Quality Assurance at UCT
Report to Senate by the Quality Assurance Working Group
November 2001
Quality -- you know what it is, yet you don't know what it is. But that's
self-contradictory. But some things are better than others, that is, they
have more quality. But when you try to say what the quality is, apart from
the things that have it, it all goes poof! There's nothing to talk about. But
if you can't say what Quality is, how do you know what it is, or how do
you know that it even exists? If no one knows what it is, then for all
practical purposes it doesn't exist at all. But for all practical purposes it
really does exist. What else are the grades based on? Why else would
people pay fortunes for some things and throw others in the trash pile?
Obviously some things are better than others -- but what's the
``betterness''? -- So round and round you go, spinning mental wheels and
nowhere finding anyplace to get traction. What the hell is Quality? What
is it?1
1. Introduction
1.1.
This Report
This report – and the recommendations that follow from it – is based on a review of
aspects of quality assurance at UCT by the Quality Assurance Working Group
(QAWG).2 In turn, QAWG’s work was prompted by the statutory requirements for
quality assurance in higher education institutions that have come into force with the
launch of the Council on Higher Education’s Higher Education Quality Committee
(HEQC).
QAWG’s review was founded in a series of focus group meetings, involving a wide
range of academic and support staff from across the University. Earlier drafts of the
report were considered by the Quality Assurance Working Group, and a final draft
was presented to the Senate Executive Committee in September 2001. Following this
SEC meeting, the draft report was sent to the Faculties and to the Centre for Higher
Education Development for comment, and was made available to the University
community via the Centre for Higher Education Development’s Web page. The report
was also sent to the Higher Education Quality Committee for informal comment, and
to the Admissions Committee, the Examinations and Assessment Committee, the
1
Robert Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into Values
This report was prepared by Martin Hall, with Carol Cornielse, Rob Moore and Suellen Shay. Further
assistance was provided by Colette February.
2
Quality Assurance at UCT/ 2
Distinguished Teacher Award Committee and the Doctoral Degrees Board for
comment. Individual members of the University community were invited (via an
announcement in the Monday Paper) to comment and these comments, as well as
Faculty responses, are available in full at www.ched.uct.ac.za/qa. Responses to this
process of consultation were considered by the Senate Executive Committee on 12
November 2001, and amended recommendations were approved for consideration by
Senate. The final report was reviewed again by the Quality Assurance Working
Group on 19 November 2001.
QAWG shares responsibility for quality assurance with other bodies in the university.
These include the University Research Committee (URC), which is responsible for
quality assurance in the key area of research, and a current Project Group of the
University Strategy Committee (USC), which is considering UCT’s relationship with
its local and regional communities. The recommendations at the end of this report
propose a system of co-ordination that will synchronise the work of these bodies, as
well as others that need to be drawn into the quality assurance net.
The sections that follow first set out the context for quality assurance in South African
higher education at the present time. This is followed by a consideration of quality
assurance in teaching and learning, and a consideration of the role of Senate – the key
custodian of the University’s reputation as a leader in teaching, learning, community
service and research.
The recommendations at the end of this document together constitute a policy
framework for quality assurance at UCT. By clarifying the roles of the Executive,
Deans and existing committees and processes, and by creating additional committees
and processes where these are required, the policy framework will provide the basis
for internal processes of quality assurance and review, external accreditation when
this is required, and formal reporting to the Higher Education Quality Committee in
terms of current legislation.
1.2.
Why quality assurance?
Although the review of quality assurance at UCT has been prompted by statutory
requirements, the primary purpose of taking stock of the present situation – and of
proposing new measures – should not be compliance with legislation or regulations.
Quality assurance should be understood as the measure of the value of what we do,
and the system of benchmarks that we use to make sure that we maintain and improve
standards on a continual basis.
It is also important to set the imperatives of quality assurance in a more general
context. Although South African Higher Education has particular characteristics, it is
also the case that we are part of wider trends, and that UCT’s international standing is
a key part of its reputation. As John Brennan and Tarla Shah have pointed out,
quality assurance is, increasingly, central in this regard: “The public feature of the
greatest concern to most higher education institutions is their reputation, their public
standing … Reputation breeds off itself. A good reputation is an excellent basis for
future success. A good reputation can exist for many years after the factors
responsible for it have largely disappeared. But reputation can also be damaged and a
Quality Assurance at UCT/ 3
critical external assessment is something which has the potential to inflict major
damage”.3
Brennan and Shah note that universities have always had forms of quality assurance:
“Traditionally, universities have emphasised self- and collegial-accountability and
self-improvement. They have trusted their staff, relying on the professionalism of
academics to ensure their quality and standing in society. Some of the ways in which
they have done this … are through the processes of recruitment of teachers, selection
of students, peer review of research and scholarship, and periodic scrutiny of
curriculum and teaching. The quality of teachers was ensured through rigorous
recruitment, appointment and promotion policies. Admission policies were intended
to ensure that only the best, most able students were selected for entry by the
institution. Regular assessment and examination enabled close monitoring of the
performance and progress of individual students. Departmental and individual quality
was judged on the basis of research and scholarly achievement over a long timespan.
In the past, these judgements have mainly been based on a peer review process and
have included success in gaining research grants, publication and review in refereed
academic journals. Reviews of the curriculum by departments and other basic units
have ensured that the currency of the curriculum is maintained on an ongoing basis.
