Quality Management and Enhancement Committee
Working Group on Programme Specifications
Report
___________________________________________________________________
Key to abbreviations
AMR
DAPs
FTC
HE
HEFCE
HEI
IA
IQR
PDExSCo
PIQ
PRQ
PS
QAA
QMEC
TQI
Annual Monitoring Report
Degree-awarding Powers
Faculty Teaching Committee
Higher education
Higher Education Funding Council for England
Higher education institution
Institutional Audit
Internal Quality Review
Programme Development Executive Sub-Commitee
Programme Institution Questionnaire
Programme Review Questionnaire
Programme Specification
Quality Assurance Agency
Quality Management and Enhancement Committee
Teaching Quality Information
Executive Summary
At its meeting on 7 November 2006, QMEC noted that the QAA had published revised ‘Guidelines
for the Preparation of Programme Specifications’ and agreed that a working group should be set
up to review the issue of PSs in light of those revised guidelines.
The Working Group on Programme Specifications held a meeting on 1 March 2007. In this report,
WGPS sets out:
-
Its terms of reference and membership [Paras (1) – (3)];
-
Background to the development of PSs [Paras (4) – (6)];
-
UCL’s existing policy and procedure in relation to PSs [Paras (7) – (11)];
-
References to PSs during UCL’s DAPs/IA visit by the QAA in March 2005 [Paras (12) –
(15)];
-
The QAA’s review of its ‘Guidelines on Programme Specifications’ [Paras (16) – 19)];
-
Issues considered by the WGPS in light of the QAA’s revised Guidelines [Paras (20) –
(26)];
-
Summary of WGPS’s recommendations to QMEC [Para (27)];
-
Next steps [Para (28)].
QMEC is invited to consider this report and, in particular, the recommendations at Para (27).
1
Terms of Reference and Membership
(1)
The terms of reference of the WGPS were as follows:
(i) To review UCL’s existing policy and procedure in relation to the
preparation of PSs.
(ii) In light of the QAA's revised 'Guidelines for Preparing Programme
Specifications', to consider UCL's future policy and procedure for the
preparation, review and revision of PSs.
(iii) To report to QMEC.
(2)
The membership1 of the WGPS was as follows:
Professor Chris Carey, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, (Chair)
Professor Robin Aizlewood, SSEES
Mr Jason Clarke, Academic Services
Dr Marco Federighi, Faculty of Engineering Sciences
Dr Dave Tovee, Faculty of Mathematical and Physical Sciences
Ms Sandra Hinton, Academic Services, (Secretary).
(3)
The WGPS held a meeting on 1 March 2007.
Background to the Development of PSs
(4)
The development of what later became known as ‘programme specifications’ was
one of the recommendations contained in the ‘Report of the National Committee
of Inquiry into Higher Education’ (the ‘Dearing Report’), which stressed
the importance of clear and explicit information for students so that they can make
informed choices about their studies and the levels they are aiming to achieve.
The Dearing Report recommended
that clear descriptions of programmes should be developed so that students are
able to compare different offerings and make sensible choices about the
programmes they wish to take.
The Committee also considered that PSs
could usefully replace some of the prospectus material that is presently produced.
1
(5)
In June 2000, the QAA issued guidelines on preparing PSs. In light of the
comments made in the Dearing Report, the emphasis in those initial Guidelines
was on PSs as being a source of information for students, potential students and
external stakeholders (e.g., employers).
(6)
The fundamental rationale or justification offered by the QAA for the continuing
need for PSs is that they were one of the recommendations contained in the
Dearing Report. PSs are now firmly embedded as one of the constituent elements
Professor Vince Emery was also a member of the WGPS but was unable to attend the meeting.
2
of the QAA’s ‘academic infrastructure‘ (the other elements being the Code of
Practice, Subject Benchmark Statements, and the various Qualifications
Frameworks).
