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 reviewoutcomes
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, geography, history, and politics and international relations programmes at Barnsley College. The review was completed in the academic year 2001-02.
2. English, geography, history, and politics and international relations programmes are currently offered to 84 full-time students on two programmes:
3. The BA (Hons) Combined Studies (Humanities) is a modular, multidisciplinary degree that includes English, geography, history, and politics. Archaeology is studied and reviewed in this report as part of the history strand. The University of Sheffield validates the degree. It includes two additional routes in support of the College's mission to widen participation: an extended degree comprising a foundation year plus the three-year degree programme; and a DipHE (Humanities) that offers the potential for progression to the final year of the degree. The first year is intended to provide breadth, with a greater degree of specialisation in years two and three.
The self-evaluation document (SED) states that the programme is designed to provide learning opportunities, support and facilities in order to:
a. contribute to increasing and widening participation in higher education (HE), especially among the local population;
b. enable a diverse student population to achieve personal learning goals within the humanities subject areas;
c. develop the capacity of each student to learn effectively and to succeed in meeting the intellectual challenges appropriate to the subject disciplines at each level of study;
d. provide students with a framework of knowledge, theories, concepts and analytical structures commensurate with the levels of award, to enable them to gain a deeper understanding of, and clearer insight into, issues in each student's chosen programme of study;
e. encourage students to acquire and apply subject-specific skills, cognitive skills and transferable skills as a preparation for further training, employment or continuation of study at higher levels.
4. Aims a. and b. are facilitated by the structure of provision with opportunities for an extended degree entry point and DipHE exit point, and evidenced by the student profile, which is local and mature.
5. In this multidisciplinary programme, students can select any combination of subjects. The SED claims that although Subject benchmark statements within the humanities programme are diverse, they are being considered and applied as appropriate to shape learning outcomes. There is no aim to integrate or link the subjects. The SED and the programme specification do not show how subjects combine to meet the learning outcomes. There is no separate rationale for the programme and any links are fortuitous.
6. The programme includes National Curriculum subjects that facilitate progression to the Postgraduate Certificate in Education for those graduates who wish to enter teaching.
7. The programme specification lists learning outcomes for the programme as a whole and for each subject. Evidence in the students' written work and comments from the external examiner confirm that programme aims relating to transferable, key and generic skills can be met and there is evidence that many are. However, the review identified concerns regarding the setting of appropriate academic standards for a degree award. Learning outcomes at module level are not always appropriate and do not allow the outcomes in the programme specification, and consequently the aims, to be fully met. The following paragraphs provide details of the areas where there are particular problems.
8. Since there is no formal assessment of transferable skills (for example, oral, group work, and reflection on own learning) other than written skills (essays and examinations), it is not possible to confirm that all students in all subjects have met those outcomes. In addition, communication and information technology (CIT) skills are not required as part of the assessment, and are used differentially in each subject so, again, this outcome may not be met by all students in all subjects. The programme specification states that CIT classes are compulsory in year one, but in fact they are optional. One learning outcome is really an aspiration, not built into the programme and assessed.
9. More systematic engagement with theory in English is required, to achieve fully the outcome to critically judge arguments for their strengths and weaknesses. There was more evidence of this engagement with theory in archaeology, geography and politics than in history. Evidence of students successfully identifying problems, investigating and analysing them, and formulating solutions, was more apparent in work for archaeology than history. The evidence was superficial in geography.
10. Few students take the opportunity to undertake an optional dissertation; evidence of these skills is therefore limited.
11. Aims and intended learning outcomes are specified for each of the modules offered. There is, however, scope for learning outcomes to be extended, refined and more clearly articulated at the subject level. The reviewers saw a work-in-progress document indicating that the humanities team is now developing level-specific outcomes for the programme as a whole, to indicate expected progression through levels. Each subject will address these in the future, in order that they may be brought more in line with the generic level descriptors that are specified for the combined humanities programme as a whole.
12. There is also a need for the learning outcomes in all subjects to be more clearly differentiated by level. As currently presented, level 3 outcomes are too similar in tone and scope to those specified at level 1, with their emphasis on introduce, consider, explore and understanding, appreciation and demonstration. There is insufficient evidence to indicate that learning outcomes change in a way that supports students in their transition to becoming autonomous learners. Progression from level 2 to level 3 is insufficient.
13. More systematic attention to the development of learning outcomes at module level is required in all subjects, to enable students to achieve the cognitive skill to adapt and apply concepts, theories and methods from one area of the subject into new situations.
