section photograph

Annual report to the Higher Education Funding Council for England

January 2008

Introduction

1.1       The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education's (QAA’s) mission is to safeguard the public interest in sound standards of higher education qualifications and to inform and encourage continuous improvement in the management of the quality of higher education. To this end, QAA carries out reviews of higher education provision in higher education institutions and colleges of further education, on behalf of the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE).

1.2       The contract between QAA and HEFCE for 2007-08 requires QAA to provide a detailed account of audit and review activity for the academic year September 2006-August 2007.

1.3       The contract stipulates that:

‘QAA shall by 31 January each year prepare and submit to HEFCE a report which:

  • Provides a summary and overview of all review activity undertaken by QAA during the preceding academic year. This will incorporate institutional audit, collaborative provision audit, academic review of HE in FE, Foundation Degree review, IQER and any other programmes that may be specified in Part B (for the report due on 31 January 2007, this will incorporate all activities specified in Clauses 31 to 38 of the 2005-06 contract) (CON/040709/405).
  • Identifies, and provides commentary on, the main themes and trends arising from these activities, and the inferences that may be drawn from them about the state of, and trends in, quality and standards in higher education.
  • Provides commentary on relevant developments to the Academic Infrastructure.
  • For academic review, IQER and institutional audit, includes a “Report on Evaluations”, a report on institutions’, contract reviewers’, review co-ordinators', auditors’ and (where applicable) subject specialist reviewers' evaluation of academic review, IQER and audit visits undertaken in the preceding academic year. As well as evaluating the process, the report should assess the effectiveness and value of the review method as it is perceived by the institutions reviewed as well as the reviewers, in relation to the maintenance and enhancement of quality and standards.
  • Distinguishes between different groups of HEIs and different groups of FECs, using such categories as may be relevant for the purpose.
  • Makes recommendations with a view to future action, by HE providers, QAA, HEFCE or other relevant parties, to sustain and improve quality and standards, and address any weaknesses.’

1.4       QAA’s contract with HEFCE includes the activities of institutional audit and collaborative provision audit, the review of directly-funded higher education provision in further education colleges, and the development and piloting of the integrated quality and enhancement review (IQER) method for higher education in further education colleges. In addition, QAA has received delegated responsibility for the development and maintenance of various frameworks that underpin the maintenance and enhancement of quality and standards within the higher education sector (Academic Infrastructure).

1.5       Other aspects of QAA’s work, such as overseas audit, the management of the Access courses scheme, and applications for degree awarding powers and university title, are not referenced specifically in this report, although some generic issues arising from the full range of review activity are included. The report does not include reference to privately funded institutions that subscribe to QAA.

1.6       This is an evaluative report based largely on published information and internal QAA documents. It brings together data on the number of events conducted over the period with an overview of outcomes and a commentary on method. In accordance with its established practices, QAA has conducted evaluations of its activities over the previous year and the outcomes of these and direct quotes from participants are also included within this report.

1.7       Based upon review activity during 2006-07, QAA has published a number of reports reflecting on the outcomes of its processes. These also form part of the evidence base for this evaluation.

Summary of outcomes

1.8       During 2006-07, QAA conducted seven institutional audits, seven collaborative provision audits, 17 academic reviews of directly funded higher education programmes delivered by further education colleges (of which four were re-reviews), and 15 pilot IQER reviews. The outcomes of these activities are summarised below (table 1.1).

Institutional audit (2006-07)

Judgement Confidence Limited confidence
The soundness of the institution's present and likely future management of the academic standards of its awards 7 0
The soundness of the institution's present and likely future management of the quality of the learning opportunities available to students 6 1

N=7

Collaborative provision audit (2006-07)

Outcome Academic standards Learning opportunities
Broad confidence 7 7
Limited confidence 0 0
No confidence 0 0

N=7

Academic Review (2006-07)

Outcome Academic standards Learning opportunities
Teaching and learning Student progression Learning resources
Confidence 11 (4)      
No confidence 2      
Split 0      
Limited confidence 0      
Commendable   9 (3) 10 (3) 4 (3)
Approved   4 (1) 3 (1) 9 (1)
Failing   0 0 0
Split   0 0 0

N=13(4)

IQER

Judgement Confidence
Does the college discharge its responsibilities effectively, as set out in its partnership agreement(s), for the management and delivery of the standards of the award(s) it offers on behalf of its awarding body(ies)? 14
Does the college discharge its responsibilities effectively, as set out in its partnership agreements, for the management and assurance of the quality of the learning opportunities to enable students to achieve the intended learning outcomes? 14

Note: one Summative review has been deferred to 2007-08 N=14

Table 1.1         Audit and review activity 2006-07

1.9       The evidence presented confirms the conclusions from previous years that the quality of provision of higher education programmes is generally secure and that institutions have robust processes and procedures in place to assure the maintenance of standards. There is a strong commitment to enhancement across the sector and the outcomes of the various review activities identify numerous examples of good practice in the delivery of learning opportunities.

1.10     Generalising across all methods, nearly all reviews have resulted in judgements of confidence in academic standards and almost all identify appropriate learning opportunities (table 1.1). The principal message is that the high standards of English higher education are being maintained and enhanced across the broad spectrum of different providers. As last year, there remains some variability between institutions.

1.11     Detailed reports for individual reviews identify specific issues for individual institutions and have highlighted areas where there is scope for improvement. Only one institution recorded a judgement of ‘limited confidence’ for institutional audit. There were also only two ‘no confidence’ judgements for academic standards in directly funded higher education provision in further education colleges.

1.12     The overall outcomes of both audits and reviews are based on the measured peer judgements of teams and reflect the general assessment of all aspects of academic standards and quality. Specific issues are identified in the text of reports and monitored through the continuing engagements between institutions and QAA.

1.13     In comparison to previous years, the level of review activity was relatively limited in 2006-07. This reflects the completion of the final stages of institutional audit during the transitional period and the completion of academic review. The scale of activity will increase markedly over the next few years.

Academic Infrastructure

1.14     QAA has a ‘stewardship’ role with regard to the Academic Infrastructure that is used across the United Kingdom (UK) higher education sector as a set of shared reference points that provide a basis for the setting of academic standards and the management of quality. The Academic Infrastructure includes three components that are used in the establishment and monitoring of standards. The framework for higher education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (FHEQ) provides a set of generic qualifications descriptors for the main higher education qualifications; these provide the starting point for relevant subject benchmark statements that are written by the respective academic communities; and institutions provide a detailed description of what they provide, and expect, in their programmes leading to named awards. The management and assurance of key activities associated with the design and delivery of programmes, the admission of students and their assessment etc are covered by the 10 sections of the Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education (Code of practice). Each of the components of the Academic Infrastructure is reviewed and, if necessary, revised on a regular basis to ensure that they reflect recent developments and remain fit for purpose.

