Academic review of UK higher education
Introduction
A Subject provision and overall aims
B Academic standards Intended learning outcomes
Intended learning outcomes
Curricula
Assessment
Student achievementC Quality of learning opportunities
Teaching and learning
Student progression
Learning resourcesD Maintenance and enhancement of quality and standards
Summary of the main review
Subject provision and the overall aims
The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (the QAA) helps to provide public assurance that the quality and standards of higher education are being safeguarded and enhanced by conducting academic reviews of higher education provision.
In developing its method for academic review, the QAA has published a wide range of materials designed to provide a background against which the reviews can take place. These are:
The QAA carries out reviews of individual subjects through service level agreements with the main higher education funding bodies. It also carries out institutional reviews of higher education institutions. The judgements made by the subject reviewers can contribute substantially to institutional review.
Subject review is a peer review process. It starts when institutions evaluate their provision in a subject in a self-evaluation document. This document is submitted to the QAA for use by a team of reviewers who gather evidence to enable them to report their judgements on the academic standards and the quality of learning opportunities. Review activities include meeting staff and students, scrutinising students' assessed work, reading relevant documents, and examining learning resources. Full details of the process of subject review can be found in the Handbook for academic review, QAA, 2000.
The range of judgements that reviewers may utilise when they have completed a subject review are summarised below.
To reach this judgement, reviewers look at:
Reviewers make one of the following judgements for each of three aspects of learning opportunities:
The three aspects of quality of learning opportunities are:
Reviewers also report the degree of confidence they have in the institution's ability to maintain and enhance quality and standards in the subject under review.
1. This report presents the findings of a review of the academic standards achieved, and the quality of the learning opportunities provided, in English and history programmes at Grimsby College. The review was completed in the academic year 2001-02.
2. Undergraduate programmes in English and history are well established at the College. The provision has undergone several changes over recent years and the subjects are now offered in the following joint honours programmes:
The programmes are offered in both full and part-time modes. There are approximately 40 students studying each subject, almost all of them full-time.
3. The honours programmes are validated by the University of Lincoln, the awarding body. The College has very limited inputs into the structure, content and assessment of the courses. These are closely controlled by the University, which also offers the programmes at its Lincoln Campus. Significant elements of the final level are taught at the University. The current final level students are the first cohort to go through the present scheme. As the arrangements become more established, it is hoped that the College will have greater input so that some local flavour can be added.
4. Higher education (HE) courses are offered by the Division of Undergraduate and Professional Studies. It aims to work in collaboration with HE institutions and their awarding bodies to:
In particular, the English and history provision aims to offer opportunities for mature returners to enhance their personal development and their employability.
5. Overall, the aims of the programmes are appropriate in terms of the development of knowledge, understanding and skills. They are well-matched to the levels of the programmes and due regard has been given to the Framework for higher education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and to Subject benchmark statements.
6. Aims and learning outcomes are presented clearly in the self-evaluation document (SED) in relation to the College mission and subject programmes. Learning outcomes for each unit match the Subject benchmark statements for English and history, and reflect the stated aims of the provision. There was evidence that, during the development of the programmes, there were appropriate discussions leading to the formulation of intended learning outcomes. As a result, the curricula are appropriately designed to support the achievement of stated learning outcomes. However, the relationship could be made clearer in course documentation. Furthermore, there was little evidence of a continuing involvement of College staff in debates concerning curricular development, benchmarking or the qualifications framework.
7. In discussions with the reviewers, students reported that the programmes meet their needs, and this was especially the case with mature student returners to education. They are provided with statements of intended learning outcomes in unit handbooks, but generally showed limited awareness of these. Students stated that they had found some of the intended outcomes for history useful in shaping their learning, but some had found the English unit outcomes less clear.
8. Late arrival of the handbooks for some history units from the University has been a concern for staff and students, and has jeopardised clear communication of the relevant intended outcomes to the students. While the SED provides evidence of links to the Subject benchmark statements for both subjects, other documentation is less clear. In particular, unit documentation does not provide a clear articulation of relationships between content, intended outcomes and assessment. Staff should give early consideration to improving the quality of unit handbooks.
9. The degree programme is in a stage of transition, with the first cohort of students on the current scheme still in their final year. The SED offers no rationale for the particular structure and content of the curriculum, although other evidence, including course documentation reveals that it is underpinned by a thematic coherence. The redesign was a top-down process, driven by the University. With the exception of the second-year Drama unit, the curricula have been developed by University staff in consultation with the College. Students at the College study a range of units, which represent a selection from the University's single honours programmes. All unit coordinators are University staff. The reviewers would wish to encourage greater involvement of College staff in the development of the curricula.
