Institutional Audit
The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education last audited the University during the week of 17-21 May 2004, and the report can found on the QAA website. The 1999 report can also be found on the QAA web site.
The institutional audit process seeks to establish the confidence that can be placed in the soundness of the University’s arrangements for the management of the quality of its programmes and the standards of its awards. In addition, the audit team will evaluate the reliance that can be placed on the accuracy, integrity and reliability of the information published about quality and standards at Brunel.
Verification of the effective operation of University quality and standards assurance processes will be sought through four discipline audit trails (DATs), where judgements about the standards of specific areas of provision will be made.
The QAA conducted an institutional audit of the University in May 2004. The final report was published on the QAA web site on 8 October 2004.
The auditors concluded that ‘broad confidence’ – the highest rating possible – could be placed in the current and likely future arrangements in the University for the effective management of the quality of programmes and the standards of awards.
The full text of the report was unusually positive, drawing attention to numerous positive features across all areas of the University’s activity. In addition, Brunel has been formally commended for good practice in six areas:
-
the liaison with external examiners at University and departmental level;
-
the University’s commitment to the development of placement opportunities and the communication of their benefits to students and its efforts to enhance the employability of its students through the opportunities provided by the placement scheme;
-
the dissemination of experience of, promotion and support for, blended e-learning;
-
the series of networks within and across formal structures which contribute to the development of ideas and the exchange of good practice;
-
the coordinated support for students with special needs;
-
the University’s development, operation and monitoring of its collaborative provision.
It was particularly gratifying that these commendations related to activities that have been the focus for key strategic development in the University’s learning and teaching provision.
As expected, there were also a number of areas suggested for further attention; the audit team advised the University to:
- require the working party of Senate which was considering SO1 (which sets out the regulations covering degree classification) to report as a matter of priority in order that its recommended action could be implemented without delay;
- as a matter of priority, review and clarify the content of the non-negotiable core of University regulations in order to effect further and desirable limitations on local variability;
- continue its diligence in seeking to enhance the effectiveness of annual monitoring through rigorous self-evaluation;
- consider further the role that students could play in the management and assurance of quality and standards.