1.15     Maintaining and updating the Academic Infrastructure is core to the work of QAA.

1.16     This year we updated three sections of the Code of practice. Revised versions of Section 6: Assessment of students, Section 7: Programme design, approval, monitoring and review and Section 10: Admissions to higher education, were completed. We held consultations on revisions to Section 5: Academic appeals and student complaints on academic matters and Section 9: Work-based and placement learning. Advisory groups of senior academics and others assisted QAA with each of these review/revisions which all involved a range of discussion meetings with sector and relevant stakeholder groups and formal consultations.

1.17     The frameworks for higher education qualifications continued to evolve in the light of experience of their use and developments in the UK and internationally, and QAA was engaged in the maintenance and updating of FHEQand the Credit and Qualifications Framework for Wales, which are closely interconnected. We also supported the work of the Burgess Group in developing an academic credit scheme for higher education in England.

1.18     Over 70 subject benchmark statements have now been published by QAA with consultation on 30 revised subject benchmark statements having taken place during 2006-07.

Institutional audit

2.1       Institutional audit is an evidence-based process carried out through peer review. It forms part of the Quality Assurance Framework established in 2002 following revisions to the UK's approach to external quality assurance. At the centre of the process is an emphasis on students and their learning.

2.2       Institutional audit balances the need for publicly credible, independent and rigorous scrutiny of institutions with the recognition that the institutions themselves are best placed to provide stakeholders with valid, reliable and up-to-date information about the academic standards of their awards and the quality of their educational provision. Institutional audit encourages institutions to be self-evaluative, and is therefore a process that, in itself, offers opportunities for enhancement of institutional management of standards and quality.

2.3       During 2006-07, QAA began the revised institutional audit process, designed to take place over a six-year period. The method of institutional audit had been subject to revisions following the previous round and the recommendations of the Quality Assurance Framework Review Group (QAFRG) set out in HEFCE 2005/35.

2.4       The main differences between the revised process and the transitional arrangements for institutional audit may be summarised as:

  • the replacement of the discipline audit trails of the transitional arrangements with an audit trail methodology that should be 'less of a burden for HEIs than DATs are currently' (HEFCE 2005/35, recommendation 4)
  • a 'shift in the balance towards enhancement' (HEFCE 2005/35, paragraph 32)
  • a sharper focus on postgraduate research programmes
  • a continuing but strengthened emphasis on 'student participation in institutional audit' (HEFCE 2005/35, recommendation 8)
  • the judgement of 'broad confidence' becoming a judgement of 'confidence' (HEFCE 2005/35, recommendation 9)
  • two separate judgements, 'one on quality and the other on academic standards of awards' instead of the single judgement on 'quality and standards' (HEFCE 2005/35, paragraph 59)
  • a 'more effective interaction between the audit team and the institution during the institutional audit' (HEFCE 2005/35, recommendation 2)
  • greater emphasis on ensuring that 'the guidance on requirements for preparation for institutional audit is unambiguous and supports the development of institution's knowledge and confidence' (HEFCE 2005/35, recommendation 13).

(Source: Handbook for institutional audit: England and Northern Ireland 2006)

2.5       The revised handbook for institutional audit documents the revised process (www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews/institutionalAudit/handbook2006/handbookComments.asp).

2.6       During 2006-07, year one of the new method, seven institutional audits were undertaken (see Appendix 1 for a list of institutions). These were subject to evaluation in accordance with normal QAA processes.

What we found

2.7       In all seven audits, the audit team confirmed confidence in ‘the soundness of the institution's present and likely future management of the academic standards of its awards’ for on-campus provision. In one audit, limited confidence was placed in the likely future management of the academic standards of the institution's collaborative provision.

2.8       In six of the seven audits, the audit team confirmed confidence in ‘the soundness of the institution's present and likely future management of the quality of the learning opportunities available to students’.

2.9       Across the seven institutional audits, 31 examples of good practice were identified by the audit teams. One of the primary areas of good practice identified related to student support (six). The specific characteristics of the good practice varied, however. Examples included:

  • the careers support, which was embedded through the curriculum
  • support for students on placement
  • the academic tutor system.

2.10     Three examples of good practice related to student involvement and representation, whereby the institutions had taken deliberate steps to encourage and support student input.

2.11     Two examples focused specifically on research skills provided to students through teaching and learning, and the associated support for the development of such skills, in enhancing the student learning experience.

2.12     Audit teams also made a series of recommendations arising from their investigations. Thirty-two advisable and 18 desirable recommendations were made by the audit teams across the seven audits. No essential recommendations were made.

2.13     The advisable recommendations focused primarily upon the internal structures dealing with quality assurance matters, to include ensuring that the management and committee structures were fit for purpose. In addition, recommendations highlighted the need to ensure that the quality assurance policies and procedures were appropriate. Likewise, the desirable recommendations focused on the areas of policies and procedures, student support and student involvement.

2.14     During 2006-07, QAA continued to use the intelligence derived through institutional audit in the continuing publication of the outcomes series. These included:

  • subject benchmark statements
  • arrangements for combined, joint and multidisciplinary honours degree programmes
  • institutions' work with employers and professional, statutory and regulatory bodies
  • academic guidance, support and supervision, and personal support and guidance
  • institutions' support for e-learning
  • institutions' frameworks for managing quality and academic standards
  • institutions' support for widening participation and access to higher education
  • the contribution of the students’ written submission to institutional audit
  • the adoption and use of learning outcomes.

Outcomes of the evaluations

2.15     In accordance with normal QAA evaluation practices, the audits were subject to evaluation. The questionnaire used to support evaluation was amended to make the evaluation more focused on supporting continuous improvement and identifying strengths and challenges in the method and benefits to stakeholder groups.

2.16     To date, comments have only been received from audit teams due to the timing of the evaluation process in respect of higher education institutions. All auditors and audit secretaries completed an evaluation questionnaire following their audit. Overall, the findings from the evaluations were very positive. Audit teams welcomed the revised institutional process, and overwhelmingly agreed that the audit had achieved its aims.

2.17     Overall, the evaluations revealed that audit teams were generally satisfied with the revised institutional audit process. There were, however, some areas that emerged as areas where improvements were needed. The main area for improvement was guidance on writing the report and use of the annex template. Respondents did not find these to be particularly useful and appeared to be confused rather than helped by them. Respondents considered that ‘there is room for improvement in the report writing guidance and process’ and ‘the guidance from the QAA Assistant Director with regard to the writing of the annex and report could have been better’. This has been addressed accordingly.

