Skip navigation

Developing a progress file for higher education CVCP, SCoP & QAA Joint consultation paper - September 1999

Introduction

1.1 Purpose

This paper has been prepared jointly by the policy units of the higher education representative bodies (the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals (CVCP) and the Standing Conference of Principals -SCoP) and the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA). It sets out the policy options for an HE Progress File based on recommendation 20 of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education - the Dearing Report:

'We recommend that institutions of higher education, over the medium term, develop a Progress File. The File should consist of two elements:

  • a transcript recording student achievement which should follow a common format devised by institutions collectively through their representative bodies;
  • a means by which students can monitor, build and reflect upon their personal development [this process is termed Personal Development Planning in this paper].

The ideas in this paper have been developed and tested through public debate. Discussion has involved academics, administrators, employer and student focus groups, practitioners who have been involved in the recording achievement movement and other interest groups The process of developing and testing ideas is described in a Discussion Paper that can be found on-line at http://www.qaa.ac.uk/public.htm.

The questions posed in appendix 1 are designed to help higher education's representative bodies and the QAA create workable and sustainable policy. Responses should be returned to CVCP no later than 21st December 1999.


1.2 Reasons for developing an HE Progress File

The progress file is an important element of the new public policy framework being created to help make the outcomes of learning in higher education more explicit. In doing so, it is argued, the quality of learning will be improved (because students are clearer about what is expected of them and what they, in turn, might expect), and the basis for academic standards will be clearer.

Public policy for higher education must be seen in the context of related policies and practices that extend across the whole of the education system aimed at supporting the idea that learning is a lifelong activity. There are two strands to policy. The first is the formal record of learning and achievement. The transcript will be an important component of this record for those people who gain credit or awards in higher education. The second strand is concerned with developing the capacity of individuals to reflect upon their own learning and achievement and to plan for their own personal, educational and career development. This will be a core learning process throughout the education system and in many work-based and professional development contexts (see also Discussion Paper on-line at http://www.qaa.ac.uk/public.htm).


1.3 What is a Progress File?

While the term Progress File suggests that it is a document charting the progress of an individual, the concept (based on recommendation 20) contains within it the ideas of:

  • summary record of learning and achievement provided by the institution (the term Transcript is used to describe this record);
  • an individual's own on-going record of learning, achievements progress reviews and plans, used to clarify personal goals and provide a resource from which material is selected to produce concise personal statements (eg CVs and application forms) required by employers and admissions tutors; (the term Personal Development Records is proposed to describe these).

Implicit in these core features of the Progress File is:

  • a range of recording processes in order to create and maintain these records;
  • structured processes to develop the capacity of individuals to reflect upon their own learning and achievement and to plan for their own educational, academic and career development (the term Personal Development Planning - PDP will be used to denote this process);
  • guidance materials and support structures to enable and encourage the learner to participate and benefit from this active learning process.

The different elements of the Progress File are shown schematically in Figure 1. Section 2 of this Consultation Paper focuses on the transcript and section 3 considers the other aspects of the Progress File.

 

Transcripts

2.1 Definition

The transcript is the public record of learning and academic achievement in higher education. It provides the evidence that a learner has met the requirements for the specified HE award and information on learning and achievement in the chosen programme of study. The validity and authenticity of the information it contains is the responsibility of the awarding institution.


2.2 Policy objectives

The objective for policy on transcripts is to improve the quality and consistency of information on learning and achievement in higher education and promote good practice in the provision of such information.


3. Principle

Awarding institutions might reasonably be expected to provide each student with a transcript showing what they have studied and achieved on completion of their programme or at any point they interrupt their programme.

Notes:

  1. The expectation will be that the transcript will meet the specification that is agreed by the sector.
  2. Institutions may require individuals to meet certain obligations like financial commitments to courses or accommodation before releasing the transcript.
  3. Institutions may require students to meet the administrative costs of producing an institutionally endorsed transcript above and beyond the basic obligation.


2.4 Concept

The transcript can be configured in a number of ways eg:

  1. Award transcript - a record of learning and achievement that reflects the requirements for a specific HE award (this might be identical to or different from the programme transcript - B).
  2. Programme transcript (record of learning and achievement) - a record of learning and achievement that includes information that is additional to any formal requirements for an award. Such a transcript might include information on a work placement or a period of study abroad that might be an optional part of a programme/award. It could also include information on elective study units that were not a formal requirement for an award.
  3. Programme transcript (record of learning, achievement and failure) - a total record of learning, achievement and failure that includes information that is additional to any formal requirements for an award.
  4. Higher education will need to decide which configuration a transcript should be based on.


