The journey continues
This year marks the 10th anniversary of the publication of the Dearing and Garrick reports. It is also the 10th birthday of the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA). The Dearing report largely gave QAA its agenda: clarify and simplify the structures of higher education (HE); clarify and simplify the procedures for assuring its quality and standards.
We have done both those things. The Academic Infrastructure has created a set of reference points which provides a basic, shared configuration for HE across the whole of the United Kingdom (UK). It encompasses questions of quality and standards, dovetails with European developments and imperils neither institutions' autonomy nor the differences in the HE systems in the countries of the UK. It has helped to remove some of the confusion and opacity about HE programmes and qualifications for the public and in doing so has given the answers that the Dearing and Garrick reports asked for.
At the same time, quality assurance in the UK has moved steadily from subject review to institutional review, external prescription to internal rigour, process to outcome, the implicit to the explicit, from more to less, accountability towards enhancement and, we hope, suspicion to trust. We now have a more stable environment in which to make further progress in encouraging and helping the HE community to take active responsibility, at all levels, for its own academic quality and standards.
The landscape we have passed through has not, of course, always been easy or benign, but we have come through it; and while it is necessary and good to halt briefly to look back at the journey we have taken, it is the path ahead which we must now think about. What are the landmarks we can already see, and what potholes might lie in the road? And to pursue the metaphor, where is journey's end?
The answer to the last question is simple. There will be no end to the journey, because we shall always be trying to make sure that we are doing the best we can, for our students, for our academic disciplines, for our universities and colleges, and for our world. But our present landscape is already changing. In particular, four big signposts are already in view (though there are also others), pointing to higher student fees, employer engagement, dependable standards and cross-border (or transnational) education. The significance of these is likely to grow very considerably in the next five years and QAA will be doing its best to help institutions meet the related quality assurance challenges.
We are also interested in the longer term. What will HE look like in 2017? What will quality and standards mean by then? Do we need to start thinking now about radically alternative paradigms, something quite different from what we have now? We shall be starting to look at these questions during 2007. I hope all our readers will want to help us.
Peter Williams
Institutional audit
At the time of writing we have just started the first visit in the round of new institutional audits. While the process builds on previous methods of audit, there have been a number of operational challenges to ensure that we are well prepared for the revised process. We have completed the training for all the auditors and audit secretaries involved during the next two terms, and have allocated teams for the autumn term of audits. As part of the preparation we have also agreed an audit date for all institutions in England and Northern Ireland between now and 2011.
The new process features changes in emphasis, including greater focus on postgraduate research students and quality enhancement. In addition, we are restructuring the report to provide a better way of informing the variety of audiences who may be interested in the outcomes of our work. The report, which will be published in hard copy as well as on our website, will be a much shorter document than we have previously produced. It will summarise the findings of the audit team for a wider audience. The technical annex, which is targeted at the institution being audited, will only be published on the website. We hope that you will find the revised structure helpful.
As we come to the end of the round of collaborative provision audits, we have been evaluating the process and its impact on institutions. We will be working with the Quality Assurance Framework Review Group to identify the most appropriate way forward for considering HEIs' collaborative provision in the future.
Now that the institutional audits are underway, we have had a chance to consider the timing of mid-cycle follow ups. These are described in the Handbook for institutional audit: England and Northern Ireland as 'a short health check, for the institution and for QAA, on the institution's continuing management of academic standards and quality of provision'.
We will be sending letters to all institutions scheduled for an institutional audit in 2010 and 2011 to propose a date over the next two years for the submission of their mid-cycle follow up report. All institutions being audited before 2010 will be given a date for the submission of the mid-cycle follow up report once their audit has been completed. Guidance notes will be provided for all those completing the report.
Nicola Channon
Nicola has now left QAA and we wish her well
in her new venture. Shona Patterson has now
assumed responsibility for institutional audit. www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews/InstitutionalAudit
QAA internationally
The fifth meeting of ministers responsible for HE from the countries participating in the Bologna process will be held on 16-17 May 2007, in London. This has prompted wider interest in the process on the part of UK politicians. The Education and Skills Select Committee held a meeting in January 2007 on the Bologna process to consider the implications of participation for UK HE, as well as the UK position on a range of Bologna issues, in advance of the ministerial meeting.
In December 2006, QAA made a written submission to the Education and Skills Select Committee. Subsequently, Peter Williams and Carolyn Campbell, along with representatives of Universities UK and the Europe Unit, were invited to give oral evidence on 10 January 2007. QAA representatives were questioned on the recognition of degrees, in particular Foundation Degrees and master's degrees, as well as credit transfer.
Since October 2006, we have welcomed visiting parties from Armenia, Australia, Chile, Iraq, Namibia, Nepal, The Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and, on five occasions, Japan.