UCL’s Existing Policy and Procedure in Relation to PSs
2
(7)
Unlike some other components of the QAA’s academic infrastructure or other
aspects of the national quality assurance framework which has been developed
by the QAA, UCL did not see the introduction of PSs as controversial and has not
regarded the requirement that HEIs prepare PSs for their programmes as being
excessively onerous or burdensome. This may, in part, be due to the fact that
when PSs were first introduced by the QAA, many HEIs decided to opt for a ‘big
bang’ approach and required that a PS was prepared for all of their programmes
at the same time, whereas UCL decided to adopt a more incremental approach –
the preparation of a PS was incorporated into the existing procedures for
programme approval and review, and a PS form was included in the PIQ and the
PRQ forms. It was envisaged that, over time, PSs would gradually be prepared
for all UCL programmes.
(8)
However, it should be noted that UCL has never regarded PSs as being the
primary source of programme-related information for students, potential students
or other external stakeholders, and that PSs have not been prepared primarily
with those audiences in mind. This is because UCL has been able to provide the
“clear and explicit information” and the “clear descriptions of programmes” called
for in the Dearing Report in other, more accessible formats e.g., prospectuses,
departmental handbooks, programme guides, course outlines, etc. In WGPS’s
view, providing relevant information to these different audiences can more
effectively be done by using these other mechanisms. Furthermore, any attempt
to provide all of the information which would be relevant to a range of external
stakeholders by means of the PS would result in an unnecessary, and potentially
confusing, duplication of information.
(9)
Under the revised external review process introduced in 2002, there was a shift
away from universal subject-level review towards a greater emphasis on periodic
institutional audit. There was also a new requirement that HEIs make publicly
available certain types of information (including summaries of External
Examiners’ reports) as part of what later became known as the TQI. PSs were
presented as an important source of information for QAA review teams and
External Examiners. There was also an expectation on the part of HEFCE/QAA
that HEIs would publish PSs for their degree programmes.
(10)
By late 2002, it became clear that the introduction of the various requirements
under the revised external review system would mean that UCL’s incremental
approach to the preparation of PSs was no longer viable. Consequently, in
January 2003, an accelerated timetable for the preparation of PSs at UCL was
introduced. Under this new timetable, PSs should have been prepared for all
relevant UCL programmes by the beginning of session 2003-04. The PS template
used by UCL was slightly revised at this time and is still in use2.
The PS template is currently available from the UCL website at
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/registry/ucl-staff/programme-spec/
3
(11)
At that time, it was envisaged that once PSs had been prepared for all UCL
programmes, they would be published centrally on the UCL website. Faculties
were requested to forward copies of PSs for programmes offered by their
constituent departments to the Registry. In light of a subsequent decision that
PSs should be posted on the Academic Services website, copies of all of the PSs
which had been submitted by faculties should have been transferred from the
Registry to Academic Services. WGPS noted that the records transferred to
Academic Services indicate that PSs have been prepared for around only 55% of
those programmes currently offered by UCL. This figure did not correspond with
the experience of the academic members of WGPS, who recalled preparing PSs
in 2003 in accordance with the accelerated timetable. WGPS assumed, therefore,
that although PSs were prepared by departments, many of those PS documents
were either not forwarded to the parent faculty, or were not forwarded on to the
Registry, or were not later transferred to Academic Services. From discussions
with Faculty Tutors following the WGPS meeting, it would appear that was indeed
the case. WGPS officers are currently confirming with faculties that a PS has
been completed for all programmes. The question of the most appropriate
location for the online posting of PSs is addressed below (paragraph 25).
References to PSs During UCL’s DAPs/IA Visit by the QAA in March 2005
(12)
UCL’s submission to the QAA for the combined DAPs/IA visit in March 2005
included the following statement in relation to PSs
The submission of a proposed new programme and review of an existing
programme both require completion of a programme specification template. All
UCL departments were asked in 2003 to prepare programme specifications for any
of their programmes for which these had not yet been completed via completion of
a programme institution or review questionnaire - with specifications then being
submitted to FTCs for approval. Arrangements are now being made for all
programme specifications to be made available online. We recognise the need
now to develop a more systematic approach to the ongoing review and
development of programme specifications (apart from their being considered in the
context of quinquennial programme review) and to explore the relationship of such
an approach to the development of discipline-based learning and teaching
strategies. A report on policy issues relating to programme specification will be
considered at the next meeting of PDExSCo.
