Institutional audit

The Manchester Metropolitan University

JUNE 2004

Preface The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (the Agency) exists to safeguard the public interest in sound standardsof higher education (HE) qualifications and to encourage continuous improvement in the management of the quality of HE.

To do this the Agency carries out reviews of individual HE institutions (universities and colleges of HE). In England andNorthern Ireland this process is known as institutional audit. The Agency operates similar but separate processes inScotland and Wales.

The purpose of institutional audit

The aims of institutional audit are to meet the public interest in knowing that universities and colleges are:

providing HE, awards and qualifications of an acceptable quality and an appropriate academic standard; andexercising their legal powers to award degrees in a proper manner.

JudgementsInstitutional 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 and likely futuremanagement of the quality of its programmes and the academic standards of its awards;

the reliance that can reasonably be placed on the accuracy, integrity, completeness and frankness of the informationthat the institution publishes, and about the quality of its programmes and the standards of its awards.

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

Nationally agreed standardsInstitutional audit uses a set of nationally agreed reference points, known as the 'academic infrastructure', to consider aninstitution's standards and quality. These are published by the Agency and consist of:

The framework for higher education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (FHEQ), which includedescriptions 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 on offer to students inindividual programmes of study. They outline the intended knowledge, skills, understanding and attributes of astudent completing that programme. They also give details of teaching and assessment methods and link theprogramme to the FHEQ.

The audit processInstitutional audits are carried out by teams of academics who review the way in which institutions oversee theiracademic quality and standards. Because they are evaluating their equals, the process is called 'peer review'.

The main elements of institutional audit are:

a preliminary visit by the Agency 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, four months before the audit visit;

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

the audit visit, which lasts five days;

the publication of a report on the audit team's judgements and findings 20 weeks after the audit 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, policy statements, codes ofpractice, recruitment publications and minutes of relevant meetings, as well as the self-evaluation document itself;

reviewing the written submission from students;

asking questions of relevant staff;

talking to students 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 quality assurance processes atwork using 'audit trails'. These trails may focus on a particular programme or programmes offered at that institution,when they are known as a 'discipline audit trail'. In addition, the audit team may focus on a particular theme that runsthroughout 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 of their programmes andawards in a format recommended in document 02/15 Information on quality and standards in higher education published bythe Higher Education Funding Council for England. The audit team reviews progress towards meeting this requirement.

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

Tel 01452 557000Fax 01452 557070Email comms@qaa.ac.ukWeb www.qaa.ac.uk

© Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education 2004

ISBN 1 84482 203 6

All the Agency's publications are available on our web site www.qaa.ac.uk

Printed copies are available from:Linney DirectAdamswayMansfieldNottinghamshire NG18 4FN

Tel 01623 450788Fax 01623 450629Email qaa@linneydirect.com

Summary 1

Introduction 1

Outcome of the audit 1

Features of good practice 1

Recommendations for action 1

Summary outcomes of discipline audit trails 1

National reference points 2

Main report 4

Section 1: Introduction: The Manchester Metropolitan University 4

The institution and its mission 4

Collaborative provision 5

Background information 5

The audit process 5

Developments since the previous academic quality audit 6

Section 2: The audit investigations: institutional processes 6

The institution's view as expressed in the SED 6

The institution's framework for managing quality and standards 7

The institution's intentions for the enhancement of quality and standards 7

Internal approval, monitoring and review processes 8

External participation in internal review processes 9

External examiners and their reports 9

External reference points 10

Programme-level review and accreditation by external agencies 11

Student representation at operational and institutional level 11

Feedback from students, graduates and employers 12

Progression and completion statistics 12

Assurance of the quality of teaching staff,appointment, appraisal and reward 12

Assurance of the quality of teaching through staff support and development 13

Assurance of the quality of teaching delivered through distributed and distance methods 14

Learning support resources 14

Academic guidance, support and supervision 15

Personal support and guidance 15

Section 3: The audit investigations: discipline audit trails 16

Discipline audit trails 16

Section 4: The audit investigations: published information 23

The students' experience of published informationand other information available to them 23

Reliability, accuracy and completeness of published information 24

Findings 26

The effectiveness of institutional procedures for assuring the quality of programmes 26

The effectiveness of institutional procedures for securing the standards of awards 27

The effectiveness of institutional procedures for supporting learning 27

The outcomes of discipline audit trails 28

The use made by the institution of the Academic Infrastructure 29

The utility of the SED as an illustration of theinstitution's capacity to reflect upon its own strengths and limitations, and to act on these to enhance quality and standards 30

Commentary on the institution's intentions for the enhancement of quality and standards 30

Reliability of information 30

Features of good practice 30

Recommendations for action 31

Appendix 32

The Manchester Metropolitan University's response to the audit report 32

Contents

Summary

Introduction

A team of auditors from the Quality AssuranceAgency for Higher Education (the Agency) visitedThe Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU orthe University) from 14 to 18 June 2004 to carry outan institutional audit. The purpose of the audit wasto provide public information on the quality of theopportunities available to students and on theacademic standards of the awards.

To arrive at its conclusions the audit team spoke tomembers of staff throughout MMU, to currentstudents, and read a wide range of documentsrelating to the way MMU manages the academicaspects of its provision.

The words 'academic standards' are used to describethe level of achievement that a student has to reachto gain an academic award (for example, a degree).It should be at a similar level across the UK.

Academic quality is a way of describing how wellthe learning opportunities available to students helpthem to achieve their award. It is about making surethat appropriate teaching, support, assessment andlearning opportunities are provided for them.

In institutional audit, both academic standards andacademic quality are reviewed.

Outcome of the audit

As a result of its investigations, the audit team's viewof MMU is that:

broad confidence can be placed in thesoundness of the current management of theacademic quality of its programmes; and

broad confidence can be placed in theinstitutional level capacity to manage effectivelythe security of its awards.

Features of good practice

The audit team identified the following areas asgood practice:

the self-critical approach used by the Universityto prepare the clear and evaluative institutionalself-evaluation document;

the benefits of a clear and comprehensiveQuality Assurance Manual in ensuringconsistency of implementation of procedures;

the demonstrable commitment across theUniversity to the enhancement of the quality ofthe student learning experience;

the introduction of a University-wide StandingGroup to provide enhanced institutional levelfocus on interactions with professional andstatutory bodies;

the effectiveness of the Learning and TeachingUnit and the associated Learning and TeachingFellowship Scheme in coordinating and leadinginnovations in teaching, learning and assessment;

the institutional provision of a supportive and highquality learning environment for students; and

the effective dissemination of information acrossthe University, using a range of communicationmechanisms.

Recommendations for action

It would be desirable for the University to:

to review the policies on Penalties for LateSubmission of Coursework for UndergraduateProgrammes of Study and Internal Moderationof Summative Assessments (Verification andModification of Marks) to ensure equity andconsistency;

to enhance the accessibility and effectiveness ofsupport mechanisms for part-time students;

to continue the development of a moresystematic institution-wide means of obtainingand responding to student feedback;

to make more effective and systematic use ofstatistical/performance indicator data in annualmonitoring and programme review processes; and

to extend the adoption of effective peer supportacross the University.

Summary outcomes of discipline audit trails

Biological sciences masters programmes (MSc); businessand management studies; business informationtechnology management; embroidery/fashion/textiles;food, consumer, tourism and hospitality management;sociology, criminology and cultural studies

The audit team also looked at the following specificareas of provision by undertaking discipline audittrails: biological sciences masters programmes(MSc); business and management studies; businessinformation technology management; embroidery/fashion/textiles; food, consumer, tourism andhospitality management; sociology, criminology andcultural studies, to find out how well the University'ssystems and procedures were working at thediscipline level. The University provided the teamwith documents, including student work and, heretoo, the team spoke to staff and students. As well assupporting the overall confidence statements given

Institutional Audit Report: summary

page 1

above, the team considered that the standard ofstudent achievement in the six discipline areas wasappropriate to the title of the award and its place inThe framework for higher education qualifications inEngland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The teamconsidered that the quality of the learningopportunities available to students was suitable forprogrammes of study leading to the awards.

National reference points

To provide further evidence to support its findingsthe audit team also investigated the use made bythe University of the Academic Infrastructure whichthe Agency has developed on behalf of the whole ofUK higher education. The Academic Infrastructure isa set of nationally agreed reference points to defineboth good practice and academic standards. TheUniversity has embedded these developments in atimely and comprehensive way into its managementof quality and standards.

From the end of 2004, the Agency's audit teams willcomment on the reliability of the information aboutacademic quality and standards that institutions willbe required to publish, which is listed in the HigherEducation Funding Council for England's document03/51, Information on quality and standards in highereducation: Final guidance. The University is alert to therequirements and the team found that it was takingsteps to fulfil its responsibilities in this regard.

The Manchester Metropolitan University

page 2

Main report

Main report

1 An institutional audit of The ManchesterMetropolitan University (MMU or the University)was undertaken during the week commencing 14June 2004. The purpose of the audit was to providepublic information on the quality of MMU'sprogrammes of study and on the discharge of itsresponsibility for its awards.

2 The audit was carried out using a processdeveloped by the Quality Assurance Agency for HigherEducation (the Agency) in partnership with the HigherEducation Funding Council for England (HEFCE), theStanding Conference of Principals (SCOP) andUniversities UK (UUK), and has been endorsed by theDepartment for Education and Skills. For institutions inEngland, it replaces the previous processes ofcontinuation audit, undertaken by the Agency at therequest of UUK and SCOP, and universal subjectreview, undertaken by the Agency on behalf of HEFCE,as part of the latter's statutory responsibility forassessing the quality of education that it funds.

3 The audit checked the effectiveness of MMU'sprocedures for establishing and maintaining thestandards of its academic awards; for reviewing andenhancing the quality of the programmes of studyleading to those awards; and for publishing reliableinformation. As part of the audit process, accordingto protocols agreed with HEFCE, SCOP and UUK,the audit included consideration of an example ofinstitutional processes at work at the level of theprogramme, through discipline audit trails (DATs),with examples of those processes operating at thelevel of the institution as a whole.

Section 1: Introduction: TheManchester Metropolitan University

The institution and its mission

4 The University's academic foundations can betraced back to the merger of Manchester College ofArt and Design, Manchester College of Commerceand John Dalton College of Technology to form itspredecessor, Manchester Polytechnic, in 1970. Itexpanded further in scope and size through thesubsequent acquisition of Didsbury College ofEducation, Hollings College and City of ManchesterCollege of Higher Education. The University has hadfull degree-awarding powers since acquiringUniversity status in 1992.

5 In October 1992, Crewe and Alsager Collegejoined the newly designated University, to providean institutional presence in South Cheshire. Morerecently, in September 2003, the University acquired

the Manchester School of Physiotherapy. Currentlythe University is sited on seven locations, five inCentral and South Manchester and two at Creweand Alsager in South Cheshire. The University isworking towards consolidating its estate into asmaller number of sites over a period of time andhas a 10-year plan in place to achieve this.

6 The University is one of the largest educationalestablishments in the UK, offering some 600 differentprogrammes to around 33,000 students in over 70different subject areas; 65 per cent of the studentsenrolled at the University in 2002-03 were on firstdegree programmes, 5 per cent on sub-degreeprogrammes, 9 per cent on professional programmes,19 per cent on postgraduate taught programmes and2 per cent on postgraduate research programmes.Well over half (59 per cent) of the student populationin 2002-03 were female, just under half (49 per cent)were under 21 years old on entry, while 4 per centhad a declared disability. In 2002-03, 59 per cent ofthe student body came from Greater Manchester andthe northwest, while a relatively small number werefrom the EU (3 per cent) or overseas (4 per cent).

7 The major academic groupings of the Universityare its seven faculties, each managed by a Dean.Five of these faculties (Health, Social Care andEducation; Food, Clothing and HospitalityManagement; Humanities, Law and Social Science;Science and Engineering and MMU Cheshire) aresubdivided into departments which in turn providesubject foci and supporting administrative andacademic management structures for staff andstudents. By way of contrast, the Faculty of Art andDesign and the MMU Business School (MMUBS)have each adopted a matrix management structureto support staff and students. There are 10 newlyformed research institutes that lead research withinthe University, each headed by a research director.

8 Overall coordination and management of theUniversity's academic administrative and physicalinfrastructure are provided through six centraldivisions: the Academic Division; the ExternalRelations Division; the Finance Division; the HumanResources (HR) Division; the Services Division; andthe Secretary's Department.

9 Special features of provision at MMU include:

a strong local identity, with over 60 per cent ofits new students in 2002-03 coming fromGreater Manchester and the north-west;

inclusivity, with 95 per cent of its entrants in 2002-03 coming from state schools or colleges, 34 percent from social classes iiim, iv and v and 18 percent from low participation neighbourhoods;

The Manchester Metropolitan University

page 4

a strong reach out agenda which fosters closeand mutually beneficial ties with business andthe professions via work placements, appliedresearch, voluntary and community projects andcollaborations in regional specialisms such asfood, textiles and the creative industries;

its foundation year which acts as a springboardto a large number of honours degreeprogrammes with over 600 students enrolled tothe foundation year in September 2003 andwith 70 per cent of the students examinedexpected to progress to an honours degree;

10 The University's Mission Statement states:

'Manchester Metropolitan University is dedicated tothe success of all with the ability and motivation tobenefit, meeting the needs of the professional andwider communities it serves through the excellenceof its teaching, learning research and scholarship'.