14. Although the reviewers were told that students develop a greater degree of specialisation in years two and three, the intended outcomes of learning focus entirely on breadth of knowledge and understanding in each subject area. In particular, the current learning outcomes place emphasis upon the acquisition and communication of knowledge and understanding through the written word. Too little emphasis is given, in module summaries, to the development of subject-specific skills and to the development of other cognitive and transferable skills. Analysis of assessment design for coursework assignments and examination scripts confirms such preoccupation with knowledge and understanding at all levels of study. This was particularly the case in geography.
15. There is little evidence to suggest that the learning outcomes specified for geography have been informed by the content of the Subject benchmark statements for geography, although the intention to develop a closer match in future is noted. Learning outcomes need to be specified more clearly in terms of their potential to prepare learners for further training, employment or higher-degree study, in line with the College's own policy as articulated in HE Teaching, Learning & Assessment.
16. In archaeology, the specification refers to fieldwork skills, which implies practical application. Techniques would be a more accurate reflection.
17. The learning outcomes in politics do not address satisfactorily the need for currency, hence the application of subject-specific skills to new and emerging issues. The range of foreign policy and crisis management contexts is limited and not sufficiently current. The module outline shows no reference to US foreign policy beyond 1991, although it is recognised that classroom materials may include more recent references and case-studies.
18. The English literature and language learning outcomes are broad, and address some of the Subject benchmark statements. In so far as 'broad knowledge' is the key term in these outcomes, they are met by the syllabus that students will cover over the three years. The overall learning outcomes for both language and literature are a sound indication of what a subject course within a combined honours programme might deliver. However, there is a problem with the particular focus on the novel. The reviewers are not convinced that a broad knowledge and understanding of the definition, convention, techniques and development of the novel can be achieved when there is nothing in the curriculum between 1830 to 1960. The aims for the four level 1 modules in literature make up a coherent whole, in which there is overall emphasis on giving a broad historical overview, the study of a variety of genres and a variety of theoretical approaches to criticism. These aims are followed through in the learning outcomes. At level 2, these aims and outcomes appropriately focus on the understanding of texts of a given period in relation to both historical context and the present day reader. In addition, they emphasise the development of students' skills in reading, textual analysis, research and essay writing. In one of the three modules at this level, aims and outcomes do not make reference to a variety of critical approaches, which might have been expected as a follow up to the emphasis at level 1. At level 3, it is not clear what distinguishes level 3 modules from level 2 modules. Two of the modules make reference to links with other parts of the programme, but a different emphasis is not discernible in the other two modules.
19. Although most module outlines in English suggest an engagement with different theoretical approaches, such engagement was not discernibly developing after level 1 in the extensive sample of students' work reviewed. The only discernible rationale for evidence of development between level 2 and level 3 is in terms of curriculum content, in that Black Writing and Contemporary American Writing go beyond traditional British period-based literature. However, there is no clear skills development. A more positive move towards independent learning would be the introduction of a dissertation. Students who met the reviewers were emphatic that they felt there was development through the years, although they did not articulate clearly what the difference was beyond having a better understanding. Students' work sampled did not demonstrate progression from level 2 to 3. Staff informed the reviewers that when the modules were originally written in 1995, levels 2 and 3 had been interchangeable and agreed that further development is necessary.
20. The reviewers conclude that there is insufficient critical theory. They note that in receiving the full report of the revalidation of the degree in 1999, the panel 'queried whether the core theory and principles linked the apparently diverse and separate set of modules in literature'. Comments on insufficient critical theory in English modules from external examiners are also cited.
21. Module summaries and handbooks are variable in quality and efficacy. They do not always adequately convey the intended learning outcomes to students, nor are they effective in communicating the learning expectations placed upon students. They make no reference to the nature and volume of assessed work and there is, furthermore, a tendency to confuse module aims with module outcomes. Nevertheless, meetings with current and former students confirmed that students were indeed familiarised with the intended learning outcomes of particular modules at the outset. Concerns about the level of challenge were exacerbated by reading lists that cited level 1 texts for level 3 modules.
22. The combined studies programme offers a wide range of studies in the humanities, and there are instances of sound practice. For example, the geography curriculum is appropriately matched to the specified learning outcomes, and some level 1 modules, notably in English, provide sound introductory courses. However, the curriculum in all the subjects under review presents difficulties. The College asserts in its SED that it is teaching the 'heartlands' of the subjects contributing to the combined studies degree. The reviewers did not find this to be the case.