(13)
In their report, the QAA auditors included the following observations in relation to
the issue of PSs
Paragraph 21 While departments are required to confirm that they have taken note
of relevant subject benchmarks, the audit team noted in the course of the DATS,
the slightly variable extent to which they routinely address the Academic
Infrastructure, with some programme specifications in particular being of limited
usefulness, and also that, at several points, the critical self-analysis signalled a
concern that staff commitment to quality could be diminished by the imposition of
'quality jargon' or time-consuming bureaucratic procedures. Nonetheless, following
observations of meetings of Academic Committee and its new Programme
Development Executive Sub-Committee, the team was confirmed in its view that
institutional-level control of departmental and faculty operations is being clarified,
and in some cases developed, to the benefit of quality assurance and
enhancement.
Paragraph 44 The audit team notes that, while a degree of cultural resistance to
engagement with the Academic Infrastructure continues to exist, the practical effect
of this is relatively slight, especially given UCL's central mapping of the
4
Infrastructure on to its own procedures, a practice which ensures that departmentallevel engagement with the Infrastructure is, for the most part, indirect. Hence, while
there is no reason to believe that current policy and practice are not consistent with
the expectations of the Academic Infrastructure, it is likely that not all academic staff
are aware that this is so. It does, in particular, remain the case that, in some parts
of UCL, the potential utility of programme specifications in particular has still to be
fully realised. In the view of the team it would be desirable for this matter to be
addressed institutionally, not only by monitoring the programme specifications
themselves (which, it is understood, will be part of the proposed annual monitoring
regime), but, more developmentally, by putting in place a programme to explain
their logic and rationale to departmental-level academic staff and identify best
practice.
(14)
In their conclusions, the QAA auditors recommended that UCL may wish to
consider the desirability of
complementing its intention of reviewing the quality and accuracy of programme
specifications by a programme designed to identify best practice and convince
departmental level academic staff of programme specifications' potential to
enhance the student learning experience.
(15)
UCL’s formal response to this recommendation was as follows:
We understand that the QAA is reviewing its guidelines on programme
specifications and clarifying their purpose - in the face of evidence of a lack of
shared understanding across the higher education sector as to whether programme
specifications should be regarded (i) as a source of information to
students/prospective students or (ii) as an internal planning tool for institutions.
Once the QAA has clarified these matters, our Quality Management and
Enhancement Committee (QMEC) will review UCL's approach to the development
and use made of programme specifications.
The QAA’s Review of its Guidelines on Programme Specifications
3
(16)
WGPS noted that at the same time as the QAA auditors were urging UCL to
review the “potential utility” of PSs and to devise “a programme to explain their
logic and rationale to departmental-level academic staff and identify best
practice”, the QAA was itself actively consulting the sector about the use of PSs
and was grappling with issues such as their purpose, usefulness, format and
intended audience. QMEC/Academic Services officers attended QAA consultation
events in spring and autumn 2005, where it was clear that this review had partly
been prompted by the growing evidence from IA that HEIs had adopted very
different approaches to PSs - some HEIs were using them as tools in their
internal programme approval and review processes, others were using them as a
source of information to students and potential students, while others were trying
to use them for both of these purposes; some HEIs had developed two versions
of the PS, one version for external publication and another version for internal
use.
(17)
The QAA’s consultation process on PSs (which also included the short-lived
‘Programme Plus’ proposal) resulted in the publication by the QAA of its revised
Guidelines3 in summer 2006.
The Guidelines are available from the QAA website at
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/programSpec/default.asp
5
(18)
The QAA’s current policy statement on PSs is as follows:
As a result of the insights gained from the many example Programme
Specifications produced and the feedback received from academic staff, students
and employers, the agency is convinced that Programme Specifications are an
essential part of the strategy for helping higher education to make the outcomes of
learning more explicit and for promoting discussion within the HE teaching
community about outcome standards in different educational contexts. These
concise descriptions, and the processes they are intended to promote, provide a
foundation for the public assurance of academic standards and permit HE
programmes and awards to be related to the Qualifications Framework.
