Introduction
Background
1 The process of collaborative provision audit (CPA) described in this supplement has been developed by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (the Agency) in consultation with higher education institutions (HEIs) in England. It provides a means for scrutinising the collaborative provision of an HEI with degree-awarding powers (awarding institution) where the provision is too large or complex to be included in the institutional audit. The term collaborative provision (CP) used throughout this supplement is taken to mean ‘educational provision leading to an award, or to specific credit toward an award, of an awarding institution delivered and/or supported and/or assessed through an arrangement with a partner organisation’ [Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education, Section 2: Collaborative provision, and flexible and distributed learning (including e-learning), paragraph 13].
Process
2 CPA 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. The CPA process draws upon the process for institutional audit which is described in the Handbook for institutional audit: England (the Handbook) to which this supplement will refer where appropriate. Like institutional audit, CPA 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 others (such as Edexcel) for maintaining the academic standards of their awards. Like institutional audit, CPA draws upon the teaching quality information (TQI) sets described in Information on quality and standards in higher education: Final guidance (HEFCE 2003/51).
3 In CPA, scrutiny of an awarding institution’s systems and procedures for assuring quality of provision and maintaining academic standards of awards in CP, is combined with scrutiny of how these systems and procedures are given practical effect by partner organisations. The CPA 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.
The CPA cycle
4 The forthcoming CPA cycle will commence in late 2004-05. For those awarding institutions where CPA is applicable, it will take place after the institutional audit.
The Agency's operational principles and service standards
5 The process of CPA will require a high degree of openness, transparency and trust between the Agency and each awarding institution. To ensure that the process is robust, impartial and deserving of that trust, CPA will be underpinned by the same general principles and explicit service standards which support institutional audit, and are described in Annex J of the Handbook.
Aims and objectives
Aims
6 CPA shares the aims of institutional audit: 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; and
- exercising their legal powers to award degrees in a proper manner.
Objectives
7 The objectives of CPA are:
- to contribute, in conjunction with other mechanisms, to the promotion and enhancement of high quality in teaching and learning;
- to ensure that students, employers and others can have ready access to easily understood, reliable and meaningful public information about the extent to which awarding institutions, through their collaborative arrangements, are offering programmes of study that lead to awards and qualifications that meet general national expectations in respect of academic standards and quality;
- to ensure that if the quality of higher education programmes for the standards of awards are found to be weak or seriously deficient, the CPA process forms a basis for ensuring rapid action to improve them.
The CPA process in summary
Scope
8 CPA examines three main areas:
- the effectiveness of an awarding institution's internal quality assurance structures and mechanisms for its CP, in the light of the Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education (the Code) 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 CP, as given effect by individual partnership arrangements (partner link visits), or across the awarding institution's CP 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.
9 In examining these areas, CPA teams focus in particular on:
- the awarding institution's strategic approach to its CP, including the selection and approval processes and the formal arrangements for partner links; internal quality assurance reviews of CP and their outcomes, including reviews of the partnership and of the programme;
- the use made of external reference points in CP, including the Academic Infrastructure and (where relevant) the Indirectly funded partnerships: codes of practice for franchise and consortia arrangements (HEFCE 00/54);
- publicly available information about the quality of programmes in CPA and the academic standards of awards gained through CP;
- the awarding institution's internal systems for the management of information, and their contribution to its effective oversight of quality and standards in CP;
- the development, use and publication of programme specifications in CP;
- the academic standards expected of students studying through CP;
- the experience of students in CP as learners;
- the role of the awarding institution in assuring quality in CP of teaching staff, which may include criteria of appointment of teaching staff and the ways in which teaching effectiveness is appraised, improved and rewarded.
Information
10 The information sources about an awarding institution which will be available to CPA teams will include:
- the information sets described in HEFCE 2003/51;
- the awarding institution's self-evaluation document (SED) for the CPA (CPA SED);
- the awarding institution's register of its CP;
- information from the awarding institution and other sources (such as professional, statutory and regulatory bodies) about its partner links;
- reports on the awarding institution and its partner organisations by the Agency and other relevant bodies and follow-up reports to institutional audits and other Agency reviews;
- information (written or oral) acquired during and after the briefing visit, the visits to partner links, and during the audit visit.
11 With the development of the full set of TQI, from July 2005, CPA teams will have access to information available on the national site (HERO).