Collaborative provision

11 In view of the size and complexity of theUniversity's collaborative provision, it will be thesubject of a separate, future audit, and does notform part of the present institutional audit.

Background information

12 The published information available to the auditteam included:

the report of a quality audit by the Agencyundertaken in October 1999;

the Agency subject review reports publishedsince October 1999;

the Agency reports on the outcomes of twoFoundation degree reviews;

the Agency reports on two developmentalengagements.

13 The University provided the Agency with:

an institutional self-evaluation document (SED);

a discipline self-evaluation document (DSED) foreach of the six areas selected for DATs;

the University's Quality Assurance Manual (QAM);

the Standard University Regulations for bothPostgraduate and Undergraduate provision;

various policy/strategy documents;

student statistics including first-destination data.

14 During the audit visit further documentation wasprovided, including: minutes of committee meetings,policy papers, quality monitoring data, periodic review

data, access to the institution's intranet and relevantprofessional and statutory bodies (PSB) reports.

The audit process

15 A preliminary meeting was held at MMU inOctober 2003. Matters discussed included theUniversity's pattern of internal review and thedistribution of students across programmes.Following the preliminary meeting the Agencyconfirmed that six DATs would be conducted duringthe audit visit. The audit team's final selection ofDATs was: MSc biological sciences mastersprogrammes (MSc); business and managementstudies; business information technologymanagement; embroidery/fashion/textiles; food,consumer, tourism and hospitality management;sociology, criminology and cultural studies. TheAgency received the institutional SED in February2004 and the DSEDs in April 2004.

16 A briefing visit was conducted at MMU on 10 to12 May 2004. The purpose of the briefing visit was tohelp the audit team to explore with the Vice-Chancellor,senior members of staff and student representatives,matters relating to the management of quality andstandards raised by the SED and other documentationprovided for the team. At the end of the briefing visita programme of meetings was submitted to theUniversity in preparation for the audit visit.

17 At the preliminary visit for the audit, thestudents of the University were invited, throughtheir Students' Union (SU), to submit a separatedocument, a students' written submission (SWS),expressing views on the student experience atMMU, and identifying any matters of concern orcommendation with respect to the quality of thestudent experience and the standards of awards. InFebruary 2004, a SWS was submitted to the Agencyby the SU on behalf of the University's students. Theaudit team is grateful to the students for preparingthis statement to support the audit.

18 The audit took place from 14 to 18 June 2004.During the audit visit the audit team met with staffand students both at institutional level and inrelation to the selected DAT areas. The team isgrateful to all those who made themselves availableto discuss the University's quality management andacademic standards arrangements.

19 The audit team comprised Professor J Bailey; MsL Daly; Dr K Gwilym; Professor J Harper; Professor DHeeley; Dr K Parker; Ms K Wilson (auditors), and MsK Butcher (audit secretary). The audit wascoordinated for the Agency by Dr J Ellis, AssistantDirector, Reviews Group.

Institutional Audit Report: main report

page 5

Developments since the previous academicquality audit

20 The University was last audited in the autumn of1999. In general the findings of the report supportedconfidence in the University's management of itsacademic quality and standards and in the way itdischarges its function as a higher education (HE)awarding body. A number of areas of good practiceworthy of commendation were also identified.

21 The report identified eight advisable points forfurther consideration: to continue, as a high priority,the implementation of those findings of its owninternal strategic review that related to qualityassurance; to give more consideration to reports byexternal agencies (for example, PSBs) on itsprogrammes and awards; to take a more active partin the national debate on academic standards; to takesteps to strengthen the overview taken of its policies,practices and operations in respect of collaborativeprovision; to review regularly the way the institutioncombined devolution of responsibility for quality andstandards with its policy of increasing consistency andcomparability of quality assurance practices; toimplement and review periodically its new teachingand learning strategy and to enhance ways ofdisseminating good practice; to revisit its qualityassurance arrangements to ensure that researchstudents' own reports on their progress are availabledirectly for University scrutiny; and to ensure that theinstitution's official minutes and reports were moredetailed. The University was also asked in the reportto consider the desirability of keeping under reviewthe work of its Research Degrees Committee (RDC).

22 Key actions undertaken by the University inresponse to these points have included: fullimplementation of those recommendations of itsinternal strategic review that related to qualityassurance; establishment of a PSB standing group tofacilitate greater consistency of engagement withprofessional bodies; implementation of an internal codeof practice for collaborative provision to include therequirement that all collaborative partners engage withthe University's policies and regulations; standardisationof Faculty Academic Standards Committees (FASCs)and the introduction of University Regulations forUndergraduate and Postgraduate provision to ensuregreater consistency in the management of quality andstandards across the University; further developmentof the University's teaching and learning strategy;revision of the University's annual monitoring processfor research students; and more thorough training ofminute secretaries. The University's engagement withthe national debate on academic standards in HE has

also been given a higher profile and priority. Finally theUniversity has established a University-wide researchdevelopment committee with faculty-based equivalents.

23 The audit team formed the view that theUniversity has responded to issues raised in auditand other reviews in an appropriate manner. Theeffectiveness of the actions taken is discussed morefully in subsequent sections of this report.

Section 2: The audit investigations:institutional processes

The institution's view as expressed in the SED

24 The SED expressed full confidence in theUniversity's ability to assure the quality andstandards of its awards. The SED stated that theUniversity's goal of excellence in teaching, learning,research and scholarship underpins its proceduresfor quality management and enhancement and islinked to several of its core strategies. It alsodiscussed the key role played by external specialistsin the maintenance and enhancement of academicstandards and described the functions of externalassessors, discipline external advisers and externalexaminers. The SED described the University'sengagement with each component of the Agency'sAcademic Infrastructure and how this engagement isintegrated into the quality assurance procedures.

25 Three key documents regulate the qualitymanagement of the University's taught provision:

the QAM which sets out criteria, systems andprocesses. An online version is available and isupdated at regular intervals; the hard-copyversion is updated annually;

the Regulations for Undergraduate Programmes ofStudy (operational from 2001-02) and theRegulations for Postgraduate Programmes of Study(operational from the academic year 2004-05);

the Regulations for Academic Awards (currentlyin the process of extensive revision to includethe range of regulatory changes made by theUniversity in the past five years).

26 The audit team considered that the SED gave aclear description of the quality assurancearrangements and a thorough evaluation of theireffectiveness. The SED identified areas of strength butalso included areas requiring further improvement.The team formed the view that the quality of theSED, in particular its structure, clarity, and self-criticalapproach was a feature of good practice.

The Manchester Metropolitan University

page 6

The institution's framework for managingquality and standards

27 The University operates a devolved model ofquality assurance but ultimate responsibility for themanagement of quality and standards resides with theAcademic Board. It is the key policy making forum andhas the responsibility for ensuring that the University'sawards are consistent and comparable with similarawards in the UK. The Board discharges itsresponsibilities through a range of committees, ofwhich the most important in terms of quality andstandards are the Academic Standards Committee(ASC) and the RDC. At faculty level each faculty boardis charged with implementing the policies decided byAcademic Board on teaching and research.

28 A development since the last audit, published bythe Agency in 2001 has been the mirroring of theAcademic Board committee structure at faculty level.Each of the seven faculties now has a FASC, a FacultyResearch Degrees Committee (FRDC) and a FacultyResearch Development Committee, which all reportdirectly to the faculty board. The Institute ofEducation, which is divided across two faculties, hasits own committees for academic standards andresearch degrees which report through the MMUCheshire FASC and Health, Social Care and EducationFRDC respectively. Each FASC oversees all mattersrelating to the quality, standards and academicenvironment of taught programmes within thefaculty. Each FRDC has a similar responsibility forresearch degrees. The central coordinating role of theAcademic Board and its committees is articulatedthrough representative faculty membership. Inparticular, all FASC chairs are members of ASC and allFRDC chairs are members of RDC.

29 The audit team considered that the mirroring ofcommittees at faculty level has led to a greaterownership of quality management issues at locallevel. In particular the introduction of the ProgrammeApproval Sub-Committee (PASC) and FASCs hasenhanced the quality assurance process. The teamfound that the current structure with cross-committeemembership allows for good communicationchannels both up to the Academic Board and theDirectorate and back down to programme level. Also,university-wide issues raised at committee meetingsare addressed appropriately through the committeestructure. The team is confident that the committeestructure at both University and faculty level iseffective in monitoring standards and maintainingand enhancing quality. It is recognised that this is adynamic structure and may evolve further particularlywith the recent development of research institutes(see below, paragraph 94).

30 Executive responsibilities for the line managementof quality and standards are vested in the Directoratewhere there are separate functional responsibilities foracademic work, finance, HR, services, external relationsand governance. Managerial responsibility for theUniversity's quality assurance procedures is vested inthe Deputy Vice-Chancellor who chairs ASC and headsthe Academic Division.

31 The QAM published both electronically and inhard copy, provides to members of staff acomprehensive compendium of guidance on allaspects of quality assurance. It pays particularattention to The framework for higher educationqualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland(FHEQ), subject benchmark statements, the Code ofpractice for the assurance of academic quality andstandards in higher education (Code of practice),published by the Agency, and programmespecifications, and how they are integrated into thepractices and procedures of the University. The auditteam considered that the gathering together in oneplace all the proformas associated with qualityassurance a helpful feature of the QAM. In the viewof the team the existence of the QAM does much toensure the consistent implementation of qualityassurance processes and procedures across a largeand physically dispersed University.

The institution's intentions for theenhancement of quality and standards

32 The SED identified a significant number of areasin which the University had recently institutedchange, or was about to institute change, as part ofits planned programme of enhancement. Theseinclude: a review of the Annual Monitoring Exerciseleading to new procedures being piloted in 2003-04;the introduction of university-wide Regulations forPostgraduate Study following on from the successfulimplementation of Regulations for UndergraduateStudy; restructuring of the Faculty of Art and Designand MMUBS into a matrix model to sharpen thefocus of teaching and research, while providing amore coherent portfolio of taught programmes; thecreation of an overarching Institute of Education withthe development of unified programmes, deliveredon both sites, underpinned by a single philosophy,set of values and curriculum; a new student feedbackmodel being piloted in MMUBS; the adoption of auniversity-wide policy on peer support, includingobservation of teaching, in 2003-04; a revised estatesstrategy with planned reduction in the number ofsites to provide better facilities for staff and students;the development of procedures to assurecomparability of quality between similarly titled

Institutional Audit Report: main report

page 7

awards in different faculties; the replacement of thecurrent student record system in 2004-05 to enablethe more effective use of progression and completionstatistics in programme monitoring.

33 The audit team considered that these plannedactions were appropriate and, once carried throughto completion, would make an importantcontribution to enhancing quality and standards.

Internal approval, monitoring and review processes

Programme approval

34 Revised internal procedures for the approval ofnew programmes have been in operation for the pasttwo years. The revisions were designed to providemore effective institutional overview of the processand now consist of two stages. The initial stageinvolves consideration, in principle, of the proposeddevelopment at faculty and central levels throughFASC, Dean, PASC, the Directorate and ASC, withparticular attention being given to resource issues,potential overlap with similar provision andanticipated market demand. Following approval ofthe proposal in principle, the programme is developedin full and considered by a Faculty ProgrammeApproval Panel. The Panel's role is to, inter alia,confirm the academic viability and effectiveness of theproposal and ensure appropriate engagement withthe FHEQ, subject benchmark statements, UniversityPolicies and Regulations and, where appropriate, PSBs.At the conclusion of this consideration, the Panelsubmits a report to ASC through PASC expressing ajudgement on the programme and setting anyconditions and/or recommendations.

35 The audit team was informed that the timescalefor a new programme to progress from initialconcept to formal approval could vary frombetween six to 18 months. From the documentationavailable to the team, it was clear, that theprocedures were both consistently adhered to andwere robust with effective institutional overview andengagement now being achieved.

Annual monitoring

36 The University requires all programmes toundertake an Annual Monitoring Exercise (AME). Thisrequires programme committees to evaluate thequality of their programme by scrutinising theprevious academic year's performance, planning itsenhancement for the current year and consideringlonger-term developments. The outcome of thisprocess is documented in a Quality Action Plan (QAP).A central part of this exercise includes monitoringactions taken in respect of issues raised by external

examiners and through student feedback, significanttrends in progression data and implementation of keyUniversity policies or initiatives. Heads of department(or equivalent) produce a Quality Improvement Plan(QIP) based on analysis of the QAPs for programmeswithin their area of responsibility and these, in turn,are considered at faculty level with relevant issuesbeing referred to ASC.

37 Until Session 2003-04, the procedures associatedwith the AME have remained largely unchangedsince the previous quality audit. While aspects of theprocess had been commended in the audit reportand, more recently, in developmental engagementreports, ASC had undertaken a review of the AME toenhance its overall efficiency and aspects of itseffectiveness, including the use of progressionstatistics and feedback to programme teams. Theoutcomes of the review proposed changes to severalaspects of existing practice. In particular it wasrecommended that, at programme level, thereshould be a clearer separation between the recordingand reporting of evaluation and monitoring. It wasrecommended that monitoring be devolved toprogramme committees and recorded on anongoing basis in an annual programme log. This willbe subject to audit by FASC every two years. TheQAP would, in turn, focus on evaluation and take theform of a succinct action plan which would progressto the next tiers in the AME.