23. The College's SED recognises that, although breadth in the curriculum is integral to the humanities programme, the recent decline in student enrolments may require reductions in the range of modules. The reviewers conclude that the decline in students is having a significant impact on the choice of modules, particularly in history and geography.
24. The curriculum for some politics modules is out of date. Annual module reports have been introduced to encourage review and reflection, but evaluation and judgements tend to be impressionistic with little or no reference to supporting evidence. The course module report 2000-01 for Foreign Policy and Crisis Management states that hardly any changes have taken place to this module over the last four years. Next year there will be extensive modifications. However, in the module outline 2001-02 there is little evidence of this, and only marginal improvement in updated documents received by the reviewers. The curriculum, particularly in year three, needs to be improved. Overall, there is little evidence that contemporary research is informing the politics curriculum, and no evidence that the validating institution supports staff in this. Staff were unaware of other resources available to them, for example, the Learning and Teaching Support Network (LTSN) Politics Subject Centre.
25. The curriculum in geography is appropriately matched to the specified learning outcomes. It enables students, operating within the parameters of a combined humanities programme, to acquire a breadth of geographical knowledge and understanding. In the main, the module portfolio in geography is one that focuses upon the human and environmental aspects of the subject. Some aspects of physical geography are included at levels 2 and 3. This is entirely consistent with the subject's mission within the combined humanities programme and with the intended learning outcomes specified at module level. All modules in geography are considered to be current in terms of the conceptual knowledge and understanding that they seek to convey to students.
26. However, evidence suggests that students have few opportunities to engage with broad-based methodological issues in geography. Neither is there evidence to indicate that students become involved in a systematic and coherent programme of fieldwork in geography. Students are not being offered the fieldwork opportunities that their peers are being offered at comparable institutions and on comparable study programmes elsewhere. While it is probable that students are offered some opportunities to develop their methodological expertise by means of seminar exercises, there is no coordinated attempt to assess their achievement and progress in this respect at the subject level. The extent to which students in geography are adequately prepared for truly independent work at level 3 is, therefore, difficult to judge.
27. The lack of module choice for students in geography is noted, together with the comparatively small number of students that pursue geography after level 1. The implication of a decline in student numbers is that module viability and, accordingly, delivery of the intended learning outcomes are at risk.
28. In literature, some core areas identified in the Subject benchmark statements for English are absent, while more marginal aspects are included. However, the range of periods, genres and approaches is inevitably limited by the combined studies structure. Given the intention stated in the SED to consider and apply appropriately the Subject benchmark statements to the curricula, the College may find it helpful to articulate more clearly how, and why, the available statements are used as reference points.
29. At level 1, English students are provided with an overview through a diverse sample of texts, and introduced to a variety of critical approaches. However, levels 2 and 3 are a little arbitrary, effectively offering broad period courses from 1590 to 1830, and courses in the contemporary novel, Black Writing, and North and South American Literature. The absence of courses on the Victorians or Modernism is a particular cause for concern. These omissions seem particularly odd because one of the learning outcomes for the English literature course as a whole is 'broad knowledge and understanding of the definition, conventions, technique and development of the novel'. Students can select modules that give them a curriculum containing very little pre-nineteenth century literature.
30. Level 1 English modules offer very acceptable introductory courses. At level 2, The Eighteenth Century is a rather traditional module, not really informed by new developments in the subject. It nevertheless offers a coherent content, particularly in view of the programme's emphasis on the novel. The Romantics is an exciting module that takes on new developments in the subject much more successfully, including slave narrative, women romantics and new developments in the Gothic novel. The two level 3 modules that cause the reviewers some concerns, as being rather specialist for inclusion in a programme with little choice, are Black Writing and Contemporary American Literature. In themselves they are also problematic; the Black Writing module, with its particular focus on a collection of US, Nigerian and Caribbean writing, offers little academic coherence such as could be provided, for example, in a foundation study in post-colonial theory. Contemporary American Literature includes a great deal of writing that can hardly be described as contemporary. The second more contemporary half of the module consists of two South American novels and two North American novels that some of the subsequent examination and coursework questions treat as equipping students with an overall knowledge of the novel in North and South America. This course needs to be radically overhauled to offer a clear focus.
