Briefing note on UUK - SCOP - QAA jointly sponsored

'Round Table 2' discussion meetings
Programme Specifications

Introduction

The Guidelines on preparing programme specifications (the Guidelines) were published in 2000 with an expectation that institutions would be making progress with their implementation from then on. Now that almost three years have passed since their publication, and in light of recent HEFCE proposals concerning the publication of programme specifications (PSs), it is timely to discuss the ways in which institutions are developing and implementing PSs and review the extent to which the Guidelines are proving useful.

Round Table discussion meetings were held over four days, two consecutively in London, (17 and 18 December 2002) and similarly in Manchester (19 and 20 February 2003) and attracted in total just under 200 delegates from most of the English HEIs and some from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The programmes were designed to focus on the more practical aspects, including brief presentations from HEIs¹, during the first day, and more strategic aspects, at institutional and national levels, on the second; inevitably there was some overlap in the discussions between the two days. The Manchester meeting was planned in conjunction with members of the North West Quality Forum.

This briefing note summarises the discussions and feedback from the participants at the meetings; it is provided for information purposes only and no specific actions are expected or recommended.

Summary of discussions

1 Addressing multiple purposes (and audiences)

1.1 To meet information needs, but of different audiences

Many contributors noted:

the difficulties associated with developing PSs within changing contexts;

PSs seen initially (The Dearing Report) as a means of providing information to students; but...
within the context of proposals for Academic Review many HEIs started developing PSs for internal review purposes; then...
transition to audit-based quality assurance with PSs a (implicit) part of the associated Teaching Quality Information data set;

uncertainties about target audience(s) that could include students, potential students and their advisers; academic staff designing and/or delivering programmes; and reviewers and auditors;
that HEIs have taken different approaches in terms of style, language, extent of detail etc, depending on their primary uses of PSs.

A minority noted that:

they had not found any difficulty in developing a multi purpose/multi audience tool, often as a layered web-based document.

1.2 For internal and external review and quality assurance

internal

Most contributors noted that their institutions are now using PSs for programme development, for approval/validation and monitoring, and for periodic review.
Some HEIs have developed PSs to replace the 'definitive course document' for internal processes.

external

PSs are now being considered through the various external review and audit processes.

1.3 Encouraging consistency (but not uniformity)

Contributors described:

a variety of approaches and formats (mostly based upon the Guidelines) and with differing opportunity for template modifications by staff involved in completing the PSs;
an increasing tendency to engage in a deliberative and reflective process when writing PSs;
an increasing tendency to use relevant subject benchmark statements and the framework for higher education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern (FHEQ) as 'reference points', rather than 'tick' items.

1.4 Enhancement.

There was an acknowledgement of, and anecdotal evidence to support, the positive effects that careful consideration of PSs can have, and has had, on programme design and delivery. Several noted LTSN support in this work, and suggested collaborations between institutions/subject associations, the Agency and the new Academy.

2 Implementation:

2.1 Form and contents

Contributors described:

various approaches to form and content depending upon particular uses of PSs within their institutions; eg some included relevant regulations whilst others had appropriate links/references;
considerable uncertainties and scepticism about the purposes, needs and values of publishing PSs in their current, widely varying, forms.

2.2 Level (threshold or typical, or both)

Discussions included the level of learning outcomes described within PSs in relation to purpose; eg where the PS is used for validation, some find the description of threshold requirements the most appropriate. This approach, however, may be of less value where the development of PSs is an integral part of programme design and improvement. Many indicated that the PS included both threshold and 'typical' expectations.

2.3 Articulation with internal and external reference points

internal

Institutions have taken different approaches to constructing links to, or incorporating, relevant information and regulations.

external

All contributors noted that PSs include articulation with relevant benchmark statements (and implicitly or explicitly the FHEQ).
There appears to be a change in the way in which benchmark statements are applied, with increasing use as 'reference points' rather than as lists of specific requirements.
Some HEIs have added specific sections for the requirements of professional, statutory and regulatory bodies
Some HEIs have included material from the guidance of a relevant credit consortia.

2.4 Joint and multi/inter-disciplinary programmes

Despite some earlier concerns about uncertainties regarding PSs for joint and multi/inter-disciplinary programmes, it appears that most institutions have resolved the issues within their own contexts, but not necessarily in a manner that would support easy comparative searching for public information purposes.

2.5 Incorporating information on progression opportunities

Such information appears to be routinely included within PSs.

2.6 Updating

Institutions have various requirements and expectations on updating their PSs. For some, there are minor annual revisions and more occasional (substantial) changes prior to revalidations, others undertake only the latter. This area again generates some issues and potential difficulties regarding publication for comparative public information.

3 Links to:

3.1 Recording student achievement (transcripts)

Contributors noted that:

institutions have incorporated PSs into not only the quality assurance system but also information and management systems, though in different ways and to different extents;
for some there are close links between individual student's transcripts and PSs (with or without a modular framework);
some provide mapping to student support/PDP, through their Progress File initiatives.

3.2 Teaching, learning and assessment strategies

Some institutions require close linkage between PSs and teaching, learning and assessment strategies, often itemised at a modular level.
Some institutions require links to the institution's key skills framework.

3.3 Access, widening participation, life-long learning

While most institutions appear to be considering or developing policies in these areas, only some have already developed them in order that PSs are integrated within the management of their broader institutional mission and strategies.

3.4 Collaborative provision, distance learning and partnerships

Some institutions are now starting to use PSs as one of the tools to support external links. Limited evidence suggests that they can provide a valuable reference point for discussions and negotiations; standard templates with specific guidance are regarded as being more helpful.

4 The Guidelines

Discussions indicated divided opinions on whether the Guidelines should be reviewed extensively, updated (eg in 'refreshing' the examples), or left in their current form. Some suggested that changes might be needed following any HEFCE announcement on Teaching Quality Information due June 2003. The majority of opinion appeared to favour only minor revision (if any) and such revision should be presented in a way to support the current emphasis on application in programme development/enhancement.
Many agreed that nothing should be done to undermine the hard work that has been undertaken and which has led to increasingly constructive applications. Proposals for new or even revised formats etc would not be welcome at this stage.

5 Conclusions

The Dearing Report recommended the development of PSs that would enable students to 'compare different offerings and make sensible choices about the programmes they wish to take', and indicated content components. It is clear that while some institutions have developed their PSs with this in mind, many have developed them primarily (and in some cases exclusively), for purposes related to programme design and delivery, and/or quality assurance. The current HEFCE proposals for the publications of PSs, but the absence of details, dominated much of the discussions, and concerns were expressed about difficulties that might arise if institutions were required to write or re-write their PSs in different formats.
There was widespread acknowledgment that the approach to and application of PSs has changed quite significantly as course teams have appreciated the potential within the preparation of their PSs to reflect on and demonstrate improvements in the design and delivery of their programmes.

¹ Universities of Kingston, Hertfordshire, Liverpool John Moores, and Durham