(19)
WGPS noted, however, that despite the assured tone of the policy statement
above, the Guidelines themselves contain more equivocal and somewhat
contradictory statements about whether PSs are intended for internal or external
audiences and how they should be used. The Guidelines state that PSs may be
used in a variety of different ways, that they are just one of a number of ways in
which HEIs can describe learning outcomes and that they can be presented in a
range of formats. The revised Guidelines acknowledge that some PSs will focus
on the student audience while others will be used primarily as quality assurance
documents, particularly in the programme design, approval and review process.
The QAA appears to have accepted that different HEIs have adopted different
approaches to PSs and will continue to do so, as the Guidelines include the
statement that:
It is important that they [PSs] are fit for the purpose that they fulfill in each
individual institution.
Issues Considered by the WGPS in light of the QAA’s Revised Guidelines
(20)
In light of the revised Guidelines, WGPS considered UCL's future policy and
procedure for the preparation, review and revision of PSs. Points (21) – (25)
below set out the specific issues considered by WGPS.
(21)
Should PSs continue to be used by UCL as primarily an internal planning tool or
should they be developed as a source of information for students/potential
students/other stakeholders?
(a)
As mentioned above, PSs have not been used by UCL as primarily a
source of information to students, potential students or other stakeholders.
Nor, strictly speaking, have they been used as UCL’s internal programme
planning tool - the PS template has been incorporated into UCL’s
programme planning tool, the PIQ form, which requires programme
designers to address issues such as programme structure, student
demand, the business case underpinning the proposed new programme,
and quality assurance monitoring. However, the PS is a very useful
element in the programme planning process as it does require programme
teams to explicitly take note of key external reference points in the
planning process (e.g., Subject Benchmark Statements) and focuses
discussion on issues relating to the programme’s intended learning
outcomes.
(b)
WGPS concluded that UCL should continue to use PSs in this way as part
of the programme approval process.
6
(22)
If PSs are to continue to be used primarily as an internal planning tool, is WGPS
satisfied that the relevant information for students is being provided in other
formats e.g., prospectuses, departmental handbooks, course outlines, etc?
(a)
(23)
(24)
WGPS was satisfied that all of the information required by current and
prospective students is being published in other formats. Also, WGPS
noted that the UCL PS template requires its creator to refer the reader to
departmental course handbooks, etc, so they know where to look for more
information.
Does the PS template currently used by UCL include all of the information
recommended by the QAA?
(a)
The revised QAA Guidelines include recommendations as to what a PS
should normally include. WGPS undertook a mapping exercise to
compare these recommendations against the current UCL template and
was satisfied that the UCL PS template complies with all of the QAA’s
recommendations (either within the PS itself or by referring the reader to
the relevant UCL publication). WGPS is satisfied that the current PS
template is fit for UCL’s purpose.
(b)
WGPS also considered whether there is any further information which
might usefully be included in the PS template. Dr Federighi noted that the
Faculty of Engineering Sciences is currently considering whether PSs for
its programme should include information on issues such as career
progression and whether they can be used for marketing purposes.
(c)
WGPS agreed that UCL should stipulate institutional-level minimum
requirements which all PSs should meet. Individual faculties and
departments could then, if they wish, develop their PSs further to adapt
them to reflect the particular nature of their provision or the needs of their
students or employers. This could be particularly relevant in vocationallyoriented subjects.
(d)
WGPS agreed that a set of internal guidelines for staff on the preparation
of PSs should be prepared. Those guidelines should address issues such
as the minimum requirements for a UCL PS (including the UCL PS
template) and examples of enhanced PSs which have been developed in
particular departments or subjects. Also, a workshop or series of
workshops for staff on preparing PSs should be organised.
By what date should those departments which do not appear to have prepared
PSs for all of their programmes be required to do so?
(a)
WGPS agreed that, once its officers have confirmed whether PSs are
outstanding for any UCL programmes, these should be prepared and
signed-off by the relevant FTC by 1 September 2007 (although it is
anticipated that only a small number of programmes will be in this
position). This timetable will allow the relevant programme coordinators to
attend the workshop referred to above.
