RG243 Heriot-watt university · Preface The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) exists to safeguard the public interest in sound standards of higher education (HE)

Heriot-Watt University

FEBRUARY 2006

Enhancement-led institutional review

ISBN 1 84482 532 9

© Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education 2006

All QAA's publications are available on our website www.qaa.ac.uk

Printed copies are available from:Linney DirectAdamswayMansfieldNG18 4FN

Tel 01623 450788Fax 01623 450629Email [email protected]

Company registration number 3344784. Registered charity number 1062746

Preface The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) exists to safeguard the public interest insound standards of higher education (HE) qualifications and to encourage continuous improvementin the management of the quality of HE.To do this, QAA carries out reviews of individual higher education institutions (HEIs) (universities andcolleges of HE). In Scotland this process is known as Enhancement-Led Institutional Review (ELIR). TheAgency operates equivalent but separate processes in Wales, England and Northern Ireland.

Enhancement-led approach

Over the period 2001 to 2003, QAA, the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council, UniversitiesScotland and representatives of the student body worked closely together on the development ofthe enhancement-led approach to quality in Scottish HE. This approach, which was implemented inacademic year 2003-04, has five main elements:

a comprehensive programme of review at the subject level, managed by the institutionsimproved forms of public information about quality, based on addressing the different needs ofthe users of that information including students and employersa greater voice for student representatives in institutional quality systems, supported by a nationaldevelopment service (known as the student participation in quality scotland - sparqs - service);a national programme of enhancement themes, aimed at developing and sharing good practicein learning and teaching in HEELIR involving all of the Scottish HEIs over a four-year period, from 2003-04 to 2006-07. TheELIR method embraces a focus on: the strategic management of enhancement; theeffectiveness of student learning; and student, employer and international perspectives.

QAA believes that this approach is distinctive in a number of respects: its balance between qualityassurance and enhancement; the emphasis it places on the student experience; its focus on learningand not solely teaching; and the spirit of cooperation and partnership which has underpinned allthese developments.

Nationally agreed reference points

ELIR includes a focus on institutions' use of a range of reference points, including those publishedby QAA:

the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF)the Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher educationsubject benchmark statements, which describe the characteristics of degrees in different subjectsGuidelines on preparing programme specifications, which are descriptions of what is on offer tostudents in individual programmes of study. Programme specifications outline the intendedknowledge, skills, understanding and attributes of a student completing that programme. They alsogive details of teaching and assessment methods and link the programme to the SCQF.

Conclusions and judgement within ELIR

ELIR results in a set of commentaries about the institutions being reviewed. These commentariesrelate to:

the ability of the institution's internal review systems to monitor and maintain quality andstandards at the level of the programme or award. This commentary leads to a judgement onthe level of confidence which can reasonably be placed in the soundness of the institution'scurrent and likely future management of the quality of its programmes and the academicstandards of its awards. The expression of this judgement provides a point of tangency betweenthe ELIR method and other review methods operating in other parts of the UK. The judgementis expressed as one of: broad confidence, limited confidence or no confidencethe institution's arrangements for ensuring that the information it publishes about the quality ofits provision is complete, accurate and fairthe effectiveness of the institution's approach to promoting an effective learning experiencefor studentsthe combined effect of the institution's policies and practices for ensuring improvement in thequality of teaching and learningthe effectiveness of the institution's implementation of its strategy for quality enhancement.

The ELIR process

The ELIR process is carried out by teams comprising three academics, one student and one senioradministrator drawn from the HE sector. The main elements of ELIR are:

a preliminary visit by QAA to the institution in advance of the review visita Reflective Analysis document submitted by the institution three months in advance of thesecond part of the review visita two-part review visit to the institution by the ELIR team; Part 1 taking place five weeks beforePart 2, and Part 2 having a variable duration of between three and five days depending on thecomplexity of matters to be exploredthe publication of a report, 20 weeks after the Part 2 visit, detailing the commentaries agreedby the ELIR team.

The evidence for the ELIR

In order to gather the information on which its commentaries are based, the ELIR team carries out anumber of activities including:

reviewing the institution's own internal procedures and documents, as well as the ReflectiveAnalysis institutions prepare especially for ELIRasking questions and engaging in discussions with groups of relevant stafftalking to students about their experiencesexploring how the institution uses the national reference points.

Introduction 1

Style of reporting 1

Method of review 1

Background information about theinstitution 2

University's strategy for qualityenhancement 3

Internal monitoring and review ofquality and standards and publicinformation 3

Overview of the institution's internalarrangements for assuring the quality of programmes and maintaining thestandards of its academic awards and credit 3

Quality framework 4

Course approval and re-approval 4

Monitoring and review 5

Annual monitoring 5

Internal review of schools and programmes 5

Research degrees 6

Assessment 7

External examining 7

Distributed and distance learning 7

Overview of the use made of externalreference points for assuring qualityand standards 11

Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework 11

Code of practice 11

Subject benchmark statements 11

Professional, statutory and regulatory bodies 11

Commentary on the ability of theinstitution's internal review systems to monitor and maintain quality and standards 11

Overview of the institution's approach to ensuring that the information it publishes about the quality of provision is complete, accurate and fair 12

Commentary on the institution'sarrangements for ensuring that theinformation it publishes about the quality of its provision is complete, accurate and fair 13

The student experience 13

Overview of the institution's approach to engaging students in the assurance and enhancement of the quality of teaching and learning 13

Overview of the institution's approach to the promotion of effective studentlearning 16

Overview of the institution's approach to the promotion of employability of its students 18

Commentary on the effectiveness of the institution's approach to promoting an effective learning experience for students 20

Effectiveness of the institution's strategy for quality enhancement 21

Overview of the institution's approach to managing improvement in the quality of teaching and learning 21

Management responsibility for qualityenhancement 21

Quality and enhancement of off-campusprovision 22

Quality enhancement strategy 23

Quality enhancement themes 24

Overview of the linkage between theinstitution's arrangements for internal quality assurance and its enhancementactivity 24

The enhancement focus within theUniversity's quality assurance processes 24

Contents

Overview of the institution's approach to recognising, rewarding andimplementing good practice in the context of its strategy for qualityenhancement 25

Polices for appraisal and promotion of staff 25

Support for educational and staffdevelopment 25

Commentary on the combined effect of the institution's policies and practices for ensuring improvement in the quality of teaching and learning 26

Commentary on the effectiveness of the institution's implementation of itsstrategy for quality enhancement 26

Summary 28

Background to the institution and ELIRmethod 28

Overview of the matters raised by thereview 28

Commentary on the ability of theinstitution's internal review systems to monitor and maintain quality andstandards 28

Commentary on the institution'sarrangements for ensuring that theinformation it publishes about the quality of its provision is complete, accurate and fair 29

Commentary on the effectiveness of the institution's approach to promoting an effective learning experience for students 29

Commentary on the combined effect of the institution's policies and practices for ensuring improvement in the quality of teaching and learning 30

Commentary on the effectiveness of the institution's implementation of itsstrategy for quality enhancement 30

Introduction

1 This is the report of an Enhancement-ledinstitutional review (ELIR) of Heriot-WattUniversity (the University) undertaken by theQuality Assurance Agency for Higher Education(QAA). QAA is grateful to the University for thewilling cooperation provided to the ELIR team.

2 The review followed a method agreedwith Universities Scotland, student bodies andthe Scottish Funding Council (SFC), andinformed by consultation with the Scottishhigher education sector. The ELIR methodfocuses on: the strategic management ofenhancement; the effectiveness of studentlearning; and the use of a range of referencepoints. These reference points include: theScottish Credit and Qualifications Framework(SCQF), the Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in highereducation (Code of practice), published by QAA,subject benchmark information, and student,employer and international perspectives. Fulldetail on the method is set out in the Handbookfor enhancement-led institutional review: Scotlandwhich is available on QAA's website.

Style of reporting

3 ELIR reports are structured around threemain sections: internal monitoring and review of quality and standards and public information;the student experience; and the effectiveness of the institution's strategy for qualityenhancement. Each section contains asequence of 'overviews' and 'commentaries' inwhich the ELIR team sets out its views. The firstcommentary in the first main section of thereport leads to a single, formal judgementincluded within ELIR reports on the level ofconfidence which can be placed in theinstitution's management of quality andstandards. The judgement is intended toprovide a point of tangency with the methodsof audit and review operating in other parts ofthe UK where similar judgements are reached.In the second and third main sections of thereport, on the student experience, and theeffectiveness of the institution's quality

enhancement strategy, there are no formaljudgements, although a series of overviews andcommentaries are provided. These are thesections of the ELIR report which areparticularly enhancement focused. To reflectthis, the style of reporting is intended toaddress the increased emphasis on explorationand dialogue which characterises the team'sinteraction with the institution on thesematters. The reader may, therefore, detect ashift in the style of reporting in those sections,and this is intended to emphasise theenhancement-led nature of the method.

Method of review

4 The University submitted a Reflective Analysis(RA) which set out the University's strategy forquality enhancement, its approach to themanagement of quality and standards and itsview of the effectiveness of its approach. Otherdocuments available to the ELIR team with the RAincluded the institutional profile at 9 December2005; annual review 2004; annual accounts andfinancial statements 2004; undergraduateprospectus 2006; and postgraduate prospectus2006-07. The RA provided the focus for thereview and was used to develop a programme ofactivities by the ELIR team to provide arepresentative illustration of the way the Universityapproaches the management of qualityenhancement and academic standards.

5 The University submitted one case-studywith its RA which focused on the University'scurrent and ongoing development of a strategyfor 'employability and professional careerreadiness'. The case-study set out the University'sethos of professional career readiness, and themilestones for the finalisation and embedding ofemployability and professional career readiness asa key theme in the University's Learning andTeaching Strategy and Strategic Plan by June2006. The case-study included examples, drawnfrom across the University, which have been usedto inform its emerging employability strategy.

6 The RA was prepared by a writing groupcomprising the Deputy Principal (Learning andTeaching), the Deputy Registrar, the Assistant


page 1

Registrar (Learning Strategies) and staff of theEducational Development Unit (the Unit havingresponsibility for the preparation of the casestudy). The RA included a student view of theeffectiveness of the University's strategy forquality enhancement, written by the Students'Association Vice-President (Education andWelfare) in consultation with the Education and Welfare Manager, and approved by theStudents' Association Student Council. Theprocess of preparation of the RA was overseenby a Steering Group comprised of the Vice-Principal, a member of the Planning andManagement Executive, a representative of theStudents' Association, and the writing group.Drafts of the RA were considered by theUniversity's Quality Enhancement andStandards Committee, its Learning andTeaching Board and by the University Court.The RA was formally approved by the Planningand Management Executive. The clear andopen nature of the RA provided a helpfulstarting point for the review. While the RA wassuccinct, it provided links to supplementarymaterial which the team found helpful,particularly in respect of collaborative activityand overseas provision, given the significanceof these in the University's portfolio of activities.

7 The ELIR team visited the University ontwo occasions: the Part 1 visit took place on 18-19 January 2006 and the Part 2 visit tookplace between 20-24 February 2006.

8 During the Part 1 visit, senior staff gavepresentations to the ELIR team concerningrecent developments including how theUniversity was learning from the process ofpreparation for ELIR, and the University'sapproaches to internal periodic review and to quality enhancement. There was also apresentation on the case-study, and apresentation from the Students' Association ontheir work with the University to improve thestudent experience. In the remainder of Part 1,the team met senior staff with responsibility formanaging quality assurance and enhancementactivity across the University, a group of staffinvolved in internal review, and a group ofstudents including those who had a

representational role at course, school andUniversity levels. These meetings enabled theteam to explore a range of matters, many ofwhich had been raised by the University in the RA.

