Higher Education Review (Alternative Providers) of GSM London Ltd

Higher Education Review (Alternative Providers) of GSM London Ltd September 2017 Contents About this review... 1 Key findings... 2 Judgements... 2 Good practice... 2 Recommendations... 2 About the provider... 3 Explanation of findings... 4 1 Judgement: The maintenance of the academic standards of awards offered on behalf of degree-awarding bodies and/or other awarding organisations... 4 2 Judgement: The quality of student learning opportunities... 13 3 Judgement: The quality of the information about learning opportunities... 33 4 Judgement: The enhancement of student learning opportunities... 36 Glossary... 39

About this review This is a report of a Higher Education Review (Alternative Providers) conducted by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) at GSM London Ltd, trading as GSM London. The review took place from 12 to 14 September 2017 and was conducted by a team of four reviewers, as follows: Mrs Alison Jones Mr Ahmed Junaid Mr Alam Mahbubul Dr Mary Meldrum. The main purpose of the review was to investigate the higher education provision and to make judgements as to whether or not academic standards and quality meet UK expectations. These expectations are the statements in the UK Quality Code for Higher Education (the Quality Code) 1 setting out what all UK higher education providers expect of themselves and of each other, and what the general public can therefore expect of them. In Higher Education Review (Alternative Providers) the QAA review team: makes judgements on - the setting and maintenance of academic standards - the quality of student learning opportunities - the information provided about higher education provision - the enhancement of student learning opportunities makes recommendations identifies features of good practice affirms action that the provider is taking or plans to take. The QAA website gives more information about QAA 2 and explains the method for Higher Education Review (Alternative Providers). 3 For an explanation of terms see the glossary at the end of this report. 1 The UK Quality Code for Higher Education is published at: www.qaa.ac.uk/quality-code. 2 QAA website: www.qaa.ac.uk. 3 Higher Education Review (Alternative Providers): www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews-and-reports/how-we-review-higher-education. 1

Key findings Judgements The QAA review team formed the following judgements about the higher education provision. The maintenance of the academic standards of awards offered on behalf of degree-awarding bodies meets UK expectations. The quality of student learning opportunities meets UK expectations. The quality of the information about learning opportunities meets UK expectations. The enhancement of student learning opportunities is commended. Good practice The QAA review team identified the following features of good practice. The strategic approach to teaching based on the widespread use of active learning and the identification of students' strengths, which supports their personal and professional development. (Expectation B3 and B4). The active development of an academic community committed to forming approaches to teaching practice which engage and support student learning (Expectation B3). The strategically-planned and embedded approach to the enhancement of student learning opportunities (Enhancement). Recommendations The QAA review team makes the following recommendation. By January 2018: ensure that the process for making a complaint or an appeal about an admissions decision is accessible to candidates seeking admission to a programme (Expectation B2, B9 and Information). 2

About the provider GSM London (the College) is an independent provider of higher education, offering undergraduate and postgraduate programmes in business, law and economics. Its mission is to enrich students' life choices through education and scholarship, expressed through a commitment to addressing the needs and preferences of under-served widening participation populations. The College operates from campuses in Greenwich and at Greenford in West London, as well as a study centre at London Bridge. It offers 30 undergraduate and postgraduate programmes leading to degrees awarded by the University of Plymouth: a small number of programmes leading to degrees awarded by the University of Wales are currently being phased out and are not enrolling new students. Undergraduate students comprise 93 per cent of the student body of 6,407. There are 179 academic staff of whom 125 are on permanent contracts, the remainder being associate staff. Since the last review in 2012, the College has appointed a new team of senior staff who have led a number of major changes to its governance, organisational structure, academic portfolio and support services. This has led to a radical renewal of curricula and programmes, with a view to ensuring currency, vocational relevance and market attractiveness. Following validation by the University, the new undergraduate curricula were introduced in 2015; the College intends to introduce new postgraduate programmes in 2017-18. The College regards its key challenge as being student recruitment and retention. Steps to establish its place in a competitive environment include accelerated two-year undergraduate programmes and a pattern of three-semester delivery, as well as carrying out targeted interventions in the student life-cycle with a view to increasing progression and retention. The review of the College carried out in 2012 resulted in a total of 10 recommendations and one affirmation, and identified two features of good practice. The College has taken effective steps to address these recommendations and to build on the good practice. The most recent monitoring visit carried out in 2016 found that the College was making acceptable progress with continuing to monitor, evaluate and enhance its higher education provision. Prior to the review, QAA had carried out an inquiry into a Concern raised through QAA's Concerns Scheme. As a result of its inquiry, it accepted that an action plan which had been produced by the College was sufficient to address the anonymous allegations made in the Concern. During the review, the review team considered whether the College had made satisfactory progress towards completion of the action plan. The team's findings in this respect are included in Expectation B8 and in the Summary to Part B of this report. Following the review visit, a BBC Panorama programme alleged that an education agent was operating on GSM premises to recruit unqualified students and enable them to pass their course by arranging for the purchase of academic assignments. Following the programme, the College acted quickly to investigate, commissioning external investigations by Law firm Mishcon de Reya LLP, who worked with an expert in admissions to higher education, Janet Graham of Teal Green Consultancy Limited and Control Risks. These investigations concluded that no evidence was found of collusion, fraud or poor ethical practice in student recruitment on the part of the College. The College takes cheating, plagiarism and poor attendance seriously. While there is work to do to prevent deliberate fraud taking place in future, the College has broadly effective procedures in place to monitor attendance, and to detect cheating and plagiarism. The QAA review team's findings on the College's recruitment and admissions practices can be found in paragraphs 2.7-2.15. Findings on attendance monitoring are discussed in paragraphs 2.28 and 2.34. Findings on assessment practices are reported in paragraphs 1.25-1.32 and 2.46-2.55. 3

