There was an excellent response to the consultation paper that we published earlier this year. As I made clear throughout, this was a genuine consultation designed to play a major part in shaping our proposals.
Our willingness to listen has puzzled the headline writers, who have accused us both of watering down and beefing up our proposals! The reality is that we have striven to develop a model that can command the support of the sector whilst ensuring a high level of public confidence that quality and standards in higher education are being safeguarded and enhanced.
We have achieved a remarkable degree of consensus on the way forward. I welcome in particular the endorsement by the Funding Councils of the principles of the new model. That clears the way for us to proceed with the trialling that will address matters of detailed implementation.
On some matters we have heeded the voice of the sector. For example, the Dearing proposal that external examiners should report directly to the Agency met with real concerns that the independent role of the external examiner as 'critical friend' would be undermined, with a loss of frankness in reporting. We are not proceeding with that proposal. Instead, academic reviewers will draw upon the experience of external examiners, but in a way that will not compromise their independent role.
On other matters we have concluded that it is the views of the external stakeholders that must prevail. For example, views from within the sector were divided on proposals for programme specifications and subject benchmarks, with a number of significant reservations being expressed. Against this there was overwhelming support from employers and students for clear and verifiable information about the outcomes that programmes are intended to achieve. Accordingly, programme specifications and subject benchmarks remain as central features of the new model.
For all concerned, a critical test of any new model is whether it is capable of bringing about a reduction in the burden that external scrutiny can place upon institutions. A key feature of the model is a new flexibility in the timing of programme reviews so as to facilitate the alignment of external scrutiny and internal review or revalidation. By aligning the internal and external processes, the duplication of work that gives rise to much of the burden can be eliminated.
The model should be capable of helping the sector cope with the challenges of the future. Delivery of higher education programmes is becoming increasingly diverse and complex, not least through the rapid growth of collaborative arrangements at home and overseas. Complexity adds risk, and risk must be managed. Maintenance of the overall standards of awards is critical to the reputation of UK higher education. In the new model, review at the institutional level will be concerned particularly with the security of arrangements for safeguarding the standards of awards, not least those made in respect of provision that is delivered through complex collaborative arrangements.
We now enter a two year period of trialling and developing the new model. A genuine and open consultation has resulted in a framework that can command support of all parties. We will take an equally open-minded approach to the trialling, with a view to ensuring that as operational detail is developed and refined, the model will remain one that is robust, that commands the support of the sector, and meets fully the information needs of funders and stakeholders.
John Randall Chief Executive
There must be public confidence that quality of provision and standards of awards in higher education are being safeguarded and enhanced.
Those who use and those who pay for higher education must have ready access to reliable information about the performance of universities and colleges across the extensive and diverse range of programmes of study offered.
The Higher Education Funding Councils have statutory obligations to secure the assessment of the quality of the provision they fund. Information must be provided, and quality assurance arrangements undertaken by the Agency in forms acceptable to the Councils.
A national quality assurance system must meet these needs in a manner that is effective, efficient and economical.
Assuring standards and quality
Assurance must be provided that each higher education institution is discharging
effectively its responsibilities as a body granting awards that have national
and international standing.
To this end judgements are required on:
- the effectiveness of arrangements to ensure that all awards made in the name of the institution meet required standards;
- the setting and achieving of appropriate standards for each programme of study;
- the quality of the learning opportunities offered to students.
Collecting the evidence
Quality assurance must be rigorous and effective, but it must not place a disproportionate
burden on institutions and their staff. Internal review mechanisms and external
scrutiny must work together to avoid duplication.
There will be reports on different aspects of quality and standards, but the evidence on which these will be based will be gathered from an integrated process of scrutiny of an institution and its programmes.
Public accountability
The Agency will publish periodic reports on:
- the exercise by each institution of its responsibilities as an awarding body, and the arrangements at institutional level for maintaining and enhancing quality and standards;
- the quality of learning opportunities in each main subject area in each institution;
- the standards achieved in each subject in each institution;
- an overview of standards in each subject across all institutions
Bodies that award qualifications in respect of secondary, further and vocational education are subject to statutory regulation. Higher education, which is largely self-regulating, must be able to demonstrate no less rigour in safeguarding its own standards.
