The current quality agenda aims to reduce external scrutiny and bureaucracy and to increase institutional autonomy and self-regulation, seeking to emphasise enhancement rather than inspection. QA methods coordinated by the QAA have been streamlined based on lessons learned from earlier subject reviews and quality audit. The current quality assurance arrangements are locked into externally determined and audited standards and norms, but with a lighter ‘inspectorial’ touch. The quality agenda is like a
‘jigsaw’ comprising interdependent and interlocking processes that emphasise increasing transparency, accountability and specification.
The main elements of the external quality framework in England and Northern Ireland are a combination of institutional audit (at the level of the whole organisation) and investigation at discipline level. External examiners also provide impartial advice on performance in relation to specific programmes, offering a comparative analysis against similar programmes, evaluating standards and considering the soundness and fairness of assessment procedures and their execution.
The external quality framework for teaching and learning includes ‘Major Review’
of NHS-funded healthcare programmes, involving the QAA and relevant health professions’ councils. Other programmes of study (such as law, engineering, medicine or accountancy) lead to professional or vocational qualifications and are subject to accreditation by the relevant professional or statutory body. Further education colleges offering higher education programmes also undergo review. In Scotland, Enhancement- Led Institutional Review (ELIR) is central to the enhancement-led approach to managing standards and quality which focuses on the student learning experience. In Wales, a process of institutional review is carried out across all institutions offering higher education provision and is part of a wider QA framework.
The Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) is a separate activity evaluating the quality of research in universities and colleges.
Internal quality processes
Higher education institutions are responsible for the standards and quality of their provision and each has its own internal procedures for assuring and enhancing the quality of its programmes. Internal procedures include assessment of students, processes for the design and approval of new programmes and regular monitoring and periodic review
of continuing programmes. Regular monitoring considers how well programmes and students are achieving the stated aims and learning outcomes, taking into account external examiners’ reports, student feedback, assessment results and feedback from employers. Periodic programme review (typically five-yearly) may involve external reviewers and consider the currency and validity of programmes or services as well as achievement against stated aims and outcomes.
One of the explicit aims of academic QA and enhancement at the university is to
‘foster subject, pedagogical and staff development’. This happens in three key ways.
• Template documentation for programme validation and review aligns with external and internal QA mechanisms. Programme specification templates map against QAA subject benchmark statements, requiring clear identi- fication of QAA defined skills. At module level, templates ensure mapping of the external programme specification to internal module specification and include a framework that aligns module outcomes with learning, teaching and assessment methods.
• By adopting a ‘developmental’ approach to programme development and validation, academic, administrative, learning resource and learning technology staff work together in developing programmes, supporting documentation and engaging in peer review. This fosters an interdisciplinary dialogue and exchange of ideas as well as a ‘team approach’ to design and delivery, aligned with the university’s educational strategy.
• A ‘staged’ approach to programme accreditation and review includes
‘Faculty-level validation’ prior to university validation. This provides an opportunity to review the quality of documentation, identify resource issues and ‘rehearse’ the validation process with colleagues. This in turn enables staff to develop understanding and skills in QA processes, better preparing them to take part in external and institutional QA events.
(Clare Morris, Associate Dean (Curriculum), Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire Postgraduate Medical School, University of Bedfordshire)
Internal quality assurance procedures and development activities to enhance educational quality include the evaluation of individual staff members through systems such as student feedback questionnaires, peer review systems, mentoring for new staff or regular appraisals.
190 ❘ Teaching, supervising, learning
Case study 1: Staff development through quality assurance at the University of Bedfordshire
Institutional audit
QAA quality assurance processes include:
• submission of a self-evaluation document (SED) or reflective analysis (Scotland only) by the institution or programme which describes and analyses internal monitoring and review procedures;
• scrutiny of the information published by the institution about its provision;
• visit(s) to the institution, involving discussions with senior managers, staff and students;
• peer review involving external scrutiny by auditors and reviewers (academics, industry and professional body representatives);
• a published report on the review activities.
Up-to-date information on QAA arrangements, including guidance documents and review reports, may be found on the QAA website (see Further reading).
One institutional audit visit is usually carried out to each HEI by an external review team every six years. The audit is based around production of a SED followed by a briefing visit and a longer audit visit. Audits consider examples of internal QA processes at programme level and across the institution, selecting the particular focus of attention (which may be at subject level) depending on the findings and concerns of the audit team.
The main aim of the audit is to verify that internal QA processes are robust enough to ensure and enhance educational quality across all the provision that the institution manages. Review by professional statutory bodies (PSBs) continues alongside institutional audit. Following the visit a public report is published summarising the main findings and recommendations, and stating the level of confidence the audit team has in the provision. If there are serious weaknesses, follow-up visits and scrutiny are arranged.
For institutions that demonstrate sound QA and enhancement mechanisms, audit will have a ‘lighter touch’ in future.
Audit and review place considerable demands on lecturers and other staff. Audit teams require details of internal assurance processes, student evaluations, student satisfaction surveys, employers’ evaluations and input to programmes, examiners’ reports (internal and external), intake and graduate data and detailed information concerning programme content and assessment. Provision and take-up of staff development and training are considered (particularly around teaching and learning) including numbers attaining the UK professional standards for teaching or belonging to professional organisations.