9 During the Part 1 visit, the University madeavailable a set of documentation which hadbeen identified within the RA and supplementaryinformation identified during the course of thevisit. This enabled the ELIR team to develop aprogramme of meetings and to identify a set ofdocumentation for the Part 2 visit.

10 The ELIR team comprised: Mr AlexGilkison; Professor Neil Keeble; Ms RowenaPelik; Mr Benjamin Reilly (reviewers); and MsLesley Rowand (secretary). The review wascoordinated on behalf of the QAA by Dr JaniceRoss, Assistant Director, QAA Scotland.

Background information about theinstitution

11 The University was established by RoyalCharter in 1966, having evolved from theEdinburgh School of Arts (1821), the WattInstitution and School of Arts (1851) and theHeriot-Watt College (1885). In 1998, theUniversity merged with the Scottish College of Textiles. The University is based mainly inEdinburgh on a custom-built campus, withadditional campuses in Galashiels (the ScottishBorders Campus), Orkney and Dubai (the latterestablished in September 2005).

12 The University's mission is to: 'provide thehighest quality education and training to suitthe professional employment sector; meet theaspirations of students and help them realisetheir potential; deliver world class innovativeresearch in the fields of business and industry;exploit knowledge for the benefit of society'.

13 Following a major restructuring in 2001-02, the University is organised into eightschools: Built Environment; Engineering andPhysical Sciences; Life Sciences; Managementand Languages; Mathematical and ComputerSciences; Textiles and Design; Institute ofPetroleum Engineering (postgraduate only);and Edinburgh Business School (postgraduateonly).


page 2

14 The University has a significant number of collaborative arrangements with a range ofpartners, including: 23 programmes deliveredin collaboration with other higher educationinstitutions in the UK and European Union; 52Approved Learning Partners; and 103 exchangeagreements with European Union and overseasinstitutions. In addition, the University iscurrently the validating body for the majority ofdegree programmes of the Edinburgh Collegeof Art (by mutual consent, the arrangement isoutgoing and due to terminate in 2007-08).

15 At the time of the ELIR visit, the Universityhad a student population of about 8,200 full-time equivalent students, of which some 5,500were undergraduates and some 2,700 werepostgraduates. Approximately 20 per cent ofstudents (1,650 full-time equivalent or 9,424registered students) study 'off-campus' asdistance or distributed learning students.

University's strategy for qualityenhancement

16 The University's strategy for qualityenhancement is embedded in its Learning andTeaching Strategy, which currently has four keythemes: sustainable growth; enhancing learningand teaching; employability; and the studentlearning experience. Each theme has associatedkey performance indicators, targets, objectives,projects and monitoring processes. Individualschools' strategies are aligned with theUniversity's Learning and Teaching Strategy,and the Students' Association has aligned itsstrategy with that of the University.

Internal monitoring and reviewof quality and standards andpublic information

Overview of the institution's internalarrangements for assuring the quality of programmes and maintaining thestandards of its academic awards andcredit

Committees and responsibilities17 The University Senate is responsible foracademic standards and programme quality.The key committees of the Senate for theoversight of quality and standards are theQuality Enhancement and StandardsCommittee, the Undergraduate StudiesCommittee and the Postgraduate StudiesCommittee. The Quality Enhancement andStandards Committee has the function ofensuring that the awards made in the Senate'sname are of an appropriate standard and thatthe programmes of study and the studentexperience are of an appropriate quality. The Undergraduate Studies Committee andPostgraduate Studies Committee areresponsible for programme approval andmodification, the appointment of externalexaminers, and advising the Senate onundergraduate and postgraduate academicmatters respectively. The PostgraduateStandards Committee has both taught andresearch programmes within its remit.

18 The Learning and Teaching Board hasinstitutional responsibility for the setting andimplementation of all strategic matters relatedto learning and teaching. Its main function is to develop and implement the University'sLearning and Teaching Strategy and tomonitor, evaluate and review the Strategy'simplementation. It is responsible for respondingto, and engaging with, national developmentsin learning and teaching. The Learning andTeaching Board reports to the University'sPlanning and Management Executive, whichincludes in its membership the Principal, theVice-Principal, Secretary, the Director ofFinance, the deputy principals and the heads ofschool. The Learning and Teaching Board alsoreports to the Senate and its committees onacademic matters, and refers academic qualityassurance matters to the Quality Enhancementand Standards Committee which hasresponsibility for considering and developingacademic policies and procedures. The DeputyPrincipal (Learning and Teaching) chairs boththe Learning and Teaching Board and theQuality Enhancement and Standards


page 3

Committee, and the University considers this asimportant to facilitating a shared understandingand ensuring the responsibilities of the twogroups are properly integrated.

19 In addition to the Deputy Principal(Learning and Teaching), two elected deanshave quality and standards responsibilities atinstitutional level. One dean chairs thePostgraduate Studies Committee and the otherchairs the Undergraduate Studies Committee.Together the deans and Deputy Principal(Learning and Teaching) provide institutionallevel oversight and scrutiny of key areas.Additionally, each dean has lead responsibilityfor four of the University's eight schools. TheELIR team considered the role of the deans tobe effective. As senior colleagues elected by the academic staff, they were able to exerciseinstitutional oversight from the basis ofexperience, knowledge and familiarity withquality assurance processes, and thus hadcredibility and authority.

20 The University's committee structure ismirrored in individual schools, where committeesapprove and review courses prior toconsideration at University level. The Universityregards this as the schools sharing responsibilityfor programme quality and academic standards.Each school has a director of learning andteaching or equivalent. Directors of learning andteaching are members of the Learning andTeaching Board, and are responsible for ensuringthat strategy and policy are carried forwardappropriately within their schools. They alsochair school learning and teaching committees(or the equivalent). Edinburgh Business Schooldoes not have an internal committee structure; it is managed by a Board and its Chief ExecutiveOfficer, and vests specific responsibilities relatingto programme development, quality assuranceand learning and teaching to members of itsmanagement team. Nominated representativesof the management team report to theUniversity's committees.

Quality framework

21 The University retains its collegiatetradition and a strongly devolved culture.

It seeks to reach consensus and broadownership by the schools in the development ofstrategy. The University's schools have flexibilityin the implementation of strategy, policies andprocedures. The devolution of certainresponsibilities for assuring programme qualityand academic standards is discharged by theschools' directors of learning and teaching. Thisdevolution is balanced through a series ofchecks by the deans and the Deputy Principal(Learning and Teaching) to ensure that schools'responsibilities are carried out effectively.

22 The University has a range of guidelinesand procedures, codes of practice and internalhandbooks. In general, these are detailed,thorough documents, often supported by anumber of templates, forms and coversheets. In order to ensure that information is accessibleand up-to-date, quality assurance policies andprocedures are set out on the University'swebsite. The University tries to ensure thatinformation on individual polices andprocedures is self-contained for ease of access,without cross-referencing.

Course approval and re-approval

23 Course design and development is theresponsibility of the schools. The Universityprovides detailed guidance and templates formodule and course approval, and for thedesign of programme specifications.Developments must be formally considered andagreed at school level before being passed tothe Undergraduate Studies Committee or thePostgraduate Studies Committee for approval;minor modifications may be made at schoollevel. External input to course or modulesapproval is encouraged to take place at thecourse design and development stage. At theapproval stage, 'internal externality' isincorporated through the cross-Universitymembership of the Undergraduate andPostgraduate Studies Committees.

24 The RA stated that new courses areapproved without time limit, and that periodicmonitoring and review ensures that courses arekept up to date. In addition, major changes tocourses require formal approval of the


page 4

undergraduate or postgraduate studiescommittees. The ELIR team saw clear evidencethat the University, through its QualityEnhancement and Standards Committee, had given extensive consideration to theimplications of its 'in perpetuity' courseapproval system. The team noted that thecurrent arrangements provided limitedopportunities for matters of course structure orthe currency of the curriculum to be consideredbeyond approval. The University is, therefore,encouraged to give consideration to how thesematters could be more explicitly considered aspart of its review arrangements.

Monitoring and review

25 The University has developed a set ofunderlying principles in relation to monitoringand review: that such activity should only becarried out once and should have clearpurpose; it should be devolved as far aspossible where it is secure and efficient to doso; it should add value to the operation beingmonitored or reviewed; and should be carriedout by qualified peers.

Annual monitoring

26 The University has recently revised itsarrangements for annual programmemonitoring and review. The RA stated that sincethe restructuring of the University in 2002, ithad become clear that the process requiredmodification to reflect schools having formalresponsibility for the management of coursesand programmes. Monitoring by the Universitywas seen to duplicate the schools' own internalreview processes. Prior to 2004-05, monitoringwas carried out using a University-determinedtemplate with a series of headings includingadmissions, graduate employment,collaborative programmes, off-campusactivities, and feedback from externalexaminers, from staff and from students. A revised process for annual programmemonitoring and review was agreed by theQuality Enhancement and Standards Committeein 2005 and used for the monitoring ofprogrammes delivered in 2004-05. The revised

process offers more flexibility for schools to seta process, or processes, based on theirparticular needs. The University providesguidance on the underlying expectations suchas consideration of the views of students,statistical information and possible areas forimprovement, and encourages theconsideration of longer term and strategicdevelopments. Responsibility for conductingthe monitoring is explicitly placed with schools,with the outcomes reported to the QualityEnhancement and Standards Committee. Whilethe monitoring of 2004-05 programmes wasnot complete at the time of the ELIR, thechange in arrangements was widely regardedby staff as beneficial, providing the opportunityfor a more reflective approach.

27 The ELIR team considered that a numberof schools had implemented the revised processeffectively, and that the process had, as staffhighlighted, encouraged greater reflection andengagement within these schools. The teamsaw evidence of the Deputy Principal (Learningand Teaching) raising with schools incompleteor insufficiently reflective annual programmemonitoring review reports, in particular inrelation to the reporting of off-campusprovision and research students' learningexperience, or where the objectives andexpectations of the process had beenmisunderstood by the schools. The team cameto the view that, while it was too early to seefull evidence of the revised processes, it had thepotential to be effective. The University shouldcontinue to both closely monitor theimplementation of annual programmemonitoring and review at the school level, andconsider how to ensure more consistency ofapproach across the schools.

Internal review of schools andprogrammes

28 The RA stated that, following institutionalrestructuring in 2002 and the introduction ofthe national Quality Enhancement Frameworkin 2003, the University came to the view thatits existing procedures for periodic review didnot take into account the quality assurance


page 5

responsibilities of the schools nor all theScottish Funding Council guidelines for internalreview at the subject level. In late 2003-04, theUniversity introduced a revised review processwhich includes all programmes of study(undergraduate, taught postgraduate,postgraduate research), delivered by allmethods (full-time, part-time, distance anddistributed learning, joint programmes andcollaborative provision), with provision beingreviewed over a five-year cycle.

29 The RA identified a key feature of theUniversity's approach to internal review as itsflexibility. Most schools are sufficiently large andwith several disciplines to justify a series ofreviews rather than a single review, and schoolscan negotiate the groupings of programmeswith the Deputy Principal (Learning andTeaching). Reviews may be organised at twolevels: programme level, which covers allundergraduate and taught postgraduatecourses; and school level, which coverspostgraduate research students and othercourses organised at the school level (forexample, combined studies). For the School ofTextiles and Design, the Institute of PetroleumEngineering, and the Edinburgh BusinessSchool, review at programme and school levelsare undertaken as a single activity. For theremaining schools, programme level review and school level review may be undertakenseparately. The process does not considerindividual awards (courses), however, it doesrequire that schools confirm that programmespecifications for all courses are complete,accurate and up to date, and that all courseregulations are consistent with University codesof practice and guidelines.

