Pulling together
QAA is not a regulator. It has no powers over higher education institutions (HEIs) and no statutory authority. It is owned by the HEIs themselves, through their representative bodies. We are not a 'government watchdog' as the newspapers frequently describe us. Our activities are sanctioned jointly by our owners and by the funding councils. Nevertheless, we accept that because we undertake reviews and make judgements on HEIs, we have some of the characteristics of a 'regulator'.
On 21 May 2006, the Higher Education Regulation Review Group (HERRG) launched its Concordat. The Concordat brings together 15 higher education (HE) 'regulators' (mainly funding organisations, quality assurance agencies and professional and statutory bodies) in a joint commitment to improving and rationalising their various procedures. One of the central tenets of the Concordat is that QAA's review reports should be the starting point for all other academic review and accreditation activities. Regulators and accreditors should only have to inspect or review whatever is not looked at by QAA.
Done well, regulation in HE is a good thing. It is a fundamentally benign and valuable activity, serving the interests of public and provider alike. It improves self-knowledge and self-awareness; challenges complacency; encourages professionalism; secures academic standards at an acceptable level; and protects the public. But only if it is done well.
To achieve any of these desirable outcomes requires clarity of purpose, intellectual defensibility, usefulness of results and a minimum of invasiveness or 'bureaucracy' on behalf of the regulators. All signatories to the Concordat will have to work hard to embed these qualities in the things they do. We in QAA will be doing our best to make sure that the Concordat improves what we do and helps HEIs with their job of assuring quality and standards. We must, though, be aware of a possible danger. The oversight of regulators by groups such as HERRG must not itself become an industry. But just as HEIs are being trusted to regulate themselves, so an equal amount of trust must be invested in the regulators. We cannot afford to waste time or money; both are in short supply. I am sure that the Concordat, if we all take it as seriously as I believe we must, will prove to be a help, not a hindrance, to better regulation. Who knows, it may even make our own lives less burdensome.
Peter Williams
Second Annual Liaison conference
QAA's second Annual Liaison conference took place on 3 May at the Holiday Inn Regent's Park. It provided updates on the development of its institutional Liaison Scheme and explored some of the themes and findings featured in Outcomes from institutional audit papers.
The conference was attended by more than 70 liaison contacts from institutions. Peter Williams, Chief Executive, and Nick Harris, Director of Development and Enhancement Group both spoke on QAA's commitment to supporting institutions in the enhancement of their provision. This was followed by a session describing the purposes of the Outcomes... series and plans for further papers. Four case studies were also featured highlighting how institutions and the Higher Education Academy have used the Outcomes... papers as stimulus material and points of departure in their own work.
Questions to the speakers and the discussion sessions sparked lively debate. Issues raised included how QAA's increasing focus on enhancement would be conveyed to its auditors; whether the 'round table' meetings were a better format for dissemination than the QAA website; the need for a clearer understanding in the sector of what QAA meant by enhancement and for QAA to provide such information actively (and quickly); the need to think about how good practice from Wales could be shared further afield; and whether there could be an Outcomes... paper on combined honours, joint honours and multidisciplinary programmes.
Presenters' slides and a report of the sessions are available on the QAA website.
David Cairns
www.qaa.ac.uk/education/liaison/Conference2006/
Outcomes from institutional audit
Progress with the first Outcomes... series
At present, 15 papers have been published in
this first series, the most recent of which is
Specialist institutions in institutional audit. The
final papers in the first series will be Institutions'
arrangements for the management of quality and
academic standards; Academic and personal
advice and guidance and supervision; Subject
benchmark statements; The framework for higher
education qualifications in England, Wales and
Northern Ireland; and, following the second
Annual Liaison Conference, Combined honours,
joint honours and multidisciplinary programmes. It
is also planned to publish an overview of these
first 20 papers.
Second Outcomes... series
As transitional institutional audit draws to a
close, work has started on preparing a second
series of Outcomes from institutional auditpapers that will draw on the report of the
remaining audit reports (the first drew on the
first 70 audits). Publication of the second series
will start from November 2006.