2.5 Improving the quality and consistency of information

The transcript represents an important source of public information on the learning and academic performance of individuals but there is currently considerable variation in the content and format of transcripts between HE institutions. Given the importance of this public record the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education reasoned that it is in the interests of the individual learner and society as a whole to work towards a more consistent set of information about what people have learnt and achieved.

Creating a specification for a national HE transcript will need to balance the desire to provide comprehensive, consistent, accurate and reliable information on achievement with the technical and administrative constraints of providing such information in a flexible, credit-based mass system of HE.


2.6 Use of transcripts

In working towards a specification for a national HE transcript it is important to recognise that it serves a number of different purposes and audiences.


Table 1
The main purposes of the information contained in the transcript and the main users of such information

 

Main purposes of the transcript

Users of the information

to monitor achievement while studying in higher education

students and their advisors

to confirm academic achievement to potential employers

students and employers

to confirm past achievements to employers providing work placements

students and employers

to confirm past achievement to financial sponsors

financial sponsors often employers

to confirm whether students (current or past) may apply for, or study for, professional qualifications

students and professional bodies

to confirm whether students are suitable applicants for further (typically postgraduate) study

students and admissions tutors

to confirm to another institution that students are suitably qualified to transfer to another programme

students and course tutors

to record the achievement of those students who interrupt or do not complete their studies

Students

to summarise the achievements of exchange/year abroad students to receiving universities

students and overseas admissions tutors

to provide evidence of achievement of year abroad/and other students to international employers

students and overseas employers


The 'research' undertaken to inform this consultation paper suggests that the main users of the transcript are students (eg in monitoring progress and providing evidence of their learning and achievement to others) and the HE community itself. There is considerable variation in the use of transcript information by employers. Their information needs vary according to whether they are appointing someone to a specific technical position (in which case transcript information is useful) or whether they are recruiting for more general positions. In the case of the latter, their information concerns are defined in their own graduate application forms and relate to the more general qualities, skills and attitudes that they believe are important for the prosperity of their business. Such information is not normally found in a transcript. Given the multiplicity of users it is unlikely that a single document would ever satisfy the information needs of each user group and a longer term objective for HEIs might be to develop transcripts that satisfy the particular needs of each of the main user groups. The generation of transcripts from a computer database could provide transcripts that are tailored to the needs of different audiences.


2.7 Towards a national HE transcript

Three policy options are identified:

  1. a transcript with a standard information content and format, ie all transcripts will look the same;
  2. a two-part transcript: part 1 with a standard content and format, part 2 with additional information determined by the institution or, where relevant, a professional body;
  3. a specification for a minimum information content that permits institutions to present the information in the form that they consider to be most appropriate and include additional information if they wish to do so.


2.8 Core information

There are a number of factors that should to be considered in the development of a national transcript.

Firstly, information in the transcript will need to reflect any conventions that are agreed with respect to a national qualifications framework. For example, protocols for the titles of awards, the level at which an award is made and the number of credits for an award. Another consultation exercise, on the form of the HE part of the National Qualifications Framework, will be undertaken by the QAA in parallel with this exercise.

Secondly, a transcript will need to be based on the building blocks of learning (study units and modules). Recognition of learning and achievement at the unit / module level is normally through academic credit. A credit-based transcript would reflect the content of a programme eg the subject studied. It would also support a culture of lifelong learning in which learning is not necessarily undertaken as part of a whole programme or an award. A credit-based transcript would also accommodate HE awards for work-based learning (Figure 3). Such awards normally include a significant element of accreditation of experiential learning (prior or current) which must be recognised through credit.

Considerable work has already been undertaken by the regional credit consortia of England, Wales and Northern Ireland (Inter-Consortium Credit Agreement - InCCA) to define and secure agreement on the information content for a credit based transcript (the InCCA specification is shown in (Table 2).

A small number of institutions (probably of the order of 5% of HEIs) do not base their courses on credit-bearing units or modules. Such institutions would not be able to comply with a national specification that contains information on credit. They could however specify the component units of a programme in the same way as the institutions that use credit.