Colleagues from Lembaga Akreditasi Negara (LAN), the National Accreditation Board in Malaysia, also came to visit the UK. Under the Memorandum of Understanding between our organisations they were invited to participate in a QAA international auditor training programme in February 2007. LAN hosted the annual general meeting of the Asia Pacific Quality Network in February 2007 at which Peter Williams gave a keynote address in his capacity as President of the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education. We understand from our contacts with LAN that the long-awaited legislation to establish the Malaysian Qualifications Agency will be considered by their parliament in March.
Carolyn Campbell
www.qaa.ac.uk/international
New series of briefing papers: Quality matters
Who killed what in the quality wars? by Sir David Watson is the first paper in Quality matters, a new series of occasional papers that are either initiated within or commissioned by QAA, as well as selected papers offered by other authors.
Drawing upon a wealth of evidence and experience, the author sets out his personal views on the changing contexts that have both influenced and accompanied the evolution of quality assurance in UK HE, particularly during the last decade. It provides a new insight into why and how these changes occurred. Also, importantly, it sets out a series of stimulating topics and themes that are integral to any informed current discussion about the future development of quality management and the HE it seeks to assure.
Like all QAA publications, the papers in the Quality matters series will be evidence-based. However, they are intended to do more than simply report - they will also promote discussion and debate about topical and important issues concerned with the management of quality assurance and particularly with its inter-relationships with enhancement.
While many papers will, of course, be concerned with, and it is hoped support, the evolving quality assurance/enhancement debates within the UK, the series will also seek to include international perspectives.
The new series is intended to complement the range of current QAA publications, which include the many factual reports of audits and reviews carried out within the UK and overseas, and what has, through retrospective reflection, been learnt from them.
Nick Harris
www.qaa.ac.uk/enhancement
The Access to HE Diploma: development of grading
The Access Qualification Development Group has proposed two possible models for grading the Access to HE Diploma. The two models, which provide alternative approaches to grading, have been debated in detail, and their general principles and key operational characteristics are described in a consultation paper to be published in April.
The two models described in the consultation paper are:
- unit grading, which provides a series of grades indicating achievement on different parts of the course. This model would result in a grade profile which would be included on the credit transcript that is issued to accompany the Access to HE Diploma
- portfolio grading, which provides a single grade, representing a summation of the student's performance across the course. This model would result in a grade given as an additional piece of information on the credit transcript that is issued to accompany the Access to HE Diploma.
The consultation will take place between April and June, and HE and further education (FE) institutions will be notified once the consultation document has been published on the QAA website.
Guidance on Access to HE admissions and age
In 2003, we published guidance on admissions to Access to HE courses, which included a requirement that students should be at least 19 years old on registration on a recognised Access to HE course. Following the introduction of the recent legislation on age discrimination (Employment Equality [Age] Regulations 2006), we have had to reconsider this requirement. Our particular concern was that the application of the minimum age criterion by providers may constitute unlawful discrimination, and that, by requiring providers to exclude any applicants under the age of 19, we were, in effect, asking providers to act unlawfully.
After very careful consideration, we have therefore removed the absolute requirement that prospective students must be aged 19 or above, and the 2003 guidance has been withdrawn while we consider the position further. We are aware that there are a number of wider implications and longer-term considerations, and discussions with other agencies will take these into account, as new guidance is prepared.
Kath Dentith
www.qaa.ac.uk/access
Major Review
The programme of Major Review of all NHS-funded healthcare education in England (2003-06) is nearing completion. The last two major review reports will be published in March.
The end of Major Review will not go unnoticed. We are producing a review trends report that looks back over the reviews. However, this report will consider all 90 reviews undertaken in the cycle, identifying key themes and lessons learned. It will discuss the outcomes from the reviews including the good practice, strengths and weaknesses identified by the review teams. It will also look at the process of Major Review itself; what worked, what didn't and what might be done differently in any future quality assurance method for healthcare education.
The report will be accompanied by a six-page fact sheet that summarises its key points.
The trends report (2003-06) and fact sheet will be launched at the Skills for Health Sharing Good Practice in Healthcare Education Conference, to be held on 20 March 2007 in London. For further information contact Jordana Fournillier on 020 7756 2769 or email Jordana.Fournillier@skillsforhealth.org.uk
The trends report and fact sheet will be available on the QAA website shortly after the event. Also, look out for the final QA News, which will be published in March 2007.
Elaine Harries Jenkins
www.qaa.ac.uk/health/majorreview
Degree awarding powers
Definitions of research and scholarship have continued to occupy the thoughts of the Advisory Committee on Degree Awarding Powers (ACDAP) in considering applications for degree awarding powers (DAP) and/or university title, in the light of the introduction of new DAP and university title criteria in 2004. There is also diversity in the nature of applicant organisations now expressing interest in DAP and/or university title. In addition, it is possible that FE colleges may soon be able to apply for the powers to award their own Foundation Degrees.
