audit-follow-up

Timd1

Description

BATH SPA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE Follow-up to Institutional Audit (2003) Introduction This follow-up report is made six months later than the due date by arrangement with QAA, since the expected date for response coincided with the activities surrounding the (successful) BSUC application for university title. The report below uses the headings provided in the QAA Notes of Guidance. Consideration of the audit report The audit report was published in October 2003. However the draft report and a table of consequent actions was considered by the Academic Quality and Standards Committee (AQSC) of the Academic Board at its first meeting following receipt (16 June 2003). At this meeting a table disaggregating features of good practice and recommendations advisable and desirable was presented, which has been used as a running check on progress against implementation. This table reappeared in the papers of AQSC in October and December 2003, until the Committee felt able to confirm that proper action had been taken or was planned on all elements. The comments below report that action and subsequent developments. Commentary on the conclusions We welcomed the audit report, in particular the clear and unqualified nature of the statement of the Agency's confidence in the quality and standards of our provision, both now and into the future. We noted that the features of institutional good practice identified related to key standards matters (such as dealing with ...

Informations

• Publié par: Endri
• Nombre de lectures: 8
• Langue: English

Extrait

1

BATH SPA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE

Follow-up to Institutional Audit (2003)

Introduction

This follow-up report is made six months later than the due date by arrangement

with QAA, since the expected date for response coincided with the activities

surrounding the (successful) BSUC application for university title. The report

below uses the headings provided in the QAA Notes of Guidance.

Consideration of the audit report

The audit report was published in October 2003. However the draft report and a

table of consequent actions was considered by the Academic Quality and

Standards Committee (AQSC) of the Academic Board at its first meeting following

receipt (16 June 2003). At this meeting a table disaggregating features of good

practice and recommendations advisable and desirable was presented, which has

been used as a running check on progress against implementation. This table

reappeared in the papers of AQSC in October and December 2003, until the

Committee felt able to confirm that proper action had been taken or was planned

on all elements. The comments below report that action and subsequent

developments.

Commentary on the conclusions

We welcomed the audit report, in particular the clear and unqualified nature of

the statement of the Agency's confidence in the quality and standards of our

provision, both now and into the future. We noted that the features of

institutional good practice identified related to key standards matters (such as

dealing with external examiners and their reports) and matters central to our

mission (such as support and information for students). In all four DATs, the

auditors recognised the positive recognition given by students to the quality of

their programmes of study.

On the recommendations, we reviewed the key issues of library and IT, and

concluded in relation to the former, that the problems we had identified ourselves

in our SED were correctly diagnosed as problems of space rather than shortage of

stock or management of it, and that IT problems had been distorted by a serious

loss of service arising from a virus attack in the weeks before the audit visit,

which had meant that staff and students had expressed a level of dissatisfaction

that was uncharacteristic. This view is borne out by the commentary on

resourcing provided by subject review reports over the period of ten years

preceding the audit report, where we had consistently scored above average,

both our own, and other institutions’. Nonetheless, we have taken action as

detailed below to remedy the faults revealed.

We have also recognised the value of the auditors’ conclusions on desirable

action, and have acted on each recommendation.

2

Actions taken in relation to features of good practice and

recommendations

Features of good practice

The quality of the administrative support provided for quality and standards

matters (paragraphs 25, 34 and 93);

We have maintained the administrative support provided for quality and

standards and tried to develop wider involvement by other elements of the

administration, for instance using Registry staff during a secondment of a key

officer.

The way in which BSUC inducts, supports and communicates with external

examiners (paragraphs 42 to 46);

We have continued to provide external examiners with the greatest possible

range of information on how their reports are used. We have also updated the

External Examiner’s Handbook

to reflect new requirements relating to TQI, and to

make some parts clearer.

The level and quality of staff support for students (paragraphs 55, 82-83, and 85-

86);

Student Support has been augmented with new posts.

The secure and collegial framework for managing collaborative provision

(paragraphs 70 and 92 to 97);

We have built on our collaborative framework and extended our range of

Foundation Degrees.

The way in which peer observation of teaching has been linked successfully both

to quality assurance and to quality enhancement (paragraph 72);

Peer observation has been sustained.

The quality of the information provided for students (paragraph 142).

We have made more and more information available to students and prospective

students, particularly via the web site.

Recommendations for action that is advisable

Reviewing the mechanisms for allocating resources to areas of the learning and

teaching infrastructure that have been identified as problematic (paragraphs 29,

and 78 to 81);

Considering further whether BSUC has been sufficiently responsive, at

institutional level, to the long-standing concerns of some library users (paragraph

81).