A third factor that should be considered in the development of a national transcript is the international currency of the information it contains (a matter that was highlighted by students in the development work). Developing an international transcript to support student and worker mobility has been the objective of a Joint Working Group of the European Commission UNESCO/CEPES Council of Europe. The product of this initiative - the Diploma Supplement - aims 'to provide clear descriptions of the studies pursued by the holders of a qualification, together with information on its nature, level and applications'. It is designed to:

  • improve the national and international transparency of qualifications;
  • increase the information available on foreign qualifications in order to facilitate their 'fair recognition';
  • contribute to the further development of good practice in credential evaluation;
  • aid the mobility of citizens and the process of international academic and professional recognition.

The transcript was piloted in 60 European universities during 1997/98. A summary of the information content of the Diploma Supplement is shown in Table 2 alongside the InCCA specification for a credit transcript. Because the Diploma Supplement contains information on programmes, the information content of the QAA Programme Specification is also shown.

Finally, some professional and statutory bodies are concerned about professional competencies. In these areas it will be important for the core specification to be supplemented with information on the achievement of competencies developed through the practice elements of HE courses.

 

Table 2

Comparison of the information contents of the QAA Programme Specification, the InCCA specification for a credit transcript and the European Diploma Supplement

 

Programme Specification InCCA Transcript Diploma Supplement
     
Student Student Student
  Student name Family name(s)
    Given name(s)
  DOB DOB
  Student reference number Student Identification number
     
Qualification Qualification Qualification
Final award Programme title Qualification(s) and/or award gained Name of qualification
Awarding institution/body   Name and type of awarding institution
Teaching institution   Name and type of institution
Programme title Name of programme of study  
UCAS code    
QAA Benchmarking Group    
    Language(s) of instruction/examination
    Level of qualification
    Access qualification
  Specific credit by assessment of prior learning  
     
Programme Programme Programme
Educational aims of the programme    
Intended Learning Outcomes    
a Knowledge and Understanding    
b Intellectual Skills    
c Subject practical skills & competencies    
d Transferable/key skills    
Teaching, Learning and Assessment Methods    
Programme structures, requirements, modes of study, levels, modules & credits Awards, credits & progression of learning outcomes   Main fields of study for the qualification Mode of study Normal length of programme Programme requirements
     
Individual record Individual record Individual record
  Academic year  
  Module/unit code Components courses, modules or units studied
  Module/unit title  
  Credits awarded  
  Mark/grade Individual grades obtained
  Total credits awarded by APL  
    Grading scheme and grade translation guidance
  Classification/grading (if any) Overall classification of the award
  Title Title conferred by the qualification
    Access to further study
    Professional status conferred
    Additional information
    Further information sources
     
Authentication Authentication Authentication
  Date of award  
  Date of issue Date
  Transcript serial number  
  Signature of registrar Signature
    Capacity
  Stamp/seal of awarding body Official stamp or seal
     
Information for non-UK users Information for non-UK users Information for non-UK users
    General overview of the educational system
    Description of the national higher education awards structure


2.9. Developing a specification for an HE transcript

In order to identify the core information content for a national transcript, institutions are invited to comment on the relevance of each of the items listed in Table 3. The list was derived by combining elements of the specifications for the InCCA transcript and the Diploma Supplement.

 

Table 3

Possible data set for a national transcript. The data set contains all the information in the InCCA specification for a credit transcript and most of the information contained in the Diploma Supplement (excludes programme information which can be gained through the Programme Specification)

Student information

  • Name
  • Date of Birth
  • Student reference number (institutional)
  • Student reference number (HESA number)
Qualification and programme
  • Name of qualification
  • Level of qualification (eventually referenced to a National Qualification Framework)
  • Name of awarding institution
  • Name of institution responsible for delivery of programme
  • Name of programme of study
  • Language(s) of instruction and assessment (important for international students and employment mobility)
  • Accreditation by professional or statutory body (if relevant )
Record of Learning and Achievement
  • Module or study unit code
  • Module or study unit title
  • Level of study (ultimately referenced to the national qualification framework)
  • Overall mark or grade awarded for each module or study unit
  • Credits awarded for each module or study unit
  • Indication of where credit is awarded even though a unit has not been passed
  • Date (year) in which credit awarded
  • Total credits awarded for prior or current experiential learning as part of award
  • Work placement/experience that is part of a programme (credit if awarded)
  • Overseas study that is part of a programme
  • Overall mark/grade/classification in the award
Authentication
  • Date of award
  • Date of transcript issue
  • Signature of appropriate institutional officer
  • Stamp/seal of awarding institution
Explanatory information
  • Guidance on how to read the transcript
  • Grading scheme
  • Overview of UK education system (standard attachment for non-UK users)
  • Overview of UK awards structure