Universities (and colleges with their own degree awarding powers) are themselves major awarding bodies. All grant awards in respect of the programmes they offer on their own premises. In addition:
- some franchise programmes of study to other institutions, often in the further education sector or overseas;
- some validate individual programmes designed and offered in other higher education establishments, or by industrial or commercial companies;
- some license or accredit generally other institutions to offer programmes in their name; and
- some offer programmes through distance learning, with or without local tutorial support provided by others.
The role of universities in these areas has increased greatly in recent years, and with it the importance of the function of granting awards for programmes offered through third parties. Further, the volume of provision now offered on institutions' own campuses is such that key aspects of the awarding function are sometimes delegated to faculties, schools or departments.
In the light of these developments there is a need for public assurance that each institution maintains its degree standards, no matter how, by whom or where programmes leading to those degrees are offered.
That assurance is required:
- by students, many of whom now study away from the main campus;
- by employers, who rely on common standards in recruiting;
- by HE providers themselves, who need to know that their programmes meet national standards;
- by the taxpayer, who meets much of the cost; and
- particularly in respect of overseas provision, where the reputation of UK higher education as a whole is at stake.
Programme outcome standards
There must be independent verification that programmes of study are delivering
their intended outcomes; and that student achievement meets the standards required
by the institution for its awards, by relevant national subject benchmarks, and
by any accrediting professional body.
- Students and employers require clear information about the standards that will be achieved and the skills that will be acquired through each programme of study.
- Students need clear information about the extent to which a programme of study will equip them to progress in their intended careers.
- Public concern that all degree programmes in a subject meet at least a common minimum standard must be satisfied.
- Demonstrating that intended outcomes are being achieved helps show that programmes represent value for money.
Quality of learning opportunities
Potential students need an indication of the quality of the learning opportunities
that will be available to them. Information is needed in relation to subject
areas within institutions, and on the extent to which the institution as a whole
meets expectations of good practice in relation to support of student learning.
Independent assessment also helps institutions to enhance the quality of their provision:
- by identifying strengths and weaknesses;
- by offering recommendations for improvement; and
- by disseminating good practice.
To support the new approach, work will be completed on:
- the Qualifications Framework - to ensure that qualifications that share a common title are of a common level and nature.
- guidance on developing Programme Specifications - to help institutions set out clearly the intended outcomes of their programmes.
- Subject Benchmark Standards - to set agreed national standards in each subject.
- Codes of Practice in the areas recommended by the Dearing Report - to promulgate good practice in relation to support of student learning and maintenance of academic standards.
Quality assurance must be rigorous and effective, but it must not place a disproportionate burden on institutions and their staff, or distort the teaching process. To avoid duplication, internal review mechanisms and external scrutiny must work together.
There will be an integrated process of scrutiny of institutions, with a move away from a series of single events to an engagement with an institution's own review processes over a cycle, wherever those processes are shown to be sufficiently robust that they can be relied on for this purpose. The cycle will include a summative assessment of the effectiveness of overall academic management systems, particularly those relating to assuring the standards of awards. Reporting on standards and learning opportunities by subject will occur throughout the cycle of review.
The review cycle
Each institution will be able to propose to the Agency a cycle, of not more than
six years in length, which meets their internal validation or review cycles,
so as to minimise duplication of effort and paperwork on the part of the institution.
The Agency will seek to accommodate these proposals, subject to the overriding
need to secure national consistency and comparability of judgements between institutions
in the same subject area.
To meet these needs there will have to be some parameters within which agreements will be reached with institutions about their individual cycles. In the first cycle the order in which subjects are reviewed will also need to take account of the availability of national benchmarks for each subject.
The first cycle will be six years in length, and will be divided into two halves. Each subject will be allocated to one half. This will mean that information on any subject is generated within a period of no more than three years, thus ensuring it is not so old as to invalidate comparability. First half subjects will include those first assessed in the earlier stages of TQA cycles; second half subjects will include those that fall later in the schedule for producing benchmark information.
In each year of the cycle a number of programmes will be reviewed by Academic Reviewers. A single process of programme review will produce the evidence needed for the separate reports on outcome standards and on quality of learning opportunities.
