University of East Anglia Institutional Audit, JANUARY 2011, RG 048 06/04 Summary Preface Main report Findings Introduction

A team of auditors from the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (the Agency) visited the University of East Anglia (UEA or the University) from 19 to 23 January 2011 to carry out an institutional audit. The purpose of the audit was to provide public information on the quality of the opportunities available to students and on the academic standards of awards that the University makes. To arrive at its conclusions the audit team spoke to members of staff throughout the University, to current students, and read a range of documents relating to the way UEA manages the academic aspects of its provision. The words 'academic standards' are used to describe the level of achievement that a student has to reach to gain an award (for example, a degree). It should be at a similar level across the UK. Academic quality is a way of describing how well the learning opportunities available to students help them to achieve their award. It is about making sure that appropriate teaching, support, assessment and learning opportunities are provided for them. In institutional audit, both academic standards and academic quality are reviewed. Outcome of the audit As a result of its investigations, the audit team's view of the University is that: broad confidence can be placed in the soundness of the University's current and likely future management of the quality of its academic programmes and the academic standards of its awards.

In the course of the audit, the team became aware of the University's intention to restructure from August 2011. In coming to its judgement on the University's likely future management of the quality of its academic programmes and the academic standards of its awards, it is the team's view that the success of the restructuring will be more assured if the recommendations of this report are taken into consideration. Features of good practice The audit team identified the following areas as being good practice in the context of the University: the sound arrangements underpinning the University's relations with local partner institutions; its mentoring arrangements for newly-appointed teaching staff; its provision of research training for postgraduate research students and the opportunities the

latter are given to undertake undergraduate teaching after suitable training; and many instances of the work of the Centre for Staff and Educational Development; the liaison arrangements between its schools, the Library and the Careers Service; the procedure introduced in one school, of returning coursework to students through the adviser system in order to encourage discussions about students' progress, and the thoroughness with which units are reviewed in some areas; the advance information provided to students studying for a year abroad by the School of Mathematics; the engagement of some schools with the University's widening participation agenda; and the use made by some schools of statistics to inform their internal reviews of their provision; the creative ways in which some schools use the University's intranet, email arrangements and virtual learning environments to support teaching and learning; and the way in which some areas draw on student feedback to enhance the curriculum.

Recommendations for action The audit team advises the University to consider the advisability of: reviewing as a matter of priority whether its present use of levels in its assessment arrangements for undergraduates allows sufficient scope for its students to demonstrate progression in their attainments; ensure, as a matter of priority, the participation of fully independent external persons in the initial approval and internal periodic review of its educational provision; reviewing as a matter of priority and enhance, where necessary, its academic standards and quality management arrangements for distance and distributed learning, especially for those of its students whose learning is delivered by such means overseas; clarifying its requirements of schools with respect to the purpose and conduct of double-marking and/or moderation, and satisfying itself that, in all cases, double-marking and/or moderation are being carried out by its schools in line with its requirements; introducing marking systems that mask the identity of the candidate from markers and/or examiners, as suggested in the Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education (Code of practice) published by the Agency; introducing more robust arrangements for the annual review of provision; developing arrangements to ensure and confirm that commitments given on behalf of the University by schools to external examiners (or to the University itself) are met in a timely fashion; taking forward with alacrity its intention to review at University level, the data routinely collected by and from schools, with a view to ensuring that information can be reliably and consistently generated from it to inform its understanding and management of the academic well-being of its provision, and the security of its academic awards; putting in place systematic arrangements for receiving and considering sections of the Code of practice, (and any subsequent amendments to sections or precepts of the Code), and for confirming how sections of the University's own Code of Practice relate to the precepts of the Code and for making them known to staff.