Handbook for the review of foundation degrees in England 2004-05

QAA 053 09/04

Introduction

1 The mission of the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (the Agency) is to promote public confidence that the quality of provision and standards of awards in higher education are being safeguarded and enhanced. The Agency has been commissioned by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) to undertake a second review of a sample of foundation degrees in England in the academic year 2004-05. The first special review of a sample of foundation degrees took place in 2002-03. The review method has been developed and refined from existing methods carried out by the Agency for more than a decade. Foundation degree programmes will be reviewed using the method described in this Handbook for the review of foundation degrees 2004-05 (QAA, 2004). This handbook is an updated version of the Handbook for the review of foundation degrees (QAA, 2002) published for the first special review. It has been subject only to minor revisions to reflect the feedback from participants in the first review and the further development of the award, which has taken place since the first handbook was written. The review programme for 2004-05 covers a range of institutions, subjects, size of programme, modes of study and attendance patterns The major purposes of the review process are:

to encourage improvements in the quality of foundation degrees through the publication and sharing of good practice;
to provide effective and accessible public information on the standards achieved by students on foundation degrees;
to provide public information on the quality of the student learning opportunities in foundation degrees; and
to secure value from public investment in foundation degrees.

The context and characteristics of foundation degrees

2 Foundation degrees were introduced in September 2001. The initial terms of reference were set out in HEFCE's Foundation degree Prospectus (00/27) (the Prospectus). In October 2003, the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) published Foundation degrees: meeting the need for higher level skills, which restated the key characteristics of the award. The Agency's Foundation degree qualification benchmark [FDQB final draft)] encapsulates the principles of the Prospectus and sets out the conceptual framework that gives foundation degrees their coherence and identity. Throughout this handbook all references to FDQB (final draft) relate to the final draft of the document, published in 2002. A revision of FDQB (final draft) is due for publication in autumn 2004 and will provide further contextual background to the review method. The FDQB (final draft) also sets out the general expectations about the standard of the award and its defining characteristics.

3 Through foundation degrees, education providers enable students to develop the intermediate higher-level skills that characterise the high-quality graduates needed by the labour market. The qualification is located at Intermediate level on The framework for higher education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (FHEQ), published by the Agency, and at level 5 of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority's National Qualification Framework (NQF).

4 These vocational degrees integrate academic and work-based learning throughout. The defining characteristics of the foundation degree include the close and continued collaboration between programme providers and employers, and the development of skills and knowledge and their application in the work place. There is no minimum expectation of the extent of the work-based learning element of the programme, except that it is of sufficient length and quality to ensure that the student attains the intended learning outcomes. It is the centrality of work-based learning and its interrelationship with theoretical studies and transferable skills that distinguish foundation degrees from other degrees and qualifications at the intermediate level.

5 Foundation degrees attract a minimum of 240 credits, of which 120 credits need to be at level I on the FHEQ. The foundation degree is a recognised qualification in its own right. Each degree also makes a valuable contribution to lifelong learning by giving guaranteed articulation to at least one bachelor's degree programme with honours. The time taken by a student to complete an honours degree after a foundation degree should not normally exceed 1.3 years of study for a full-time student, or the equivalent for a part-time student.

6 Foundation degrees also contribute to widening participation by providing an award that aims to attract learners who may not previously have considered studying for a higher-level qualification. Many programmes are designed to meet the needs of local employment markets, although some will be targeted at national and international employment needs.

7 Partnership between employers, higher education institutions (HEIs), further education colleges (FECs) and Sector Skills Councils (SSCs) are central to the concept of foundation degrees. The Agency recognises that, while many foundation degree programmes are delivered by a consortium of institutions, some are provided by only one institution which may also be the awarding body. For the purposes of the review, the term 'provider' refers to both of these arrangements.

8 The responsibility for the academic standards and quality of the students' learning experience belongs to the awarding HEI. Although for all other purposes the partnership between the HEI, FECs and employers for the foundation degree is one of equals, the HEI has primary responsibility for quality and academic standards.