Scholarship and the pedagogical effectiveness of staff are key to ensuring that students' chances of receiving a worthwhile education and securing the necessary academic standards for their qualification are maximised by effective teaching. By ensuring that teaching staff keep up to date with the latest developments in their subjects, and incorporate these into their teaching, applicant organisations both help to confirm their claims to be offering 'higher' education, and provide programmes and courses that enable the quality of their students' experience to be enhanced. Such engagement, and the way in which it informs learning, provides evidence of the strength and depth of the academic community within an applicant organisation, helping to establish public confidence in the scrutiny process.
The changing expectations that wider communities - economic, professional and social - have of HE providers cause the perception of HE to evolve continually. Definitions of research and scholarship used for Research Assessment Exercise purposes are perhaps too tightly drawn to reflect the full range of research and scholarship activity taking place within, and among, academic communities and those communities they serve. Government objectives, funding initiatives and HE providers' own aspirations and particular strengths all contribute to determining the extent and nature of their research and scholarship capacity.
QAA recognises the need for research and scholarship to be defined more broadly, reflecting the particular characteristics of individual applicant organisations, the type and level of HE they are offering and the nature of their interaction with a range of communities. At the same time, the baseline for the scrutiny of research and scholarship must remain the pursuit of new learning and the advancement of knowledge.
Irene Ainsworth
www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews/dap
Review of research degree programmes
QAA launched the overview reports for the review of research degree programmes at the UK Council for Graduate Education Winter Conference on 13 February 2007. There were two reports, one for England and Northern Ireland and one for Wales.
The launch included a presentation from Peter Williams on the subject of quality and training issues in postgraduate education, and contributions from Gill Clarke and Julian Ellis on the outcomes of the review of research degree programmes.
Julian Ellis
www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews/postgraduate
China audit launch and dissemination
In 2006, QAA undertook its largest ever single overseas audit. Three teams audited 10 existing links between UK HE institutions and their partners in the People's Republic of China.
The report, UK higher education in China:
an overview of the quality assurance
arrangements, was launched at a breakfast
reception at the House of Commons. The event
was hosted by Ben Chapman MP, Chair of the
All-Party Parliamentary China Group, and
attended by Bill Rammell MP, Minister of State
for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher
Education; Dr Jiang Feng, Deputy Director
General of the Department of International
Cooperation & Exchange; a delegation from
the Chinese Ministry of Education; MPs;
a number of Vice-Chancellors and others.
The sector launch of the report, at the CBI Conference Centre, London, was attended by representatives of a wide range of UK HE institutions and other interested parties. The focus of this event was the findings of the overview report.
The overview report was based in part on the 10 individual reports, and also on desk-based analysis of information provided by all UK HEIs reporting an established link or one in prospect. The report provides an account of the scope and nature of UK higher education awards delivered in mainland China and an overview of UK institutions' management of the academic standards and quality of learning opportunities associated with those awards.
Our findings
The extent of UK HE institutions' involvement in China is reflected in the fact that nearly half (82) of all UK HE institutions are involved in some way in providing HE opportunities in China. In 2005-06 it is estimated that there were 11,000 Chinese students studying in China for a UK HE award, 3,000 of whom were on programmes that would involve them completing their studies in the UK. QAA learnt that there were 352 individual links with 223 Chinese HE institutions and organisations. There is great variety in the type of link used to deliver UK awards in China, the subjects studied and the nature of the awards.
Institutions' individual arrangements for managing the academic standards and quality of learning opportunities for students studying in China are generally comparable with programmes in the UK and reflect the expectations of the Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education (Code of practice), Section 2: Collaborative provision and flexible and distributed learning (including e-learning).
In particular, it was noted that great care is taken in selecting partners, and that written agreements generally carefully set out the rights and responsibilities of each partner. Programme leaders appointed by the UK partner are often bilingual and subject experts. They have day-to-day responsibility for the management of the academic standards and quality of programmes and demonstrate great commitment and expertise. Communication between them and their counterparts in China was found to be effective, generally occurring through electronic media.
Individual audit reports indicated that programme approval processes were at least fit for purpose and often more rigorous than for domestic programmes. Importantly, institutions have adequate processes in place to ensure academic standards are maintained, including enhanced approaches to ensuring the English language capability of applicants. Where the language of assessment is not English, extra safeguards are in place. External examiners appointed by UK institutions attest to the levels of attainment set for and achieved by students studying in China for a UK award as being consistent with programmes in the UK.