Institutions are required to publish a Learning and Teaching Strategy. In addition to consideration of the student learning experience and internal monitoring and review procedures, the QAA review teams consider how institutions demonstrate adherence to the Learning and Teaching Strategy and effectively use any associated Teaching Quality Enhancement Funds (TQEF). Teams will also consider the development, use and publication of programme specifications and progress files and how well institutions and programme teams have used external reference points, including:
Quality, standards and enhancement ❘ 191
• the Code of Practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education;
• the Frameworks for Higher Education Qualifications;
• subject benchmarkstatements.
Teaching Quality Enhancement Funds (TQEF)
Since 2000, HEFCE has provided enhancement funds (TQEF) for learning and teaching strategies; supporting professional standards; student and staff volunteering; and new funding to support teaching informed by research. The main strategic purpose of this funding is to embed and sustain learning and teaching strategies and activities, and to encourage future institutional investment in continuous improvement. At national level, TQEF has supported the CETL and National Teaching Fellowship Scheme (NTFS) programmes.
Programme specifications
Programme specifications were introduced in 1999 to make the outcomes of learning more explicit and to relate programmes and awards to the qualifications frameworks.
Teaching teams are required to produce programme specifications for every pro- gramme that an HEI runs, often using a specified template. The specifications require the essential elements of a programme to be synthesised into a brief set of statements, however complex. The elements include the intended learning outcomes of a programme (specific, measurable intentions expressed as what learners will be able to do in terms of knowledge, understanding, skills and other attributes); teaching and learning methods;
assessment; career opportunities and relationship of the programme to the qualifications framework. Programme specifications also provide a basis for the university (through quality assurance committees and boards), students, employers and external reviewers to assure quality at programme level.
Progress files
The student progress file helps students and employers understand the outcomes of learning in higher education. It comprises three interlinked elements:
1 transcript – a formal record of learning and achievement provided by the institution;
2 personal and development planning (PDP) – a process owned and produced by the student in liaison with staff;
3 individual students’ personal records of achievements, progress reviews and plans.
192 ❘ Teaching, supervising, learning
Quality, standards and enhancement ❘ 193
Progress files help students to monitor, build and reflect on their development and to produce personal statements such as CVs. Institutions must provide the opportunity for students to undertake PDP, and staff need to ensure that adequate, appropriate and timely assessment information is provided for the transcript. The involvement and encourage- ment that teachers or other staff provide varies between institutions and disciplines.
PDP may be used as a means of structuring tutorials or meetings with students, and different types of paper-based or electronic progress files may be developed, ranging from a reflective ‘journal’ to a more descriptive record of development and skill acquisition. Issues of confidentiality and responsibility need to be addressed.
Code of Practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education
The Code of Practice sets out precepts or principles that institutions should satisfy relating to the management of academic standards and quality with guidance as to how they might meet the precepts. The Code covers ten areas of provision:
1 postgraduate research programmes 2 collaborative provision
3 students with disabilities 4 external examining
5 academic appeals and student complaints 6 assessment of students
7 programme approval, monitoring and review 8 career education, information and guidance 9 placement learning
10 student recruitment and admissions.
Frameworks for Higher Education Qualifications
There is a single qualifications framework for England, Wales and Northern Ireland and a separate one for Scotland. The frameworks aim to simplify the range of awards, informing employers, students and other stakeholders about the meaning and level of
Interrogating practice
How useful do students find progress files/PDP as a tool for developing a reflective approach to study and development? How do/might you as a teacher help students to use PDP for personal and professional development?
qualifications and the achievements and attributes that may be expected of holders of qualifications, and aim to provide assurance that qualifications from different institutions and for different subjects represent similar levels of achievement.
The higher education qualifications awarded by universities and colleges in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are at five levels: the Certificate, Intermediate, Honours, Masters and Doctoral levels. Generic ‘descriptors’ indicate the expected outcomes at each level and provide a reference point for course development and review, whatever the subject. Lecturers and institutions need to ensure that their programmes match the appropriate level (see also Chapter 4).
Subject benchmark statements
Produced by senior academics in consultation with the sector, subject benchmark statements are statements about the ‘threshold quality’ or ‘minimum standards’ of graduates’ achievements, attributes and capabilities relating to the award of qualifications at a given level in each subject.
The statements are used alongside qualifications frameworks so that for any programme there is compatibility between the intended learning outcomes and the relevant programme specification. The benchmark statements are regularly reviewed to reflect developments in the subject and the experiences of institutions and others of working with them.
Lecturers need to be aware of the benchmark statements for their own subjects, particularly if they are involved in curriculum design or the production of programme specifications. Statements are one reference point for designing new programmes or when reviewing the content of existing curricula. The benchmark statements are also used by external bodies as reference points for audit and review.
Student satisfaction surveys
Higher education institutions are charged with providing timely, accurate and relevant public information but they must also demonstrate engagement with and consideration of the student, employer and other stakeholders’ ‘voice’ (Cooke, 2002). The National Student Survey, which began in 2005, systematically gathers and reviews student feedback on programmes and institutions to improve the quality of the student learning experience (see also Chapters 9 and 10 for further consideration of the impact of the surveys).
Lecturers (and administrators) need to be aware of national, institutional and departmental requirements for the collection of data from students and employers, to respond to the comments received, and to ensure that information is made available for public consumption.
194 ❘ Teaching, supervising, learning
Quality, standards and enhancement ❘ 195