7
(25)
Should PSs be published on a central UCL website or should they be made
available via faculty or departmental websites?
(a)
(26)
WGPS noted that the earlier decision to post PSs on a central website
had been taken largely in the interests of administrative convenience.
WGPS concluded that it was unlikely that students would expect a PS to
be published on a central UCL website. Also, it would be more in keeping
with UCL’s academic-led approach to quality assurance issues if PSs are
published by faculties or departments. WGPS agreed, therefore, that each
FTC should be asked to consider whether PSs in its faculty will be
published on a faculty website or by its constituent departments, as some
faculties will want them on the faculty website and others will want them
on individual department websites.
What mechanism(s) should be put in place for ensuring that, once written, PSs
are reviewed and, where necessary, up-dated?
(a)
Retaining the PS template as part of the PIQ will continue to ensure that
PSs are prepared for any new programmes approved by UCL. Regarding
the subsequent review of PSs for established programmes, WGPS agreed
that the Annual Monitoring Report template should include a question to
Programme Co-ordinators asking then to confirm whether there have
been any developments in the past year which mean that a change to the
PS is required. Also, the documentation required for the five-yearly
‘augmented’ Annual Monitoring Report (which it is envisaged will take
place in the year preceding a department’s next IQR) should include upto-date PSs for all of those programmes for which the department is
responsible.
(b)
The PS template should include the dates that the PS was approved and
reviewed.
(c)
The approach outlined above will ensure that institutionally, UCL will be
able to satisfy itself that PSs are being created and that there is an
intervention point at which it can check that they are being updated.
Summary of Recommendations
(27)
WGPS’s recommendations to QMEC are as follows:
(a)
That UCL reaffirm its position that PSs are not intended to be, or designed
to act as, primarily a source of information for students, potential students,
employers or other external stakeholders.
(b)
That relevant information for students, potential students, employers and
other external stakeholders on UCL’s academic provision should continue
to be provided in more accessible formats than a PS, such as the UCL
prospectuses, departmental handbooks, programme guides, course
outlines, etc (many of which are available online).
(c)
That the completion of a PS should continue to form an integral part of
UCL’s programme approval process and that the PIQ form should
continue to include the PS template. By these means, UCL will be able to
ensure that the design of new programmes will involve teaching teams
8
taking due note of external reference points (such as the relevant
elements of the QAA’s academic infrastructure) and discussing explicitly
the programme’s intended learning outcomes.
(d)
That the review of PSs should form part of the Annual Monitoring process,
by means of the Annual Monitoring Report template including a question
to Programme Co-ordinators asking then to confirm whether there have
been any developments in the past year which mean that a change to the
PS is required. Also, the documentation required for the five-yearly
‘augmented’ Annual Monitoring Report should include up-to-date PSs for
all of those programmes for which the department is responsible.
(e)
That the WGPS officers complete the process of confirming with each
faculty that a PS has been completed for all of the programmes currently
offered by the faculty’s constituent departments.
(f)
That PSs for any programmes for which a PS has not yet been completed
should be prepared and approved by 1 September 2007.
(g)
That WGPS should specify the minimum institutional-level requirements
for a UCL PS.
(h)
That individual faculties should be able to build upon the UCL PS template
in order to reflect the particular nature of their provision or to include
particular information of relevance to their students and stakeholders e.g.,
in vocationally-oriented subjects.
(i)
That WGPS prepare a set of guidelines for staff on the preparation of PSs.
(j)
That WGPS organise a workshop or series of workshops for staff on the
preparation of PSs and as a means of sharing good practice across UCL.
(k)
Notwithstanding points (a) and (b) above, PSs should be made available
both internally and externally via online posting. FTCs should, therefore,
be asked to confirm whether PSs will be published on a single faculty
website or on individual departmental websites.
Next Steps
(28)
If QMEC approves the above recommendations, it is proposed that (i)
implementation be taken forward under the aegis of the WGPS, and (ii) the
WGPS submit a further report to QMEC at its meeting on 5 June 2007 setting out
progress in implementing the above recommendations.
JDC
12.03.07
9