Two examples to illustrate what a transcript that conforms to this specification might look like are provided. The first example (Figure 2) is produced for a typical degree programme which contains within it a period of study abroad. The transcript provides information on the learner's programme of study, her academic performance and makes reference to off-campus learning (this could also refer to a sandwich placement). It also shows how this learner has participated in the process of Personal Development Planning and produced Personal Learning Records by showing where she has participated in formal structured processes for which credit has been gained. Examples of skills-based transcripts (which extend the mainly content-based example transcript) can be found on-line at http://www.qaa.ac.uk/public.htm. The second example (Figure 3) is produced for a work-based learning programme. It demonstrates that any type of accredited learning can be accommodated within the information specification shown in Table 3.

Discussions with employers undertaken during the course of this development work indicate that their information needs are variable. They will not be interested in all the information contained in the example transcripts (eg module codes used for tracking the progress of learners). The generation of transcripts from a computer database would permit the customisation of transcripts for different audiences.

 

Personal development planning and personal development records

3.1 Introduction

A variety of terms are used in higher education to describe a process undertaken by individuals to gather evidence on, record and review their own learning and achievement, and identify ways in which they might improve themselves academically and more broadly eg Personal Profiling, Personal and Academic Records, Personal (Academic) Development Plans, Progress Files, Learning Portfolios, Learning Logs and Diaries. The term Personal Development Planning (PDP) is proposed to describe a structured process undertaken by an individual to reflect upon their own learning, performance and / or achievement and to plan for their personal, educational and career development.


3.2 Policy objectives

The primary objective for policy on Personal Development Planning is to improve the capacity of students to understand how they are learning in order that they might be more effective and independent learners. This will help them make informed decisions about the choices available to them within and outside higher education and help them achieve their full potential as learners and people.



3.3 Potential benefits of PDP

The NCIHE saw personal development planning as:

  • an aid to learning (knowing how/what/when to learn);
  • an aid to personal development (know/improve self);
  • a means of maintaining evidence of learning and capability of both a formal and informal nature which could be used to help students present themselves to employers.

A number of universities and colleges of higher education have introduced their own policies to support the process of PDP. The benefits they highlight include:

For students

  • improved capacity to plan their own academic programmes;
  • more effective monitoring and reviewing of own progress;
  • enhanced awareness of how they are learning and what different teaching and learning strategies are trying to achieve;
  • increased ability to recognise and discuss their own strengths and weaknesses;
  • improved ability to recognise opportunities for learning and personal development outside the curriculum;
  • better preparedness for seeking employment or self-employment;
  • improved ability to relate what they have learnt to the requirements of employers;
  • in relevant areas, better preparation for entering a profession where the idea of the reflective practitioner is central to practice.

For staff

  • * more independent / autonomous learners (enhanced capability to learn);
  • * when linked to personal tutor systems - better quality of experience for tutors and tutees;
  • and more effective use of tutorial time;
  • * when linked to off campus activities like work placements or study abroad, more effective use of the learning experience;
  • * a mechanism through which career-related skills and capabilities can be recorded;
  • * improved understanding of the development of individual students and the ability to provide more meaningful references.

For departments and institutions

  • * more effective monitoring of student progress;
  • * more effective academic support and guidance systems;
  • * the enhanced capacity to demonstrate the quality of support they are giving to students in
  • external review processes.

For teachers in schools and colleges

They will be able to show their own students that the investment they make to develop the skills and attitudes necessary to support PDP will be utilised in higher education.

Students see the benefit of improved self-awareness of the qualities, skills and capabilities that they are developing through higher education and other life experiences, and their improved ability to draw upon any records they have maintained to present themselves to employers. Professional and statutory bodies see PDP as an essential capability for the reflective practitioner and an important feature of continuing professional development (CPD). Employers see PDP as improving the capacity of individuals to explain and relate what they know and can do to their particular needs (for example in completing a graduate application form or interview ). Above all, the idea of PDP is central to a society that is committed to the idea that learning is a lifetime activity.