30 Internal review panels comprise twoUniversity staff members (including theconvener) who are selected from anotherschool, two external members and two students(see below, paragraphs 82-83). Thedocumentation for internal review consists of areflective analysis, copies of the relevantprogramme specifications and the annualprogramme monitoring reports for the previoustwo years. Until recently, reviews have tended to

last one day, but as more schools opt toundertake a review combining school level andprogramme level activity, reviews are lasting oneand half to two days. Reviews include meetingswith students and with staff. The review panelmakes a judgement on quality and academicstandards and prepares a report. The school isrequired to prepare an action plan in response tothe report, including specific targets, withidentified completion dates and designatedresponsibilities. The panel report and schoolaction plan are considered by the QualityEnhancement and Standards Committee, whichconfirms the recommendations and also seeks toconfirm that the review has been carried outaccording to University guidelines. Where theQuality Enhancement and Standards Committeeconsiders that an action plan contains insufficientdetail, it is referred back to the school and arevised plan brought to the next meeting of thatcommittee. Schools submit a progress report onactions within a year of the original review. Anexecutive summary is submitted by the QualityEnhancement and Standards Committee to thePlanning and Management Executive and theSenate for confirmation that the process hasbeen properly completed.

31 Following the first five reviews conductedby the University, minor modifications weremade to the process, the chief of which wasthat the Deputy Principal (Learning andTeaching) should attend all reviews to ensureconsistency of operation, including in theprocess for agreeing judgements. The ELIRteam considered that the University, through its Quality Enhancement and StandardsCommittee, can confirm that the process isthorough and effective, although it concurredwith the University's analysis that there is scopefor improving the means to identifying goodpractice across the University (see below,paragraph 127).

Research degrees

32 The University has over 600 researchstudents both on and off-campus. Practices and expectations have been codified with theproduction of the University's Postgraduate


page 6

research student code of practice introducedfor 2003-04. Schools appoint research student coordinators, who are normally an academicmember of staff, and who are appointed tooversee the operation of the code of practice in the school. Research student support andprogress are monitored as part of the annualmonitoring which reports to the QualityEnhancement and Standards Committee, andevaluated through the periodic internal reviewprocess. Monitoring of arrangements forresearch students is overseen by the ResearchStudent Co-ordinators Group, a committee ofthe Research Co-ordination Board, which inturn reports to the Planning and ManagementExecutive. External examiners for researchdegrees are supported by a Code of practice for external examiners for higher researchdegrees. Research students met by the reviewteam were aware of the code and had a goodunderstanding of the key stages of theirdoctoral programme and how their progresswas monitored through it.

Assessment

33 The RA stated that there is a commonassessment and progression system which hasbeen in use since 1999-2000 for undergraduateprovision and since 2003-04 for postgraduateprovision. The University has identified theneed for guidelines on assessment and isdeveloping a code of practice. The Universityhas been aware for some time of the diversityof practice regarding re-assessment on taughtpostgraduate courses across the institution, an issue which has been the subject of activediscussion in both the Quality Enhancementand Standards Committee and the Learningand Teaching Board. The ELIR team wouldendorse the University's desire for resolution ofthis matter and would encourage the Universityto take early steps to ensure consistency andthe equitable treatment of students regardlessof their course of study.

External examining

34 In the RA, the University confirmed thatexternal examiners are regarded as an integralpart of the process by which the Universityassures itself that its degrees are of acomparable standard to awards of otheruniversities. External examiners for taughtprogrammes are appointed by theUndergraduate Studies Committee or thePostgraduate Studies Committee, and by thePostgraduate Studies Committee for researchawards. On appointment, external examinersare issued with either the External examinerhandbook for taught courses, or the Code ofpractice for external examiners for researchdegrees. Responsibility for the briefing ofexternal examiners rests with schools. TheUniversity intends to introduce training forexam board convenors.

Distributed and distance learning

Nature, extent and range of provision35 In total the University has some 9,450(part and full-time) students who study off-campus. Within the University, these aresubdivided into two different categories:students who receive a Heriot-Watt programmewith tutoring and other support providedthrough an Approved Learning Partner('distributed learners'); and 'distance learners'who study independently without support froman Approved Learning Partner. Independent ordistance-learning programmes include the MBAand a web version of the BA Managementprogramme, and some distance-learning PhDstudents.

Procedures - general approach andpartner approval 36 In the RA, the University identified that ithas a number of external partners who helpdeliver some of the courses to off-campusstudents. During 2004, the University undertooka review of its arrangements for collaborativeprovision and identified a number of concernsrelating to its management of off-campusprovision, some of which had not beenaddressed for some time. As a result of these


page 7

concerns, changes to procedures wereintroduced including the formal recording ofvisits to Approved Learning Partners prior toapproval; periodic quality assurance visits; formalannual monitoring to include student feedback;and the explicit requirement that the University'sinternal review process include programmesdelivered off-campus.

37 As a consequence of the 2004 review, inOctober 2005 the University published Guidelineson the introduction of collaborative agreements,which reflect the precepts of the Code of practice,published by QAA, and provide a user-friendlysource of information for staff involved in thepreparation of an agreement. There is a range ofrelated procedures including those for ApprovedTeachers and Approved Tutors (see below,paragraphs 48-49) and for visits to ApprovedLearning Partners as well as a University templatefor drawing up the formal memorandum ofagreement.

38 In the RA, the University stated the viewthat 'the shared responsibility for different aspectsof learning ensures that academic standards arenot at risk'. The University's Guidelines state thatthe arrangements for assuring the quality andstandards of provision delivered throughcollaborative arrangements should be as rigorous,secure and open to scrutiny as those forprogrammes provided wholly within theresponsibility of a single institution. It does notrequire the adoption by the partner of itsregulations or standard quality assuranceprocedures of the University, but sets out thecriteria which must be considered. Eachagreement has to cover detailed arrangementsregarding external examining, discipline,complaints and appeals.

39 The University's arrangements for theapproval of a new Approved Learning Partnernow involve a negotiation stage, which includesthe completion of the memorandum ofagreement and an approval visit and visit report(for which there is a University template). At theapproval stage, the head of school, the DeputyPrincipal (Learning and Teaching), the LegalService Manager and the Vice-Principalconsiders the proposal. The panel should not

normally have been involved in the negotiationstage. The procedures for the approval of apartner must be completed prior to operation of any activity within the Approved LearningPartner. Agreements are normally subject toreview after three years. Re-approval is a formalprocess with similar preparation and approvalstages. A record of all flexible and distance-learning programmes and Approved LearningPartners is maintained by the Academic Registry.There are some differences for ApprovedLearning Partners working with the EdinburghBusiness School, reflecting different businesspartnership arrangements.

40 Considerable responsibility is devolved tothe relevant course director and school staff,and this is counterbalanced by the supportprovided by the Academic Registry which hasresponsibility for ensuring that any proposalconforms to the University ordinances andregulations and the Code of practice. There isflexibility within the University guidelines, forexample, the University requires schools toconsider the arrangements for annual orsupport visits, but does not prescribe how these should be carried out.

41 The University has developed a parallelcode of practice for flexible and distributedlearning (including e-learning) in response tothe Code of practice. It is designed to cover allaspects of learning delivered, supported and/orassessed through flexible and distributedarrangements, including e-learning, whether incollaboration with a partner organisation orApproved Learning Partner or relating toindependent learners. The University's codestates that it is seeking to ensure 'equivalence of outcomes'.

Academic standards and assessment42 As most courses offered through ApprovedLearning Partners are also offered on-campus,assessment tasks are normally the same,allowing the direct monitoring of the standardsof student performance across all modes ofdelivery. The University has responsibility forsummative assessment, and the majority of this is marked by Heriot-Watt staff, althoughassessment (including formative assessment)


page 8

may also be undertaken by Approved Teachersat Approved Learning Partners. To ensure thesecurity of the examination process, theUniversity has established an InternationalCentre for Examinations, which is administeredby the Edinburgh Business School. The Centreuses some 650 independent examinationcentres, most of which are arranged throughthe British Council. This arrangement ensuresthat examinations are independent of theApproved Learning Partners. Independentinvigilators submit reports on each examinationto the University. The performance of studentsat individual Approved Learning Partners isconsidered as part of annual monitoringreporting to the schools. External examiners are appointed for each course for which theUniversity makes an award and, whereapplicable, external examiners will also haveresponsibility for courses delivered off-campusand/or in a language other than English.

43 There are specific arrangements for theassessment of courses delivered in languagesother than English. The University established a working group to review arrangements in2004-05. In particular, the working groupconsidered whether appropriate arrangementswere in place for the proposed delivery of theMBA in Spanish and Arabic (at that time, theMBA was delivered in English, Hebrew andChinese). Under these arrangements, externalexaminers approve examination papers prior totranslation, and a sample of examination scriptsare translated into English to enable externalexaminers to comment specifically on theperformance of the students, and relatedmatters, in their reports. Given the largecohorts of students studying on the MBAprogramme, this sample size was deemed to be appropriate to allow external examiners to confirm comparability of standards. The working group was satisfied with thearrangements for the MBA, but recommendedthat future proposals should be considered for approval by the Undergraduate StudiesCommittee or the Postgraduate StudiesCommittee on a case-by-case basis, for eachcourse offered in each language.

Programme/course level - approval,monitoring and review44 University policy states that academicprogrammes offered to distance and distributedlearning students must be specifically approvedfor that mode of delivery by the relevantUndergraduate or Postgraduate StudiesCommittee. Schools are required todemonstrate that they have considered thelearning needs of distance/distributed learningstudents in their course development, and mustconsider the needs of distance and distributedlearning students when designing the coursesyllabuses. Responsibility for contextualisationof Heriot-Watt material lies with local ApprovedTutors (see below, paragraphs 48-49).

45 Each Approved Learning Partner isrequired to complete an annual programmemonitoring and review report on a Universitypro forma. This covers numerical data andqualitative information in the form of staff andstudent feedback. The report is scrutinised firstat school level; the report and the school's draftresponse letter are then considered by both adean and the Deputy Principal (Learning andTeaching). The ELIR team studied a number ofexamples of completed reports and consideredthat they represented a thorough procedurewhich was usually undertaken carefully by allparticipants. Many Approved Learning Partnerswere clearly comfortable raising issues, andscrutiny of school responses by the relevantdean and Deputy Principal (Leaning andTeaching) ensured that matters were picked upand that responses were appropriate. Throughscrutiny by the Deputy Principal (Learning andTeaching), the University was also able toidentify generic matters and, through theQuality Enhancement and StandardsCommittee, to respond at a strategic level.Many reports from Approved Learning Partnersindicated that the University had establishedpositive and valuable partnerships.

46 Schools are expected to incorporateannual reports from Approved LearningPartners into their own annual programmemonitoring reports, and to respondappropriately to issues raised in the former.


page 9

The University has identified that some schoolannual programme monitoring reports havecontained inadequate consideration of off-campus provision (see above, paragraphs26-27). The ELIR team came to the view that,while it is clear there is effective scrutiny bydeans and the Deputy Principal (Learning andTeaching) of how annual reports from ApprovedLearning Partners are progressed, there is aneed for more consistent consideration of thesereports at the school level.

Course materials and learner support47 In the RA, the University said that itsmodel for student learning at ApprovedLearning Partners is based on the developmentof high-quality teaching materials being usedby local tutors who interpret and contextualisethe materials and provide support for students.Through annual monitoring reports to theschools, and through external examiners'reports, the University had become aware ofshortcomings, including the late delivery ofcourse materials (especially with newpartnerships) and that some courses designedfor on-campus delivery had not been adaptedfor off-campus delivery. The University isseeking to address these shortcomings in arange of ways, including through its recentcode of practice on flexible and distancelearning (see above, paragraph 41), whichstates that core learning materials should bechecked and signed off by a qualified memberof staff.