The overview report indicated that Chinese students studying for a UK award in China have a comparable experience to students studying for a similar award in the UK. Individual audit teams highlighted a number of positive aspects in the gathering and utilisation of student feedback, the use of UK pedagogic practices and the provision of learning resources. It is also clear that UK HE institutions expend considerable effort to ensure that students on programmes in China, that articulate with programmes in the UK, undergo a managed transition to life and study in the UK.
Areas for improvement
A number of areas for improvement were identified in the management of some of the links audited, but it is important to note that each is only relevant to a small number of links and in no case did they suggest that an institution was putting at risk the academic standards or the quality of learning opportunities available to students.
Where the UK programme leaders responsible for managing a programme delivered in China receive insufficient specialist training or central support, the institutions exposed themselves to increased risk. In some cases it was noted that institutions had not undertaken sufficient formal and comprehensive due diligence enquiries prior to approving a Chinese institution as an appropriate partner. Written agreements, intended to define the rights and responsibilities of the Chinese and UK partners, occasionally contained some ambiguity in the allocation of partner responsibility, especially in the event of termination of a programme. In a small number of cases it was suggested that UK partners could achieve greater input into programme monitoring and review processes by Chinese subject staff and in responding to external examiners' reports.
Adam Biscoe
www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews/international/china06
Our work in Wales
In November 2006, QAA held a joint event with the National Union of Students (NUS) Wales to support student engagement in quality processes and particularly institutional review. The event was well attended with delegates from seven Welsh HE institutions and representatives from NUS Wales, NUS England and the QAA. The event included a presentation from the President of the Aberystwyth Guild of Students on preparing for institutional review. There were also workshops on writing the student written submission and embedding quality in the Students' Union Strategic Plan. The feedback from delegates was very positive and a similar event is planned for next year.
In November, following a consultation by the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (HEFCW), the confidence judgement in the institutional review process was changed from broad confidence to confidence. This change has been made to the website version of the Handbook for institutional review: Wales. Appropriate changes have also been made to reviews that took place between 2005 and June 2006.
The relaunched QAA Advisory Committee for Wales met in November. The role of the Committee is to provide advice to the QAA Board on developments in HE in Wales. The agenda included items on Access to HE, the Overview report on the review of research degree programmes, proposals for QAA enhancement event and reports to the Welsh Language Board.
We are holding an event on 15 and 16 May on effective approaches to the management of academic standards and quality in Wales. A letter was sent to all HE institutions in December requesting up to five nominations from each institution. Further details on this event will follow.
We have also been involved in discussions with HEFCW and other interested parties on the development of a review method for directly funded HE provision in FE colleges. The review process is still being developed with a view to conducting a small number of developmental reviews in 2006-07 - further details to follow.
Julian Ellis
www.qaa.ac.uk/wales
Focus on… higher education in further education colleges
Has HE in FE colleges come of age? As we await the impact of the 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review, the passage of the Further Education and Training Bill (DfES 2006) through Parliament, the Government's response to the Leitch Review of Skills, Prosperity for all in the global economy - world class skills (HM Treasury 2006) and the response to Higher education in further education colleges, Consultation on HEFCE policy (HEFCE 2006), it is timely to consider QAA's involvement in the quality assurance and enhancement of HE in FE colleges in England. It is also appropriate to consider if HE in FE colleges in England has now come of age.
This article provides a summary of the extent of HE provision funded in FE colleges by HEFCE and the agenda for the further development of HE in FE colleges as evidenced by QAA's reviews. This article does not address the arrangements for HE in FE colleges in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales where there are different arrangements for the administration and external review of HE in FE colleges. Nor does it address non-prescribed HE at Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) level 4 or above.
Until 1999, QAA reviewed around 30 general and specialist FE colleges in England which received direct funding from HEFCE for programmes leading to Higher National Diplomas (HND), undergraduate degrees and taught postgraduate qualifications in a fairly limited range of subjects. When funding for Higher National Certificates (HNCs) transferred from the Further Education Funding Council to HEFCE, a further 250 colleges were brought within the scope of QAA's work. This has coincided with significant government initiatives to increase access to HE and to widen participation, primarily through HE in FE colleges, notably through the introduction of the Foundation Degree qualification from 2000-01.
The importance of partnership working
HE in FE colleges is characterised by partnership working. This is becoming increasingly prevalent with the establishment of lifelong learning networks and with the formation of consortia, made up of HE institutions, FE colleges and employers, to support Foundation Degrees. The most effective vocational provision involves partnership between the college, employers and the relevant awarding body.
At their best, employers contribute not only to programme development and design, but also to teaching, learning and assessment. This close partnership working facilitates the careful inter-relationship of the theoretical and practical elements of the students' programme.
Key facts
- 48 per cent of students studying HE in FE colleges study one of four subjects: education; business and management; engineering; art and design.
- 11 per cent of colleges offer 10 or more subjects; seven per cent offer just one subject.