3.4 Principles

Policy on Personal Development Planning should be based on an entitlement for all learners throughout their HE experience. It should be underpinned by the rationale that knowing how, what and when to learn is an important life skill. Universities and colleges offering higher education would be responsible for providing opportunities for PDP and for determining the scope and nature of such opportunities. The responsibility for deriving benefit from such opportunities must ultimately rest with students, although institutions will be able to influence this through their requirements. Because this is public policy the QAA will have a responsibility for checking that institutions are implementing their own policies.


3.5 Implications

Some institutions already have considerable experience of PDP and have developed or are developing the appropriate infrastructure and expertise to support such activities. The HE system will benefit from such experience but there are other institutions where relatively little investment has been made in PDP. The system-wide introduction of policy on PDP will require modifications to the curriculum, student support and guidance systems, staff development, and institutional quality assurance procedures. Institutions and academic staff will need time and support to make the necessary adjustments. The implementation of policy should be based on a realistic time scale, eg perhaps over two or three years so that institutions can manage the process within available resources.


3.6 Policy Options

There are two main options for policy.

A - Standard framework within which Personal Development Planning is undertaken. In this model all institutions would use the same tool or framework to support PDP. Such a policy might be based on a common set of principles/expectations and planning/profiling tools contained in a Guidelines document or Code of Practice. HEIs would be expected to create opportunities for students to engage in the process of PDP in line with these minimum expectations. Institutional quality assurance and external review would check compliance.

Pros

  • a standard framework for PDP might be the simplest way of creating a minimum expectation of opportunity for all students in UK HE;
  • it is the simplest way of demonstrating publicly that policy is in place and for demonstrating continuity of policy between secondary and tertiary education;
  • it is likely to be the cheapest approach and the preferred option in those institutions with little existing practice;
  • a single portable tool to support PDP would facilitate a shared understanding within the sector and have the best chance of being accepted as a product by employers of graduates;
  • it would define a minimum experience for all students;
  • a common approach would facilitate system-wide monitoring and evaluation;
  • it would make it easier for employers to relate their own organisational frameworks for PDP to the HE framework.

Cons

  • such a policy will be perceived as an external imposition;
  • it might not secure a sense of ownership of policy or practice,
  • it could displace existing good practice;
  • it might not meet the needs of different educational purposes and be sufficiently flexible to take account of a range of future employment and continuing professional development requirements.

B Institutionally determined framework within which Personal Development Planning is undertaken. In this model institutions would determine the tools and frameworks to support PDP. This approach would also be underpinned by an agreed set of principles and quality standards contained in a Guidelines document or Code of Practice which would contain a generic framework(s) onto which different institutional approaches to PDP could be mapped. The framework could provide a curriculum design aid and an aid to quality assurance.

Pros

  • the approach would emphasise institutional responsibility;
  • it would value the investment already made by staff and HEIs in promoting PDP;
  • it would enable the system to build on good practice;
  • it would permit links to be made between previous and anticipated practice;
  • it would be more responsive to institutional, departmental and discipline needs;
  • it would and facilitate the development of 'tools' appropriate to contexts and purpose.

Cons

  • it might mean that students will be offered different levels of opportunity some of which might be considerably below the best available opportunities;
  • without effective systems for sharing and evaluating practice, it would result in expensive duplication of effort;
  • flexibility could make monitoring and evaluation difficult and enable some HEIs and staff to avoid discharging their responsibilities fully;
  • it would be more difficult for employers to relate their own organisational frameworks for PDP to the HE frameworks.

Option A or B could be supported by one or more web-based Personal Development Planning tools. In the case of option A such a tool could provide the basis for PDP (ie it would be a universal tool). In the case of option B a range of non-prescriptive web-based tools could be provided (ie institutions that have developed their own web-based tools could make these available through the world wide web and other institutions or individuals could choose to use it or not use it if it fitted in with their own strategy).

Pros

  • a standard web-based tool that can be accessed by anyone regardless of the opportunities provided by institutions would safeguard the principle of a minimum opportunity for all;
  • it would provide a framework against which employers could map their own frameworks for developing and appraising the potential of individuals;
  • a range of web-based tools would provide choice;
  • it would provide opportunities for sustaining PDP beyond the HE experience, ie it would support the practice of lifelong learning: a web-based framework would permit continued use anywhere in the world;
  • it would provide a resource for those institutions that have not already created their own IT-based frameworks for PDP.