48 Support for students at Approved LearningPartners is provided by local tutors or teachers.The University has procedures for the approvalof Approved Teachers and Tutors in order toensure that staff engaged in delivering orsupporting students off-campus areappropriately trained and qualified for the role.There are two levels of approval: ApprovedTeachers (who may make academic decisionsassociated with curriculum content anddevelopment, student entry qualifications, andsummative assessment of student work), andApproved Tutors (who provide academicsupport, but do not make other academicdecisions). The University's Academic Registry

maintains the authoritative record of all off-campus approved teachers and tutors.

49 Individual applications for Approved Tutors status are accompanied by a CV andsupporting statement from the programmedirector. The head of school or school directorof learning and teaching is responsible forconfirming that the applicant has appropriateexperience to deliver the specified modules.Individual applications for Approved Teacherstatus have to be authorised by the head of school or school director of learning andteaching before being forwarded forconsideration by the designated dean who isresponsible for confirming that the applicanthas appropriate experience to deliver thespecified modules and to make academicdecisions. The ELIR team considered thescrutiny and approval on a time-limited basis of all individuals acting as Approved Tutors orTeachers off-campus to be a key mechanism bywhich the University was able to assure itselfabout the quality of the learning supportoffered to its students off-campus, andconsiders that this constitutes good practice.

50 In general, the University's updating of itsarrangements in relation to courses deliveredthrough Approved Learning Partners hasproduced a set of appropriate procedureswhich are aligned with its general approach of devolving considerable responsibilities toschools. The procedures are designed to assurequality and comparability of standards and tosafeguard the University from undue risk.


page 10

Overview of the use made ofexternal reference points forassuring quality and standards

Scottish Credit and QualificationsFramework

51 The RA stated that during 2003, theUniversity undertook a review of all its coursesin relation to the guidelines of the SCQF andthat, following some minor modifications (forexample, to some master's conversion andMEng courses) could confirm that all its coursesmet the SCQF guidance. All new modules andcourses are approved by the UndergraduateStudies Committee or Postgraduate StudiesCommittee (see above, paragraphs 23-24),where reference to the SCQF is required andreviewed. Continued compatibility with theSCQF is also monitored through annual andperiodic review processes. On the basis ofevidence available, the ELIR team was able toconfirm the University's view that its modulesand courses are consistent with the SCQFguidance.

Code of practice

52 The RA identified that it is the University'spractice to take the relevant sections of the Codeof practice, published by QAA, into account inthe formulation of its policies and procedures. A number of policies and supporting guidelinesmake direct reference to the Code, for example,those on collaborative provision. Revisions to the Code, and resultant modifications to theUniversity's policies and procedures areconsidered by the Quality Enhancement andStandards Committee. In some cases, forexample, the provision of off-campus courses,the University has used the Code's precepts tofurther develop its own code of practice.

Subject benchmark statements

53 The appropriate subject benchmarkstatements are recorded on the programmespecification through the course approvalprocess, and the way a school uses benchmarkstatements is considered through the internalreview process.

Professional, statutory and regulatorybodies

54 The University regards public, statutoryand regulatory bodies (PSRBs) as important inthe maintenance of quality and standards. A considerable proportion of courses offered atthe University are accredited by PSRBs and theUniversity has relationships with over 30 suchbodies. The University does not consider theoutcomes of PSRB accreditation and reviewreports at institutional level as it considers thatthe process rarely provides feedback that canbe shared widely across disciplines. Schoolssummarise any key points raised in PSRBreviews through the annual monitoring process.The ELIR team noted that the 1999 QAAContinuation Audit had recommended theadvantages of PSRB reports being considered atUniversity level for the purposes of monitoringand enhancement. The current team wouldreiterate this, regarding it as an opportunity lost in not making the best use of links withprofessional bodies and in the external scrutinyof courses.

Commentary on the ability ofthe institution's internal reviewsystems to monitor andmaintain quality and standards55 Overall, the University has comprehensiveprocedures in place for the approval,monitoring and review of its courses. Theseprocedures make effective use of externalreference points, including subject benchmarks,the SCQF, and the Code of practice. TheUniversity makes good use of externalexaminers to ensure the comparability of theacademic standards of its awards, and acommon framework for assessment helps toensure equity and a consistency of decision-making for its students. The University hassignificant research degree provision and thearrangements for the management of thequality and standards of this provision isgenerally effective and well understood by staff and students.


page 11

56 The University has recently revised itsprocesses for annual course monitoring. TheUniversity intends to monitor the effectivenessof these changes and, in doing so, it isencouraged to continue to consider how thisprocess might be more comprehensivelyembedded at the school level to ensure greaterconsistency. The University has also reviewed itsprocesses for the internal periodic review ofschools and programmes, to better reflect itsdevolved organisation and the expectations ofthe Scottish Funding Council. Overall, therevised arrangements for annual coursemonitoring and for periodic review are effective.

57 The University has recently taken anumber of significant steps to strengthen itsarrangements relating to 'distributed learning',including the approval of off-campus centres(Approved Learning Partners) and themanagement of the quality of its coursesdelivered through these partners. In addition,the University demonstrates good practice in itswell-established and thorough processes for theapproval of individual Approved Teachers andApproved Tutors. The University is stronglyencouraged to continue to keep under reviewthe effectiveness of its arrangements for themanagement and oversight of its ApprovedLearning Partners provision because of thepotential risk inherent in this type of provision.

58 On the basis of these findings, broadconfidence can be placed in the University'scurrent and likely future management of thequality of its provision and the academicstandards of its awards.

Overview of the institution's approach toensuring that the information it publishesabout the quality of provision is complete,accurate and fair

59 In the RA, the University set out itscommitment to the principles of open, fair,accurate and up-to-date public information.

Teaching Quality Information60 Overall responsibility for overseeingTeaching Quality Information data, andaccompanying qualitative information, lies with the Director of Planning, on behalf of the Planning and Management Executive.Responsibility for checking the accuracy of theoriginal data rests with the relevant centralservices: Recruitment and Admissions,Academic Registry and the Careers AdvisoryService. To date, the University has met all thepublication deadlines required by the HigherEducation Statistics Agency and the HigherEducation and Research Opportunities in theUnited Kingdom.

Publicity and promotional materials61 The primary public information sources arethe undergraduate and postgraduate prospectusand related on-line information, together withleaflets and other course information. TheUniversity has a clear system for checkingpublished material, including that published onits website. The Press and Public Relations Officeis responsible for the production of publicity andpromotional materials, and schools (throughtheir directors of learning and teaching) and therelevant support services have responsibility forconfirming the accuracy of information ontaught courses and student facilities respectively.

62 For collaborative provision, Universityguidelines require that responsibility for theaccuracy of information is stated within thememorandum of agreement, and thatpromotional information on programmesprepared by Approved Learning Partners isapproved by the University prior to publication.

Student handbooks63 Individual schools are responsible for theacademic and school-specific content ofstudent handbooks and other core studentinformation. As part of its preparation for ELIR,the University identified inconsistencies in itsstudent handbooks with differences in contentand level of detail. As a result, the Universityhas developed a standard template to be usedfrom 2005-06 to ensure consistency of styleand accuracy of standard information. Approval


page 12

of student handbooks now rests with the schooldirectors of learning and teaching.

Commentary on the institution'sarrangements for ensuring that theinformation it publishes about thequality of its provision is complete,accurate and fair

64 The University takes an effective approachto ensuring that the information it publishesabout the quality of its provision is complete,accurate and fair.

The student experience

Overview of the institution's approach toengaging students in the assurance andenhancement of the quality of teachingand learning

65 The University's approach to engagingwith students in the assurance andenhancement of quality is based on two keyprocesses: feedback (in relation to students'own experiences, particularly their learningexperience at the subject level), andrepresentation (students contribution to thequality of institutional activities).

University-level representation andfeedback66 Students are represented on the majorityof the University's key academic decision-makingbodies, from the subject level within schools,up to the University Court. The Students'Association sabbatical officers sit on the QualityEnhancement and Standards Committee, theLearning and Teaching Board, the SupportServices Board, Senate and the UniversityCourt. The Students' Association communicateson academic matters with the student bodythrough its own Academic Committee, whichmeets regularly to discuss institution-widematters, and through its Student Senate, whichcomprises all elected representatives, with anopen invitation to the entire student body.These two forums provide a mechanism forsharing views and discussing institution-wideissues such as those identified by the

University's Learning and Teaching Board. TheStudents' Association Academic Committee andthe Student Senate have been effective infacilitating student representatives to makecross-school comparisons, for example in theimplementation of mentoring arrangements forfirst year students, and in enabling them tomake informed judgements on consistency andcomparability across the University.

67 The University conducts periodic surveysof the whole student body through aninstitution-wide student satisfaction survey. The first student satisfaction survey wasconducted in 2002, covering a broad range oftopics including the quality of learning andteaching, and a follow-up survey is scheduledfor 2006-07. The University has recentlyparticipated in a survey of internationalstudents, in order to better understand theneeds of this student group. The Universityacknowledges that while the findings of the2002 survey, in relation to mentoring andfeedback have been incorporated into itsLearning and Teaching Strategy, the process ofresponding to the issues emerging from suchsurveys needs to be more systematic.

68 Students' Association sabbatical officersand school officers were not familiar with thestudent satisfaction survey, nor withenhancements to the student learningexperience arising from it, partly as a result ofthe time elapsed since the survey. TheUniversity is encouraged to consider the benefitof undertaking such institutional surveys morefrequently, both in order to achieve a regularcohort analysis, and also to facilitate widerstudent understanding of the potential benefitsof gathering such information.

69 The University has a designated 'StudentChampion' whose role includes progressing, at a senior level, institution-wide issues identifiedby students (see below, paragraph 96).

School-level representation and feedback70 The University's processes for studentrepresentation and feedback at the school levelinclude informal mechanisms, student-staffcommittees, and school officers.


page 13

71 Informal mechanisms at the school level,for example, 'open door' policies, classroominteraction, and email communications, areseen as a particularly important and effectivemeans for students and staff to identify andresolve matters. Students regard staff to beapproachable, and informal arrangements to be generally good.

Student-staff committees

72 Each school has a range of student-staffcommittees, which consider matters of a mainlyacademic nature. Given the devolved organisationof the University, these representative structuresmay vary between schools, for example, studentsmay be grouped by year or by subject, reflectingfactors such as student numbers and disciplinediversity in schools.

73 For undergraduate students who study onthe University's campuses, committees includeelected class representatives and school officers(see below, paragraph 75). Training for classrepresentatives and school officers is deliveredby the Students' Association in conjunction withthe national Student Participation in QualityScotland (sparqs) service.

74 Class representatives and school officersview their role in schools as effectivelyintegrated into school quality assurancestructures, and are able to identify how mattersraised through student-staff committees arebeing addressed. Some schools use student-staff committees to discuss collated studentfeedback and, where this happened, studentsregard this to be very valuable. Not all studentsare aware of the role and purpose of classrepresentatives, or of how these arrangementsmight contribute to enhancing the studentexperience. The University is encouraged tocontinue to consider the ways in which studentrepresentation at school level could be moreeffective, for example, by closing 'feedback'loops, so that more students feel engaged in,and value, the process.

School officers

75 In order to promote effective studentrepresentation within the multidisciplinaryschools, the Students' Association, schools and

the University have established the position ofSchool Officer. The position seeks to bridge thegap between the institutional level activities ofthe Students' Association and the work of theclass representatives. Students are appointed tothe position of school officers, and aresupported by an agreed role specification,training and an honorarium. The role is stillevolving as schools consider the most effectivemeans of utilising their officers; in some casesthe school officer is a formal member of schoollearning and teaching committees. Schoolofficers are also members of the Students'Association Academic Committee and theStudent Senate, thereby promotingcommunication between local and institutionalmatters. Student representatives and studentofficers view the role as dynamic, necessary andbeneficial, given the University's devolvedstructure. The school officer role is aninnovative approach to addressing thechallenge of linking local and institutionalrepresentation, and represents good practice.