More recently, the quality of teaching has commonly been ensured through student
questionnaire evaluations and staff development activities specifically aimed at
improving the performance of the teachers in the classroom”.4
In recent years, there has been a strong trend towards the formalisation of such
traditional systems (although US colleges and universities have had systems of formal
accreditation in place for over a century). This formalisation has been driven by the
establishment of national quality assurance agencies. In 1990, only France, the
Netherlands and the UK possessed such national agencies. However, many more were
set up in Western Europe through the 1990s, with active promotion by the European
Union, and national agencies were adopted by most countries in Eastern Europe
following the collapse of communist governments (under which there had been direct
control of higher education). Similar developments have taken place in Australia and
New Zealand, and in some Latin American counties, such as Mexico. Many of these
approaches follow a “general model” which was developed for the European
Commission in the early 1990s. This comprises four elements: a national coordinating body, institutional self-evaluation, external evaluation by academic peers,
and published reports.5
However, quality assurance has also come at a time of declining state funding for
higher education. This has made quality assurance inherently controversial, since
national agencies are seen as indirect means of distributing resources. In addition, in
those countries where there has been a strong tradition of university autonomy,
national quality assurance agencies have been seen as a means of interference by the
state. Conversely, in those countries where there was formerly strong central
John Brennan and Tarla Shah, “Managing Quality in Higher Education: An international perspective
on institutional assessment and change”. Open University Press, Buckingham, 2000: 36.
4
Brennan and Shah 2000:71. See also Martin Trow, “Academic Reviews and the Culture of
Excellence”, Council for Studies in Higher Education, Stockholm, 1994.
5
F Van Vught and D.F. Westerheijden, “Quality Management and Quality Assurance in European
Higher Education: Methods and Mechanisms”. European Commission, Luxembourg, 1993
3
Quality Assurance at UCT/ 4
regulation of universities – such as in Eastern Europe – national quality assurance
agencies are the harbingers of greater institutional autonomy.6 Consequently, there are
varied and often conflicting views of quality assurance in universities, some
evangelical and others dismissive.
One strong theme that emerges from international experience is that quality assurance
systems that rely overly on compliance to externally-imposed regulation may work
against the interests of quality development in universities. This is partly because
academics are intrinsically motivated, accustomed to autonomy and oriented towards
a tradition of collegial peer-evaluation. It is also because of the drain that compliance
systems place on participating institutions; it has been argued that these sorts of
quality assurance regimes require an unacceptable sacrifice of time by academic staff
who would otherwise be conducting the primary functions of teaching and research.
The best documented critiques of a compliance-driven approach are those of the
United Kingdom’s Quality Assurance Agency (QAA). In one of many studies, an
analysis of teaching quality assessment between 1995 and 2001 established that each
of the 1 300 university departments inspected in this period spent between £20 000
and £200 000 (R200 000 and R2m) in direct costs preparing for inspections and in
staff time. There was little evidence of any systematic benefit, but rather strong
indications of grade inflation. Over these six years, the proportion of departments
achieving “excellent” ratings increased from 25% to 60%, a trend attributed to
“institutional learning” (or gamesmanship); the ability of departments to anticipate
what inspectors want to find, supported in some cases by consultants hired for this
purpose. In an inversion of the system that universities use to mark the achievements
of their students, only 0.1% of the departments inspected were failed.7
John Randall, former chief executive of the QAA, argues that, while the ultimate aim
of Britain’s teaching quality assessments is to gain sufficient acceptance for the
process to be automatic and uncontested, in the meanwhile the degree of criticism
from universities is proportional to the success of the exercise, since it serves as an
index of the degree of change that is being prompted.8 It is certainly the case that the
QAA’s approach lacks the confidence of British universities and their academic staff,
as a running list of Times Higher Education Supplement headlines over the past
twenty months shows:
“Quality plan stalls as QAA faces dissent”; “The QAA is running into
more trouble”; V-cs submit to quality blueprint”; “Over 80% vetoed
blueprint”; “Draft rules set to complete QAA’s code of practice”; “QAA
publishes ‘tick boxes’”; “Quality system open to abuse, critics claim”;
“V-c’s ‘plea for firsts’ fuels quality fears”; “Millions go down the drain
in audit fiasco”; “Overhaul decreed for a wasteful system”; “QAA told to
6
This is the case for part of the South African Higher Education sector, where the introduction of the
Certification Council for Technikon Education (SERTEC) in 1986 was a welcome relief from the direct
regulation of technikons by the (then) Department of National Education. See D.J.Jacobs, “Quantum
leads in quality assurance in higher education”. Bulletin: News for the Human Sciences, March 1999.
Pretoria: Centre for Science Development.
7
“Worthy project or just a game”, Times Higher Education Supplement, March 30 2001.
8
Randall was speaking at the launch of the Higher Education Quality Committee, Johannesburg, May
2001.
Quality Assurance at UCT/ 5
rethink its award ratings”; “QAA revises framework”; “QAA takes a
tough line on top-ups”; “QAA rules tally climbs to 168”; “TQA devalued
by grade rises”; “LSE leads revolt against QAA”; “QAA faces boycott by
66 000 lecturers”; “Gang of five plans to escape QAA’s grip”; “Elite
joins rebel cry for revised quality system”; “There is quality assurance,
then there is the QAA”.
Philosophy has had the most recent word (although perhaps not the last laugh). In
June this year it was alleged that Philosophy Departments had managed to organise a
successful cartel of mutual affirmation, with ten out of thirteen departments achieving
a score of 100%. As one quality assurance inspector commented, “I suspect the
philosophers are poking fun at the entire methodology”.9
Developments in quality assurance in South Africa have followed general trends
while avoiding – for the most part – the excesses of a compliance regime.
Responsibility for accreditation and quality assurance in the technikon sector rests
(until August 2001), with the Certification Council for Technikon Education
(SERTEC). SERTEC was set up in 1986 to replace direct regulation by the then
Department of National Education, and adopted a system of quality assurance based
on the recommendations of visiting evaluation committees, incorporating selfevaluation. Each committee comprises a convenor (who is a representative from
another technikon), representatives of professional organisations, employers and
students.10
In 1996, the university sector followed suit with SAUVCA’s Quality Promotion Unit.
