risks. So, forexample, the annual monitoring procedure forcollaborative provision had been augmented by the inclusion of a formal risk assessment andthe team was told by senior members of theUniversity that any proposals for changes to its quality management procedures forcollaborative provision would be informed byrisk management procedures. The teamconsidered that this approach was fullyconsistent with the advice of the Code ofpractice for the assurance of academic quality andstandards in higher education (Code of practice),Section2: Collaborative provision and flexible anddistributed learning (including e-learning),published by QAA.

29 The University's deliberative arrangementsfor managing the quality of the students'learning experiences and the academicstandards of its awards in its collaborativeprovision operate at several levels. At thehighest level, Senate is the University's supremeauthority for academic matters and the Councilis responsible for resources and related matters.There are tiers of committees supporting thework of each of these bodies and the University

has established a number of joint committeesof Senate and Council to bring together theconsideration of resource matters and academicpolicy, where appropriate.

30 To assist it in discharging itsresponsibilities for quality and academicstandards Senate has delegated responsibilityfor many of these matters to its AcademicPolicy Committee (APC), which reports directlyto it. Below APC, and reporting to it, a numberof committees and groups, including theLearning and Teaching Sub Committee (LTSC)and CPAC, provide it with the detailedinformation needed to monitor qualitymanagement and academic standards. Theremit of LTSC was revised in September 2005and relates to quality enhancement,developments in pedagogy, staff development,and learning support resources.

31 As noted earlier, CPAC was established inNovember 2004 and amongst other matters ischarged with considering proposals for newcollaborative programmes; reviewing existingagreements and discussing strategic policyissues relating to collaborative provision. Themembership of CPAC includes the Deputy ViceChancellor, the Pro Vice-Chancellor withresponsibility for Learning and Teaching, aDean, the University's Senior Assistant Secretary,the Assistant Registrar with responsibility for thequality assurance of partnership provision, acourse coordinator (see below) andrepresentatives from the University's Finance,Marketing and International Offices.

32 CPAC was established following theinstitutional audit and its formation wasreferred to in the University's response to QAAon the outcomes of the audit. The CPSEDnoted the University's view, however, that theestablishment of CPAC should be seen as theformalisation of a pre-existing group which hadconsidered collaborative provision initiatives ona regular basis. CPAC reports to APC, and thusto Senate and, where matters of resources areconcerned, to PARC, a joint committee ofCouncil and Senate. Although CPAC reports to PARC through several intermediaries, theinclusion of two senior officers in its


page 10

membership, who are key members of theUniversity's Senior Management Group (SMG),enables the latter to monitor closelydevelopments in the University's collaborativeprovision, including proposals for newpartnership links.

33 The institutional audit report came to theview that the University's committee structurefor quality assurance and academic standardsmatters was 'complex and strongly hierarchical',and it recommended this structure should bereviewed. The CPSED stated that, havingundertaken this review, the University hadsimplified its committee structures by theremoval of one tier of the hierarchy, the formerQuality Assurance Sub-Committee (QASC) ofAcademic Policy Committee, with the latterlargely assuming the former QASC'sresponsibilities. Notwithstanding this change,the audit team considered that to externalobservers, the structure remained complex. Italso noted, however, that each of the variouscommittees had clear terms of reference, thatthey seemed to work together effectively, andthat their business was conducted in an orderlymanner. The team found support for its view ofthe orderly effectiveness of the University'scommittee arrangements in the way in whichthe University's conventions ensure that school-level and institution-level committees arefurnished with supporting information. Thisenables senior committees in the hierarchy tocheck, from primary data - such as external andinternal examiners' reports, minutes of staff-student committees, progression and awardsdata - that responsibilities for approval,monitoring and review of programmes andcourses, delegated to departments, centres,and programme teams, have been properlydischarged in line with the University's statedexpectations. In the view of the team theprovision of such primary data to committees,to accompany the associated reports,constitutes a feature of good practice.

34 The CPSED explained that in addition tomeetings of CPAC, LTSC and their seniorcommittees, there were other regular meetingsat which collaborative provision and its

management were considered including, forexample, the University's Senior ManagementGroup (SMG). This advises the Vice Chancellorand others with executive authority about theperformance of their executive roles and helpsto ensure appropriate collaboration onexecutive decisions and meetings. SMG alsoreceives regular reports on the development ofnew proposals for collaborative provision andpartner links. The CPSED also noted thecontributions of the Associate Deans (Learningand Teaching) of the various schools to themanagement and development of provision,including collaborative provision, and that theymet the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Learning andTeaching) each month.

35 From its consideration of the University'spapers and from its discussions with membersof staff the audit team was able to appreciatethe wide-ranging responsibilities of theAssociate Deans. They are expected to exerciseoperational responsibility for quality assurance,quality enhancement and staff development intheir respective schools, and to oversee thestrategies of the latter for these areas. Onepaper seen by the audit team described therole of the Associate Deans (Learning andTeaching) with respect to their areas ofresponsibility as 'pivotal' - a view from whichthe team would not dissent.

36 For individual partnerships the member of staff occupying the position of coursecoordinator fulfils a key role: the CPSEDdescribed the responsibilities of the coursecoordinator as undertaking 'all necessary liaisonwith the partner institution'. The coursecoordinators' detailed role description istherefore wide-ranging, and includes liaisonwith and between the partner and the 'home'school (in which they are normally based) andoverseeing and monitoring the programme(s)to which they are attached. They are alsoexpected to provide information, advice andguidance for the partner, and to support thedevelopment of the partnership programmeand any associated staff development. Theaudit team was told that the role broughttogether functions which, for programmes


page 11

delivered on the University's campuses, weresometimes fulfilled by a team of staff, and thatthe central focus of the course coordinators'role was about enabling communication andmutual understanding between the Universityand its partners.

37 Members of the University told the auditteam that one important task for the coursecoordinators was to help partner institutionsdevelop their own practice and capacity todeliver higher education provision and thatthey were assisted in this by other Universitystaff. From its exchanges with members of theUniversity and from the latter's papers, theteam learned that there were frequent contactsbetween course coordinators and otherUniversity staff with most partners at severallevels. For example, in some forms ofcollaborative provision academic staffcontributed directly to programme delivery atthe partner institution, and visits by AssociateDeans and Deans to partners took place fromtime to time.

38 Successive HEQC and QAA overseas auditreports of the University's collaborativeprovision have expressed concerns about therange and number of the requirements it haslaid upon its course coordinators, andquestioned whether the burdens that theserepresented could be satisfactorily discharged.Responding to these concerns in the CPSED,the University stated its view that the workloadof these staff was manageable 'so long as thecoordinator has access to appropriate school-level and central support'. The team was told ofseveral ways in which practical support wasprovided for coordinators by schools and bycentral services of the University. Theseincluded support on some visits to partners byDeans, the provision of an induction by anexperienced course coordinator for staff new tothe role together with mentoring in their earlywork, again by one or more experienced coursecoordinators, and the development of what isto be an annual staff conference for coursecoordinators. Additionally, the team noted thatseveral of the staff development opportunitiesbeing made available by the Staff Development

Unit (SDU) would be helpful to coursecoordinators (see also below, paragraph 138).The team came to the view that thesedevelopments provided helpful evidence of the University's intention to keep the coursecoordinator role under review, to providesupport for this group of staff tailored to theirneeds, and represented a positive response toconcerns expressed in earlier QAA reports.

39 The audit team was able to meet severalcourse coordinators from a number of schools,from whom it learned that they were requiredto record the time they expended on fulfillingtheir role, so that the University could recordthis as a cost against the income received fromthe particular partnership link. The team wasalso told that, as the time commitment for anindividual course coordinator increased (forexample, as a partnership programmeexpanded and developed), their overallworkload would be adjusted by the relevantschool to reflect this. For example, through avirtual visit that the team was able to conductwith one of the University's partners, it was ableto learn about the systems instituted by oneschool to track and coordinate all visits by itsstaff to partner institutions. The teamconsidered that the course coordinators weremaking an important and effective contributionto safeguarding the academic standards andmanaging the quality of the students' learningexperiences in the University's collaborativeprovision. It came to the view that in theinstances it saw, the University was usingeffective means to make allowance for thecourse coordinators' changing commitments,and thereby to manage their workloads, andthat this was a feature of good practice.

41 The work of the University's staff andcommittees with partner institutions, their staffand students based with partners and workingfor the University's awards is governed by aframework of policies and procedures which isset out in an extended section of the Handbookwhich is readily accessible (across the Universityand its partners) through the University'sintranet. The CPSED stated that the Handbookwas subject to continuing review and updating,


page 12

and whilst the audit team found one instancewhere the terms of reference for a keycommittee needed to be updated, overall theteam came to the view that the Handbook and,more particularly, the section which providedguidance on quality assurance and academicstandards arrangements for collaborativeprovision, constituted a clear and useful guideto the University's expectations andrequirements. From its conversations withmembers of staff in partner institutions theteam was also able to confirm that they hadready access to the Handbook. The team notedthat the University had also established adedicated web page for partner institutionswith links to information on its schools, theirprogrammes, and the University's qualityassurance and academic standardsarrangements, and considered this was ahelpful initiative.

42 In order to safeguard the academicstandards of awards towards which students in its partner links are working, the Universityaims to operate assessment practices that are,as far as possible, identical to those forprogrammes which it offers on its owncampuses. For example, the CPSED stated thatwhere students are studying on programmeswhich the University has franchised to apartner the associated assessments generallyfollow the same format as in the programmeoffered on campus. In such cases the results of students studying through partnership linksbased on franchises are considered alongsidethose of their campus-based peers and by thesame assessment committees (see below,paragraph 119).

43 Again, the CPSED emphasised thatwherever possible, the University appoints thesame external examiners to be responsible forthe scrutiny of collaborative and campus-based provision. From its scrutiny of a widerange of reports from external examiners fromschools across the University, together with itsconsideration of a wide sample of annualmonitoring reports (AMRs) for programmesoffered through collaborative provision, theaudit team was able to confirm that

assessment committees routinely receive themarks of students studying throughfranchised programmes in the same format,and in the same dossiers, as campus-basedstudents on the corresponding programmes,and that these arrangements (which seemedto the team to be both effective and robust)enabled the University to maintain parity inthe outcomes being achieved by studentsbased with its partners and those based on its own campuses (see below, paragraph 91).The 2003 report came to the view that theUniversity's assessment arrangements wereoperated in a manner which was consistentwith the advice offered by the Code ofpractice, Section 6: Assessment of students,published by QAA, and the present auditfound that this continued to be the case forthe University's arrangements for itscollaborative provision.

44 The University's arrangements formanaging the quality of students' experiencein CP are described and discussed elsewhere inthis report (see below, paragraph 162) but insummary they comprise arrangements forstudent representation, academic guidanceand personal support, and provision oflearning support resources. The effectivenessof these arrangements is monitored throughthe administration of separate questionnairesat the end of each course unit and the end ofeach programme stage, and by face-to-facemeetings between course coordinators andstudents studying through partnership links.Although the University acknowledgeddifficulties in ensuring a sufficiently high rateof completion of the questionnaires the auditteam saw several instances where studentquestionnaire responses were being usedeffectively to inform quality management andit heard of valuable contacts between coursecoordinators and students. From this evidence,and from other sources of data detailed inlater sections of this report, the teamconcluded that the University's arrangementsfor managing the quality of students'experience were effective.


page 13

Summary45 Overall, the audit team came to the viewthat while the University's qualitymanagement and academic standardsarrangements for its collaborative provisionremained multi-layered and complex, this didnot appear to detract from their generaleffectiveness, and that it was for the Universityto determine the arrangements it wished tohave in place. The institution of CPAC seemedto the team to have substantially remedied the absence in the University's formerarrangements of means, at the centre, tomonitor the general development of itscollaborative provision portfolio, while itsarticulation of the need to move to a morestrategic direction in the development of theportfolio - without unduly fettering theinitiative it allows to its schools - seemed inaccord with the University's ethos.

46 The University has reflected on thefindings of the institutional audit and hasworked purposefully to strengthen thealignment of Bradford College's qualityarrangements with its own as it withdrawsfrom that partnership. Likewise, the Universityhas reflected on the findings of earlieroverseas audit reports with respect to theworkloads of its course coordinators, and themeasures which have been taken to monitorthese workloads, and to make dynamicadjustments to the overall responsibilities ofthe coordinators seemed to the audit team torepresent a feature of good practice.Furthermore, the team took the view that theUniversity's convention of providing itscommittees with data to enable them toconfirm that partners, officers and committeeshave discharged their responsibilities in linewith its expectations, was not only a feature of good practice in itself, but that it provideda sound basis for confidence in the University'spresent and likely future management of thequality of students' learning experiences incollaborative provision and the academicstandards of the associated awards.

The awarding institution's intentionsfor enhancing the management of itscollaborative provision

47 The CPSED described the arrangementsthrough which the University considered itenhanced its quality and academic standardsmanagement arrangements, and stated thatwhile the institutional audit and (to a lesserextent) overseas audit had providedopportunities for reflection and consideration,in its view, it had built 'into its standardworking life reflective processes so thatenhancement is continuous'. The CPSEDidentified the annual meetings of theUniversity's Course Approval and Review Panel(CARP) as providing one set of opportunities forsuch reflective processes, but anticipated thatthe meetings of the newly established CPACwould provide opportunities for the evolutionof management practice 'over time' in areaswhich would include the following:

the development of a formal definition ofthe functions to be overseen orundertaken by a course coordinator , withenhanced induction for coursecoordinators and better mechanisms forthe dissemination of good practicebetween coordinators

the establishment of a working group toreview the quality assurance of theUniversity's collaborative provision. Theintention being to update the University'squality assurance arrangements forcollaborative provision in the light of 'thepast year's reflections', the fitness forpurpose of current support mechanisms,and revisions to the Code of practice,Section 2.

the enhancement of institutional oversightof collaborative provision 'in its totality'

raising awareness of collaborativeprovision across the University 'so that anydevelopments of the University's [qualityassurance and enhancement] processes, or developments in connection with thestudent experience' are undertaken withan awareness of the needs andrequirements of collaborative provision


page 14


page 15

ensuring that the place of collaborativeprovision is explicitly considered in thereformed annual monitoring report (AMR) process

considering ways in which studentrepresentation and feedback fromstudents based with its partners, andfollowing programmes leading to theUniversity's awards, 'may be enhancedand further facilitated'

implementing new costing arrangementsin connection with collaborative provision

improving the use of 'key performanceindicators' for collaborative provision toinform its management and monitoring

enhancing the process of reviewingcontracts for collaborative provisionarrangements in particular to ensurebetter alignment with the University'sprocess of course continuation review.

48 In a number of cases the audit team wasable to confirm that the University's intentionsfor the enhancement of its collaborativeprovision arrangements as listed in the CPSEDand cited above were being taken forward. Forexample, Senate had recently confirmed newterms of reference for the course coordinatorsand a seminar had been convened for coursecoordinators in January 2006 entitled 'Sharingof Good Practice in Collaborative Provision'which is intended to take place annually.

49 The audit team was also able to confirmthat a working group had been established toreview and update the University's qualityassurance arrangements for its collaborativeprovision. This working group had producedan update to the Handbook with respect toquality assurance arrangements forcollaborative provision, which hadsubsequently been approved by APC andSenate in October 2005. At the same meeting,Senate also approved a new version of thestandard form for reports by externalexaminers, which had been modified to ensurethat where the external examiner'sresponsibilities include elements ofcollaborative provision, the relevant return

to the University will explicitly comment on theperformance of students studying throughsuch provision.