38 The Academic Board resolved to pilot theseprogramme-level recommendations in session 2003-04 using a selected number of programmes across allfaculties. In addition, proposed changes to later stagesof the AME were also implemented. These include: theformal engagement of the FASCs in the AME processwith reports from chairs of FASC now accompanyingthe Deans' Overview Report for consideration at aplenary meeting of ASC. Additionally, reports from theSU and academically related central service providersare also now considered at this meeting. To enhancefeedback from ASC engagement in the AME, a reportis produced by the Chair highlighting institution-wideand/or generic issues, noting common themes inexternal examiners' reports and providingrecommendations for actions. This report is distributedwidely and is seen as a means of enhancing feedbackto programme teams.

39 The audit team examined a number of QAPsand found that, overall, this stage of the AME hadbeen carried out thoroughly and followed theprescribed procedures. This, however, also endorsedthe view expressed in the SED that there was a needfor more effective use of statistical data in programmemonitoring (see below, paragraphs 71, 72).

The Manchester Metropolitan University

page 8

40 Scrutiny of documentation associated with laterstages of the AME allowed the audit team toconclude that the AME process is thorough androbust and contributes effectively to the institution'soverall management of quality and standards. Theteam learned of further planned enhancements tothe process arising from evaluation of the pilotsbefore full implementation in session 2004-05.These include providing clearer guidelines for chairsof FASC and deans reports to minimise duplicationand the adoption of a standardised template forresponding to issues raised by external examiners.Based on an inspection of a small sample of pilotdocumentation, the team would support thesedevelopments. The team welcomed the University'sapproach to implementing the revised AMEprocedures as the decision to operate an initial pilothas led to tangible benefits. In addition to allowingthe processes to be evaluated and refined, it wasapparent during the audit visit that programmeleaders have become highly committed to therevised procedures. Given the key role which theyplay in the overall AME process, the teamconsidered that the ultimate value of thisachievement should not be underestimated.

Programme review

41 All programmes undergo periodic review,normally every five years. The procedures forperiodic review are effectively the same as thoseadopted for programme approval (see above,paragraph 34). Having gained first stage approval inprinciple, a Faculty Programme Review Panel isconstituted to consider the review documentationwhich includes a SED, programme specification,definitive course document and the documentationassociated with the last two years' AME.

42 Examination of documentation available to theaudit team confirmed that the prescribedprocedures were adhered to and that the processwas robust, with the exception of systematic andeffective use of statistical data, reflecting and,generally arising from, a similar weakness within theAMEs (see above, paragraph 39). In many of theexamples of review documentation provided to theteam, the review events involved consideration andapproval of significant programme changes ordevelopments. This was due, in part, to anincreasing tendency for programme networks to beestablished, leading to several named awards beingavailable within a specified programme framework.These developments offer resource savings in termsof programme operation and management, alongwith greater flexibility of choice for students. Theteam was informed that the duration of reviewevents are adjusted to reflect the scale of the

proposed redevelopment arising within a particularreview. The University is, however, aware of the riskthat the balance of review events could move fromreview to approval in some circumstances. Whilecontent that the situation was manageable atpresent, it was intended that the form and purposeof the review process would be monitored. Theteam was reassured by this and was, in turn,confident that the review process will continue toplay a significant and effective part in theUniversity's management of quality and standards.

External participation in internal reviewprocesses

43 External specialists are involved in internal qualityprocedures through two roles, external examiners(see below, paragraphs 46 to 49) and externalassessors. Two external assessors, who are authoritiesin their fields, are members of each faculty approvalor review panel. At least one of the external membersshould hold a relevant academic post and one haverelevant experience of industry, commerce, publicservice, or the profession. The external assessors playa major role at approval/review events, directing thequestioning of documentation, leading discussionwith students (review) and programme teams andplaying a primary part in the formulation ofjudgements reached. The use of external assessors ininternal approval and review processes has been longestablished within the University's quality procedures.

44 The University is currently considering a furtherdevelopment to its review procedures specifically inrespect of assuring the comparability of qualitybetween similarly titled awards offered in differentfaculties. The University is piloting a new form ofexternal engagement involving the appointment ofDiscipline External Advisers (DEA) whose role is tomonitor areas of similar provision to ensureconsistency of student experience and comparabilityof programme development.

45 On the evidence available to the audit teamexternal participation in internal review processes iswell established and effective and supports ajudgement of broad confidence in the University'smanagement of quality and standards.

External examiners and their reports

46 The SED was clear that external examiners are'the guarantors of the academic standards of ourawards'. A comprehensive Institutional code ofpractice incorporates the relevant section on externalexamining within the Code of practice, published bythe Agency, and specifies criteria and procedures forthe appointment, the rights and duties, the reporting

Institutional Audit Report: main report

page 9

requirements and the feedback processes for externalexaminers on all programmes. The University's codespecifies the need for 'appropriate standing, expertiseand experience' in its external examiners and theneed for programmes to draw on 'a wide variety ofinstitutional/professional contexts and traditions inorder that the programme benefits from wide-ranging external scrutiny'. External examiners arerequired to address an extensive set of issues relatedto the standards of awards in their reports. Reportsare written to a common format which includes theexaminer's own report summary.

47 External examiners are provided with full briefinginformation, including programme QAPs from theprevious two years. Induction arrangements aredecided and provided at programme and facultylevels. External examiners' reports are widelydistributed with the Programme Committee, the headof department, the dean of the faculty and the FASCas the initial and core readership. Examiners receiveProgramme Committee documentation as evidence ofresponses to their reports and action taken. ASC hasrecently considered its own use of a standard form forrecording examiner comments and programme teamresponses as a way of enhancing the University'scommunication with its external examiners.

48 Summaries of the external examiners' reportsreceived by the University focusing on both overallgeneral issues and on specifically regulatory mattersare reported to the Programme RegulationsStanding Group, which reports to ASC. Thismechanism permits an institution-wide as well asprogramme-level use of external examiners'comments. The audit team heard of a furtherenhancement of the use of external examiners in theprogressive movement towards the appointment ofdiscipline or subject-based external advisers toassure the judgement of standards across a range ofprogrammes in cognate areas.

49 The audit team considered that the University'sexternal examiner arrangements were robust andeffective in securing the standards of theUniversity's awards.

External reference points

50 The SED described the University's engagementwith the Code of practice, the FHEQ, the subjectbenchmark statements, programme specificationsand the Higher Education Progress Files as'integrated into the University's quality procedures'.This is accomplished through the ASC and a varietyof its working groups. Detailed guidance on thenature of the reference points and standards, and of

the University's management and monitoring of itsengagement, are provided in the QAM. TheUniversity expects academic staff to be aware of theCode and to engage directly with the FHEQ, andwith their own subject benchmark statements,through programme approval, review andmodification procedures. Programme specificationsare used by academic staff to describe theirprovision and are currently being reviewed andredesigned to extend their public clarity and utility.

51 At institutional level, engagement with the Codeof practice is being enhanced by senior academic stafftaking responsibility for particular sections of theCode, and for responding to the requests by theAgency for consultation, review and revision.

52 The audit team, in its reading of documentationand in discussions with academic staff, consideredthat programme specifications were clearly andappropriately constructed. The team saw examplesof programme teams using programme specificationsto reconsider and change their programmes. A fullengagement with subject benchmark statements andthe FHEQ had been undertaken by programmeteams, including a consideration of postgraduateprogramme content and organisation. The teamfound that links between programme levelengagement and University-level oversight andmonitoring, through the ASCs worked well,information was clearly communicated andknowledge of requirements was high.

53 The regulations on summative assessments fortaught programmes specify the form of themoderation of assessment, sampling to be used, andthe consequent verification of marks in that unit. Thisrequired approach permits individual marks, withinthe specified and fixed samples, to be changedwithout necessarily altering the overall set of marksfrom which the sample is drawn (see below,paragraphs 117, 126, 146). The audit team heard thatthe University is aware of this possibility in the currentverification and modification of marks policy and thatit is awaiting comments from its external examinersbefore evaluating the trial at ASC in autumn 2004.The team considered that the University may wish toreview this aspect of its assessment policy to avoidpotential inconsistency in the treatment of studentswho found themselves included or excluded from asample used for moderation purposes.

54 The University policy on penalties for the latesubmission of coursework permits variability inprogrammes as to how this lateness will be definedand can vary between zero and three weeks (seebelow, paragraphs 116, 126). The audit team

The Manchester Metropolitan University

page 10

considered that this permitted variability could leadto an inequity of treatment of students on differentprogrammes, or a difference in experience bystudents who were studying on combinedprogrammes, for the same degree of lateness. Theteam heard that the University was aware of this asa possibility. The team considered that the Universitymay wish to review this policy to reduce thepotential for any undesirable inconsistency whichcould lead to inequity in the experience ofassessment by students.

Programme-level review and accreditationby external agencies

55 All reports from the Agency subject reviews anddevelopmental engagements were considered atprogramme level with responses to reportrecommendations being addressed in the AME andat periodic review. At institutional level, outcomesfrom subject reviews were considered at ASC andAcademic Board. An ASC overview report, analysinggrade profiles and comments noted in all subjectreview reports was produced in 2003. Thisconfirmed that few of the recommendations applyto institution-wide issues. Faculty learning andteaching strategic plans and the review of the AMEhave, however, been influenced by the analysis ofthe outcomes of subject reviews.

56 Reflecting its vocational nature, the University'sprogrammes are recognised or accredited by morethan 70 PSBs. The PSBs vary considerably in theirprocedures, arrangements, timescales andinteraction with departments. In some cases,programme approval or review and professionalbody accreditation is conducted jointly, while manyPSBs require their own separate and distinctivearrangements. The PSB reports are responded to aspart of the AME and periodic review procedures.

57 ASC established, in 2003, a PSB Standing Groupto enhance institutional overview of therecommendations from PSB engagements, as well asfacilitating more consistent interactions with PSBs.During the visit the audit team received details ofrecent and planned developments involving thisgroup. On the basis of these, the team wouldhighlight the establishment of the PSB StandingGroup and its initial and planned development workas a feature of good practice.

Student representation at operational andinstitutional level

58 The SED stressed that part of the University'smission is to promote the engagement and 'active

participation' of students in the management ofquality. Students are represented on all of the keycommittees at central and departmental levels,including the Board of Governors, Academic Boardand the ASC. Central committee representation isthrough the appropriate officer of the SU, whereasat faculty, department and programme level therepresentatives are usually elected programmerepresentatives. Students' representatives also playan important part as members of a number of adhoc working groups.

59 Meetings with officers of the SU supported theUniversity's view that the SU officers were regardedas 'working partners'. Student officers were satisfiedthat their views were taken seriously, and that thecommittee system helped them to contributeeffectively, actively encouraging participation. Theofficers stressed that the challenges of providing aneffective voice for a diverse student body spreadover a number of sites were recognised, and thatparticular attention was given to this issue.

60 Student representation at programme level isusually by means of staff-student liaison committees(SSLCs) although some variation does exist. In allcases even where the department operate an SSLC,students are members of the ProgrammeCommittee. The SU provides training forprogramme representatives, but given the size ofthe University the SU acknowledged that this was anarea that could benefit from more support.

61 The audit team found that students in generalconsidered that their views were well represented atprogramme level, and that the representatives hadappropriate means for bringing the view of thestudent body forward. There was some evidencethat there was variability in experience of theeffectiveness of the representation system, largelycentring around the method of selection of therepresentative, and a general lack of awareness ofthe role. Part-time and postgraduate students areseen to be less well supported by the representativesystem than those on full-time undergraduateprogrammes, and some part-time mature studentsin particular were unsure about the effectiveness ofthe system, as the scheduling of meetings was oftenincompatible with the demands of theiremployment. The team considered that theUniversity may wish to consider how it can enhancethe accessibility and effectiveness of supportmechanisms for part-time students.

62 Overall, the audit team formed the view thatthe systems for student representation wereoperating effectively on the central committees, andthat while there was local variation, the combination

Institutional Audit Report: main report

page 11

of formal and informal routes at programme anddepartmental level promoted active engagement ofthe students with quality assurance and management.

Feedback from students, graduates and employers

63 The SED stated that all programmes wererequired to survey student opinion, the evidencefrom which was a 'key indicator' for periodic reviewand for the AME. The polling methods to be usedare not prescribed by the University and a variety ofmechanisms are adopted at programme levelincluding paper questionnaires, on-line surveys andstudent focus groups. From the meetings withstudents it was clear to the audit team that therewere strong informal opportunities withinprogrammes encouraging students to offer feedbackon all aspects of their experience, and that thesewere valued highly by the students.

64 The University wishes to introduce a commonformal procedure for gathering student feedback in2005, and has piloted a particular on-line approach atthe MMUBS as part of the process. ASC is consideringdetailed and comprehensive proposals for a commonon-line approach, focusing on data collection at unit,programme and University levels, that explicitlyaddresses the widely shared problem of response ratesby adopting a contractual approach with students.