Judgements and reports
12 Each CPA will result in a report published by the Agency. The report sets out the CPA team's judgements on:
- the confidence that can reasonably be placed in the soundness of the awarding institution’s present and likely future management of the academic standards of its awards made through collaborative arrangements;
- the confidence that can reasonably be placed in the present and likely future capacity of the awarding institution to satisfy itself that the learning opportunities offered to students through its collaborative arrangements are managed effectively and meet its requirements; and
- the reliance that can reasonably be placed on the accuracy, integrity, completeness and frankness of the information that an awarding institution publishes (or authorises to be published) about the quality of the programmes offered through CP that lead to its awards and the standards of those awards.
13 In making these judgements CPA teams give particular attention to the Agency's expectations in two key areas: that awarding institutions are making strong and scrupulous use of independent external examiners in summative assessment procedures linked to their CP, and that a similar use is made by awarding institutions of independent external persons in the internal periodic review of disciplines or programmes offered through collaborative arrangements. CPA teams will be unable to make a judgement of broad confidence in the areas set out in paragraph 12 above if these elements are deficient.
Students
14 The experience of students is central to CPA and students have an important role in the process. CPA teams scrutinise a range of matters directly relevant to students in CP, but do not ask to see samples of assessed student work. There will be opportunities for officers of students' representative bodies to meet the CPA team in the course of the CPA visits. In the course of visits to a sample of partner links, there will be opportunities for students on collaborative programmes that lead to the awarding institution's awards and/or credits to meet the CPA team.
Audit personnel
15 CPA teams comprise between four and six auditors, together with a CPA secretary. The CPA team will include members from awarding institutions with experience and expertise in the management of quality and academic standards in CP.
16 The Agency follows the same arrangements for selecting CPA auditors and audit secretaries as those for institutional audit. CPA auditors and audit secretaries will be provided with training to ensure that they are familiar with the aims, objectives and procedures of the CPA process and their own roles and tasks within it. The information provided in Annex F of the Handbook is broadly applicable.
17 Each CPA is coordinated by an assistant director (AD) of the Agency. In the period preceding the CPA visit, the AD provides advice to the awarding institution on its preparations for the CPA, and works with the CPA team on the initial analysis of documentation. The AD accompanies the CPA team during the briefing visit and for part of the audit visit, providing advice as appropriate. It is the responsibility of the AD to test that the team's findings are supported by adequate and identifiable evidence, and that the CPA report provides information in a succinct and readily accessible form.
How the process works
Preparation
18 An outline of the CPA process is provided in Annex 1. The CPA process will begin with a preliminary meeting between the awarding institution and the Agency about the structure and content of the CPA as a whole. To prepare for this meeting, the Agency will contact the awarding institution to agree dates for the submission of the CPA SED, linked to dates for the CPA briefing visit, the period during which visits to partner links can be undertaken, and the CPA audit visit.
19 The date for the CPA preliminary meeting will usually be about nine months before the CPA audit visit. To support the CPA preliminary meeting the awarding institution will need to provide, in advance of the meeting, a copy of the register it currently maintains of its partnership links, together with information that will illustrate the awarding institution's approach to managing quality and academic standards in its CP.
20 The purpose of the CPA preliminary meeting will be: to confirm the CPA’s focus on the awarding institution; to discuss the data included in the awarding institution's register of its CP and any additional data compiled for the meeting; to discuss the interactions throughout the CPA between the awarding institution, the Agency, and the CPA team, and other key elements of the process and their timing; to clarify the scope of the CPA; to ensure that the CPA SED will be well-matched to the process of audit; and to explore the awarding institution's responsibilities for arrangements associated with visits to partner links, including 'virtual' visits, and how the partner links to be visited might be chosen.
21 Following the CPA preliminary visit, the AD will identify the number of partner links to be visited (up to a total of six). The composition and size of the sample of partnership links to be included in the CPA will depend on a mix of factors including: the overall size of the awarding institution's portfolio of CP; the variety of formal arrangements supported by the awarding institution; the nature of the awarding institution's arrangements for managing its CP as described in its CPA SED (see below).
22 The AD will write to the awarding institution following the CPA preliminary visit, confirming the key dates agreed for the CPA and the number of partner links to be visited. Thereafter, until the submission of the SED, the Agency will offer additional advice and guidance on the process at the request of the awarding institution, initially through the AD.
Documentation and analysis
23 The awarding institution is required to submit its initial documentation for the CPA no later than 18 weeks before the CPA audit visit. The initial documentation comprises the CPA SED, the awarding institution's register of its CP, and any other documents that it wishes to provide for the CPA team in advance of the briefing visit. Annex 2 (page 10) provides suggestions for the structure of a CPA SED.