50 At the time of the audit the University had begun work to raise 'the awareness ofcollaborative provision so that any developmentsof the University's [Quality Assurance andEnhancement] processes, or developments inconnection with the student experience, arecognisant of collaborative provision'. The auditteam was informed that the University wasreviewing its engagement with students throughSenate and that 'during the development of thisprocess the needs of students on collaborativeprovision courses will be explicitly considered'. A paper submitted to Senate which discussedthis matter described the outcomes of aconsultation, intentions for the development ofthe student support framework and a work planfor the period September 2005 to September2006. It made no reference, however to studentsstudying for the University's awards throughpartnership links.

51 Since the institutional audit the Universityhas made significant changes to its annualmonitoring arrangements to devolve greaterresponsibility for the monitoring of taughtprovision to the schools (see below paragraph61). Because the University considers thatcollaborative provision carries more risks thanprovision delivered on campus, these changesto its annual monitoring arrangements do notapply to its collaborative provision, which willcontinue to be monitored both at school leveland at the centre. Accordingly, for the 2005-06session, AMRs were required to identify andaddress any risk factors associated withindividual instances of collaborative provisionand when approved at school-level, andchecked by the Academic Standards andSupport Unit (ASSU), the relevant AMRs,together with the relevant external examiners'reports, were to be reviewed by two cross-University Annual Monitoring Teams (AMTs).

52 The University views the identification anddissemination of good practice in its schools asan important source of enhancement

information for the general improvement ofprogrammes and their delivery. At present, the greater part of the University's expertise in managing collaborative provision, andsupporting students studying for its awardsthrough partnership links has beenaccumulated by its School of Management. As its Strategic Plan makes plain, the Universityintends to expand its portfolio of collaborativeprovision. While the recent introduction ofseminars and conferences for key groups suchas course coordinators, and the meeting notedin paragraph 48, above, provide importantmeans of sharing information on good practicein collaborative provision, it seemed to theteam that, as the University continues todevelop its approaches to the enhancement of its management and student supportarrangements for such provision, it might wishto consider how it could encourage its staff to make better use of the AMR and CCRprocesses to share information on theinnovations they have introduced (see below,paragraph 63).

53 Two HEQC and QAA overseas auditreports on the University's links with partnershave commented respectively on omissions informal agreements and the need for betterarrangements to ensure that such partnershipsare at all times supported by valid contracts. Atthe time of the audit the University was lookingforward to the enhancement of its processes forreviewing contracts which was to be the focusfor a 'sharing good practice' session which hadbeen arranged for March 2006.

54 Overall, it seemed to the audit team thatthe University had identified for itself aprogramme of enhancement activities well-matched to its needs and ethos, and the teamencourages the University to take forward itsplans. In one area, however - ensuring that the needs of students studying for its awardsthrough partner links are explicitly addressed in its review of its engagement with its students- the evidence suggested to the team that theUniversity's actions to date had yet to giveeffect to its stated intentions (see below,paragraph 105).

The awarding institution's internalapproval, monitoring and reviewarrangements for collaborativeprovision leading to its awards

Programme approval55 The University's procedure for approvingnew collaborative programmes is set out fullyin the Handbook and was summarised in theCPSED. There are seven stages in all. The firsttwo ('expressions of interest' and 'preliminarydiscussions') are designed to assess thesuitability of the proposed partnership in thelight of the University's strategic priorities (see above, paragraph 32). Stage three of the process for approving new collaborativeprovision ('approval in principle') is largelyconcerned with assessing the resources andcapability of the partner to share in deliveringthe programme. It involves consideration of a comprehensive self-appraisal documentprepared by the proposed partner, a fully-costed business plan, and reports from externalagencies on the partner's financial standingand so on. When gathered, these data areconsidered by a series of Universitycommittees, beginning with CPAC and endingwith the PARC.

56 The next two stages are part of theUniversity's normal two-stage process for theapproval of new programmes and are describedfurther below. Stage four ('full proposal')focuses on academic aspects of the programmeand is carried out largely by a Course Approvaland Review Team (CART) which reports directto APC. It involves consideration of a detailedprogramme proposal, a report of a site visit tothe partner institution by University staff, andprovision of the curricula vitae of the partnerinstitution staff who it is intended willparticipate in programme delivery. For thisexercise members of CARTs are drawn from thelarger Course Approval and Review Panel(CARP) that provides a pool of University-wideexpertise which can be called on when formingpanels to carry out programme approval,monitoring and review. The membership of aCART invariably includes University staff fromoutside the school promoting the new


page 16

programme, as well as external experts fromother institutions. Consideration of theUniversity's papers, together with its discussionswith members of staff confirmed for the auditteam that when scrutinising proposals for newprogrammes CARTs were able to do so with asignificant degree of independence and rigour.

57 The fifth stage, which follows approval ofthe collaborative programme, establishes aformal contractual agreement with the partner,and stages six and seven comprise the reviewand renewal of existing partnerships. The auditteam saw several examples of thedocumentation required for course approvaland noted that they were generallycomprehensive and detailed, and includedrobust external comment. The team formed theview that in general the approval procedureadopted by the University was rigorous inprinciple and thorough in practice and that itpermitted all aspects of a proposedcollaboration to be considered carefully. In afew cases, however, it seemed to the team thatthe requirements of the approval process forcollaborative provision set out in the Handbook- more specifically, the categories of informationto be provided - were not always suited to theUniversity's wide range of partnerships, not allof which are with educational institutions. Insuch instances, it seemed to the team that therequirements in the Handbook were tooprescriptive to be helpful.

58 Senior members of the University withwhom the audit team discussed this matteragreed with this view and told the team that inpractice the approval procedure focused onthe principle of what was needed rather thanthe detail of statements in the Handbook. Inthis respect, the University might thereforeconsider it wise to import some of thepragmatism of its practice into the guidanceoffered in its Handbook.

59 The University's course approval procedurefor its collaborative provision seemed to theaudit team to be complex, lengthy and time-consuming to complete. This was tacitlyacknowledged by the CPSED when it statedthat 'ideally' the stages of the procedure would

be followed in strict sequence, adding that 'it has sometimes been necessary for SeniorManagement to make a risk judgement aboutthe relative timings of the stages if strategicopportunities are not to be lost'. It appeared tothe team that the complexity and duration ofthe course approval process for collaborativeprovision was such as almost to invite executiveaction to short-circuit it when a rapid responseis needed. One consequence of suchinterventions, however, is that there have beensome irregularities in the finalisation ofcontracts. The complexity of the University'sapproval arrangements is compounded in thatthe procedure requires that there be a separatecontract for each new programme, even whenthe University has already established acollaboration with the partner in question.

60 At the time of the audit the University wasplanning to simplify its approvals procedure fornew collaborative provision by producing asingle 'wrapping' contract when there areseveral existing contracts with a single partner,and by aligning stage six of its procedure(contract review) with the procedure forprogramme review described below. The auditteam encourages the University to explore waysof further simplifying its approval procedureswhich will enable them to accommodatedifferent types of programmes and partnerinstitutions more readily without sacrificing therigour to which they aspire.

Annual monitoring61 As noted in paragraph 51, at the time ofthe audit the University had recently introduceda new procedure for the annual monitoring ofprogrammes delivered on its own campuses,which has devolved responsibility for suchmonitoring to its schools. For collaborativeprovision, however, each programme continuedto be monitored by a procedure involving AMTs,the membership of which is drawn from CARP,members of which are nominated by the Deanof each school and serve for three years, with theopportunity for re-appointment. At the time ofthe audit the University maintained three suchAMTs, each of which reviewed programmesfrom a group of cognate academic schools.


page 17

62 The University's annual monitoringprocedures are fully documented in theHandbook, and the relevant pages on theUniversity's intranet provide templates andguidelines for those compiling AMRs andmembers of AMTs. The audit team was able toconfirm from the University's papers that AMRs(which comprise a tabular description andevaluation of good practice, an evaluation ofhow aims and learning outcomes have beenmet, and a continuing action plan, rolledforward from year to year) are supplementedby stage evaluation questionnaire results,admission, progression, award and destinationstatistics, external examiners' reports anddepartmental and/or University responses, andinclude an executive summary of the businessof staff-student liaison committees.

63 As noted above, AMRs are expected toprovide a tabular description and evaluation ofgood practice. In the course of its discussionswith students and staff based with theUniversity's partners, the audit team heard ofseveral instances of good practice inarrangements to support master's levelstudents based overseas, for example byproviding inductions to introduce them to theacademic expectations of UK taughtpostgraduate programmes. In the context ofthe same link, the team also heard thatstudents were provided with study materials onCD-ROM to provide a backup for those unableto access the University's virtual learningenvironment (see below, paragraph 157 et.seq.). Discussing the arrangements outlinedabove with the members of the University whohad developed them, the team was surprisedto learn that such measures were considered tobe simple common sense and that it had notoccurred to the staff to describe thearrangements as 'good practice' in their AMR.Reflecting on these instances, it seemed to theteam that for AMRs to serve as useful andeffective devices for the dissemination of goodpractice, members of staff may need adviceand assistance from the University on how toevaluate provision for its strengths as well as its weaknesses.

64 The University now requires that AMRs forcollaborative provision should include a riskassessment, the format for which is based on amodel provided by HEFCE. AMRs forcollaborative provision are also expected toprovide details of all staff at the partnerinstitution who have been involved inprogramme delivery. When completed, AMRsare discussed by school learning and teachingcommittees and, if approved, are submittedwith the supporting documentation to therelevant AMT. Oral and written feedback ontheir AMRs is provided to individual schools bythe AMTs, and formal reports of the AMTmeetings are considered by APC.

65 In its discussions with members of theUniversity the audit team learnt that AMRs forcollaborative provision are normally drafted bycourse coordinators, but that it is theUniversity's expectation that these reports willalso be 'owned' by partner institutions. Theteam was told that the reports were notformally 'signed off' by partners, but membersof the University were of the view that theextent and frequency of contact with partnersmeant that a consensus would be achieved.Staff based at the partners with whom the team was able to discuss this matter concurredwith this view.

66 The 2002 report on the University'spartnership in Singapore recommended thatstaff in the University's partner institutionsshould be more directly involved in the AMR.As the University continues to develop itsportfolio of collaborative provision the auditteam considered that this recommendationremains relevant and that the AMR procedurefor collaborative provision could usefully bestrengthened by ensuring that partners haveopportunities to comment on developments inthe previous session independent of theUniversity staff supporting their particular link.The University will therefore wish to considerthe advisability of enabling its partners tocomment formally, and independently of thecourse coordinator, on the contents of theAMRs for programmes with which they are associated.


page 18

67 The University stated that a strength of itscurrent procedures was that the membership ofCARP is drawn from across the institution andthat they meet together regularly to share goodpractice. As noted in paragraph 63, above, aweakness in the present arrangement is thatAMRs do not always identify the strengths inthe way the group of staff responsible for theprovision have structured and manage it which,if reported and disseminated, could assist otherschools and programme teams to enhance theirprovision. Nevertheless, from the materials itwas able to read and the discussions it heldwith members of staff, the audit team came tothe view that the operation of the CARP, whichenables good practice in reviewing to beidentified and disseminated, was itself a featureof good practice.

68 The audit team was therefore concernedby a statement in the CPSED that 'as theUniversity develops new procedures forprocesses such as AMR, it is anticipated that CPwill track these changes'. When discussing thispoint with senior members of the University,the audit team was told that there was 'noprospect' that the University would change theannual monitoring procedures for itscollaborative provision. The team welcomes thisstatement and encourages the University toretain its current, generally robust proceduresfor the annual monitoring of collaborativeprovision, not least because of theopportunities they provide for enhancements tothat provision.

69 Reviewing the University's annualmonitoring arrangements for its collaborativeprovision the audit team noted that despite thestrength of the current arrangements, thereappeared to be no formal mechanism foridentifying annually matters that might arisewhen a number of programmes were deliveredin partnership with a single institution. Theteam considered that the practice followed byAMTs of reviewing AMRs from more than oneschool was undoubtedly helpful, as is theprovision which has been made for a 'midcontract review' of each partnership;notwithstanding these safeguards, however,

the team concluded that there was a possibilitythat issues of overlap or duplication (or, indeed,discrepancies) might not be identified by thecurrent annual monitoring procedure.

70 A recent innovation has been thepreparation by ASSU staff of an overviewdocument, identifying matters that have arisenfrom annual monitoring across the University.The draft report seen by the audit team relatedto six out of 16 AMRs for collaborativeprovision, whereas the University's Register ofits collaborative provision suggests a somewhatlarger number of AMRs might have beenincluded in this exercise. The team was toldthat that this procedure and the finaliseddocument were to be the subject of futurediscussions between the PVC (Learning andTeaching) and Associate Deans (Learning andTeaching). The team suggests that theUniversity may wish to develop thisarrangement further and that it might alsoserve as a convenient means of dealing withmatters which might arise when severalprogrammes are delivered with a single partner.

University of Bradford periodic reviewprocess: Course Continuation Review (CCR)71 The University's preferred term for periodicreview is 'course continuation review' (CCR).CCR takes place at intervals between five andsix years, the precise timing being adjustedwhere appropriate to accord with therequirements of any associated externalaccreditation and aims to review and evaluatethe currency and the quality of the learningexperience provided by the programme(s). CCR applies to all the University's programmes,including collaborative provision but, as withannual monitoring, there are some additionalrequirements to reflect the particularcircumstances of collaborative provision.

72 CCR commences with the preparation by the staff supporting the provision of aprescribed set of materials which comprisesdefinitive course documents (including theprogramme specification); a critical appraisal of the programme written by the course team;AMRs for the period since the initial approval of the programme or the most recent CCR; and


page 19

views of the programme by external peers, the latter including any relevant reports fromprofessional statutory, and regulatory bodiesand from QAA reviews and audits. Theprogramme team's critical appraisal isaccompanied by a strategy and action plan forthe future, assessing the potential of theprogramme in the light of student demand,employment prospects, and so on, andproposing ways in which the programme mightbe further developed and enhanced.

73 As noted earlier, the material gathered forCCR by the course team is scrutinised by aCART, the membership of which is drawn fromthe CARP. The CART meets the schooldepartment or centre staff supporting theprovision to discuss the critical appraisaldocument and the associated information. Aspart of its enquiries, the audit team followedthrough a number of CCR reports fromdifferent schools for provision offered throughpartner links. It was able to confirm that theCCR processes it had tracked had generallyconformed to the University's requirements andthat reports with formal recommendations wereproduced for APC.

74 The audit team saw several examples ofcritical appraisal documents prepared to supportCCRs: some were more descriptive thananalytical; others, however, were exemplary intheir evaluativeness. Discussing the role of suchcritical appraisals in the CCR process with seniormembers of the University, the team found thatthe former shared its assessment of thevariability of the critical appraisals. It was toldthat the University attempted to assist staff indepartments, centres and schools to prepareappropriately critical and evaluative documentsby offering advice and examples informally. Itoccurred to the team that the provision ofearlier and clearer guidance might beappropriate for staff preparing a critical appraisalfor the first time, given its pivotal role in theCCR process. As with AMRs, the team alsoidentified scope for the University to encouragestaff to be more evaluative and candid whensetting out the strengths of their provision, aswell as any potential weaknesses.

75 The 2003 report recommended greaterinvolvement by students in the University'squality management processes, and the auditteam learned that it was now standard practicefor students to participate in coursecontinuation reviews where the provision isdelivered on the University's own campuses. On this matter, the CPSED stated that 'studentsat off-site institutions should be given theopportunity to share their experience of thecourse by means of written feedback'.

76 Members of CARTs who met the auditteam expressed the view that meetings withstudents constituted a valuable feature of CCR;the team was therefore concerned to learnthat opportunities for student participation inCCR might not always extend to thosestudying through collaborative provision. Forexample, in one instance of a CCR undertakenin the current session, there appeared to havebeen no or very limited student participationin the review, as the CCR report itself hadnoted. Exploring this matter further, the teamlearned that meetings with students werenormally included in the programme for CCRsof campus-based programmes, as notedabove while, for programmes deliveredthrough partner links, student participation in CCRs 'by means of written feedback' wasmore usual.