When the QPU was disbanded in 1999 (in anticipation of the establishment of the
HEQC), SAUVCA sent out a questionnaire to which eighteen universities
responded.11 This provides a good baseline for understanding current quality
assurance practices across the South African University sector, and shows that:
 Quality assurance, while unevenly developed, ranges from “traditional,
collegial and unsystematic procedures” to “strategically managed, policydriven, centrally co-ordinated systems”.
 Institutions have established a variety of structures to carry out quality
assurance. These include dedicated Quality Assurance Units, and the
integration of quality assurance functions into the responsibilities of larger
units.
 For some universities, quality assurance is seen as part of new approach to
strategic management, is supported by senior management, and is closely
linked with strategic planning. Other universities are planning to take a
strategic management approach, but currently rely on traditional approaches
such as external examination and departmental reviews.
 It is widely accepted that self-evaluation should form the basis of institutional
and national approaches to quality assurance, and that self-evaluation should
be complemented by external validation.
“Philosophy scores add to QAA criticism”, Times Higher Education Supplement, June 22 2001.
D.J.Jacobs, “Quantum leads in quality assurance in higher education”. Bulletin: News for the Human
Sciences, March 1999. Pretoria: Centre for Science Development.
11 Kathy Luckett and Piyushi Kotecha, “An analysis of institutional profiles: implications for building
a national quality assurance system”. SAUVCA Occasional Publications and Reports 1. Pretoria,
South African Universities’ Vice-Chancellors’ Association, 2000.
9
10
Quality Assurance at UCT/ 6

The primary focus of quality assurance is on teaching and learning, and is
aimed at promoting the enhancement of student learning. In this approach, the
main emphasis is on improvement and development, rather than on
compliance.
Three examples serve to illustrate the quality assurance processes that were in place at
the time of the SAUVCA survey:
 University of Natal: Quality Assurance is part of the portfolio of the Senior
Deputy Vice Chancellor, and quality assurance is supported and promoted at
Executive level. The SDVC is supported by a Quality Promotion Unit,
comprising a Manager, curriculum specialist, senior researcher, two evaluators
and research and administrative assistants. Implementation is the
responsibility of Deans, Heads of School and Heads of Division.
 University of Pretoria: Quality Assurance is run from the Vice-Chancellor’s
Office, and rests on a system of departmental self-evaluation that began in
1993, and which was revised in 1999 (when all departments were required to
undergo self-evaluation). Each Faculty has a committee for teaching, learning
and quality assurance, and each department has an academic staff member
who carries responsibility for quality assurance. Quality assurance is also
extended to support departments.
 Rhodes: an extensive revision of quality assurance processes began in 1996,
and led to joint Council and Senate committee for quality assurance in 1997,
and the establishment of a Teaching and Learning Committee in the same
year. Quality Assurance is the responsibility of the Vice-Principal. All
academic departments are required to report their quality assurance processes
to the Academic Planning Office
Working from these local and international experiences of quality assurance, the
approach we have taken in framing the recommendations that follow in this report is,
firstly, to build on well established systems of accountability while, secondly,
avoiding recourse to inspection regimes. This requires a tightrope act, particularly
given the urgency of the Minister of Education for accountability by South African
higher education institutions. It does, however, allow us to recognise that UCT has
long had a range of quality assurance mechanisms in place that have the potential to
work effectively. Rather than sweeping these aside, we should seek integration and
co-ordination, identifying deficiencies and updating review mechanisms and
developmental facilities to match the changing context in which the University
operates.
1.3.
The Policy Framework
The foundation for current policy is the 1997 White Paper which gives quality as one
of the fundamental principles that should guide the process of transforming higher
education provision in South Africa. The Higher Education Act formalises this
principle by making provision for quality assurance via the establishment of a Higher
Education Quality Committee (HEQC) which will accredit programmes, audit
institutions’ quality assurance mechanisms and promote quality.12 In turn, the HEQC
12
Education White Paper 3: A Programme for the Transformation of Higher Education;
Higher Education Act.
Quality Assurance at UCT/ 7
is an Education and Training Quality Assurance agency (ETQA) in terms of the South
African Qualifications Authority legislation.
The framework for the HEQC’s operations is envisaged as the formulation of criteria
and procedures in consultation with higher education institutions, a formative notion
of quality assurance, focused on improvement and development rather than punitive
sanction, and a mix of institutional self-evaluation and external independent
assessment. Pursuing these principles “means maintaining and applying academic and
educational standards, both in the sense of specific expectations and requirements that
should be complied with, and in the sense of ideals of excellence that should be aimed
at. … Applying the principle of quality entails evaluating services and products
against set standards, with a view to improvement, renewal or progress”.13
In keeping with the principle of institutional autonomy, the White Paper makes higher
education institutions responsible for quality assurance. The HEQC, however,
anticipates that it “will work in a consultative and co-operative mode … in the attempt
to develop a principled consensual or negotiated approach to quality and quality
development”. The HEQC notes that little attention has been given to teaching and
learning, research, and community service in debates and discussions on higher
education transformation. Thus its quality assurance framework will focus explicitly
on “the quality of teaching and learning activities, research and community service”. 14
In pursuit of these goals, the HEQC will develop a quality assurance “framework
[which] will include a developmental approach to the quality requirements of mission
achievement where appropriate and affordable”. In accordance with the White Paper’s
stipulation that primary responsibility for quality assurance rests with institutions, the
HEQC will follow a ‘light-touch’ approach that relies strongly on self-evaluation
within institutions. The HEQC will, however, be looking for the evidence of
systematic and rigorous self-evaluation in order to accredit higher education
providers. In the meantime, the HEQC envisages a developmental phase during
which institutions should build the capacity of their internal quality assurance
systems.15
In the light of this policy framework, the Quality Assurance Working Group has taken
its lead from the HEQC’s Founding Document and its emphasis on “the quality of
teaching and learning activities, research and community service”, to be understood
through a methodology of critical self-evaluation. This is understood as a starting
point – a founding emphasis on core activities which can evolve into a wider
understanding quality assurance in a comprehensive sense.