65 The audit team considered that to furtherenhance its feedback from students the Universityshould pursue its development of a systematicapproach to obtaining and responding to studentfeed back on the basis of its current evaluation ofthe MMUBS pilot project in this area.

66 Feedback from graduates is used in various ways.The audit team heard that a variety of mechanismsare used including the incorporation of graduatestudents in periodic review meetings, the use ofalumni groups, and telephone surveys of graduatesgoing back over a long period of time, for feedbackon undergraduate and postgraduate degrees.

67 The SED stated that 'the views of employers areimportant to us'. The audit team heard evidence ofthe breadth and importance of employer feedbackin appropriate areas. These used formalisedemployer liaison and advisory groups and focusedemployer feedback events as part of the continuingrelationships maintained with employer stakeholdersin programme areas, especially those in obviouslyvocational areas. Employment related feedback isfacilitated and enhanced by the University's PSBStanding Group which reports to ASC. This Groupprovides a systematic basis for the University to

monitor, extend and augment its feedback from asector of employers with strong relevance for manyof its programmes (see above, paragraph 57).

68 The audit team considered that the use ofstudent feedback is effective and contributes to theoverall management of quality and standards. Theintroduction of the common formal procedure forgathering student feedback in 2005 will contributefurther to the mechanisms which already exist.

Progression and completion statistics

69 Student statistics at University and faculty level arepublished annually and a range of programme-leveldata is produced and presented as part of the AME. Atpresent, neither the AME nor the periodic reviewprocess generates effective analyses of this data andpresent their outcomes or any action derived from theanalysis. The new AME process, currently beingpiloted, does however require programmes to provideevidence that staff are engaging with statistical data.

70 The University plans to replace the central studentrecords system over an 18-month period beginning inSeptember 2004, and expects that this will help withthe generation of richer data that will be moreaccessible to staff. It is also clear that plans are in placeto harness the capacity of the new records system tofacilitate the enhancement of student feedback surveysand to allow longitudinal review of trends.

71 The University stated that its position on HEFCEbenchmarks, for widening participation andretention, demonstrates the effectiveness of itsrecruitment, selection and support strategies. Theaudit team also noted that at programme level therewas an awareness of student participation andretention trends. Although attention is paid to themonitoring and analysis of application andrecruitment statistics, with progress towards settargets being monitored regularly, there is lessevidence of formal analysis of student progressionand assessment data (see above, paragraph 39).

72 The audit team considered that the Universitywould enhance the management of its quality andstandards by continuing its ongoing work to ensurethat more effective and systematic use is made ofthe full range of statistical and performanceindicator data in annual monitoring and programmereview processes.

Assurance of the quality of teaching staff,appointment, appraisal and reward

73 The University has a well-developed HR strategywhich incorporates equal opportunities and racialequality policies that have been deemed exemplary by

The Manchester Metropolitan University

page 12

HEFCE. Furthermore, the University's strategies arebased on the principle that both research and learningand teaching will benefit from the interconnectionsbetween them. The maintenance and furtherdevelopment of a strong research capability is alsodirected towards improving the institution's ability torecruit and retain high-calibre staff.

74 All full-time staff that do not have teachingexperience are required to undertake a PostGraduate Certificate in Education (Higher Education)at the University's Institute of Education. The auditteam heard further evidence of effective inductionprocedures for new staff involving both initialtraining sessions and mentoring.

75 The SED described the promotion and rewardsprocedures. The HR policy clearly states thatexcellence in teaching and course leadership areimportant criteria for promotion to principal lecturer.However, in the evidence presented to the auditteam, emphasis was placed on the establishment ofsenior learning and teaching fellows (STLFs) as acareer-progression path for those who excel inteaching. Although these awards are for three-yearperiods, staff may apply for their continuance.

76 The University has a well-established scheme forprofessional development and review (PDR) involvinga formal, annual process. It has a clear focus on theenhancement of quality by the professionaldevelopment of staff and is not a form of appraisal assuch, as was confirmed in meetings with staff.

77 The audit team found that the processes andstrategies for appointment, retention and rewardwere clearly laid out, effective and supported bystaff. The SLTF scheme has demonstrated theUniversity's commitment to learning and teachingand rewards staff who excel in this area.

Assurance of the quality of teaching throughstaff support and development

78 The University has a comprehensive staff-development policy as part of its HR strategy. The SEDstated the principles of how priorities are set anddevelopment activities provided. At the institutionallevel, the Staff Development Forum and theDevelopment and Training Unit ensure a wide-rangingand coherent implementation of staff developmentactivities. Faculties and departments all showed acommitment to staff development, with thewidespread use of training courses, includingcompulsory staff-development days where currentissues could be discussed. These can arise through ashared concern, or through more formalmechanisms such as QAPs.

79 All academic staff take part in the PDR scheme.It has a formal structure that is consistentlyimplemented across the University. The audit teamfound staff to be well aware of its principles and toengage with it in a positive way. Although much ofthe impetus for development activities identified byPDR came from the individual staff, the importanceof University, faculty and departmental priorities wasalso made clear. The team found that staff fullyunderstood the need for their development tosupport such higher-level strategies.

80 The audit team met graduate teaching assistants(GTAs) and found them well prepared for theseduties. They are integrated into teaching teams andhave the opportunity to observe experiencedteachers and participate in team teaching activitieswith more experienced members of staff. They alsohave mentors appointed to them and support fromtheir supervisors. However, GTAs are not included inthe formal PDR process and it was unclear to theteam how, without a formal mechanism, theperformance of GTAs is monitored systematically.

81 The University has introduced a new policy onpeer support in academic year 2003-04. The policyis not prescriptive as it is intended to preserveexisting effective practices. During discussion withstaff the audit team identified a variety of practice.In some departments peer observation has not beenuniversally well received which has so far preventedits effective implementation. In some departmentspeer observation could be focused on informalshadowing rather than a formal two-way process.The majority of staff emphasised the importance ofteam teaching as a form of mutual support.However, the designation of observers is decidedlocally and can take many forms. The teamconsidered that the peer support process wouldbenefit from a more consistent and effectiveapproach across the University.

82 Dissemination of good practice is an importantpart of staff development and the University's learningand teaching fellows (LTFs) scheme is an importantcontributor. There are two categories of fellows: LTFswho undertake particular projects, and SLTFs whotake on leadership and advice roles.The SLTFs work in a highly communicative way, bothwithin their own departments and across theinstitution. The fellows support colleagues throughregular engagement with them, by offering staffdevelopment and by working with programme teamsfor reviews. Staff commented very positively on thehelp they had been given. The SLTFs worked not onlywith other fellows in the same faculty, creatingsynergy, but also on joint projects across faculties. In

Institutional Audit Report: main report

page 13

the next round of appointments, the University willbe focusing the fellows' activities in areas of strategicimportance to the whole institution, in particular onthe development of a comprehensive virtual learningenvironment (VLE). The Learning and Teaching Unit(LTU) oversees the LTFs scheme.

83 This LTU is also involved in a much wider rangeof activities. It actively promotes staff development insupport of the University's learning and teachingstrategy, and works with faculty learning and teachingcommittees to ensure a coherent implementation ofthis strategy. It is also to the fore in providinginformation on pedagogical research, and produces atermly publication Learning and Teaching in Actionthat addresses current issues and disseminates goodpractice. It provides support courses for staff and hastaken a lead role in developing the use of the VLEacross the University. The audit team considered thatthe effectiveness of the LTU and the associated LTFscheme in coordinating and leading innovations inteaching, learning and assessment was a feature ofgood practice.

84 The audit team concluded that the Universityprovides a strong and widespread commitment toenhancing students' learning experience throughstaff development.

Assurance of the quality of teaching deliveredthrough distributed and distance methods

85 Although the growth of on-line distance learning(ODL) is significant, currently involving some 12,000students and 200 staff, the vast majority takes theform of on-line support for traditionally deliveredprogrammes. There are currently only a relativelysmall number of students (136 full-time equivalents)on seven programmes which are delivered wholly byODL. One of these is being phased out and two aredelivered in conjunction with other universities.Building upon existing strengths, notably in MMUBS,the University has started a substantial project whoseremit is the development of a VLE.

86 The SED stated that all ODL programmes aresubject to the same quality assurance mechanismsas all other programmes and, in addition, externalassessors involved in programme approval or reviewmust be experienced in ODL. It is a requirementthat the FASC AME report must comment on ODLprovision. The LTU provides support for staffdelivering ODL with part-time server supportemanating from Media Services. The audit teamconfirmed the accuracy of the section of the SED'Assurance of quality of teaching delivered throughdistributed and distance methods'. The only caveatis that the statement 'The FASC AME report must

comment on ODL provision' is overstated in that theFASC AME reports, while containing a list of ODLprogrammes, provide no commentary.

87 The audit team support the view expressed inthe SED that the University has given seriousconsideration to assuring the quality of teachingthrough distributed and distance methods. AnAcademic and Professional DevelopmentProgramme has been started and revision of theQuality Assurance Procedures is under activeconsideration. It is clear to the team that theUniversity is not only aware of the Guidelines on thequality assurance of distance learning, published bythe Agency, but is actively considering how currentprocedures are best amended to implement them.

Learning support resources

88 The academic related support services(comprising the key areas of the library, theinformation systems unit, media services, estateplanning services and customer services) areorganised into a Services Division. The SEDhighlighted one of the strategic aims of the Divisionwhich was to contribute to ensuring the highestquality of student learning experience, emphasisingaccessibility and excellence in the level of provision.The audit team found clearly articulated strategydocuments and service-level statementsunderpinning service operations.

89 Computing provision is based on a system ofnetworked computers accessible to studentsthroughout the different campus sites. A wide rangeof general purpose and specialised software is madeavailable on the networked computers withincreasing use being made of e-learningtechnologies. The University has implemented aspecial initiative to promote the development of aninstitution-wide VLE, with targeted funding to put inplace a network of faculty-based STLFs to provide afocus of expertise in the promotion and developmentof the VLE. Meetings between the audit team andstudents indicated high levels of satisfaction with theresources in this area. Accessibility to informationtechnology (IT) facilities in particular was consideredby students to be very good.

90 Library provision is organised on a campus basis,with subject-level librarians. The library is a memberof an extensive consortium involving some 15 otherHE institutions in the area. Students have access tothe library facilities of other consortium memberswith both reading and borrowing rights. Studentsidentified the access to consortium libraries as beingof particular value for postgraduate study. The libraryprovides an extensive and expanding system of full-

The Manchester Metropolitan University

page 14

text electronic journal articles and e-books that canbe accessed by students and staff both on and offcampus. Part-time postgraduate students particularlyvalued off-campus access. The library conducts abiannual user satisfaction survey. The audit teamnoted that delays could arise in the reservation systemfor students at MMU Cheshire. The team also notedthat the reservation system could cause accessproblems for part-time students in full-timeemployment on certain programmes that are taughton alternate weeks. Discussions with studentsconfirmed the view that for the majority of studentsthe library services were 'very good' and that thelibrary in general offered a 'very efficient service'.

91 As part of its estates strategy, the University hasembarked upon a programme of renovation,modernisation and rationalisation of its estateportfolio. The strategy articulates with the strategicdevelopment of research institutes, and a drive toimprove the efficiency with which the Universityestate is used by reducing the number of operatingsites, and providing greater cohesion. A notablemodernisation of the science and engineeringfacilities was taking place at the time of the auditvisit. In the view of the audit team thesedevelopments will make a substantial contributionto enhancing the learning resources available tostudents, and will have a particularly positive impacton both the physical and intellectual learningenvironment for research students.

92 Overall, the audit team found that there weremany good aspects in the delivery and managementof the learning resources for students at all levels,and the team consider the supportive and high-quality learning environment for students to be afeature of good practice.

Academic guidance, support and supervision

93 Academic guidance and support is programmebased. Given the diversity of programmes available,the operational responsibility for devising the mostappropriate means of providing support andsupervision has been devolved to departments and is alocal matter. The SED stated that the University is'confident…that local systems…are robust, sensitiveand effective'. Discussions with staff and studentsindicated that most taught programmes operate a mixof formal and informal systems for academic support,with a key role being served by the year tutor (orequivalent). Student handbooks clearly lay out thesystems for advice and guidance, and students wereclear about who they could turn to. It was emphasisedto the audit team that informal routes for guidancewere valued and that staff fostered a supportive and

approachable culture. The Faculty of Art and Designwas noted in particular as encouraging reflectivepractice in students through structured interaction.Academic support at departmental level is enhancedat a central level by the work of Learning Support Unit(LSU). The LSU provides a number of study-skillsworkshops, and works with departments whenrequested to provide seminars and training in anumber of areas of learner support. The LSU is the'focal point' for provision of learner support forstudents with disabilities, and has developed awell-designed framework for implementing therequirements of the Special Educational Needs andDisability Act (SENDA).