2.18     The institution’s briefing paper and the students’ written submission were also areas of the audit process that were identified as being slightly problematic for the audit teams. In some cases, the institution’s briefing paper was not considered to be sufficiently reflective and other problems were noted in relation to referencing within the document(s). In respect of the students’ written submission, there was a perception that the documents, although a useful source of evidence for use by the team, were not sufficiently analytical. This is an area where there may need to be further guidance for institutions and student bodies.

2.19     Key findings from the evaluation:

  • the revised Handbook for institutional audit: England and Northern Ireland 2006 is clear and useful to the auditors
  • the training was informative and effective
  • there was scope for improvement in the report template and annex
  • the institutional briefing papers were variable in quality and detail. Key documents were not always provided with the briefing papers.

2.20     Respondents identified a series of benefits for the institution as a result of the audit. These included:

‘Audits are an excellent "health check" for monitoring academic standards and quality enhancement’.

‘The opportunity to demonstrate publicly the security of its systems for maintaining academic standards and promoting learning opportunities for students’. ‘Useful external evaluation of systems and can assist with enhancement’.

‘Identifies key areas where there is the potential to improve the management of quality and standards. Confirms and acknowledges strengths’.

‘An opportunity for self-reflection’.

2.21     Respondents identified a series of benefits for the students as a direct result of the audit. These included:

‘Should lead to enhancement of their learning opportunities’.

‘Objective indicator of quality and standards of degree’.

‘Clear demonstration that they are partners in the educational process and that their views count. Enhancement of the student experience as a consequence of the institution's response to the audit’.

‘Further opportunity to provide feedback. Reassurance about academic quality and standards at their institution’.

Summary

2.22     The revised institutional audit process was well received. The audits confirmed that, in the main, the quality and standards delivered were sound. The evaluation revealed areas for improvement that have subsequently been addressed for those audits taking place in 2007-08.

2.23     The evaluations demonstrated that the revised institutional audit process was well received by audit teams. Suggestions were made for improvements in respect of the structure of the report. These have subsequently been addressed by QAA.

2.24     QAA has continued to develop its work in relation to student involvement. QAA has supported and contributed to the Quality Takes Time events, held in conjunction with the National Union of Students (NUS) and other organisations. A revised guide for students to support their involvement in audit has also been published. In addition, QAA has responded to the desire to have greater student involvement in the audit process and has established an internal working group with a specific remit for preparing a student engagement strategy and for exploring student representation and involvement in audit and review activities. As a direct result, students will act as observers on audits in spring 2008, in order to provide structured feedback on the potential for a student member on audit teams.

Collaborative provision audit

3.1       Collaborative provision audit is part of the overall quality assurance framework for England. It focuses on how an awarding institution discharges its responsibilities for what is done in its name, and under its authority through a collaborative arrangement with a partner organisation. Collaborative provision audit is an evidence-based process carried out through peer review. It recognises that responsibility for the academic standards of awards rests with those institutions which have the powers to make the awards, or have accepted responsibility from other awarding bodies (such as Edexcel) for maintaining the academic standards of their awards.

3.2       In collaborative provision audit, scrutiny of an awarding institution’s systems and procedures for assuring quality of provision and maintaining academic standards of awards in collaborative provision audit is combined with scrutiny of how these systems and procedures are given practical effect by partner organisations. The collaborative provision audit process does not involve direct scrutiny at the level of an academic discipline, but does explore the effectiveness of quality management at programme level as well as at institutional level.

3.3       Collaborative provision audit aims to meet the public interest in knowing that awarding institutions in England are, through their collaborative partners:

  • providing higher education, awards and qualifications of both an acceptable quality and an appropriate academic standard
  • exercising their legal powers to award degrees in a proper manner.

3.4       Collaborative provision audit examines three main areas:

  • the effectiveness of an awarding institution's internal quality assurance structures and mechanisms for its collaborative provision, in the light of the Code of practice and the way in which the quality of programmes leading to its awards offered through partnership arrangements and the standards of those awards are regularly reviewed, and how it satisfies itself that the resulting recommendations are implemented
  • the accuracy, completeness and reliability of the information that an awarding institution publishes about the quality of the programmes which lead to its awards, and the academic standards of those awards, drawing upon the information sets described in HEFCE 2003/51
  • several examples of the awarding institution's quality assurance and academic standards processes for its collaborative provision, as given effect by individual partnership arrangements (partner link visits), or across the awarding institution's collaborative provision as a whole (thematic enquiries), in order to demonstrate the validity and reliability of the information being generated for the awarding institution by these processes.

What we found

3.5       During 2006-07, QAA undertook seven audits of collaborative provision. All seven audits concluded that confidence could reasonably be placed in the soundness of the institution’s present and likely future management of the academic standards of its awards made through collaborative arrangements.

3.6       The audit team also confirmed confidence in all seven audits in ‘the present and likely future capacity of the University to satisfy itself that the learning opportunities offered to students through its collaborative arrangements are managed effectively and meet its requirements’.

3.7       The audit teams identified 25 examples of good practice across the seven collaborative provision audits. The characteristics of good practice varied across the institutions, with no one particular aspect having prominence. Examples included:

  • the comprehensiveness of documentation and guidance available to support staff involved with collaborative provision
  • mechanisms used to gather student feedback from collaborative programmes
  • processes that enable timely and effective response to external examiner reports
  • activities that encourage close and effective working relationships between the institution with its partners.

3.8       Staff development was highlighted as an area of good practice, where targeted staff development had strengthened quality management. It was also identified as an element of good practice in other activities, such as assessment processes.

3.9       A number of recommendations were made by audit teams across the seven audits. Seventeen advisable and 26 desirable recommendations were made by audit teams. No essential recommendations were made.

3.10     Three advisable recommendations related to institutional policies and procedures being applied consistently and effectively across all partners. In addition, two advisable recommendations were made in relation to publicity materials provided by partner institutions, and the need to make sure procedures are in place and are consistently applied to ensure accuracy of published information.

3.11     Advisable recommendations were also made in relation to records of partner relationships that an institution keeps to allow for effective management.

3.12     Desirable recommendations also focused on the accuracy of published information and the need to ensure that guidance promotes a consistent approach. Other recommendations included the need to strengthen the use made of data relating to collaborative provision to inform planning and to improve and strengthen the procedures used in relation to feedback from employers, graduates and students. In addition, desirable recommendations focused on an institution’s strategic approach to the operation of collaborative partnerships.