77 The audit team discussed studentparticipation in CCRs with members of theUniversity and was told that the latter did notthink it would be possible for students at off-site locations to participate in CCR meetingswith CARTs. The team found this positiondifficult to accept, since its ownunderstanding of the University's collaborativeprovision had greatly benefited fromdiscussions via video and audio links withstudents overseas and meetings in the UKwhich the University itself had organised. The team therefore advises the University to explore ways of enabling its collaborativeprovision students to contribute directly toCCRs, thus affording them the same level ofparticipation in the process as students oncampus-based programmes.


page 20


page 21

78 Overall, the audit team concluded that theUniversity's procedures for programmeapproval, monitoring and review for itscollaborative provision were well designed andclearly stated, although at times they tended tobe overly prescriptive. The procedures theUniversity follows in these areas are generallyconsistent with the advice of the AcademicInfrastructure. The team saw evidence that theUniversity's procedures were generally carriedout thoroughly and, notwithstanding thedescriptive nature of some of the AMRs it saw,it came to the view the University's AMRprocedures were contributing to assuring thequality and safeguarding the academicstandards of awards achieved via theUniversity's collaborative provision.

79 Additionally, the audit team came to theview that staff compiling AMRs might benefitfrom guidance and support to enable them toidentify strengths as well as areas fordevelopment in the way they handle qualitymanagement and academic standards incollaborative provision. It also considered thatthe way the University made use of theexpertise of CARP members was a particularstrength. The team concluded that, takentogether, these features provided furthergrounds for confidence in the University'scapacity as an awarding body to safeguard theacademic standards of its awards and sustainand enhance the quality of its collaborativeprovision. Overall, it seemed to the team thatthe University's procedures for approving newprogrammes of study for collaborative provisionwere consistent with the advice offered inSections 2 and 7 of the Code of practice:(Collaborative provision and flexible anddistributed learning (including e-learning) andProgramme approval, monitoring and review).

External participation in internalreview processes for collaborativeprovision

80 As noted above, CARP provides theUniversity with a means of allocating 'internalexternal' peers to CARTs and AMTs and theUniversity expects that the membership of

CARTs will predominantly consist of staffexternal to the School. In 2000 the Universitystrengthened its approach to the appointmentof external peers in course approval andreview by requiring their participation and,following publication of the 2003 institutionalaudit report, it amended the wording of itsguidance to require the participation ofexternal peers in CART meetings thusremoving the option to consult the externalpeer member through correspondence. TheCPSED noted that this more robustarrangement had only recently beenintroduced and had yet to be fully evaluated.At the time of the audit it had yet to be usedin the CCR of a collaborative programme.

81 External peer members of CARTs arenormally appointed following consultationsbetween the Dean of the relevant school, thechair of the CART and the Chair of APC. Anexternal peer may be member of the academicstaff of another higher education institution, amember of a relevant professional or statutorybody or a representative of local industry orcommerce. The University expects thatexternal peer members of CARTs should notnormally be current external examiners forprovision associated with the relevant schooland should not have had a connection withthe relevant school for at least three years priorto their appointment.

82 University papers seen by the audit teamemphasised the importance it places onsecuring the participation of 'experts fromwithin and outside the institution' in the workof CARTs. From the samples of externalfeedback on collaborative provision the teamsaw, it was able to confirm the participation ofexternal peers in the work of CARTs chargedwith reviewing collaborative programmes.

83 In addition to its requirement that externalpeer members participate in CCRs, theUniversity's substantial portfolio of vocationalprovision comprises programmes almost all ofwhich are linked in some form to professional,statutory and regulatory bodies. As noted in theCPSED, the larger part of the University's

current portfolio of collaborative provision islinked to its School of Management which inrecent years has been externally reviewed bythe International Accreditation Advisory Boardof the Association of MBAs (June 2005); EQUIS(the European Foundation for ManagementDevelopment) and by QAA through its overseasaudit of the University's partnership link inSingapore, in 2002.

84 Overall, the audit team came to the viewthat the arrangements the University hasadopted since the institutional audit toemphasise its requirement for the participationof external peers in its processes for theapproval of new provision, if applied asintended to its collaborative provision, wouldhave the effect of making its commitment toexternality more clearly demonstrable.

External examiners and their reportsin collaborative provision

85 The University may appoint an externalexaminer to be responsible for individual units(modules) or for whole programmes of study;in some cases the same external examinerperforms both roles. Where the University hasfranchised a programme of study for deliverythrough a partner it is usual for the externalexaminer for the equivalent provision offeredon the University's campuses to act as theexternal examiner for the partnership provision.In these circumstances, arrangements for thenomination, appointment and induction of theexternal examiner follow the University's statedprocedures. For provision which has beendeveloped by a partner, and validated by theUniversity, the external examiners arenominated by the partner, the nomination isvetted by the Dean of the school associatedwith the programme and, if suitable, thenominee is appointed by the University.

86 On appointment, external examinersreceive a comprehensive information packwhich describes their role as 'key arbiters' of thequality and academic standards for theprogramme and/or units to which they areappointed. In a change from arrangements inplace at the time of the institutional audit,

examiners are now required to consider andapprove all assessment tasks in addition toreviewing student work.

87 Newly appointed external examiners areinvited to attend a formal University inductionevent and an induction is provided by theschool with which they are to work. Where theprovision with which the external examiner isto be associated includes an element ofcollaborative provision, this will be addressed inthe school-level induction. The audit teamnoted that in its annual report on externalexamining for 2004-05, ASSU had been able tocite positive feedback received from externalexaminers about the training and inductionsessions provided for them.

88 External examiners are required to sendtheir reports to the office of the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Teaching and Learning) fromwhence they are distributed - in practice byASSU - to the relevant schools, departmentsand centres. The CPSED noted that mostexternal examiners also reported orally atmeetings of the board of examiners and that it was usual for an external examiner to send a copy of their report direct to the relevantschool as well as to the Pro Vice-Chancellor.Where an external examiner has indicated intheir report that a matter requires urgentattention this will be noted by the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Learning and Teaching) and ASSU, and a specific deadline will be set foraction. Action to address routine matters isusually reported through the AMR. Members of the University told the audit team that many schools were in regular contact with their external examiners outside these formal interactions.

89 ASSU prepares an annual summary reportfor APC, drawing out common items or themesin external examiners' reports which mighthave relevance across the University. Thesummary report for 2004-05 was based on thereports from external examiners available toASSU at the time of its compilation, whichcomprised 69 per cent of reports forundergraduate programmes and 68 per cent oftaught postgraduate programmes. While the


page 22

report itself noted that the external examiners'reports for some programmes were required atdifferent times to others, the University will nodoubt wish to see more external examiners'reports included in the ASSU annual summaryreport, to enhance its usefulness and to satisfyitself that all its external examiners' reports arebeing received on time.

90 The ASSU 2004-05 report identifies anumber of positive comments and someconcerns to which suggested responses werelinked. These included that when an externalexaminer has raised concerns, the relevantschool should write to inform her or him of theactions that will be taken to address theirconcerns. Comments and responses to externalexaminers' reports are an integral part of theAMR and, if the relevant AMT considers that aprogramme or a school has not satisfactorilyaddressed any matters raised by an externalexaminer, there are opportunities for it tocomment. The 2003 report noted that inseveral cases external examiners had observedthat they had not received copies of the mostrecent AMR for the programme for which theyhad responsibilities. Subsequently, ASSUassumed responsibility for ensuring that eachexternal examiner receives a copy of therelevant AMR.

91 As noted elsewhere in this report, one ofthe features of the University's AMR and CCRprocesses and, equally, of its assessmentarrangements, is that where provision has beenfranchised for delivery with a partner thequality and assessment information relating tothe franchised provision is considered alongsideinformation for the equivalent provision offeredon the University's campuses. This makes itpossible for the University to compare theprogress of the provision and of studentsstudying for the same award at each locationwhere the provision is delivered. Forinformation from external examiners tocontribute to this process, however, it isnecessary that where their responsibilitiesinclude collaborative provision they should beable to comment on each instance of provisionin such a way that the partner and their

location can be readily identified. To addressthis need, at the time of the audit ASSU hadrecently recommended to APC that thestandard form for external examiner reportsexplicitly refer to collaborative provision and,where appropriate, invite separate commentsfrom each external examiner on provisiondelivered on the University's own campuses andthrough partner links. This seemed to the auditteam to be a useful and necessary step. At thetime of the audit the APC had also resolvedthat the standard form for external examiners'reports be revised to enable the University tomeet the requirements of HEFCE 03/51 forTeaching Quality Information (see below,paragraph 180).

92 Overall, the audit team came to the viewthat the University was taking care to maintainand enhance the robustness of its externalexamining arrangements for its collaborativeprovision and that reports from externalexaminers were regarded as a key means ofsafeguarding the academic standards of itsawards. It was also clear that responses byprogramme teams and schools to mattersraised by external examiners in their reportswere being followed up at the centre withincreasing effectiveness. These findingscontributed to the team's judgement on thepresent and likely future capacity of theUniversity to safeguard the academicstandards of awards achieved throughcollaborative provision.

The use made of external referencepoints in collaborative provision

93 The CPSED stated that the Universitymade use of a number of external referencepoints in managing its collaborative provisionand in safeguarding the academic standards ofits awards. These included the AcademicInfrastructure, comprising the Framework forHigher Education Qualifications (FHEQ), subjectbenchmark statements, programmespecifications, and QAA's Code of practice,together with HEFCE 00/54, 'Higher educationin further education colleges'. The Universityalso makes reference to external reference


page 23

points issued by professional, statutory andregulatory bodies in the form of statements andguidance, as these apply.

94 For collaborative provision the mostnotable way in which the University makesreference to the FHEQ is when approving newprovision or submitting existing provision toCCR. In each case the University requires thestaff supporting the provision to demonstratethat the academic standards of achievement arein alignment with the relevant level descriptorsin the FHEQ. The CPSED stated that theUniversity was confident that in all casesacademic awards gained via collaborativeprovision conformed to the advice of the FHEQ.

95 The 2003 report stated that for eachinstance scrutinised, the standard of studentachievement had been found to beappropriate to the titles of the awards and totheir location within the FHEQ, that theprogramme specifications which had beenseen had set out clearly the aims andobjectives of the provision, and that thelearning outcomes of the programmes wereclear about how they were to be achieved.Likewise, in the discipline audit trails, the 2003report stated that the programmespecifications which had been seen had beenfound to be consistent with the relevantsubject benchmark statements. The 2003report commented on the existence of somevariations in the design and the level of detailprovided in the various programmespecifications which had been seen, whileemphasising that most had beencomprehensive and written in an accessiblestyle. The CPSED noted that followingpublication of the 2003 report a workinggroup, established earlier, had beenreconvened to review the utility of theUniversity's programme specification templateand guidance.

96 As noted in paragraph 7 above, for eachof the partner links included in the scope ofthe collaborative provision audit the Universityprovided the audit team with a range ofmaterials which, in all cases, included theprogramme specifications for the relevant

provision. Following its scrutiny of thesematerials the team concluded that theUniversity was continuing to maintain thealignment of its awards with the FHEQ, tosupport reference to the subject benchmarkstatements in the programme specifications,and that the latter provided suitableinformation on learning outcomes, assessmentcriteria and methods, and progression. Asevidence of the University's continuingreadiness to make use of external referencepoints in maintaining the quality of itsprovision the audit team noted that in June2005 its MBA (which is offered in Bradford andis also offered through a number of itspartnership links) had been accredited by theInternational Accreditation Advisory Board ofthe Association of MBAs (AMBA) which hadexpressed continued confidence in the delivery of the programme by the School of Management.

97 The CPSED stated that the University hadsought to align its quality assurancearrangements for its collaborative provisionwith published codes of practice and guidancesince the former HEQC first published its 'Codeof Practice for Overseas Collaborative Provisionin Higher Education' in 1996. It noted thatwith the issuing of Section 2 of QAA's Code in1999, and its revision in 2004, the Universityhad progressively updated its own regulationsand frameworks to ensure their continuedalignment with QAA's Code. For the mostrecent revision, CPAC had convened a smallworking group to review the University'squality assurance arrangements for itscollaborative provision. The proposed changeshad been approved by Senate in October 2005and, in the view of the audit team, alignedwell with the precepts of the revised Section 2.

98 Overall the audit team came to the viewthat the University was continuing to makesuitable reference to the individual elements ofthe Academic Infrastructure and that whereprofessional, statutory and regulatory bodiesprovided points of reference appropriate to theUniversity's provision, schools also made use ofthese reference points (see over).


page 24

Review and accreditation by externalagencies of programmes leading tothe awarding institution's awardsoffered through collaborativeprovision

99 The CPSED identified a number of caseswhere programmes leading to its awards andoffered through collaborative provision hadbeen subject to review by external agenciesincluding QAA, AMBA (see above), and EQUIS(the European Foundation for ManagementDevelopment). In all cases these reviews hadresulted in judgements of confidence withrespect to quality of the provision and, in thecase of the QAA audits and reviews, theacademic standards of the awards. In all caseswhere an external review had involvedcollaborative provision the audit team was ableto see evidence of the University's responses tothe reports, and to identify action plans toaddress recommendations..

100 A significant number of the Universityawards are subject to professional, statutory andregulatory bodies (PSRB) accreditation. The2003 report stated that the way 'in which theUniversity engages effectively with theaccreditations by external bodies and thesuccessful combination of these events with theinternal approval/review processes is an exampleof good practice'. None of the evidence seen bythe collaborative provision audit team wouldlead it to disagree with this view.

Student representation incollaborative provision

101 The 2003 report advised the University 'incollaboration with the student body' to develop'effective and transparent arrangements forstudent participation in all appropriate qualityassurance processes' and the CPSED highlightedthe consideration of 'ways in which studentrepresentation and feedback may be enhancedand further facilitated' as one of the University'splanned enhancements to the qualitymanagement of its collaborative provision (see above, paragraph 47). For the present,however, it is the University's view that student

representation and feedback 'are simplydifferent aspects of the student voice andshould thus be dealt with together'.Accordingly, the section in the CPSED whichaddressed student representation also dealtwith feedback arrangements although they aredealt with separately in this report (see below).

102 The CPSED emphasised the University'sbelief in the value and importance of studentrepresentation in its quality assurancearrangements, and noted the University'srelations with the Students' Union and thatthe latter was represented all its maincommittees. The CPSED also observed,however that, thus far, the University hadfound it impractical to involve studentsstudying through collaborative provision in itsquality assurance arrangements, in the sameway as it had their campus-based peers, andthat there could be cultural challenges to beovercome when seeking to engage in studentsin collaborative provision, for example, in thework of staff student liaison committees.

103 At the time of the audit, the Handbookstated for the benefit of those proposing andapproving new collaborative programmes thatthe establishment of a staff student liaisoncommittee was a University requirement. Inpractice it appeared to the audit team to havebeen more usual for other (but not alwaysequivalent) arrangements to have been put inplace when approving collaborativeprogrammes. The team recognises the validityof the University's position, that theestablishment of an SSLC may not beappropriate in all partner links. It thereforeencourages the University to revise the wordingon this matter in the Handbook, to accord moreclosely with its usual and more flexible practice,while at the same time retaining the existingemphasis on the importance of establishingfunctioning arrangements for studentrepresentation. In the team's view this isimportant to enable the University to maintainthe comparability of the learning experience forstudents studying for its awards throughpartner links with that of their peers on itscampuses. The team also considers that the


page 25

establishment of functioning studentrepresentation arrangements in partner links isimportant so that, as the awarding institution,the University can continue to be confident that it is satisfactorily discharging its 'Duty ofAcademic Care' to students studying throughsuch links.