9 The defining characteristics of foundation degrees are:

the integration of academic studies and work-based learning;
providing the learner with the opportunity to apply, in the workplace, the skills and knowledge learnt as well as providing opportunities for learning in the workplace environment;
employer involvement in the design and regular review of the programme, and, desirably, in delivery and assessment;
accessibility and participation through the provision of opportunities for learners who would not necessarily have engaged with higher-level study;
guaranteed articulation to at least one honours degree programme;
articulation and progression to enable students to take responsibility for their own learning and to prepare them to engage in lifelong learning;
flexibility in terms of responsiveness to changing employment patterns, modes of attendance, progression routes and admission requirements; and
partnership arrangements between awarding institutions, other providers, employers, SSCs and professional bodies.

10 While none of these attributes is unique to foundation degrees, their clear and planned integration within a single award makes the award highly distinctive.

Purposes and outcomes of the review

11 The first special review of foundation degrees took place in 2002-03. Thirty-four programmes were reviewed according to the method set out in the Handbook for the review of foundation degrees (QAA, 2002). The Agency published an overview report of these reviews in 2003. Because of the newness of the award, there were no graduates from 32 of these programmes at the time of the review. This second review will include a sample of the programmes that first enrolled students in 2002-03 and 2003-04. Only some of the programmes in the second review will have graduates.

12 The review of foundation degrees will:

investigate the extent to which the programme meets the defining characteristics of a foundation degree as set out in the FDQB (final draft) and whether the programme is likely to meet the standards of a foundation degree award as defined in the FHEQ intermediate level descriptor; and
establish the quality of the learning experience.

13 The findings from the reviewers' lines of enquiry will result in a published report containing two threshold judgements on the confidence or otherwise they have in the:

academic standards and the achievements of students; and
the quality of students' learning opportunities.

For programmes where no students have yet completed the award, the judgements will set out the confidence or otherwise that the reviewers have in the:

emerging academic standards and the emerging achievements of students; and
the quality of students' learning opportunities.

Reports will also contain a commentary on the continuing effectiveness of the provider's quality assurance and enhancement arrangements for the foundation degree programme.

14 The review will also seek to identify areas of innovation and examples of good practice that may be worthy of wider dissemination. This activity is intended to enable the provider to build upon strengths and enhance delivery, and to assist in the further development of the foundation degree award.

Principles and framework of the review method

15 The review method has been designed in accordance with a range of principles common to the other Agency subject-level review methods. In particular, it is an evidence-based process carried out through peer review; it takes the self-evaluation of the provider as the basis for the review and evaluates and verifies the information it contains; it tries to minimise the burden on the provider, for example, by making maximum use of existing documents; and it seeks to achieve transparency and openness in the conduct of the review. Annex A provides an outline timeline for a review. Each review is structured around a series of 11 key questions, to be considered by the provider in preparing a self-evaluation and by the reviewers when summarising evidence to be used to reach the two threshold judgements as set out in Annexes B and C.

16 For the purposes of review, evidence may include published or unpublished documents, notes of meetings held during the review and a sample of student work.

The use of external reference points

17 In making their judgements, the reviewers will draw upon a range of external reference points, including those contained in the Academic Infrastructure, namely, the FHEQ; the FDQB (final draft), relevant subject benchmark statements and relevant sections of the Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education (the Code), published by the Agency. In so doing, the reviewers will not seek evidence of compliance, but rather evidence that the provider has considered the purpose of the reference points, has reflected on its own practices in the relevant areas, and has taken, or is taking, necessary steps to introduce appropriate changes to develop practice consistent with the intended effect of the Code:

in respect of the FHEQ, the reviewers will be looking for evidence that the provider has related the foundation degree programme to the intermediate level;
in respect of the FDQB (final draft), the reviewers will enquire how it has been taken into account when designing and running the programme;
in respect of the Code, the reviewers will draw upon all relevant sections and will expect to see evidence of how the intentions of the Code have been, or are being, addressed. The Agency has consulted the sector and revised section 2: collaborative provision in 2004, but all references to this section in this Handbook and during the review process will be to the first version;
in respect of the subject benchmark statements, the reviewers will look for evidence that the provider has taken account of the relevant subject benchmark statement(s) to ensure that students completing the foundation degree will be able to achieve an honours degree in 1.3 years of study for a full-time student, or the equivalent for a part-time student.

Other external reference points include the Overview report on foundation degree reviews (QAA, 2003) and any frameworks established by SSCs or other professional bodies.

18 The reviewers will also evaluate the vocational currency and national occupational standards of the programme in relation to reference points as set out by SSCs, employer organisations and professional bodies.