Representation and feedback:postgraduate research students76 There is provision for postgraduatestudent-staff committees to function atprogramme level, as either discipline-based orschool-wide forums. The Research Student Co-ordinators Group (see above, paragraph 32) iscurrently considering mechanisms for researchstudent representation and participation at theinstitutional level.

77 Individual feedback from postgraduateresearch students is sought through individualannual reviews at the school level and, atinstitutional level, through the Research StudentCo-ordinators Group.

78 In discussion, research students, and staffwho support research students, expressed theirbelief that there is an effective relationshipbetween postgraduate research students andstaff, and that the University provides agenerally good postgraduate environment.These staff and students, however, expressedlittle knowledge of the mechanisms forcollective representation for postgraduatestudents, confirming the University's own


page 14

recognition that the role of these forums is stilldeveloping.

Representation and feedback: distributedand distance-learning students79 The arrangements for the establishment ofApproved Learning Partners include provisionfor student representation and feedback, andthe University encourages these partners tohold student-staff meetings and to pass thestudent view to the University through theannual monitoring process or during periodicvisits. The University recognises that this is notalways effective and, in the University's view, isdetermined, in part, by the culture within thepartner institution. This unevenness inimplementation of student representationarrangements was confirmed during the ELIR,with student-staff meetings operating veryeffectively in some Approved Learning Partners,but being absent in others. Currently, theStudents' Association does not have contactwith partner staff or class representatives, inorder to provide training or support forrepresentation activities, as is the case for classrepresentatives based on the Universitycampuses.

80 The opportunity for students to also providedirect feedback is, consequently, important forApproved Learning Partner students, and directfeedback provides the only means of ascertainingthe views of off-campus independent (distance)learners. For learners who study at partnercentres, feedback is collected through an annualmonitoring form. However, there has been someconcern amongst these students about providingcomment directly to local tutors, and theUniversity intends that a more anonymoussystem, as currently used for independentdistance learners, will be extended to students atpartner centres. The collection of feedback fromindependent distance learners is particularly welldeveloped by the Edinburgh Business School (for example, through an on-line message boardsystem), and this good practice is now beingconsidered by other schools, with coordinationbeing provided by the Flexible and DistanceLearning Forum (see below, paragraph 119).

81 The University recognises that thereremain a number of concerns relating tostudent representation and feedbackarrangements for distance and distributedlearning students. The University is currentlykeeping the issue of off-campus representationunder review, and is working with the Students'Association to consider ways of enhancingrepresentation, and ways in which the Students'Association might provide general guidanceand assistance to partner centres (particularly in the case of student appeals and complaints).The University is currently developing a code ofpractice on student feedback, which is intendedto establish a common set of minimumrequirements, based on a broad range of goodpractice, to ensure coherence and equitythrough a devolved approach. It is intendedthat this will benefit both on and off-campusstudents.

Student involvement in internal reviews82 Students participate as team members forthe University's internal reviews of programmesand schools (see above, paragraphs 28-31).There are normally two student members of the panel; students are selected by theStudents' Association and are normally schoolofficers. Student review team members aresupported in their role by a member of stafffrom the Students' Association, who also acts as an observer on the reviews. The Students'Association, collaborating with sparqs, alsoprovides training for student review teammembers.

83 The engagement of student review teammembers has been effective. Demand forstudent places on the review is considerable,and the Students' Association operates aselection process. University staff confirm thatstudent representatives have discharged theirresponsibilities professionally and have generallybeen very well informed. Students who havetaken part in internal reviews consider that theyhave been treated as full members of the team,and that their views had been heard, includingin the finalisation of the review report.


page 15

Overview of the institution's approach tothe promotion of effective studentlearning

84 The University is committed to ensuringan appropriate learning experience for all of itsstudents, recognising the diversity of thisexperience arising from the range of provisionoffered by the institution, across course andprogrammes, different campuses, and throughthe different modes of delivery, including full-time, part-time, distributed and distancelearning.

85 The University recognises that studentsrelate primarily to their subject discipline, andengage more with the school and subject thanwith the University as a whole. Accordingly, theUniversity sees its role as one of supportingschools in the development of an effectivelearning experience for students. It offers arange of central services which supportstudents with particular learning or otherneeds, and also support staff in schools.

Learning and teaching strategy86 A key driver of the promotion of effectivestudent learning is the development andimplementation of the University's Learning andTeaching Strategy (see below, paragraphs 120-124). Two of the Strategy's themes impactdirectly on the quality of the studentexperience: 'enhancing learning and teaching';and the 'student learning experience'. Withinthese two strategic themes, the University hasestablished a number of projects, including: theintroduction of an institution-wide virtuallearning environment; implementing arestructured academic year; the review ofmentoring schemes; and the development of aprogression (retention and completion) strategy.

Virtual learning environment87 The University is in the process ofdeveloping a University-wide virtual learningenvironment (VLE), building on an establishedhistory of e-learning and blended learninginnovations within the institution. TheUniversity VLE is intended to benefit both onand off-campus students and aims to providethe learner with a flexible and accessible

environment which supports student-centred,resource-based learning and personaldevelopment planning. University staff view theintroduction of the VLE as a particularly positiveexample of institutional strategy building onexpertise and good practice originating fromwithin the schools. The Students' Associationhas also been extensively involved in itsintroduction, through briefing the studentbody, and collating their views. The cooperativeapproach to the VLE project between theUniversity and the Students' Association is seenby both staff and students as important inensuring the widespread ownership of the VLEproject across the University. The VLE isscheduled for implementation during 2006-07.

Structure of the academic year88 The University has recently completed acomprehensive review of the structure of itsacademic year, with the objective of enhancingstudent learning. The revised arrangements willinclude a two-block structure with longer studyperiods and larger modules which aim toprovide increased scope for studentdevelopment of skills, and to facilitate a broaderrange of teaching and assessment methods.Students have been consulted on therestructuring of the academic year, and thenew arrangements are scheduled forimplementation in 2008-09.

Academic supportUniversity-level academic support

89 Primary responsibility for supporting theacademic development of students rests with theschools (see below, paragraphs 90-94). Inaddition, at the University level, there are twoacademic counsellors (one at each of theEdinburgh and Borders campuses) who offer one-to-one sessions for students requiringacademic skills support. The academic counsellorsalso collaborate with schools in designing anddelivering personal development planningsessions which are integrated into the curriculum.

School-level academic support

90 Academic support for students is providedprimarily at the subject level. Such academic


page 16

support takes a number of forms includingtailored learning skills support; tailored supportfor exchange students (outgoing and incoming)and students embarking on work placements;and mentoring. Learning skills support providedat the subject level may include: skillsdevelopment modules integrated into thecurriculum; one-to-one tutorials; local resourceand support centres; flexible learning materials;and generic skills-development modulesavailable to the study body as electives.

Mentoring

91 A significant element of the academicsupport infrastructure is the University'spersonal tutoring system, termed 'mentoring'by the University, which operates through thesubject or school level. All undergraduate, on-campus students are allocated a mentor,who is a member of academic staff andprovides a first point of contact for students on both academic and non-academic matters.Formal meetings between students and theirmentor are normally held once each term, atleast in the earlier stages of a student's courseof studies. The aim of mentoring is to providestudents with a wide range of support,including monitoring their progress; assistingwith academic difficulties; advising on modulechoice (including generic skills modules); andpastoral support (including linking studentswith specialist staff at the University level).

92 Mentor training for staff is providedinformally within schools, and provision formentoring is specified in the 'student support'section of the University's quality assuranceguidelines and procedures. In addition, there issome guidance on mentoring included in thePostgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice(PgCAP) course, which is a probationaryrequirement for new academic staff. Informedby the views of the Students' Association, and a recent review conducted by the AcademicRegistry, the University is aware of significantvariation in the implementation andeffectiveness of the mentoring scheme acrossschools and, thus, significant variation in thestudent experience of mentoring. This view has been confirmed by staff and students. In

response to these concerns, and in consultationwith schools, support services and the Students'Association, the University has recentlydeveloped a code of practice on mentoringwhich draws on both internal good practiceand external reference points, including theCode of practice, published by QAA, and thenational 'Responding to Students Needs'enhancement theme. In addition, it is plannedthat the Educational Development Unit willdevelop a mentor training programme,expanding on current provision for newlecturers. There are also designated staff-student support coordinators in some schoolswhose role is to link the activities of schools,central support services and the Students'Association. There are plans to formalise andextend this role to all schools through theestablishment of a student support coordinatorsforum. As the University continues its importantwork to address variability in mentoringpractice, it is encouraged to monitor theimplementation of these new arrangements atthe school level, and across schools, to ensure amore equitable, appropriate and consistentstudent experience of mentoring.

Academic support for postgraduate researchstudents

93 In 2005-06, the University introduced anintegrated training programme for researchstudents which aims to provide all suchstudents with generic and transferable skillstraining. Individualised support for on and off-campus research students is provided primarilyby the two supervisors appointed for eachstudent. Within schools, support similar tomentoring is provided by course directors andsupervisors. In discussion, postgraduatestudents expressed general satisfaction with thelevels of academic support provided by schoolsbut commented that the quality of supportcould vary between supervisors, and betweenschools. Staff with supervisory responsibilitiesalso acknowledged that there wereinconsistencies across the institution. Someschools are considering the introduction of amore formal mentoring scheme for researchstudents, and there may be benefit in


page 17

introducing such arrangements across thewhole institution. There would also be value inthe University reviewing staff developmentprovision available for postgraduate supervisors,including enhancing their knowledge andunderstanding of the University's postgraduateresearch student code of practice.

Academic support for distance and distributed-learning students

94 The University seeks to provide the samelevel of academic support to all students,irrespective of their location of study, butrecognises that the way in which this academicsupport is delivered will vary. For off-campusstudents studying at Approved LearningPartners, approaches to promoting effectivelearning are integrated into the curriculum andcourse materials (which are developed by therelevant University's schools), and academicand non-academic support are provided bylocal Approved Teachers and Approved Tutors.The level of support varies from centre tocentre and is negotiated on a case-to-case basisto meet student needs.

Pastoral and other support95 The University provides a range of supportand other services for on-campus students.These include accommodation services; thecareer advisory service (see below, paragraphs99-100); chaplaincy; student welfare services;international students advisors office; wideraccess unit; library and computing services.Students are generally satisfied with the rangeand quality of non-academic support availableto them, and staff in these services are highlycommitted and skilled in their dealing withstudents. The University's services arecomplemented by the Students' AssociationAdvice and Support Centre which offers adviceon a wide range of issues and runs awareness-raising campaigns. Students identify stronglywith the Students' Association as an initialsource of advice on pastoral and relatedmatters.

96 The University has designated a 'StudentChampion' to progress, at a senior level,institution-wide issues identified by students,

and to take forward equality and diversitymatters. The role, which is currently undertakenby the University's Librarian, also includesconvening the Equal Opportunities Committee,the Disability Advisory Group, and the WelfareForum. The Student Champion role is that of alocus of support for student representatives, forexample, by introducing new sabbatical officersto members of University staff, and to giveadvice and guidance on how to progressmatters of importance to studentrepresentatives. A recent example of asuccessful initiative due, in part, to help fromthe Student Champion, is the establishment ofa new Muslim prayer room. The role is viewedas important by both students and staff, in thatthe Champion is outwith the University'sexecutive but has considerable institutionalknowledge. The success of the current, andfirst, Student Champion in progressinginstitutional issues identified by students isclearly evident, reflecting the hard work andcommitment of the current Champion, and theUniversity is encouraged to consider how toembed this good practice to ensure effectivesuccession planning for any future postholders.