Outcomes from collaborative provision audit
As the main collaborative provision audit
activity draws to a close in summer 2006, we
plan to publish a series of papers on Outcomes
from collaborative provision audit. The themes
for this series will initially come from those
which feature in the Initial overview paper for
the first series of Outcomes from institutional
audit. As with Outcomes from institutional audit,
we welcome suggestions for other themes that
institutions would find useful.
For further information, contact David Cairns (d.cairns@qaa.ac.uk) or Richard Brown (r.a.brown@qaa.ac.uk)
David Cairns
www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews/institutionalaudit/outcomes/
New process of institutional audit
We would like to thank everyone who has responded to the consultation exercises as we developed the new process for institutional audit. The responses we received were never unanimous in their views, but gaining an understanding of the issues raised has assisted us in making revisions and given us a clear idea of the areas of support or concern. The new Handbook for institutional audit has been finalised and is going through the preparations for publication. There will be two versions on the website, one of which will retain the 'comment boxes' that were provided in the consultation document. The boxes, which many respondents found helpful, are by way of a commentary on the responses to the consultation on the Operational description, and of explanation of some parts of the draft Handbook.
The main Handbook will also include the outcome of the consultation on the mid-cycle reviews. Several responses suggested that the working title of 'interim review' for this part of the revised audit process was giving the impression of a more substantial, and judgemental, engagement than we envisaged. We intend the engagement to be a follow-up to the audit report and the engagement should therefore be called the 'mid-cycle follow-up' as it replaces the requirement in the transitional period for a 'one-year-on follow-up'.
Discussions are taking place with all subscribing institutions about the timing of their audit which will all take place between 2007 and 2011. Moving from a three year cycle to a six year cycle has resulted in most institutions having a date for the next audit between four and five years after the previous audit. This will be taken into account when planning the timing of the mid-cycle follow-up.
Several respondents to the consultation on the draft Handbook commented on the importance of the calibre of those appointed as auditors and audit secretaries to the success of the institutional audit process. We agree that the audit process is critically dependent on the availability of good auditors and audit secretaries and ask institutions to support institutional audit by nominating for these appointments senior colleagues with appropriate experience and expertise. The forms are available on our website and a separate letter asking for nominations has been sent to all heads of subscribing institutions.
Nicola Channon
www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews/institutionalaudit/
Audit in the People's Republic of China
QAA review teams visited the People's Republic of China during April and May to carry out audits of
UK collaborative links. Details of the visit will be available in the next edition.
Above: Peter Griffiths, auditor, meets representatives of China Agricultural University, Beijing
Degree-awarding powers and university title
Regular readers of higher quality may have noticed that degree-awarding powers and university title activity has featured less prominently than other areas of QAA's work recently. This is not indicative of a reduced level of work in this area but, rather, a reflection of the impact of the introduction of the revised degree-awarding powers and university title criteria adopted in England and Wales from 1 September 2004. As the volume of applications from public and privately funded institutions has increased, so has the complexity involved, given the diverse nature of the organisations applying for degreeawarding powers and the implications of this diversity for the scrutiny process.
A change in our approach to the management of degree-awarding powers and university title was introduced this year. At the beginning of 2006 we appointed Dr Irene Ainsworth as Assistant Director (Degree-Awarding Powers and University Title) and Nick Pack as Project Officer (Degree-Awarding Powers and University Title). Further information about QAA's role in the degree-awarding powers and university title scrutiny process, including our contact details, are available on the QAA website.
Irene Ainsworth
Special review of research degree programmes
All those HEIs participating in the special review of research degree programmes (RDP) have had the opportunity to comment on their draft report. The closing date for comments was 5 June 2006. The review teams carefully considered all comments before finalising the reports. The final reports will be sent to the relevant HEI and funding council by the end of July 2006.
As well as the individual reports there will be two further outcomes of the review process: overview reports (one for England and Northern Ireland and one for Wales); and a dissemination event at which we will present the overall findings of the special review of RDP. The event, during autumn 2006, will also provide an opportunity to discuss any particular issues. Details of the event will follow in due course.
Julian Ellis
www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews/postgraduate
Higher education in further education colleges
During the current round of academic reviews, we have completed 21 of the 35 scheduled reviews. It is clear from these reviews that colleges' level of engagement with the Academic Infrastructure, reported in higher quality 20, continues to increase.