24 The Agency will separately provide for the CPA team copies of relevant reports of: the awarding institution's institutional audit and any institutional audit conducted with a partner organisation; academic reviews at the subject level; and developmental engagements with the awarding institution and its partner links, together with relevant published reports (where available) of professional, statutory and regulatory bodies. In order to contain the burden on students' representative bodies in awarding institutions and partner links, the Agency does not formally invite the provision of a student written submission in CPA (although it will consider any that it receives).
25 On receipt, the awarding institution's documentation is distributed by the Agency to the CPA team. From summer 2005, CPA teams will also have access to the TQI lodged by the awarding institution on the HERO web site which is relevant to its CP. On the basis of this information the CPA team is asked to consult (normally using electronic means) and identify the partner links to be visited.
26 In coming to its decision on the partner links to be visited, the CPA team will be mindful of the desirability of avoiding, where possible, visits to partners which have recently been the subject of an Agency review or audit, other than where such activities have suggested the inclusion of the link within a CPA. The team's decision on the partner links to be visited will be conveyed to the awarding institution approximately two working weeks after the submission of the CPA SED.
27 The Agency will not request bespoke self-evaluation documents from the awarding institution to support the visits to partner links. It will, however, be helpful for the CPA team to receive, for each partner link to be visited:
- the most recently concluded formal agreement between the awarding institution and the partner;
- the report of the process through which the awarding institution assured itself that the partner was an appropriate organisation to deliver its awards, or of the most recent renewal of that approval;
- and for a sample of programmes from within the link, identified by the CPA team:
- the most recent annual and periodic review reports held by the awarding institution, together with the report of the most recent programme or provision approval;
- the two most recent reports from external examiners with responsibilities for the relevant programmes or provision included in the sample, together with the information which allowed the awarding institution to be satisfied that the points made by the external examiners had been addressed.
These should be provided by the awarding institution to the Agency no later than two weeks before the briefing visit.
The CPA briefing visit
28 The visit to the awarding institution has two parts. The first part, the briefing visit, is held six weeks before the audit visit, and occupies no more than two-and-a-half days at the awarding institution. The purpose of the briefing visit is to offer the awarding institution an opportunity to bring the CPA team up to date on developments and changes since the publication of the institutional audit report, and any matters arising since the CPA SED was submitted, and to ensure that the team is fully informed of the context for each of the visits to be undertaken to partner links between the briefing visit and the audit visit (see below). It will also permit the team to gather any additional information (written or oral) that it requires to clarify what it has already received, to consider its lines of enquiry for the visits to partner links and for the audit visit, to propose a programme for the latter, and to allocate particular responsibilities to individual team members. The AD accompanies the team throughout the briefing visit.
29 The briefing visit is focused on the awarding institution's management of its CP rather than on individual partner links. It has a standard structure, and includes meetings with senior representatives of the awarding institution and its partners. It will include meetings with student officers of the awarding institution where they are able to represent the views of students studying through collaborative arrangements and wish to participate in the audit of CP. Representatives of students studying with partners for the awarding institution's awards may be invited to participate in the briefing visit where this is realistic.
30 At the end of the briefing visit the CPA team and the AD will discuss with representatives of the awarding institution the team's proposals for:
- its visits to partner links, including the meetings it wishes to hold and who it would wish to meet;
- any thematic enquiry (see below, paragraph 35);
- other documents that it wishes to see during the CPA audit visit;
- a programme of meetings for the CPA audit visit with representatives of the awarding institution.
The team will aim to provide the awarding institution with sufficient information about the enquiries it proposes to conduct to enable it to assist the team in setting out appropriate arrangements.
Visits to partner links
31 Visits to the selected partner links will enable the team to come to a view on the reliability of the evidence on which the awarding institution relies to satisfy itself that the academic standards of its awards and credits are secure and that all is well with its partnership links. They will also provide information on:
- how the awarding institution is assimilating relevant aspects of the Academic Infrastructure into its CP;
- the provision of information to students studying through partner links, and how feedback from students in CP on their experience as learners is collected, analysed, and used by the awarding institution;
- the part played by students in CP in the quality management of provision leading to their awards;
- how the awarding institution ensures the accuracy of information published about the quality of CP associated with its awards and the academic standards of those awards and credits, including programme specifications;
- matters relating to staff development and support undertaken by the awarding institution with partner links in support of its CP.