Explanation of findings This section explains the review findings in greater detail. 1 Judgement: The maintenance of the academic standards of awards offered on behalf of degree-awarding bodies and/or other awarding organisations Expectation (A1): In order to secure threshold academic standards, degree-awarding bodies: a) ensure that the requirements of The Framework for Higher Education Qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (FHEQ) are met by: positioning their qualifications at the appropriate level of the relevant framework for higher education qualifications ensuring that programme learning outcomes align with the relevant qualification descriptor in the relevant framework for higher education qualifications naming qualifications in accordance with the titling conventions specified in the frameworks for higher education qualifications awarding qualifications to mark the achievement of positively defined programme learning outcomes b) consider and take account of QAA's guidance on qualification characteristics c) where they award UK credit, assign credit values and design programmes that align with the specifications of the relevant national credit framework d) consider and take account of relevant Subject Benchmark Statements. Quality Code, Chapter A1: UK and European Reference Points for Academic Standards Findings 1.1 The College's awarding bodies are responsible for ensuring that their qualifications are aligned with the relevant national framework levels, qualifications descriptors and characteristics, Subject Benchmark Statements and for ensuring that they oversee the qualifications to ensure that awards mark the achievement of positively designed learning outcomes. The College is responsible for delivering programmes and for maintaining the standards set by its awarding body, the University of Plymouth. 1.2 The University of Plymouth is responsible for processes for approval of new programmes at all levels. The College's Programme Development Committee and Education Committee are responsible internally for programme approval and review before submission to the University. The regulations, policies and processes in place would allow the Expectation to be met. 1.3 The review team tested this Expectation by reviewing College and University of Plymouth documentation which included partnership agreements, validation documents, external examiners' reports, programme specifications and staff development plans. 4

The review team met academic and support staff, including a representative from the University of Plymouth, and students, in order to explore the College's awareness and engagement with the appropriate external reference points for setting and maintaining threshold academic standards. 1.4 Current agreements with the awarding bodies are in place. The College has carried out a major review of taught programmes through a Curriculum Renewal Project. Programme specifications approved by the awarding bodies follow the titling conventions of the FHEQ, reflect Subject Benchmark Statements, and detail positively defined learning outcomes for interim awards. External examiners' reports confirm that qualifications are awarded to meet positively defined learning outcomes. 1.5 Academic staff confirmed engagement with staff development activities and the support available to ensure understanding and compliance with the appropriate external reference points for setting and maintaining academic standards. 1.6 The arrangement with the University of Wales is being phased out with a planned end in 2020. The College Research Degrees Committee has oversight of the standard of the award for the College and membership includes the Research Moderator appointed by the University who produces an annual report confirming standards. 1.7 The College conforms to the regulations and additionally follows its own internal approval processes, thereby ensuring that its provision is aligned with the FHEQ. The Expectation is met and the level of risk is low. Expectation: Met Level of risk: Low 5