The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) requires academic review to continue for a further year during 2006-07, and for its focus to be further education (FE) colleges in England who have directly-funded HE programmes and which have not yet had a QAA review. We have identified the FE colleges concerned and we are scheduling their reviews. QAA is planning workshops to assist these FE colleges to prepare for academic review. Briefings for FE colleges and subject review facilitators (SRFs) have been scheduled.
As part of the QAA evaluation of academic review in FE colleges, we are planning to hold two evaluation seminars in late July to collect views and experiences about outcomes as a whole. The seminars will involve groups of subject leaders and SRFs from FE colleges that had reviews between January 2005 and April 2006. The agenda will be drawn from the evaluation data collected by QAA from institutions, specialist reviewers and review coordinators to date. Invitations have been extended to all FE colleges involved.
Derek Greenaway
www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews/academicreview
NHS-funded quality assurance
The Major Review contract is due for completion in March 2007. Two review visits remain for autumn 2006. In March, at a stakeholder event we organised for Skills for Health, we launched a Fact Sheet to provide a brief summary of the outcomes of the second Annual Review Trends report. A final cumulative review trends report will be published early in 2007, which will report on outcomes, learning points and a statistical analysis of the data from the whole cycle. The third national conference in Birmingham on 27 June 2006 addressed future arrangements for quality assurance of healthcare learning in England, and perspectives on international best practice. The next steps for the healthcare quality assurance framework in England are being discussed and debated with an extended group of organisations, including QAA. Two meetings have been held so far, QAA is taking an active part in the discussions. Agreements have yet to be finalised.Patricia Le Rolland
Integrated quality and enhancement review
We are currently analysing the response to the consultation on the proposals for integrated quality and enhancement review (IQER). Thanks to all who commented on the draft handbook you for your comments. We will publish a report of the response on the QAA website in autumn 2006.
We now have a relatively short time to revise the method in the light of these comments and to gain approval from the HEFCE Board so we can pilot IQER in 2006-07. Some colleges have already volunteered to take part in the pilots and we shall be pleased to hear from other colleges that would like to participate in the programme. We need 15 pilot colleges that provide a representative sample of types of college, locations, sizes of HE provision, variety of funding routes and variety of awarding bodies. We would also like to include a lifelong learning network in the pilots.
We will start to train coordinators for the pilots in July 2006 and will visit colleges to brief them and plan the pilots from September 2006. We also need to recruit some new specialist reviewers for 2006-07 and would particularly welcome applications from college staff for this role. We will be writing to college principals and university vice-chancellors to invite them to nominate staff to be reviewers in the next few weeks. Please look out for this nomination request. In addition, potential reviewers can apply to us directly. An application form will be on our website. If you have any queries about reviewer recruitment and training, please contact me or Marion Pollard, in Scheduling, Recruitment and Training on 01452 557177.
We will evaluate the pilot phase of IQER and amend the process accordingly so it can be implemented fully between 2007-08 and 2011-12. We will also be asking for nominations and direct applications for coordinators and specialist reviewers for 2007-08. We hope to receive a good range of applications and that colleges will be willing to nominate staff. We have a record of high levels of satisfaction with our various reviewer training programmes and reviewers find taking part in reviews interesting, challenging and good for their development.
We are grateful to colleagues in the colleges for providing information as part of the IQER scope and preference survey. We have received information on some 3,500 HE programmes in colleges. This figure includes direct, indirect and consortium funding routes and nonprescribed HE. Based on the sample so far, the data suggests that around 56,000 full-time equivalent students are enrolled on these programmes. Following an analysis of the data, QAA will publish in early 2006-07 a key statistics leaflet describing the extent and characteristics of provision and participation in HE in FE colleges.
We shall be pleased to hear your views on the IQER process as it emerges.Gillian Hayes
General Osteopathic Council review
There have been two new types of General Osteopathic Council (GOsC) reviews in early 2006: a 'combined' review in which a provider has been seeking both renewal of Recognised Qualification (RQ) status for an existing programme and also initial recognition for two new programmes, and three shorter 'monitoring' reviews, a form of mid-cycle review in which GOsC visitors (reviewers) concentrate on special themes. The themes for the monitoring reviews are the college's progress in fulfilling the specific conditions of its RQ status; changes announced to GOsC in the annual report of the college and the college's implementation of new clinical assessment forms following a sector-wide change in final clinical competence assessment of students.
