UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK

Faculty Audit Operational Processes

The following processes were approved by the Senate at its meeting on 26 January 2011 for the audit by Faculty Sub-Committees of departmental module approval processes.

  1. Key Aspects

The following principles will underpin the audit function of the Faculty Sub-Committees:

a)The audit function will form an element of the systems in place at the University to support the maintenance and enhancement of the quality of teaching and academic standards. While the audit process therefore needs to be rigorous and effective, it should not be excessively burdensome either for the Committees or departments involved.

b)The aim of the audit is to ensure both that the processes departments have put in place for module approval are appropriate for assuring that the quality and standards of teaching and learning are maintained and that those departmental processes and the University guidance on module approval are being effectively implemented. The intention of the audit is not to re-approve modules..

c)Audits should take place on a cyclical basis and all departments should be audited every three years, although should sufficient cause for concern arise an audit may be scheduled outwith this timeframe. Concerns could be based on the quality of the module proposal summaries reported to Faculty Sub-Committees,.

d)Audit findings should be based on the documented evidence available to the Faculty Sub-Committee and discussions with the department.

e)The Faculty Sub-Committee will have the authority to make recommendations to departments on the implementation of their processes where it feels enhancements are required but is also encouraged to identify and share good practice. Departments will have the opportunity to formally respond to the findings.

Scope of Audit

The scope of the audit is set out in the proposal agreed by Senate, as above, and applies to all academic departments which have devolved responsibility for module approval. A Checklist of issues to be addressed in the consideration of module proposals for approval has been provided to departments together with Guidance on the Approval of Module Proposals . With the proposals that departments themselves will report to the Faculty Sub-Committees on their internal approval processes, these documents provide a framework against which audits can be undertaken. The Guidance on the Approval of Modules includes both good practice and requirements on departments. The Checklist constitutes a list of issues which departments are required to address in the consideration of modules. Audits should therefore test whether departmental and University processes are being effectively implemented and thereby whether the quality of modules proposals is appropriate.

Organisation of Audits

Timescales

Departments should be audited approximately every three years and should be notified two months in advance of an audit taking place. This should also be the case where the Committee is holding an audit in response to concerns about quality assurance which may take place outwith this timeframe. A three year cycle should allow for Faculty Sub-Committees to review approximately one department per term.

Audit meetings should, as far as possible, be contained with scheduled committee meetings, with papers being circulated to members with committee papers, in order to ensure that the process does not become unduly burdensome. It would be at the discretion of the Committee, however, to establish a working group to undertake preparatory work on behalf of the Committee, should this prove more effective. Committees should however ensure that there is input into the process from a sufficiently broad range of its members.

Information Requirements

The Faculty Sub-Committees will be provided with the following information:

  • Faculty Sub-Committees will receive summary reports of approved module proposals at their termly meetings. Based on this information they will request the full proposal documentation of a random sample of modules approved by the department. The module proposals will form the initial basis for issues that the Committees may wish to raise with departments. The number of module proposals requested will be determined by the Faculty Sub-Committee, but will depend on the number of module proposals and revisions approved by the Department and should be sufficient to give a satisfactory overview of the effectiveness of processes.
  • The most recent report to the Faculty Sub-Committee on their approval processes and evidence as to how these processes are being followed.
  • The findings of the previous audit (if available), the Department’s response, and an update report on any subsequent action taken in response to the findings.
  • Committees may also wish to make use of the information made available on departmental websites on modules.

Meetings

As noted elsewhere, meetings with departmental representatives should take place as far as possible in scheduled committee meetings, at which a range of departments are represented. Committees should meet with those members of staff principally responsible for approving modules, including the Chair of the relevant departmental committee.

Findings and Recommendations

Faculty Sub-Committees should determine whether departments’ module approval processes are sufficiently robust and are functioning effectively and whether these therefore result in proposals of a satisfactory quality being approved. These findings should be clearly articulated in the minuted outcomes. Minutes should also reflect identified areas of good practice.

Where appropriate, committees will make recommendations to departments which can be classified as essential or desirable. Essential recommendations should address those issues which require immediate attention. Desirable recommendations are those which would improve practices in departments and would enhance the quality of learning opportunities or academic standards, but which can be implemented in the medium term.

Departments will provide a response to the Faculty Sub-Committees at the committee meeting subsequent to the audit which sets out how the Department will respond to the recommendations. Should recommendations not be addressed satisfactorily Committees will be able to raise concerns with the Chair of the Faculty Board as necessary. In addition, ongoing problems in departments with respect to lack of appropriate scrutiny and approval of modules over which the Committees have concerns may result in departments’ delegated authority being removed, with modules being approved by Chair of the Faculty Sub-Committee by Chair’s Action. This action would only be instigated where alternative approaches to addressing concerns had failed and with the agreement of the Chair of the relevant Faculty Board and the Chair of the Academic Quality and Standards Committee.

1