31. The comparative lack of choice within English is a less serious problem, although choice could be widened by the introduction of a dissertation. The current and former students who met the reviewers considered that the curriculum offered plenty of choice.
32. One language module is offered at each level and is available to students without prerequisites. A range of language elements is studied and their level is similar from year one to year three. Therefore, there is no progression or development intended between levels in this part of the programme. Nevertheless, these modules include clearly stated and achievable learning outcomes and the syllabus, while wide-ranging, is focused on topics that can be studied in appropriate depth.
33. There is a limited choice of modules available in history and archaeology although, overall, these fields in the curricula support the intended outcomes of learning expressed in the programme specifications. Students pursue what is, in effect, a linear degree programme. There have been some changes in the modules available, but the rationale for this is prompted primarily by staff availability. The logical progression experienced by students of archaeology is not encountered in history to the same extent. The history curriculum reflects discrete areas that are not always linked as coherently as they might be.
34. Assessment is uniformly conservative and restrictive. The 1999 University of Sheffield report on the revalidation recommends that the course team review assessment strategy, but there is no evidence of this having taken place at subsequent meetings and away days of the course team.
35. The assessment process is one that relies entirely upon written examinations and coursework assignments. These constitute a valid and effective way of enabling students to demonstrate achievement of specified learning outcomes at module level, for example, in geography where outcomes are expressed in terms of knowledge and understanding. However, this approach is limited and does not enable students to effectively demonstrate some of the learning outcomes stated in the programme specification. The reviewers are concerned that students are being exposed to a limited range of assessment modes. There are no opportunities for assessment of individual contributions within group work and seminars. There appears to be only an indirect attempt, at best, to assess achievement of subject-specific skills in geography. The development of fieldwork competence appears not to merit separate assessment; neither are the students' abilities to generate and sustain intelligent and informed oral discussions assessed at any point in the programme, despite this being cited as an intended outcome of learning in some modules, for example, politics. Frequently set English tasks did not encourage students to go beyond a largely theme or character-based critical discussion. Insufficient progression in language used in assessment design is an issue that applies also to the other subjects.
36. The limited range of assessment modes may restrict the potential of some students to gain higher grades and classifications, and may, in the longer term, adversely affect their ability to gain employment or engage in further training/higher degree work. The staff team maintains that the validating University imposes constraints on the assessment strategy that limit the modes of assessment to examination and essay. However, the regulations state that 'patterns of assessment will be determined by each degree course team in consultation with the moderator. All elements of assessment (coursework assignments and/or examination) must be passed to obtain credits for the module'. Clearly, a very rigid and limited interpretation of the regulations is in operation.
37. University of Sheffield assessment guidelines are used to set essays and examination questions that require discursive answers, and student work is graded on a 16-point numerical scale. Assessment criteria are clearly indicated on coursework feedback sheets, which are universally used across all subjects within the combined humanities programme, and these are used to distinguish between categories of achievement. It is unclear whether the criteria are of co-equal significance for a particular assignment, and they are generic and not differentiated by level. Where second-marking is evidenced, there is normally only a slight discrepancy between the grade awarded by the two markers concerned. This suggests that internal assessors are able to relate the marking and grading scheme to the specified assessment criteria in a consistent way.
38. In geography, the written feedback given to students is of a variable quality. In the coursework samples analysed, comments by tutors are confined to mark sheets and lack tutor annotation. In some cases, the written feedback given to students is encouraging in tone and purpose. It points out the need for improvement and how a better standard of achievement might be secured in subsequent written work. In other cases, feedback consists of little more than a brief summary of what the student has written with inadequate attention being given to how learning skills need to be further developed and refined. There is scope, in geography and English literature, for a more consistent match between the tick-box profile, the written comments of the examiner, and the grade awarded. There is good feedback in English language, history and politics. Examination feedback is given and a turnaround of four weeks is typical. The humanities handbook is an example of good practice in respect of assessment processes, containing an appropriate range of information to students.
39. Students are able to seek further clarification of the written feedback by means of tutorials and personal tutors. The meetings of current and former students expressed a good degree of student satisfaction with the system.
40. Analysis of the examination papers set during the last three years suggests that students can predict questions with a high degree of confidence. In English, assessment design allows students to be highly selective. Modules studied at level 2 and level 3 are year-long, 20 credits, and are normally assessed by two coursework essays and an examination that requires the student to answer three questions. Coursework and examination questions are almost always set on one text or equivalent. Therefore, a course may require the student to study 12 texts/topics but the student may be assessed on only three texts, or topics. In all cases of work reviewed, the students had availed themselves of this opportunity and effectively answered on only three texts or topics out of around 10 or 12. Students confirmed that they used their coursework essays as part of their examination preparation. The reviewers are also concerned that the nature and scope of examination questions are very similar at levels 2 and 3.