104 At the time of the audit, and partly inresponse to the 2003 report, the University hadbegun to review the totality of its engagementswith its students, including its representationarrangements, and a progress report had beensubmitted to Senate in October 2005. In thecourse of the briefing visit the audit team wastold that a representative from the Students'Union was attending meetings of the groupundertaking this work but there was no furtherinformation in the CPSED or in other Universitypapers on how the Students' Union contributedto representation and support arrangements forstudents studying for the University's awardsthrough collaborative arrangements. In themeeting with the team in the briefing visit theStudents' Union was unable to shed any lighton this matter.

105 From its consideration of the University'spapers, including the progress report to Senatenoted above, and from its discussions withmembers of staff, it was not clear to the auditteam that the scope of the University's currentreview of its engagement with its students hadbeen explicitly extended to include studentsstudying for its awards through partner links. As the University takes forward this review of its engagements with its students it would bedesirable to ensure that its scope explicitlyextends to support and other arrangements for students studying for its awards throughcollaborative arrangements.

106 The audit team met students studying forthe University's award in its local region in thecourse of the briefing visit and through one of its visits to partner links. It learned thatstudents studying with the University's partnershad little contact with the University'sStudents' Union (of which the UK-basedstudents are, nonetheless, members). It wastold that should the need arise, class

representatives in partner institutions wouldcontact the Union for assistance and that theywere confident that they would be supported.Again, for collaborative provision offered in theUniversity's local region, elected classrepresentatives attend programme committeemeetings convened at the University, throughwhich they can raise matters and report backto their peers. The class representatives whomet the team told it that they received theminutes of previous committee meetings andan overview of student feedback. Thesematerials had enabled them to brief fellowstudents and engage with matters in their'home' Colleges and relevant developments atthe University. Class representatives who metthe team were unaware, however, that theUniversity expects class representatives such asthemselves to benefit from training, organisedby the Students' Union, and had not receivedthe briefing pack which the latter provides forclass representatives studying on theUniversity's campuses.

107 In meetings with students in the course of the partner link visits, and in meetings withstaff at the University, the audit team discussedrepresentation arrangements for studentsstudying for the University's awards throughpartner links. It was told that students in suchlinks overseas did not have access to advice and support from Students' Union salaried andsabbatical officers when initiating or pursuing a complaint, or an appeal against an academicdecision. The team was subsequently told thatthe University recognised that this matterneeded to be addressed. The team encouragesand advises the University to continue andcomplete its review of student representationarrangements, so as to ensure effective andequitable representation for students studyingfor its awards through partnership links, and to deal with this gap in its representationarrangements at the earliest opportunity, with a view to ensuring that students studying for its awards with its partners, in the UK andoverseas, benefit from student representationarrangements comparable to those available on the University's campuses (see over).


page 26

108 In its meetings with UK-based andoverseas students studying for the University'sawards through partner links the audit teammet active and enthusiastic studentrepresentatives who had been appointed totheir positions through means ranging fromformal election, to self-appointment with theapproval of classmates. UK-based collaborativeprovision students, and some overseas studentswere able to participate in the work of schoolcommittees at the University, and all had readyaccess to the relevant course coordinator.

109 Through its discussions with classrepresentatives based in the University'soverseas partners the audit team heard of avariety of formal and informal methods throughwhich representatives consulted with theirconstituencies and reported back to them.Representatives in centres abroad may havemeetings with the person with executiveresponsibility for the overseas partner, and withvisiting Bradford staff at registration and onother visits. The team heard several examples ofhow matters raised through such channelscould be dealt with quickly and effectively.From the papers provided by the University theteam saw informal notes of visits kept by coursecoordinators, detailing matters and suggestionsraised in meetings with class representativeswhich had been used to brief the partner andto report back to the school and the University.

110 The CPSED stated that the University hadfound that reliance on the studentrepresentation arrangements maintained bypartner institutions might not always beappropriate and, as noted above, it viewsrepresentation arrangements for studentsregistered for its awards as an area requiringfurther work. As it takes forward this work, theUniversity might find that its experience oforganising 'virtual' meetings, between the auditteam and students studying for its awards withits partners, assists it to view such meetings asmore 'practical' for its own purposes, including inCCR, AMR, and other quality-related processes.At the same time, the University might wish toconsider whether the approach described in theCPSED of viewing feedback and representation

arrangements sufficiently differentiates betweenthe two, and encourages students studyingthrough its partner links to view themselves asactive partners in their own learning.

Feedback from students, graduatesand employers

111 The audit team gave particular attentionto two aspects of feedback from students,graduates and employers: first the formativefunction of feedback, in enabling currentstudents to give feedback to the providers ontheir experiences and their concerns; secondthe contribution of feedback to the providerand the awarding institution to support theirevaluation and longer term review andplanning of the provision.

112 As noted above, the CPSED dealt with theUniversity's student representation and feedbackarrangements under one heading, emphasisingthe importance the University places in itsquality management arrangements oncollecting, analysing and responding to studentfeedback. The University's arrangements forcollecting such feedback depend largely onquestionnaires, the format of which has beenrelatively unchanging. In the particular contextof AMR the CPSED acknowledged that theUniversity had experienced difficulties inachieving consistently high return rates forfeedback questionnaires for its collaborativeprovision. Information gathered by theUniversity for its own purposes, which it sharedwith the audit team, showed that a number ofthe University's distance learning programmeshad also reported low questionnaire returnrates. The CPSED noted that the University waspiloting the collection of feedback from distancelearning students via the University's virtuallearning environment (VLE).

113 The CPSED commented on the challengesexperienced by the University in gatheringfeedback from students in some of its partnerlinks, citing differences in cultural expectationsas one reason for this, and adding that suchdifferences needed to be addressed sensitively.The University has responded to suchchallenges by granting individual course


page 27

coordinators the scope to develop feedbackarrangements which, while they are required tobe effective, can be matched to the culturaland other circumstances of the particularpartner link. In its discussions with members ofstaff the audit team heard of the means beingfollowed by individual course coordinators togather feedback from students on partner links.

114 Students studying through partner linkswho encountered the audit team in the courseof its visits to partner links (including thevirtual visits) described how they providedfeedback to the University. The variety ofmeans employed in the partner links includedSSLCs (which appeared to be functioningeffectively for FD students in the University'slocal region) and through module, stage andprogramme questionnaires. Students were alsoable to describe providing feedback to theUniversity through informal meetings of classrepresentatives with the course coordinator(see above), contacts with locally-based andvisiting teaching staff, and e-mail. They toldthe team that the University provided feedbackto them on their performance throughmeetings with members of staff and writtencomments on their assessed work. Where theUniversity's partner link is with an agency orother organisation which, in addition tosupporting the delivery of the collaborativeprovision, also employs the students, the latterand the staff supporting the provision wereable to describe how additional feedback couldbe gathered from students by their linemanagers. In all cases, students who discussedtheir learning with the team were able to citeexamples where the feedback they hadprovided to the University had been used bythe latter, and its partners, to improve theirlearning opportunities.

115 The 2003 report recommended that theUniversity should seek to close the feedbackloop by reporting to students on the actions ithas taken in response to their feedback. Whilethe CPSED recognised the dimensions of thischallenge, it may wish to note that none of thecollaborative provision students who met theaudit team doubted that their feedback to the

University and its partners had the capacity toenable matters of immediate concern to themto be addressed. In several cases the team heardof feedback which had been gathered promptlyand had led to speedy action. In the papersprovided by the University, the team also notedan exemplary and prompt report of feedbackreceived from distance learning students whichhad been used to inform a review by LearningSupport Services (LSS) in relation to theUniversity's Distance Learning Library.

116 In considering the second aspect offeedback, namely its contribution to evaluationand longer term review and planning, the auditteam studied a broad sample of AMRs andCCRs. In these it found ample evidence of theprovision and use of often triangulatedfeedback from sources other thanquestionnaires to inform the University's formalevaluative processes. Where the Universitygathers data from students studying via partnerlinks through questionnaires completed at theend of a stage of study the team was told thatASSU aggregated this data in order to be ableto report on overall trends to LTSC from whichany recommendations would be sent to APC.

117 Other than the first destination survey forhome-based students, the University does notconduct large-scale surveys of its graduates ortheir employers but it considers that the verysatisfactory employment statistics for its formerstudents shows that it has developedemployable graduates. The CPSED stated thatsince the greater part of the University'scollaborative provision is equivalent to homeprovision and is vocational in nature, thedemand for further collaborations from itsestablished partner organizations, some ofwhom are or represent employers, is evidence,if indirect, that these graduates are equallyemployable. The CPSED did, however, note theestablishment of 'advisory boards' by more thanone school, and in the case of the AdvisoryBoard of the School of Management the auditteam noted that its members includedemployers and alumni. This seemed to theteam to represent a feature of good practice.Overall, however, the team came to the view


page 28

that periodic surveys of graduates andemployers might provide a fruitful source ofinformation for the University to draw on as itcontinues to enhance the management of itscollaborative provision.

Student admission, progression,completion and assessmentinformation for collaborativeprovision

118 As with its collaborative provisionarrangements more generally, the Universityseeks to ensure that 'the quality assurancemechanisms which apply to [its collaborativeprovision] follow the practice the coursesdelivered on-site by the University of Bradford,with amendments and extensions to existingpractices only being included where necessaryto reflect the involvement of partners'. Hence, itis the University's expectation that the sameprocedures and approaches will be followed incollaborative provision as in the equivalentcampus-based programmes for the admissionof students, for monitoring and recording theirprogression towards their award and thecompletion of their studies, and for assessingtheir achievements. As part of its overallenquiries the audit team sought to confirm thatthe same approaches are followed forcollaborative and on-campus provision. Overall,it found this to be the case.

119 Data for all registered students of theUniversity are held and administered via theUniversity's Student Administrative InformationNavigation Tracking System (SAINT), which is akey component of its management informationsystems. The audit team was told that there arestill some difficulties to be resolved inattempting to use SAINT to provide data inconnection with collaborative provision, chieflyin connection with the direct registration ofmultiple cohorts with different starting pointswithin one academic session. This can give riseto misleading information with respect to totalnumbers on a programme of studies at certaintimes of the year. The team found that theUniversity was giving this matter its urgentattention. In other respects, however, schools

routinely use (occasionally corrected) figuresfrom SAINT to provide data for use incompiling AMRs and CCRs. In all cases, suchfigures and the uses to which they are put,treat students registered for University awardsand studying with partners as other cohorts,while usually keeping them separate to enabletheir progress to be compared with that ofmembers of other cohorts and of the samecohort but studying elsewhere (see above,paragraph 42). Some AMT papers seen by theteam had noted an absence in AMRs ofadmission statistics; the team encourages theUniversity to continue with its work to ensurethat AMRs include such information.

Admission120 The audit team was able to confirm theposition stated in the CPSED: that coursecoordinators are responsible for ensuring thatstudent admissions by partners to programmesleading to the University's awards are handledin accordance with the latter's requirements.The checks they undertake are on behalf of theDean of the relevant school and includeconfirming that English language competenceand any relevant professional regulatory orstatutory body requirements are met. Englishlanguage standards are judged by test resultsor, in some cases, confirmed through interviewsconducted by the course coordinator. Staff whodiscussed this matter with the team appearedto be unaware that a University-wide policy forEnglish language competence had been settledin 2002-03. The team encourages theUniversity to look into the effectiveness of itscommunications with staff on such matters,and to work towards an effective commoninstitution-wide approach in the interest offairness to all its students and applicants.

121 The University's admission proceduresprovide for applicants to support theirapplications with reference to accredited priorlearning (APL). None of the course coordinatorsfor programmes offered overseas who discussedadmissions arrangements with the audit teamhad had experience of having to deal with suchan application. Course coordinators supportingFDs were, however, able to describe


page 29

circumstances where students applying for suchprogrammes who met the University's formalentrance requirements, and had beeninterviewed, had nonetheless supported theirapplication with a portfolio describing theirexperience. The University informed the teamthat an institution-wide policy for 'EUequivalence' was put in place in February 2006.

122 At the time of the audit, one School wasdeveloping a more fully stated approach to theuse of APL in admitting students to itsprogrammes, including those offered throughpartnerships. Members of the School told theteam that as part of its developing approach toAPL, it was intended that all admissions via APLwould be reported for the information of itsSchool Board. As this School takes forward theseprocedures, the University may wish to considerthe usefulness of disseminating information onits procedures for reporting the use of APL inadmissions decisions, for the benefit of otherschools with developing portfolios ofcollaborative provision and making more widelyknown its policy on 'EU equivalence'.

123 Course coordinators told the audit teamthat the soundness or otherwise of theadmissions requirements set for non-standardapplicants, such as those relying on APL in theirapplications, could best be judged throughprogression statistics. The team understoodhow this check would reveal any laxity inprocedures or how they had been applied, butcould not see how such an approach would beable to identify whether the criteria which hadbeen applied might have been overly strict.

124 For programmes leading to its FD awards,admission criteria and procedures are set by theUniversity, and their administration by partnersis closely monitored by the relevant coursecoordinators. The audit team noted that thereport of a recent QAA FD review had advisedthe University to review and monitor admissionprocedures on the Foundation Degree inEngineering Technology. The audit teamencourages the University to consider whatmeasures might assist it to confirm theconsistency of procedures followed in itsschools and by its partners for monitoring

admissions and rejection decisions on non-standard applications including applicationssupported by APL.

Progression and completion 125 As with its other quality managementprocedures the University follows the sameregulations and procedures for studentprogression, achievement and assessment in itscollaborative provision as for its campus-basedprogrammes. As noted in paragraph 119above, it provides its boards of examiners withinformation which enables them to identifycohorts from different centres but following thesame programme, so that the effectiveness ofarrangements made by particular partners canbe evaluated and so that the consistency of theacademic standards of the associated awardscan be maintained.

126 The 2003 report recommended thatstatistics and analyses regarding progressionand completion, including students studyingfor the University's awards in partnerinstitutions, be reported and discussed in APCor elsewhere. Progression and completion dataare required information in both AMRs andCCRs and from the sample of such reports seenby the audit team it was able to confirm thatthese figures are subject to consideration andconstructive comment. A further level ofmonitoring is provided by ASSU and by CPAC,part of the remit of which is to evaluate therecruitment and retention performance ofexisting courses, on behalf of the University.

127 In two of the student handbooks for FDprogrammes it saw, the audit team noted clearstatements that successful students were able toprogress to a designated honours degreeprogramme and members of the Universitywho met the team confirmed thesearrangements. In the course of the audit,however, the team was told that there waseither not always an appropriate degree towhich FD students could progress. In suchcircumstances student successfully completing aUniversity of Bradford FD could apply for aplace on one of its honours undergraduateprogrammes with the guarantee of an interviewbut not necessarily an offer.


page 30

128 University papers seen by the audit teamstated variously that for the University's FDs'progression will be guaranteed to appropriateexisting honours degrees at Bradford University'and that there will be 'guaranteed articulationwith at least one honours degree programme',while relevant promotional material for one FDstates that 'Successful completion of theFoundation Degree carries with it theopportunity to progress to the final stage of the[named award] and that for another states thata 'seamless progression from the FoundationDegree to the [named award] is possible ...'.The contractual agreements between theUniversity and several of the partners workingwith it to offer FDs do not, however, includereference to articulation with the University'sprogrammes leading to honours awardsalthough it seemed to the team that this hadbeen a condition of the approval for theprogramme. The team therefore advises theUniversity to review its internal arrangementsfor FDs offered with its partners, to ensure thatthere are no informal or unintendedimpediments to progression from FDs to itsHonours-level awards.