13
Higher Education Quality Committee Founding Document, January 2001.
Higher Education Quality Committee Founding Document, January 2001.
15
Higher Education Quality Committee Founding Document, January 2001. At the same time, a
number of Sectoral Education and Training Authorities (SETAs), established by the South African
Qualifications Authority (SAQA), have declared an interest in aspects of quality assurance in
universities, and it is still to be established whether or not the HEQC will be the primary ETQA for
Higher Education, or whether UCT will need to manage multiple, and sometimes simultaneous, quality
assurance exercises by different agencies using varying criteria.
14
Quality Assurance at UCT/ 8
1.4.
This Report
In its review, the Quality Assurance Working Group focussed on two of the HEQC’s
primary emphases, leaving the important area of quality assurance in research to the
University Research Committee to develop in a parallel reporting process. The focus
group that met to consider community service identified key parameters, but also
recognised that UCT’s reconceptualization of its role in the local and regional
community is still at an early stage. The finalisation of quality assurance indicators in
this area must therefore wait on the work of the University Strategy Committee’s
Project Group that is considering “outreach” in general. Consequently, this report
focuses on teaching and learning activities, and closely related aspects of the
University’s activities that are considered essential to the success of teaching and
learning.
In organising its enquiry into teaching and learning, the Working Group decided to
focus on the “student career”. We reasoned that the most important indicators of
quality would be those that related to the way in which undergraduate students are
selected, criteria for the way they are taught, and benchmarks for the quality of their
“learning environment”. Similar criteria can be established for postgraduate studies.
A major emphasis – in common with approaches to quality assurance in other
university systems – is on the necessary enabling conditions in which good teaching
and learning can prosper. Discussions and decisions about the content of courses falls
within the domain of professional accreditation agencies (where this is appropriate),
Academic Programme Committees, academic departments, course convenors and
individual lecturers.16
Considering the “student career” in this way led the Working Group to identify
additional key areas which, in its view, are necessary conditions for the advancement
of quality in teaching and learning. The first of these areas is assessment and
evaluation, central to the certification of academic results and qualifications and to the
accreditation of academic programmes. In an analogy likely to be unpopular because
of its overtones, assessment and evaluation is quality control of the University’s
products. The second area is the ongoing enhancement of academic staff. The
centrality of academic staff enhancement to quality assurance follows logically from a
developmental approach, and recognises the need to move beyond superficial
indicators. The third area is the attainment of equity – a key consideration for UCT at
this time in its history.
2. Selection and Education
2.1.
Recruitment and Enrolment
UCT is a selective university that enrols students on the basis of an evaluation of their
potential to succeed in their studies. Because more than 90% of undergraduate
students entering the university for the first time do so directly from high school – or
after a brief interlude between school and university – the key indicator of this
potential to succeed is the matriculation examination. Because South Africa still has a
markedly uneven schooling system that bears the imprint of apartheid education
This approach is consistent with the “whole course” philosophy to programmes design and
accreditation, now established as legitimate within South Africa’s SAQA framework.
16
Quality Assurance at UCT/ 9
policies, UCT employs a range of techniques designed to identify a potential that has
not been fully demonstrated in matriculation results as a consequence of educational
disadvantage. Consequently, a key element in UCT’s system of quality assurance for
teaching and learning will be our approach to undergraduate recruitment and
enrolment. Sub-optimal performance in this area will have the consequence of
enrolling students who do not have the potential to succeed, with deleterious
consequences for them, and for the classes in which they enrol.
In terms of current policy, UCT is committed to increasing its enrolment of
international students, and to forging lasting international partnerships with other
higher education institutions. The success of this policy will depend on effective
quality assurance, particularly as international students have an increasing range of
institutions from which to choose for study abroad programmes.
Student recruitment is the responsibility of the Recruitment and Enrolment
Management Office (REMO), which is in turn part of the Student Development and
Services Department (SDSD) and, for international student enrolments, with the
International Academic Programmes Office (IAPO). REMO works closely with other
units in SDSD, namely the Undergraduate Funding Office (UFO) and the Student
Housing Office (SHO). Once applications have been processed within REMO they
are passed on to the relevant faculty, which makes the formal offer of an academic
place. Throughout the process there is on going interaction between REMO, faculties,
the UFO and SHO. This ensures that there is co-ordination with respect to an
integrated offer: financial aid (for eligible students), a residence place as well as an
academic place. In this way UCT attempts to balance equity and excellence by
offering accommodation and financial aid to deserving students as well as to high
achievers.
In addition, the Alternative Admissions Research Project (AARP) has over many
years developed tests which allow UCT to assess prospective applicants’ potential for
successful university study in cases where the matriculation result is an unreliable
predictor of success.17 The tests are voluntary, but students who feel that their Grade
11 and 12 results do not accurately reflect their abilities are strongly encouraged to
take them. Longitudinal studies have demonstrated the validity of this approach, and
it is now UCT policy that faculties offer an academic place to a student on the basis of
AARP scores.18
There are good indications that UCT’s recruitment policies, coupled with placement
testing, continue to result in the enrolment of appropriate annual cohorts of
undergraduate students. Although the number of applications to UCT has dropped in
recent years, for the most, enrolment targets have been met and, in some faculties,
17
The three tests are the Placement Test in English for Educational Purposes (PTEEP), the
Mathematics Achievement Test and the Mathematics Comprehension Test.
