Introduction
On 20 April, we held our first Institutional Liaison Scheme Conference in London. Over 90 delegates attended, representing around 70 higher education institutions (HEIs). The main topic for discussion at the conference continued the first theme identified by the sector through the institutional liaison scheme: programme specifications. Following two regional meetings, for which summary notes were made available at the conference, breakout group discussions concentrated on various issues. These included the audience for programme specifications, writing the specifications for programmes beyond the single honours, version control and partnerships.
Below are the main points made during the conference. These notes, and the notes produced after the regional discussion meetings, will be used to help any revision of the current Guidelines for programme specifications (the Guidelines). The notes will also provide a starting point for developing criteria for the selection of new examples.
The points are grouped under four main headings - Purpose and audience; Awareness; Revising the guidelines: suggestions for QAA; and Writing programme specifications: suggestions for HEIs.
Purpose and audience
Purpose
Delegates want QAA to make a clear statement about the purpose of programme specifications. Is the purpose of the programme specification to have a contract with students? It was noted that the original primary audience for programme specifications (as stated in the Dearing report) was prospective students and employers.
Different views were expressed on being explicit about the primary audience. Some delegates thought that the revised Guidelines should make it clear that prospective students and employers are the primary audience, so that HEIs are not doing different things. However, it was also noted that it would be problematic if the Guidelines said who the audience should be; even stating who the primary audience should be would make matters very difficult. One suggestion was that each HEI should determine the purpose and the audience for the programme specification, and that QAA could state several potential uses/audiences but not prescribe any particular one.
It was also suggested that programme specifications have been complicated by quality assurance. There should be a return to first principles and Dearing’s simpler idea of providing comparable information.
Minimum requirements
Delegates wanted QAA guidance to make a clear statement about the minimum requirements/expectations for programme specifications, because they are formally scrutinised through audit. There should also be guidance to indicate what minimum requirements would look like. An issue was raised about the audit process. Auditors often want to see all information in the programme specifications. But sometimes different information is contained in different places.
Benefits
The benefits of having programmes specifications are: they are useful quality assurance tools, which encourage strategic thinking; they focus on the overview, which can help to guide academic staff through curriculum design processes; and they are useful in validation. At one institution, programme specifications have become an intrinsic part of PDP so they are introduced to students from the start of their time in the HEI. In some institutions, programmes specifications are being used mostly for recruitment of students. In others, the programme specifications are being used as an adjunct to the diploma supplement. HEIs have a wide range of approaches for using programme specifications, varying from minimalist to very detailed. While they are seen as dynamic, living documents, this can lead to issues relating to updating and version control.
Student input
It is worth seeking student input into discussion about the usefulness of programme specifications. There is no substantive evidence to support how useful students find programmes specifications. Some HEIs thought that without this evidence it would be difficult to undertake more work to meet the ‘student audience’ aim. Delegates wanted to know if there was information about how either prospective or current students use programme specifications. Questions were also raised about why programme specifications needed to be useful to students: what would be lost if user-friendly programme specifications were not produced? It was suggested that the significance of programme specifications was more likely to be understood if staff and students engaged in dialogue about them. The fact that there are many student audiences who may all have different needs was also discussed.
Writing for different audiences
There were many comments about the difficulty of writing a programme specification for multiple audiences and that it needed to be fit for purpose: sometimes the different audiences/purposes could not be reconciled. However, some delegates explained how they were producing one version for students and one for quality assurance purposes. Others stated that they had one generic document from which relevant information of interest to particular groups could be extracted. Some explained how they were using a layering approach, so that information most important to students could be seen easily, but if the student wished to delve deeper it was possible to do so.
Awareness
Teaching Quality Information
It was suggested that the developmental nature of programme specifications was clouded by teaching quality information (TQI). Other reservations were that TQI would be misleading because it is an amalgamation of subjects and that the summary of programme review is meaningless to students.
Through TQI, programme specifications were becoming a marketing tool and consequently the language used would probably become very important.
It was suggested that programme specifications should not be allowed to drive prospectus entries. TQI has resulted in programme specifications becoming more centralised within some HEIs. This was influencing the purpose for which they were written.
There was scepticism among some HEIs about the life and the utility of TQI as a project. They thought QAA should be careful not to allow TQI to be one of the major drivers for the revision/change in emphasis of programme specifications as documents for students. However, it was also suggested that TQI and the Guidelines for programme specifications should be brought together. One proposal was to include a question about programme specifications in the National Student Survey.
Students
Programme Handbooks and other documents have information more relevant to students. Careers advisors and schools were usually unaware of programme specifications, so it was unlikely that they would be highlighted for prospective students. Also, is there a more student friendly name for programme specifications?
Some institutions aimed their programme specifications at students, but used them as part of their validation or programme approval processes. It was suggested that where programme specifications are being used for validation, the validation documentation should be pared down. This would ensure that the content of the programme specification would not be repeated.
Institutional-level services
Programme specifications could help to promote integration of institutional-level services, such as careers and academic provision. But there would be resource implications associated with this approach, which may not always be apparent.
Employers
Employers, like students, are not a homogenous group and HEIs work with many kinds of employers. Research has shown that they often prefer transcripts, as this shows what students have achieved not what they have done. One delegate asked if PSRBs know what a programme specification is and whether they find the programme specifications useful.
Revising the Guidelines: suggestions for QAA
The Guidelines carry a lot of responsibility for one document. Some delegates stated that the Guidelines do not reduce the burden of work for HEIs.
The language used implies the need for conformity. If the Guidelines are advisory, language such as ‘should’ and ‘must’ ought to be reconsidered. The Guidelines also need to remind HEIs that programme specifications are used in audit.
The minimum content for the publicly available part of the programme specification should be clearly stated.
Students should be asked about what they want, as it is not for QAA or HEIs to decide.
There should be a clear statement at the beginning of each example about what it intends to achieve and its intended primary audience. Examples used should come from different institutions, and be written for different audiences, different disciplines and specialist provision. It would be useful to see examples where approval processes had been streamlined, in part because of programme specifications, and compare this with where they had not. It would also be useful to see how to include collaborative provision.
Other examples that could be included:
- for international partner institutions
- for joint degrees
- for intermediate rewards
- for master’s programmes
- for Foundation Degrees and distance learning
- how to engage students and employers
- how currency/version control procedures are used by HEIs and good archiving practice
- programme specifications written in different ways for the same purpose.
The Guidelines could be produced in an A5 booklet (like the Code of practice). The examples could be placed in a web-based resource on QAA’s website and conceptualised on a screen-by-screen basis. This would create a much bigger and more useful resource that could be updated easily. It would also be useful to produce a guide to pitfalls. This would alert colleagues across the sector about the errors and difficulties that may be associated with particular approaches.
It was suggested that QAA should create an area on its website for HEIs to share good practice.
Writing programme specifications: suggestions for HEIs
Multiple versions of a programme specification for different audiences are difficult to control. Technology-based solutions might be the best way to accommodate the information needs of multiple audiences.
At postgraduate level, programme specifications should include outcomes for exit routes (ie, if a student leaves with a certificate, diploma etc). This could also apply to undergraduate programme specifications.
HEIs may need to guard against legal challenges. One institution reported how a student appeal had led the HEI to using a multi-level approach with a disclaimer. It was mentioned that if programme specifications were too student friendly, this might increase the potential for litigation if a student is disappointed with some aspect of their course.
If a programme specification is a contractual document, it raises issues about the extent to which they should be available to everyone and how easy it should be to make changes to them.
June 2005
Top