Where a course is subject also to accreditation by a professional or statutory body, the institution should seek to agree with that body the timing of the review within the cycle. The Agency will make every effort to cooperate so as to avoid duplication of effort, whilst ensuring that the professional or statutory body is able fully to satisfy its accreditation responsibilities.
The Agency will agree with each institution the point in the cycle at which it will report on the awarding body function and other matters of overall academic management.
Units of review
There will be standard, subject based units of review. These will be used to
review both quality and outcomes. Institutions will be able to propose aggregating
the units for the purpose of quality reviews, particularly to reflect modular
schemes and the grouping of small programmes with larger cognate programmes.
Where subjects are aggregated, the quality review reports will still comment
on separate subject areas if they display different quality characteristics.
There will be 42 subject units,corresponding to the subject areas for which national benchmark standards will be produced. (A list of the units is at Annex 4). The Agency will work with the Funding Councils and HESA to ensure that these units can be mapped on to other HE subject groupings.
Academic Reviewers
Academic Reviewers will be appointed by the Agency to review both the provision
in each institutional subject grouping, and the institution's overall capacity
to assure the quality and standards of its awards. The number appointed will
depend on the scale and diversity of provision under review. Academic Reviewers
will be practising academics with relevant expertise, or persons from professional
and employment backgrounds with relevant knowledge and experience. They will
be trained and remunerated by the Agency.
The Agency proposes to have a single cadre of Academic Reviewers, to reflect the integrated and inter-dependent nature of the processes it will operate. From within this cadre individuals will be selected according to their experience and expertise to make up teams appropriate to the matters to be reviewed. Within each team:
- Reviewers reporting upon outcomes will be practising academics with subject expertise in the programme area concerned. In some professional or vocational fields some reviewers might be from an appropriate field of non-academic employment.
- Reviewers reporting upon the quality of learning opportunities will have generic assessment experience likely to have been gained through subject review.
- Reviewers considering the overall academic management of an institution, and especially those systems relating to the awarding function, will be senior academic figures with a background similar to that of existing academic auditors.
Senior and experienced reviewers would be capable of being used in any or all capacities.
(For further information about Academic Reviewers, see Annex 1).
Working with institutional processes
Academic Reviewers will form their judgements through observation of the institution's
own programme validation and review events, by drawing on the findings of external
examiners, by seeking feedback from students, staff and employers, and by scrutiny
of some overall institutional processes.
In all cases there will be a minimum of two Academic Reviewers for any group of programmes, or for any institutional review, to guard against the risk of idiosyncratic individual judgements. In most cases a larger team will be required.
Making and reporting judgements
The subject/programme level
Outcomes
The scope of a programme review will reflect the pattern of provision within
an institution, and may cover several related subjects. However, in reporting
on outcomes, separate judgements will be made by Academic Reviewers on each standard
subject unit.This will allow comparison between institutions, and will inform
revision of national subject benchmark standards. (For further information about
benchmark standards, see Annex 3).
For each standard subject area, in each institution, a report will be produced in each review cycle covering:
- the extent to which student attainment matches any applicable subject benchmark standard, qualification definition and/or level descriptor in the qualifications framework;
- the extent to which students are achieving the objectives set out in the programme specification (including any relating to key skills);
- the effectiveness of the design, content and organisation of the curriculum in delivering the intended outcomes; and
- the appropriateness of student assessment methods as instruments for measuring the intended outcomes.
External examiners' reports and accreditation reports by professional or statutory bodies will be important sources of evidence in reporting upon outcomes.
Quality of learning opportunities
Judgements will be made by Academic Reviewers in relation either to single subjects,
or to agreed combinations of standard subject units which reflect patterns of
provision within the institution (for example, within modular schemes). For each
subject or group of subjects in each institution, a report will be produced in
each review cycle covering the extent to which each of the following aspects
of provision contributes to meeting the stated objectives of the programmes:
- Teaching and learning;
- Student support and guidance;
- Learning resources; and
- Quality management and enhancement.
To make their judgements, Academic Reviewers will observe validation and review events, and a sample of meetings of course committees, faculty boards or their equivalent; and will discuss with those responsible the outcomes of those events and the evidence used in them to make internal judgements. They will seek views directly from students and staff, and, where necessary, will observe a sample of teaching and learning activities.