UCT’s policy in this regard is presented as follows to potential applicants for places: “if you score in
the top 20% of all candidates of a similar school background, on either the Placement Test in English
(for applicants to Humanities or Law) or all three tests (for applicants to all other Faculties) we will
offer you a place to study in the Faculty concerned, excepting in the case of the Faculty of Health
Sciences’ MBChB Programme, where this will be a strong recommendation. This offer will be subject
to your achieving an exemption in your Senior Certificate examinations, and meeting the minimum
requirements for admission for the particular programme. Please note that the offer of a place on the
basis of your Alternative Admissions test results may be in an extended curriculum programme”.
18
Quality Assurance at UCT/ 10
exceeded. This is as a result of pro-active strategies to maintain enrolments. These
strategies include professional marketing, increasing the number of financial aid
packages and entrance merit scholarships, providing more residence places at entrylevel, improving security in the residences and other systems for student support, and
greater co-ordination between REMO and faculties. An analysis of the 2001
admissions cycle conducted by the Institutional Information Unit has revealed that
UCT continues to attract students mainly because of its academic reputation,
geographic location, and the range of degrees and academic programmes on offer.
Nevertheless, the Quality Assurance Working Group has identified a set of key issues
which warrant attention, either because they present a risk to the maintenance of
standards in recruitment and enrolment, or because there is the potential for increasing
performance. These are:








Unstable recruitment and enrolment policies: There is a sense that the goals as
currently articulated in the Strategic Planning Framework are not clear.
Faculties find it difficult to balance equity with excellence in their enrolment
strategies, particularly in the face of the ongoing crisis in the schools.
Uneven implementation of existing UCT policy. It is Senate policy
(Principal’s Circular 10/2000) that applicants’ performance on the AARP tests
should be taken into account in the admissions process. This policy is not
adhered to in all faculties. Non-adherence to the policy might impact
negatively on a faculty’s ability to meet its equity goals.
The relationship between faculty admission criteria and
departmental/programme sub-minima and sometimes confused. As with noncompliance with Senate’s policy on AARP results, entrance criteria for
individual courses can be a barrier for students from a disadvantaged school
background and can undermine UCT’s equity goals.
Co-ordination between the SHO, UFO, faculties and REMO needs to be
improved. This has been identified as a strategic priority but has not yet been
realised in practice. Articulation between faculties and the various units which
constitute the recruitment and enrolment strategy needs to be strengthened.
Marketing UCT. There is no overall, institutional marketing plan, making a
co-ordinated approach difficult
Programme mix within faculties needs to be finalised timeously: REMO
needs to know “what it is recruiting for”, and it is important for faculties to
finalise their programmes before the second half of the academic year to allow
sufficient time for advertising.
Inadequate documentation: Faculties sometimes provide poor documentation
for recruiters who visit schools, making effective recruitment difficult.
Information for prospective students. While the new undergraduate
prospectus is attractive and user-friendly, there is still information that is not
available to prospective students in a form that is easy to understand (for
example, UCT’s fee structure).
In summary, undergraduate recruitment and enrolment – the first stage in the “student
career” – benefits from a strong organisational structure. There is potential for
improvement in the provision of information, the application of agreed policy and the
co-ordination of different agencies within the university. These improvements will
strengthen quality assurance in this area, and will allow for firmer benchmarks in our
Quality Assurance at UCT/ 11
approach to selecting undergraduate students who have the potential to succeed at
UCT.
2.2.
Undergraduate Education
2.2.1. Dimensions of quality assurance in undergraduate education
The current framework for quality assurance in undergraduate education is the
Academic Planning Framework (APF), as adopted by Senate in March 1996. Among
other things, the APF required the organisation of the curriculum as a set of academic
programmes, each of which is under the aegis of an Academic Programme
Committee. This policy was complemented by a “Framework Policy for Programme
Convenors and Programme Committees” which provided for the review of student
performance across programmes as well as on-going review of the programmes
themselves. Subsequently, the implementation of the APF has been reviewed and
modified at faculty level, and the role of Programme Convenors and Committees has
recently been reviewed.
Quality assurance in this area can usefully be considered as four dimensions:
 the “enabling environment” in which undergraduate education is situated
 the evaluation of academic programmes
 the review of students’ academic performance
 the evaluation of undergraduate teaching
2.2.2. The Enabling Environment
The “enabling environment” can be understood as the full range of services, support
activities and practices that facilitate good teaching and learning. Such provision
encompasses the university residences, tutorial rooms and classrooms, information
technology, other teaching technology, laboratories and studios, and library services.
Effective teaching and learning also depends on fair and timeous decisions on student
financial aid, the provision of health and counselling services for students, catering
services and transport to and from – and between - campuses.
The quality of this wide range of provisions is becoming more important as the
difference between “residential” and “virtual” education sharpens, and as the
government’s policy for a differentiated Higher Education system in South Africa
takes effect: students (and staff) will expect, with justification, that UCT’s claim to be
a leading residential university is matched by the qualities of its environment.
Some approaches to quality assurance in higher education integrate indicators of such
environmental factors along with indicators of academic performance.19 A notable
example of this approach is the UK’s Teaching Quality Assessment, which includes
ratings for the condition of classrooms and other features of the environment in a 2419
Total Quality Management (TQM) approaches have rarely been adopted in universities, and Brennan
and Shah (2000:13) comment that “TQM may have had more impact on management rhetoric than it
has had on academic practice”. There is more enthusiasm for TQM in the South African technikon
sector and in SAQA, although it remains to be seen whether this can be translated into a code of
practice that has any realistic prospect of meetings its goals.