- Seven per cent have over 1,000 students; 21 per cent have 100 students or less.
- Almost 94,900 students were enrolled on around 4,800 HE programmes at 260 FE colleges.
- There is an even split between students enrolled on full-time and part-time programmes.
- 41 per cent of students were studying for an HNC/D, 28 per cent for a Foundation Degree, 15 per cent for a first or postgraduate degree and 16 per cent for other higher level qualifications, such as a Diploma in HE.
- The majority of those studying for a degree were full-time, whereas the majority of enrolments on HNC/D and on other HE qualifications are part-time.
- In 2005-06 HEFCE funded 49 per cent of programmes directly, 42 per cent indirectly and nine per cent through consortium funding.
The reports of Foundation Degrees reviewed in 2004 and 2005 show that FE colleges and their partner HE institutions have worked hard to involve employers and employer representative groups in Foundation Degree programmes. Sustaining an effective level of employer engagement continues to present challenges for some providers, and Foundation Degree Forward has recently taken on the remit for assisting with strengthening employer engagement in HE programmes.
Effective partnerships with awarding HE institutions are also vital to FE colleges that deliver part or whole degree programmes. Institutional audit reports indicate that, in general, the arrangements made by institutions to oversee the quality and standards in their collaborative provision are both sound and well conducted.
Effectiveness of management of partnerships is often linked with the quality of support and guidance given by awarding institutions. Concerns, where they arise, are often associated with the quality of the liaison achieved between partner institutions. Recent collaborative provision audits indicate that partnerships between colleges and HE institutions are most effective when they are coordinated centrally within the HE institutions rather than through a series of separate arrangements between subjects or facilities.
Priorities for the development of HE in
FE colleges in England
The 105 academic reviews of HE in FE colleges in England between 2003 and 2005 show that most students' education reviewed was at the appropriate standard and of either approved or commendable quality. There was evidence of much good practice, and significant development of the provision of HE by FE colleges.
Two areas were singled out as needing significant further development: student assessment and an increased level of effective engagement with the Academic Infrastructure published by QAA.
Many students benefit from a wide range of well-designed assessment tasks; thorough marking and moderation; and the effective use of timely formative written and oral feedback to enable them to improve their work. In general, the clarity of the information provided to students, staff and employers about all stages of the assessment process could be enhanced so that greater consistency can be achieved.
QAA provides support for FE colleges and their partner HE institutions in these areas. For example, QAA has provided workshops and round table events to support them in their understanding and use of the Academic Infrastructure, working with the Higher Education Academy (HEA) to disseminate good practice.
The New Voices Furthering Higher Education dissemination event in January 2007, jointly hosted by the HEA and QAA's HE in FE Colleges' Liaison Group, focused on encouraging FE college staff to share good practice of student assessment.
Other areas for development
Evidence confirms that colleges can be proud of their achievements in widening participation in HE and the considerable value they add for many of their students. Effective recruitment, retention and progression practices are worthy of dissemination. Some colleges find it difficult to demonstrate their success because of a shortage of statistical data and analysis. They need to pay more attention to the reporting and analysing of student data to inform future planning of their HE.
Some colleges face a major challenge to raise the profile and understanding of HE internally and to ensure greater staff and student awareness of the demands of HE study. The development of a clear HE-specific teaching and learning strategy, informed by current professional practice, can be an important first step for many colleges.
Most colleges have appropriate library resources, teaching and learning materials and specialist physical resources to support HE students. Some programmes would benefit from further resources to encourage teaching staff to engage in additional professional and subject updating. HE-related staff development, and the time allocated to it, also poses a challenge for many senior managers. During reviews many staff reported that their class contact hours and programme administration left little time for them to keep abreast of subject developments. This made it difficult for them to keep up to date with knowledge of current activities and trends essential for students to progress, either within HE or in employment.
Colleges generally have effective, wellestablished policies and procedures to maintain and enhance standards and quality. Many are adapting these to address HE issues. However, reviewers found that some colleges are overreliant on informal methods. This informality, together with incomplete implementation of quality assurance and enhancement procedures at the programme level, can reduce opportunities for staff to identify ways of maintaining and enhancing the quality and standards of the provision.
QAA's liaison with other organisations with an interest in HE in FE colleges
College staff often ask if QAA talks with Edexcel, Ofsted and other organisations with an interest in HE in FE colleges. We have done so for some time. We meet regularly with representatives of Edexcel to ensure that when its HE awards and the associated quality assurance procedures are revised, they align with the Academic Infrastructure. Recently we have formed the Ofsted and QAA Joint Planning Group. This group is proving to be a valuable forum for identifying and addressing areas of overlap for FE colleges.