Expectation (A2.1): In order to secure their academic standards, degree-awarding bodies establish transparent and comprehensive academic frameworks and regulations to govern how they award academic credit and qualifications. Quality Code, Chapter A2: Degree-Awarding Bodies' Reference Points for Academic Standards Findings 1.8 The universities each provide comprehensive sets of frameworks and regulations to govern the award of their qualifications. The College has put in place a governance structure to oversee the award of academic credit and qualifications. The governance arrangements have two strands: corporate decision making is led by the College Executive Group (CEG) and academic decision making is led by Academic Board, both reporting to the Board of Directors. 1.9 The review team tested the Expectation through meetings with academic and support staff, including a representative from the University of Plymouth, and scrutinised programme, regulatory and process documentation. 1.10 A Joint Strategic Partnership Management Board meets twice per year to oversee the partnership with the University. The minutes of the College Education Committee show evidence of consideration of programme approvals and reviews. The minutes of the CEG show evidence of consideration of programme closure. 1.11 The review team saw evidence of the College's processes for internal verification of assessments and for consideration of external examiners' reports and noted that the College follows the awarding bodies' processes to confirm the standard of awards. 1.12 The College has developed and internally approved its own Consolidated Academic Policies and Regulations (CAPR) which sets out its approach to proposing and developing new programmes and to the consideration of related issues including setting appropriate threshold standards. The CAPR is awaiting formal approval from the University of Plymouth, scheduled for consideration later in 2017. 1.13 The College follows the awarding bodies' academic frameworks and regulations, and has suitable governance arrangements for oversight of its internal processes. The Expectation is met and the level of risk is low. Expectation: Met Level of risk: Low 6

Expectation (A2.2): Degree-awarding bodies maintain a definitive record of each programme and qualification that they approve (and of subsequent changes to it) which constitutes the reference point for delivery and assessment of the programme, its monitoring and review, and for the provision of records of study to students and alumni. Quality Code, Chapter A2: Degree-Awarding Bodies' Reference Points for Academic Standards Findings 1.14 The College makes use of the definitive record templates of its awarding bodies which set out the aims, learning outcomes and assessment requirements at programme and module level, and are mapped to the relevant reference points. The College's Quality Assurance Handbook describes the protocols and procedures for staff to propose changes to the programme and module information for approval by the University of Plymouth before publication. Information from the programme specifications feeds into the College's student record system to produce records of study and transcripts for students and alumni. 1.15 The Quality and Governance Office maintains the definitive module records and programme specifications within a central repository following approval by the University of Plymouth. Definitive records are accessible to all staff via the GSM Portal and students are able to access the information via the virtual learning environment (VLE), known as GSM Learn. Programme specifications are published on the College's external website to potential applicants and other external stakeholders. 1.16 The College's processes for the effective maintenance of its definitive records would allow the Expectation to be met. 1.17 The review team scrutinised a range of definitive module records and programme specifications, including development and approval documentation, and heard from academic and professional services staff about how the repository is managed, updated and used. 1.18 The evidence showed that the College is making appropriate use of its definitive module records and programme specifications that lead to a recognised qualification. Documents held within the College's central repository effectively support the programme approval and review processes operated at the College and by its awarding bodies. The College also makes effective use of the definitive records as the single source of information to provide accurate and consistent information to existing students and for promotional materials used to inform applicants about programme and modules. The Expectation is met and the level of risk is low. Expectation: Met Level of risk: Low 7

Expectation (A3.1): Degree-awarding bodies establish and consistently implement processes for the approval of taught programmes and research degrees that ensure that academic standards are set at a level which meets the UK threshold standard for the qualification and are in accordance with their own academic frameworks and regulations. Quality Code, Chapter A3: Securing Academic Standards and an Outcomes-Based Approach to Academic Awards Findings 1.19 The College's awarding bodies are responsible for the approval of taught and research programmes which are delivered at the College, with the College taking responsibility for the design and development of its taught provision. Academic standards are therefore set through the University of Plymouth's approval processes for module, programme and qualifications. 1.20 The Quality Assurance Handbook sets out the College's processes for the proposal and approval of curriculum developments, undertaken in collaboration with the University of Plymouth. The College's processes make reference to external sources, including the Quality Code, relevant Subject Benchmark Statements, the FHEQ and the requirements of its awarding bodies and other external organisations such as SEEC and professional bodies. The College's internal scrutiny process takes place through the Programme Development Committee and the Education Committee which gives final sign-off for proposals which are to go forward to the University of Plymouth for approval. 1.21 The arrangements for ensuring that academic standards are set at the level which meets UK threshold standards would allow the Expectation to be met. 1.22 The review team scrutinised a range of documentation governing programme design, development and approval including minutes of committees responsible for programme approval. The team also met members of academic staff who had participated in both the College and University of Plymouth's processes. 1.23 The review team heard that College staff play an active role in the setting and maintenance of standards through the operation of its internal governance framework and by participating in the University of Plymouth's approval processes. Staff confirmed that extensive staff development is provided on the Quality Code and on the use of learning outcomes to support curriculum development teams, through webinars and face-to-face sessions. Programme levels are specified at the initial proposal stage and throughout approval processes, along with learning outcomes at both programme and module level. External input is sought from employers to advise on curriculum development and external advisers are drawn from industry and higher education institutions to participate in the approval stages at the University of Plymouth. 1.24 The College has secure processes for the approval of programmes. The Expectation is met and the level of risk is low. Expectation: Met Level of risk: Low 8