41. Coursework and examinations are, on the whole, marked consistently. However, the considerable overlap between coursework and examination diminishes the level of confidence that can be placed in student achievement. There is evidence of this in all subject areas. Students are very aware of the question of overlap and some had clearly been warned by their tutors not to cover the same material. Nevertheless, the reviewers came upon many examples of this and, in one instance, whole paragraphs of material in which a student had repeated himself between coursework and examination. This evidence indicates that greater care needs to be taken to ensure that written examinations, in particular, are differentiated by level and are crafted in such a way that duplication of coursework material can be avoided. This issue is very serious and can easily be addressed in a number of ways, such as excluding the subjects of coursework questions from the examinations, or introducing more comparative questions, desirable in themselves anyway. There is also a discrepancy between the way coursework questions are presented between modules, some offering an enormous range of choice. Critically, there is no formal internal or external moderation of coursework assessment design. This fails to comply with good practice precepts in the Code of practice and is an issue acknowledged by both the College and the University moderator.
42. In relation to the standards set, students achieve well. The external examiner confirms this. The reviewers were impressed in their meetings with current and former students, who articulated achievement of their personal learning goals and provided evidence of progression to further study and wider employment opportunities. Positive characteristics of good student work include examples of:
English - Accurate and fluent writing, a good grasp of key concepts and an enthusiasm for the material, good ability to offer critical analysis. Good use of quotations to support arguments. Good levels of competency in English language work. Good transferable skills. In language, the projects and dissertations seen showed independent thought and understanding of aspects of methodology in an area of the curriculum where they had had little prior study.
History - Detailed understanding of specific aspects. Students appreciate the role of documents as primary sources of evidence. Good level of analysis in the better work, and an understanding and analysis of the nature of change and continuity. In archaeology, good analytical skills and an awareness of the chronological framework of British pre-history.
Politics - Well-constructed arguments, impressive projects with analytical skills tested and displayed, good written communication skills, breadth of knowledge and understanding.
Geography - Coherent written work that makes good use of primary evidence from the internet, appropriate knowledge and understanding of basic concepts. Some evidence of analytical acquisition and that computer-based graphical skills are acquired.
Areas for improvement include:
English - Knowledge of theoretical approaches, work that is sometimes too general with limited textual address. Some critical reading is out of date and students work that demonstrates only a narrow range of the syllabus. Referencing is not always accurate.
History - Conceptual comparative evaluation is very limited.
Politics - More current reading is required. There is little evidence of theory informing level 3 curriculum. Students are not sufficiently challenged with recent political case-studies.
Geography - Analysis rather than presentation of information is required, along with the development of subject-specific skills. There is little evidence of graphicacy or statistical/data analysis. Only the written word is used to demonstrate progression.
43. An analysis of samples of assessed coursework assignments and examination scripts confirms that the learning outcomes specified at module level are being met satisfactorily. Students demonstrate the requisite level of knowledge and understanding, and are able to communicate this effectively through clear, sustained and generally well-evidenced writing.
44. The grades awarded for coursework and examinations extend appropriately across the entire grade scale. There is a discrepancy, not uncommon in HE, in terms of attainment level by coursework and examination. In some cases in geography, such discrepancies are large.
45. Many students achieve a commendable array of grades in their final-year modules. These grades are appropriate to the level of achievement demonstrated by the students concerned, and to the expectations currently placed upon them. These results suggest a very satisfactory profile for a programme with widening access admission criteria. It is less certain that such grades would be awarded if more emphasis was given to the assessment within level 3 modules to those higher-order thinking skills that are outlined within the programme specification.
46. Because the external examiner has a role across the programme, s/he does not comment on achievement in particular subjects. The reviewers are concerned that there was no evidence other than the reviewers' own scrutiny of students' work to show that, at subject level, standards are being met. There is no subject-specialist external moderation of assessed work where the external examiner is not a subject-specialist. In each subject, the aim is to enable students to acquire subject-specific knowledge and skills at each level of study. However, levels 2 and 3 are not sufficiently differentiated by learning outcomes and the curriculum does not specify why certain topics are dealt with at level 3 rather than level 2. There is no evidence in the course descriptions that level 3 modules are more demanding or develop different skills than those at level 2. The claim that there is more independent study at level 3 is not borne out by the pattern of teaching and learning or the assessment requirements.