QAA also engages with a wide range of organisations who are members of the Advisory Group for the pilot and evaluation of integrated quality and enhancement review (IQER), the new method of review designed for HE in FE colleges in England. Members include Universities UK, Guild HE, the Association of Collaborative Providers, the Association of Colleges, the Mixed Economy Group, Edexcel, the National Union of Students, HEFCE and Ofsted.
In addition, many of these organisations are represented on the QAA's HE in FE Colleges Policy Advisory Forum. This also includes representatives of the QCA, the Learning and Skills Council, the Learning and Skills Network and representatives of FE colleges which provide HE. This group is complementary to QAA's HE in FE colleges Liaison Group. Together the groups provide comment on the development and implementation of QAA policy for HE in FE colleges.
Conclusions
Overall, evidence from QAA's work indicates that the HE in some FE colleges has come of age. This is particularly true of those colleges which have offered HE programmes successfully for many years and have a good track record of successful student recruitment, retention, completion and attainment of awards. Others which have started offering HE programmes only recently still need to grow and mature their HE. They need to pay particular attention to engaging with the Academic Infrastructure and to improving student assessment.
As well as providing external quality assurance and public information, IQER has been designed to assist the more mature providers to sustain and/or enhance their HE. For other colleges it will support them as they build their capacity to manage and deliver HE within the context of their partnership agreements. The evaluation of the IQER pilot will show whether the method achieves this purpose.
Gillian Hayes
www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews/IQER
Managing assurance and enhancement in the Scottish HE sector: evolution and convergence
QAA Scotland will shortly publish an interim report on evolving approaches to the strategic management of assurance and enhancement in the Scottish HE sector. The evidence of the 15 reports of enhancement-led institutional review (ELIR), conducted over the period 2003-06, shows that institutional quality systems are gradually evolving to enable a convergence of quality assurance with quality enhancement. An identifiable trend is the increasing shift in emphasis from assurance to enhancement.
Quality processes are becoming less retrospective and more evaluative, more focused on forward planning and more effectively linked to strategic planning processes. The evidence suggests they are also becoming more student-centred, both in terms of student involvement in decision-making processes, and in terms of a holistic strategic focus on the continuous improvement of the student learning experience. Emerging partnerships between institutions and student associations in particular policy areas further illustrate this new dynamic.
Three years on from the establishment of the Quality Enhancement Framework, it is clear that, while we are in the early stages of a challenging process of culture change, the Scottish HE sector is energetically embracing enhancement and moving forward positively. There is a spectrum of approaches to the development of quality enhancement strategies. These reflect the diversity of the Scottish HE sector, and the differing strategic priorities of institutions.
In different ways, quality enhancement strategies are seen to be providing the basis for a deliberate, coherent process of institutional change, intended to promote a culture of critical reflection, with a clear focus on the learner. Reports point to significant reconfiguration of managerial roles, restructuring of committees, and refocusing of quality processes. These all combine to provide more deliberate and coherent operational support to implement institutional quality enhancement strategies.
The ELIR reports are a rich repository of evidence of the development of enhancementled quality assurance in the Scottish HE sector. The interim report on evolving approaches to the strategic management of assurance and enhancement in the Scottish HE sector is the first of a planned series of reports addressing different aspects of the enhancement-led approach in Scotland. Further interim reports will be produced on internal subject review and student engagement.
These interim reports are being produced in advance of the completion of the first ELIR review cycle to provide evidence of the impact to date of the enhancement-led approach. They will inform national and international debate. They will also advise ongoing work at sector level that supports the embedding of enhancement and addresses areas identified as requiring further attention. Final reports will be published in autumn 2007, when the first ELIR review cycle is complete.
From the evidence of the first three years of ELIR, the following conclusions emerge.
- Institutional strategies for quality enhancement are driving policy development and practice that is increasingly learner centred.
- Institutional management structures are engendering a collegiate approach to the development and implementation of enhancement-led strategies and policies.
- Institutional quality assurance processes are continuing to demonstrate the robustness of provision, while absorbing a key enhancement function.
- Internal subject review processes have been rigorously operated, providing confidence of institutions' ability to manage quality and maintain academic standards.
- Internal subject review reports are providing a key mechanism for the enhancement of the student experience.
- Student representation and student engagement in quality processes have been making significant advances in support of the learner-centred agenda.
Thelma Barron
www.qaa.ac.uk/scotland
Revisions to the Code of practice
Section 9: Placement learning
The advisory group working on the review and revision of Section 9 of the Code of practice on placement learning has undertaken the substantial additional task of considering significant education changes during the last few years relating to an increasing emphasis on work-based learning.
Supported by information and feedback from a number of round table discussion events, and from others engaged in this area, Section 9 of the Code of practice has undergone considerable change. The group's draft proposals for a re-titled section on work-based and placement learning will be the basis of a formal consultation during early 2007.