Osteopathic education providers have been requested by GOsC to move from clinical assessment by a GOsC assessor, to clinical assessment by internal examiners with a component of moderation by an external examiner of the familiar HEI variety.
During the summer, and involving all parties to the review method, there will be an evaluation of the 2005-06 review experience.
Alan Bradshaw
Access to Higher Education
Access to HE conference - 25 May
This year's Access to HE conference was held at
Aston University on one of the few sunny days
in May. (Thank heavens it wasn't another of
those brumous occasions!) Over 100 delegates
from FE, HE, authorised validating agencies
and national bodies came together to learn
about, and contribute to, the development of
the Access to HE qualification, currently being
led by QAA.
The conference heard from several of those who are most closely involved in these developments, including Harvey Woolf (Head of Academic Standards, University of Wolverhampton, and Chair of the Access Qualification Development Group) on the credit requirements for the new Access to HE qualification; and Dr Marie Stowell (Director of Quality and Educational Development, University of Worcester, and Chair of the Assessment and Recording Individual Achievement Group) on the development of possible models for the differentiation of learner achievement.
The day also included fruitful discussions about a number of possible models for differentiation of the qualification and how this should be taken forward. The variety of views and ideas expressed has provided much valuable material that, together with feedback from a number of earlier round-table discussions, is being analysed and will provide the basis for further development. The next stage in these developments will be the preparation of a consultation document for circulation later in the year.
The conference concluded by considering the latest statistical information about Access to HE. John Thompson, Data Analyst, HEFCE, presented the main findings of HEFCE's report Pathways to higher education: Access courses, the first in a series of reports about different progression routes to HE. We also launched the latest Key statistics, a publication which is produced jointly by QAA, the Learning and Skills Council, the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service, the Higher Education Statistics Agency and others. Taken together, these two reports present a great deal of information about the profile and progression of Access to HE students and provide further evidence that the Access to HE route continues to be a unique and important route through which mature students can return to study and reach their full potential in education and employment.
Kath Dentith
Key statistics 2006 key findings
In 2004-05, approximately:
1,200 QAA-recognised Access to HE programmes were running
32,000 students were registered on Access to HE programmes for completion within the same year
76% of these students completed the programme
20,000 students were awarded the QAA-recognised Access to HE certificate
20,000 Access students applied to HE through UCAS (3.8% of all applicants) and a further
2,000 applied to HE through NMAS
15,000 Access students were accepted through UCAS and NMAS
former Access to HE students in HE were registered in greatest numbers on programmes in: subjects allied to medicine; social studies; biological sciences; education; and business and administrative studies.
Download at www.qaa.ac.uk/access Copies can also be requested from Ann-Marie Karadia via a.karadia@qaa.ac.uk or 01452 557118.
Our work in Wales
Review activity
QAA's review activity in Wales currently
includes scrutiny for degree-awarding powers,
institutional review, audit of overseas provision
in China, and the special review of research
degree programmes.
An important principle of the institutional review process is evidence of continuous quality enhancement and improvement activities. To help support quality enhancement QAA is looking to provide evidence from its activities to feedback to HEIs. One important aspect of disseminating good practice is the reports produced in the Learning from... series. However, the relatively small number of institutional reviews means it is unlikely that we will be able to provide enough evidence to identify broad themes until the end of the review cycle in 2008-09.
More immediately, we propose to develop a series of seminars addressing themes of particular interest to colleagues in Wales. We held our first event in Cardiff in April looking at the assessment of students, language issues and credit arrangements. Although the numbers attending were relatively small, the feedback suggested that further events along these lines would be welcome. Proposals for further events include European developments in quality assurance and enhancement, addressing developments such as the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG) and the European Qualifications Framework, and the Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education, Section 9: Placement learning. If you would like to suggest other topics for discussion please contact me.
The QAA Advisory Committee for Wales
The role of the QAA Advisory Committee for Wales (ACW) is to provide the QAA Board with advice on the development and provision of its services in Wales. The ACW has not met formally since June 2004. However, it is our intention to reconvene the ACW for the 2006-07 academic year.