94 Research students have a nominated supervisor(Director of Studies), supported by a supervisoryteam. The University has a comprehensive set ofregulations for research degrees, and a well laid outand accessible Research Students Handbook. Arecent development has been the introduction of asystem of research institutes to provide a strategicfocus to fostering and building research activity. TheResearch Development Unit is closely involved withthis initiative, and in discussions with staff from theUnit and from research institutes, the audit teamfound that research students were very much part ofthe overall strategy. Research institutes were seen asbeing a key means by which an effective researchculture can be fostered. In future, the majority ofresearch students will join teams of active researcherswho are members of one of the institutes, and will besupervised by teams. The team was informed that theaim was to create research communities that wouldprovide access to more sophisticated facilities andthat would give greater room for creativedevelopment than would be available to studentsworking in more isolated environments.

95 Overall, the audit team concluded thatacademic support and guidance at all levels wasappropriate, effective and of a high quality. Theblend of formal and informal routes reflected asupportive learning culture that that has led to theenhancement of the student learning experience.

Personal support and guidance

96 The SED stated that the University 'does notimpose a uniform model for pastoral care andpersonal tutors', although there are clearly definedexpectations that personal support be provided atdepartment or programme level. Localarrangements are monitored annually and reviewedas part of the periodic programme review. As withacademic support, the audit team found that therewas considerable variation across programmes in the

Institutional Audit Report: main report

page 15

extent to which students were allocated a personaltutor as such, or whether the programme or yeartutor fulfilled the pastoral support role. Studenthandbooks were clear in informing students whereto turn to for assistance, and in many casesacademic and pastoral supporting roles werecombined. Access to tutors is usually available withclearly posted office hours. Discussions with studentsshowed that students believed they were wellsupported by the tutor system and often used acombination of formal and informal contactsdepending on the type of advice they were seeking.

97 The University has an extensive Student Serviceswhich includes a Counselling Service, a CareersService and the LSU (see above, paragraph 93). Thereare counselling and careers staff based at MMUCheshire, and staff provide support at other campuslocations on an occasional basis. In addition, there isan International Office which caters in particular forthe needs of international students, providing acomplete service that starts before the student leavestheir home country and continues with orientationand induction events and full range of advice andsupport to help new students to contact the servicesthat they need. The SU operates a drop-in centre thattends to concentrate on financial advice.

98 The Careers Service is engaged in a number ofinitiatives with much of the information availableon-line through the service web page and through asystem of individual on-line registration and emailalerting. Careers advice can be offered to specificdisciplines if required and, at the time of the auditthis service was being offered on a number ofprogrammes. Graduates may continue to access theCareers Service up to three years after graduation.Discussions with students confirmed the satisfactionexpressed in SWS with the quality of the careerssupport. Students had a high level of awareness ofthe role of the Careers Service, and manycommented positively on the way that careersadvice was being integrated into their programmes.

99 The LSU provides workshops on study skills,customised support for students with disabilities, andis proactive is promoting an access agenda. The LSUis involved in a number of projects, the audit teamnoting in particular a current project on inductionand progression for pre-entry and first-year studentsfrom 'Excellence Challenge' areas and students onFoundation year programmes.

100 As part of the overall estates strategy, theUniversity is planning to amalgamate the Alsagerand Crewe campuses onto a single site. The auditteam learned from discussions with staff fromStudent Services that as part of this development

they were working with the SU to provide a newlevel of service and support that integrates theactivities of the two systems into a single, morecoherent facility with a staffed reception.

101 Overall, the audit team considered that thedepartmental systems for pastoral and personalsupport of students were good, and that localvariation in practices reflected programme needs.Students were well served by the combination offormal and informal tutoring. Centralised StudentServices were impressive, and the level of serviceprovided by the Careers Service and the LSU were ofa particularly high quality and contributed to thesupportive and high-quality learning environment(see above, paragraph 92).

Section 3: The audit investigations:discipline audit trails

Discipline audit trails

102 In each of the selected DATs, appropriatemembers of the audit team met staff and studentsto discuss the programmes, studied a sample ofassessed student work, saw examples of learning-resource materials, and studied annual unit andprogramme reports and periodic school reviewsrelating to the programmes.

Biological sciences masters programmes (MSc)

103 The DAT focused on the postgraduate mastersprogrammes in the areas of biomedical sciences, andconservation biology/behavioural ecology. The DSEDcomprised the documentation that had beenprepared for the internal quinquennial review of June2003. This process had combined an element ofreview, with scrutiny of proposals for programmemodifications, and an accreditation assessment bythe Institute of Biomedical Sciences of the provisionin biomedical science. Programme specifications hadbeen constructed to clearly link the broad aims ofthe programmes to the overall University educationalaims. Learning outcomes differentiated individualprogrammes in terms of knowledge and skills, as wellas in terms of the staged exit awards. The academiclevel required of students was explicitly linked to aclearly articulated teaching, learning and assessmentstrategy that emphasises the staged development ofindependent intellectual skills through a mix ofself-study, scientific presentations and conventionalcoursework and assessments. In the view of the auditteam the progressive development of theprogramme specifications and the explicit link with avaried and challenging assessment strategy enhancedthe student learning experience.

The Manchester Metropolitan University

page 16

104 The introduction of University-wideundergraduate regulations had also provided thebasis for the restructuring of the MSc programmes.This has resulted in particular attention being givento ensuring that the postgraduate programmesprovided an intellectual challenge that was clearlylocated at masters level. In the view of the auditteam the progressive development of theprogramme specifications and the explicit link witha varied and challenging assessment strategyenhanced the quality of the student learningexperience (see above, paragraph 33).

105 Annual monitoring is conducted through theAME (see above, paragraph 36). The QAPs availableto the audit team were comprehensive. The QAPalso contained an evaluative commentary from theHead of Department providing feedback to theprogramme team. The QAPs are copied to therelevant external examiners, and posted on thestudent notice-board to make explicit the actionstaken in response to the reports and feedback. Theaction plans viewed by the audit team, anddiscussions with staff and students demonstrated aclear sense of ownership and commitment toenhancing the quality of the learning experience ofstudents on the part of the programme team andthe Department. Overall, the team formed the viewthat the internal review processes are effective, andthat they are an appropriate means of providing theUniversity with the assurance that standards arebeing maintained within individual programmes.

106 The external examiners reports seen by theaudit team indicated that in both biomedicalsciences, and in conservation biology/behaviouralecology standards were appropriate to the awardsoffered and conformed to national expectations.Examiners were complimentary about individuallevels of achievement, noting that studentspossessed a 'deep understanding' and that academicperformance 'compared most favourably' to theirpeer group on similar programmes. Examples ofassessed work viewed by the team included anumber of research dissertations that wereimpressive in the scope and complexity of thesubject matter and, overall, the work availablesupported the view of the external examiners thatstudent achievement was appropriate to the title ofthe awards and their location within the FHEQ.

107 Meetings with students indicated that there wasscope for improvement in the provision of formativefeedback. Students commented that the return ofcoursework with associated feedback was oftendelayed to the point where individual students, andin particular those studying part-time, were unable

to benefit from it in the preparation for newassessments and examinations. The Departmentdoes not have a standardised procedure forproviding written comments. Students claim thecomments are often illegible or difficult to read. TheDepartment may wish to consider its policy onformative feedback to bring greater standardisationand clarity to the process.

108 All programmes provide a well-designed andcomprehensive student handbook, and studentswere generally satisfied with information that theyreceived about the programme once they hadarrived. Pre-arrival information was not ascomprehensive and some students, particularlythose on part-time modes of study, considered thatthe exact nature of some of the programmes andthe impact that part-time study had on the range ofoptions available was not made sufficiently clear.

109 Learning resources were considered to beadequate, with access to computer facilities beinggood. Experience of library provision was mixed. Full-time students were generally satisfied with the rangeand availability of material. However, the book loansystem posed considerable difficulties for part-timestudents who were in full-time employment. Anunforeseen consequence of delivering someprogrammes in alternate weeks virtually precluded thestudents from using the short-loan library system dueto the restrictions on loan duration. This difficulty isnot universal, and the ability of students to gain accessto full-text research articles via the University libraryinternet-site was praised as being of particular value tooff-campus part-time students. The audit team were ofthe opinion that support for part-time students couldbe enhanced by paying particular attention to theissue of access to the required learning resources.

110 The Department does not operate a specificSSLC, but rather has student representatives asmembers of the programme committees. The SUprovides training for the representatives if required,but those representatives met by the audit team hadnot considered that this was necessary. Studentscommented that their views were taken seriouslyand that the Department responded in appropriateways. Discussions with staff and studentshighlighted the collegial and supportive ethos thatwas fostered by the programme teams. Studentsconsidered themselves well supported in theirlearning, and valued the wide range of informal andeffective contact routes that they could use.

111 The audit team concluded that the quality oflearning opportunities available to students was suitablefor the programmes leading to the named awards.

Institutional Audit Report: main report

page 17

Business and management studies

112 The DAT covered the business and managementstudies undergraduate provision at MMU Cheshire,including honours degrees (single and joint), HNCs,HNDs, and Diplomas and Certificates under theProfessional Development Programme. The DSEDconsisted of documentation produced for the 2003periodic review of the complete undergraduateportfolio, with the confirmed report of that review.The review was thorough and self-evaluative. Aninteresting initiative reported in the review was thecommissioning of a market-research study to find outthe views of employers within 50 miles of the CreweCampus. The review also provided the vehicle forchanges to the subject programmes in business,marketing and human resource management. TheUniversity's quality-assurance processes are structuredvery similarly for both programme review andprogramme changes, thus permitting a review suchas this to perform both roles.

113 The programme specifications were included withthe DSED. They made clear reference to the relevantsubject benchmark statements, while the stagelearning outcomes parallel the levels defined in theFHEQ. The strict linking of modules to stages of studyand the limited flexibility of option choice result in aclear progression in the academic demandsexperienced by the students. Under the University'scode of practice, the programme specification formspart of a fuller definitive document which includesspecifications of each unit (module) that contributes tothe programme. Also provided is a mapping of unitlearning outcomes to the areas of knowledge andunderstanding, and the relevant skills, which aredefined in the Subject benchmark statement for businessand management. These demonstrate a clear andvaluable engagement with the Academic Infrastructure.

114 Progression and completion data are producedannually and provide a comprehensive range ofindicators. However, there is little evidence of formalanalysis and evaluation, although some broadfindings, such as retention rates on part-timeprogrammes, are noted within the QAPs. Staffreported that centrally produced figures becameavailable too late for a timely response to be made.Consequently, a thorough set of procedures has beeninstituted within the Department to monitorattendance and implement necessary follow-up action.

115 External examiners' reports are discussed at theProgramme Management Group and action isfollowed up through QAP. Examination of thereports showed them to be very supportive, with nomajor issues being raised in the past two years.There was not, however, clear evidence of responses

being conveyed back to external examiners and theDepartment may wish to consider how its externalexaminers are informed of actions and outcomes.

116 Assessment strategies are defined in principlewithin the programme specifications and unitsyllabus pro formas. These accord with theUniversity's learning and teaching strategy by using arange of assessment methods. The Department hasbeen at the forefront in recognising the implicationsof SENDA for assessment; consequently, there isexplicit reference to necessary modifications in boththe programme specification and unit syllabus proforma. However, the audit team considered that theUniversity may wish to make the links betweenassessment instruments and unit learning outcomesmore explicit. The audit also team learnt that theDepartment had decided to allow a one-week periodbefore implementing penalties for the latesubmission of coursework (see above, paragraph 54).

117 The audit team was able to examine samples ofstudent work. The standard of the studentachievement was consistent with the programmespecifications, and appropriate for the title of theaward and location within the FHEQ. Althoughmoderation of exam scripts strictly follows the Codeof practice, it does appear that changes had beenrestricted to individual marks within the sample thathas been second marked.

118 A comprehensive set of information is madeavailable to the students. Such information isprovided at programme level through handbooksand first-week induction, with more specific detailsgiven clearly at the start of each unit. Mostinformation relating to teaching is also availablethrough the departmental intranet, somethingcommented on positively by the students.

119 Students reported that there was good supportfrom staff, with examples of excellent help fromparticularly dedicated individuals. However, part-time students found that staff contact could bemore difficult in the evenings. Library access wassatisfactory and appropriate information wasprovided at induction. The placing of teachingmaterial on the intranet was found very useful butaccess to the common drive used for this purposedid present some difficulties for part-time students.

120 Student feedback is obtained through end-of-unit questionnaires; students would appreciateknowing what changes are implemented as a resultof these exercises. However, there is also thorough,ongoing interaction with staff through studentmembership of the Programme ManagementCommittee. The student representatives present

The Manchester Metropolitan University

page 18

written reports to the Committee and this results informal and comprehensive written feedback fromthe Department. This is an effective way in whichstudents are involved with quality management. Inaddition, students can feed back issues of concernthrough more informal means, particularly throughcourse teachers with whom they have built upsupportive relationships.

121 The audit team concluded that the quality oflearning opportunities available to students is suitablefor the programmes of study within the undergraduateprovision of business and management studies.

Business information technology management

122 The DAT was based on MMU's BSc/BSc(Honours) Business Information Technology (BIT)Management within the MMUBS. The programme isa conversion/top-up extension degree takingstudents with a strong profile from HNDprogrammes in BIT or equivalent. It was supportedby a DSED which principally comprised documentspertaining to the quinquennial programme reviewprocess. Following a review of all undergraduateprogrammes in the MMUBS it has been decidedthat this programme should be phased out andreplaced from 2004-05 with a new award BA (Hons)Business Administration with IT.