Quality Assurance at UCT/ 12
point system for reviews of teaching departments. This has proved controversial, and
there is good evidence that such a method encourages superficial compliance.
Applied in the UCT context, we would predict that this would become an exercise in
frustration. It is widely acknowledged that UCT has fallen behind in the maintenance
of buildings and the upgrading of teaching equipment, and it is common cause that the
University Library has inadequate funds.20.
An alternative approach to establishing acceptable quality standards for supporting
teaching and learning is to rely on Service Level Agreements. Service Level
Agreements were recommended by UCT’s AIMS project, and have been adopted as
policy by Senate and Council. Such agreements, when fully instituted, will define the
key support services that are required by the six faculties, establish the level at which
these services should be provided, and allocate appropriate budgets. Policy for SLAs
is set by a central Management Services Committee, which also deals with failures in
service provision. In effect, this means that the Management Services Committee is a
quality assurance agency charged with maintaining agreed standards for support
services for teaching and learning. Using Service Level Agreements for quality
assurance in this area – rather than simple performance indicators – should allow an
approach in which the “enabling environment” is consistently approved with a sense
of common purpose.21
In addition to such specific services and support activities are those less tangible
aspects of institutional culture. In this regard, studies like that undertaken by Steyn
and van Zyl into students’ perceptions sound an important warning. This report notes
that
culturally inflected and gendered assumptions operate in an unmarked,
largely invisible manner to control the institutional culture. This does not
necessarily reflect the intention to be exclusionary. Nevertheless, the
power of the norm has the effect of creating deep-seated discomfort and
alienation among students who do not fit the norm. While they may not
always be able to articulate exactly what it is they experience, many black
students have a general sense that the system does not really work for
them … The discrepancy between the worlds which white and black
students inhabit as they move through the university system was quite
apparent.
For some—mostly white—students ‘world class’ meant
perpetuating European values. Many black students, by contrast, are
critical of UCT’s whiteness and Eurocentricity, and see it as an institution
caught in a time warp.
Our provisions for quality assurance must take account of how issues of race,
language, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or other dimensions of difference are
20
Maintenance failures and shortfalls in equipment renewal can largely be attributed to a combination
of government underfunding and the prioritisation of student financial aid. The challenges of renewing
library stock and maintaining periodical subscriptions are largely due to continuing problems in
currency exchange.
21
Service Level Agreements are unlikely to address the problems of library provision, since these are
driven by factors outside the University’s control. Quality Assurance in this area should remain a
direct concern of the Executive Director of University Libraries, reporting on a regular basis to plenary
Senate.
Quality Assurance at UCT/ 13
reflected in, and impact on, our teaching and learning processes. These aspects of
institutional culture are the appropriate area of responsibility for the Institutional
Forum.
2.2.3. Programme evaluation
UCT’s Academic Planning Framework makes provision for a range of controls over
the quality of the Academic Programmes which, together, constitute the University’s
curriculum. These controls include:
 Initial approval of academic programmes via Faculty Boards and Senate
 Regular re-accreditation of programmes by Faculty-level accreditation
committees or their equivalent.22
 Continual oversight of programme structure and content by Academic
Programme Committees
 Where appropriate, interaction with, and accreditation by, professional bodies
and councils
Formal responsibility for academic programmes rests with Programme Convenors,
who report to the Dean of the Faculty in which the programme is located.23 In
addition, the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) will set programme
review requirements as a condition of continuing accreditation of qualifications.
Course components – the building blocks of academic programmes – are offered by
UCT’s sixty-two academic departments. Each course is the responsibility of a Course
Convenor, who reports to the Head of Department. Control of the quality of the
curriculum at the course level is achieved by:





Department-level consideration of course design and content, through regular
departmental meetings
Motivation for new courses, or for major changes in course content, via
Dean’s Circulars (with Faculty debate and decision where called for)
Review and moderation of course curricula, examination papers and
examination results by external examiners, who report directly to the Dean of
the Faculty, and to the Senior Deputy Vice Chancellor
The formal consideration of examination results by Faculty Examination
Committees
Consideration of issues of policy by the Senate’s Examinations and
Assessment Committee and, where appropriate, by plenary Senate.
This system rests on the concept of checks and balances that diagnose problems and
pass them – as necessary – upwards through a hierarchical system of responsibilities
(Programme Convenors/Heads of Department --- Deans/Faculty Boards --- Senior
Deputy Vice-Chancellor/Senate).
22
Faculties have varying systems of programme accreditation. In this report, references to
accreditation committees are generic, allowing for Faculty-level variations.
23
The system of Academic Programme Committees has recently been reviewed, with the conclusion
that the system specified in the Academic Planning Framework is in operation, although in a minimalist
fashion in some cases.
Quality Assurance at UCT/ 14
In considering the extent to which UCT’s system of programme evaluation can meet
the requirements of an integrated quality assurance system, some areas for
improvement and synchronization can be flagged:
 There is a need for a system of systematic review of Academic Programmes
(this is discussed further in a later section of this report).
 Each Faculty Board should submit to Senate an annual consolidated report on
the work of its programme accreditation committee (or equivalent committee).
 There should be a cycle of review of academic departments – also discussed
later in this report
 The Examinations and Assessment Committee should review the effectiveness
of the system of external examination, while maintaining the principle that
external examination is central to UCT’s system of quality assurance.
In addition to these formal mechanisms for academic programme and course review,
Academic Programme Committees need to take account of more qualitative
information that indicates programme quality. Here, student evaluations are of
particular importance. There is a tendency for student evaluations to focus on in-class
performance of lecturers and the evaluation of tutorials, assignments and reading
materials is often not included in the evaluation. In addition, student evaluations are
the responsibility of course convenors and the heads of academic departments, and
summaries and analyses may not be passed regularly to programme convenors for the
consideration of programme committees.