As part of the process for relaunching the ACW, we are reviewing its size, the categories of membership and appointments and, where appropriate, seeking nominations.
The two QAA Board members from Wales on the ACW are Professor Stephen Tomlinson (see photo right), Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Cardiff University and Professor Noel Lloyd, Vice Chancellor, University of Wales Aberystwyth. Professor Tomlinson will be chair.
Julian Ellis
Enhancement Themes
New Theme
The Scottish Higher Education Enhancement
Committee (SHEEC) has agreed for a Theme
on Research-Teaching linkages to begin this
year. The Chair of the Steering Committee for
the Theme is Professor Andrea Nolan, Vice
Principal (Learning and Teaching), University of
Glasgow. Details of the membership of the
Committee will appear on the Enhancement
Themes website. The Theme will focus on ways
in which linkages with research can best
enhance the student learning experience. In
doing so, it will take a broad, inclusive concept
of research and is likely to be of wide interest
across the spectrum of the HE sector. The
Theme on the Effective Learner will now
commence at a later date.
The First Year
The programme of work for the Theme on the
First Year has now been agreed by the steering
committee and will include a range of activities
that focus on specific aspects of the first year in
terms of student engagement and
empowerment, together with a series of
events, seminars, workshops and contributions
from international speakers to facilitate a sector
wide debate on the purpose, challenges and
future potential nature and focus of the First
Year. Full details are available on the website.
Getting involved
As part of its programme of work, each Theme
usually requires the appointment of several
consultants to carry out projects. The extent of
the work involved ranges from short pieces
requiring the equivalent of one to two days
work to more significant programmes of
research and development. If you are
interested in undertaking commissioned work
for the Enhancement Themes please see the
website.
Overview publication
SHEEC has commissioned the production of a
report to provide HEIs with an overview and
guide to the outcomes of the first four Themes
(Assessment, Responding to Student Needs,
Employability and Flexible Delivery); the ways
in which these might impact on each other;
and to highlight those outcomes of relevance
at, eg institutional level, programme level or
support service level. Publication of the report
is planned for autumn.
David Bottomley
Strategic directions
One of the indicators of the maturity of QAA as a UK-wide organisation committed to serving the interests of the devolved countries, is the publication of the first strategic plan for QAA Scotland. Strategic directions 2006-11 is a companion volume to the main QAA Strategic plan 2006-11 and sets out the strategic thinking of QAA Scotland which will be at the heart of our activities over the period. It is of course very difficult to predict with any certainty the precise nature of the landscape in which we will be operating in five years time. However, this makes it even more important that we use the opportunity of publishing Strategic directions 2006-11 to make explicit the strategy that will form the foundations of our actions throughout this period.
As the plan makes clear, all our work will continue to have a prime focus on supporting the enhancement of the experience that is available to students served by the HEIs in Scotland. The plan highlights the ways in which we will continue to work in partnership with others to achieve our aims - the student bodies; the HEIs; the Scottish Funding Council; employers; and professional and statutory bodies.
The plan outlines the progress made in Scotland over the past five years in the development and implementation of the Quality Enhancement Framework before setting out the anticipated future directions in our main areas of activity - enhancement-led reviews and a wide range of related development and enhancement activities. These activities include the national programme of Enhancement Themes and the evolving programme of work with the SHEEC in supporting the institutional management of quality enhancement. One of the key themes of our plan, is the increasing integration of these various strands of our work. As we state in the plan, 'these matters are not peripheral: they help to define the future nature and shape of our organisation. Enhancement and assurance are not two separate processes - they require interlinking.'
The plan also highlights the importance of our work beyond Scotland and how we work to ensure that the quality and standards of HE can continue to be benchmarked in a UK, European and wider international context. The Quality Enhancement Framework attracts much international interest: our plan outlines how we will continue to raise international awareness and understanding of the Scottish approach to enhancing the experience of our students and the standards of their awards.
Predicting the future over a five-year period is of course rather hazardous and, almost inevitably, we will require to chart our progress carefully. Strategic directions 2006-11 ends on perhaps the most important note of all: 'We look forward to working with our partners in following the directions outlined in the document, and to continuing to receive feedback. Keeping in touch will be vital.'