32 Each visit to a partner link will last a day and will typically involve meetings with:
- senior members of the partner, to assist the CPA team to understand the overall and strategic management of the link from the partner's perspective;
- student members of staff/student consultative liaison committees for students studying for the awarding institution's awards through the link;
- members of the partner's teaching and support staff involved in supporting the link operationally.
Enquiries will focus on how the awarding institution's procedures for collaborative arrangements are given effect within the link, paying special attention to the effectiveness of the awarding institution's reviews of the partnership, the provision, and the academic standards of awards and credits. Where a 'virtual' visit to a partner link is included in a CPA, the arrangements will be made by the Agency in consultation with the awarding institution and its partner.
The CPA audit visit to the awarding institution
33 The CPA audit visit will last up to a maximum of five days. It will provide opportunities for the CPA team to review the outcomes of visits to partner links and to hold further discussions with members of the awarding institution as proposed by the team at the end of the CPA briefing visit.
34 There will be no oral report to the awarding institution at the end of the audit visit, but a 'key findings' letter will be sent to it during the following two weeks, outlining the main findings and likely recommendations in the draft report. The awarding institution is encouraged to share the contents of this letter with its partners, particularly those that have been visited by the CPA team.
Thematic enquiries
35 The nature and purpose of thematic enquiries in institutional audit are set out in paragraphs 52-54 of the Handbook. Where a CPA team considers that a thematic enquiry will enable it to explore an aspect of the awarding institution's quality management or academic standards arrangements for its CP, across a range of partner links or other arrangements, it will discuss its proposals with the awarding institution at the close of the CPA briefing visit, so that the latter may advise it how any such enquiries might best be conducted, and what additional information might be required to support them. In all cases, the evidence requested by the CPA team will be limited to no more than is needed to inform the enquiries it will be undertaking.
Use of reference points
36 When considering the awarding institution's management of academic standards and quality in the context of its CP, CPA teams will follow the procedures set out in the Handbook, and will draw upon the external reference points listed in paragraph 55 of the Handbook and, where relevant, on HEFCE 00/54, as noted in paragraph 13 of the Handbook.
37 In drawing on the reference points, the CPA team will be seeking evidence that the awarding institution has:
- considered the purpose of the reference points;
- reflected on its own practices in the relevant areas;
- taken, or is taking, any necessary steps to ensure that appropriate changes are being introduced to the quality management and academic standards arrangements it employs for its CP.
Judgements and reports
38 The CPA results in a report published by the Agency. The concluding section of the CPA report sets out the CPA team's judgements, as described in paragraph 12.
39 Judgements in CPA may be expressed in terms of one of three levels of confidence – 'broad confidence', 'limited confidence', or 'no confidence'. The judgements are accompanied by recommendations for consideration by the awarding institution, categorised in order of priority:
- 'essential' recommendations refer to important matters that the CPA team believes are currently putting quality and/or standards at risk, and which require urgent corrective action;
- 'advisable' recommendations refer to matters that the CPA team believes have the potential to put quality and/or standards at risk and require preventive, or less urgent, corrective action;
- 'desirable' recommendations refer to matters that the CPA team believes have the potential to enhance quality and/or further secure standards.
The concluding section of the CPA report may also highlight features of good practice in the awarding institution's management of quality and academic and standards in its CP. CPA teams will employ the criteria for judgements set out in the Handbook (Annex G), with due recognition of the fact that CPA does not provide for discipline audit trails.
40 The concluding section of the CPA report also sets out the CPA team's judgement on:
- the reliance that can reasonably be placed on the accuracy, integrity, completeness and frankness of the information that the awarding institution publishes about the quality of those of its programmes delivered through partner links and the standards of the associated academic awards and credits leading to those awards.
This judgement takes into account the CPA team's findings with respect to the information it has gathered through its visits to partner links and contributes to the confidence judgement. The expectations which will inform these judgements are those set out in paragraph 59 of the Handbook and paragraph 13 above.
41 The awarding institution will be invited to provide a brief statement to be published as an appendix to the report. The statement provides an opportunity for the awarding institution to report on developments since the CPA audit visit, particularly in respect of actions taken or proposed to address the recommendations of the CPA team.
Sign off and follow-up
42 The CPA is completed when it is formally signed off. Where the report makes a statement of broad confidence, the CPA is signed off on report publication. A brief enquiry is made by the Agency through correspondence with the awarding institution after one year on the way in which it has responded to the report.