Section 5: Academic appeals and student complaints on academic matters
Following a first cycle of round table meetings (in Dundee, London and Leeds) and a meeting of the advisory group in December 2006, a second cycle of round table meetings took place in January/February 2007 to explore possible changes to the existing Section 5 in greater detail.
Once feedback from this second cycle has been analysed and the advisory group has commented on key aspects, a draft proposal for the revision of Section 5 will be circulated as part of a formal consultation with the sector.
Nick Harris
www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/codeofpractice
Subject benchmarking
Benchmark Steering Group
The Steering Group is an independent group of advisors drawn from the academic community to advise QAA, at a strategic level, on its activities relating to benchmarking. There have been some changes to the membership of the Steering Group recently with the departure of its Chair, Professor David Eastwood, and also Professors David Bonner, David Buss, Paul Brain, Mike Pittilo and Nigel Reeves, who have all made considerable contributions to establishing the work of the group. We welcome Professors David Howard, Mike Kelly, Peter Main and Liz Slater, and are grateful to Professor Bob Munn for agreeing to take over as Chair.
Review of subject benchmark statements
The review of the subject benchmark statements published in 2000 is now complete, with the exception of architecture; chemistry; education studies; hospitality, leisure, sport and tourism; librarianship and information management; social policy; and sociology.
The consultation period for these exceptions has begun, apart from hospitality, leisure, sport and tourism; and library and information management. These two groups are currently working on the revisions to their statements and consultations will be held later in the year.
The review process for those subject benchmark statements published in 2002 has now begun. Representative groups have been set up for most subjects and revisions will be undertaken between now and late spring. We aim to have revised statements ready for consultation by early summer. The few exceptions are those subject areas where is has been decided to undertake a more substantial review and revision.
New subject benchmark statements
New benchmark statements in criminology, housing, and finance will be published in spring 2007. A draft new subject benchmark statement for osteopathy is currently under consultation. New statements are also being prepared in the areas of development studies; early childhood studies; and youth and community work.
Master's level benchmarking
A group of senior academics, chaired by Professor Bob Munn, has been convened to assist QAA with the development of a generic subject benchmark statement to cover master's awards. This follows a consultation event held in February 2006 where it was suggested that an elaboration of the existing master's level (M level) descriptor to cover different types of master's awards would be valuable to those involved in programme design, delivery and review.
Laura Bellingham
Fiona Crozier
www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/benchmark
QAA enters into an agreement with the British Computer Society
QAA established closer working relations with
the British Computer Society (BCS) when both
organisations signed a Memorandum of
Understanding in December 2006.
The agreement will establish a strategic alliance to provide for the benefit of both parties and will ensure the standards of HE relating to computing and IT-related subjects are regularly reviewed and maintained.
Peter Williams, Chief Executive of QAA, and David Clarke, Chief Executive of BCS, signed the Memorandum at the London offices of the BCS.
Peter Williams said: 'It is in the interests of everyone - students, universities and employers - that academic regulation is effective and economical. This agreement will help ensure that there is an opportunity for both organisations to move forward in step, sharing good practice and reducing duplication and overlaps in what we do, to the advantage of all.'
David Clarke added: 'This agreement will play a vital role in ensuring that the UK remains foremost in teaching and delivering relevant skills to its burgeoning global student market.'
Changes to the QAA Board of Directors
Professor Joan Stringer CBE, Principal and Vice-Chancellor of Napier University, retired from the QAA Board on 30 November 2006. The representative bodies have appointed Professor Michael Pittilo, Principal, The Robert Gordon University, to succeed her.
We are pleased to announce that Steve Tomlinson was awarded the CBE in the New Year Honours list.
The November Board meeting was Andre Oboler's last as the student observer. The Board thanks him for his contribution.
Martin Johnson
www.qaa.ac.uk/aboutus/qaaboard
Quick guide to… European qualifications framework(s)
The European qualifications framework... but which one? The 'Bologna' one or the 'Copenhagen' one? (and not to confuse you, the Bologna one resulted from a big conference in Copenhagen).
The Bologna (process) framework refers to HE, and is entitled the Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area, while that formally known as the European Qualifications Framework (for Lifelong Learning) links to the Copenhagen process which involves vocational education and training (including higher levels).
The Bologna process framework has three main levels (or 'cycles') representing bachelors (1st cycle), master's (2nd) and doctorates (3rd); it can also include (for those countries that might want it) a 'short cycle within the first cycle' for such things as Foundation Degrees. This framework was adopted by the ministers at their meeting in Bergen (2005), along with its 'cycle descriptors' (aka the 'Dublin descriptors') which are not dissimilar to the qualification descriptors of the UK framework for higher education qualifications (FHEQ).