47. Student work showed evidence of well-prepared and hard-working students. External examiners' comments on the standards achieved by students are largely borne out. Nevertheless, the reviewers' concern about standards set, aspects of the assessment process, the opportunity for students to cover only a limited area of the year-long syllabus in a relatively unchallenging way, and the absence of comparative analysis and theoretical awareness raise doubts about comparability with the standards expected in other institutions at this level.
48. With respect to academic standards, the reviewers conclude that there are serious concerns over the quality and academic standards associated with all subjects contributing to the degree:
Overall, the reviewers have no confidence in the academic standards achieved by the programmes in English, geography, history, and politics and international relations at Barnsley College.
49. There is no explicit or clearly articulated teaching and learning strategy related to curriculum content and programme aims, although staff clearly reflect on teaching and learning. The minutes of annual curriculum days provide the main evidence of discussion and planning, but they tend to be cursory. The humanities action plan is a superficial document that is mainly concerned with operational matters. There is a reference to 'Subject teams to update existing learning outcomes etc for their individual modules in the light of Subject benchmark statements and HE Department policy documents - ongoing throughout the year'. In discussion with the reviewers, the staff expressed concern at the lack of external involvement in the creation of modules and programmes. The debate about whether to introduce a compulsory dissertation has remained unresolved for a number of years; although the reviewers observed a course team meeting to discuss the issue further, it was still not clear what positive decisions had been made and how they would be progressed.
50. The SED lays great emphasis on the non-traditional intake, largely from the local area, which has one of the lowest average levels of family income in the country. Nevertheless there was no articulation either in the SED or in conversation with the teaching team of how teaching might be adapted to suit this very particular intake. However, it should be noted that the most recent report of student evaluations shows that 60 per cent felt the programme met their needs, and the remaining 40 per cent that it mostly met their needs. This impression was confirmed in discussion with both current and former students, who were very enthusiastic about the teaching.
51. Out of seven English staff, three have published textbooks in relevant areas but none is an active researcher. Of six history staff, one has published material of some relevance to the teaching; for the three geography staff, one has an extensive record of relevant research, while another has a published article which has some relevance, but is dated 1971. There is no record of any publications by the three politics staff. The College funds University of Sheffield postgraduate students' research grants so that they can contribute to teaching, and staff are afforded some time for scholarly activity at the end of the teaching year. However, it should be noted that staff have a teaching contact time of 22 hours each week. The available time is the equivalent of their HE teaching time for 12 weeks. For most staff who teach two or three HE modules, this would amount to a total of about 72 hours. One or two members of the team attend annual academic conferences on a regular basis, but this is the exception rather than the rule. A view was expressed that such conferences might be 'too narrow for our staff'; a comment which suggests a lack of familiarity with the culture of research and scholarship. There is little evidence that staff draw upon research, scholarship or professional activity to inform their teaching.
52. Teaching is carried out within the traditional structure of a weekly lecture and seminar. Student learning in the lecture is monitored by the seminar. Perusal of the module documentation confirms that fieldwork opportunities in geography are limited. Students are very clear that they know and understand the learning outcomes for modules. There is strong emphasis on interactive learning, facilitated by the size of the seminar groups of approximately 10 students. The lectures are interactive in nature, allowing students an opportunity to seek clarification on complex matters. It is clear that students welcome such small-group teaching and its ability to facilitate individualised learning. Indeed, many students cite small class size as a main reason for enrolling at the College. In some modules, students are asked to prepare as many as three seminar papers over the course of the module. Evidence presented in a College survey in 2001, regarding effective seminar work shows that 55 per cent of students felt that seminars were worthwhile, while 37 per cent felt that they were mostly worthwhile. Both current and former students were enthusiastic about the teaching, although former students indicated variation in the delivery of lecture content. Students felt more stimulated by some tutors than others. One of the strengths of the teaching and learning is that students, including 18 year-olds, attend well, and therefore benefit from small groups. The team is working towards introducing an 80 per cent minimum attendance. Students themselves have raised the issue of credit for seminar preparation and the introduction of a dissertation remains a continuing issue for them.
