1 On Tuesday 23 January 2007, a meeting was held between representatives of the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA), led by Nick Harris, Director of Development and Enhancement, and representatives of the Higher Education Academy (the HEA), led by Howard Colley and Linda Challis, joint Director (Institutions), and David Sadler, Director (Networks). Two representatives of the HEA Subject Centres were also present.
2 The purpose of the day was to discuss QAA's and the HEA's conceptions of 'enhancement', in the interests of further cooperation and of clarity for the sector. It was not intended to establish definitive answers to the difficult and complex questions that surround enhancement, but to consider and establish a range of different responses to those questions. These discussions should be seen in the context of a continuing dialogue between QAA and the HEA.
3 The conference began with presentations from Howard Colley and Nick Harris. They outlined both organisations' activities in support of institutions' and academic departments' efforts at the enhancement of their provision. This was followed by a plenary discussion of the meaning of enhancement in higher education, the ways in which the HEA and QAA can cooperate to improve student learning while giving staff the freedom to develop their practice, and the ways in which institutions can be supported in recording and communicating effective enhancement practice.
4 The plenary session was followed by group discussions on the following questions:
- What do we mean by 'effective practice' in higher education? How important is context and subject in communicating and sharing effective practice?
- What is 'transferability'? Are there elements of effective practice that are more 'transferable' than others?
- What do institutions understand by the term 'the student experience'? Is it broader than what they experience through curriculum-related learning, teaching and assessment?
- Are institutions introducing structural and cultural changes that emphasise enhancement and responding to student needs, with reduced focus on formal quality assurance procedures? If so, what are the implications for our organisations?
Enhancement
5 The plenary discussion focused on the meaning, scope and implications of enhancement in higher education, while one of the group discussions concentrated on the institutional responses to the growing emphasis on enhancement.
6 Discussions on the meaning of enhancement centred on the extent to which it was a 'conservative' concept that builds on the inherent quality of UK higher education, or the extent to which a quality assurance-led system can facilitate radical, transformational change. This raised important questions about the relationship between quality assurance and quality enhancement. To what extent should they be treated separately or should they be treated as a continuum? In the English Quality Assurance Framework, does the emphasis on quality assurance inhibit enhancement or does quality assurance contain a concept of enhancement within it? One view expressed was that quality assurance had enhancement already embedded within it: in order to maintain the quality of provision in a changing environment, institutions already need to make continual efforts at enhancement.
7 A related issue was the scope of enhancement. There was some discussion about whether enhancement is about the changes to individual programmes of study and the experience of students on those programmes or more holistic changes to the way an institution works as a whole. While enhancement is defined for the purposes of institutional audit as 'deliberate steps at the institutional level', enhancement can be initiated by individuals. This in turn raises the issue about who is responsible for enhancement: does responsibility rest with institutions or individuals; with academics or with managers?
8 There was a more specific discussion on the extent to which institutions are altering their arrangements to include a new focus on enhancement. It was decided that it was difficult to know how extensive such changes are at present. This will become clearer with the publication of a new round of institutional audit reports. However it was thought important not to assume that those arrangements are not in place. Moreover, if changes are taking place other factors aside from the work of our respective institutions may also be having an effect, in particular the newspaper league tables and the National Student Survey. It was also thought that there was a risk inherent in discussing enhancement in solely procedural terms. Much quality enhancement work takes place outside quality offices. It was thought that there is an important role for QAA and the HEA in encouraging institutions to make the most of the opportunities for enhancement. In order to avoid presenting a confusing picture of enhancement to the sector, it was thought important that both QAA and the HEA should have an understanding of each other's position, without adopting a single definition of enhancement.
'Effective practice', and its dissemination
9 Discussions centred around what is meant by 'effective practice'. It was thought that while it is easy enough to identify such practice within our own specialist areas (or institutions), to do so on a more generic level is more challenging, although still worth pursuing. While different subject communities, institutions or countries have their own particular cultures, it was thought that there is value in attempting to transcend these. A related issue was considered to be the criteria used to establish whether practice is 'effective', and the responsibility for deciding on such criteria.
10 Once 'effective practice' has been identified, how then is it possible to facilitate adoption by others? It was thought important to recognise that sharing practice is helpful but does not, in itself, ensure adoption. The differing circumstances and missions of various institutions means that transferability is likely to be heavily dependent on context. While recognising that 'effective practice' is not always imposed from the 'top down', it was thought that several factors need to be in place for its adoption: a central policy open to the adoption of new ideas, a culture that allows staff to take managed risks, and incentive structures to ensure that those who take such risks are rewarded. Finally, the practice itself needs to have credibility among staff for it to be adopted.
The 'student learning experience'
11 This discussion noted a recent HEA literature review on the student learning experience, and that the student learning experience is likely to be affected by a range of factors, both those relating directly to the curriculum or to learning and teaching, and those that that are concerned with other matters. Once again, it was considered that the student learning experience will be heavily dependent on context. That said, it was thought that the academic enterprise remains fundamental to institutional priorities and the student learning experience could therefore help to inform decisions made at all levels. There was also recognition that different groups of students have different experiences and are likely to take differing views on particular enhancements.
Conclusions
12 It was decided that in these circumstances it was important that the HEA and QAA continue to communicate and to work together. A number of opportunities for collaboration were identified, in particular:
- it was suggested that both organisations could play a role in promoting the sector's 'UK Professional Standards Framework for teaching and supporting learning in higher education'
- consideration will be given to a joint evaluation project on the extent to which institutions are altering the balance of their arrangements between quality assurance and quality enhancement
- the need was agreed for a joint public statement to articulate, for the benefit of the sector, our joint understanding of each other's positions on enhancement (although given that enhancement has already been defined for the purposes of institutional audit, a joint definition would not be possible). A programme of discussions will be needed to establish this understanding.
Top