The European Qualifications Framework (EQF) comes from the European Commission (EC). It includes eight 'reference levels' describing what a learner knows, understands and is able to do - their 'learning outcomes' - regardless of where a qualification was acquired. The eight levels cover qualifications from the end of compulsory education to the highest level of academic and professional or vocational education and training. (Remember: the word 'professional' is used in much of Europe in a different sense than in the UK, typically referring to all programmes within the 'polytechnic sector'). For each EQF level there are a set of generic descriptors covering knowledge, skills and competence. A small EC working party compared the contents of the three relevant EQF 'boxes' at each of levels 6-8 with the Dublin descriptors and concluded that they are 'not incompatible'.
Is there room for two (not incompatible) European frameworks? Will HE's Bologna framework become, in effect, just a sectoral framework of the EQF? Time, and the responses of HE across Europe, will tell.
Nick Harris
www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/FHEQ
| FHEQ (EWNI) | FQ-EHEA (Bologna) | England Current NQF Planned QCF | Scotland (SCQF) | Wales (CQFW) | EQF (Copenhagen) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Current | Burgess outcomes | |||||
| Doctoral (D) | 8 | 3rd cycle | 8 | 12 | 8 | 8 |
| Masters (M) | 7 | 2nd cycle | 7 | 11 | 7 | 7 |
| Honours (H) | 6 | 1st cycle | 6 | 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Intermediate (I) | 5 | (short cycle within 1st cycle) | 5 | directly equivalent | 5 | 5 |
| Certificate (C) | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | ||
Table to show the compatibility of qualification frameworks in Europe and UK
QAA events
| Date | Venue | Event |
|---|---|---|
| 8-9 March 2007 | Edinburgh Conference Centre, Heriot-Watt University | Annual Enhancement Themes Conference |
| 14 March 2007 | 30 St Mary Axe (The Gherkin) London | QAA's 10 year reception (invitation only) |
| 15-16 May 2007 | Metropole Hotel, Llandrindod Wells | Effective approaches to the management of academic standards and quality in Wales |
| 5 June 2007 | TBC, London | Subscribers' meeting (invitation only) |
| 27 June 2007 | Lakeside conference Centre, Aston University, Birmingham | Emerging landscapes: research into quality management in higher education |
QAA publications
October 2006
The handbook for a pilot study of an integrated quality and enhancement review
Report on the consultation on the draft Handbook for the integrated quality enhancement review of higher education in further education colleges in England
Department of Health Phase 2 benchmarking project - final report (web only)
Statement of common purpose for subject benchmarks for the health and social care profession
Outcomes from institutional audit: Arrangements for joint, combined and multidisciplinary honours degree programmes; Academic guidance, support and supervision, and personal support and guidance
Higher education in further education colleges in England -statistical bulletin (2005-06)
November 2006
Outcomes from institutional audit: Institutions' support for e-learning
Integrated quality and enhancement review: a guide for student representatives involved in the pilot method
Quality Assurance News for healthcare education - No 12
December 2006
Outcomes from institutional audit: Institutions' support for widening participation and access to higher education; Institutions' frameworks for managing quality and academic standards
UK higher education in China: an overview of the quality assurance arrangements
Academic credit in higher education
Quality matters: Who killed what in the quality wars?
January 2007
Compatibility of the framework for qualifications of higher education institutions in Scotland with the European Higher Education Area
Access to HE Diploma: a new qualification. Guidelines for higher education admissions staff
The liaison scheme annual report: May 2005-June 2006 (web only)
For consultation: revised subject benchmark statements in chemistry, social policy and administration, and sociology; and a new benchmark statement in osteopathy
February 2007
Report on the review of research degree programmes: England and Northern Ireland
Report on the review of research degree programmes: Wales
Revised subject benchmark statements: economics, earth science, english, archeology, architectural technology, classics and ancient history, geography, housing studies, finance, history, general business and management, philosophy, theology, politics and accounting
Forthcoming spring 2007
Annual review 2005-06
Major Review annual trends
Enhancement Themes newsletter No 3
Quality matters: The classification of degree awards
Outcomes from institutional audit: Student written submission; Self-evaluation document; Overview of series one
For consultation: Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education, Section 9: Placement learning
QAA news alert
QAA uses an email news alert to provide a fornightly update on news from QAA for everyone with an interest in HE. It is a great way of finding out about consultations, events, new publications and reports.
To join the distribution list, please visit www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/QAA-NEWS.html
Email hqfeedback@qaa.ac.uk to receive an alert when the latest issue of higher quality is avaliable on the website. You can also use this email if you would like to comment on higher quality.
© The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education 2007
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
Registered charity number 1062746
QAA Scotland
183 St Vincent Street
Glasgow G2 5QD
Telephone +44 (0) 141 572 3420
Fax +44 (0) 141 572 3421
Registered charity number SC037786
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
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
Top
QAA updates
QAAtweets
QAAtube