Expectation (A3.2): Degree-awarding bodies ensure that credit and qualifications are awarded only where: the achievement of relevant learning outcomes (module learning outcomes in the case of credit and programme outcomes in the case of qualifications) has been demonstrated through assessment both UK threshold standards and their own academic standards have been satisfied. Quality Code, Chapter A3: Securing Academic Standards and an Outcomes-Based Approach to Academic Awards Findings 1.25 While the overall responsibility for ensuring the achievement of learning outcomes lies with the University of Plymouth, the College is responsible for the assessment of student learning and achievement against learning outcomes. The College produces its own programme specifications which include programme-level assessment strategies and assessment frameworks. The College is also responsible for developing assessments, for marking and for moderating student achievement against the learning outcomes. 1.26 The College produces its own assessment and feedback guidance document which articulates the assessment tariff, the level of study, the type of assessment and the credit value. Generic and specific marking criteria are articulated with the assessment briefs. 1.27 External examiners approve the assessment briefs and also comment on the pattern of student achievement for individual modules as well as making recommendations to the Subject Assessment Panels and Award Assessment Boards. External examiners' reports comment upon assessment in relation to the Standards, Subject Benchmark Statements and the FHEQ. They also comment upon robustness of assessment processes. 1.28 These arrangements, if securely implemented, would allow the Expectation to be met. 1.29 The review team examined assessment-related documentation including programme specifications, the College's assessment and feedback guidance, internal approval and scrutiny process, and external examiners' summary reports. The team also discussed assessment arrangements with staff and students. 1.30 The evidence demonstrates that College's assessment arrangements are effective. The CAPR includes details of assessment arrangements. Assessment principles, structure and generic grade criteria are articulated in assessment feedback and guidance document. Generic and specific marking criteria are published for each assessment through assessment briefs. 1.31 Through the internal approval processes the College's course development teams map assessment criteria to module learning outcomes, which are then further mapped against the programme level outcomes and credit. Programme specifications articulate the credit values of each qualification and credit value of modules. These are closely aligned with learning outcomes of each module. Assessment requirements are articulated within the programmes specifications. 1.32 The College manages its responsibility towards the award of credit effectively. The achievement of learning outcomes is demonstrated through its assessment practices. The Expectation is met and level of risk is low. Expectation: Met Level of risk: Low 9

Expectation (A3.3): Degree-awarding bodies ensure that processes for the monitoring and review of programmes are implemented which explicitly address whether the UK threshold academic standards are achieved and whether the academic standards required by the individual degree-awarding body are being maintained. Quality Code, Chapter A3: Securing Academic Standards and an Outcomes-Based Approach to Academic Awards Findings 1.33 The College follows the requirements of its awarding bodies in respect of the monitoring and review of its programmes. The overall responsibility lies with the awarding bodies, who undertake the periodic review of programmes according to their own procedures. The College has its own internal programme monitoring and review procedures which address whether the UK threshold academic standards are achieved and maintained. These procedures are outlined in the College's Quality Assurance handbook and would allow the Expectation to be met. 1.34 The review team examined the documentation relating to programme monitoring and review, including the CAPR, the quality handbook, met with staff and examined the programme monitoring reports. 1.35 Programme monitoring and review reports are submitted to the head of department for approval and are considered at the faculty board. Programme monitoring reports include module action plans and cover all the necessary elements to measure the health of courses in relation to the standards of the University of Plymouth. The module report template is completed by module leader and in order to consider a module in more detail. 1.36 Programme committees work with a programme level action plan which ensures the oversight of maintenance and achievement of academic standards at programme level. Programme committees, which include student membership, consider all the modules within each programme for the purposes of monitoring and review. Faculty boards receive departmental annual reports and action plans to oversee maintenance of standards and continuous review of programmes at faculty level. 1.37 The College has secure arrangements for maintaining academic standards through programme monitoring and review. The Expectation is met and the level of risk is low. Expectation: Met Level of risk: Low 10