Assessment 129 The University states that the responsibilityfor ensuring the equivalence of assessmenttasks undertaken by students studying onprogrammes delivered with partners andstudents studying on its own campuses isdischarged on its behalf by its schools, itsboards of examiners, its external examiners andSenate. The CPSED stated the University'sconfidence that the arrangements it has madethrough these means ensures comparability ofstandards of achievement between itscollaborative provision and provision deliveredon its campuses.

130 Responsibilities for setting and markingassessments are set out in the contractualagreement between the University and eachpartner. Specifications for the terms of suchstatements are laid down in the Handbook. Theaudit team learnt that the University takes careto ensure that where the same programme isoffered through a number of partners the

associated examinations are synchronised toensure the security of the examination processand arrangements are prescribed formoderating marked assessments. TheUniversity's award certificates do notdifferentiate between students who havestudied with a partner and those who havestudied on its campuses.

131 In each instance studied by the auditteam, the assessment tasks undertaken bystudents had been set by University staff, insome cases in consultation with staff deliveringthe relevant programme with the partner. TheCPSED stated that where a programme isoffered at the University and with one or morepartners, the University allows scope forjustified variations in the associated assessmenttasks, subject to the agreement of the relevantexternal examiner. For example, in a fewinstances, coursework components in modulesdelivered at Bradford and in other centres havebeen replaced by examinations. In such cases,the team considered that the University'spresent procedures for authorising changes inassessment tasks and formats are broadlysound, given that they are properly recordedand treated as significant amendments to theprogramme specification.

132 Having considered the wide sample ofevidence to which it had access, it seemed clearto the audit team that students studyingthrough collaborative arrangements undertookassessment tasks which were generally in thesame format as those undertaken by their peersat the University and, that where assessmenttasks were not identical, care had been taken toensure that they were of a comparablestandard. The general robustness of theUniversity's assessment arrangementscontributed to the team's broad confidence inthe University's present and likely futurearrangements to safeguard the academicstandards of its awards.


page 31

Assurance of the quality of teachingstaff in collaborative provision;appointment, appraisal, support anddevelopment

133 The CPSED stated that that the Universityhad devolved 'detailed responsibility' for theselection of teaching staff to its partnerinstitutions, and that it satisfied itself that apotential partner's procedures for appointingstaff were satisfactory in the course of itsprocedures for establishing a collaborativearrangement. As part of the University'sprocedures for approving new programmes ofstudy, partners are expected to provide thecurricula vitae of proposed teaching staff. Forcollaborative programmes CARTs consider staffdevelopment and appraisal procedures for theproposed partner institution. Where changestake place to staffing in partners subsequent toinitial approval, the University expects the Deanof the relevant school to check the suitability ofthe proposed changes with the coursecoordinator and other school staff and, ifsatisfied, to approve them on behalf of theUniversity. In response to the 2002 report theUniversity has adopted the policy that thepartner and the relevant school shouldmaintain a list of teaching staff to be monitoredthrough the AMR.

134 The individual characteristics of theUniversity's partners do not lend themselves to asingle way of monitoring their staffdevelopment arrangements. In most cases, theUniversity expects that this will be done by itscourse coordinators who may undertake peerobservation of teaching in the partner andprovide staff development to support thedelivery of the provision, curriculumdevelopment and other matters, such aschanges in University procedures for assessment.

135 In the course of a visit to a partnerinstitution in the University's local region theaudit team met members of the teaching staffdelivering provision leading to the University'sFD award. They were able to confirm that theyenjoyed strong links with members of theUniversity, and that regular meetings tomoderate assessments and to explore and

develop module descriptors contributed to theirstaff development. As noted elsewhere in thisreport, the audit team considered that therecommendation in the 2002 report, that staffin partner organisations should have improvedopportunities to contribute to the compilationof the AMR for their provision would provide animportant developmental opportunity for suchstaff and should be put into effect.

136 From its conversations with members ofthe University and staff based in its partners andfrom records of e-mail and writtencorrespondence, the audit team was able toconfirm substantial levels of communication andinteraction between staff at several levels, forexample between the course coordinator andthe programme leader in the partner, and theDean of the relevant school and senior officersof the University, and their counterparts inpartners. The development of the University'sVLE has provided its own staff, and staff basedin its partners (including partners overseas), witha medium for exchanging information the useof which is rapidly growing. Staff in partnerinstitutions in the region and who are deliveringprogrammes leading to the University's FDawards have ready access to University-developed materials through the VLE. All suchstaff have been identified by the University as itsassociate lecturers: they have full access to theUniversity's Library and the team was able toconfirm that staff in partners regularly receivedinformation from the University via email andwritten correspondence.

137 In addition to monitoring and encouragingdevelopment for staff delivering provision withits partners, the University has also taken stepsto encourage the provision of staff developmentfor support and administrative staff in partnersin the UK and overseas. The audit team learnedthat some school-based administrative staff andmembers of ASSU were undertaking visits towork with their counterparts in partnerinstitutions overseas.

138 As noted in paragraphs 84-91 in the 2003report, staff development across the Universityand induction arrangements for teaching staffare organised by a central Staff Development


page 32

Unit. In the current session, events offered bythe SDU included sessions with titles such as:'Assuring Quality and Standards ofCollaborative Provision'; 'Sharing Good Practicein Collaborative Provision'; 'Assuring the Qualityand Standards of Off Site Provision' and'Sharing Good Practice for the AnnualMonitoring of Collaborative Provision'.

139 In view of the considerable responsibilitiesand expectations the University vests in itscourse coordinators the audit team inquiredparticularly into the staff support anddevelopment opportunities available to them. Itwas informed that there was no 'handbook' or'guidelines' for the information of coursecoordinators; they do, however, have access towritten terms of reference, and from the currentsession University has inaugurated an annualmeeting, organised by ASSU, for all coursecoordinators and has begun to provideadditional support (see above, paragraph 39).The University's staff appraisal scheme isdescribed in the 2003 report. The performanceof University staff who act as course coordinatorsis included in the scope of this scheme.

140 On the basis of the information availableto it in the University's papers, and from itsdiscussions with members of the University'sstaff and partner-based staff, the audit teamcame to the view that the University wastaking suitable measures to check that itspartners retain appropriately qualified staff todeliver provision leading to its awards and thatthe University facilitates some opportunities, at present chiefly through the coursecoordinators for staff development in itspartners. At the time of the audit theUniversity's VLE was already being used tosupport some staff development opportunitiesin partner institutions. For partnerorganisations based in the region, theUniversity's appointment of those deliveringcollaborative provision leading to its awards as'associate lecturers' together with theenhanced access this gives to its learningresources, makes a helpful contribution totheir sense of identification with the Universityand to their staff development.

141 The audit team also noted the range ofstaff development opportunities available toUniversity staff supporting the delivery ofcollaborative provision through the SDU andthe measures being taken to improve supportand staff development for course coordinatorsand to encourage the University's partners tosupport the development of their staff. Theteam is confident, overall, in the soundness ofthe measures being taken by the University toensure that its partners take appropriate stepsto support and develop staff associated withcollaborative provision leading to theUniversity's awards.

Assurance of the quality ofdistributed and distance methodsdelivered through an arrangementwith a partner

142 Institutional audit reports normally includewithin their scope learning opportunities andtuition delivered through distributed anddistance methods and the 2003 reportcommented on this aspect of the University'swork in some detail. In collaborative provisionaudit, where an awarding institution has chosento work with a partner to support distancelearning, this is included in the scope of theaudit. In this instance, although the CPSEDprovided no information on the University'swork with those of its partners supporting itsdistance learning programmes, once the auditteam had identified its interest in this area, theUniversity helpfully assembled a selection ofpapers and web-based materials to support theteam's work. This enabled the team to confirmthat in some instances of its delivery of flexibleand distributed learning via its VLE theUniversity had adopted a 'blended' approach,whereby students' use of the VLE was beingsupported by locally-based staff, therebybringing such provision within the scope ofcollaborative provision audit.

143 Much of the information sought by theaudit team and provided by the Universityrelated to the latter's development of its VLEand its use to support collaborative provision.For that reason there is some overlap between


page 33

consideration of the VLE in this context, and inthe context of the University's learning supportarrangements (see below, paragraph 157).Since the publication of the 2003 report, notedabove, the University has continued the roll-outof its VLE across the institution. While much ofthe University's efforts in this area are directedto the support of students who are studying onits campuses, from the papers the Universityprovided for the audit team, and from itsdiscussions with members of staff at theUniversity and in partners, it appeared to bethe case that the needs of the University'scollaborative provision were providing a keyimperative for the particular way in which theUniversity was developing the VLE.

144 As noted elsewhere in this report, thecollaborative provision audit process includedtwo 'virtual' visits to partner links outside theUK and from the University's papers the teamwas also able to study how the VLE was beingused to support a UK-based partnershipremote from the University's local region. Ineach case, it was clear to the audit team thatthe University's provision of learningopportunities for students away from itscampuses was becoming increasingly reliant onthe VLE which, in some instances ofcollaborative provision, had come to be themain form of delivering and supportinglearning. Staff and students studying for theUniversity's awards overseas who used its VLEdescribed how it was used it to supportstudents', learning and the various featuresprovided through the VLE which they foundhelpful. These included access to learningsupport materials uploaded by staff inBradford; previous examination papers; onlinediscussions; and feedback on their assignmentsfrom Bradford-based tutors.

145 The collaborative provision students basedin the UK and overseas who discussed their useof the VLE with the audit team were generallysatisfied and confirmed that feedback on theirwork, via the VLE, was almost invariablyforthcoming within the timescales stated in theprogramme and/or module handbooks. Theteam noted that the University had conducted

an evaluation of students' views on the VLE in2004. While the scope of this evaluation hadnot been restricted to students based in partnerlinks, one of the comments to which theUniversity had already responded related to thecost and difficulties experienced by studentsaway from Bradford when retrieving anduploading information to the VLE.

146 The audit team noted in the internalreports and papers the University providedthat increased resources were now beingmade available to support the work of theTeaching Quality Enhancement Group (TQEG),but that the University was alert to the risksthat support for the use of the VLE woulddevolve to groups of enthusiasts, rather thanbecome a mainstream activity expected of allstaff. In the minutes of one School which usesthe VLE to support its collaborative provisionthe team noted the firm line taken toencourage staff to upload learning materials to the VLE promptly.

147 In the course of its studies of theUniversity's use of its VLE to support itscollaborative provision and its flexible, blendedand distance learning, the audit team was ableto establish that care had been taken at allstages to check the development of thisprovision for consistency with the advice of therevised Section 2 of QAA's Code. On theevidence available to it, the team is confidentthat such consistency has been achieved andthat where assessment has been undertaken via the VLE that this has been conducted in amanner consistent with the advice of Section 6of the Code of practice: Assessment of students.

148 The audit team noted that one of therecommendations of the University's 2004evaluation of its VLE had been that theUniversity revise its quality assuranceprocedures generally to ensure theirapplicability to the learning opportunities nowbeing provided through the VLE. As theUniversity continues to develop the use of itsVLE generally, including for its collaborativeprovision, the team encourages it in its movesto give effect to this and otherrecommendations of its 2004 evaluation.


page 34

Learning support resources forstudents in collaborative provision

149 The CPSED stated that from the beginningof a potential partnership the University'sconcern is to ensure that students studyingwith the partner and in that location will have alearning experience which is 'equivalent to thatexperienced by home students'. Accordingly,one of the key activities undertaken prior toapproving a proposed new partnership is acheck on the availability of teaching, library,information and communication technologyand other learning support resources to bemade available before teaching and learningcommences. The availability of adequateresources for existing partnerships is normallychecked through a visit to the proposed partnerby a representative of the home school and bya staff member of the University who is notdirectly involved in developing the proposal.What would constitute adequate resources mayvary between partnerships, given the nature ofthe provision on which each is based. For thatreason, the University's specification of whatwill be required in the way of learning supportresources at the commencement of apartnership is particular to that partnership.

150 From its consideration of the papers ofone School supporting a significant number ofprogrammes delivered with partners, the auditteam was able to establish that such checks oflearning support resources were routinelyconducted. In addition to scrutiny of thelearning support resources available by thesupporting school, the University's Director ofLearning Support Services (LSS) or otherrelevant learning support may also be involved in the consideration of proposed new partnerships.

151 At University level the Planning andBudgeting Sub-Committee (PBSC) isresponsible for ensuring that the home schoolhas sufficient resources to support thedevelopment of the proposed collaboration.This is established through the provision ofdetailed costings on a standard form developedby the University, which include estimates forthe support of the course coordinator.

152 Following its approval of a new partnership,and between CCRs, the University monitors thecontinuing adequacy of the learning supportresources provided to students via reports fromthe course coordinator, who is expected todiscuss these matters with students when visitingthe partner and check on them independently.The course coordinators' findings on the learningsupport resources in the partnership to whichthey are attached are summarised and reportedannually in the AMR. Information providedthrough student feedback questionnairesprovides a further check on the adequacy of thelearning support resources available to them. A draft AMT report dated February 2006, whichthe University made available to the audit teamstated that comments on gaps or insufficienciesin learning support resources represent a themein six of the 16 collaborations it had reviewed.The audit team invites the University to considerwhether the findings of AMT suggest that amore stringent and comprehensive approach to establishing and ensuring the initial andcontinuing adequacy of learning supportresources might be wise and desirable. It alsoseemed possible to the audit team that a closerinvolvement of the partner in the preparation of the AMR might provide opportunities for theUniversity to communicate its views on theprovision of learning support resources more clearly.

153 Students studying for the University'saward who are based with one of its partners in its local region have the same rights ofaccess and borrowing with the Library ascampus-based students. FD students who metthe audit team confirmed that they and theirpeers who were within commuting distance of Bradford were able to use the University'sLibrary and valued their access to it.

154 Shortly before the audit visit, and as partof its routine arrangements, the Universityconducted an online survey of the views ofstudents learning at a distance on the learningresources available to them, with a view toinforming future developments. The results ofthis survey were made available to the auditteam which noted general satisfaction on the


page 35

part of students with the current level of serviceavailable to them (specifically those elementsprovided by LSS). The team was interested tonote that detailed and timely feedback hadbeen provided for students via the VLE on theoutcomes of the survey.

155 The CPSED noted that the introduction ofthe University's VLE had significantly changed theway in which all its students made use of thefacilities offered through Learning SupportServices (LSS) and that this was particularly thecase for students studying at a distance, whetheror not they are based with a partner organisation.Such students now have automated access tobooklists and online resources through the VLE,and the University has appointed a member ofstaff in LSS to provide support for studentsstudying at a distance, supplementing thesupport which subject specialists in the Librarycontinue to provide.

156 In several cases, students studying for theUniversity's awards at a distance may havelimited or intermittent access to the Internet. Inthe case of one group of students where accessto the Internet was limited to those in one ortwo urban centres, the audit team learned thatthe course coordinator and his team at theUniversity had compiled a suite of learningresources on CD-ROM for them. The team wastold by students that the contents of this CD-ROM included journal and other sourcematerials in addition to resources available viathe University's VLE. This was later confirmed bythe course coordinator. The development of thislearning resource, in advance of the first deliveryof the provision, indicated to the team the carewith which those promoting the programmehad assessed the learning environment likely tobe available to their prospective students. Theprovision of such back-up learning resources onCD-ROM to compensate for difficulties withinternet access appear to the team to representa feature of good practice.

The University's development of its VLE anduse of the latter to support collaborativeprovision157 The 2003 report concluded 'that theUniversity was addressing the quality assurance

issues associated with distance learning in anincreasingly coordinated and effective way' andfollowing the audit the University undertook aninternal review of its progress in embedding theuse of its VLE in its activities in 2003. Thisreport together with discussions of its contentsin the Teaching Quality Enhancement Groupindicated a range of views across the Universityabout the progress which had been made,while recognising that the rapid pace ofinternal development of the VLE suggested thatthe University was 'rapidly catching up' withcomparator institutions. The University'sinternal report noted the perception that,among some staff, 'knowledge andunderstanding of effective pedagogicalapproaches to online learning was limited, a view contested by TQEG, although itacknowledged a 'mixed level of audience pre-knowledge' at training and disseminationevents in support of e-learning.