19 The reviewers will need to know that providers have paid due attention to sector-specific health and safety legislation, equal opportunities legislation and EU employment legislation.

How the review process works

20 The reviews will normally be completed within a period of six weeks, from the initial meeting between the reviewers and the provider to the meeting at which reviewers reach judgements. A preliminary meeting will normally take place no later than four weeks before the initial meeting.

21 The reviews will be structured around the following activities:

preparation of a self-evaluation by the provider;
appointment and preparation of the reviewers by the Agency;
a preliminary planning meeting carried out between the provider and the Agency's Review Coordinator;
the review team visiting normally for up to three days, including visits to the provider and sites of work-based learning;
off-site scrutiny of documents and meeting notes by the reviewers;
sharing of information among the reviewers;
a meeting at which the reviewers consider their judgements;
a letter to the provider containing the judgements;
a draft review report sent to the provider for comments on factual accuracy; and
a published report of approximately 4,000 words.

A timeline for the review process is included in Annex A.

Preparation of the self-evaluation

22 The self-evaluation is the starting point for the review. Detailed guidance on its preparation, including the essential features to be covered and possible format, is provided in Annex B. The central requirements for a self-evaluation are that it is genuinely evaluative, not just descriptive, and that it provides evidence to support claims. The task of the reviewers is to test and verify the claims made and the evidence cited by the provider, in order to arrive at the two threshold judgements and to comment on the quality assurance and enhancement processes.

23 Each review will look at one foundation degree programme. The self-evaluation should cover the entirety of that programme, and include (as applicable) evaluations of the provision of all sites of delivery, varying modes of attendance and the contributions of different employers.

24 In the interests of self-evaluation and to permit as much use as possible to be made of existing documents, the provider may submit its self-evaluation in any appropriate format and adopt any presentational style. The Agency welcomes submission of pre-existing documents in electronic format, particularly CD-ROM. To ensure that there is fairness and consistency between reviews, the self-evaluation should include a 'route map'. This is a guide for reviewers that points to the evidence trail that will provide a clear and unambiguous response to each of the key review questions in Annexes B and C. It may also provide some introduction and analysis to supplement the documents. Providing the self-evaluation meets these requirements, the reviewers should be able to test and verify the responses to the key questions with a minimum of special preparation by the provider.

25. There is no hierarchy in the key questions. The provider should give careful attention to those characteristics that are particular to foundation degree provision and reflect the defining characteristics as described in the FDQB (final draft). This will require the provider to give particular attention to its responses to questions relating to matters such as work-based learning and, where applicable, the operation of the consortium. It should also include the arrangements for ensuring consistency in the attainment of standards and quality across all partners.

26 The intended developmental aspect of the review is addressed in particular through key question 11. The provider should signpost a range of potential areas of good practice by reference to matters that have worked particularly well or to effective solutions to problems encountered. Such references will allow the reviewers quickly to identify and test potential areas of good practice. A subsequent decision by the reviewers that the signposted features do not constitute innovation or practice worthy of wider dissemination will have no adverse implications for the provider, or for the two threshold judgements.

27 In approaching this work, the reviewers will welcome advice from the provider on activities that will enable them to test the claims made in the self-evaluation. This will enable reviewers to judge the academic standards and the quality of the student learning experience in an efficient and largely unobtrusive manner. Similarly, they will welcome advice on the consortium's personnel who might contribute to the review and provide further explanation of the self-evaluation and other documents.

The review team

28 The Agency will appoint teams of reviewers to undertake these reviews. Each team will comprise at least four specialist reviewers with combined appropriate experience of the sector, and expertise relevant to foundation degrees and the programme under review. The reviewers will be led by a Review Coordinator. The composition of the team will take account of the subject content of the programme and the particular approaches to curriculum delivery. The size of the team will be determined by the size and complexity of the provision.

29 The main responsibilities of the specialist reviewers are to read, analyse and verify the self-evaluation, and to gather whatever further evidence they consider necessary to make the two threshold judgements. The Review Coordinator is responsible, on behalf of the Agency, for ensuring the effective management and administration of the review. The Review Coordinator will usually chair meetings of the reviewers, and meetings between the reviewers and the provider's staff and students, and employers.