Norman Sharp
www.qaa.ac.uk/aboutus/strategicplan
International developments
Colloquium on joint degrees
QAA held a second conference on joint
degrees in London, on 14 March 2006. The
colloquium was organised in response to the
high number of requests for a follow-up event
of the first conference we held in June 2005.
The aim of the colloquium was to offer HEIs
opportunities to explore and share their
experiences of the quality assurance and
academic standards considerations associated
with joint degrees. A feature of this event was
that it brought together both staff from UK
HEIs collaborating on joint degrees and those
collaborating on joint degrees with HEIs
outside the UK, in Europe and further afield.
In the keynote session, Peter Williams commented that for some institutions joint degrees enabled them to demonstrate their commitment to international activities and offered the opportunity to enhance the overall reputation of the institution, hence its 'brand' name. But, offering joint degrees poses substantial quality assurance challenges including legal issues, the need to consider the interests and requirements of professional and regulatory bodies, and the clarification of the individual and joint responsibilities of participating institutions.
The colloquium also included presentations from representatives of legal firms - Kathleen Kwan (Mills and Reeves) and Nick Saunders (Eversheds) who highlighted a range of legal issues to be considered in relation to joint degrees within the UK and those which cross national borders. Staffan Whalan, from the Högskoleverket (the Swedish Agency for Higher Education), presented a report on the initial findings from the second Transnational European Evaluation Project. The six breakout sessions provided an opportunity for discussions on legal, institutional and programme related matters. A report of the colloquium including the speakers' presentations is available on the QAA website.
We plan a further event in the joint degrees series, with a wider international focus, for the next academic year. It is our intention to continue to work with institutions in the UK, and with members of international quality assurance networks such as the European Association for Quality Assurance, to help identify good practice, opportunities and challenges, and to define and enhance quality and academic standards in joint degrees.
The International Network for Quality
Assurance in Higher Education
(INQAAHE)
INQAAHE held its biennial workshop on
17-19 May 2006, in The Hague. The main
themes of the workshop were the impact of
quality assurance and the quality assurance of
transnational HE. The latter topic continues to
excite much interest particularly in the Asia
Pacific and Arab regions. Delegates heard of
different approaches to the quality assurance of
foreign branch campuses including
cooperation between agencies for joint audit
visits, eg Lembaga Akreditasi Negara (National
Accreditation Board), the current Malaysian
agency dealing with private HE, and the
Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA).
There was also a meeting between
representatives of QAA, AUQA and two of the
United States regional accreditation
commissions to discuss the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and
Development/United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization guidelines
on quality provision in cross-border education
and the potential for sharing information about
the regulation of such provision in other
countries.
Carolyn Campbell
Subject benchmarking
Review of subject benchmark statements
The review of subject benchmark statements
published in 2000 is now approaching the final
stages. Twenty-one statements have been
reviewed in total, which includes all those
listed in higher quality 17. Review, and
subsequent revision, was coordinated by
appropriate subject associations and overseen
by QAA. With the exception of subject areas
that elected to undertake only minor
amendments to layout or wording, all revisions
were undertaken through the formation of a
small working party made up of representatives
from the academic subject community. Some
subject areas also included on the working
group representatives from industry and/or
professional/statutory/regulatory bodies.
Revised statements will be subject to a full consultation process run by QAA to enable members of the wider academic community and stakeholders to comment on revised drafts. We hope to be able to begin the consultation process in July of this year, with a view to starting publication of revised statements within the calendar year.
Revisions to the content of a statement carried out by individual subject communities have tended to reflect ongoing developments including, for example, changes to subject curricula, alterations to professional, statutory or regulatory body requirements, and other industry-related changes, European perspectives on standards and contemporary issues such as sustainability and ethics.
The review process for statements published in 2002 will begin towards the end of this year when we will contact the relevant subject associations and chairs of the original benchmarking groups to begin the process of establishing a representative working group. Statements that will be reviewed next year are Agriculture, forestry, agricultural sciences, food sciences and consumer sciences; Anthropology; Area studies; Art & design; Biosciences; Building and surveying; Communication, media, film and cultural studies; Dance, drama and performance; Dentistry; History of art, architecture and design; Languages and related subjects; Linguistics; Materials; Mathematics, statistics and operational research; Medicine; Music; Physics, astronomy and astrophysics; Psychology; Town and country planning; Veterinary science; and Welsh/Cymraeg.