158 On the basis of the University's 2003internal report, and the internal debatefollowing its dissemination, the audit teamcame to the view that the University hadundertaken a searching evaluation of its relativestanding in e-learning, which had enabled it toidentify the scope open to it for developmentin this area, and a range of actions to be taken.These included the progressive roll-out to theschools of the University's chosen VLE, and thecontinuing upgrading of the latter; measures toincrease the effectiveness of SAINT in handlingdata and registrations of students studying viae-learning (see above, paragraph 119); andmeasures to encourage and support staff totake up the development and trainingopportunities available to them, and whichcover technical and pedagogical matters. At thesame time, the University 'revised andstrengthened' its Working Group on Electronicand Distance Learning.

159 The University's determination to addressthe development of e-learning wasconsolidated and endorsed by Senate in June2004 when it implemented the University's 'E-Learning Strategy' together with an associated'E-Learning Implementation Plan'. These


page 36

measures provided the underpinning for theformal drafting, discussion and approval ofstrategies and action plans for e-learning, andthe promotion of staff development in this areaand associated corporate developments.

160 At the time of the collaborative provisionaudit, regular reports and action plans on theprogress being made by each school toimplement use of the VLE in support of teachingand learning, including in collaborativeprovision, were being received and discussed byAPC and LTSC and their school-levelequivalents. The audit team was told by seniormembers of staff that the work of the TQEG hadbeen central to the developments since 2003together with the active support the AssociateDeans had given to the introduction of the VLEinto the work of the schools.

161 Overall, the audit team came to the viewthat the University's learning supportarrangements for students studying for itsawards at a distance, including throughpartnerships, were broadly sound, and that theUniversity's measured and purposefulmanagement of the rollout of its VLE, and theuse to which this is being put in supportingcollaborative, distance, and flexible learningprovision, represented a feature of goodpractice. The recent warning note sounded byan AMT report identifying difficulties withlearning resources as an emerging theme inAMRs suggests the continuing need for theUniversity to keep this area under review. Thecapacity of the University's AMR/AMTprocedure to identify the need to attend to thismatter is, however, reassuring. It might bedesirable, however, for the University to adopta more stringent and comprehensive approachto establishing and ensuring the initial andcontinuing adequacy of learning supportresources for students studying for its awardswith partners.

Academic guidance and personalsupport for students in CP

162 The CPSED stated that, as with learningsupport resources, matters to do with studentsupport and guidance are 'a standard item in all

course approval and is summarised on the eachcourse's programme specifications [sic]'. Part ofthe University's generic expectation in suchmatters is that students studying at a distancewith a partner will have access to academicguidance and support through meetings withlocally-based tutors, particularly in FDs, andwith the course coordinator and other visitingstaff from the home school.

163 In the course of its visits to partner links,including its 'virtual' visits, the audit team wastold by students based in the UK and overseasthat they enjoyed good access to locally-basedstaff but many also spoke of the frequency withwhich they were able to meet the coursecoordinator and other members of theUniversity and emphasised the value they placedon these meetings which provided opportunitiesto seek academic advice and guidance.

164 As noted elsewhere in this report the auditteam was able to meet groups of UK-basedstudents studying with the University's partnersfor its FD award. Academic guidance andpersonal support arrangements for suchstudents were not described in the CPSED butthe team was able to establish that each FDstudent had been assigned to a partner -basedtutor, and that each had the support of amentor in their workplace to support the work-based learning component of their studies.College-based staff working with students onthe University's FDs informed the team that theirsupport for students was monitored on behalf ofthe University by the course coordinator, andthat student support arrangements were alsosubject to monitoring through the qualityprocedures of their own institutions.

165 Through its conversations with studentsand staff based in the University's partners theaudit team heard of the arrangements oneCentre at the University had made with itsoverseas partner to provide a bespokeinduction process for students who were not native English speakers and who werecommencing a taught postgraduateprogramme to familiarise them with thenorms and expectations of a UK higherdegree, including the requirements of


page 37

academic writing in English. The teamconsidered that these arrangementsrepresented a feature of good practice. Allstudents who met the audit team weresatisfied that they had access to the academicguidance and support they might need.

166 Students based with partner organisationsare entitled to make use of the University'scentrally provided student services, whichinclude student counselling and careersguidance. The scope of these services isdescribed in the 2003 report (paragraphs 105-122). Students who discussed their access topersonal support and guidance arrangementswith the audit team were able to cite instanceswhere they or other students had been able torefer matters (chiefly requests for deferments ofassessment submission dates) to the coursecoordinator. All reported satisfaction with theway such requests had been dealt with.

167 The 2003 report came to the view thatthe University had established no 'institutionaloverview of personal tutorial support' and thatit offered no 'centrally produced' guidance onthis matter. It therefore recommended thatthe 'University should take steps to ensure thatthe current review of the tutorial system[which it is undertaking] delivers an effectiveand appropriate level of student supportacross the institution'. Following theinstitutional audit the University convened aSteering Group to review 'the University'sengagement with its students'. At the time ofthe collaborative provision audit, as notedelsewhere in this report, the Steering Grouphad delivered an interim report to Senate.From the contents of that report it seemed tothe audit team that there might be some riskthat the University's review of its engagementwith its students does not explicitly address itsengagement with its collaborative and flexibleand distance learning students. The Universitymight therefore wish to consider thedesirability of ensuring that its current reviewof its engagement with students explicitlyextends to support and other arrangementsfor students studying for its awards throughpartnership links.

Section 3: The auditinvestigations: publishedinformation

The experience of students incollaborative provision of thepublished information available to them

168 The University aims to provide the samekinds of information for students registered forits awards and studying with partners as isprovided for students on its own campuses in keeping with its aim to offer the former 'a comparable student experience to homeprovision' and its expectations in this matter areset out in the Handbook. This views the partneras the primary source of published information,usually provided via prospectuses and websites, together with the University's ownprospectuses and its web site and bespokebooklets and leaflets for specific programmes.

169 As part of the information provided tosupport the audit the University made availablecopies of its undergraduate prospectus andexamples of promotional leaflets and brochuresfor FDs, together with an example of theguidance it provides for applicants for suchawards, including those with National Certificateand/or Diploma Qualifications and materials forseveral of its overseas partnerships. The auditteam was also able to browse partners' web sitesfor their promotional materials. Programmespecifications for all provision offered withpartners and leading to its awards are availableon the University's web site.

170 The CPSED stated that the Universityrelied on the Dean of the home school for eachinstance of collaborative provision, to checkand approve all the associated promotionalmaterials, and noted that Deans are authorisedto veto publication of materials which use or associate the University's name withunapproved statements. The audit team wastold that in practice this responsibility wasusually exercised on behalf of the Dean by the relevant Associate Dean (Learning andTeaching) advised by the course coordinators.


page 38

The team also heard that the Assistant Registrarwith responsibility for collaborative provisionmatters periodically checked the web sites ofthe University's partner organisations to ensurethe accuracy of statements about provision andarrangements linked to the University.

171 The content of the University's pre-enrolment literature and its manner ofaddressing applicants, makes it plain thatstudents are enrolled on the University'sprogrammes (and for validated provision onprogrammes leading to the University'sawards) and, where relevant, alerts them toopportunities to transfer to the University forfurther study. The audit team saw examples ofliterature specifically designed to promoteprogrammes offered via collaborativeprovision. Students following thoseprogrammes who met the team were able toconfirm that the statements in such leafletsand brochures were generally accurate andoffered a fair representation of the provisionand the learning opportunities. From thecontent of the materials it saw and itsdiscussions with students, it seemed to theaudit team that the way in which prospectus,programme, and other information is providedto students studying through partnership linksencourages their strong and positiveidentification with the University and is afeature of good practice.

172 A feature of the material seen was theclear emphasis for applicants that Bradford isthe awarding institution: an approach whichseemed to the audit team to contribute to themeans by which students felt a sense ofbelonging to the University. The team took theview that the way in which the prospectus,programme, and other information provided tostudents studying via collaborative provisionencourages the understanding by students oftheir relationship with the University and thatrepresented a feature of good practice.

173 Once students have registered to study forthe University's award they have access toinformation via the University's student portalto its student intranet. The informationprovided through this source includes course

specific handbooks and the Handbook, whichlinks to programme regulations and proceduresfor student appeals.

174 The audit team was able to browseexamples of handbooks and programmespecifications on the University's intranet and toconfirm the suitability and comprehensivenessof materials such as handbooks for FDs. In eachof its meetings with students studying withpartners the team sought to establish whethertheir experience of the course matched theirexpectations from reading the prospectus priorto entry. Generally, students who discussed thismatter with the team confirmed that this wasso although some FDs students suggested tothe team that they had been given tounderstand that having successfully completedone of the University's FD programmesprogression via an articulation link to anappropriate honours-level programme offeredat the University might not be asstraightforward as the University's promotionalmaterial had given them to understand (seeabove, paragraph 128). In most cases, howeverthe team was able to establish that studentsstudying with the University's partners knewwhere to locate key information - such as thatsetting out assessment criteria and procedures -and that information on making a complaint or an appeal against an academic decision wasavailable to them in their programme andmodule handbooks.

175 Procedures for complaints and appeals areinitially addressed by the partner organisationand, as noted above, are set out in programmehandbooks. The 2002 report on the University'spartnership in Singapore recommended thatthe University's arrangements for handlingacademic appeals from overseas studentsregistered for its awards be changed, so thatstudents could address an appeal directly to theUniversity. The audit team was able to confirmthat the University had made therecommended change to its proceduresfollowing an internal review in early 2003.

176 Overall the audit team was able to confirmthat, in most instances, students studying forthe University's awards with its partners were


page 39

provided with accurate promotional and otherinformation and that this encouraged a strongidentity between students (including studentsoverseas) and the University. Students followingthe University's FDs were, however, unsure oftheir opportunities to progress to honours levelstudies on the successful completion of their FDprogrammes. As noted in paragraph 128above, it would now be advisable for theUniversity to review its internal arrangementsfor FDs offered with its partners, to ensure thatthere are no informal or unintendedimpediments to progression from its FDs to itsHonours-level awards.

Reliability, accuracy and completenessof published information oncollaborative provision leading to theawarding institution's awards

177 At the time of the collaborative provisionaudit the University had taken steps to ensurethat information it had gathered on employers'needs and trends, and its teaching and learningstrategy was available on the TQI site. Theformer makes no specific reference tocollaborative provision, but the latter states that'Future plans to further enhance the quality oflearning and teaching are focussed onassessment, the quality of distributed learningmaterials to distance learners, personal tutoring,particularly to those students who are part-timeremote learners, and quality enhancement inpartner organisations involved in ourcollaborative provision'.

178 The audit team was able to confirm thatthe University's commentary on informationbased on data it had provided to the HigherEducation Statistics Agency (HESA) had beencompleted and lodged with the TQI site, andthat there is a link from the latter throughwhich members of the public can obtaindetailed statistics. As paragraphs 61-70 of thisreport indicate, the University evaluates itseducational provision annually. Readers areinformed that if 'interested in how our studentsprogress on particular awards or in academicdepartments, with what sort of qualificationsthey join us and leave us, and how successful

they are in gaining employment or furtherstudy, then please visit out annual monitoringhomepage'. From there they are directed to alink which takes them to the university's website. At the time of the audit the link to thisinformation appeared inoperative. It seemed to the team, therefore, that it might beappropriate in the circumstances for theUniversity to adjust the wording it has lodgedwith the TQI site to make the status of this linkclear to readers.

179 Periodic review reports including someexamples from collaborative provision from oneschool have been uploaded to the TQI site. Atthe time of the audit, however, collaborativereviews in other subjects had not beencompleted, and were not available on the TQIsite. As part of their reporting responsibilitiesexternal examiners provide statements foruploading to the TQI site on academicstandards, performance and assessment andthese include some reports from collaborativeprovision. The reports meet the statedrequirements for TQI but at the time of theaudit, the University did not provide any detailsfrom the external examiner nor an institutionalcommentary on the reports.

180 The audit team concluded on the basis ofthe evidence available to it that the Universitywas making substantial progress towardsmeeting the requirements of HEFCE 03/51 for its collaborative provision but that workremained to be done in a number of areas to ensure it meets all requirements in full.


page 40

Findings

Findings181 An audit of the collaborative provisionoffered by the University of Bradford (theUniversity) was undertaken during the period 6to 10 March 2006. The purpose of the auditwas to provide public information on thequality of the programmes of study offered bythe University through arrangements withcollaborative partners, and on the discharge ofthe University's responsibility as an awardingbody in assuring the academic standard of itsawards made through collaborativearrangements. As part of the collaborative auditprocess, the audit team conducted visits withthree of the University's collaborative partners.This section of the report summarises thefindings of the audit. It concludes by identifyingfeatures of good practice that emerged duringthe audit, and offering recommendations to theUniversity for action to enhance currentpractice in its collaborative arrangements.

The effectiveness of theimplementation of the awardinginstitution's approach to managingits collaborative provision

182 Overall, the University's present approachto the development of its collaborativeprovision can be considered to take the form of discipline-level initiatives managed within an institutional-level framework of strategicpriorities. The University formerly allowedcollaborative provision to be developed bythose in its schools and centres who haveviewed academic exchanges or 'the generationof discretionary income' as advantageous. More recently the University has emphasised its intention to align the development of itscollaborative provision more closely with theobjectives and priorities it has set for itself in its Strategic Plan namely, to increase thenumber of student registrations and to widenparticipation in higher education.

183 In the University's more recent approachto the development of its collaborativeprovision portfolio, proposals for newcollaborative arrangements are now assessed by

the University against the following criteria:whether the proposal is likely to deepen andstrengthen an existing successful partnership;whether it is likely to contribute to wideningparticipation in higher education; and whetherit will contribute to the development ofacademic links with a partner organisationwhich will enhance the University's reputation.Notwithstanding the University's increasingemphasis on strategic oversight and direction in its collaborative provision, it continues to seethe main impetus for the further developmentof partnership links as coming from its sevenschools. The University's Quality AssuranceHandbook (the Handbook) provides staff in theUniversity and staff and students in its partnerswith authoritative guidance to its proceduresand expectations, which is generally in line with the advice of the Academic Infrastructure.

184 At the heart of the University's approachto the quality and academic standardsmanagement of its collaborative provision is itscommitment to ensure the 'comparability ofthe learning experience, equivalent in academicstandards and the proper enforcement of theprinciple of Duty of Academic Care for allstudents registered on University of Bradfordcourses, wherever taught'. The University'sgeneral approach to managing the academicstandards and quality of students' learningexperiences in collaborative provision and theacademic standards of the associated awards is therefore to 'follow the practice for coursesdelivered on-site by the university, withamendments and extensions to existingpractices only ... where necessary to reflect the involvement of partners'.

185 Following comments in the report of theinstitutional audit the University is undertaking a review of the totality of its arrangements toengage with its students, although the terms ofreference of this review and an interim report onprogress made by summer 2005 do not make itexplicit that its scope includes University'sengagements with students studying for itsawards through collaborative provision. In itson-campus provision the University iscommitted to enabling its students to play a


page 42

more visible part in its quality managementarrangements, through formal representationand feedback arrangements, and throughparticipation in the University's periodic reviewprocess: course continuation review (CCR).