In addition, the tradition of curriculum planning at the course level has had the
inadvertent consequence of creating a fragmented learning experience for students.
Programme committees need to plan and evaluate curricula more broadly—across
whole programmes or majors—so as to ensure greater levels of coherence.
A further dimension of the graduate output that is now receiving attention is that
addressed by what is called the “co-curriculum” – the experiences and values that tend
to be less planned, but which play a significant part in shaping the identity, motivation
and orientation of students. In this regard, a key element of a quality undergraduate
experience is the extent to which students are exposed to senior, experienced
academic staff and their enthusiastic engagement with their disciplines and
specialisms. Where large classes are a feature of a programme, these need to be
complemented by small-group opportunities so as to ameliorate the alienation
experienced by many (especially first-year) undergraduates. Motivation is critical to
successful learning, and that such motivation is nurtured in sustained interaction
between students and staff. Further, wherever possible, students at senior
postgraduate levels should have the opportunity of engaging with practical and
community-based issues as an integral part of the curriculum in ways that bring them
into fruitful interaction with constituencies outside the university.
These aspects of quality, although less tangible, are as important as formal
performance indicators. Before the introduction of the Academic Planning Framework
they were addressed (although not necessarily consistently) at the level of the
academic department, and within a framework of strong disciplinary identity. The
“double grid” of departmental and programmatic accountability which was introduced
with the APF in 1998 renders responsibility for “on the ground” quality assurance
Quality Assurance at UCT/ 15
more complex, and clear definition is necessary if we are to achieve the integrated
system envisaged by the Higher Education Quality Committee.
2.2.4. Student academic performance
The way in which the academic performance of students is monitored and certified
has always been central to universities’ practices. More recently, increased concern
with teaching at research universities such as UCT has directed attention to proactive
measures that anticipate students’ developmental needs. This approach is endorsed in
the Department of Education’s National Plan for Higher Education (NPHE), which
seeks the mainstream integration of academic development in South African Higher
Education, and which proposes a funding formula that will reward improvements in
student progression and retention in academic programmes.
The key agencies for student academic performance are the University’s Academic
Programme Committees and academic departments. In a university that admits more
than 3 500 new undergraduate students annually, there is an ever-present danger that
student performance will be aggregated to the extent that individual needs are
invisible, and that quality control will revert to generalised, retrospective,
performance indicators that identify problems when it is too late to remedy them, and
successes when the opportunity of generalisation has been lost. Although there is
always likely to be a tension between ideal provisions and the consequence of large
classes at first year undergraduate level, the Academic Planning Framework was
designed to ensure that Academic Programme Committees can “see” the current
performance of manageable groups of students, organised by their total curricula,
course components and academic year. This process of continual oversight of student
performance is a key element in UCT’s quality assurance system.
Although the current review of Academic Programme Committees has concluded that
the system envisaged in the APF is in operation, there is clearly an opportunity for
improvement. One problem seems to be the lack of an organisational mechanism that
ensures the “upward reporting” principle that is central to UCT’s existing quality
assurance mechanisms. Although Academic Programme Committees are obliged to
report regularly to Faculty-level accreditation committees, there is no routine
procedure in place that requires Faculties, in their turn, to report upwards to the
Senate level. This means that it is difficult for Senate to ensure, on an ongoing basis,
that Academic Programme Committees are doing more than reporting formally, and
there is a danger that the key developmental aspect of monitoring student academic
performance will be lost, or degraded into narrow performance indicators.
Consequently, it is proposed that each Dean of a Faculty should report annually to the
Senate Executive Committee on the work of Academic Programme Committees in his
or her Faculty. These reports should be staggered, to allow the Senate Executive
Committee to reflect on, and debate, the report. In addition, the Dean of Higher
Education Development (who has a representative on each Academic Programme
Committee) should report annually to the Senate Executive Committee on crosscutting issues.
As with programme evaluation, the monitoring of student academic performance rests
on a double-grid defined by the University’s academic departments - which contribute
Quality Assurance at UCT/ 16
courses for the curriculum - and Academic Programmes, which organise these courses
into coherent curricula. In this system, academic departments play a key role in the
area of student academic performance through assessing coursework, setting and
marking examinations and recommending consolidated results to Faculty
Examination Committees.
Here, the principal means of quality assurance is UCT’s system of external
examination. In its design, this is a comprehensive mechanism of checks and
balances. External examiners are – rather obviously – external to UCT and, until
recently, were usually drawn from universities outside the Western Cape. External
Examiners are required to evaluate the curriculum as a whole, making an important
contribution to programme evaluation (as noted in an earlier section of this report),
and to moderate students’ academic performance by looking at at least 50% of work
submitted.24 In practice, however, there are a number of difficulties with the system
of external examination that need to be addressed. These include:
 The difficulty – largely as a result of budget reduction – in recruiting external
examiners from outside the Western Cape
 The practice in some academic departments in using former UCT staff as
external examiners, resulting in potential problems of objectivity
 A tendency to use the same external examiner for too long a period, again
bringing objectivity into question
 The uneven quality of external examiners’ reports, some of which do little
more than certify examination results
 The perception that some external examiners focus entirely on examination
moderation, rather than looking at the quality of the course as a whole.
These factors need to be taken into account in the review of the external examination
system by the Examinations and Assessment Committee, proposed earlier in this
report. It needs also to be noted that SAQA legislation requires the formal training and
accreditation of assessors which (if it is not taken as meaning all academic staff) could
propel a legislative requirement for a review of the external examination system.