New benchmark statements
Following the launch of the Recognition scheme
for subject benchmark statements in November
2004 we have received several expressions of
interest and proposals to develop a new
benchmark statement. Any new proposal is
required to show that it meets the conditions
set out in the Recognition scheme; these relate
to subject sufficiency, identity and distinction
from other subjects/subject areas in which a
benchmark statement already exists.
Once we have assessed and accepted a proposal, in consultation with the benchmarking Steering Group, the process of developing a new statement begins, usually with the formation of a representative working party, if one has not already been established. We offer individual guidance and support throughout the process, and is able to cover the financial cost of holding face-to-face meetings of the working group. Completed statements are subject to full consultation before being published by QAA.
New benchmark statements are currently being developed in Criminology, Development Studies, Finance and Osteopathy.
M level benchmarking
In February of this year we held a consultation
event to explore the potential for the
development of further benchmark statements
at M level. An M level statement currently
exists for programmes in Business and
Management, as well as for the MEng
(Engineering) and the MPharm (Pharmacy).
Opinions on the need for further statements for individual disciplines at M level were mixed,
although there was a consensus of opinion on
the need for a generic M level statement in
some form that would represent an extension
to the existing qualification descriptor. The full
report is available on the website.
It is likely that we will hold a series of focus groups to explore some of the issues raised at the event in more detail later in the year or early in 2007.
Further details on any aspect of the benchmarking work or an expression of interest in developing a new benchmark statement should be directed to Dr Laura Bellingham at l.bellingham@qaa.ac.uk
Laura Bellingham
www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/benchmark
Programme specifications
The QAA working group has considered the comments from the consultation exercise at the beginning of the year on a proposed new element to the Guidelines on preparing programme specifications carefully. The comments have had a considerable impact on the final revised version of the Guidelines.
Over 100 responses were received. There was general support for the notion of a set of comparable, student friendly information available to current and prospective students. There was also support for the suggested minimum content for programmes specifications, likewise the proposed additional information that might be included in a programme specification.
There was not, however, support for the 'programme plus' proposal; in particular there was strong feeling that the proposal would lead to duplication of information which can already be found through the UCAS website and in institutions' own publications; that it would be burdensome for institutions to provide the information and maintain the links and that that it was too soon to place reliance on the Teaching Quality Information website.
As a consequence of this consultation exercise the proposal for 'Programme Plus' has been removed from the final guidelines.
We would like to thank all the individuals who kindly responded to the consultation exercise and hope the resulting revised Guidelines prove to be useful. The revised Guidelines will be published in July 2006.
Fiona Crozier
www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/programspec/
Code of practice
The consultation period on the three sections of the Code of practice currently being revised - Section 6: Assessment of students; Section 7: Programme design, approval, monitoring and review; and Section 10: Admissions to higher education - closed on 24 March 2006. The relevant working groups have now met to consider revisions to the three sections in the light of the consultation responses and are aiming for publication of the final versions this summer. QAA would like to thank all those who responded to the consultation and for the constructive comments received.
Gill Clarke, Jayne Mitchell and Fiona Crozier
www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/codeofpractice
QAA signs Healthcare Commission Concordat
As well as the HERRG Concordat, we recently signed the Healthcare Commission Concordat as an associate signatory. The Concordat provides a set of objectives and underpinning practices that aim to reduce the burden of inspection on staff providing healthcare in England by setting out what organisations can expect from bodies inspecting, regulating and auditing healthcare.
Annual reception
On 1 March, we held our annual reception in London. QAA's Annual review 2004-05 and the Strategic plan 2006-11 were launched at the reception. Around 100 guests heard from Bill Rammell, Minister of State for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education; Sam Younger, Chairman of the QAA Board; and Peter Williams, Chief Executive of QAA.
Subscribers' meeting
We held our annual Subscribers' meeting on 6 June in Glasgow. The event was attended by invited representatives from our subscribing HEIs, as well as delegates from other HE bodies and members of QAA's Board. Early feedback from the meeting has been positive. Our keynote speaker was Nicol Stephen, Deputy First Minister and Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning. Other guest speakers were James Alexander, Deputy President, NUS Scotland, and Duncan Cockburn from sparqs (student participation in quality scotland) who explored student involvement in quality assurance. A more detailed report of the meeting will appear in the October edition of higher quality.