3.13     The need to ensure that appropriate learning resources are available to all students through partner institutions was also identified by audit teams.

Outcomes of the evaluations

3.14     A formal evaluation of collaborative provision audit, involving the audit team, higher education institution and collaborative partners directly involved in the audit, was undertaken, in accordance with QAA’s normal evaluation principles. In total 42 evaluation questionnaires were disseminated, with an overall response rate of 86 per cent.

3.15     On the whole, the evaluation questionnaires reflected very positively on the collaborative provision audit process, considering that it had achieved its aim. By far the majority of respondents and respondent groups evaluated the process in a very positive way (95 per cent of responses were positive). Dissatisfaction with all aspects of the process was minimal (table 3.1).

Respondent group Agree and strongly agree Disagree and strongly disagree
Auditors 96% 4%
Audit Secretary 91% 10%

Table 3.1         Percentage of responses as agree and strongly agree to disagree and strongly disagree by respondent group

3.16     In the main, institutions were content with how partner visits had been selected and conducted. It was also felt that the auditors who had been involved in the visits to partners had the necessary knowledge and expertise to undertake them. Institutions were very positive about the engagement of partners in the process and the opportunity this provided for the partner to be involved in debate with the institution on institutional affairs.

3.17     Institutions considered the communication with QAA and the team throughout the audit visit to be in need of improvement. One institution felt that changes to the arrangements for the audit were not clearly communicated.

3.18     The most positive features of the experience, as identified by institutions, included:

‘The audit provided a useful focus for internal discussions as preparatory work’.

‘Audit provides a valuable opportunity for effective peer review of the higher education provided by the institution within the broader context of the UK higher education system’.

3.19     Audit teams were generally satisfied with the support provided by QAA throughout the audit process. The supplement to the Handbook for institutional audit: England and Northern Ireland 2006 which gives guidance on collaborative provision audit was also considered appropriate in providing the process information required by the team.

3.20     Prior to the briefing visit, all team members considered the scope and focus of the briefing visit and schedule for the briefing visit to have been appropriate. Respondents also considered the purpose of the briefing visit and criteria for undertaking evaluation and making judgements to have been clear.

3.21     In the main, teams found the briefing visit to be well organised, and the agenda for the visit and each of the briefing visit meetings to be appropriate. It was considered by the majority of team respondents as being effective in clarifying matters relating to the audit visit and an aid to the team’s preparation. The only area of minor dissatisfaction was with the availability of information provided by the institution.

Summary

3.22     The audits of collaborative provision confirmed that quality and standards were sound and that satisfactory arrangements were in place across higher education institutions and their partners in respect of their collaborative arrangements. Much good practice was identified, particularly in relation to arrangements for staff development. Likewise, a series of areas for development was also identified by the audit teams.

3.23     The evaluations confirmed that the audit teams continued to be satisfied with the arrangements in place for collaborative provision audit, and their experience of the process.

3.24     During 2006-07, QAA also contributed to discussions of QAFRG about the future direction of collaborative provision audit. QAA has proposed an approach which continues to offer the two current approaches to collaborative provision audit, namely, within institutional audit, or as a separate event, while also recommending a hybrid of the two approaches for institutions where provision is too large or complex to be integrated within institutional audit, but not of such scope to demand a separate activity.

Review of higher education provision in colleges of further education

4.1       During 2006-07, QAA undertook academic reviews at the subject level of higher education provision in colleges of further education. In addition, 15 pilot reviews of the new IQER method were also undertaken and formally evaluated.

4.2       The method and procedures of academic review comprise an integrated approach focused on the evaluation of the establishment, maintenance and enhancement of academic standards and learning opportunities. These are matters for which the primary responsibility lies with Edexcel or the higher education institution which makes the award. Academic review in England has taken place over a six-year cycle, which came to a close during 2006-07.

4.3       HEFCE decided that during the period 2007-08 to 2011-12 all colleges delivering publicly funded higher education programmes will have some engagement with QAA. The ending of the current cycle of academic review of subjects has provided an opportunity to design for the first time a review method specifically for higher education in colleges.

4.4       At the request of HEFCE, during 2006-07 QAA developed and piloted a new method of review of higher education provision in colleges of further education - IQER.

4.5       A wide range of considerations informed the development of IQER, including the work of the Office of Public Services Reform, Public Services Expenditure Inspection, Higher Education Regulation Review Group, the Bureaucracy Reduction Group and the Department for Education and Skills/HEFCE/Learning and Skills Council Joint Progression Strategy Group. In addition, QAA has taken account of evaluations of reviews and other sources of feedback from colleges and their representative bodies, primarily through meetings of the IQER Advisory Group. They have expressed a preference for:

  • a peer review, rather than an inspection process
  • a process with self-evaluation at its heart
  • a development from academic review
  • an external review process comparable to institutional audit, used within higher education institutions
  • a method which draws on evidence from college inspections and other external reviews and provides evidence for future inspections
  • an approach which recognises the specific needs and circumstances of colleges and the environment in which they operate.

4.6       IQER has a dual focus. While its overall aim is to safeguard the public interest in the quality and academic standards of higher education delivered in colleges by providing objective, independent and accessible information by way of reports, its complementary stages in the method: enhancement-focused Developmental engagement and formal assessment through Summative review, have been designed to offer a supportive framework within which colleges can continue to develop their own quality assurance and enhancement processes.

4.7       Following the IQER pilot reviews, QAA, in conjunction with HEFCE, engaged an independent external evaluation of IQER to supplement its own normal evaluation process.

Academic review

4.8       During 2006-07, 17 academic reviews at the subject level were undertaken, four of which were re-reviews. This draws to a close the cycle of academic review.

What we found

4.9       In two of the 17 reviews, the reviewers had no confidence in the academic standards of provision. There were no failing judgements in respect of the quality of the learning opportunities.

4.10     The issues of concern identified by the review teams in respect of the no confidence judgements focused upon perceived failings in the policies and procedures in place for assessment and deficiencies in relation to engagement with the Academic Infrastructure.

4.11     Between 2005 and 2007, 51 academic reviews were undertaken of higher education provision within further education colleges in England. QAA has recently undertaken an analysis of the outcomes of the 2005-06 and 2006-07 academic reviews. The findings were published in the Learning from Academic review of higher education in further education colleges in England 2005-07 report.

4.12     On the whole, the outcomes of the 51 academic reviews (of which five were re-reviews) undertaken between 2005 and 2007 confirmed the quality and standards of higher education provision in further education colleges. Of the 51 reviews, two no confidence judgements in academic standards were recorded, with a further one split confidence/no confidence judgement.