186 At the time of the audit, students studyingfor the University's awards through partner linkswere able to provide feedback to the Universitythrough questionnaires and through a varietyof consultative and representativearrangements. These varied from formal staffstudent liaison committees to formal andinformal meetings with course coordinators.Not all students studying through collaborativearrangements have opportunities to participatein course continuation review, however, and theaudit team considers it advisable that as itcontinues and completes its review of studentrepresentation arrangements the Universityshould ensure effective and equitablerepresentation for students studying for itsawards through partnership links.

187 A central feature of the University's qualitymanagement arrangements for collaborativeprovision is that each programme offeredthrough a partner link is subject to the samequality management procedures as thecorresponding provision delivered at theUniversity for its validation and approval, itsannual monitoring and its periodic review, andis linked to equivalent provision in one of theUniversity's schools, usually designated as the'home' school. Likewise, in the measures it hastaken to secure the academic standards of itsawards the University has sought to ensure thatpointing an external examiner the sameindividual oversees the collaborative provisionand the counterpart offered on the University'scampuses. This principle extends to the work ofthe University's assessment boards, in whichmarks for assessments completed by studentsstudying with partners are scrutinised andmoderated together with the marks of theirpeers studying through the same or equivalentprovision at the University. All assessed workwhich counts towards the University's awards(including all examination scripts) completedby students studying through a partner link is

either marked or moderated by members of theUniversity's staff in the 'home' school.

188 The University recognises thatprogrammes of study offered throughcollaborative provision may pose greater risksthan for provision offered on its own campusesand, whereas it has delegated much of theresponsibility for monitoring and reviewing on-campus provision to each of the schools, it hasmaintained centrally-managed oversightarrangements for the approval of new provisionand for its regular monitoring and periodicreview through the Annual Monitoring Teams(AMTs), the members of which are appointedfrom its Course Approval and Review Panel(CARP). The University is also moving tointroduce more formal academic riskmanagement procedures at all levels.

189 In its quality and academic standardsmanagement arrangements for its collaborativeprovision the University's course coordinatorshave a central responsibility and for eachpartnership the course coordinator (who isnormally based in the 'home' school) acts act asthe main channel of communication betweenthe University and its partner. Previous HEQCand QAA reports on the University's quality andacademic standards arrangements for itscollaborative provision have commented on theburdens the University places on its coursecoordinators. More recently, the University hasadopted measures to enable it to monitor anddynamically adjust the work loads of its coursecoordinators in keeping with theirresponsibilities, and has developed means tosupport newly appointed course coordinatorsby providing informal inductions and moreformal mentoring. It has also started toconvene annual meetings for coursecoordinators to exchange information,including on good practice. In addition to the course coordinators, the Associate Deans(Learning and Teaching) who are responsible ineach school for the quality management of itsprovision and for leading its enhancement arenow playing an increasingly important part insupporting course coordinators and monitoringthe schools' collaborative provision.

Collaborative provision audit: findings

page 43

190 The 2003 institutional audit reportexpressed the view that the University'sarrangements for quality assurance andacademic standards matters were 'complex andstrongly hierarchical'. Since the publication ofthat report the University has removed onelayer in its hierarchy of committees bydisestablishing its Quality Assurance andStandards Committee. It has also, however,established a Collaborative Provision AuditCommittee (CPAC) to provide an identifiableforum where matters relating to collaborativeprovision can be considered and through whichSenate and Council and their dependentcommittees can be informed aboutdevelopments in collaborative provision,including proposed new partnerships.

191 While the University's deliberativearrangements for overseeing the quality of itsprovision and the academic standards of theassociated awards, including in collaborativeprovision, remain complex, each of itscommittees has clear terms of reference,conducts its business in an orderly manner and,as an ensemble, the committees appear towork together effectively. One of theUniversity's conventions for the work of itscommittees is that when considering a reportfrom a subsidiary committee they should beprovided with the primary data on which thereport draws. This enables senior committees inthe University's hierarchy to check thatresponsibilities for overseeing the approval,monitoring and review of programmes andcourses which it has delegated to the schoolshave been properly discharged. The provisionof such primary data, as a matter of routine,represents a feature of good practice.

192 In the University's approach to managingthe quality of students' learning experiences,responsibility is shared with its partners. In allcases, the University sees it as its responsibilityto check that the learning resources studentsneed to undertake their studies are in place atthe beginning of a collaborative programmeand to satisfy itself from time to time that thiscontinues to be the case. In its view it is thepartner's responsibility to provide the learning

resources the University has specified, includingappropriately qualified staff. As collaborativeprogrammes develop it is the responsibility ofthe course coordinators to monitor thatlearning resources and the agreed level ofstudent support arrangements continue to bemade available. The University through itsAcademic Standards and Support Unit (ASSU)has recently begun to analyse annualmonitoring reports (AMRs) which addresscollaborative provision for common themes.This process has identified possible weaknessesin the learning resources available for studentsstudying through collaborative arrangements.The audit team encourages the University tofollow up this work and to consider thedesirability of taking a more stringent andcomprehensive approach to establishing andsecuring the initial and continuing adequacy of learning support resources for provision inpartner organisations leading to its awards.

193 Overall, the audit team came to the viewthat through CPAC the University wasdeveloping measures to enable it to establish a more secure view of proposed newdevelopments in its portfolio of collaborativeprovision and the progress of existing provisionoffered through partnership links. At the sametime, the steps the University is taking to linkthe development of new instances ofcollaborative provision more closely to theobjectives of its Strategic Plan, while continuingto welcome the development of discipline-levelinitiatives from the schools seemed to the teamto represent a pragmatic means of balancingschool-level and institution-level imperatives.

The effectiveness of the awardinginstitution's procedures for assuringthe quality of educational provisionin its collaborative provision

194 Procedures for proposing and beginningthe development of new collaborative provisionare set out in the Handbook and follow sevenstages in which the first two stages provide theUniversity with an opportunity to assess thematch between the proposal and the University'sstrategic priorities. The third stage takes the form


page 44

of an assessment of the learning resources thepartner will be able to make available to supportthe delivery of the provision which is informed by a self appraisal document prepared by theproposed partner, a business plan for theprovision and reports from external financialscrutiny. This report is sent to CPAC which, if satisfied, presents the report and itsrecommendation to PARC for its formal approval.

195 Stage four of the approval process involvesa detailed consideration of all academic aspectsof the proposed programme, carried out by acourse approval and review team (CART) theinternal members of which are appointed frommembers of the CARP. The members of CARTsinclude external peers who have no recentconnection to the school supporting the proposaland, if warranted, may also Include members ofprofessional, statutory or regulatory bodies if thenature of the programme warrants it. Followingapproval of the academic merits of the proposalat the fifth stage of the process the formalcontract with the partner is drawn up andsigned. Stages six and seven of the university'sprocess relate to the review and renewal ofexisting partnerships.

196 The University's approval process for newcollaborative provision is comprehensive andmakes provision for robust external comment.From the sample of such approvals seen by theaudit team it was able to confirm that procedureshad generally been followed scrupulously, but italso found instances where the prescriptivedetails of the process were not well suited to linkswith commercial and other such organisations, orto the pace required by a particular development.In such circumstances the University has had tomake pragmatic adjustments to its standardprocedures and it might now be wise to importsome of this pragmatism into the guidance itoffers in its Handbook. Overall, it seemed to theteam that the University's procedures forapproving new programmes of study forcollaborative provision were consistent with theadvice offered in Sections 2 and 7 of QAA's Code:(Collaborative provision and flexible and distributedlearning (including e-learning) and Programmeapproval, monitoring and review).

197 In the University's approach to the annualmonitoring of its collaborative provision theresponsibility for drawing up the annualmonitoring report (AMR) rests with the coursecoordinator, who is usually based in the 'home'school for the provision. The design for theAMR itself is comprehensive; it aims to describeand evaluate the provision, and to identify howaims and learning outcomes have been metand features of good practice. The standardform for the AMR calls for a rolling action planto be attached. Partner organisations do nothave a formal opportunity to commentseparately on the AMR for the provision theydeliver or help to deliver, although this wasrecommended in the QAA overseas audit reportfor the University's partnership with MDISSingapore in 2002. It would now be advisablefor the University, within its present annualmonitoring arrangements for collaborativeprovision, to enable partners to commentformally, and independently of the coursecoordinator, on the AMR and for thosecomments to be made available to the AMT.

198 Under the University's newly revisedannual monitoring arrangements all AMRs arescrutinised at school level. Where, howeverAMRs relate to collaborative provision they are additionally scrutinised by one of theUniversity's Annual Monitoring Teams (AMTs)the members of which are drawn from theCARP. AMTs undertake rigorous andcomprehensive scrutinies of AMRs formalreports of which are reported to APC. AMTsalso give feedback to the schools which haveprovided the AMRs. It is the University's viewthat CARP and the work of the AMT panelsdrawn from it provides an opportunity toidentify and share good practice a view sharedby the audit team which considers this aspectof the University's quality arrangements to be a feature of good practice.

199 The sample of AMRs provided by theUniversity to support the collaborativeprovision audit included some which werenoticeably evaluative and others in which theapproach taken was more descriptive. Thestandard form for an AMR provides


page 45

opportunities for programme teams to identifyfeatures of good practice in the way they aresupporting and/or delivering the collaborativeprovision. In two of the three partner link visitsthe audit team conducted, it was made aware(and confirmed) instances of good practicewhich had not been identified in the relevantAMRs. The University plans to encourage thosecompleting AMRs to do so in a more evaluativemanner and has similar plans for thosecompleting self-evaluations for CCRs (seebelow). As it seeks to encourage greater selfevaluativeness in those completing AMRs theUniversity may wish to consider advising itsstaff on how to evaluate provision for itsstrengths as well as its weaknesses. This wouldenable one function of the AMR - to provideevidence of good practice for widerdissemination - to be more surely dischargedand thereby increase the capacity of the AMRprocess to support quality enhancement.

200 As noted above, the University hasrecently introduced a University wide review ofAMRs for collaborative provision, conducted byASSU, which is intended to identify commonthemes and weaknesses. The draft report fromthe first such exercise was provided for theaudit team and identified learning resources asa theme common to six out of 16 AMR reportsfor collaborative provision. As the Universityworks to make this overview exercise morecomprehensive by drawing in all AMR reportsfor its collaborative provision, it promises tobecome a valuable quality assurance andenhancement tool. As part of the university'splans to develop its quality arrangements for itscollaborative provision it might also wish toconsider how it might extend its existingannual monitoring arrangements so that whereone partner works with the University to delivera number of collaborative programmes mattersof common interest across these programmecan be more readily identified and addressed.This need will become more significant shouldbe University's intentions for the furtherdevelopment of its collaborative provision leadto circumstances in which partners work withmore than one school.

201 CCRs take place on a regular cycle ofbetween five and six years , the duration of thecycle for each programme being adjusted toalign with any external review requirements. As with the approval of new provision andannual monitoring, the CCR process is set outin the University's Handbook, which requires the programme team to support the CCR byproviding a critical appraisal; the AMRs for theperiod since the initial approval or the previousCCR; views from external peers; and anyreports from external bodies includingprofessional statutory and regulatory bodiesand QAA. This material is reviewed by a panelwhich includes staff drawn from CARP andexternal peers who may be members ofprofessional statutory or regulatory bodies if the provision warrants it.

202 The sample of CCR reports seen by theaudit team showed the same characteristics asits AMRs in that some were descriptive ratherthan analytical while others were exemplary intheir evaluativeness, something the Universityhas itself identified as requiring further work. In this case as with the AMRs the audit teamsuggests that there is scope for the Universityto encourage its staff to be more evaluativeand candid when setting out the strengths oftheir provision as well as identifying anypotential weaknesses.

203 The 2003 audit report advised theUniversity to develop 'effective and transparentarrangements for student participation in allappropriate quality assurance processes'. Underits present arrangements, students who arebased on the University's campuses haveopportunities to participate directly in CCRs forprovision with which they are associated.Comparable opportunities do not at presentappear to extend to students studying for theUniversity's awards through partnership linksand it is the University's view that the logisticaldifficulties of enabling such participation cannotreadily be solved. The audit team does notshare this view particularly since the Universityitself was able to arrange meetings between theteam and students based with partners viateleconferencing. In view of the University's


page 46

commitment to ensure the equivalence ofarrangements for students based on itscampuses and those who are studying for itsawards through partner links, the team advisesthe University to explore ways of enabling itscollaborative provision students to contributedirectly to CCRs.

204 In its self-evaluation, the University statedthat it viewed student representation andstudent feedback as 'simply different aspects ofthe student voice' and that they served thesame purpose of facilitating communicationsbetween the University and its student body. Asnoted earlier, the 2003 institutional audit reportadvised the University to develop 'effective andtransparent arrangements for studentparticipation in all appropriate quality assuranceprocesses'. The University subsequentlyestablished a review of all its engagement withits students which issued an interim report inAugust 2005. The terms of reference of thisreview do not appear to explicitly extend tostudents studying for the University's awardsthrough collaborative provision; such anextension would now be desirable.

205 In each of the partner links the audit teamscrutinised, student representationarrangements had been developed in line withthe particular circumstances. For studentsstudying in the University's home region for FDawards, staff student liaison committees havebeen established which appear to operate inmuch the same way as correspondingcommittees on the University's own campuses.In the latter, however, the University ofBradford Students' Union plays an additionaland key role in student representation, throughtraining and supporting class representatives,and through representing students in theUniversity's senior committees. It also has animportant role in supporting students who wishto make a complaint or lodge an appeal againstan academic decision.

206 The University is aware that students whoare based with a partner (particularly when thelatter is overseas) and who may need to lodgea complaint or appeal, do not at present haveaccess to the support of the Students' Union.

The University recognises that this matter needsto be addressed. It is also the case that classrepresentatives for provision offered by theUniversity through partner links do not atpresent receive the briefing and advice packsand training the Students' Union makesavailable to class representatives on theUniversity's own campuses. The audit teamtherefore encourages and advises the Universityto continue and complete its review of studentrepresentation arrangements, so as to ensureeffective and equitable representation forstudents studying for its awards throughpartnership links, so that they can benefit fromstudent representation arrangementscomparable to those available on theUniversity's campuses.

207 The University collects feedback fromstudents studying for its awards throughpartnership links largely through module, stage,and programme questionnaires. The CPSED theUniversity provided to support the collaborativeprovision audit acknowledged that there hadbeen difficulties in achieving sufficiently highreturn rates to its questionnaires. In response tothese difficulties the University has given scopeto individual course coordinators to developand institute feedback arrangements matchedto the cultural and other circumstances ofindividual partner links. These can include (butare not limited to) informal meetings betweenclass representatives and the coursecoordinator, and e-mail contacts. Studentsstudying through partner links who discussedfeedback arrangements with the audit teamwere broadly satisfied that there views werecommunicated to the University (and whererelevant to the partner) and that they were ableto identify changes which had been made inresponse to their comments. As time andresources permit, however, the availability ofdirect channels of communication betweenstudents based with partners and the Universityof Bradford Students' Union would help tomake this arrangement more robust.

208 The University does not conduct large-scalesurveys of its graduates from programmesoffered through partner links, or their employers,


page 47

and relies on the employment figures for itsgraduates for its confidence in theiremployability and figures from the NationalStudent Survey. In some cases, however, schoolshave established advisory boards through whichto engage with employers and other externalstakeholders, the membership of which, in thecase of the School of Management, also includesgraduates from collaborative provisionprogrammes. This is a feature of good practicewhich the University might wish to considerdisseminating to other schools.

209 In its CPSED the University did not offer aview of the effectiveness of its current feedbackand representation arrangements for itsstudents overall, although in its intentions forenhancing the management of its collaborativeprovision it included the aim of considering'ways in which student representation andfeedback may be enhanced and furtherfacilitated'. A useful first step in suchenhancement and facilitation would be toensure that the University's current review of itsengagement with its students explicitly extendsto its engagement with students studying for itsawards through partner links. At the same timeit might be helpful for the University to ensurethat it affords effective and equitablerepresentation for students studying throughpartner links. There is evidence that theeffectiveness of the University's presentapproach to gathering feedback informationfrom its students has some limitations, and it isaware that these systems require attention.