The Agency will publish a handbook describing the method that will be used by Academic Reviewers. In order that judgements can be made on a broadly comparable basis, this handbook will state principles and expectations for the internal review procedures which should apply. In the absence of such procedures, it may be necessary for institutions to continue to produce separate self-assessment reports for the purpose of external review.
The institutional level
Arrangements to maintain quality and standards
Academic Reviewers will assess the robustness of institutional arrangements to
safeguard the standards of awards. Some of the evidence on which this assessment
will be based will be drawn from the involvement of Reviewers at programme level.
External examiners' reports, and any action taken in response to these, will
be particularly important evidence.
Reviewers will also need to observe directly some procedures at the institutional level, including those covered by the Codes of Practice to be promulgated by the Agency. In some cases, and especially where there are collaborative schemes with other institutions, some further scrutiny of institutional arrangements may be required.
Effectiveness of institutional support
Drawing in part on reviews at programme level, Academic Reviewers will assess
the extent to which student learning is supported effectively by institution-wide
arrangements dealing with such things as student support and guidance, and the
particular needs of groups such as postgraduate and overseas students. Many of
these matters will be covered by codes of practice published by the Agency.
The institutional report
In the light of all of the evidence gathered during the review cycle, the Agency's
Reviewers will discuss with each institution the effectiveness of its overall
academic systems, and will produce a published report dealing with:
- The effectiveness of the exercise of the awarding function (or, where the institution does not award its own qualifications, the effectiveness of its academic management systems); and
- The effectiveness of institutional management of the support of student learning.
The purpose of institutional review, and the subsequent report, is to help the institution safeguard its future. It is not merely a retrospective judgement nor is it only about identifying areas for improvement, important though that is. It is to provide a detached and analytical view to help an institution to know itself, to help it to be aware not only that things work, but why they are working. In that way the factors that have contributed to past success can be applied to secure the success of future innovation.
Varying the intensity of scrutiny
The new approach is based upon existing internal processes, with Academic Reviewers appointed by the Agency engaging with these to the extent necessary to make independent and reliable judgements about standards and quality. Where, in due course, experience gives a high level of confidence in the procedures of institutions, the level of external scrutiny needed to make reliable independent judgements may reduce.
Subject/programme level
Variation in the intensity of scrutiny at subject/programme level will be in
the extent of engagement with internal processes. If in a subject area, there
is a high level of confidence, the involvement of Reviewers is likely to be concentrated
on the latter stages of the internal revalidation exercise, with reliance being
placed on evidence gathering and evaluation carried out earlier by the institution
itself. Pending the establishment of that level of confidence, Reviewers would
be more directly involved in those earlier stages, and, for the purposes of quality
reviews, would scrutinise a higher proportion of the provision within the subject
area (outcomes reviews would in all cases comment on the outcomes of each programme).
Evidence for a high level of confidence would come from the Agency's experience
of working with internal processes, and from earlier assessment and audit reports.
Conversely, if there is a low degree of confidence in internal procedures it may not be possible to rely on them at all. In that event, the Agency would have to carry out directly full reviews of provision at subject level.
The Agency will produce a Code of Practice on programme monitoring and review as a part of its overall guidance on the assurance by institutions of their quality and standards. The Agency will have regard to this Code in making judgements about the confidence that can be placed in institutional procedures, and will produce criteria against which decisions about varying the intensity of scrutiny will be made.
Institutional level
At institutional level the Agency, acting through senior and experienced Academic
Reviewers, will review with the institution the evidence gathered throughout
the review cycle about overall academic systems. It will discuss its findings
with the institution. If, in the Agency's view, the evidence is both sufficient
and satisfactory, little further scrutiny may be required before the Agency reports.
If the evidence is insufficient or incomplete, further scrutiny along the lines
used at present in the Agency's academic audits may be required to enable the
Academic Reviewers to report.
Where an institution has significant involvement in collaborative provision, especially franchised and overseas provision, it is unlikely that reviews at programme level within the institution itself will yield sufficient evidence about the integrity of the awarding function in these circumstances. Accordingly, within the review cycle, the Agency may schedule separate audits of collaborative and overseas provision to obtain this evidence.