Outcome Academic standards (number of re-reviews)
Confidence 46
Limited confidence 1
No confidence 2
Differentiated by subject or level of award 1(confidence/no confidence)
1 (confidence/limited confidence)

N=51

Table 4.1         Judgements: Academic standards (2005-07)

4.13     In the main, the reviews confirmed the quality of learning opportunities. There were no failing judgements recorded for student progression. In the case of teaching and learning and learning resources, each recorded one differentiated judgement which included a failing judgement (failing/approved and failing/commendable, respectively).

Outcome Teaching and learning Student progression Learning resources
Commendable 33 37 27
Approved 14 11 22
Failing 0 0 0
Differentiated by subject or level of award 3 (commendable/approved) 1 (Approved/failing) 3 (commendable/ approved) 1 (commendable/ approved)

1 (commendable/ failing)

N=57

Table 4.2         Judgements: Quality of Learning Opportunities (2005-07)

4.14     The reviewers identified numerous strengths in relation to academic standards, particularly relating to the formulation of intended learning outcomes, the content and development of the curriculum, and assessment practices and procedures.

4.15     The intended learning outcomes were considered to be well conceived and delivered, taking account of the Academic Infrastructure and reflecting other external reference points. The intended learning outcomes also reflected the overall programme aims.

4.16     Many strengths were identified by the review teams in respect of the curriculum. Examples of good practice were identified where the curriculum was informed by professional and vocational needs, with extensive contributions from and engagement with employers. Staff expertise was also identified as a strength where it was reflected in the curriculum. Another area of strength related to the currency, design and content of the programme and the alignment of the curriculum with the stated intended learning objectives.

4.17     Assessment policies, procedures and practices were a third area of strength identified through the reviews. Clear links were identified between the intended learning outcomes and assessment. Assessment strategies were deemed appropriate for measuring student achievement of the intended learning outcomes. In addition, there was clear definition of assessment criteria, which were clearly documented for students and external examiners.

4.18     Through the reviews, numerous strengths were identified in relation to the quality of learning opportunities. Staff were repeatedly identified as a strength, as a learning resource and also in relation to teaching and learning. The primary characteristics of staff as a strength related to the inclusion of their professional and vocational knowledge that was embedded in the curriculum and contributed to students’ teaching and learning experience, but also to the support they provided to students.

4.19     In relation to student progression, strengths were identified in respect of arrangements for the recruitment, admissions and induction of students onto higher education programmes. Another area of strength was the support available to students for both pastoral and academic purposes.

4.20     There was much positive comment expressed by the reviewers regarding teaching and learning. The strategies and methods used for the delivery of teaching in supporting student learning were acknowledged, as was the knowledge, expertise and experience of staff responsible for the development of the curriculum and the delivery of teaching and learning.

4.21     In relation to learning resources, the availability of resources, to include information technology resources, teaching and learning accommodation and other teaching and learning resources, were also identified as strengths in addition to those strengths in staffing outlined above.

4.22     In addition, a series of recommendations for action to improve provision was also identified which included:

  • improve the clarity of information for students about individual learning outcomes and assessment
  • improve the opportunities for staff to undertake scholarly activity and incorporate this in the design and delivery of the programme
  • provide greater opportunity for employer involvement in curriculum development and delivery
  • increase consideration of external reference points in the design of assessment
  • increase students’ access to learning resources which support them to achieve intended learning outcomes.

Outcomes of the evaluations

4.23     In accordance with normal QAA practices, the academic reviews were subject to evaluation by means of a questionnaire sent to teams and the institution. The outcomes of the evaluation were positive. The findings from the evaluation of academic review in terms of what worked well, and the perceived benefits and challenges of academic review, have informed the development of IQER, in order that good practice in the design and operation of the review process is not lost and is maintained or enhanced to the benefit of all stakeholder groups.

4.24     Across all respondent groups, there was a response rate of 95 per cent. Table 4.3 shows a breakdown of the response rates by respondent group.

Respondent Sent Returned %
Coordinator 17 16 94
Reviewer 51 49 96
College 17 16 94
OVERALL 85 81 95

Table 4.3         Response rates by respondent group

Year Satisfaction level
2003-04 95%
2004-05 96%
2005-06 98%
2006-07 98%

Table 4.4         Satisfaction levels by year (agree and strongly agree)

4.25     All participant groups identified a series of benefits of academic review. The outcomes of the evaluation reflected those derived through previous years’ evaluations.

4.26     The coordinators concluded that the process of academic review had been conducted in a highly professional manner. Factors identified as contributing towards the success of the reviews include good team work, the positive working relationship with the institution staff and an effective subject review facilitator. It was also noted that the academic review had been a good learning experience for the college staff.

4.27     The most important aspect of the review identified by the reviewers was team work. Reviewers recognised that the teams contained a good mix of knowledge and experience. The helpfulness and leadership qualities shown by the coordinator and the team’s close relationship forged with the college and supportive subject review facilitator were also considered as positive features of the academic review process. Reviewers noted that the academic review had provided opportunities for colleges to improve their higher education provision.

4.28     Colleges considered the reviews to be a positive learning experience, enhanced by the positive working relationship with the team. One respondent said ‘the whole process provided a catalyst for the HE teaching team to work closer together’.

IQER

4.29     IQER is the first new QAA review method to be developed specifically for higher education in further education colleges. The outcomes and parts of the process are similar to institutional audit. IQER is intended to ensure comparability of quality and standards between higher education delivered in higher education institutions and higher education delivered in further education colleges. The method is also designed with a focus on enhancement and provides a framework in which colleges can develop their quality assurance processes.

4.30     IQER involves two related processes: Developmental engagements; and Summative reviews. The Developmental engagements have a development and enhancement focus. The Developmental engagement report is not published but is made available to HEFCE and the institution. It is intended to aid the college in developing capacity to manage quality assurance.

4.31     The process is based on peer review and is planned to take place over a five-year cycle. Most colleges will have at least one Summative review, and one Developmental engagement. Additional Developmental engagements may be included in appropriate circumstances and there is provision in the method for colleges with low enrolments in higher education (less than 100 full-time equivalents funded by HEFCE) to opt for just one Summative review. The review method focuses on three core themes, relating to each college’s management of the delivery of academic standards, the quality of learning opportunities, and public information. IQER embraces the principles of the Higher Education Regulation Review Group (HERRG) (and the Better Regulation Review Group), and seeks to minimise the information burden upon colleges through the use of existing information and the sharing of information with other stakeholders. Full details of the IQER method can be found in The handbook for Integrated Quality and Enhancement Review.