Expectation (A3.4): In order to be transparent and publicly accountable, degree-awarding bodies use external and independent expertise at key stages of setting and maintaining academic standards to advise on whether: UK threshold academic standards are set, delivered and achieved the academic standards of the degree-awarding body are appropriately set and maintained. Quality Code, Chapter A3: Securing Academic Standards and an Outcomes-Based Approach to Academic Awards Findings 1.38 The College follows the awarding bodies' regulations for the design and approval of modules, programmes and qualifications and for external examining of students' work. 1.39 The awarding bodies provide external reference points for quality and standards through annual and periodic monitoring, review and subsequent action plans. 1.40 For taught undergraduate and postgraduate programmes the College selects external examiners who are subject to approval by the Academic Board and subsequently by the University of Plymouth. For the University of Wales doctoral programme, an external moderator carries out an annual review visit on behalf of the University of Plymouth. 1.41 The team examined process documents, external examiner reports, and minutes of meetings, and met with academic staff, support staff, and students. 1.42 Extensive external and independent expertise is used in programme development and approval, both academic and industry, using local employers, alumni and professional body input. Development of new modules involves consultation with professional bodies and industry professionals, for instance a meeting with oil and gas professionals to determine industry skill needs. There was evidence of widespread staff engagement during curriculum development with subject peers at the University of Plymouth, for example the replacement for the Computer Science degree was designed with support for the University's Faculty of Art and Design. The review process drew on a similar widespread curriculum review project at the University. 1.43 Reports from external examiners and moderators of both awarding bodies confirm that UK threshold standards are set, delivered and achieved. 1.44 The College makes extensive use of external reference points including independent academic and industry expertise. The Expectation is met and the level of risk is low. Expectation: Met Level of risk: Low 11

The maintenance of the academic standards of awards offered on behalf of degree-awarding bodies and/or other awarding organisations: Summary of findings 1.45 In reaching its judgement, the review team matched its findings against the criteria specified in Annex 2 of the published handbook. All Expectations in this judgement area are met with a low level of risk. 1.46 There are no features of good practice, recommendations or affirmations in this judgement area. 1.47 The College has secure frameworks to ensure that standards are maintained at appropriate levels and that the definitive record of each programme is used to govern the award of academic credit and qualifications. 1.48 The review team concludes that the maintenance of the academic standards of awards offered on behalf of degree-awarding bodies at the provider meets UK expectations. 12

2 Judgement: The quality of student learning opportunities Expectation (B1): Higher education providers, in discharging their responsibilities for setting and maintaining academic standards and assuring and enhancing the quality of learning opportunities, operate effective processes for the design, development and approval of programmes. Quality Code, Chapter B1: Programme Design, Development and Approval Findings 2.1 Academic Board has oversight of the College's processes for the design, development and approval of programmes. It receives proposals and progress updates regarding the outcomes of programme approvals, together with minutes from the Education Committee and Programme Development Committee which consider the effectiveness and consistency of programme design and approval processes. The Joint Board of Studies, covering provision leading to taught degrees, involves staff of both the University and the College, and receives an overview of proposed new programmes and changes to existing programmes for information. The CEG considers any resource implications and marketing issues relating to new curriculum developments. 2.2 The Quality Assurance Handbook sets out the College's three-stage approach to new curriculum developments which is aligned to the programme approval processes of the University of Plymouth. The College's Programme Development Committee (PDC) considers outline proposals and the business case before submission for approval by the University of Plymouth. New curriculum developments are undertaken in line with the University of Plymouth's requirements and approval documentation is considered by the College's PDC and Education Committee before submission to the University of Plymouth for final approval. 2.3 In February 2013, the College began a three-stage programme of academic renewal, supported by the University of Plymouth, that was in line with the strategic targets set within the College's Education Strategy that inform programme development. The resulting curriculum review comprised all undergraduate and taught postgraduate provision to ensure currency, relevancy and market attractiveness to both students and employers, and to reflect the College's vocational ethos. It encompassed programme structures with modules based on a 15 or 30 credits, approval of new award titles, modifications to existing programmes and the embedding of academic, professional and employability skills within the curriculum. The review also allowed the College to introduce work placements, enterprise projects and electives in order to widen student choice. Recruitment to the revised foundation programmes took place in October 2015 and the undergraduate programmes commenced in February 2016. 2.4 The College's processes for the effective operation of the design, development and approval of programmes would allow the Expectation to be met. 2.5 The review team scrutinised a range of programme development and approval documentation and heard from academic and professional services staff about how the development and launch of the review curriculum had been supported by a cross-college project team with student input at all stages via a shadow cabinet. This enabled the College to take a reflective and considered approach to the impact of the implementation process across areas such as marketing, resourcing, systems issues, and to inform the future development of the College's curriculum development process. Following the curriculum review, the PDC has been re-established, comprising two student representatives, to consider initial proposals and report to Education Committee. College staff confirmed their 13