10. Staff expertise at Grimsby has to a large extent determined the units offered at the College. The history curriculum is focused on European (mainly British) history and is restricted to two thematic streams, State and Society, and Sources and Methods. There is no choice of units available at levels 1 and 2, and the potential for an element of choice at level 3 through access to units taught at Lincoln is constrained by the necessity to travel to the University on more than one day a week. Some students expressed disappointment at the limited choice of units available. Most, however, expressed satisfaction with the range on offer.
11. The curricula and teaching approaches change at level 3 to provide appropriate progression, and this was acknowledged by students. However, there is little in the unit handbooks to suggest that there is a significant increase in the depth of analysis in history, unless the optional Independent Study unit is taken in that subject. The research relevance of the history curriculum claimed in the SED is not demonstrated and College staff have no opportunity to offer units built around their own research interests and expertise. There is, however, evidence of staff research contributing to curricular content in English, and staff are encouraged to undertake research and other scholarly activities. The curricula are comparable to similar provision elsewhere but unit documentation, produced by the University, has not been kept up to date in terms of references to secondary material and research.
12. The curricula include skills units which are compulsory in one form or another for all students. History students may take either English-based or social science-based skills units. Although some students were critical of the relevance of these, most recognised their value in retrospect. They were particularly valued by students returning to education.
13. The University retains the responsibility for setting the assessment tasks and for monitoring their effectiveness in contributing to the attainment of learning outcomes. The external examiners' reports of 2000 and 2001 indicate that assessment tasks and the quality of work produced are satisfactory (although these comments relate to the old humanities degree). Double-marking and moderation of work takes place, although there is limited written evidence of these practices.
14. Because the visit took place before the first cohort had completed the new programmes, the number of samples of third-year student work was small. The assessment tasks seen were of an appropriate level, although the assessment tasks in some of the level 2 history units were rather prescriptive. Tasks were appropriately matched to intended learning outcomes, but this was not clearly articulated in course documentation. Programme handbooks contain appropriate grading criteria.
15. Assessment patterns at the unit level are varied. At level 1, there is a good strategy designed to develop academic skills and confidence. Evidence from student work indicates that this strategy is generally successful. At levels 2 and 3 the picture is less clear and the mix consists mainly of essays and examinations that do not always clearly relate to outcomes. The one exception is the Drama module in year two, where the strategy seeks to develop skills in tandem with declared outcomes. This module is only offered at Grimsby College.
16. Moderation and second-marking is conducted through the University and is generally effective. However, this arrangement has created delays in returning work to students, undermining their capacity to learn from feedback as the assessment mix progresses. This issue could easily be addressed by adopting the common practice of declaring all marks provisional. There are no written guidelines regarding moderation, and practice varies. Some students reported that specific marks had been reduced and they felt there was unfair discrimination against those whose work had been selected for second-marking at the University. The College and University should liaise to ensure a more systematic approach to moderation.
17. Feedback on marked work varied in quantity and quality. The best examples were extensive and helpful; however, in other cases it was rather limited. Front cover sheets include a section for indicating match to assessment criteria, but this was generally ignored by staff. Brief, general written comments are included instead, and few of the scripts were annotated or corrected in any detail. Students expressed concern about the variability of written feedback and the lack of guidance on presentational issues; for example, they cited inconsistent advice on referencing. While individual tutorial support is available on demand, as supplementary formative assessment, the take-up rate appears to be low and students seem reluctant to take advantage of the facility.
18. There is evidence of considerable added-value, with students arriving with limited previous qualifications, and from non-traditional academic backgrounds, graduating with good degrees.
19. While external examiners' reports have made limited reference to the College, their reports have indicated that the standards achieved by students at the College are appropriate. This was confirmed by the sample of work seen by the reviewers. This was of an appropriate standard and accurately marked. The third-year Independent Study dissertations sampled by the reviewers revealed a high quality of output and effective supervision by College staff. The information on assessment marks, contained within unit coordinators' reports, indicates achievement of similar standards by College and University students within the same units.
20. Because of the timing of the review, there was limited final level work available. The previous scheme had been a franchise arrangement and the students had been registered with the University. All of their final-year work had been based at the College, but the new scheme involves a significant element of attendance at the University at this level. It was, therefore, not possible to use final-level work from the previous scheme as a guide to standards.
21. Outcomes from the previous scheme provide some indication of overall achievement levels. Of those graduating in the two years 1999-2000 and 2000-01, 38 per cent achieved Upper Second class honours or better and 58 per cent achieved Lower Second class honours. This represents good achievement for such a diverse group of students.
22. Many previous graduates have gone on to successfully undertake further study, notably teaching qualifications and to progress to appropriate employment. This indicates that the programmes have achieved many of their objectives in terms of equipping students with learning skills and enhancing employability.