Cons

  • web-based tools might be perceived as marginal and peripheral to the education process and the core concerns of academic staff;
  • because they are available institutions may feel less inclined to invest in and develop their own approaches;
  • it may be difficult to create a sense of institutional ownership for a web-based framework developed elsewhere: but note that some frameworks permit a high degree of customisation.

3.7 Systems for recording learning and achievement

Personal Development Planning will need to be supported by appropriate systems for recording learning and achievement. The adoption of a standard approach to PDP (options A) is likely to result in a more uniform approach to Personal Learning Records. The adoption of option B would result in diverse approaches reflecting different learning contexts and local institutional or departmental policies and practice. In the case of the latter, national policy would need to recognise diversity in recording systems and processes and promote good practice where it is identified.


3.8 Support and guidance systems

Similarly, Personal Development Planning will need to be underpinned by appropriate guidance systems to introduce students to the process and, where necessary, support them through it. There are a variety of ways of providing support and guidance (e.g. via expert IT systems and documents, personal tutors, academic tutors, specialist guidance and support staff and careers advisors. National policy will need to recognise diversity in approach and promote good practice where it is identified.


3.9 Guidelines or Code of Practice for a Progress File

Policy on Progress Files will need to be underpinned by national Guidelines or a Code of Practice if it is to be brought within the overall framework for the public assurance of quality and standards in HE managed by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. A pragmatic approach would be to develop, in the first instance, a Guidelines document that contains information on the agreed elements of policy and is based on current good practice. This could then form the basis for a Code of Practice when the full implications of policy were better understood. Some preliminary ideas on what a Guidelines document or Code of Practice might contain are given in Table 4.

 

Table 4

Preliminary ideas on the content of a Guidelines document or Code of Practice to support policy on Progress Files

Introduction (purpose)

What is a Progress File?

Reasons for developing an HE Progress File

Potential benefits

Transcripts

  • Policy objective
  • Definition and purpose
  • Relationship to Personal Development Planning and Records
  • Links to National Qualifications Framework
  • Public rights of access to information
  • Information content and explanations
  • Good practice in the management of transcripts
  • example transcripts

Personal Development Planning

  • Introduction
  • Policy objective
  • Educational rationale and potential benefits for students, staff departments, employers
  • Policy framework
  • Principles and responsibilities
  • Quality standards
    • opportunities for PDP
    • characteristics of PDP processes;
    • minimum outcomes from PDP
    • characteristics of effective practice (based on existing practice)
  • Information on PDP
    • making opportunities explicit (frameworks and mapping tools)
    • information for students
  • Quality Assurance
    • institutional review and evaluation of policy and practice
    • external review of institutional policy and practice
  • Sources of guidance and support for PDP
    • examples of good practice

Acknowledgements

The QAA, CVCP and SCoP policy units would like to thank the many colleagues in higher education who contributed ideas and materials to inform this paper. Particular thanks to Peter Rees-Jones and Frank Lyons, who provided the information on which the example transcripts are based, and Rob Ward and Angela Smallwood for their constructive suggestions that helped improve the document.

 

Summary

January 1999 Discussion paper prepared by QAA/CVCP/SCOP Officers

February Initial testing of ideas

  • CVCP/SCoP/QAA Invitation seminar for HE practitioners to test and develop ideas in discussion paper
  • Meeting with NUS officers
  • Informal feedback from AGR
  • Workshops at the Recording Achievement Consortium Conference held at CVCP
March-June Wider discussion
  • Revised discussion paper placed on www
  • NUS Student focus group organised by NUS (feedback report to QAA)
  • Employer focus groups organised by Association of Graduate Recruiters & Institute of Personnel and Development (feedback report to QAA)
  • Conferences in N Ireland (feedback notes to QAA)
  • National Conference of Student Records Officers and follow-up focus group organised by SROs
  • Discussion groups at the national PADSHE conference University of Nottingham (feedback notes to QAA)
  • Two conferences organised by UCAS and the Centre for Recording Achievement
  • Evaluation of policy implications by members of Centre for Recording Achievement (feedback report to QAA)
June-July Preparation of consultation document in the light of the public debate outlined above

September Circulation of Consultation Paper

TopTop