Overview of the institution's approach tothe promotion of employability of itsstudents

97 A defining characteristic of the Universityis the extent to which all academicprogrammes are closely linked to professionalcareer opportunities. Most studentsundertaking a course at the University do so inthe expectation of graduate level, professionalemployment. Preparation for employment iscentral to all courses, and most undergraduateprovision is accredited by PSRBs.

98 The University is aware that it has notmaintained its market or ranking position inScottish and UK graduate employment. TheUniversity recognises that changes in theemployment market, employment practices,and changing employer and studentexpectations require the University to review itsapproach to developing student employability,and to develop new approaches to meeting the


page 18

needs of both graduates and employers. In order to address these challenges, theUniversity has prioritised employability as astrategic objective, and is in the process ofdeveloping an employability and professionalcareer readiness strategy (see below,paragraphs 104-107). Employability is also oneof the four key themes of the University's widerstrategy for quality enhancement.

Careers Advisory Service99 The Careers Advisory Service has anincreasingly important role in shaping andimplementing strategic change within theUniversity. For example, the Service is seekingto collaborate with schools to embed careerand personal development planning into thecurriculum, and plays an important role in thedevelopment of the University's employabilitystrategy.

100 The service offers a wide range of facilitiesto students including a job shop; subject-basedadvice (including an e-guidance service); on-line personal development planning; astudent-alumni mentoring programme; and on-campus employment events. A careersadviser is assigned to each school to assist inthe design and delivery of career planningactivities. University staff recognise theimportant role of the Careers Advisory Service,along with the Educational Development Unit(see below, paragraphs 130-131) in supportingthe University's employability strategy, andimplementation of related policies.

Personal development planning101 The University's current policy on personaldevelopment planning (PDP) was implementedin 2004. The University's PDP programme has a particular focus on employability; it aims toensure that students develop both subject-specificand generic skills, and that students can relatethese to their career choice, and market theseskills successfully. The development of a PDPpolicy, combined with a careers policy, hasinvolved a broad spectrum of University groups,including the Learning and Teaching Board; theEducational Development Unit; the CareersAdvisory Service; Academic Counselling;

Academic Registry; schools; and the Students'Association. As part of their PDP activity, studentsare expected to plan, record and reflect on theirlearning and career development. This PDPactivity is delivered through a variety ofmechanisms such as the University's academicmentoring scheme and a programme ofPDP/careers workshops.

102 At the time of the ELIR, the Universityindicated that PDP pilots (including internet-based progress files) were operating inapproximately 60 per cent of undergraduateprogrammes. The University plans to extend PDP to all taught programmes (including postgraduateprogrammes) during 2005-06.

103 As the University recognises, to date, theimplementation of PDP across the schools hasbeen uneven, although there are recognisedexamples of good practice (for example, in the postgraduate town planning course in the School of the Built Environment, and thestudent-alumni mentoring programmeorganised through the Development andAlumni Office). Staff and students recognisethat the implementation of PDP through arange of different mechanisms leads tosignificant variation in the opportunity forstudents to benefit from the PDP strategy. The University is, therefore, encouraged tocontinue to monitor and review itsarrangements for the implementation andembedding of its PDP strategy.

Employability and professional careerreadiness104 At the time of the ELIR, the University wasin the process of finalising its strategy for aemployability and professional career-readinessstrategy. This strategy, which has been evolvingfor some time, has as its key aim 'to produceinstitutional graduate employment rates abovethe University's benchmark and above bothScottish and UK averages'. At the time of theELIR visit, preparation of the strategy was welladvanced, and was due for formal approval bythe University in June 2006.


page 19

105 The term 'professional career readinessstrategy' has been adopted by the University tocapture a broader, more student-focusedconcept of employability. Professional careerreadiness is understood as a set of skills,competencies, knowledge and attitudes thatmake graduates likely to gain professionalemployment and contribute to society, theirprofession and their own personal development.The University highlighted that while professionalcareer readiness includes development of 'doing'skills, much of the approach concerns thedevelopment of professional values that relate to'being' a professional individual in the relevantsubject field. The scope of the strategy willembrace embedding skills in the curriculum,research-informed teaching, personal developmentplanning and external employer links.

106 The framework for the implementation of the employability and professional careerreadiness strategy involved setting fiveinstitutional objectives, with associated targetsand timescales, and key projects. Implementationof the strategy will be through the schools andsupport units (Academic Registry, the EducationalDevelopment Unit and the Careers AdvisoryService). Key performance indicators andqualitative measures will be identified to measurethe success of the strategy, and monitoring andevaluation will be undertaken through the widermonitoring and evaluation arrangements of theLearning and Teaching Strategy.

107 The development of the University'semployability and professional career readinessstrategy is an important cross-institutionaldevelopment, which builds on a strong historyand ethos of commitment to graduateemployability. The strategy includes a cleararticulation of the professional employmentmarket, and the University's need to respond tothat changing context. The strategy representsa holistic and cohesive approach to equippingstudents with the knowledge, skills, values andattitudes required for professional employment.There is good knowledge and understandingamong University staff of the strategy and itsdrivers. The employability and professionalcareer readiness strategy has much potential; a key challenge for the University will be to

assure its appropriate implementation acrossthe University's devolved structure.

Commentary on the effectiveness of theinstitution's approach to promoting aneffective learning experience for students

108 The student community is effectivelyrepresented in the University's academic decision-making structures and there is a successfulpartnership between the Students' Associationand the University. It is acknowledged thatsignificant student involvement in initiatives canreduce risk and improve on the successfuldelivery of initiatives, as has been the case withthe introduction of the University's VLE. TheUniversity's arrangements for studentrepresentation and feedback are generallyeffective. The University recognises that thereremain a number of concerns relating tostudent representation and feedback fordistance and distributed learning students, and is working with the Students' Association to consider ways of enhancing opportunities for these students. In order to promote effectivestudent representation within schools, and toimprove the linking of local and institutionalrepresentation for students, the posts of studentschool officers has been established. The role,which is still evolving, is an innovative approachto addressing student engagement, with muchpotential, and represents good practice.

109 Primary responsibility for student academicsupport rests with the schools, and a significantelement of this support is provided through theUniversity's mentoring arrangements. TheUniversity is taking systematic steps to addressthe current variability in mentoring practicesacross the University, and is encouraged tomonitor the implementation of these newarrangements. As part of its arrangements forpastoral support, the University has designateda senior member of the University staff as a'Student Champion', to promote institutionalissues raised by students, and progress equalityand diversity matters. The success of this role isclearly evident and the University is encouragedto consider how to further embed this goodpractice to ensure effective succession planningfor any future postholders.


page 20

110 The emergence of the University'semployability and professional career readinessstrategy is a very positive development; itembraces a number of existing employabilitypolicies and practices and represents a holisticand cohesive approach to promoting graduateemployability. The draft strategy has muchpotential, and a key challenge for the Universitywill be to oversee its successful implementationacross the devolved school structure.

Effectiveness of the institution'sstrategy for qualityenhancement

Overview of the institution's approach tomanaging improvement in the quality ofteaching and learning

Management responsibility for qualityenhancement

111 Institutional responsibility for qualityenhancement lies ultimately with the Senate.The Learning and Teaching Board's principalfunction is to develop and implement theUniversity's Learning and Teaching Strategy inconsultation with schools, support services andthe Students' Association, and so is a key driverof enhancement within the University (seeabove, paragraph 18). For example, discussionat recent meetings covered recruitmentstatistics, the implementation of PDP, thedevelopment of a VLE, semesterisation, and keyperformance indicators in relation to learningand teaching. The Learning and Teaching Boardhosts a series of drop-in lunches at whichmembers can informally discuss issues, at leastone of which was attended by school officers(see above, paragraph 75). In June 2005, itestablished a programme/course leaders forumfor the discussion of common issues inteaching, and the sharing of good practice,such as employability, student diversity andmanaging large groups. The Board plays a key role in the allocation of resources forimplementing enhancement initiatives, andmonitors and promotes University engagement

with the sector-wide enhancement themes.Through the school directors of learning andteaching, the Board has a direct line ofcommunication to schools and a means bywhich to ensure its priorities are included inschool agendas.

112 The Quality Enhancement and StandardsCommittee is responsible for the formulation of policy and establishment of procedures andpractices (see above, paragraph 18). Itsmembership includes the Deputy Principal(Learning and Teaching), Academic Registrar,deans, and representatives elected by theSenate and nominated by schools. Its remitincludes promoting enhancement throughoutthe University, in addition to its assurancefunctions. Through its membership there is aneffective means of ensuring that current mattersof business are relayed to the schools and thatthe Committee is informed of issues andpractice at school level.

113 The Quality Enhancement and StandardsCommittee's title suggests the potential forconflict of interest by locating both assuranceand enhancement roles within the same body,but this is not the case in practice. TheUniversity views the Learning and TeachingBoard and Quality Enhancement and StandardsCommittee as contributing in different, butcomplementary, ways to the overallenhancement process. The Learning andTeaching Board has responsibility for setting the University's strategic academic context anddriving enhancement strategy. The QualityEnhancement and Standards Committee's remitincludes the development of the University'sacademic structure and related policies, and hasthe role of monitoring and evaluating projectsarising from the Learning and Teaching Board.

114 Communication and liaison between thetwo committees depend essentially upon theircommon Chairing by the Deputy Principal(Learning and Teaching), the key figure in theinstitution's management of quality. The chairhelps to ensure that enhancement andassurance activities complement rather thancontradict by providing high level oversight ofthe two processes, and integrating them where


page 21

appropriate. There is the potential that having a single chair for these two committees couldjeopardise the independence needed to securethe assurance process. In practice, however, therelationship between the two committees isvery effective and the role of the DeputyPrincipal (Learning and Teaching) supportsboth assurance and enhancement processes.

115 The business of the Quality Enhancementand Standards Committee is confined toacademic matters, and specifically thoseassociated with learning, teaching and studentsupport. The Support Services Board, whichreports to the Planning and ManagementExecutive, and to Senate, is responsible fordeveloping, implementing and monitoringstrategy in relation to welfare services. TheWelfare Services Forum, which is a subgroup ofthe Support Services Board and has specificresponsibility for matters relating to the studentexperience, reports to the Court through itsChair, and the Student Champion is an exofficio member of Court (see above, paragraph96). Both the Welfare Services Forum and therole of Champion are very positive initiatives insupporting the enhancement of the studentexperience.

116 There is currently no formal stage foridentifying generic issues raised by externalexaminers. Through their role of scrutinising all external examiners' reports, and internalmonitoring and review reports (see above,paragraphs 19; 26 to 31), the two deans andthe Deputy Principal (Learning and Teaching)have responsibility for ensuring that matters areappropriately pursued at school level and thatexamples of good practice are taken to theQuality Enhancement and StandardsCommittee. This arrangement is effective, but itis a considerable responsibility for threeindividuals to discharge across the institutionand the University should keep under reviewthe possibility of introducing a more distributedand formal monitoring mechanism to placeinstitution-wide issues on the University'senhancement agenda. It is clear, however, thatthe deans have a key role to play in linkinginstitutional and school enhancement

initiatives. They have the authority of electedofficers, and detailed command of both high-level strategic issues and of operational matters.

117 Responsibility for supporting theimplementation of improvements in academicpractice, such as the development of programmespecifications and indirectly, the student learningexperience, lies to a large degree with theAcademic Registrar and the Academic Registry.The Academic Registry collects data and conductsreviews that can promote changes in practicethat directly affect students.