4.32     During 2006-07, 15 pilot IQER reviews were undertaken in England. The 15 colleges were representative of further education colleges delivering higher education provision. All colleges included in the pilot had the support of their awarding bodies.

4.33     Prior to the pilot review, QAA undertook a scoping of higher education provision in further education colleges. The scoping exercise illustrated that around 260 further education colleges in England were delivering provision leading to higher education awards. The size and scale of provision delivered varied significantly between colleges in relation to the number of students, programmes offered and number of awarding body partners (QAA’s Higher education in further education colleges in England statistical bulletin (2005-06)). Given the diversity of provision, it was crucial that the colleges involved in the pilot reviews reflected this.

4.34     During summer 2007, informed by data provided by HEFCE taken from the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) Student Record and the Learning and Skills Council’s (LSC) Individualised Learner Record, QAA identified that over 260 colleges in England were delivering HEFCE funded higher education provision, and that 89 higher education institutions and Edexcel were involved as awarding bodies for those programmes of study. This demonstrates the continued scale of higher education delivered in further education colleges, involving over 96,000 students (QAA Scope and Preference 2007).

What we found

4.35     The strengths identified through the IQER pilots confirmed that there was extensive good practice in higher education provision in the pilot further education colleges.

4.36     Fifteen of the 16 Developmental engagements focused on assessment and the sixteenth on the management of human resources in support of higher education. Through the Developmental engagements, significant good practice was identified. The primary examples of good practice related to:

  • assessment design, practices and procedures
  • the match between assessment and intended learning outcomes
  • information made available to students about assessment
  • high quality feedback to students on assessed work.

4.37     All of the 14 Summative reviews completed to date confirmed confidence in respect of the two core questions relating to quality and standards. Through the 14 Summative reviews, further examples of good practice were identified. These included:

  • partnership arrangements between the college and its awarding bodies
  • opportunities provided for staff development
  • student support mechanisms
  • involvement of employers and professional bodies in the design of the curriculum and/or assessment.

4.38     Recommendations made by the reviewers arising from the Summative review, primarily focused upon the need to:

  • improve and make available appropriate, accurate and informative programme information to current and potential students
  • ensure appropriate monitoring and annual review arrangements are in place
  • ensure that there are appropriate mechanisms and opportunities for staff development related to higher education
  • promote and extend the awareness of the Academic Infrastructure within the college and ensure that it is used appropriately as an external reference point
  • share good practice of higher education delivery within colleges and particularly between programmes awarded by different higher education institutions and Edexcel.

Outcomes of the evaluations

4.39     The IQER pilot reviews were subject to a robust evaluation process. In addition to QAA’s normal evaluation mechanisms, QAA and HEFCE jointly commissioned an independent evaluation of IQER. The independent evaluation of IQER was undertaken by the Higher Education Consultancy Group, and supplemented QAA’s normal evaluation procedures. An independent external advisory group was also established, consisting of members representing the higher education sector, to have oversight of the pilot reviews, the findings of the evaluation and the subsequent revisions to the review methodology.

4.40     Overall, IQER was well received by colleges, awarding bodies and students. The process was deemed to have operated smoothly, and respondents welcomed the Developmental engagements, which were deemed to be supportive and enhancement focused. All respondent groups identified a series of benefits to the college, the awarding body(ies) and to students as a direct result of the review.

4.41     Benefits to the college:

  • providing opportunities for critical self-reflection and for staff development
  • raising the profile of higher education within the college
  • acting as a catalyst for change, improvement and enhancement
  • generating greater awareness of the Academic Infrastructure within colleges
  • providing a mechanism for the identification and confirmation of areas of good practice, and strengths and areas for development.

4.42     Benefits to awarding bodies:

  • contributing to the assurance of colleges’ management of programmes
  • enriching the relationship between awarding bodies and colleges
  • providing an external and independent monitoring and evaluation process
  • providing a check to ensure that policies, procedures and processes are in place, and are operating effectively.

4.43     Benefits to students:

  • giving students an opportunity to provide feedback on their education and highlight good practice or concerns
  • providing an external/independent monitoring and confirmation of standards of provision
  • acting as a catalyst for change, informing improvements in provision for current and future students.

4.44     Through the evaluation of IQER, a number of challenges were also identified. These have been addressed and incorporated in the revisions to the handbook and method of review, for implementation during spring 2008.

4.45     One of the primary challenges identified through the evaluation of IQER involved securing input and involvement from the students. As with institutional audit, a written submission was invited from the students. However, clear difficulties were faced in trying to produce a students’ written submission, typically due to a lack of resources and the lack of a formal structure for student representation within the college. Students were additionally invited to participate in the review through meetings with the review team. Through the evaluations, students reported that while they recognised the importance of student input, they had typically been unaware of the existence and/or purpose of IQER and had often been invited to attend the meeting with the review team immediately prior to the meeting. Students suggested that IQER be promoted more widely within the college, and greater information, guidance and assistance be made available to students in relation to producing a student written submission.

4.46     Challenges identified through the internal and external evaluation included the need to:

  • clarify the aims and objectives of IQER
  • revisit and clarify the core questions and lines of enquiry
  • review the report template
  • ensure that there is a clear and shared understanding of the role of all partners within IQER, and to agree roles, responsibilities and information sharing
  • secure input from students through the most appropriate means
  • minimise the potential burden placed upon colleges, awarding bodies and students through the IQER process.

4.47     In redrafting the handbook for IQER, QAA has been mindful of the potential burden on colleges and awarding bodies, and has sought to minimise this throughout, while ensuring communication and participation where appropriate.

Summary

4.48     The cycle of academic review at the subject level has formally drawn to a close, generating a wealth of intelligence about the standards of academic awards and quality of learning opportunities for higher education delivered in colleges of further education. The outcomes of the full cycle of academic review of higher education subjects in colleges will be formally reflected upon in the forthcoming QAA publication - Learning from academic review of higher education in further education colleges in England 2003-2007, due for publication in summer 2008.

4.49     Academic review and IQER found strengths in college practices in relation to assessment procedures, student support mechanisms and the involvement of employers in the development and delivery of the curriculum. Review teams commented favourably on the teaching and learning methods employed in the delivery of higher education and the skills and vocational knowledge of staff. Areas for further development and improvement were highlighted in relation to the need to improve information provision for students, the awareness and use of the Academic Infrastructure and other external reference points and greater opportunities for employers to participate in the design and delivery of the curriculum and the assessment of students.