123 The programme specification followed thestandard University pattern. Detailed considerationhad been given to mapping the appropriate elementsof the Subject benchmark statement for computingand for business and management onto theprogramme specification. The aims and learningoutcomes of the programme also confirm that theFHEQ is appropriately reflected. Programme learningoutcomes were carefully mapped against individualunits and unit learning outcomes were clearly alignedto assessment. Although the programme specificationis fit for purpose the University is considering how itmight be restructured, perhaps electronically, tobetter meet the needs of different target audiences.

124 Responsibility for quality monitoring rests withthe programme committee and each programme isannually reviewed through the AME (see above,paragraph 36). In addition, periodic programmereview takes place every five years. The audit teamfound that the cycle of reports was robust in theassurance of quality and demonstrated that actionplans were followed through; often resulting inchange. Although the reports were in generalcomprehensive, there was one significant area ofweakness; despite a full data set being provided therewas insufficient detailed evaluation of monitoring andstatistical data contained within the reports.

125 External examiners' reports express generalsatisfaction with the programme as a whole and inparticular its standards and quality. A response to theexternal examiners' comments is prepared andincluded in the QAP. Though there is as yet noformal pro forma for informing external examiners ofthe action taken in the light of comments made, theappropriate format is currently under consideration,there is evidence that such responses are made.

126 The samples of assessed work provided across thespectrum of units in the programme demonstratedthat a range of assessment methods are used. Theassessed work served to confirm that studentachievement matched the declared learning outcomesand the level descriptor. All assessed work was foundto be moderated following the procedures laid downin the QAM. Notwithstanding this, the audit teamwere concerned that marks changed by internalmoderation of a sample, as evidenced in the assessedwork presented, could lead to inequity. The teamlearnt that the Department, in accordance withFaculty guidelines, allowed a three-week period beforeimplementing penalties for the late submission ofcoursework (see above, paragraph 54). The externalexaminers' reports confirm that the standard ofstudent achievement is comparable to that on similarprogrammes elsewhere. The team concluded that thestandard of student achievement is appropriate for thetitle of the award and its location within the FHEQ.

127 A feature of particular note in the programme isthe use of the MMUBS intranet, which is usedextensively as a vehicle for on-line learning,communication and evaluation. The minutes of theProgramme Committee and the Student LiaisonCommittee, which meet once a term, are publishedon the intranet with resulting actions. Units wereevaluated through formal questionnaires published onthe intranet and students were wholly supportive ofthe fact that continued access was conditional uponcompleting the questionnaire. One clear advantage ofthis approach, commented upon by both staff andstudents, is that the scheme can be structured toprovide instant feedback to students. The audit teamwelcomes the efforts made by the programme teamto both gather and respond to student feedback.

128 Students were provided with a pre-arrival packwhich contained institutional, faculty andprogramme specific information. Apart from theminor caveat that the programme details containeddescriptions of some optional programmes whichsubsequently did not run, the students werecompletely satisfied with both the breadth anddepth of the information provided. Upon arrival, acomprehensive induction programme was designed

Institutional Audit Report: main report

page 19

to introduce students to the University, theprogramme and to each other. Those students, themajority, who had engaged fully with the inductionprogramme, spoke positively about its benefits.

129 Students who met the audit team were generallycontent with the scope and operation of theirprogramme, and with the general level of supportprovided by staff, in particular the administrative staffwere selected for praise. With some exceptions,depending upon the unit, tutors were considered tobe open and approachable, operating either an open-door policy or publishing an availability timetable. Allthe students had been allocated a personal tutorwhom they had met during the first week of theprogramme. Although the students saw the personaltutor system as reactive, rather than proactive, all werecompletely confident that, if required, personalsupport would be adequately provided. Of all theUniversity wide support services, of which the studentswere fully aware, the Careers Service was identified asbeing particularly active. Email was used effectively totell students about forthcoming careers events and theadvisers were seen as very approachable.

130 The audit team concluded that the quality oflearning opportunities available to students issuitable for the programme of study leading to thenamed award.

Embroidery/fashion/textiles

131 The DAT reviewed three separate, namedawards: BA (Hons) Embroidery; BA (Hons) Fashion;and BA (Hons) Textiles. The DSED comprised a shortpreface with the Programme Approval Form andSED as submitted to the Faculty Review. In addition,the DSED contains the Programme Review Reportproduced by the Programme Review Panel and theapproved programme specifications for each award.

132 The programme specification seen by the auditteam stated the position of the programme within theFHEQ and described the programme structures as wellas providing a curriculum map. Preparation for theadoption of the University's Undergraduate RegulatoryFramework and the production of programmespecifications was taken by the Faculty of Art andDesign as an opportunity to develop a coherentapproach to articulating a set of aims, level descriptorsand level outcomes for the subject of art and design.This has led to the development of generic andsubject-specific learning outcomes which have beenembedded clearly within programmes and units.

133 Student data is collated, disseminated toprogramme teams and presented as part of theAME. Although little explicit analysis of the data ispresented in the AME, key features are discussed at

programme committees and staff provided evidenceof regular reviews of recruitment statistics anddevelopmental debate around aspects ofrecruitment, retention and progression data.

134 The three course teams collaborate in a mini-review at the beginning of the AME process andreview the contributing information. Staff confirmedthat they received feedback from senior staff toapprove their quality plans for the coming year andit is evident that the plans are discussed withstudents. The QAPs are used by staff as an active'checklist' of issues that need to be addressed duringthe year and are contained in the programme logsfor ease of reference. The programme logs havebeen developed in art and design and recognisedwithin the University as an example of goodpractice; having recently been adopted as acomponent of the revised AME procedures. The QIPdraws faculty-wide issues for attention and the auditteam saw and heard evidence to confirm that theseprocesses were working effectively.

135 External examiner reports were reviewed andthe audit team saw evidence that timely responsesare made directly to the examiner and that key issuesfor development are incorporated into the relevantQAP; it was also clear to the team that issues raisedby external examiners are addressed. Staff reportedthat the new undergraduate regulations had beenpositive in helping them to clarify and develop therole of external examiner as a moderator.

136 Programme assessment strategies are outlinedclearly in the programme specifications and in theprogramme student handbooks. Studentsdemonstrate a good understanding of theassessment methods and criteria and are providedwith effective feedback from staff in a variety offorms. The audit team was also able to viewexamples of programme logs, learning agreementsand studio journals. The emphasis on self-initiatedproject work was highly evident, as was a clearframework within which such projects aredeveloped, supported and assessed. The team wasable to view a range of work from different levelsand concluded that the standard of studentachievement is appropriate for the title of the awardand its location within the FHEQ.

137 Student handbooks are comprehensive andaccessible and students reported that they foundthem, and other course documentation to beaccurate and useful. The programme handbookscontain full information about units, learningoutcomes and assessment methods and aresupported by extensive inductions for each yeargroup. The student information handbook produced

The Manchester Metropolitan University

page 20

by the Faculty contains general student informationwith regulations and procedures.

138 The development of a Learning AgreementDocument (LAD) forms a core part of theprogramme level learning support. The LAD is astructured set of student-generated documents andother associated materials included in theProgramme Journal which helps individuals to reviewand evaluate their activity and to plan for futurework. The student work itself and discussion withstudents shows a high level of engagement withthese evaluative activities and a clear understandingof the benefits, particularly for career planning andrecognition of personal transferable skills.

139 Personal tutors review academic progress andprovide a first line of pastoral support and studentsreported a confidence that staff are available to talkand keen to support. Staff and students bothconfirmed that where necessary central, Universitylearning support services can be readily accessed foradvice and for progressing issues that requirespecialist support. Support for students is inclusiveand particular activity has been developed to respondto the high proportion of students with dyslexiafound in art and design, including the appointmentof a SLTF who is undertaking research activity in thisarea. Students reported that the programmesprovided a highly supportive learning environmentthat was responsive to a range of student needs.

140 The formal methods to collect student feedbackare in place and include end-of-year and end-of-unitfeedback and evaluation pro formas, coursecommittees and SSLCs. Students reported that theseare complemented by weekly meetings between thestudent representatives and the programme leaderswhich enable rapid feedback and response. Studentsreported that they considered staff to be responsiveto their concerns and that staff would often invitestudents to work with them to solve a problem.

141 The audit team concluded that the quality oflearning opportunities available to students issuitable for the programme of study leading to thenamed award.

Food, consumer, tourism and hospitality management

142 The DAT focused on the portfolio ofundergraduate and taught postgraduate programmesoffered in the School of Food, Consumer, Tourismand Hospitality Management in the areas ofconsumer and marketing; food and health; hospitalitymanagement and tourism management. The DSEDconsisted of documentation relating to the mostrecent periodic review of this provision, undertaken in2003, to include programme approval forms, internal

SEDs, the Programme Review Report and theApproved Programme Specifications.

143 The programme specifications, taken from therelevant course definitive document, wereformulated to a standard University template andclearly set out the aims and learning outcomes foreach of the programmes concerned. Learningoutcomes were set at the appropriate FHEQ leveland where appropriate were carefully mappedagainst the relevant subject benchmark statement.

144 Annual monitoring and evaluation leads to theproduction of QAPs produced for all programmeseach year, completed to a standard format withactions informed by: unit action plans written byunit leaders which were variable in terms of thedetail included; students evaluations (obtainedthrough unit questionnaires and discussion at theSSLCs); external examiners' comments and reports;and data on student progression, achievement andfirst destinations. QAPs usefully include an updateon the previous year's actions. The annualmonitoring data provided in the QAPs indicatedgood progression achievement and completionstatistics for most programmes included in the DAT,those for the HND programmes generally beingweaker than for other provision.

145 The external xaminers' comments were fullyconsidered and responded to through the AME anddiscussed by the programme team at the relevantprogramme committee. The audit team saw a rangeof student work including essays, reports,projects/dissertations and examinations. On the basisof the reports from the external examiners and theevidence available to it, the team concluded that thestandard of student achievement is appropriate for thetitle of the award and its location within the FHEQ.

146 The audit team was able to confirm that theSchool is conforming to the University's newguidelines for the internal moderation of assessedstudent work, although the team was of the viewthat these procedures, which are under review,could be further developed by the University (seeabove, paragraph 53). The work provided alsoshowed evidence of external moderation. Assessmentbriefs seen were generally clear in terms of the tasksset but were variable in terms of the specificassessment criteria included. Students reported thatthey usually received feedback in a timely fashion andthat the feedback provided was helpful.

147 Written guidance to students includes the Facultyhandbook, individual programme handbooks and unitguides with a variety of materials made available onthe School intranet. Students were clear on the

Institutional Audit Report: main report

page 21

School's regulations for the late submission ofassignments and on issues about plagiarism, both ofwhich are fully discussed in programme handbooks.The audit team noted, however, that the Department'swritten policy on penalties for the late submission ofcoursework, while clear to students, was not entirelyconsistent with that detailed in the Faculty handbook.

148 Students confirmed that staff were approachableand helpful, and that the academic and pastoralsupport systems in place in the School and in theUniversity more widely were effective, and includedstudents out on placement. Students also confirmedthat the learning resources provided to them,including library and IT support were satisfactory.Students particularly praised the provision ofelectronic journals. The staff also confirmed thatgeneral resourcing in the Department was good.Students indicated that they have a variety of formalmechanisms through which issues of concern tothem can be raised, to include unit evaluationquestionnaires and SSLCs and programmecommittees. They confirmed that their views aretaken note of and gave several examples of changeswhich had occurred in response to issues raised.

149 The audit team concluded that the quality oflearning opportunities available to students issuitable for the programme of study leading to thenamed award.

Sociology, criminology and cultural studies

150 The DAT covered the following programmes: BA(Hons) Sociology programmes incorporating: BA(Hons) Sociology; BA (Hons) Criminology andSociology; BA (Hons) Cultural Studies and Sociology.The DSED comprised the 2002 Programme Reviewdocuments including the SEDs for the sociologyprogramme and for the BA (Hons) Sociology andContemporary Culture, the Programme ReviewReport and evidence from reports and minutes ofresponses to the Programme Review. The Subjectbenchmark statement for sociology informed theprogramme specifications. The development of thecombined programme of sociology, criminology andcultural studies was itself undertaken, in part, as acreative response to the statement, as was thedesign of the basic curriculum to require particular'core' experiences for students. Criminology andcultural studies have also chosen, appropriately inthe view of the team, to use the Subject benchmarkstatement for sociology as the basis for theircurriculum structures and syllabus designs.

151 The Programme Course Committee (PCC)makes good use of award and progression statistics,not least to support a number of programme-specific

development projects, for example, on recruitment,diversity and retention. Data from the University'sexisting information management system aregathered and used appropriately and carefully toinform and drive University and Faculty initiatives atprogramme level. They are also used to routinelymonitor performance and achievement, and toinform the programme's QAP and, now, the Head ofDepartment's QIP. The PCC and the ProgrammeLearning and Teaching Committee, that both includestudent representatives, use available University dataand also conduct their own reviews to support themonitoring and management of course delivery.