Quality and enhancement of off-campusprovision

118 With some 9,450 students studying forUniversity awards away from the main campus,assuring and enhancing the quality of theirlearning experience presents a considerablechallenge. The University aims to provide acomparable experience to all of its students,although it recognises that this cannot alwaysbe achieved. The extent and nature ofacceptable variation from the experience andexpectations of campus-based students is a keyissue for the University which it is well aware of.Approved Learning Partners must supplyevidence of their quality assurance system'sexplicit reference to continuous improvement.While enhancement is not a contractual issue,the three-yearly renewal process for ApprovedLearning Partner Status is expected, byreporting on quality assurance, to ensure thatUniversity developments such as theintroduction of PDP are also made available tooff-campus students.

119 In 2005 the University introduced adetailed and thorough code of practice onflexible and distributed learning, andestablished a Flexible and Distance LearningForum in 2004 to support activity in this areaand to spread good practice. These initiativesare focused and identify deliberate steps toaddress a recognised need. However the codeof practice, which has many benefits, is focusedupon standards and quality assurance, with noexplicit reference to enhancement or topromoting continuous educational improvement.


page 22

Quality enhancement strategy

120 The University's Quality EnhancementStrategy is embedded within its Learning andTeaching Strategy. The Learning and TeachingStrategy, which was approved by the Learningand Teaching Board in June 2003, andthereafter integrated into the institutionalStrategic Plan, is a composite documentcomprising six sections: a record of the processof strategic development; the outcomes of aLearning and Teaching Board away day in June2003; and reports from working groups onscoping exercises conducted in 2003 on eachof the key themes - 'sustainable growth','enhancing learning and teaching', 'studentlearning experience' and 'institutionalenvironment'. These reports form the core ofthe Strategy, setting out key aims, objectivesand targets for each theme. Following a reviewof the current Learning and Teaching Strategy inMarch 2005, the Learning and Teaching Boardagreed that, in the next version of the Strategywhich it is anticipated will be finalised in June2006, the 'institutional environment' themeshould be discontinued, since most objectiveshad been fulfilled through the completion ofacademic restructuring, and should besuperseded by the theme of 'employability'.

121 The reports that constitute the presentversion of the Strategy demonstrate dynamicand innovative thinking. Key objectives under'Enhancing Learning and Teaching' are theestablishment of an Educational DevelopmentUnit and a programme of learning andteaching conferences, both of which have beensuccessfully achieved. Further examples ofenhancement activity in the other keyobjectives include policies on PDP (see above,paragraphs 101-103) and introducing a VLE(see above, paragraph 87). However, as adocument the overall Strategy does not have aclear or coherent identity. The first section, 'Avision for the Learning and Teaching Strategy',is essentially an account of the context withinwhich the Strategy is to be developed ratherthan providing a vision statement; it doesemphasise the benefits of flexible delivery ofteaching, of innovation, and the need for

academic and support services to worktogether, but it says little about the University'scommitment to the enhancement of the qualityof the student learning experience, or thequalities of a Heriot-Watt graduate.

122 Each of the reports that make up theStrategy includes a section on targets andtimescales. The Learning and Teaching Boardkeeps progress under review and holds anannual away day to support the Strategy. TheUniversity notes that the Higher EducationFunding Council for England has observed thatit takes approximately five years from evolutionto implementation and evaluation of a Learningand Teaching Strategy. Ahead of this timetable,the University intends to update the Strategy bythe end of 2005-06, when 'employability' willbe incorporated as a key theme.

123 Implementation of this Strategy is, to aconsiderable extent, devolved to schools, eachof which has its own learning and teachingstrategy. The institutional approach to qualityenhancement is one of collaboration betweenthe central University and the schools. Theambition is for close alignment between theUniversity's Learning and Teaching Strategy andschool strategies. Heads of school, throughdirectors of learning and teaching, areresponsible for developing, executing andmonitoring school strategies which follow thefour-part structure of the institutional Strategy.The Learning and Teaching Board also has arole in ensuring alignment between schools'and the University's strategies. School strategieswere reviewed thoroughly at a Learning andTeaching Board Strategy away day in 2004.Key points arising from the relationship of theschool strategies to the four themes of theinstitutional strategy were noted and discussed,and each school strategy was rated againstthese themes. The school strategies are to beupdated following the revision of theinstitutional Strategy in 2006. As part of thisprocess, heads of school were to present theirrevised strategies at the Planning andManagement Executive's Strategy away day inMarch 2006. The school directors of learningand teaching provide an additional (and


page 23

constant) route by which the Board is able toensure that the priorities of the institutionalStrategy are recognised by school learning andteaching committees.

124 This collaborative approach between theUniversity and the schools is a strength. Inbringing this about, the University seeks to workwith academic colleagues, rather than imposeupon them arrangements and there is a highlevel of awareness and understanding of theinstitutional strategy and its themes among staff.However, there is also the risk that withenhancement progressing at different rates indifferent parts of the University, neither theUniversity's own aspirations, nor studentexpectations, can be realised equally. TheUniversity is confident that its policies andprocedures ensure that a minimum standard ofprovision is maintained across the institution.However, there is evidence of variability betweenschools, for example, in taking forward thementoring initiative (see above, paragraphs 91-92), developing PDP and employability-relatedactivities. (see above, paragraphs 101-103).Nevertheless, there is strong student support forthe University's devolved approach toenhancement.

Quality enhancement themes

125 The University engages with the nationalprogramme of enhancement themes in ameaningful manner. Responsibility for overseeingand coordinating the University's engagementlies with the Learning and Teaching Board andthe Educational Development Unit. There areclear examples of the national themes informinginstitutional discussions and the development ofthe innovative School Officer role (see above,paragraph 75) was influenced by theResponding to Students' Needs theme. Anumber of members of academic staff at theUniversity have been involved in devising andarranging enhancement events, for example, as members of the themes steering committee.Although good practice exists, the Universityrecognises that reporting from enhancementevents back into the institution has not been asconsistent or effective as it might be.

Overview of the linkage between theinstitution's arrangements for internalquality assurance and its enhancementactivity

The enhancement focus within theUniversity's quality assurance processes

126 The University describes its internalmonitoring and review processes asenhancement-led because it considers theyprovide an opportunity for enhancement aspart of the quality assurance process and forthe identification of good practice. TheUniversity's annual monitoring guidelinesrequire schools to consider possible areas forimprovement and identify good practice,resulting in an action plan for the school (orone for each programme) and suggestions foraction at University level. This enables issuesidentified at school level to be addressed by theQuality Enhancement and StandardsCommittee. Following their consideration bythe Deputy Principal (Learning and Teaching)and the deans, who pass matters of institutionalsignificance to the Quality Enhancement andStandards Committee, the annual monitoringreports are circulated to all schools, therebyassisting the dissemination of good practiceand discussion of common issues acrossschools. This constitutes an effective set ofarrangements to ensure that the annual qualityassurance processes feed into the enhancementagenda at both school and institutional level.

127 Periodic internal review is conducted atthe school level (for research and combinedstudies programmes) and programme level (seeabove, paragraphs 28-31). Consideration of thepanel report by the Quality Enhancement andStandards Committee allows matters of interestto be transmitted from the school to theinstitutional level. It also ensures that mattersare progressed through action plans producedby the school, and subsequently monitoredannually by the Quality Enhancement andStandards Committee. This set of arrangementsenables development and improvement toresult from the assurance process. The QualityEnhancement and Standards Committee has


page 24

resolved to identify key features of goodpractice for dissemination throughout theUniversity and this is a positive development.

Overview of the institution's approach torecognising, rewarding andimplementing good practice in thecontext of its strategy for qualityenhancement

Polices for appraisal and promotion ofstaff

128 Promotion and career advancement isoverseen by the Vice-Principal. The promotioncriteria have been revised recently to allowpromotion on the basis of leadership andachievement in teaching and pedagogicalresearch, and there is recent evidence of caseswhere promotion has been achieved primarilyon grounds of teaching excellence. TheUniversity's annual Learning and TeachingAward, awarded in part on the basis of studentfeedback and presented at a graduationceremony, is a very visible demonstration of theinstitution's commitment to teaching excellence.Applications for the award are consideredagainst three core criteria (course design,teaching and student support) and a range ofadditional criteria (for example, research studentsupervision; and engagement with the nationalenhancement themes). Applications are judgedby a panel of senior staff, with externalrepresentation, and chaired by the Vice-Principal. Applications include a statement ofhow the sum awarded will be invested toimprove learning and teaching at the University.

129 There is currently no system of staffappraisal or career development review. In common with other higher educationinstitutions, the University is working towardsimplementation of the Joint NegotiatingCommittee for Higher Education StaffFramework Agreement, for the modernisationof pay structures. The Framework includes arequirement for the implementation ofappraisal schemes in higher educationinstitutions. The requirement will provide theUniversity with the opportunity to introduce a

staff appraisal scheme which, as well asmeeting the needs of the FrameworkAgreement, could be more widely reflectiveand developmental.

Support for educational and staffdevelopment

130 Underlying the University's enhancementstrategy is a concern to ensure that staff areproperly prepared and supported for theirlearning and teaching activities. This is chieflythe responsibility of the EducationalDevelopment Unit which promotes andfacilitates innovative approaches to learning andteaching, and the development of academic staffthrough a range of continuing professionaldevelopment courses, training in particular skills(such as using a VLE or managing large groups)and tailor-made support for specificdevelopments. The Unit participates with schoolsin managing a Learning and TeachingDevelopment Fund to support individual school-based pedagogical projects.

131 Staff on probation are required tocomplete the University's Higher EducationAcademy-accredited PgCAP run by theEducational Development Unit. Thisprogramme covers both pedagogical theoryand practical strategies, and it includes peerobservation of teaching. Over 100 staff havenow completed the programme (including anumber of more experienced staff). This inlarge part explains the commitment to, andinterest in, teaching innovation which haspermeated the University's culture. Throughconsultations and advice on the applicationprocess, the Educational Development Unitencourages registration of staff with the HigherEducation Academy, and around half theUniversity's academic staff are registeredpractitioners of the Academy. This is convincingevidence of institutional and staff commitmentto quality and innovation in teaching. In thiscontext, it was unexpected to find thatsupervisors of research postgraduates are notrequired to undergo training, thoughsupervisory training is an element in the PgCAPprogramme. The Educational Development Unit


page 25

also runs a nine-week Introduction to TeachingSkills course for research students who aretutors, and for Approved Tutors and Teachers(see above, paragraphs 48-49). Staff arepositive about the range of courses andopportunities offered by the EducationalDevelopment Unit, and their relevance andeffectiveness. The Educational DevelopmentUnit has made an impressive contribution tothe University's approach to qualityenhancement. In the short period of itsexistence, it has driven a process of culturalchange so that learning and teaching aregenuinely valued activities. Around one third ofall academic staff attend biannual learning andteaching conferences, and staff volunteerinitiatives to the Unit for support anddevelopment. It is clear that pride in teachingand in pedagogical scholarship are encouraged.

Commentary on the combined effect ofthe institution's policies and practices forensuring improvement in the quality ofteaching and learning

132 The development of the University'sacademic infrastructure by the QualityEnhancement and Standards Committee, theimplementation of the Learning and TeachingStrategy by the Learning and Teaching Board,and the Educational Development Unit'spromotion of pedagogical and staffdevelopment, combine to create a dynamicculture of educational improvement andinnovation. Current initiatives such as thedevelopment of a code of practice formentoring, the introduction of a VLE, and thecross-institutional implementation of PDP, areclearly projects which are likely to improve thestudent learning experience. Particularlynotable is the part played by students informulating policy in this area.

133 There are an effective set of arrangementsin place to ensure that quality assuranceprocesses, such as annual course monitoringand internal review at programme and schoollevels, enable improvement, and contribute tothe enhancement agenda at both school andinstitutional levels.

134 The University has approached its ELIR as anenhancement opportunity, and the preparationof its case-study was deliberately undertaken aspart of the formulation of the employabilitytheme in its Learning and Teaching Strategy. Inits reflections and preparations for ELIR, there wasa clear demonstration of honest and critical self-reflection, accompanied by a clear determinationto address weaknesses and to enhance thequality of the student learning experience.