An unsatisfactory report on either outcomes or quality in respect of any subject area will result in a further report within 12 months. As with the current arrangements for subject review, it is assumed that a second unsatisfactory report could result in a loss of funding from the relevant funding council. The further report would be produced as a result of direct observation and enquiry by Academic Reviewers, and not by drawing upon internal processes.
Where a report found that provision in any subject area was not unsatisfactory, but indicated significant scope for improvement, an institution would be required to produce an Improvement Plan against which progress could be monitored by the Agency.
If the Agency considers that an institution's ability to safeguard the quality and standards of its awards is in jeopardy, it will seek from the institution the development and implementation of a recovery plan.
In all cases, the relevant Funding Council will be notified immediately.
Institutional reports will adopt the narrative style of the current audit reports, identifying areas for commendation, concern, or need for urgent action. Twelve months after the report is made, the institution should advise the Agency of progress made in addressing those issues identified as requiring action.
Reports will assess whether institutions have in place arrangements having an effect equivalent to that intended by the Codes of Practice published by the Agency. In the great majority of cases the Agency would expect to find evidence of arrangements that were appropriate, given the circumstances and mission of the institution. In rare cases, arrangements might be found to be inappropriate or inadequate. In some cases arrangements might be found, in respect of individual codes, that were exemplary and worthy of emulation by others.
At subject level it is important that reports should provide a similar identification of strengths and weaknesses. The aspects of the quality of learning opportunities that will be reported upon are similar to some of the aspects now used in reporting at subject level in England.
Reporting on outcomes is more complex, as there are two main dimensions to be considered. Achievement of the intended outcomes of the provider is something that has either occurred fully or not. To the extent it may not have occurred, a numerical rating of any shortfall is not particularly helpful. A narrative account, identifying clearly any remedial action that should be taken, is of more practical use.
The second dimension to reporting on outcomes concerns national subject benchmarks. In this case it would be possible to comment on the intellectual demand the programme placed on students in relation to the benchmark. It would be possible to form a view on whether satisfactory provision was at the level of the benchmark, above that level, or significantly exceeding it.
The Funding Councils have made clear that in principle they consider it highly desirable that the QAA assessments should include summative quantified ratings as well as narrative descriptions of strengths and weaknesses; and that that is particularly important to underpin any link between funding and quality of the sort currently used by SHEFC and HEFCW. Further consideration is needed of the form of reporting needed to meet this requirement.
The Agency proposes to trial aspects of the new approach as follows.
Subject/programme level
There will be a two year trial period, commencing in October 1998. This will
mainly involve institutions in Scotland and Wales, because the existing review
cycle has already been completed there, whereas the TQA programme is scheduled
to continue in England until December 2001. In 1998/99, the focus of the trialling
will be on using benchmark information and programme specifications to test the
generation of reliable reports on outcomes. Some 20 institutions, mostly in Scotland
and Wales, will be involved in this work.
In 1999/2000, trials on outcomes will be extended to a wider range of subject areas, and will be combined with trials in generating the intended new style of quality and institutional level reports. During the trial period, the Agency will also agree with all HEIs in Scotland and Wales a review cycle covering all of their provision with a view to commencing the implementation of the new framework with effect from 2000/2001.
Transitional arrangements for audit
The existing QAA audit programme will run as scheduled to 2001. Thereafter, the
new model of institutional reports will be used, drawing in the first instance
on the early findings of the new programme reports, as well as subject reviews
carried out under existing procedures.
To assist the transition to the new model, from 1999 audit reports will include a view of the confidence that may be placed on the reliability of the institution's management of its academic quality and standards.
The Agency will seek to enter into agreements with the funding and representative bodies (who have been fully consulted on the development of this model) for its further development and trialling, commencing in the 1998/99 academic year.
Academic Reviewers: time commitment
The time commitment for an Academic Reviewer assessing programme outcomes is likely to be five or six days per institution, and could well involve visits to the institution at various key points in the assessment cycle, not only at the end of the programme. To ensure that broad comparability was being maintained across the sector it would be desirable for Academic Reviewers to act in relation to more than one institution. If reporting on a subject in all institutions is spread over a three year period within a review cycle, this could be achieved without the Reviewer having to deal with more than one or two institutions per year.