4.50     Both academic review and IQER were well received within colleges of further education, with review teams and colleges alike identifying benefits arising from the review process for the college and students. IQER, unlike academic review, will include a greater number of colleges within its scope as it will include all those colleges within England delivering higher education awards, funded by HEFCE through any route. In addition, IQER has a greater focus upon enhancement and action planning, to assist colleges, where appropriate, in enhancing and improving higher education provision.

4.51     The main programme of IQER will be formally implemented during spring 2008, following formal HEFCE Board approval of the IQER review method. In the first year, QAA expects to undertake 31 Developmental engagements. The focus of the Developmental engagements will be student assessment.

4.52     Training for reviewers is scheduled to start in February 2008, and will be conducted alongside nominee, facilitator and coordinator training.

4.53     The implementation of IQER will be supported by a series of roadshows designed to disseminate information about IQER to colleges and awarding bodies. In addition, there will be briefing events held for those colleges participating in the first round of reviews. The briefing events will provide specific information intended to assist colleges in planning for their Developmental engagement.

Working with students

5.1       During 2006-07, QAA strengthened links with students through a range of activities, and acknowledges the increasing role students have for safeguarding standards and improvement in quality management. Activities included student participation in the audit and IQER processes, through the students’ written submission and meetings with audit teams, where students were provided with the opportunity to express their views on their learning experience. Further development is taking place in the form of a strategy for engagement with students, with the aim to ensure that students’ views are clearly heard in the management processes.

5.2       Through the evaluation process of audit and IQER, students welcomed the opportunity to participate and express their views, and institutions and audit/review teams valued the contributions that students made.

5.3       The QAA Board is in the process of developing a revised strategy for QAA’s work with students and representative bodies and in March 2007 the Board received a presentation from representatives of the NUS and the National Postgraduate Committee (NPC). Proposals considered by the QAA Board include a national QAA student 'sounding board', having a student member of QAA review teams, and a range of joint projects with NUS and NPC. As a result, in spring 2008, students will be invited to act as observers on audits, to inform a process for extending the engagement of students in the audit process.

5.4       An internal group has also been established to coordinate the approach across QAA, and with sector and national bodies, to support capacity building within higher education institutions for student involvement in quality, and for the proposed student involvement in review processes and improved provision of information for students and potential students. The QAA Board has always had a student observer, but as part of the revised strategy for QAA’s work with students, a new category of student member of the Board has been approved. The appointment of a student member will take effect from February 2008.

5.5       QAA continues to support Students’ Union officers through the twice-yearly Quality Takes Time events. These are run jointly with other organisations, including the NUS, and provide information and guidance to elected student officers on the importance and role of students in quality assurance processes, and guidance on the preparation of the students’ written submission for institutional audit.

5.6       QAA staff have met regularly with the General Secretary of the NPC, whose representatives have contributed to various QAA working groups, including revisions to many of the sections of the Code of practice. QAA staff have also presented at the last NPC annual conference and at the annual European Council for Doctoral Candidates and Young Researchers conference.

QAA evaluation and monitoring

6.1       During 2006-07, QAA undertook the evaluation and monitoring of the various audit and review activities and training and briefing events. All evaluation and monitoring activity took place in accordance with QAA’s Evaluation Policy and Strategy.

6.2       QAA is committed to reflecting on its processes by undertaking a formal evaluation of all its audit and review activities. Evaluation serves a variety of purposes, not least of which is reporting to HEFCE and other stakeholders as part of QAA’s contractual requirements. The systematic evaluation of activities allows for the identification of good practice and highlights aspects of activity where there is scope for further development as part of the process of continuous improvement.

6.3       The continual monitoring and internal reporting on evaluation activities has provided a valuable mechanism for the early identification of good practice and problems, so facilitating early resolution. QAA is confident that participant groups are broadly satisfied that the audit and review processes, and training and briefing events, have achieved their intended aim and met the expectations of those involved.

Process evaluation

6.4       Following the completion of all review and audit activities, formal evaluation was undertaken by means of questionnaire surveys and focus group activities. The evaluation involved all relevant participant stakeholder groups - student representative bodies, institutions, and reviewers/auditors.

6.5       Across all methods, response rates were high and feedback was highly positive. In the main, respondents agreed that the review/audit activities had met the aims and had generated tangible benefits for the institution, and subsequently the student learning experience.

Evaluation of other activities

6.6       During 2006-07, QAA ran a number of training and briefing events, and an array of conference, discussion and dissemination events. QAA staff also supported other UK and international conference events as presenters of papers, session convenors and chairs.

6.7       All training and briefing events delivered by QAA are subject to evaluation, so facilitating reflective approach to both content and delivery. The continuous cycle of evaluation of training and briefing events, either directly after or following a review or audit, has ensured that any areas identified by respondents as requiring further attention can be addressed for future events.

6.8       Feedback gathered through the evaluation questionnaire across all training and briefing events and conferences was overwhelmingly positive.

6.9       Of note, QAA ran four roadshows to disseminate information to colleges and awarding bodies about IQER. The roadshows were very well received by delegates. In particular, delegates commented very favourably on the benefits of included speakers who were able to present case-study examples of their direct experience of IQER, to include review coordinators and colleges, namely the nominees. Delegates at the roadshow events recommended that the inclusion of actual case studies be continued in the training and briefing events to support the roll-out of IQER.

6.10     In May 2007, QAA held the third annual Liaison Conference, which focused on student engagement. The event was attended by 92 delegates representing 71 institutions. Through the conference, challenges and possible solutions to encouraging and ensuring student engagement were explored. The conference was well received by delegates.

6.11     Challenges identified included:

  • encouraging and maintaining student engagement
  • ensuring that student representatives are representative of the student body
  • how to get the views of ‘hard to reach students’, such as part-time, distance-learning, overseas and postgraduate students
  • ensuring that students know the role that they play and are able to be effective in representing the student voice
  • being able to provide sufficient financial resources to the student union to enable them to be involved effectively
  • recognising the value of feedback to students/student representatives
  • the effect of the National Student Survey (NSS) on internal quality assurance systems.

6.12     A series of possible solutions to the challenges was identified. Further information on the outcomes of the discussions at the Liaison Conference is available on QAA’s website (www.qaa.ac.uk/education/liaison/Conference2007/default.asp).

6.13     The QAA Subscribers’ meeting was held on 5 June 2007 at the Novotel London Euston and was attended by 130 delegates. Delegates considered the Subscribers’ meeting to be of a high standard with 85 per cent of responses recorded as good or very good. Respondents commented favourably on the format and content of the day and the associated organisation and administration.

