Teaching and Learning > DOCUMENTS

Information on Quality and Standards in Higher Education (HEFCE 02/15)

George Macdonald Ross

Summary for PRS disciplines

The revised method for quality assurance in England, announced in March 2002, has two aspects. The method itself is described in QAA External Review Process for Higher Education in England (QAA 019 03/02). This is complemented by the HEFCE document: Information on Quality and Standards in Higher Education (HEFCE 02/15), which can be downloaded from http://www.hefce.ac.uk/Pubs/hefce/2002/02_15.htm. It is the final report of a Task Group chaired by Professor Sir Ron Cooke, whose remit was to specify the documentation institutions would be required to make available to audit teams, and which of it should also be published.

Most of the 41-page report is taken up by an analysis of responses to an earlier consultation document (Information on Quality and Standards of Teaching and Learning: Proposals for Consultation: HEFCE 01/66), which is now largely of historical interest. The core of the document is the list of 'information which should be available in all HEIs' (pp.7-9), and the list of 'information for publication' (p.9).

1. Information which should be available in all HEIs

This list is divided into three sections, of which the first ('Information on the institutional context') is of concern only to central administrations. The implication is that virtually all of the remaining information should be provided at the level of the individual department or programme of study. The list is as follows:

[a. ommitted]

b. Information on student admission, progression and completion:

  1. Student qualifications on entry.
  2. The range of student entrants classified by age, gender, ethnicity, socio-economic background, disability and geographical origin as returned to the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA).
  3. Student progression and retention data for each year of each course/programme, differentiating between failure and withdrawal.
  4. Data on student completion.
  5. Data on qualifications awarded to students.
  6. Data on the employment/training outcomes for graduates from the First Destination Survey (FDS).

c. Information on the HEI's internal procedures for assuring academic quality and standards:

  1. i. Information on programme approval, monitoring and review:
    • programme specifications
    • a statement of the respective roles, responsibilities and authority of different bodies within the HEI involved in programme approval and review
    • key outcomes of programme approval, and annual monitoring and review processes
    • periodic internal reports of major programme reviews
    • reports of periodic internal reviews by the institution of departments or faculties
    • accreditation and monitoring reports by professional, statutory or regulatory bodies.
  2. Information on assessment procedures and outcomes:
    • assessment strategies, processes and procedures
    • the range and nature of student work
    • external examiners' reports, analysis of their findings, and the actions taken in response
    • reports of periodic reviews of the appropriateness of assessment methods used.
  3. Information on student satisfaction with their HE experience, covering the views of students on:
    • arrangements for academic and tutorial guidance, support and supervision
    • library services and IT support
    • suitability of accommodation, equipment and facilities for teaching and learning
    • perceptions of the quality of teaching and the range of teaching and learning methods
    • assessment arrangements
    • quality of pastoral support.
  4. Information and evidence available to teams undertaking HEIs' own internal reviews of quality and standards in relation to:
    • the effectiveness of teaching and learning, in relation to programme aims and curriculum content as they evolve over time
    • the range of teaching methods used
    • the availability and use of specialist equipment and other resources and materials to support teaching and learning
    • staff access to professional development to improve teaching performance, including peer observation and mentoring programmes
    • the use of external benchmarking and other comparators both at home and overseas
    • the involvement of external peers in the review method, their observations, and the action taken in response.

2. Information for publication

Most of the information for publication will be collected by central administrations.

Quantitative data will not be published for individual programmes or departments, but for subject areas as defined by the HESA Joint Academic Coding System (JACS). In our case this means the following humanities disciplines:

Four items will be relevant to individual departments:

i. Summaries of external examiners' reports on each programme

Full external examiners' reports will remain confidential to the institution, since publication would detract from their frankness. Instead, the chief external examiner for each programme will be required to write a separate report, using a standard template provided as Annex C of the HEFCE document.

ii. Feedback from current students

Although the published feedback will be an institution-wide summary, the information will have to be gathered at programme level. A standard template for programme evaluation questionnaires is provided as Annex D of the HEFCE document.

iii. Summary statements of the results of, and the actions taken in response to, periodic programme and departmental reviews

Major reviews of every programme must be conducted by the institution at intervals of not more than six years. A standard template for publishing summaries of reviews is provided as Annex E of the HEFCE document.

The document takes it for granted that departments will conduct internal reviews of their programmes every year. It was originally proposed that summaries of these reviews would be published. This proposal has been dropped because of the burden it would have imposed. Instead, it is assumed that any changes resulting from annual reviews will feed into amendments to programme specifications, which are in any case public documents.

iv. Summaries of links with relevant employers

Although these summaries will be the responsibility of central administrations, it is assumed that most of the raw data will already be included in individual programme specifications. In paragraph 44, it is explicitly stated that a minimum requirement is 'summary material on how the institution identifies employer needs and opinions.' It goes on to say: 'in all cases, HEIs should summarise in programme specifications and learning and teaching strategies how they identify needs and opinions, and reflect them in the design and delivery of programmes.' What is not required (though it would be helpful) is information on employers' views on graduates they have recruited - mainly because of disciplines such as ours which are largely non-vocational.

Comment

Although the new system is supposed to represent a 'lighter touch', the amount of documentation required does not seem to be significantly less than that required for a QAA subject review - particularly if you take into account additional documentation for internal programme reviews, such as self-assessments. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the burden of inspection has merely been shifted from the QAA to individual institutions, and the QAA will monitor that institutions are doing what it requires.

Perhaps it won't be so bad after the documentation has been assembled for the first time, and merely needs periodic updating. But I am sure that very few, if any PRS departments have more than a small proportion of the required documentation already in place. The most difficult and time-consuming tasks are likely to be:

No doubt the pressures on individual departments will vary from institution to institution. The PRS Subject Centre is keen to learn how you are affected by the new system, and it will help in any way it can.

This page was originally on the website of The Subject Centre for Philosophical and Religious Studies. It was transfered here following the closure of the Subject Centre at the end of 2011.

 

-
The British Association for the Study of Religions
The Religious Studies Project