43 Where the CPA report makes a statement of limited confidence, the report is published, but there is a programme of follow-up action. The Agency requires an action plan from the awarding institution within three months of the report's publication and, subsequently, a progress report on how the action plan has been implemented. The CPA is not formally signed off until the Agency is satisfied that the plan has been implemented successfully, with a maximum time limit of 18 months. If at that point concerns remain about the effectiveness of the remedial action, the Agency conducts a further visit.
44 Where the CPA report makes a statement of no confidence, the report is published, but the programme of follow-up action includes the requirement that the awarding institution submits an action plan to the Agency within three months of the report's publication, and quarterly progress reports thereafter on how the identified weaknesses are being addressed. After 18 months, the Agency carries out a short follow-up visit to the awarding institution to check progress. The CPA is not formally signed off until the Agency is satisfied that the action plan has been implemented successfully. If after 18 months concerns remain about the effectiveness of the remedial action, the Agency may bring forward the date of the next CPA or institutional audit, as appropriate.
Complaints and representations
45 Complaints about the conduct of a CPA and representations against the judgements made by the CPA team are considered by the Agency in accordance with the formal procedures published on its web site at www.qaa.ac.uk
Annex 1. Schedule of key dates for CPA
Week |
Activity |
|---|---|
CPA visit minus not less than 36 weeks (see note) = CPA preliminary visit |
AD visits awarding institution to meet institutional representatives. AD provides briefing on process of CPA and provides guidance on the awarding institution's CPA SED. |
CPA visit minus 32 weeks |
The Agency confirms with the awarding institution the size of the CPA team and the number of partner links to be visited. |
CPA visit minus 18 weeks |
The Agency receives the awarding institution's CPA SED. |
CPA visit minus 16 weeks |
The Agency confirms the selected partner links to be visited, together with the membership of the CPA team. |
CPA visit minus 8 weeks |
The Agency receives from the awarding institution supplementary information on the partnership links to be visited. |
CPA visit minus 6 weeks = Briefing visit |
The CPA team and the AD undertake briefing visit to the awarding institution. |
CPA visit minus 6 weeks through to CPA visit minus 1 week = visits to partner links |
CPA team undertakes visits to partner links. |
CPA visit |
The CPA visit to the awarding institution. |
CPA visit plus 2 weeks |
Letter outlining the CPA findings is agreed by CPA team and sent by the AD to the head of the awarding institution. |
CPA visit plus 8 weeks |
The Agency sends draft CPA report to head of the awarding institution. |
CPA visit plus 14 weeks |
Comments on the draft report from the awarding institution to be received by the Agency (note: time has been added to the four weeks allowed for responses in institutional audit to give the awarding institution scope to consult partners if it so wishes). |
CPA visit plus 18 weeks |
CPA report to be finalised and sent to the head of the awarding institution. |
CPA visit plus 20 weeks |
Awarding institution's statement for publication with the CPA report to be received by the Agency. |
CPA visit plus 22 weeks |
CPA report to be published. |
Annex 2. Guidelines for producing a self-evaluation document for CPA
Purpose of the awarding institution's self-evaluation document
1 The CPA SED is a key reference point for the CPA team. Awarding institutions should refer to the general guidance offered in Annex B, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Handbook.
Length and style of the awarding institution’s CPA SED
2 Awarding institutions may wish to consult paragraphs 4-6 of Annex B of the Handbook.
Content
3 The awarding institution may find it helpful to consult Annex 3 of this Supplement: Indicative report structure for CPA, and to structure its CPA SED under the following main headings:
- the awarding institution's strategic approach to CP;
- its framework for managing the quality of students’ experience and academic standards in CP [including approach(es) to the assessment of the achievement of students on collaborative programmes leading to awards of the awarding institution];
- its intentions for enhancing the management of its CP;
- its internal approval, monitoring and review arrangements for CP leading to its awards;
- external participation in internal review processes for CP;
- external examiners and their reports in CP;
- the use made of the Academic Infrastructure in CP [especially the section of the Code on Collaborative provision, and flexible and distributed learning (including e-learning) and, where relevant, HEFCE 00/54];
- review and accreditation by external agencies of programmes leading to the awarding institution's awards offered through CP;
- student representation in CP;
- feedback from students, graduates and employers;
- student admission, progression, completion and assessment information for CP;
- assurance of quality of teaching staff in CP, appointment, appraisal, support and development;
- learning support resources for students in CP;
- academic guidance and personal support for students in CP;
- the published information available to students in CP;
- the reliability, accuracy and completeness of published information on CP leading to the awarding institution's awards.