152 External examiners' reports are widelydistributed. The Programme Leader constructs ananalysis and a response to these reports that isdiscussed in the PCC and, where appropriate,incorporated into the QAP. Report summaries alsoform part of periodic reviews. The new AME process,the QIP and the new format for programme logs arewelcomed by the course team as an enhancementfor their planning of changes in delivery. The auditteam saw clear evidence of the appropriatemanagement of the use of external examiners'reports at programme and faculty levels.

153 Assessment strategies emphasising a variety ofmethods reflect a concern for a balance in theexperience of the student and also the demands ofthe benchmark statement. The shift to a double-weighted dissertation unit, which is made possibleby changes in the University regulations, has beenwelcomed by staff and, the audit team heard in itsmeeting with the students, by the studentsthemselves. The team reviewed a range of assessedstudent work. It was satisfied that the nature of theassessment and the standard of studentachievement were appropriate to the titles of theawards and their location in the FHEQ.

154 All students are provided with a variety ofhandbooks from the beginning of their studies,including programme, level and unit handbooks andmodule directories. Students praised the availabilityof information from these sources and from the staffthemselves who were seen as readily available foradvice and information. Expectations, requirementsand standards of learning and assessment were clearand easily checkable against information inhandbooks and on the University's web pages. Theaudit team saw the procedure for option unit choiceas particularly effective and well organised, withtimetables for the forthcoming year made availableto students as part of the procedure. The teamparticularly noted, supported by what they heardfrom their meeting with students, the effective

The Manchester Metropolitan University

page 22

arrangements made in the programme to enable afull educational experience by disabled students.

155 The audit team heard that learning supportresources were good and were regarded asappropriate by the students. Teaching staff werewell supported and the provision of acomprehensive Staff Handbook and a systematicapproach to the support of associate lecturersteaching on the programme were notable features.

156 Students were represented on the PCC and onthe Departmental Learning and TeachingCommittee. Unit evaluation questionnaires and apilot on-line feedback survey had been used on theprogramme to gather student views. The PCC hadundertaken a specific project into extending studentevaluation and this was clearly defined, along withdiversity and retention, as an important area forfurther enhancement by the course team. Fromdiscussions with the students and staff it wasapparent to the audit team that there was,additionally, an effective and accessible system ofinformal feedback through which issues could bequickly raised and resolved. The students providedseveral examples of the effectiveness of assessmenttechniques and teaching styles. The personal tutorsystem was constructed to ensure that that all tutorsalso taught their tutees in the first year, and that alltutors had clear times of availability for students.

157 The audit team concluded that the quality oflearning opportunities available to students wassuitable for programmes of study leading to thenamed awards.

Section 4: The audit investigations:published information

The students' experience of publishedinformation and other information availableto them

158 The University acknowledged in the SED that asa large institution it faces challenges in ensuring thatthe publication of information is managed to ensurecoherence and clarity. The SED summarised theUniversity's approach to addressing this whichbegan with the development of a Universityinformation strategy, managed by a Steering Groupto oversee implementation and to advise theDirectorate. The University has identified theintegration of its information systems as an essentialobjective in the enhancement of its informationstrategy. The SED also described the processes usedto ensure the accuracy and reliability of material forparticular audiences or presented in particular

formats and the staff responsible for each area. Oneof the key units involved in the management ofinformation is the External Relations Division (ERD)and Academic Board membership has recently beenrevised to include the Director ERD as a full member.

159 Students expressed a broadly positive viewabout the quality of the information publishedacross the University and particularly commendedthe range of materials produced by the StudentAdvice Centre. Students also commented thatmaterials issued to them at the level of theprogramme, department or school and faculty werevery useful in guiding them through theirprogrammes and in providing answers to specificquestions. Students were positive about the pre-enrolment and induction information supplied.

160 The audit team was able to confirm the clearcommitment to effective management of informationand to its accuracy and effectiveness at the mostsenior levels. Material viewed by the team revealed thehigh quality of information published by the Universityin a variety of forms, including the comprehensiverange of materials available to staff and studentsthrough the University intranet and faculty intranets.The team noted that the University publishes anddistributes many of its strategic and planningdocuments, such as the strategic review and equalopportunities strategy. In many cases thesepublications include not only the strategy documentitself but also accompanying detailed action plans. TheQAM offers an example of where the provision ofaccurate information organised into an accessible formhas supported staff in achieving and maintaining highstandards of academic quality management.

161 Staff consistently spoke to the audit team of theease with which they access information within theUniversity on topics such as staff development,quality management and academic procedures.They were able to demonstrate that information isdistributed to staff not only in a range of differentmedia, but also through different approaches.Information is successfully transmitted through thecommittee structures and staff are also informeddirectly on a regular basis through mechanisms suchas all-staff emails. A commitment to nurturingnetworks of staff evidently underpins the use offormal mechanisms and allows debate anddiscussion among staff across departments andoften cross-faculty. The team considers that theUniversity's consistent attention to ensuring theeffective exchange of information and for using thisinformation to effectively engage staff inconsultation leading to decision-making to be afeature of good practice.

Institutional Audit Report: main report

page 23

Reliability, accuracy and completeness ofpublished information

162 The University stated in the SED that it fullycomplies with Part A of the HEFCE document,Information on quality and standards in higher education(HEFCE 02/15). The audit team was able to confirmthis and to gain confidence in the progress that theUniversity has made towards meeting therequirements of HEFCE's document, Information onquality and standards in higher education: Final guidance(HEFCE 03/51). In 2003-04 the University introducedan amended external examiner report template toinclude the summary required by HEFCE 02/15 andplans to publish summaries of all external examinerreports with an explanation of how they relate toprogrammes once programme teams have been ableto respond. Additionally, the University has prepared asummary report of issues arising from academicreviews. First-destinations survey outcomes arepublished, with programme level information detailinggraduate employment. The Publication Schemerequired by the Teacher Qualification Index is in place.

163 Overall, the audit team found that the Universityhas made good progress in meeting the requirementsfor published information and was confident that itwould be in a position to meet the relevant deadlinesfor the publication of materials on the HigherEducation and Research Opportunities web site.

The Manchester Metropolitan University

page 24

Findings

Findings

164 An institutional audit of MMU was undertakenduring the week 14 to 18 June 2004. The purposeof the audit was to provide public information onthe quality of the University's programmes of studyand on the discharge of its responsibility as a UKdegree-awarding body. As part of the audit process,according to protocols agreed with HEFCE, SCOPand UUK, six DATs were selected for scrutiny at thelevel of an academic discipline. This section of thereport summarises the findings of the audit. Itconcludes by identifying features of good practicethat emerged, and recommendations to MMU forenhancing current practice.

The effectiveness of institutional proceduresfor assuring the quality of programmes

165 Since the last audit visit, the University hascritically reviewed and, where appropriate, revisedaspects of its quality assurance procedures. Thechanges which have arisen are essentially anevolution of existing practices and procedures butwith a particular emphasis on enhancing theeffectiveness of institutional overview, the consistencyof implementation of practices within faculties andthe closure of feedback loops to programme teams.

166 One of the developments has been a revision tothe committee structure with the introduction of extrasubcommittees associated with ASC and a mirroring ofthe key University committees at faculty level to givean integrated network of central and local committeesoverseeing the implementation of qualitymanagement. Revised procedures for programmeapproval and periodic review have been in operationfor the past two years. The procedures for each aresimilar, with the most significant development beingthe introduction of a first stage 'approval in principle'at which resource issues, potential overlap with similarprovision and anticipated market demand areconsidered. This involves outline proposals for thedevelopment of new programmes or re-approval ofexisting programmes being considered at faculty andUniversity level before full development being startedand progressed to formal approval by facultyprogramme approval/review panels which containexternal membership.

167 Programme monitoring is undertaken through anAME with programme teams being responsible formonitoring and evaluating their programmes, basedon a range of information including statistical dataand feedback from external examiners and students.At the audit visit, revised procedures for the AMEwere being piloted. These were designed to devolve

responsibility for the monitoring of programmes toprogramme teams, subject to two-yearly audits, withannual faculty and University consideration focusingon the outcomes of the evaluation produced by theprogramme management teams.

168 The SED expressed the view that there is'widespread local ownership of the commitment toimprove quality and the associated managementprocedures, permitting a devolved but secureprocess that has the confidence of those operatingit'. The audit team was able to endorse these views,based on evidence obtained through meetings withstaff and inspection of documentation. Practices arebeing consistently implemented within faculties andthe team is of the opinion that the University's QAMplays a key role in this achievement. This document,which is published both electronically and in hardcopy, provides members of staff with acomprehensive compendium of guidance on allaspects of quality assurance.

169 The programme approval and review procedureshave demonstrably been enhanced through theintroduction of the two stage revised process. As aresult of an increasing tendency for programmes tobecome aggregated into a programme network, theUniversity is aware that the appropriateness of thecurrent review process will require to be monitored.The University is also currently considering a furtherdevelopment to its review procedures, specifically inrespect of assuring the comparability of qualitybetween similarly titled awards offered in differentfaculties. It is proposed to pilot a new form ofexternal engagement involving the appointment of aDEA whose role will be to monitor areas of similarprovision to ensure consistency of student experienceand comparability of programme development. Thepiloting of the revised AME has engenderedconsiderable commitment from programme leadersto the new process, while also identifying furtherdevelopments which will be incorporated before fullimplementation next session.

170 All programmes are currently required to obtainstudent opinion as part of the AME. The methodsused are not prescribed and a variety of mechanismsare adopted, including paper questionnaires, on-linesurveys and student focus groups. During the visit itbecame apparent to the audit team that there arealso highly effective informal mechanisms operatingat programme level which students value highly.The University, however, wishes to introduce a moresystematic procedure for gathering student feedbackand, during the current session, an on-line approachis being piloted at the MMUBS. As a result of theevaluation of this pilot, a proposed University-wide

The Manchester Metropolitan University

page 26

scheme has been developed and is currently beingconsidered at ASC. The audit team considered thatthe University should continue the development of amore systematic means of obtaining and respondingto student feedback.

171 Graduate feedback is primarily used withinperiodic reviews where a variety of feedbackmechanisms is utilised. In keeping with its vocationaland professional emphasis, the University placesimportance on obtaining the views of employers.These are achieved through a variety ofmechanisms, including employer liaison andadvisory groups and focused employer feedbackevents. As part of a recent development, theUniversity has introduced a PSB Standing Groupwhich reports to ASC. The purpose of this group isto provide a systematic basis for the University tomonitor, extend and augment its feedback from asector of employers with a strong relevance formany of its programmes. The audit team welcomesthis approach by the University to the enhancementof its relationships with employers and PSBs and itsgeneration of continuous feedback.

172 Currently, the University has only a very smallproportion of its students studying on programmeswhich are delivered wholly by ODL. The University'sapproach to the quality assurance of ODLprogrammes is to essentially adopt the proceduresused for traditionally delivered programmes,supplemented, as appropriate, to address specificissues associated with open and distance learning.During the visit, the audit team saw evidence offurther consideration which the University is givingto enhancing its assurance of the quality of its ODLprovision. These deliberations were, in part,informed by recent draft guidelines issued by theAgency. The team is therefore confident that theUniversity is keeping an effective overview of theappropriateness of its quality assurance proceduresfor its ODL provision.

The effectiveness of institutional proceduresfor securing the standards of awards

173 The University's approach to securing standardsrests upon a set of procedures for managing thequality and enhancement of its educationalprovision. Formal responsibility for this security restswith the Academic Board which delegates oversightof all matters relating to standards and quality oftaught programmes to its ASC and for all researchdegree matters to its RDC. A set of subcommitteesof ASC is responsible for the approval and review ofall programmes and for the appropriateness of allexternal examining arrangements.

174 The Faculty ASCs, programme committees andboards of examiners take operational responsibilityfor standards including recommendations for theprogression of, and awards to, students and for theregulation of programmes of study. Procedures andpolicies on academic regulations, assessment and allquality assurance issues are clearly andcomprehensively recorded in a QAM which is usedat all levels to inform decisions and underwriteconsistent practice across the University.

175 Regulations for undergraduate and postgraduateprogrammes of study document in detail theUniversity's requirements for the conduct ofassessments. A variety of handbooks for studentsclarify expectations for the standard of studentattainment for all types of assessment. Externalexaminers play an important role in examinationboards and they are provided with clear guidance tosupport this role. Their reports are widely distributedand carefully used at both programme and Universitylevels and responses to these reports are monitored byASC as part of the process of alerting itself to areas forimprovement and development. The audit teamconsidered the University's regulatory arrangements tobe sufficiently comprehensive and appropriate as toguarantee the standard of awards. However, to furtherdevelop the effectiveness of these arrangements, theteam considers that the University should review itspolicies on the internal moderation of assessments andon the penalties accruing for the late submission ofassessments to ensure equity and consistency.

176 The University, for use at central, faculty andprogramme levels, collects data on progression,awards, classification and employment destination.The University is in the process of enhancing its useof statistics by the introduction of a newmanagement information system which will permitmore extensive use of performance data in themanagement of quality and standards.

177 The audit team concluded that the relationshipbetween programme committees and examinationboards and central University committees, andexternal examiners was sufficiently strong tounderwrite a judgement of broad confidence in theeffectiveness of the University's present and likelyfuture management of the standard of its awards.