210 Overall, the audit team came to the viewthat the University's procedures for programmeapproval, monitoring and periodic review for itscollaborative provision were well-designed andclearly stated, although at times the relevantregulations in the Handbook c be overlyprescriptive. The procedures the Universityfollows are generally in line with the advice ofthe academic infrastructure and, again, they aregenerally conducted thoroughly. On the basisof the evidence it saw the team considers thatthe University's approval, AMR and CCRarrangements for its collaborative provision givegrounds for confidence in its capacity as an

awarding body to safeguard the academicstandards of its awards and sustain andenhance the quality of its collaborativeprovision. The University's student feedbackand representation arrangements do not atpresent make as strong a contribution to itsquality assurance arrangements for itscollaborative provision as it would wish. It would be advisable for these now to beaddressed, possibly within the context of theUniversity's existing review of its engagementwith its students.

The effectiveness of the awardinginstitution's procedures forsafeguarding the academic standardsof its awards gained throughcollaborative provision

211 The University aims to safeguard theacademic standards of its awards gainedthrough collaborative provision by ensuringthat they are of equivalent standard to awardsachieved by students on its own campuses onthe same or equivalent programmes. Itsapproach to achieving this aim is to maintain as close an equivalence in the curriculum as ispossible in the circumstances, to involve thestaff of the home school in marking andmoderating students' assessed work, andthrough appointing the same external examiner(where possible) for provision offered in thehome school and with partners. In all cases, for franchise provision marks for assessed workcompleted by students based in partnerorganisations are considered at the sameBradford-based assessment boards as theircampus-based peers, using mark sheets whichmake it possible to identify the location of thestudent. It seemed to the audit team that theuniversity's assessment arrangements for itscollaborative provision are in keeping with theadvice offered in QAA's Code, Section 6:Assessment of students.

212 The University views the reports of itsexternal examiners as a key means ofsafeguarding the academic standards of itsawards. Arrangements for the nomination,induction and appointment of external


page 48

examiners for collaborative provision follow theUniversity's standard procedures, as set out inthe Handbook. For provision developed by apartner which has been validated by theUniversity it is usual for the partner to nominatethe external examiner and for the Dean of the'home' school to advise the University onwhether to accept the nomination.

213 Arrangements for receiving reports fromexternal examiners, and for addressing theircomments and advice, again follow theUniversity's standard procedures. For matters inan external examiner's report requiring urgentattention, both the nature of the matter andthat action to be taken are monitored by thePro Vice-Chancellor (Learning and Teaching)and ASSU. The latter now also has responsibilityfor ensuring that all external examiners receivecopies of the AMR which relates to the period oftheir most recent report, and ASSU compiles areport for APC drawing out common items orthemes in external examiners reports. The firstsuch report, for the 2004-05 session, covered 69per cent of external examiners' reports forundergraduate programmes and 68 per cent oftaught postgraduate programmes. While someof the absent reports may relate to programmescommencing at different times throughout thesession, the University will no doubt wish to seemore of the relevant external examiners' reportsincluded in the ASSU annual summary report.Overall, however, it seemed to the audit teamthat the University's arrangements for itsexternal examiners, and for dealing with theirreports, are consistent with the advice of QAA'sCode, Section 4: External examining.

214 As in other matters, the University expectsthe same procedures and approaches to befollowed for its collaborative provision, for thecollection and analysis of admission,progression, completion, and assessment dataand information as for its campus-basedprovision. Data for all registered students areheld and administered through the University'sStudent Administrative Information NavigationTracking System (SAINT). Course coordinatorsare responsible for checking that studentsadmitted to programmes leading to the

University's awards satisfy its admissionrequirements, including English languagecompetence, and any relevant professionalregulatory or statutory body requirements.

215 At the time of the collaborative provisionaudit, members of staff told the audit team thatindividual schools were taking the lead withrespect to criteria to be followed in establishingEnglish language competence and for theaccreditation of prior learning (APL)respectively. The University subsequentlyinformed the team that an institution-widepolicy for English language competence hadbeen settled in 2002-03 and that a policy for'EU equivalence' had been put in place inFebruary 2006. Since staff who met the auditteam did not appear to be aware of thesedevelopments, the team encourages theUniversity to look into the effectiveness of itscommunications with staff on such matters,and to work towards an effective commoninstitution-wide approach, in the interest offairness to all its students and applicants.

216 The University considers that thesoundness or otherwise of decisions taken toadmit students is best judged at the point ofprogression. While such checks may reveal anylaxity in procedures it may not enable theUniversity to judge whether the criteria appliedhave been overly strict.

217 In the case of provision leading to theUniversity's FD awards University states that'progression will be guaranteed to appropriateexisting honours degrees at Bradford University'and offers ' guaranteed articulation with at leastone honours degree programme'. Some of theinformation made available for the auditsuggested to the audit team that it might beadvisable for the University to review its internalarrangements for FDs offered with its partnersto ensure that there are no informal orunintended impediments to progression fromsuch FDs to its honours-level awards.

218 The University provides boards ofexaminers responsible for provision deliveredthrough partner links with the same informationas for its campus-based programmes. Following


page 49

the institutional audit, the University nowprovides statistics and analysis for theprogression and completion of students,including those studying through partner links,for consideration by APC. It also requires theinclusion of data and statistics as part of theinformation provided to support annualmonitoring and course continuation review.

219 Overall, the University's arrangements tosafeguard the academic standards of its awardsgained through collaborative provision followclosely the equivalent arrangements for itsawards gained through study on its campuses,while preserving opportunities to compare theprogress and attainments of students studyingwith partners with equivalent students studyingat the University. These arrangements aregenerally effective and robust and commandbroad confidence. Measures to provide dataand statistics to APC and CPAC for progressionand completion, including for collaborativeprovision students, are likely to add to thesecurity of these arrangements.

The awarding institution's use of theAcademic Infrastructure in thecontext of its collaborative provision

220 The CPSED described the University'sresponses to each section of the AcademicInfrastructure (QAA's Code of practice; theFramework for Higher Education Qualifications(FHEQ); subject benchmark statements; andprogramme specifications). It noted that inmanaging the quality and safeguard in theacademic standards of awards in itscollaborative provision the University made useof a number of external reference points inaddition to the Academic Infrastructure and itobserved that it expects its schools to ensurethe alignment of their provision with theadvice of the Academic Infrastructure whendeveloping new provision and through CCR.

221 Programme specifications were included inthe information provided to support the auditteam's visits to partner links. These enabled theteam to confirm the alignment of the relevantprovision with the recommendations of theFHEQ and that subject benchmark statements

had been referred to when developing (orreviewing) the provision. The CPSED noted thatthe University has progressively updated itsown regulations and frameworks to ensure theircontinuing alignment with QAA's Code.

222 Overall, the audit team came to the viewthat the University was making suitablereference to the individual elements of theAcademic Infrastructure in managing itscollaborative provision and in securing theacademic standards of the associated awards.

The utility of the collaborativeprovision audit self-evaluationdocument as an illustration of theawarding institution's capacity toreflect upon its own strengths andlimitations in collaborative provision,and to act on these to enhance qualityand safeguard academic standards

223 One quarter of the CPSED was devoted todescribing the actions the University had takento respond to the essential recommendationsin the institutional audit report and thestatement of limited confidence in itsarrangements to manage its partnership linkwith Bradford College, which is now being run out. The remaining sections of the CPSEDprovided a concise description of theUniversity's collaborative provisionarrangements in some parts of which wereembedded evaluative comments.

224 The CPSED frankly recognised that the'issues raised by previous audits have revolvedaround the institution's ability to manage thereality of collaborative provision against itsstated procedures and desire for equivalence'.The University recognises that with theestablishment of CPAC and the more 'activeoversight' of its collaborative provision whichthe establishment of the Committee nowmakes possible, a number of changes willfollow to the way it manages its collaborativeprovision overall.

225 The list of the University's intentions forthe enhancement of its collaborative provision provided a significant pointer for


page 50

the audit team to the likely scope of suchchanges. While identifying some weaknessesin its arrangements, to which the Universitywas attending, the CPSED provided littleevaluation of the strengths of particularapproaches adopted by individual schools tothe management of their collaborativeprovision and the University's capacity toidentify good practice in such approaches and disseminate information about itinstitution-wide.

Commentary on the awardinginstitution's intentions for theenhancement of its management ofquality and academic standards in itscollaborative provision

226 As noted above, the CPSED set out asubstantial programme of activities which theUniversity is undertaking to enhance itsmanagement of its collaborative provision. In anumber of cases the audit team was able toconfirm through its discussions in the auditvisits and from the University's papers thatprogress was being made with these activities.For example in the interval between submittingthe CPSED and hosting the visits the Universityhad taken steps to provide course coordinatorswith clearer definitions of their responsibilities,with better induction and supportarrangements and for the establishment ofmeans through which course coordinators canexchange good practice.

227 The University's list of intentions forenhancement in the CPSED also included itemson raising awareness of the quality assuranceand academic standards management needs ofcollaborative provision across the University,and for enhancements to studentrepresentation and feedback arrangements forstudents in collaborative provision. A moreambitious aim is the enhancement of'institutional oversight of collaborative provisionin its totality', in the achievement of whichCPAC is likely to play a major part.

228 Overall, the University has identified foritself a programme of enhancement activitieswell-matched to its needs and ethos. As it

takes forward its plans for enhancing themanagement of its collaborative provision,however, it should ensure that the needs ofstudents studying for its awards throughpartner links are explicitly addressed.

Reliability of information provided bythe awarding institution on itscollaborative provision

229 At the time of the collaborative provisionaudit the University had taken steps to ensurethat information it has gathered onemployers' needs and trends and its learningand teaching strategy are available on the TQIsite. The latter states that 'future plans tofurther enhance the quality of learning andteaching are focused on assessment, thequality of distributed learning materials todistance learners, personal tutoring,particularly to those students who are part-time remote learners and qualityenhancement in partner organisationsinvolved in our collaborative provision'. TheUniversity's commentary, on the data it hasprovided to the Higher Education StatisticsAgency has also been lodged on the TQI siteand a link from the latter provides access todetailed statistics. For visitors to the TQI sitewho wish to browse information on howstudents 'progress on particular awards or inacademic departments, with what sort ofqualifications they joiners and levers, and hassuccessfully they are in gaining employmentor further study' there is a link to theuniversity's annual monitoring home page onits web site, which was inoperative at thetime of the audit.

230 Reports from CCRs conducted by oneschool, which have included in their scopeelements of collaborative provision, have beenuploaded to the TQI site but CCR reportsfrom other schools were in progress at thetime of the audit and the reports hadtherefore yet to be uploaded. Externalexaminers provide statements for uploadingto the TQI site on academic standards,performance and assessment and theseinclude some reports from collaborative


page 51

provision. These reports meet the statedrequirements for TQI but at the time of theaudit, the University did not provide anydetails from the external examiner nor aninstitutional commentary on the reports. The University is making substantial progresstowards meeting the requirements of HEFCE03/51 for its collaborative provision but workremains to be done in a number of areas toensure it meets all requirements in full.

Features of good practice in themanagement of quality and academicstandards in the awardinginstitution's collaborative provision

231 In the course of the audit the teamidentified the following features of goodpractice in the University's arrangements for itscollaborative provision:

the way in which the University'sconventions for furnishing its school-leveland institution-level committees withsupporting information, enables them tocheck, from primary data, thatresponsibilities for approval, monitoringand review of programmes and courses,which have been delegated todepartments, centres, and programmeteams, have been properly discharged inline with its stated expectations(paragraph 33)

the processes used to ensure that indischarging their substantial duties formonitoring and supporting collaborativeprovision, the workloads of those who actas course coordinators (or theirequivalents) across the University aremonitored, and dynamically adjustedwhen appropriate (paragraph 39)

the work of the University's CourseApproval and Review Panel and theapproval, monitoring and review teamsdrawn from it, which enable experience ofgood practice to be shared (paragraph 67)

the establishment by the School ofManagement of its School Advisory Board,the membership of which includes seniorexternal academic peers, practitioners, and

alumni from programmes offered throughcollaborative provision (paragraph 117)

the steps the University has taken toensure that members of staff of itspartners in its region, who are deliveringits collaborative provision, have theopportunity to become associate lecturersof the University, and to benefit from itsfacilities and learning supportarrangements (paragraph 140)

the measured and purposefulmanagement by the University of the roll-out of its virtual learning environment,and the use to which this is being put insupporting collaborative, distance, andflexible learning provision (paragraph 161)

the induction arrangements adopted byone Centre to prepare postgraduate-levelstudents, whose first language is notEnglish, to work to UK norms, and thesteps taken by the same Centre to provideback-up learning resources on CD-ROM tocompensate for difficulties with internetaccess (paragraphs 156 and 165)

the way in which prospectus, programme,and other information provided tostudents studying through partnershiplinks, encourages their strong and positiveidentification with the University(paragraph 171).

Recommendations for action by theawarding institution

232 The audit team advises the University toconsider:

i within its present annual monitoringarrangements for collaborative provision,enabling partners to comment formally,and independently of the coursecoordinator, on the annual monitoringreport (paragraph 66)

ii continuing and completing its review of student representation arrangements, so as to ensure effective and equitablerepresentation for students studying for its awards through partnership links(paragraph 107).


page 52

iii reviewing its internal arrangements forFoundation Degrees offered with itspartners, to ensure that there are noinformal or unintended impediments toprogression from FDs to its Honours-levelawards (paragraph 128).

233 It would also be desirable for theUniversity to consider:

i actively exploring ways of enablingstudents studying through collaborativeprogrammes in the UK and further afieldto contribute in person to coursecontinuation reviews, in order to affordthem the same level of participation insuch reviews as students based on itscampuses (paragraph 77)

ii taking a more stringent andcomprehensive approach to establishingand ensuring the initial and continuingadequacy of learning support resources forprovision in partner organisations leadingto its awards (paragraph 152)

iii ensuring that its current review of itsengagement with students explicitlyextends to support and otherarrangements for students studying for itsawards through partnership links(paragraph 167).


page 53


page 54

Appendix

The University of Bradford's response to the collaborative provision audit report

The University welcomes the judgement of 'broad confidence' both in the soundness of the presentand likely future management of the academic standard of our awards made through collaborativearrangements, and of our present and likely future capacity to satisfy ourselves that the learningopportunities offered to students through our collaborative arrangements are managed effectivelyand meet our requirements. We also welcome the acknowledgement of the features of goodpractice that were highlighted by the audit team. We see this outcome as a positive endorsement ofour commitment to maintain the highest standards of quality and academic integrity in ourarrangements with collaborative partners and to ensuring a comparable learning experience for thestudents undertaking study at those institutions. The outcome is a reflection of the hard work andcommitment of staff at all levels throughout our own institution and those of our partners.

We are actively pursuing the recommendations for action made by the audit team, who recognisedthat we are already in the process of addressing some of these areas. We will prepare an action planto present to the first meeting of the Academic Policy Committee (APC) in the autumn. The actionplan will be discussed with partner institutions and with students before returning to the APC formonitoring and completion. We will also be ensuring, via the APC and the Collaborative ProvisionCommittee, that the areas of good practice highlighted in the report are widely disseminatedthroughout the University and to our partner institutions.

RG

260 07/06

University of Bradford - JULY 2006 · 2012-07-03 · University of Bradford JULY 2006. Preface The...

Documents

Transcript of University of Bradford - JULY 2006 · 2012-07-03 · University of Bradford JULY 2006. Preface The...