30 Specialist reviewers are generally appointed by the Agency from nominations made by institutions that provide higher education programmes. The Agency is actively seeking nominations from SSCs, industry, commerce and the professions. All specialist reviewers and review coordinators are offered training by the Agency before undertaking reviews. Further information about the arrangements for appointing and training reviewers is provided in Annex D.

Review facilitation

31 The Agency invites the provider to appoint at least one facilitator. Facilitators play an important role in ensuring that reviews proceed effectively and smoothly, by providing regular liaison between the reviewers and the provider's staff and employer partners. They will normally establish a close working relationship with the Review Coordinator, who is responsible for negotiating clear protocols for the frequency, nature and methods of communication between them. Facilitators assume a responsibility for supporting the review process by ensuring that the reviewers obtain accurate and timely information and evidence throughout the review. This involves maintaining effective communication with the reviewers over the whole period of the review, both when the reviewers are off-site as well as during visits to the provider and sites of work-based learning.

32 The provider may appoint facilitators at more than one location of their organisation for a foundation degree offered by a consortium. The awarding institution is invited to nominate one Programme Coordinating Facilitator (PCF) for the programme/subject to review. In addition, each of the member institutions or delivery locations, and any employer with a substantial involvement in the design and/or delivery of the programme may identify a Link Facilitator (LF). If the lead institution does not deliver the award, they may wish to discuss appropriate arrangements and the HEI may nominate an LF for one of the delivering institutions to nominate a PCF. The PCF will be the main contact with the reviewers and, unless an alternative arrangement is specifically agreed, the Review Coordinator will direct all general enquiries and negotiations through the PCF. Further details about the roles of the PCF and LFs are provided in Annex E.

Review preparation and the preliminary meeting

33 Reviews will take place between January and July 2005. The Agency will consult the provider about the appropriateness of the timing of the review. An Agency officer will agree with the provider the submission date for the self-evaluation and a date for the initial meeting between the reviewers and the provider. The Agency usually needs to receive the self-evaluation some two months before the beginning of the relevant period. For example, for reviews beginning in January, the Agency will need to receive the self-evaluation in November 2004.

34 The Review Coordinator and the provider should discuss preliminary planning as early as possible. A preliminary meeting will take place no later than four weeks before the start of the review period. It is for the provider to determine who would be most appropriate to attend the preliminary meeting on its behalf. The meeting provides an opportunity for the Review Coordinator to ensure that there is a shared understanding of the review process, and to negotiate and agree the main arrangements for the review. In particular, the Review Coordinator will wish to learn about the locations of the sites of work-based learning and possible times for a meeting with students.

35 The reviewers meet together before the initial meeting to prepare for the review. The PCF also attends this meeting. From their previous analysis of the self-evaluation, the reviewers identify themes to be explored during the review visit. This initial agenda is based directly on the key questions (Annexes B and C) and is used by the reviewers to determine an agreed set of review and evidence-gathering activities. Where the self-evaluation addresses the key questions in a clear and objective manner, the range and level of on-site scrutiny will be reduced. The Review Coordinator will inform the provider of the themes the reviewers wish to explore in advance of each meeting.

Activities during the review

36 The pattern of the review will be sufficiently flexible to respond to the nature of the programme under review and the sufficiency of the self-evaluation. Although some activities will be common to all reviews, the timetable of events will reflect the particular arrangements of each programme. In some cases, it may be necessary for the reviewers to separate to conduct different activities. No fewer than two members of the review team will be present at each location.

37 The review commences with the initial meeting between the reviewers and the provider. This is held at one of the sites of delivery. After this, the reviewers will engage in a number of other review activities. Reviewers will normally spend part of their second and, where appropriate, third days visiting sites of work-based learning. They will also carry out further off-site scrutiny of evidence. The reviewers will share summaries of evidence using the electronic folders the Agency will dedicate to each review. Towards the end of the six-week review period the reviewers will hold a private meeting to consider all the evidence and to make judgements. This meeting does not necessarily take place at one of the providing institutions.

38 All visits will include:

meetings with a representative group of current students and, where appropriate, former students;
either a meeting with members of the provider's staff and employers' representatives where there is a single provider who is also the awarding body;
or a meeting with staff from all member institutions of the consortium for the programme under review, including the awarding institution, all institutions concerned with delivery of the programme, and employers' representatives;
a meeting with staff engaged in teaching the programme;
a visit to at least one site of teaching and learning. Where there is more than one site of work-based learning, the reviewers will visit at least two sites.