From left to right: Norman Sharp OBE, Director, QAA Scotland; Peter Williams; Nicol Stephen; and Sam Younger, Chairman, QAA Board
QAA and HETAC link up
QAA and the Higher Education Training and Awards Council (HETAC) in Ireland have signed a Memorandum of Understanding to cooperate and collaborate on quality assurance matters in HE.
The agreement will see QAA and HETAC work towards establishing a strategic alliance to enhance the operation of external quality assurance in both jurisdictions and improve the quality of HE in the UK and Ireland.
The Memorandum was signed on 6 June.
Peter Williams says: 'The signing will establish closer relations with HETAC and mean that we can work not only for the mutual benefit of both organisations but also to reduce the demands placed on HEIs in both our jurisdictions. We very much look forward to cooperating with HETAC'.
Above: Peter Williams and Séamus Puirséil, Chief Executive, HETAC
News alert now available
We have recently launched a news alert which provides a fortnightly update on news from QAA. It is a great way of finding out about consultations, events, new publications and reports, and QAA-related news in a quick and easy manner.
You can join the list at www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/QAA-NEWS.html
Publications listing available on QAA website
A full listing of our publications is now available
on our website. The listing allows you to access
all current and archived QAA publications,
including some from our predecessor
organisations. A link, 'Publications' is available
at the bottom of every web page.
www.qaa.ac.uk/search/publications
Be first to read the next edition of higher quality
Why wait to receive your printed copy of higher quality. Sign up to our email alert rather than wait for the printed copy and be first to read the latest information.
The email includes links to all the top stories. This makes it easier for you to access relevant publications and information on our website. To sign up to receive the email alert please email your name and email address to hqfeedback@qaa.ac.uk putting 'email sign up' in the subject box. If you receive higher quality in printed form it is useful to know if you still wish to receive this so please include this in your email.
QAA publications
April 2006
Quality Assurance News for healthcare education - No 10
Outcomes from institutional audit (web only):
Collaborative provision in institutional audit reports
Arrangements for international students
Progression and completion statistics
Draft Handbook for integrated and quality enhancement review (web only)
Enhancing student employability: Innovative projects across the curriculum
Working together: enhancing students' employability - Partnerships between institutions
and students
Major Review Trends Fact Sheet (2004-05)
May 2006
Key Statistics 2006 - Access to HE
Strategic directions 2006-11
Forthcoming in summer and early autumn
Handbook for integrated and quality enhancement review
Handbook for institutional audit in England and Northern Ireland 2006-11
Subject benchmark statement, Engineering
Scottish Subject benchmark statement, Clinical psychology and applied psychology
(clinical associate) Scotland
Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in
higher education:
Section 6: Assessment of students
Section 7: Programme design, approval, monitoring and review
Section 10: Admissions to higher education
Outcomes from institutional audit (web only):
Institutions' frameworks for quality and standards
Subject benchmark statements
The framework for higher education qualifications
Academic advice, guidance and support
Specialist institutions
© Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education 2006
ISSN 1475-3669
QAA offices
Head office
Southgate House, Southgate Street
Gloucester GL1 1UB
Telephone +44 (0) 1452 557000
Fax +44 (0) 1452 557070
Email comms@qaa.ac.uk
QAA Scotland
183 St Vincent Street
Glasgow G2 5QD
Telephone +44 (0) 141 572 3420
Fax +44 (0) 141 572 3421
Officer for Wales
Julian Ellis
Telephone +44 (0) 1452 557127
Email j.ellis@qaa.ac.uk
QAA website
QAA's publications are available at www.qaa.ac.uk
Please email hqfeedback@qaa.ac.uk if you would like to comment on higher quality, or receive the email alert which includes links to the electronic version of this publication.
Additional copies
Printed copies of higher quality are available free of charge from:
Linney Direct, Adamsway, Mansfield NG18 4FN
Telephone 01623 450788, Fax 01623 450629
Email qaa@linneydirect.com
Brig
Y
diweddaraf am ASA
QAAtweets
QAAtube