Round table meetings on programme specifications;

jointly organised by Universities UK (UUK), the Standing Conference of Principals (SCOP) and the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (the Agency)

Introduction

Following the publication of the final report of the Task Group for Information on Quality and Standards in Higher Education and the new Agency approach to audit and review, the Agency, in collaboration with UUK and SCOP, agreed that it was an opportune moment to organise a series of round-table discussion meetings on programme specifications (PS). Meetings were held in Birmingham, Manchester, York and London between May and July 2002; 233 delegates attended representing HE, FE and professional, statutory and regulatory bodies and including academics, administrators and managers.

Each of the meetings started with a brief, overarching presentation that was followed by extensive detailed discussions in small break-out groups. These sessions were the focus of the meetings as the purpose was to provide a forum for informed discussion and feedback between the institutions and the Agency and the representative bodies. Detailed notes were taken at all of the breakout and plenary sessions. They have provided the basis for an interim report requested by Professor Sir Ron Cooke (Chair of the Task Group for Information on Quality and Standards in Higher Education), briefing notes to DfES and others, and papers to the Boards of the Agency, UUK and SCOP.

The majority of participants agreed that PS are useful tools for academic development, and that any change of policy or significant revision of the guidelines at this stage could create difficulties for many institutions. Although it was recognised that the Dearing recommendations had intended PS to provide information for students, the development and preparation for the academic review method has led HEIs to write PS with an academic audience in mind. Participants believed that this approach that had led to the many examples of good practice/enhancement.

Topics raised during discussions included:

the development and uses of PS;
the audience(s) and their (different) needs;
publication;
the relationship of PS with the other reference points for academic standards (subject benchmark statements and the frameworks for HE qualifications).

The development and uses of programme specifications

Discussions included the following topics, issues and questions:

PS are proving to be valuable core documents that encourage coherence in programme design –particularly in the design of multi- and inter-disciplinary programmes;
some institutions are introducing PS progressively, as part of the periodic review process; others have gone for a 'big bang'approach; delegates suggested that the former provided greater opportunities for enhancement;
some HEIs have developed an institutional pro forma for PS, with some viewing this as a summary of the definitive programme document; others have allowed departments/disciplines freedom in developing a PS format;
is/should PS be a dynamic or static document?
the development of PS was starting to provide considerable benefit; there were consistent pleas that policy/guidance should not be changed significantly.

Audiences and their different needs

The discussions considered the impacts of the recent changes proposed to the method of external review and the HEFCE information requirements on standards and quality proposed in the Cooke report. There remains a strongly-held view that PS are most useful if prepared as an academic tool, and with their audience including the external reviewer, as opposed to the Dearing recommendation that PS were primarily concerned with providing information for students.

Topics, issues and questions raised included:

a need to clarify the audience(s) and purpose(s) of PS.
there were serious concerns about moving back to the Dearing concept of PS;
- few HEIs currently use PS to inform students;
- at what stage is the PS meant to convey information to students? There are different needs and understanding prior to and at the various stages of the course;
- concern was expressed about possible contractual implications if the PS were used as a document for students'information
- students (including those at schools, 6^th form colleges, FE colleges etc) should be involved in writing them –the language in which they are currently written is inappropriate;
- PS are helpful in their current format and it would be demoralising for staff to have to rewrite them;
can one PS document fulfil diverse (academic and information needs) aims?
- preparation of different versions could raise problems of inconsistency, accuracy and reliability;
- possible solutions included;
- - the production of 'multi-layered'documents that provide increasing levels of detail as required;
  - keep PS as it is and produce something else for student information, that is not called PS.
Use of PS in partnerships, particularly between HE and FE;
- do the different review methods need different types of PS?
- there can be problems where partnerships include more than one HEI and they take different approaches to PS.

Publication

The meetings included considerable debate about the HEFCE (Cooke report) proposals on publication of information of quality and standards. There were different views on whether the recommendations intended that PS should be part of the information available to external audiences or just for internal use.

Related issues, topics and questions included:

what was actually meant by 'publication'of PS? Publishing on an intranet/website would be different to publishing in the prospectus; there are differences between publication and publicity;
several considered that PS would not be so useful if published; they would be a completely different document and could lose their important developmental/reflective aspects;
if published, how would minor modifications be dealt with? (programmes develop almost continuously; enhancement is an important aim);
'publicity'and intellectual property rights concerns (particularly in an increasingly competitive global HE market) were raised with regard publication of PS.

The most common proposal/solution to the issues concerned with PS publication was the development of a multi-layered PS through which different audiences would have access to different levels of detail. A web-based approach could facilitate this.

The relationship of PS with the other reference points for academic standards
(subject benchmark statements and the frameworks for HE qualifications)

Much discussion centred on the academic uses of PS, both within the development of programmes and their quality assurance. Key questions included:

should the PS describe or define:
- what an institution is 'offering'to students?
- the minimum (threshold) achievements required for, or the expectations associated with, the award of a qualification? or
- typical achievements/expectations?

In summary, are PS reference points for intelligent application to a variety of purposes or a 'tick list'merely for regulation?

Views expressed during discussions included:

PS have proved very valuable in programme design, but can the same document be used effectively for quality assurance? In particular, should PS be written in terms of threshold requirements, or typical expectations, or both?
the notion of achievement does not sit well within the PS - it is a document that describes what is on offer in the programme at that institution;
threshold/typical should not be specified - this is too contentious;
there is confusion over programme outcomes and module outcomes.

Various approaches were outlined on use of the reference points, subject benchmark statements, the frameworks for HE qualifications and the qualification descriptors, in developing PS. A few had directly transcribed components from benchmark statements, seeing these as a 'requirement', whilst most had used the benchmark components as reference points that assisted in building a programme that met the overall expectations of the qualifications framework.

A few delegates referred to the links being made with HE progress file initiatives and with the development of transcripts. Others considered that the development of progress files is still in its infancy and that it is too early to make links. Nevertheless views were expressed that the skills element of the PS is its strongest link with the progress file and that further discussion workshops in this area would be valuable.

Other issues

Other issues raised included:

PS and the new review process:
- strong fear that auditors would misuse PS –especially if their purpose changes. At present PS are essential for making a judgement on quality and standards, but if the becomes student information they will no longer be able to be used that way;
- Will training for reviewers/auditors take on board any change in the purpose of PS?
Revision of the guidelines
- when/how will the guidelines be revised; now may be too early;
- the examples in the guidelines need to be 'refreshed'. They should also recognise the diversity of practice in the sector;
- further discussion/guidance on the use of the benchmark statements in PS would be useful;
- there needs to be a clearer articulation of what is expected from PS;
- perhaps the guidelines should be reviewed at the end of the transitional period?
a small number thought that PS have become over-important;
participants at a meeting for professional, statutory and regulatory bodies welcomed PS unreservedly.

Conclusions

The meetings have been very useful for UUK, SCOP and the Agency as they consider the development of policies in this area.

Evaluation forms indicated that delegates also found the meetings and their format valuable and, importantly, an indication of a new approach to work between the Agency and the HE sector. There was encouragement to continue this approach, which is reflected in the planning of a further series of round table discussion meetings for the period December 2002 to March 2003. These will be jointly sponsored by UUK, SCOP and the Agency and consider in further detail issues to do with the development and application of programme specifications. Preliminary details are available from Susan Melvin, s.melvin@qaa.ac.uk