53. The SED lays great emphasis on information technology and the use of internet resources. All students are given a lecture during induction on electronic data sources and how to access them, and information and communication technology workshops are open to all students on all three years. Use of the internet is module-specific, extensive in geography and politics, and applied to search for material in PDF format in year two history. However, it is used much less in English. An electronic journal archive is in use. While the use of electronic data sources is evidenced in student coursework assignments, it is difficult to identify how students are introduced to such sources and how their database interrogation and retrieval skills are enhanced during the course in geography.
54. The HE Lead Teacher monitors tutors' performance and provides written reports. Any significant weakness is identified and addressed, and the reviewers saw evidence of this. All new staff are supported by a designated mentor from the humanities programme team.
55. Student workloads are staggered by commonly agreed deadlines in the first year and consultation between subjects in the second year. There were no complaints about workload in the various reports of staff-student liaison committees or in student meetings with the reviewers. The documentation supplied contains no reference to the guidance given to students with regard to optimising their use of self-directed learning time.
56. 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
57. There are effective arrangements for admission, support, and academic guidance that facilitate progression. The reviewers observed dedicated staff with a high level of commitment to widening access through local provision. The College has an extensive range of personal support services that are available to its HE students, including a personal tutor network that is able to offer academic support to all. These are comprehensively identified within the College's HE Learning, Teaching and Assessment material.
58. Academic guidance is available before or after the lecture or seminar. The facilitator in the learning centre provides additional support. However, the students who spoke to the reviewers were very clear that tutors were approachable and accessible. Additional study-skills support is available and is prescribed for students entering the DipHE provision. It is not clear how the effectiveness of the study-skill support offered to students is monitored.
59. There is a clear strategy in place for students with disabilities. There is a high proportion of such students and their needs are identified at the start of the course. The disabilities coordinator then makes sure that help is provided in liaison with the course coordinator.
60. Statistical information was limited and this was attributed by staff to changes in personnel and in the responsibilities for collecting data. Future arrangements will make it easier to track students, to record all information, and to provide a wider range of statistics, for example, relationships between entry qualifications and degree results, for annual monitoring purposes. Statistics were provided for admissions and student progression and attainment. Recruitment to the programme fulfils the aim to increase widening participation in HE in the local area. Many students come from backgrounds with no previous experience of HE, and both current and former students were very positive about the personal and vocational opportunities opened to them by taking the degree. Intakes have fallen (1996, 38; 1997, 45; 1998, 36; 1999, 33; 2000, 31; 2001, 20) and further decline will raise questions about the viability of subject combinations and the quality of the student experience.
61. Women are in the majority, an average 63 per cent of intake from 1999 to 2001. The substantial minority of male students reflects the particular social composition of local mature students. Typically, one-half of the female intake is aged 20 or over, although there is a small intake of students between 18 and 20. Again, the ethnic mix is typical of the population of the area; 96 per cent of the intake is white and from South Yorkshire. Most students reported that they chose Barnsley College because it was local, accessible and the course was geared to their needs.
62. Entry qualifications are characteristic of the type of intake, with only a minority entering with traditional qualifications; 23 per cent have studied GCE A-Level or Access courses. Students who do not satisfy the broad entry qualifications for the degree can be admitted to the extended degree that gives them a year of intensive preparation for degree-level work, or to the DipHE. The small numbers involved in these programmes succeed, and most have continued to complete the degree programme.
63. Progression rates through the degree have been satisfactory. Between 1996 and 1999 there were no referrals and virtually no failures at level 1. At level 2 there was a small number of deferrals, for personal reasons. Overall, completion rates are satisfactory and student attainment is good, with the majority of students achieving a Lower Second class degree or better. Non-completion is mainly the result of personal or family problems.
64. Student support is good. There is an induction at the beginning of year one, a student handbook and notice-boards for updating information. Students reported that they were well supported through the personal tutorial system and also by frequent informal contacts with staff. The small groups and personal contact with the staff are effective in retaining students and encouraging them to succeed. The year-tutor system ensures that students' learning is supported through regular meetings to evaluate progress and individual needs. The timetable, 0930 to 1530 hours, is designed to meet the needs of mature students.
65. The provision contributes substantially to the achievement of the intended outcomes, with most elements demonstrating good practice.
The quality of student progression is commendable.