involvement at all development and approval stages, including at mock College approval events, prior to consideration by the University of Plymouth. 2.6 The College has effective processes for the design, development and approval of programmes. The Expectation is met and the level of risk is low. Expectation: Met Level of risk: Low 14

Expectation (B2): Recruitment, selection and admission policies and procedures adhere to the principles of fair admission. They are transparent, reliable, valid, inclusive and underpinned by appropriate organisational structures and processes. They support higher education providers in the selection of students who are able to complete their programme. Quality Code, Chapter B2: Recruitment, Selection and Admission to Higher Education Findings 2.7 The College is committed to ensuring that the recruitment, selection and admission processes and procedures are clearly defined and informed to the applicants. The College has embedded its strategic mission of inclusivity and social justice within the policy. The College considered the needs of prospective students, their ability to complete a programme and the coherence of the academic community within the admission processes. 2.8 The College has developed its processes and procedures using the higher education sector's best practices derived from, for instance Supporting Professionalism in Admissions, the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service, the UK Council for International Student Affairs, and the Competition and Markets Authority. The College provides sector standard and compliance training for its admission staff. The admissions process for non-standard applicants is designed to ensure rigour by inviting applicants to provide work references or to attend an academic interview. The College makes use of agents to identify and recruit potential students based on a standard template-based contract which defines their responsibilities. 2.9 Course Advisers ensure that potential students are aware of the various stages, components and timeline of the admissions process. The College has developed a mystery shopper survey intended to monitor whether applicants have received the information sufficient to help them make an informed decision. 2.10 The policies and processes of recruitment, selection and admission at the College would allow the Expectation to be met. 2.11 The review team tested the effectiveness of the arrangements available to meet this Expectation by reviewing the admissions policy and procedures, mystery shopper results, new joiner survey, the College's prospectus and training for admission staff and course advisors. The review team met two student groups and College's senior, academic and professional support staff to discuss recruitment, selection and admission practices. 2.12 The College's admission policy outlines its approach to admissions and provides a framework for the staff. The admission policy is reviewed and agreed by the University of Plymouth to ensure accuracy, transparency and relevance. The College reviews its policies and processes annually to ensure that the College has a fair admission process and admitting qualified students: the 2017 Admissions Review contains a summary of plans for future development of admissions processes. 2.13 Successful applicants receive offer letters explaining their next steps, detailing any outstanding academic or non-academic conditions and informing them of the induction arrangements. Students expressed positive opinions about their experience with the recruitment, selection and admission process. 2.14 In the case of an unsuccessful application for admission, the College sends a letter explaining the decision including information about how the candidate can receive detailed feedback. The letter also includes a reference to the process for an appeal or a complaint 15

about the decision. Although this information is available on the College's website the link included in the standard letter does not enable rejected applicants to find information about the process. The review team recommends that the College ensures that the process for making a complaint or an appeal about an admission decision is accessible to candidates seeking admission to a programme. 2.15 The College has effective policies for the recruitment, selection and admission of students, including for appeals and complaints relating to admission. The Expectation is met and the level of risk is low. Expectation: Met Level of risk: Low 16