The effectiveness of institutional proceduresfor supporting learning

178 The learning resources, particularly IT provision,library facilities, and the developing physical estatewere found by the audit team to be of a high qualityand supported student's learning, although the needsof part-time students could play a more prominent

Institutional Audit Report: findings

page 27

role in planning access policy. Access to other librariesin HE institutions in the Manchester area through theconsortium arrangement was noteworthy and made apositive and valuable contribution. The provision ofelectronic texts and journals were significantdevelopments that were widely praised by students,and the University has embarked upon a programmeto strategically build a virtual learning environmentand to expand its e-learning portfolio. The one areawhere the team found some difficulties was with theaccessibility and effectiveness of support mechanismsfor part-time students which could be enhanced.However, overall, the team found the quality of thelearning environment and the student learningexperience to be a feature of good practice.

179 Responsibility for academic and personal supportof undergraduate students and taught postgraduatesis largely devolved to the programme level, with theeffectiveness of these local arrangements beingreviewed annually. Evidence from students suggestedthat the support arrangements operated satisfactorily,and that being able to have access to staff forinformal support and guidance was valuable.Support for research students is through supervisoryteams. Recent developments in the UniversityResearch Strategy incorporate strategies forenhancing the academic and pastoral support ofresearch postgraduates in the context of theUniversity's newly formed research institutes. Overall,students whom the team met considered that theUniversity actively fostered a supportive ethos.

180 Centralised Student Services provided a numberof facilities, with a highly effective Careers Service andLSU. Both operate in a proactive way, and there are anumber of initiatives to enhance the support ofstudents preregistration and to address a wider-accessagenda. International students are well supported bythe extensive activities of an International Office.

181 The University has introduced a new policy onpeer support in academic year 2003-04. The auditteam found a variety of practice in operation acrossthe University and consider this variation of practiceis undermining the potential effectiveness of the peersupport process. The team formed the view that thepeer support process would benefit from a moreconsistent and effective process across the University.

The outcomes of discipline audit trails

Biological sciences masters programmes (MSc)

182 From its study of students' assessed work andfrom discussions with students and staff, the auditteam formed the view that the standard of studentachievement in the programmes was appropriate to

the title of the award and its location in the FHEQ.The programme specifications set out appropriateaims and outcomes, and the separation ofundergraduate from masters programmes was clear.

183 Students were positive about the programmesand the quality of information they received,although there is room for improvement in theprovision of pre-arrival information, particularly forpart-time students. Learning resources, IT provisionand staff support are of a high standard, with staffapproachability being identified as a positive feature.Students are widely represented on departmentalcommittees, and their views derived from feedbackare considered in depth as part of the AME. Theaudit team concluded that the quality of learningopportunities available to students was suitable forthe programmes of study leading to awards inbiological sciences masters programmes (MSc).

Business and management studies

184 From its study of students' assessed work andfrom discussions with students and staff, the auditteam formed the view that the standard of studentachievement in the programmes was appropriate tothe title of the award and its location in the FHEQ.Programme specifications relate clearly to therelevant subject benchmark statements while thestage learning outcomes appropriately reflect thelevels of the FHEQ.

185 Students are effective contributors to the qualityof the programmes through active membership ofthe Programme Management Committees. Studentsvalued the information they received, especiallyteaching materials available on the departmentalintranet. They also find the staff very supportive oftheir learning. The audit team concluded that thequality of learning opportunities available tostudents was suitable for the programmes of studyleading to the undergraduate provision in businessand management studies.

Business information technology management

186 From its study of examples of assessed work,and from discussions with students and staff, theaudit team formed the view that the standard ofstudent achievement in the programme wasappropriate to the title of the award and its locationin the FHEQ. The programme of study reflectsappropriate elements of the Subject benchmarkstatement for computing and for business andmanagement, and programme aims are carefullymapped to individual units.

187 Student evaluation of the provision was positivewith staff considered to be both supportive and

The Manchester Metropolitan University

page 28

responsive. Students who met the audit team werevery happy with the information provided andreserved particular praise for the way in which theMMUBS intranet was used by the programme team.Many varied opportunities, both formal andinformal, are available for the students to providefeedback on the quality of their learning experienceand there is ample evidence that the programmeteam not only take student feedback seriously butalso respond appropriately. The team concludedthat the quality of learning opportunities available tostudents was suitable for the programmes of studyleading to awards in business informationtechnology management.

Embroidery/fashion/textiles

188 From its study of students' assessed work andfrom discussions with students and staff, the auditteam formed the view that the standard of studentachievement in the programmes was appropriate tothe title of the award and its location in the FHEQ.The programme specifications set out appropriatelearning aims and objectives and describe learning,teaching and assessment strategies that areappropriate to student development.

189 Student evaluation of the programme has beenpositive and students reported to the audit teamthat a variety of formal and informal mechanismsare in place to effectively allow their views to beheard and acted upon. Students reported a strongsense that their tutors were supportive andinterested in all aspects of their development andwould make time to talk informally as well asthrough scheduled tutorials. Students alsocommented that staff had a good understanding ofa variety of learning needs and that they werehelpful in assisting students to access support. Thestudents were positive about the self-evaluationactivities, seeing them as a fully integral part of theirprogramme and recognising their benefits in termsof their professional development at University andin the workplace. The team concluded that thequality of learning opportunities available tostudents was suitable for the programmes of studyleading to awards in embroidery/fashion/textiles.

Food, consumer, tourism and hospitality management

190 From its study of students' assessed work andfrom discussions with students and staff, the auditteam formed the view that the standard of studentachievement in the programmes was appropriate tothe title of the award and its location in the FHEQ.Programme specifications were well developed andprovision benchmarked against the appropriatesubject benchmark statement. Annual qualitymonitoring and evaluation processes were carried

out following University procedures. Issues raised viathese processes were dealt with in a timely fashionand external examiners comments appropriatelyresponded to. Assessment practices generallyconformed with University requirements withevidence of sound moderation processes.

191 Students who met the audit team were satisfiedthat the learning resources available to support theprogrammes were appropriate to include libraryresources, IT provision, the pastoral care andacademic guidance provided by staff and studenthandbooks. Students particularly praised theavailability of electronic journals in the library.Mechanisms for eliciting student feedback wereappropriate with evidence of the issues raised beingresponded to at all levels in the School. The teamconcluded that the quality of learning opportunitiesavailable to students was suitable for theprogrammes of study leading to awards in food,consumer, tourism and hospitality management.

Sociology, criminology and cultural studies

192 From its study of students' assessed work andfrom discussions with students and staff, the auditteam formed the view that the standard of studentachievement in the programmes was appropriate tothe title of the award and its location in the FHEQ.The team found that subject benchmark statementshad been used effective and contributed to theoverall coherence of the programmes.

193 The audit team heard praise from students forthe availability of information and the staffthemselves who were seen as readily available foradvice and information. Learning support resourceswere good and were regarded as appropriate by thestudents. The team concluded that the quality oflearning opportunities available to students wassuitable for the programmes of study leading toawards in sociology, criminology and cultural studies.

The use made by the institution of theAcademic Infrastructure

194 The ASC is responsible for overseeing theUniversity's engagement with the Code of practice,external benchmarks, including statutory andprofessional accreditation, and the FHEQ. This iscurrently being enhanced by senior staff in theUniversity taking responsibility for particular parts ofthe Code. A PSB Standing Group provides furthersupport in monitoring a particular set of externalrequirements and standards. Programme teams atdepartment level have fully engaged with subjectbenchmark statements, and faculty ASCsappropriately monitor this process.

Institutional Audit Report: findings

page 29

195 The audit team considered that the Universityhad engaged appropriately with all aspects of theAcademic Infrastructure. Policies, procedures andpractices are effective and work to underpin thisengagement sufficiently to support a judgement ofbroad confidence by the team.

The utility of the SED as an illustration of theinstitution's capacity to reflect upon its ownstrengths and limitations, and to act onthese to enhance quality and standards

196 The SED provided a very clear overview of thestructures and processes that the University has inplace to manage its quality and standards to includehelpful references to supporting documentation. Itdescribed and critically evaluated the key elementsof these processes identifying their strengths andlimitations and the ways in which these had beenacted upon to enhance standards and as such theaudit team considered the SED to be a feature ofgood practice.

Commentary on the institution's intentionsfor the enhancement of quality and standards

197 Since the last audit the University has instituted asignificant change agenda from physical restructuringto the introduction of new regulations andprocedures; the clear underlying focus of all thechanges has been the desire to improve the studentlearning experience. The SED also identified a numberof initiatives designed to continue the enhancementof the University's management of quality andstandards to include among others a review of theAME; the introduction of University-wide Regulationsfor Postgraduate Study; a new student feedbackmodel; a revised estates strategy; and thereplacement of the current student record system.

198 From its discussion with staff and scrutiny of thedocumentation, the audit team considers theUniversity's priorities for enhancement to be appropriateand consistent with its key strategy documents.

Reliability of information

199 In meetings with staff and students it wasevident that the University recognises the challengeof communicating clearly across a large and diverseinstitution, and that a clear commitment toachieving this is led by senior staff. Staff reportedthat they have ready access to information and areengaged widely in consultation leading to decisions;a high level of satisfaction was expressed with theflow of information and its accuracy.

200 Students were particularly positive about theinformation they received about their programmes.They found the information to be useful, accurateand relevant to their progress. A number of facultiesmake extensive use of their faculty internet sites topublish a range of information to their students anda number of other faculties are developing thisfacility. More students are accessing learningmaterials available through the intranet, and theUniversity has identified the development of internetbased materials as a priority.

201 The University has ensured that it is meeting therequirements of HEFCE 02/15 and that the relevantmaterial is available. Good progress has alreadybeen made towards meeting the requirements ofHEFCE 03/51, including the development of externalexaminer summary templates and summaries of theoutcomes of periodic review. The audit team areconfident that the University will meet the fullrequirements in due course.

Features of good practice

202 The following features of good practice werenoted:

i. the self-critical approach used by the Universityto prepare the clear and evaluative institutionalSED (paragraph 26);

ii. the benefits of a clear and comprehensive QAMin ensuring consistency of implementation ofprocedures (paragraph 31);

iii. the demonstrable commitment across theUniversity to the enhancement of the quality ofthe student learning experience (paragraphs 33,93 to 95, 103);

iv. the introduction of a University-wide StandingGroup to provide enhanced institutional levelfocus on interactions with PSBs (paragraph 57);

v. the effectiveness of the LTU and the associatedLTF Scheme in coordinating and leadinginnovations in teaching, learning and assessment(paragraphs 82, 83);

vi. the institutional provision of a supportive andhigh-quality learning environment for students(paragraphs 88 to 92, 101);

vii. the effective dissemination of information acrossthe University using a range of communicationmechanisms (paragraph 161).

The Manchester Metropolitan University

page 30

Recommendations for action

203 Recommendations for action that is desirable:

i. to review the policies on penalties for latesubmission of coursework for undergraduateprogrammes of study and internal moderation ofsummative assessments (Verification andModification of Marks) to ensure equity andconsistency (paragraphs 53, 54);

ii. to enhance the accessibility and effectiveness ofsupport mechanisms for part-time students(paragraphs 61, 90, 107, 108, 119).

iii. to continue the development of a moresystematic institution-wide means of obtainingand responding to student feedback (paragraphs64, 65);

iv. to make more effective and systematic use ofstatistical/performance indicator data in annualmonitoring and programme review processes(paragraphs 39, 71, 72);

v. to extend the adoption of effective peer supportacross the University (paragraph 81).

Institutional Audit Report: findings

page 31

Appendix

The Manchester Metropolitan University's response to the audit report

The University welcomes the audit report, which provides a strong endorsement of the institutional proceduresemployed to assure academic standards and the quality of provision, and is especially pleasing given thechallenges inherent in managing an institution of such size and complexity. Two of the examples of goodpractice noted in particular - the identification of our commitment to the enhancement of the quality of thestudent learning experience and our provision of a supportive and high quality learning environment forstudents - are illustrative of the University's strong commitment to its students. The report reflects the positive,constructive and valuable nature both of the audit visit itself and its associated activities over an 18 monthperiod, involving a significant proportion of our staff and students. These were all conducted in anappropriately professional, supportive, open and transparent manner, reflecting the developmental character ofthe process. The University has benefited and learned from this engagement which, in addition to recognisingits strengths, has offered advice on enhancement; it provides a good basis for future developments.

The University is pleased to note that the report's suggestions for desirable action to enhance standards andquality were drawn from areas that had already been identified in the institution's self evaluation and hadformed the basis of detailed discussions with the audit team.

The University's Academic Standards Committee is responsible to Academic Board for developing monitoringand evaluating the effectiveness of institutional systems employed to assure quality and standards, with thisbeing driven by the aim of continuing improvement. Following receipt of the agreed draft report, theUniversity's Academic Standards Committee discussed the findings to determine how:

examples of institutional good practice selected for commendation might be built on;

recommendations for desirable action should be addressed;

noteworthy features identified at discipline/programme level could be more widely disseminated;

how those findings informed the current agenda for quality improvement activities already scheduled.

Accordingly, it determined to prepare a detailed action plan with achievement against the plan's objectivesbeing regularly monitored.

The Manchester Metropolitan University

page 32

RG

091 10/04