We think it is best to consider these two recommendations together. As we

explained in the SED, we have been aware for some time that library resources in

particular have been under very great strain because of limitations on space. This

applies to the Newton Park site only: the specialist library at Sion Hill has not

attracted the levels of dissatisfaction that have beset the Newton Park library

over the past couple of years. At the time of the audit, we believed we had

devised a solution: moving the Students Union from its present site, permitting a

very significant expansion of the Library. This work is now properly under way,

though any building work on the Newton Park site, with its unusual range of

historic buildings, is protracted and problematic owing to planning restrictions.

However the work on the new Students Union will be completed this summer, and

3

the work on the library expansion will start. This will involve considerably

extended open-access IT facilities.

We noted too that users were disenchanted with the IT network owing to a severe

disruption caused by a virus attack shortly before the audit visits. We have put in

place a range of protective mechanisms since that time, and there has been no

disruption on the same scale.

In short we believed that the problem was not one of identifying a better

mechanism for putting resources into Library and IT, but of being able to put in

more resources in an effective way. This we believe we have now done.

Monitoring mechanisms such as annual reporting and periodic internal reviews

have not identified structural problems that would cause us to question our

diagnosis of the auditors’ recommendations.

Recommendations for action that is desirable

Keeping under review the revised system for annual monitoring, to ensure that it

provides sufficient information to enable the centre to keep an overview of

provision at subject level (paragraph 36);

In the year preceding the audit, AQSC took at institutional level aggregated

monitoring reports from each of the seven schools. This inevitably meant a

degree of filtering that perhaps was too fine. In response to the view of the

auditors, in the following year we took reports at the level of what we call the

“unit of review”, i.e. the subject or group of subjects (roughly corresponding with

JACS codes and similar means of aggregating courses) that we use as the basis of

internal review. This means that AQSC saw 21 reports, with no school-level filter.

This gives a much fuller picture of subject level activity to the institution-level

committee.

We have also introduced an extra but different way of making an annual

assessment of the “student experience,” namely an annual questionnaire

addressed to all students, and capable of being completed on-line, that addresses

their experiences of the university college in the round, including course elements

but not confined to them. This seems to be very effective, and is capturing some

useful data. One of the outcomes is some considerable improvement to our

catering facilities, for instance, a matter that would have been unlikely to have

been captured by the course-based annual monitoring system. We also try to

ensure that the different procedures operate at different time, even when the

cycle is annual, so that we get a more continuous picture of the quality of what

we offer.

Extending existing good practice in staffing procedures and staff development to

hourly-paid staff (paragraph 72);

We have ensured that hourly-paid staff are given the same access to staff

development (relative to their contribution) as full-time staff.

Clarifying the responsibilities of personal tutors (paragraph 90);

We have introduced a new system of personal tutoring in which much more is

recorded and kept by the student. This involves a stated entitlement to support

from a personal tutor in terms of hours. The system came into operation only at

the beginning of this year (2004/5) and we intend to assess its effectiveness at

the end of the year.

4

Ensuring that the information provided for students states clearly and consistently

the implications of failing to observe attendance requirements (paragraph 105).

We have changed the attendance requirement so that there is no longer a formal

penalty associated with absence. At the same time we have increased our support

for following up students who fail to attend. In short we have tried to encourage

attendance by support, rather than discourage absence with penalties.

Progress on TQI

The audit report noted that “BSUC was approaching the requirements of HEFCE's

document 02/15 seriously and appropriately, and that most of the required

information was available internally. A significant body of information relating to

quality and standards is already published on BSUC's web site. The team found

this information to be reliable and of high quality.” (para 178) We have continued

this approach, and conform with TQI requirements to date.

Other relevant developments

In November 2004 BSUC applied to the Privy Council for permission to take a

university title, and was assessed by QAA in November 2004. Shortly before

making the present report, DfES confirmed that QAA had recommended that we

meet the criteria for university title. Making the application was a useful

opportunity to reassess progress, and to look at some matters that audit covers

in less depth, in particular matters of governance and the quality of academic

staffing. Our application, making an evidence-based case for our qualification for

the university title, is available on-line, at

http://www.bathspa.ac.uk/departments/academic-office/quality-and-

standards/public/university-title/

In particular we found the investigative work we did to make the application,

including making profiles of all our academic staff available on-line, and making a

more self-conscious effort to inform ourselves about the relationship between

advanced scholarship and teaching, has been very useful, and will help us move

forward in our wish to make continuous improvement to our provision and to the

way in which we assure its quality and standards.

Further queries

Please address any further queries about the contents this update, or about

BSUC’s quality assurance activities in general, to

Prof. David Timms

Assistant Director

Bath Spa University College

[e-mail]

David Timms

Assistant Director BSUC

22 March 2004