Further meetings may be held as appropriate and by discussion with the facilitator(s).

39 The reviewers are unlikely to observe teaching directly if the provider can supply evidence of good-quality teaching. Such evidence is likely to come from internal peer observation of teaching; from student questionnaires and other arrangements for gathering feedback; from the deployment of learning resources; and from student performance in assessments. Direct observations of teaching will be required if:

there are questions that reviewers feel would be best addressed by observation;
observation might help to confirm the identification of an innovative feature;
the provider does not provide sufficient evidence that teaching is effective; or
there are indications that the learning opportunities for students are less than satisfactory.

The observations may take place at any stage within the six week review period. The Agency has a protocol for the observation of teaching.

40 In addition to visits to the institution, reviewers typically undertake a range of activities that include:

scrutiny of a sample of student work;
analysis of documents;
sharing summaries of evidence with the rest of the reviewers;
feedback from the Review Coordinator to the PCF to provide updates of areas on which the reviewers have completed their work and those on which further evidence, such as documents, is sought.

41 The initial meeting is important in ensuring that the reviewers understand the nature of the provision under review, including, where applicable, the consortium arrangement. This meeting is also key to ensuring that the review commences in a spirit that encourages dialogue and openness. It is in this spirit that the reviewers will introduce and explore the initial review agenda.

42 The review includes at least one meeting with students currently registered on the programme under review and with former students when there has been at least one completed cohort. Discussions are crucial to the review and it is important that the reviewers are able to meet a group of students drawn, where applicable, from different institutions in the consortium. This group should be representative in terms of work status and modes of study, as well as age, gender and prior work qualifications and work experience. The topics for discussion will reflect the key questions and areas for consideration, selected and adapted to reflect the review agenda and matters upon which it is reasonable to expect students to have insight. An indicative agenda for use in student meetings is included in Annex F. While time constraints will usually make it preferable to have a single meeting with students, on occasion more than one meeting may be necessary, particularly where consortium institutions are geographically distant or where study patterns are diverse. The timing(s) of the meeting, and the composition of the student group(s), will be negotiated sensitively to take account of the different study modes and the availability of the students concerned.

43 The review will include visits to sites of work-based learning to enable the reviewers to hold discussions with representatives of the employers who have direct responsibility for the work-based element of the programme, and separately to meet the student(s) currently undertaking that element. The topics for discussion will reflect the key questions relating to the work-based elements, including resources, liaison between the workplace and the programme, and student support. The reviewers will do all they can to minimise the interruption to the student(s) and the employer.

44 The Review Coordinator will give the PCF feedback about the progress of the review and, in particular, on questions that have been answered and others on which the reviewers need additional evidence. The need for additional evidence may become apparent to the provider or the reviewers. The Review Coordinator and PCF will agree the precise nature and timing of the presentation of the new evidence. Such requests will be kept to a minimum and will only ask for documents and other types of evidence which already exist. They will not ask for new papers to be written.

Scrutiny of documents, including student work

45 The reviewers gather evidence through their meetings with staff, students and employers, and through the scrutiny of documents. They will pay particular attention to the documents cited as evidence in the self-evaluation. These documents should be made available to the reviewers both in advance of, and during, the visit. The Review Coordinator may request further documentary evidence on behalf of the specialist reviewers during the course of the review. It is a guiding principle of the reviewers' work that they refine and test their findings and emerging judgements against a range of evidence. Views expressed in meetings will be checked and tested against evidence provided.

46 The provider is asked to make available to the reviewers a sample of student work. The reviewers will consider the student work and use it to contribute to the evidence on:

the extent to which (emerging) student achievements match the intended outcomes of the stage of the programme studied;
the extent to which assessment is designed appropriately to measure achievement of the intended learning outcomes; and
the extent to which the outcomes of the students' work indicate that (emerging) student achievements meet the minimum expectation of the award.

47 Reviewers will use the student work review and assessment note in Annex G to summarise for their own purposes the evidence they gain from their scrutiny of student work.