Documentation linked to the awarding institution's SED
4 Awarding institutions should refer to paragraph 11 of Annex B of the Handbook. An awarding institution may supplement its CPA SED with other documents that it believes will assist the CPA team to understand its quality and academic standards management arrangements for its CP. In all cases, awarding institutions should provide a copy of their register of CP with their CPA SED.
Submission
5 The awarding institution is required to submit the CPA SED, together with any supporting documentation, to the Agency no later than 18 weeks before the audit (see Annex 1).
Confidentiality
6 It is likely that the CPA report will refer to and include quotations from the CPA SED but, as with institutional audit SEDs, CPA SEDs will remain confidential to the Agency and the CPA team. The awarding institution is, however, strongly encouraged to involve its partners and students in CP in the preparation of the CPA SED, and to make the completed document available to them.
Annex 3. Indicative report structure for CPA
Preface
[A standard summary, common to all CPA reports, of the CPA process and its possible outcomes]
Summary
[A summary intended primarily for the public, especially potential students, and to be made available separately from the rest of the CPA report]
Introductory statement.
Statement of confidence.
Statement of partner links visited.
Reliability of information.
Use made of the Academic Infrastructure.
Features of good practice.
Recommendations for action by the awarding institution.
Main report
Section 1. Introduction
[A standard introduction to this CPA]
- The awarding institution and its mission as it relates to CP.
- Background information.
- The audit process.
- The institutional audit and any subsequent developments.
[To include any key actions taken and outline of any major structural changes since the institutional audit with a bearing on the CPA].
Section 2. The CPA investigations: the awarding institution's processes for quality management in CP
[This is a narrative that evaluates the impact on quality, learning support, and academic standards, of a range of the awarding institution's processes and features of quality management relating to the awarding institution's awards. In each sub-section the emphasis should be on the use made by the awarding institution in its CP of the process or feature of quality management, and on its effectiveness. The following represents a core set of subsections that will be included in the CPA report. Other sub-sections may be added where appropriate – for example, to reflect the particular features of the awarding institution, where identified by the latter in its CPA SED].
- The awarding institution's strategic approach to CP.
- The awarding institution's framework for managing the quality of the students’ experience and academic standards in CP.
- The awarding institution's intentions for enhancing the management of its CP.
- The awarding institution's internal approval, monitoring and review arrangements for CP leading to its awards.
- External participation in internal review processes for CP.
[The awarding institution's arrangements to ensure the participation of external persons in programme approval arrangements and internal periodic review processes].
- External examiners and their reports in CP.
[How the awarding institution ensures that its procedures for external examiners, and for dealing with their reports, are followed for CP leading to its awards].
- The use made of external reference points in CP.
- Review and accreditation by external agencies of programmes leading to the awarding institution's awards offered through CP.
- Student representation in CP.
- Feedback from students, graduates and employers.
- Student admission, progression, completion and assessment information for CP.
- Assurance of the quality of teaching staff in CP: appointment, appraisal, support and development.
- Learning support resources for students in CP.
- Academic guidance and personal support for students in CP.
Section 3. The audit investigations: published information
Published information
- The experience of students in CP of the published information available to them.
- The reliability, accuracy and completeness of published information on CP leading to the awarding institution's awards.
The findings of the CPA
[An overview of the findings of the CPA taking a perspective of the awarding institution's capacity to manage the quality of its CP and to safeguard the academic standards of its awards gained through CP].
- The effectiveness of the implementation of the awarding institution's approach to managing its CP.
- The effectiveness of the awarding institution's procedures for assuring the quality of educational provision in its CP.
- The effectiveness of the awarding institution's procedures for safeguarding the academic standards of its awards gained through CP.
- The awarding institution's use of the Academic Infrastructure in the context of its CP.
- The utility of the CPA SED as an illustration of the awarding institution's capacity to reflect upon its own strengths and limitations in CP, and to act on these to enhance quality and safeguard academic standards.
- Commentary on the awarding institution's intentions for the enhancement of its management of quality and academic standards in its CP.
- Reliability of information provided by the awarding institution on its CP.
- Features of good practice in the management of quality and academic standards in CP [bulleted list].
- Recommendations for action by the awarding institution [bulleted list].
Top