The time commitment for Academic Reviewers assessing the quality of learning opportunities would depend on the intensity of scrutiny that was required, but it would not be greater than the commitment now associated with a subject review.
The time commitment for Academic Reviewers involved in institutional review would be comparable to that required for continuation audit at present.
Time commitments of this level are no more than those now expected of academics involved in subject review or continuation audit. They should ensure that Academic Reviewers are able to be drawn from the ranks of practising academics of high standing and, as such, be seen to be a part of a peer review process. However, others would be eligible for appointment, in particular practising professionals or other persons in relevant employment.
Reviewers from a professional or employment background would be particularly appropriate in respect of professional or vocational courses. Professional and statutory bodies might be able to nominate suitable persons; this would facilitate opportunities for the bodies and the Agency to work together in the review process, using a mix of academic and professional Reviewers.
In all cases there would be a minimum of two Academic Reviewers for any group of programmes, or for any institutional review, to guard against the risk of idiosyncratic individual judgements. In most cases a larger team would be required. Pending the development of the confidence needed to rely to a greater extent on institutional procedures at the subject/programme level, the resource devoted to review will be comparable to that now used for subject assessment.
The Agency will develop criteria for the appointment of Reviewers, and will keep records of those who meet those criteria and are willing to be called upon.
Detailed information on the role of Academic Reviewers in relation to scrutiny of academic standards, quality of learning opportunities and institutional review is available from the Agency. Those requiring further details should, in the first instance, contact Dr Peter Milton, telephone 01452 557013, email p.milton@qaa.ac.uk
External examiners
The Dearing Report proposed an enhanced role for external examiners in relation to outcomes. The Agency's consultation paper canvassed two possible ways forward. The first was an elaboration of the Dearing model, involving some external examiners reporting directly to the Agency. The second envisaged an Academic Reviewer, appointed by and reporting to the Agency, working with external examiners and the associated internal processes of institutions.
The consultation demonstrates a clear preference for the latter model. The former is seen as confusing the reporting responsibilities of external examiners, creating conflicts of interest, and undermining the frankness of the examiner as 'critical friend'.
However, some features associated with the former model were supported. These include the promulgation of guidelines or a code of practice on external examining, and the availability of training and development opportunities to ensure that all external examiners are able to meet criteria of effective performance.
The Agency proposals involve use of the second model. This will be tested through trialling. Work continues on developing a code of practice on external examining. Draft criteria of effective performance to inform training and development are being developed by the Agency.
In preparing their reports on outcomes Academic Reviewers will draw upon the reports of external examiners. This will enable the benefits of the experience of external examiners to be available, but without compromising the ability of external examiners to continue to report frankly and exclusively to the institution.
Whether, in addition, a register of external examiners is required is an open question. If it were felt helpful to have a register of those who met criteria of effective performance in the role, the Agency would be willing to maintain such a register. However, its existence is not critical to the model now proposed.
Subject benchmarks
The development of subject benchmark standards was a key recommendation of the Dearing Report, being seen as essential to ensure public and employer confidence that awards, especially at first degree level, were nationally recognised and widely understood. Some concerns about benchmarking have emerged from the consultation. Fears were expressed that they might become tantamount to a national curriculum, or alternatively that they would be so general as to be meaningless. Some felt that the subject based approach did not cater adequately for inter-disciplinary programmes. There was a concern that if thresholds were set at the level of the pass degree this would lead to a reduction in standards.
Public concern that the transition to mass higher education may have resulted in erosion of degree standards needs to be addressed, and subject benchmarking has the potential to do that. The Agency believes that the fears expressed in the consultation should be addressed through the work of the first benchmarking groups
The Agency commends the following points to the benchmarking groups:
- the prime focus should be on the intellectual attributes associated with successful study of a discipline to degree level, so as to avoid the risk of seeming to dictate a curriculum;
- in professionally related fields institutions should make clear whether or not a programme is intended to meet the requirements of a professional body. Elements of a benchmark that are included solely to meet a professional requirement should be identified clearly as such;
- in determining the level at which a benchmark should be set, a group should not be bound to adopt the pass/fail borderline. A group might find it more helpful to express a benchmark at a modal level.