48 The range and nature of the student work available will be discussed at the preliminary meeting. In general terms, however, the reviewers will wish to see a broad sample of modules from all delivery sites that demonstrates the full range of assessment methods used, accompanied by the relevant assessment criteria, module mark list, evidence of internal moderation in the setting and marking of assessments and feedback to students. Where students have completed the award at the time of the review, the reviewers will wish to see some assessments from the final stage of the award. The Agency recognises that some programmes will not have completed a first full cycle at the time of the review. In these cases, reviewers will accept student work that has been marked but not externally examined. In subjects where assessment results in work that is not in written form, the reviewers will be content to see photographic, video or other records made by the institution.

Other review activities

49 All reviewers are expected to share and evaluate, among themselves, evidence related to the programme under review. They will keep notes of their meetings with staff, students and employers; their analyses of documents; and their comments on student work and its assessment. The Review Coordinator will collate notes and then circulate them among the reviewers to assist in developing a shared evidence base on which judgements can be made.

50 Where the review is organised as two separate visits, the Review Coordinator will continue to communicate with the PCF between visits, to provide updates on the areas in which reviewers have completed their work and those on which further evidence is sought.

The judgements

51 At the end of the review period, the reviewers meet to agree their judgements and prepare their report.

52 The reviewers will make two threshold judgements. In the case of programmes where there are students who have graduated, the reviewers will make the following judgements:

confidence, or no confidence, in the academic standards and achievements of students.

This judgement is based on the findings relating to key questions 1-5. In order to achieve a judgement of confidence, the reviewers need to answer each separate question positively. A negative finding in respect of any one question will result in an overall judgement of no confidence in academic standards and achievements. The reviewers' second judgement is of:

confidence, or no confidence, in the quality of students' learning opportunities.

This judgement is based on the findings to key questions 6-9. In order to achieve a judgement of confidence, the reviewers need to answer each separate question positively. A negative finding in respect of any one question will result in an overall judgement of no confidence in the quality of students' learning opportunities.

53 In the case of those programmes which have no graduates, the reviewers will make the two following judgements:

confidence, or no confidence, in the emerging academic standards and emerging achievements of students;
confidence, or no confidence, in the quality of student learning opportunities.

54 Reports will also contain a commentary on the effectiveness of the provider's arrangements for the quality assurance and enhancement of the foundation degree in response to key question 10.

55 Judgements on the standards of a foundation degree programme reflect the responsibilities of the awarding institution. In circumstances where an individual programme is offered by a number of different providers, there will not be any differentiated judgements on standards. If concerns about standards are identified for individual delivery sites, these will be reflected in the overall judgement and may result in a no confidence outcome. Responsibilities for the quality of learning opportunities, however, may reside with individual delivery sites and in circumstances where the reviewers conclude that the quality of the learning opportunities is significantly different across the consortium, then specific reference to these will be included in the report without necessarily determining the overall judgement for the full range of provision.

Reporting the judgements and review findings

56 The Review Coordinator will send a letter to the provider setting out the judgements no later than two weeks after the judgement meeting.

57 The Review Coordinator drafts the review report on behalf of the reviewers. The report will discuss the defining characteristics of the award as set out in the FDQB (final draft), and on whether the programme meets the (emerging) standards of a foundation degree award. It will also draw attention to areas of innovation and examples of good practice worthy of further dissemination. A draft copy of the report will be sent to the provider, or the lead institution within a consortium, for comments on factual accuracy. The report will be published fifteen weeks after the judgement meeting. The outline of the report structure is provided in Annex H.

58 In the event of a no confidence judgement in either (emerging) academic standards and (emerging) achievements of students, or in the quality of the students' learning opportunities, the provider will be asked to send an action plan to the Agency within six months of the end of the review setting out how standards and/or quality will be raised. Twelve months after the end of the review an Agency officer will visit the provider to confirm the effectiveness of the action plan.

59 On completion of the review cycle, the Agency will produce an overview report on foundation degrees, drawing upon the reports of all of the individual reviews. The overview report will include a summary of the state of foundation degree programmes, reflecting on their diversity, health and stage of development. It will be a key vehicle for the dissemination of the good practice identified within individual reviews. It is expected that such dissemination will contribute to the continuing development of foundation degrees. The Agency will work with Foundation Degree Forward on the dissemination of the findings of the reviews.

Evaluation of the process

60 The Agency will encourage providers, employers, SSRs and review coordinators to contribute to the evaluation of foundation degree review process by inviting comment on the reviews in which they have participated.

ISBN 1 84482 150 1