Summary

6.14     QAA continues to deliver a variety of external events with the primary aim of the dissemination of information about specific aspects of QAA work or providing training for those involved in the work of QAA. As confirmed by the current and previous evaluations, such events are well received by delegates in terms of their content, organisation, delivery and usefulness.

6.15     Evidence has suggested that case-study information, presented by those outside of QAA directly involved in activities, is particularly useful to delegates in supplementing the information disseminated by QAA. As such, QAA has taken steps to ensure that case studies are included in training, briefing and other dissemination events, as appropriate.

Summary and recommendations

7.1       Recommendations for the improvement and revision of current methods and the development of future methods have been identified through the evaluation activities and from other feedback to QAA. Minor amendments have been made where necessary to enhance the smooth operation of processes and to reflect changing circumstances during the cycles of audit and review activity.

7.2       A number of significant changes were made to the reporting arrangements for institutional audits following the first seven audits in 2006-07. These included revisions to the specification for the annex and changes to the procedures for gathering and editing sections of the text. The result has been a reduction in repetition within reports and an improved accessibility of information

7.3       The nature of both audit and review activities is shaped by QAA’s mission and purpose, and by the consultation and agreement with the higher education sector, and interested organisations, during the design and development of the methods. The handbooks provide a definitive account of the method and ensure consistency of practice and application throughout the review cycle. Nevertheless, the context changes over the lifespan of a review method and issues are identified that are of relevance to the maintenance of quality and standards that had not been apparent at the time that the method was designed. Currently there are a number of policy matters which QAA recognises would warrant a more specific focus in review activities.

Employer engagement

7.4       Good practice and opportunities for development were identified in respect of employer and public, statutory and regulatory bodies’ (PSRB) engagement with the design and delivery of the curriculum and involvement in assessment through audit and review activities. Different models of engagement and involvement were identified, from employer led through to employer supported. QAA will brief audit and review teams to follow-up enquires about institutional approaches to employer engagement, particularly with regard to the assurance of quality and standards.

7.5       In addition to the existing contribution that QAA is making to the discussion about the quality assurance of employer delivered higher education, there may be scope for project work that explores the extent and nature of employer (and PSRB) engagement in curriculum design and delivery and good practice. This could subsequently inform institutional and college practices and the ongoing development and maintenance of the Academic Infrastructure.

The use of NSS results

7.6       The outcomes of the NSS have become more significant during the current cycle of institutional audits. Audit teams have made use of the published evidence and had access to information from higher education institutions. However, there is scope for making reference to the NSS more explicit in audit reports and cross-referencing NSS outcomes to other sources of evidence. Audit teams would take an interest in how institutions are using the information from the NSS to inform institutional strategies for quality enhancement.

7.7       While QAA welcomes the proposal to publish teaching quality information for further education colleges and to extend the NSS to those students undertaking higher education awards in further education colleges on directly and indirectly funded programmes, there is a recognition that gaps in information still exist. In addition, during 2006-07, we have made considerable efforts in developing agreements for the sharing of information with many organisations, to include HEFCE, HESA, UCAS, LSC, Ofsted, the British Accreditation Council and others.

Assessment and feedback

7.8       The NSS (2007) has again identified concerns expressed by students in respect of assessment and feedback. This is an area of higher education provision that is currently being explored by the Higher Education Academy. Academic review, IQER and institutional audit have, and will, provide a wealth of information about the assessment processes in place within institutions. In addition, the student input into the audit and review activities, through meetings with teams and/or the students’ written submission, provides further evidence and experience of the assessment and feedback processes.   7.9       There is scope for further project work that seeks to triangulate information derived from the two main parts of the quality assurance framework - the NSS and QAA audit and review activities - in order to identify what is working well and what are the specific features of student dissatisfaction with assessment and feedback and areas for development.

Information

7.10     In light of the HERRG concordat and the commitment to reduce the information requirements of institutions, QAA has sought to obtain data and information on higher education provision from secondary sources where possible. The intention is to minimise the information requirements placed upon institutions. Audit and review activities have sought to draw upon evidence (largely reports) from other recognised bodies, in order to reduce the potential demand created by the duplication of activities. However, in planning QAA activities, it has become increasingly apparent that there are gaps in information, which has required a direct data collection exercise with both higher education institutions and colleges of further education.

7.11     Information gaps still exist in relation to two specific areas of our work:

  • collaborative provision arrangements within the UK and overseas
  • private providers of higher education within the UK.

7.12     The project on private providers, recently commissioned by HEFCE, will help to address the current lack of knowledge about this element of the higher education sector. In addition, QAA has agreed to sign an information sharing protocol with the British Accreditation Council to gain access to information about private providers of higher education and their links with validating higher education institutions. Further work on identifying the range and type of collaborative provision activity could be obtained from the information provided by higher education institutions in their registers of collaborative provision. This would require a specific project to gather, categorise and analyse the wide range of information available.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Academic review (2006-07)

Institution Subject
New College, Telford Music
Boston College Social Policy and Administration and Social Work
Stratford-upon-Avon College Communications, Media, Film and Television Studies
Newbury College Engineering
Bromley College of Further & Higher Education Social Policy and Administration and Social Work
Kensington and Chelsea College Art and Design
Huddersfield Technical College Agriculture, Forestry, Agricultural and Food Sciences
Lambeth College Building and Surveying
Derby College Engineering
City of Wolverhampton College Business and Management
East Riding College Computing
Southwark College Art and  Design
Walford & North Shropshire College Agriculture, Forestry, Agricultural and Food Sciences
Re-reviews
Accrington & Rossendale College Communications, Media, Film and Television Studies
Hull College Dance, Drama and Performance Arts
City College Birmingham Building and Surveying
Dewsbury College Art & Design

Appendix 2: IQER pilot review

College
City and Islington College
Blackpool and The Fylde College
Shrewsbury College of Arts and Technology
New College Durham
Kingston Maurward College
Doncaster College
Burton College
Colchester Institute
Filton College
Gloucestershire College of Arts and Technology
City College Manchester
Mid-Kent College of Higher and Further Education
Stroud College
The Isle of Wight College
Stephenson College

Appendix 3

Institutional audit (2006-07)

Higher education institution
Ravensbourne College of Design and Communication
Royal Agricultural College
Royal College of Art
Royal College of Music
School of Oriental and African Studies
University College Falmouth
School of Pharmacy

Collaborative provision audit (2006-07)

Higher education institution
University of Huddersfield
University of Bolton
University of Manchester
Bournemouth University
Staffordshire University
University of Ulster
University of Derby

 

TopTop