Expectation (B3): Higher education providers, working with their staff, students and other stakeholders, articulate and systematically review and enhance the provision of learning opportunities and teaching practices, so that every student is enabled to develop as an independent learner, study their chosen subject(s) in depth and enhance their capacity for analytical, critical and creative thinking. Quality Code, Chapter B3: Learning and Teaching Findings 2.16 The College has an Education Strategy, overseen by the Education Committee, which articulates its ethos of placing the enhancement of teaching and learning at its centre of its mission. Academic Board enacts recommendations from the Education Committee and provides the mechanism for decision making, monitoring and oversight of development of learning and teaching at GSM. 2.17 The College has a clear strategic approach to the development and review of learning and teaching practices articulated through the College Enhancement Plan 'Enrich our student outcomes' strand and the linked Education Strategy. The Education Strategy is reviewed annually by the Education Committee. It is informed by and links to College and University policies: GSM Graduate Attributes; GSM Assessment and Feedback Guidance; PU Assessment Policy 2014-2020; GSM Research Informed Teaching Policy; GSM Active Learning Plan; GSM Overview and Principles of Strengths based teaching; GSM Peer Observation Policy; and the PU Inclusivity Overview Guide; 2.18 The College's Educational Development Unit provides professional development opportunities, supports implementation of the Education Strategy and oversees interventions that support student success. 2.19 These measures would allow the Expectation to be met. 2.20 The team met senior staff, teaching staff and students and scrutinised documentation including student feedback, minutes of meetings, strategy, policy and process documents. 2.21 The College undertakes discussion of its teaching and learning strategy and monitoring of its implementation through the Academic Development Plan 2016-2018 and the Teaching and Learning Action Plan and in the Academic Board, the Education Committee and the Strategic Partnerships Management Board. 2.22 The College's curriculum renewal project, using external industry advice and academic support, has resulted in the implementation of a refreshed suite of undergraduate programmes and is currently in progress for taught postgraduate programmes. Consistent with the College's education strategy, the new curriculum has been supported by enhancement projects to implement new approaches to teaching and learning such as active learning, strengths-based skills development and the introduction of personal tutoring. 2.23 The active learning project, supported by the appointment of an Academic Leader, is being successfully used to create a new approach to teaching and learning. A Collegewide approach, based on identification of strengths, has involved training staff and students to recognise their own strengths and development needs. Students and staff told the team about the integration of strengths into personal development activities and provided multiple examples of the benefits of this approach including building it into the Employability Unit and on its benefit in confidence building, for example in the Project Implementation Unit. The strategic approach to teaching based on the widespread use of active learning and the 17

identification of students' strengths, which supports their personal and professional development, is good practice. 2.24 The College offers support for the professional development of teaching staff in a variety of ways through the Educational Development Unit. Seventy-eight staff have engaged in the College's Postgraduate Certificate in Higher Educational Practice since 2015, with 63 per cent of staff now holding a teaching qualification or currently engaged in a qualification course. All staff new to teaching undertake a short course on 'Introduction to Teaching at GSM'. The College is a member of the Higher Education Academy (HEA) and has supported staff to become members and to participate in HEA events. A peer observation scheme is in operation, evaluated by the Education Committee. Academic staff spoke positively about its benefits to them both of observing and of being observed. The College's policy for research-informed teaching underpins the education strategy and is built into the curriculum at all levels. Its implementation can be seen in the curriculum through the design of academic skills and research units drawn on by other units, and the references to cognitive and intellectual skills in generic marking criteria indicating an expectation of the use of research skills and knowledge. The active development of an academic community committed to forming approaches to teaching practice which engage and support student learning is good practice. 2.25 The College Enhancement Plan includes measures intended to support the enhancement of the student learning environment. Recent developments include redevelopment of the library to create group work and quiet study areas Students also told the team that they had access to a good range of e-books and also to e-learning packages to support skills development. Classrooms had been reconfigured to support active learning. 2.26 The College takes a strategic and effective approach to developing teaching and learning. The Expectation is met and the level of risk is low. Expectation: Met Level of risk: Low 18

