Introduction
The Code of practice: collaborative provision (the Code) was published in July 1999, with an expectation that institutions would be making progress with implementing the guidance it contains by 2000. Now that almost two years have passed since the latter date, it is timely to review the extent to which the Code is proving useful to institutions and how readily it is being implemented.
An expert group has been convened to consider the Code. The group has met twice, on 21 March 2003 and 20 May 2003. To obtain feedback from a wider constituency, a Round Table meeting was held in London on 9 April 2003 and was attended by participants from a range of institutions.
This briefing note summarises the feedback obtained on this section of the Code from the participants in the Round Table meeting, indicating where some clarification and/or amendments might be helpful.
Summary of discussions
The object of the discussions was to get the views of users on the strengths and weaknesses of the Code and the Distance learning guidelines (the Guidelines), and to identify areas for possible change, addition and improvement.
Participants were generous in their description of the impact of the Code in the context of collaborative arrangements of their own institutions, but few points emerged from the gathering of these local views that could be considered to represent a sector-wide consensus.
1 The main consistent views emerging in respect of collaborative provision
1.1 The Code has proved to be a useful tool as a framework for setting up and maintaining collaborative arrangements, particularly with overseas partners.
1.2 The terminology of franchise and validation is a hindrance in 'blended' modes of provision.
1.3 Do not make any significant changes, but aim for clarification and getting 'back to basics', and let the framework allow sensible variation and flexibility (eg in allowing overseas programmes to adapt to local contexts and cultures).
1.4 The areas that require particular clarification are the Agency's view of assessment (and instruction) in a foreign language, and the location of study on certificates and/or transcripts - the Code 'sits on the fence'.
1.5 The Code implies a 'senior/junior' model, implying a need to control the partner. There should be more recognition of mature partnerships of a 'senior/senior' kind where more authority for the quality of provision could be devolved to partners where the partner has appropriate quality assurance systems of its own.
1.6 While it is accepted that ultimate responsibility for standards rests with the awarding body, in overseas arrangements is the award a UK award or a UK approved award?
1.7 The Code should address dual/joint awards and strategic collaborations, for example in the case of collaboration on Foundation Degrees.
1.8 Could the Code be approached from the point of view of the assessment of risk (to whom?) in a collaborative arrangement?
2 The main consistent views emerging in respect of distance learning were:
2.1 Do not merge the Guidelines with the Code for collaborative provision - but make cross-references.
2.2 The terminology of distance learning is a hindrance - terms such as 'flexible' or 'distributed' learning should be used to give a more generic approach - the differences between learning on campus and at a distance are becoming smaller.
2.3 It would be interesting to try to develop the Guidelines from a student viewpoint - it gets over many of the problems of defining mode of learning.
2.4 The Guidelines are aimed at big programmes - what about smaller components delivered by resource-based methods or work-based learning?
2.5 E-learning offers opportunities for quality assurance that are not available in other modes - important to firm up this aspect of the Guidelines.
3 Conclusions
- In view of the:
- lack of enthusiasm for merging the Code and the Guidelines;
- the support for no significant changes to the Code;
- the support for accommodating a wider range of collaborative models, and more flexibility in devolution of authority in quality management;
- the request for greater clarity in certain precepts of the Code;
- the reasonable enthusiasm to see the Guidelines re-cast from a student-centred view; and
- the support for reducing the constraints of terminology in both the Code and the Guidelines;
- the Expert Group that is currently investigating how the Code and
the Guidelines might be updated and amended, proposes to:
- abandon the attempt to merge the Code and the Guidelines, but link them in one document;
- go back to the Code's precepts as they stand and examine each on its own merit, and in the context of changes in the four years that have elapsed since the Code was published;
- make more use of the academic infrastructure as a reference frame to clarify aspects of the Code, and perhaps to permit greater flexibility in arrangements as long as they can be calibrated against the academic infrastructure;
- develop the Guidelines to service a generic model of flexible and distributed learning, retaining the student-centred format that found favour in the attempt to combine the Code and Guidelines; and
- endeavour to incorporate more reference to e-learning modes but focusing on quality management of learning rather than the technology
Top