23. With respect to academic standards, the reviewers conclude that:
Overall, the reviewers have confidence in the academic standards achieved by the programmes in English and history at Grimsby College.
24. There is an appropriate teaching and learning strategy that includes the progressive development of learning skills. In discussion, level 3 students were able to explain their academic progression through more autonomous learning and more demanding assessments. Samples of student work also evidenced satisfactory progression in learning. Staff are dedicated and appropriately qualified, although staff curricula vitae (CVs) lack important detail. The need for a more considered policy for the updating and further development of the academic expertise of staff is a very important issue in relation to the creation and development of the curriculum.
25. Unit handbooks (from the University) are rather slight and poorly produced, and contain limited information on teaching and learning methods. There is little evidence of recent (post-1993) literature in most bibliographies, and this is a serious shortfall in view of the recent introduction of the current programmes. The unit handbooks are supplemented by some general information in the programme handbook. Although the College staff are represented on University committees, problems of communication and lack of consultation impact upon the quality of teaching and learning, for example, the late arrival of some history unit handbooks reduced their value to students.
26. Many of the third-year units are taught at the University. This situation was not properly communicated to students; nonetheless, third-year students were given helpful additional briefing by University staff at the end of the second year. Discussions with students and evidence from committee minutes indicated that students had experienced some difficulties adjusting to the teaching regime at the University. In particular, they cited the transition from a literature to a social science focus in history, and the move from an informal small-group teaching approach at the College to a more formal large group approach at the University.
27. Students are very appreciative of the contributions of the supportive tutors and the quality of the teaching at the College. They consider the College to be friendly and convenient and appreciate the local provision of undergraduate teaching.
28. The provision enables the intended outcomes to be achieved, but improvement is needed to overcome weaknesses.
The quality of teaching and learning is approved, but
29. The College is succeeding in attracting non-traditional entrants to its degree courses, and is active in widening participation. Students entering the College are well supported by an induction programme, and are sympathetically timetabled to reflect their particular circumstances. The programme handbook contains useful practical advice and a clear outline of advisory arrangements, as well as a concise summary of the programme and its assessment. Students expressed the view that they need a clearer induction into year two, and especially year three.
30. Overall progression has been satisfactory. Given the nature of the student cohort, it is difficult to assess completion rates, as many students take time out of study to return in a later year as circumstances permit. In the evidence available, some 70 per cent of students attain an exit award, but this figure hides some students who may well return to complete. The College has an appropriate policy for following-up students who withdraw and offering advice and guidance. Almost all withdrawals are for personal/financial reasons and very few result from academic failure.
31. The system of Academic Advocates works better for some students than for others, and relies rather heavily upon students taking the initiative. While this may be appropriate at the later stages, a more pro-active approach would be of benefit in the first year. Staff have a limited time allowance for this important activity (one hour each week). Some unit tutors schedule one-to-one tutorials, and this form of academic support is highly appreciated where it occurs.
32. Current second and third-year students complained that they had not been informed, when they first joined the programme, that they would have to attend the University in the third year. They had little contact with University staff, nor been invited to visit the University campus, and seemed unaware of their right to enhance their learning in years one and two from University resources. This lack of information is acknowledged by the College. Handbooks have been revised and now make clear the need for attendance at the University during the third year.
33. The above problem is symptomatic of poor communication between the College and University. Such problems add to the support burden placed on College staff, as they seek to reassure students, for example, when unit handbooks fail to arrive at the beginning of the year.
34. The College offers quite extensive generic support to students through its Student Services Department. Mature and non-traditional students benefit from the College's supportive ethos, although some feel that the social aspects of HE courses could be further enhanced. Some students were appreciative of College support towards career development, for example, through the University's Skills and Capabilities curriculum. However, students felt that recent changes at the College may adversely affect its ability to offer careers advice to HE students. Support by College tutors beyond graduation was highly valued by students.
35. The provision enables the intended outcomes to be achieved, but improvement is needed to overcome weaknesses.
The quality of student progression is approved, but
36. The College has an appropriate strategy for the development of HE learning resources. The available resources are being thoughtfully used to support student learning. HE-specific accommodation is of good quality and is appreciated by the students.
37. Dedicated information technology facilities are currently rather under-used by degree students, although many are making use of home computers to access resources.
38. Library resources are quite limited but well managed. Efforts are made to supply all in-print books on reading lists. Out-of-print books are more of a problem. They can, in theory, be acquired through interlibrary loans or from the University library, although first and second-year students did not appear to be using these additional resources, and third-year students found the process to be too slow to meet their needs.
39. In discussion, third-year students indicated that they use the University library for their borrowing needs. The College's students have full user rights for the University library and third-year students undertaking the Independent Studies unit are able to use records held in local libraries to good effect. Non-book resources, such as those available through the internet, are not discussed in the SED and seldom appear in unit handbook bibliographies. More could be done to encourage wider use of such sources.