The Agency is encouraged by the initial work of the benchmarking groups established so far. It believes the work should be taken forward by:
- evaluating the utility of the initial benchmarks through trialling;
- extending the benchmarking trials so as to widen the range of subjects against which the benchmarking approach can be refined;
- including within the next tranche at least one inherently interdiscplinary subject, such as business studies;
- establishing an advisory group to advise on benchmarking in multi-disciplinary and modular programmes generally;
- drawing on the emerging conclusions of the benchmarking groups to inform the development of a level descriptor for the honours degree level of the qualifications framework.
Subject benchmarking groups will also have a role to play in revising the benchmarks in the light of experience. For each standard subject area there will be a subject overview report at the end of each review cycle. This will draw on all of the reports on outcomes achieved by institutions, will give a general picture of the health of the subject area, and will inform any necessary revision of subject benchmark standards. A senior academic in the field, possibly the chairman of the subject benchmarking group, would be commissioned to prepare the report in conjunction with the academic reviewers in that field. In the light of this report the benchmarking group would consider whether any amendment to the benchmarks was required.
Standard subject units
(Some of these units are themselves aggregations of cognate disciplines and the detailed work of a subject benchmarking group may lead to proposals for sub-division or disaggregation. Where there is the potential for this to occur, subjects will be placed as far as possible in the second half of the first subject review cycle, to allow time for consideration of this.)
- Medicine
- Dentistry
- Veterinary Medicine
- Biosciences
- Nursing and Midwifery
- Subjects Allied to Medicine
- Social Policy & Administration and Social Work 8 Sociology and Anthropology
- Physics and Astronomy
- Chemistry
- Engineering
- Psychology
- Geography
- Earth and Environmental Studies
- Agriculture, Forestry, Agricultural and Food Sciences
- Materials
- Architecture
- Building and Surveying
- Town & Country Planning and Landscape
- Mathematics, Statistics and Operational Research
- Computer Science
- Librarianship and Information Studies
- Economics
- Politics
- Law
- Linguistics
- English
- Area Studies
- Language and Related Studies
- Classical Languages and Ancient History
- History
- Archaeology
- Philosophy
- Theology and Religious Studies
- Communication, Media, Film and Television Studies
- Art and Design
- Drama, Dance and Performance Arts
- Music
- Hospitality, Leisure, Recreation, Sports and Tourism
- Business and Management
- Accountancy
- Education Studies
A NEW APPROACH: BRIEFING SESSIONS
Institutional briefings
There will be a total of four briefing sessions on the Agency's proposals for
a new quality assurance framework.
Two sessions have been organised in conjunction with the following events, and there is no need to register separately for these:
Tuesday 20 October 1998 in conjunction with the COSHEP meeting, Dundee
Tuesday 3 November 1998 within a session of the SCOP Conference in Bournemouth
The Agency is holding two additional briefings for heads of institution and/or their colleagues responsible for quality assurance, at which senior Agency staff will explain the proposals outlined in this issue of higher quality, outline the procedure for trialling them, and answer any questions. There is no charge for these events, but registration is essential.
Friday 6 November 1998 University of Manchester
Tuesday 10 November 1998 University of London (Senate House)
For further details, please contact the Communications Unit.Telephone 01452 557073. Fax 01452 557071. Email comms@qaa.ac.uk
Subject bodies and associations
A conference for subject bodies and subject associations will be held on Tuesday
8 December 1998 at the University of Manchester.
Policy issues on the agenda will include:
- work of the Qualifications Framework Groups;
- work of the Subject Benchmarking Groups;
- development of the Programme Specification;
- trialling of part of the Academic Reviewer model.
The day will include opportunities for discussion and feedback to Agency representatives.
For further details, please contact Fiona Crozier, Development Officer. Telephone 01452 557129. Email f.crozier@qaa.ac.uk
Professional and statutory bodies
Meetings for professional and statutory bodies are also being arranged.
For further details please contact Julie Swan, Assistant Director (Programme Review). Telephone 01452 557019. Email j.swan@qaa.ac.uk
Next > Part 2
Brig
Y
diweddaraf am ASA
QAAtweets
QAAtube