66. The reviewers initially expressed concern at the quality and currency of the module outlines they received. More recent module handbooks that contained updated reading lists were subsequently provided. As the definitive documents, module outlines need to be updated and modified as appropriate to reflect the current use of learning resources. In politics, the reading lists are almost uniformly out of date. In many instances, bibliographic referencing is sketchy and year of publication/publisher/full name of author are not cited. First and second editions of texts are cited when these have gone into third and fourth editions. In some modules, reading lists are minimal. In English, some reading lists were substantially out of date. There are few methodological/theoretical texts in geography, history and English, mirroring an emphasis on content.
67. In general, there is a good supply of texts and journals or journal articles, reflecting a good core provision that is adequate to support the current expectations placed on students. Recommended texts are available in adequate numbers and students have access to an appropriate range of hard copy and electronic journal sources. Additional photocopied articles are made available in the learning centre by tutors to support the teaching of particular modules. In discussion it emerged that two years ago a policy of putting all lecture notes on the internet was introduced, but has not been carried out due to a resourcing problem. At present, the dissertation is optional and treated as a module choice. Given the continuing discussion within the humanities team about whether to make the dissertation compulsory, it should be noted that the present level of resources is inadequate to support the increase in activity in research skills and methods.
68. In view of their involvement in AS and A2-Level work, academic staff have little time allocated for active engagement in research and scholarly activity that would support and enrich their HE work. It is clear that the research endeavour, where it takes place, links directly with the curriculum. Teaching expertise between the modules taught and the staff was generally quite good, and enables staff to concentrate on their particular interests. Concerns were raised about the lack of administrative support.
69. Teaching accommodation is of a good standard. Classrooms are light and well equipped with basic resources, and can be quickly adapted for formal and informal teaching use.
70. The provision enables the intended outcomes to be achieved, but improvement is needed to overcome weaknesses.
The quality of learning resources is approved, but
71. The evaluation of the maintenance and enhancement of quality and standards is composed in the context of the sections of the Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education, Section 2: Collaborative provision, Section 4: External examining and Section 7: Programme approved monitoring and review.
72. The reviewers are concerned that the range of validation, monitoring and internal review processes are not adequately supporting the maintenance and enhancement of quality and standards, particularly as regards subject-specific support. Many staff do not actively or regularly engage with a wider academic peer group for HE development (citing resource constraints on conference attendance, staff development time, heavy teaching commitments), and some are unaware of resources available to them such as the LTSN Subject Centres. The absence of subject-specific external examiners and moderators, given the breadth of the programme, means that staff have not had any warning that there might be problems in some areas until they were raised by the reviewers. The report of the most recent revalidation indicates that the panel did not engage with the programme team at a subject level. There are also cross-programme issues about developing understanding of learning outcomes, varying teaching, learning and assessment methods, curriculum design and delivery.
73. A consequence of the context for the provision and the absence of an external and peer community for HE work has been that staff have not been encouraged or had opportunities to engage in a self-critical and informed discussion of the curriculum, its delivery and assessment. That there is much good student work at appropriate levels is a testimony to the commitment of the staff and the quality of the student support. There is some evidence of the development of quality assurance systems, although the outcomes of these systems are not used in a rigorous way to enhance the provision. Module reviews are not included in the annual report and there is little evidence of effective self-critical reflection that draws on feedback from staff and students.
74. Concerns for future maintenance of standards focus on declining student numbers and resources, ability to offer all subjects and options and the consequent restricted student experience in smaller classes.
75. The reviewers conclude that the arrangements conducted in total by the College and the validating University for programme monitoring and review are insufficiently robust to maintain and enhance the academic standards of the subjects under review in the BA (Hons) Combined Studies (Humanities) degree.
English, geography, history, and politics and international relations programmes at Barnsley 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 no confidence in the academic standards achieved by the programmes in English, geography, history, and politics and international relations at Barnsley 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 commendable:
Learning resources
The quality of learning resources is approved, but:
Strengths include:
Maintenance and enhancement of quality and
standards
That there is much good student work at appropriate levels is a testament to the commitment of staff and the quality of student support. However, staff have not actively been supported to engage with a wider academic peer group for higher education development. The absence of subject-specific external examiners and moderators has been detrimental to the provision, as has the lack of support to address cross-programme issues. There is some evidence of the development of quality assurance systems, although the outcomes of these are not used in a rigorous way to enhance provision. The arrangements conducted in total by the College and the validating University for programme monitoring and review are insufficiently robust to maintain and enhance the academic standards of the subject under review in the BA (Hons) Combined Studies (Humanities) degree.