40. Staff resources are significantly stretched. Lecturers have heavy teaching loads, although slightly less than their further education (FE) colleagues. There are only two history and two English specialist tutors, and these include one visiting lecturer and one part-time post. Staff CVs do not adequately evidence the processes and outcomes of staff development. All staff are annually appraised, using the College systems and the process informs the planning of staff development activities.
41. The provision enables the intended outcomes to be achieved, but improvement is needed to overcome weaknesses.
The quality of learning resources is approved, but
42. Responsibility for the maintenance and enhancement of standards lies with the University through its validation and course monitoring processes. The College has responsibility for ensuring the quality of delivery of those units taught at the College, for student support and for ensuring an appropriate resource base. These responsibilities and the relationship between the institutions are not clearly articulated. There is a lack of formality and heavy reliance on the regular contact which takes place between College staff and those at the University. In discussion, it emerged that staff at the two institutions do not fully understand the quality assurance mechanisms and students are concerned that they do not understand where responsibilities lie. There was evidence that the poor communication between the University and the College, referred to elsewhere in this report, is also impacting on validation and quality procedures as these affect curriculum design and delivery.
43. Annual Course Report (ACR) arrangements are unclear, and need to be further developed. The College quality assurance procedure handbook sets out a clear timetable and process for ACRs in relation to FE courses, and refers to the cross-over with university procedures for HE courses, but the connection between these two processes has not yet been fully developed. The respective responsibilities of the College and University for quality assurance need to be made absolutely clear, specifically in relation to the implementation of action plans to enhance provision. The ACR samples provided did not evidence a systematic review of course delivery, student feedback and student attainment, with a view to enhancement and calibration of standards. The institutions should ensure that relationships and practices meet the requirements of the Code of practice on collaborative provision.
44. In discussion, students indicated that the division of responsibilities between the College and the University is a source of some anxiety and inconvenience. The SED is critical of poor communications over handbooks and coursework moderation, and this was confirmed by students. There was little evidence of University engagement in quality procedures at programme level.
45. External examiners operate effectively over the programmes in total. Their reports indicate that assessment is of an appropriate standard and fair. However, because external examiners have limited interaction with the programme at the College, their role in enhancement at the College is rather limited. The College has raised concerns regarding its relationship with external examiners and there have been some recent improvements, with examiners' reports now including separate reference to provision in non-university centres. This represents an important step forward and should be continued and built on in the future.
46. Student feedback arrangements are outlined in the SED, programme handbook and College Quality Assurance Procedure Handbook. Discussions with students and minutes of a staff-student consultative meeting suggest that the College takes student feedback seriously. Students reported that they find staff helpful and approachable and that they are inclined to raise problems directly with staff rather than wait for formal opportunities.
47. The monitoring of assessment practices and outcomes at subject level within the College, and between College and University students, takes place at unit level and works well. There is no evidence of the matter being effectively dealt with in ACRs, or of any quality assurance exercise being conducted into this matter by either the University or the College since the new degree was inaugurated.
48. The SED contains little evidence of systematic staff training and development, although staff CVs and meetings with staff did reveal more in the way of the enhancement of subject-specific expertise. The reviewers would welcome a more considered approach to HE related staff development.
49. Overall, there is a need for significant improvement in procedures for the management and enhancement of quality and standards to secure the development of these relatively new programmes.
English and history programmes at Grimsby College were reviewed in the academic year 2001-02. Judgements were made about the academic standards achieved and the quality of the learning opportunities provided.
The review covered the following programmes:
Academic standards
Overall, the reviewers have confidence in the academic standards achieved by the programmes in English and history at Grimsby College.
Strengths include:
Issues include:
Quality of learning opportunities
Teaching and learning
The quality of teaching and learning is approved, but:
Student progression
The quality of student progression is approved, but:
Learning resources
The quality of learning resources is approved, but:
Maintenance and enhancement of quality and
standards
There is a need for much development in quality processes. The relationship between the systems of the College and of the University needs to be more clearly articulated both for staff and students. Some incidents of poor communication between the College and University indicate the need for a more formal approach to the relationship, which currently relies heavily on informal contact between subject staff.
There are effective mechanisms for ascertaining the views of students at the College. Students have representation at joint committees. They also find College staff approachable and helpful.
External examiners ensure overall standards and have reported positively on overall assessment processes. Their relationship with the College is rather remote and this limits their opportunity to contribute to the enhancement of the specific provision at the College.
There is limited evidence of systematic review at programme level, including review of assessment practices and outcomes. Overall, there is a need for significant improvement in procedures for the management and enhancement of quality and standards to secure the development of these relatively new programmes.