Expectation (B4): Higher education providers have in place, monitor and evaluate arrangements and resources which enable students to develop their academic, personal and professional potential. Quality Code, Chapter B4: Enabling Student Development and Achievement Findings 2.27 The College Enhancement Plan includes among its three themes one relating to the enrichment of student outcomes, identifying targets and key metrics. In support of these targets, functional areas of the College have 100-day plans to implement the Enhancement Plan. The Pro-Provost for Student Experience and External Engagement oversees strategic development of services and targeted interventions to support student success facilitated by analysis of student data. The College Leadership Team monitors the key metrics at its weekly meeting. 2.28 The Student Transition, Attainment and Retention Team (START) encourages cross-college planning implementation and evaluation of projects and interventions using analysis of student data to inform and monitor initiatives. For instance participants in the level 3 Flying Start programme have demonstrated higher levels of attendance when they move on to level 4. The Curriculum Improvement Project is informed by this data and has a focus on careers and employability, using a student journey approach that integrates academic and pastoral support. The Continuous Improvement Group plans and monitors progress on the project. 2.29 These arrangements would allow the Expectation to be met. 2.30 The review team considered this Expectation by meeting staff and students and examining documentation including statistical reports, committee minutes and planning and monitoring reports. 2.31 Students spoke highly of the academic support available from staff. The Strengths Training Plan has been used to help students develop their individual skills and is underpinned by the personal tutor system and by skills modules in the new curriculum. Progression clinics to review assessment outcomes are held for all students. These arrangements for promoting students' academic development support the good practice relating to the College's strategic approach to teaching identified in Expectation B3. 2.32 Students reported that the College had a strong emphasis on employability across the curriculum. College initiatives include the Horizon Award; Futures Week; and the Formation Zone, which supports the development of students' capacity and skills for self-employment. 2.33 As part of the focus on retention and progression the Flying Start programme, piloted as optional in the pre-entry stage and aimed at level 3 students, has proved effective in setting expectations and improving performance on the undergraduate programmes. The College participates in the HEA London Student Retention project and has used learning from the project to inform developments in the College. 2.34 The College demonstrated effective use of data to monitor student progress. An attendance dashboard is available to all academic staff which can be drilled down to tutorial level. A student retention project overseen by the START team has used data on students to identify student risk profiles and to develop measures to support students as individuals based on their risk profile. The College has plans to implement a new student record system which will further enhance the data available on student progress. 19

2.35 The College participates in the National Student Survey (NSS) which it uses to benchmark itself against other institutions. It also uses external research in the sector to inform decisions. The College management team uses outcomes from external monitoring such as the NSS and the Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education (DLHE) survey to identify actions, for instance a major investment in support for employability. Student feedback, including NSS outcomes, informs the annual monitoring process and is used to identify developments in the College. Changes made as a result of analysis of students' views include staff development on assessment feedback, and changes to modules in Travel and Tourism. The student hub has a well-being team, that includes advisers for disability and mental health, and which monitors student concerns and queries: this has led to changes in student support, for example a revised induction programme focusing on common student queries. Students spoke highly of the formal and informal support available to them. 2.36 The College provides a variety of proactively-targeted support services for students. The Expectation is met and the level of risk is low. Expectation: Met Level of risk: Low 20

Expectation (B5): Higher education providers take deliberate steps to engage all students, individually and collectively, as partners in the assurance and enhancement of their educational experience. Quality Code, Chapter B5: Student Engagement Findings 2.37 The College adopts a variety of measures to enable and support the engagement of students in their educational experience. It has launched a student representation scheme with structured training and development opportunities for representatives, and has reviewed its governance structure to embed the student voice in decision making, through student membership of the College's committees including the Continuous Improvement Group, the Academic Board, Programme Committees, the Research Committee and the Education Committee. 2.38 The College has both formal and informal mechanisms to engage students in its quality assurance processes. The College's Student Charter, containing expectations of student engagement and participation, is designed to build a partnership between staff and students. The College also engages students in internal quality assurance processes such as the curriculum approval process. 2.39 The College engages students in strategic decision making, for instance through student representation on the College Improvement Group which is responsible for development of new policies and regulations. The group reports to the Academic Board which also has student representation. 2.40 The written student submission, prepared by the student body to inform this review, contained a number of recommendations to the College, to which the College has not yet responded. 2.41 The processes and mechanisms of student engagement in quality assurance at the College would allow the Expectation to be met. 2.42 The review team examined the arrangements the College provided to engage its students in the quality assurance process and enhance their educational experience by considering the representative structure, student surveys and feedback, working relationship with the Students' Union and strategic and academic committee and subcommittee memberships. The team met student and staff groups to discuss the role of student engagement in quality assurance. 2.43 The College has structures in place to engage students on different levels. The recent appointment of a sabbatical officer to the Students' Union is intended to strengthen student engagement in quality assurance processes. The College provides training and support to student representatives which enable them to have greater input to the College's quality assurance and enhancement: for example, student representatives have contributed to curriculum approval, and represent the student voice in committee meetings. 2.44 The College has responded to feedback from students to improve the learning experience, for instance by extending library opening hours, enabling the provision of specialised software for research students, increasing the number and duration of books loaned from the library, and the strengthening of physical security at the College's premises. 2.45 The College has structures, mechanisms and measures of success to ensure effective student engagement on different levels. It provides multiple and varied 21

opportunities for students at all levels to engage in the quality assurance of their academic experience. The Expectation is met and the level of risk is low. Expectation: Met Level of risk: Low 22