Commentary on the effectiveness of theinstitution's implementation of itsstrategy for quality enhancement

135 The University is committed to aninternally collaborative approach toenhancement; the University considers thatthere must be a strong central steer andoversight, but it regards school autonomy as a real strength and is wary of imposinguniformity of practice. Its firm belief is thatallowing schools the scope to develop theirown procedures, to initiate from their ownexperience, progress at their own rate, andimplement institutional policy in the way that ismost effective at the local level, secures fromstaff the commitment that is essential ifenhancement is to be a cultural fact rather thana procedural exercise. There is clear evidencethat this approach does result in commitment,and staff demonstrate awareness of the keythemes of the Learning and Teaching Strategyand of current institutional priorities.

136 An inevitable consequence of thisdevolved approach is that enhancementproceeds in different ways and at different ratesacross the University. The University recognisesand welcomes this differentiation as thecondition of genuine enhancement. The clarityand firmness of the institution's decision toproceed in this way is to be respected, but it is an approach that requires vigilance sincediscrepancies in both the pace and the form ofimplementation of institutional initiatives fromschool to school could lead to inconsistenciesthat affect the student experience. TheUniversity is confident that it has regulationsand codes to ensure a threshold quality of


page 26

provision across the University and that itsapproach to enhancement will steadily raisethat threshold. While the Quality Enhancementand Standards Committee establishes minimumrequirements and the Learning and TeachingBoard encourages the best to excel, there is an equal need to encourage the weakest toimprove and to reduce the gap between thetwo. In particular, the University shouldconsider agreeing implementation timelineswith schools to ensure that all students benefitas far as possible from enhancement initiatives.

137 Underlying the University's enhancementstrategy is a commitment to ensure that staffare properly supported in their learning andteaching activities. This support is chiefly theresponsibility of the Educational DevelopmentUnit, and the Unit's work in pedagogicdevelopment has been very successful ingenerating a genuine interest in enhancinglearning and teaching among academic staff.


page 27

Summary

Background to the institution and ELIRmethod

138 Heriot-Watt University (the University) wasestablished by Royal Charter in 1966, havingevolved from the Edinburgh School of Arts(1821), the Watt Institution and School of Arts(1851) and the Heriot-Watt College (1885). In1998, the University merged with the ScottishCollege of Textiles. The University's mission isto: 'provide the highest quality education andtraining to suit the professional employmentsector; meet the aspirations of students andhelp them realise their potential; deliver worldclass innovative research in the fields ofbusiness and industry; and exploit knowledgefor the benefit of society'.

139 The University is organised into eightschools: Built Environment; Engineering andPhysical Sciences; Life Sciences; Managementand Languages; Mathematical and ComputerSciences; Textiles and Design; Institute ofPetroleum Engineering (postgraduate only);and Edinburgh Business School (postgraduateonly). At the time of the Enhancement-ledinstitutional review (ELIR) visit, the Universityhad a student population of about 8,200 full-time equivalent students, of which some 5,500were undergraduates and some 2,700 werepostgraduates. Approximately 20 percent ofstudents (1,650 full-time equivalent or 9,424registered students) study 'off-campus' asdistance or distributed learning students. TheUniversity is based mainly in Edinburgh on acustom-built campus, with additional campusesin Galashiels (the Scottish Borders Campus),Orkney and Dubai (the latter established inSeptember 2005).

140 In line with the ELIR method, theUniversity submitted a Reflective Analysis (RA)in advance of the review. The RA outlined theinstitution's strategy for quality enhancement,its approach to the management of quality andstandards and its view of the effectiveness of itsapproach. The RA provided the focus for thereview and was used by the ELIR team todevelop its programme of activities. The

University submitted one case-study with theRA which focused on the University's currentand ongoing development of a strategy forgraduate employability and professional careerreadiness.

Overview of the matters raised by thereview

141 The University's strategy for qualityenhancement is embedded in its Learning andTeaching Strategy which currently has four keythemes: sustainable growth; enhancing learningand teaching; employability; and the studentlearning experience. Each theme has associatedkey performance indicators, targets, objectives,projects and monitoring processes. Individualschools' strategies are aligned with theUniversity's Learning and Teaching Strategy,and the Students' Association has aligned itsstrategy with that of the University.

142 The particular themes pursued in thereview included institutional oversight of qualityat Approved Learning Partners; the learningexperience of distance and distributed learningstudents and postgraduate research students;the University's strategy for promoting studentemployability; and quality enhancementthrough staff development, recognition andreward.

Commentary on the ability of theinstitution's internal review systems tomonitor and maintain quality andstandards

143 Overall, the University has comprehensiveprocedures in place for the approval,monitoring and review of its courses. Theseprocedures make effective use of externalreference points, including subject benchmarks,the Scottish Credit and QualificationsFramework (SCQF), and the Code of practice forthe assurance of academic quality and standardsin higher education (Code of practice), publishedby QAA. The University makes good use ofexternal examiners to ensure the comparabilityof the academic standards of its awards, and acommon framework for assessment helps toensure equity and a consistency of decision-


page 28

making for its students. The University hassignificant research degree provision and thearrangements for the management of thequality and standards of this provision isgenerally effective and well understood by staffand students.

144 The University has recently revised itsprocesses for annual course monitoring, so thatthe schools have more flexibility to set processesbased on their particular needs. The Universityintends to monitor the effectiveness of thesechanges and, in doing so, it is encouraged tocontinue to consider how this process might bemore comprehensively embedded at the schoollevel to ensure greater consistency. TheUniversity has also reviewed its processes for the internal periodic review of schools andprogrammes to better reflect its devolvedorganisation and the expectations of theScottish Funding Council. Overall, the revisedarrangements for annual course monitoring and for periodic review are affective.

145 The University has recently taken anumber of significant steps to strengthen itsarrangements relating to 'distributed learning',including the approval of off-campus centres(Approved Learning Partners) and themanagement of the quality of its coursesdelivered through these partners. In addition,the University demonstrates good practice in itswell-established and thorough processes for theapproval of individual Approved Teachers andApproved Tutors who have responsibility for thedelivery of the University's courses at thepartner centres. The University is stronglyencouraged to continue to keep under reviewthe effectiveness of its arrangements for themanagement and oversight of its ApprovedLearning Partners provision because of thepotential risk inherent in this type of provision.

146 On the basis of these findings, broadconfidence can be placed in the University'scurrent and likely future management of thequality of its provision and the academicstandards of its awards.

Commentary on the institution'sarrangements for ensuring that theinformation it publishes about thequality of its provision is complete,accurate and fair

147 The University takes an effective approachto ensuring that the information it publishesabout the quality of its provision is complete,accurate and fair.

Commentary on the effectiveness of theinstitution's approach to promoting aneffective learning experience for students

148 The student community is effectivelyrepresented in the University's academicdecision-making structures and there is asuccessful partnership between the Students'Association and the University. It isacknowledged that significant studentinvolvement in initiatives can reduce risk andimprove on the successful delivery of initiatives,as has been the case with the introduction ofthe University's virtual learning environment(VLE). The University's arrangements for studentrepresentation and feedback are generallyeffective. The University recognises that thereremain a number of concerns relating tostudent representation and feedback fordistance and distributed learning students, andis working with the Students' Association toconsider ways of enhancing opportunities forthese students. In order to promote effectivestudent representation within schools, and toimprove the linking of local and institutionalrepresentation for students, the posts ofstudent school officers has been established.The role, which is still evolving, is an innovativeapproach to addressing student engagement,with much potential, and represents goodpractice.

149 Primary responsibility for studentacademic support rests with the schools, and asignificant element of this support is providedthrough the University's mentoringarrangements. The University is takingsystematic steps to address the currentvariability in mentoring practices across the


page 29

University, and is encouraged to monitor theimplementation of these new arrangements. As part of its arrangements for pastoral support,the University has designated a senior memberof the University staff as a 'Student Champion'to promote institutional issues raised bystudents, and progress equality and diversitymatters. The success of this role is clearlyevident and the University is encouraged toconsider how to further embed this goodpractice to ensure effective succession planningfor any future postholders.

150 The emergence of the University'semployability and professional career readinessstrategy is a very positive development; itembraces a number of existing employabilitypolicies and practices and represents a holisticand cohesive approach to promoting graduateemployability. The draft strategy has muchpotential, and a key challenge for the Universitywill be to oversee its successful implementationacross the devolved school structure.

Commentary on the combined effect ofthe institution's policies and practices forensuring improvement in the quality ofteaching and learning

151 The development of the University'sacademic infrastructure by the QualityEnhancement and Standards Committee, theimplementation of the Learning and TeachingStrategy by the Learning and Teaching Board,and the Educational Development Unit'spromotion of pedagogical and staffdevelopment, combine to create a dynamicculture of educational improvement andinnovation. Current initiatives such as thedevelopment of a code of practice formentoring, the introduction of a VLE, and thecross-institutional implementation of personaldevelopment planning are clearly projects whichare likely to improve the student learningexperience. Particularly notable is the part playedby students in formulating policy in this area.

152 There are an effective set of arrangementsin place to ensure that quality assuranceprocesses, such as annual course monitoringand internal review at programme and school

levels, enable improvement, and contribute tothe enhancement agenda at both school andinstitutional levels.

153 The University has approached its ELIR as anenhancement opportunity, and the preparationof its case-study was deliberately undertaken aspart of the formulation of the employabilitytheme in its Learning and Teaching Strategy. In its reflections and preparations for ELIR, therewas a clear demonstration of honest and criticalself-reflection, accompanied by a cleardetermination to address weaknesses and toenhance the quality of the student learningexperience.

Commentary on the effectiveness of theinstitution's implementation of itsstrategy for quality enhancement

154 The University is committed to aninternally collaborative approach toenhancement; the University considers thatthere must be a strong central steer andoversight, but it regards school autonomy as a real strength and is wary of imposinguniformity of practice. Its firm belief is thatallowing schools the scope to develop theirown procedures, to initiate from their ownexperience, progress at their own rate, andimplement institutional policy in the way that ismost effective at the local level, secures fromstaff the commitment that is essential ifenhancement is to be a cultural fact rather thana procedural exercise. There is clear evidencethat this approach does result in commitment,and staff demonstrate awareness of the keythemes of the Learning and Teaching Strategyand of current institutional priorities.

155 An inevitable consequence of thisdevolved approach is that enhancementproceeds in different ways and at different ratesacross the University. The University recognisesand welcomes this differentiation as thecondition of genuine enhancement. The clarityand firmness of the institution's decision toproceed in this way is to be respected, but it isan approach that requires vigilance sincediscrepancies in both the pace and the form ofimplementation of institutional initiatives from


page 30

school to school could lead to inconsistenciesthat affect the student experience. TheUniversity is confident that it has regulationsand codes to ensure a threshold quality ofprovision across the University and that itsapproach to enhancement will steadily raisethat threshold. While the Quality Enhancementand Standards Committee establishes minimumrequirements and the Learning and TeachingBoard encourages the best to excel, there is anequal need to encourage the weakest toimprove and to reduce the gap between thetwo. In particular, the University shouldconsider agreeing implementation timelineswith schools to ensure that all students benefitas far as possible from enhancement initiatives.

156 Underlying the University's enhancementstrategy is a commitment to ensure that staffare properly supported in their learning andteaching activities. This support is chiefly theresponsibility of the Educational DevelopmentUnit, and the Unit's work in pedagogicdevelopment has been very successful ingenerating a genuine interest in enhancinglearning and teaching among academic staff.


page 31

RG

243 02/05

Documents

RG243 Heriot-watt university · Preface The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) exists to safeguard the public interest in sound standards of higher education (HE)