It is clearly a daunting task to implement a quality assurance system for student
performance that is more than compliance-driven and retrospective in a university of
UCT’s size and complexity. In each academic year, there are more than 50 000
individual assessments of student work – data that have the potential to reveal clear
trends in student performance that allow effective interventions that can add to the
quality of student learning.25 If implemented effectively, the double-grid of Academic
Programme Committees and academic departments should allow for these large data
sets to be handled in appropriately sized units.
The need to disaggregate data on student performance to ensure effective quality
assurance is particularly acute for the processes of readmission review. In recent
years, UCT has carried out successful reforms to the readmission review system,
moving from a single, central system to Faculty-based readmission review
24
On a sample basis for larger courses
The current ISIS project, and consideration of appropriate data systems for managing coursework
and examination results across the university, will make a key contribution to future quality assurance
provisions.
25
Quality Assurance at UCT/ 17
committees. This decentralisation has allowed those closer to student performance in
disciplinary areas to make judgements as to whether or not those students who have
failed to meet minimum course and programme requirements have the potential to
correct this situation, and to gain the qualifications for which they are registered.
However, it is apparent that these reforms have yet to be completed. In particular,
there is good evidence that potential readmission problems can be identified ahead of
the crisis if data on student performance are “read” effectively by Academic
Programme Committees. Yet, and as far as we can tell, few Academic Programme
Committees work in partnership with Readmission Review Committees in a
consistent, developmental manner. It is also clear that a student’s financial status has
a key bearing on academic performance, and that there is insufficient articulation
between the student financial aid system, Academic Programme Committees and
Readmission Review Committees.
In our view, the articulation of the readmission review system with the work of
programme committees – and between Faculties – needs further attention to ensure
effective quality assurance in this area. This will particularly be the case if a new
funding formula for universities is introduced, since slow throughput and poor
retention will be penalised.
Considerations such as these all speak to the obligation of the University to provide an
education that meets students’ legitimate expectations in the light of their abilities.
However, a university is not a supermarket, stamping products with quality guarantees
for consumer protection. Effective learning depends on a partnership between student
and teacher, in which the student undertakes to meet – to the best of his or her abilities
– the study requirements of a course or programme, and to participate fully in
coursework, debates and discussions, fieldtrips, projects, examinations and other
aspects of the curriculum. This partnership requirement is not self-evident in South
African education, where the legacy of authoritarian instruction – what Paulo Frere
would have called a “banking” approach – is still strong.26
The requirement for a partnered approach to student learning is recognised formally in
the Academic Planning Framework, which notes that “students to varying degrees
need teaching in order to learn, but progressively should learn to learn for
themselves”. We believe that students’ responsibilities in this regard should be made
explicit by means of a Student Charter, to which students subscribe as a condition of
acceptance by the University. Such a Student Charter would give students the
opportunity to design a code of conduct which spells out their role in the learning
process. This proposal should be developed in conjunction with representative student
A recent study has explored the attitudes of parents, teachers and learners in South Africa’s high
school system. The report noted that teachers often dislike children in their classes asking questions.
They believe that questions undermine order and authority in the classroom and distract from the task
of teaching pupils the facts that they must learn. In focus group discussions, teachers could not
remember the last time that a pupil had asked a question in class. “Values, Education and Democracy:
Interim Research Report”. Commissioned by the Department of Education. Research consortium led
by the WITS Education Policy Unit. 2001.
26
Quality Assurance at UCT/ 18
bodies, supported and co-ordinated by the Dean of Students, and should be brought to
the Institutional Forum for discussion and recommendations to Council for decision.27
2.2.5. Undergraduate teaching
The fourth dimension of quality assurance in undergraduate education is that of
teaching. Again, this is a field in transition. Unlike other parts of the educational
system, for which teachers are required to be professionally qualified (and in some
cases registered) academic staff in universities do not have to have teaching
qualifications (and few do). In earlier years, this was not considered important.
Students were admitted to university in small numbers and from elite schools, and
were expected to learn as much from their proximity to established scholars as from
any pedagogic technique. The foundations of this osmosis approach to education
have cracked with increased participation and the diversification of student enrolment,
and with governmental concern (shared by a wide sector of civil society) for
efficiency: a Higher Education system that focuses on the small sub-set of students
who will pursue careers in academic research, and disregards the career needs of the
majority that will leave the education system with a first qualification, cannot easily
be seen as spending public money in a responsible way.
As a consequence, considerable attention has been given to the professionalisation of
educators in universities. One approach has been to argue for a formal qualification
as an employment requirement in Higher Education, as in other levels of the
education system. A counter argument is that the essence of good teaching in a
research university such as UCT cannot be reduced to the curriculum of a
postgraduate diploma.
The position taken here is pragmatic. It would be impractical and counter-productive
to require the re-qualification of UCT’s academic staff for the purposes of quality
assurance. There also needs to be very careful consideration of any requirement that
those entering university teaching as a career be required to gain a teaching
qualification. Junior academic staff are often completing higher degrees, and face
immense pressures to launch successful research programmes while teaching at the
same time; it would be difficult for them to study successfully for a credible postgraduate qualification in higher education at the same time. However, in making a
case against formal qualification as a quality assurance mechanism, we are mindful of
the particular onus this places on us to maintain effective quality control measures that
ensure a high standard in undergraduate teaching at UCT. This is particularly the case
in the formally-differentiated Higher Education system that has now been signalled in
the National Plan for Higher Education. UCT claims to be among the best
universities in South Africa. Consequently, UCT must demonstrate this to the
satisfaction of both government, and of society in general.
The urgency of the need for secure and transparent quality assurance measures in
teaching does not, however, mean that we should adopt a compliance-based approach
in which attempts are made to enforce good teaching through inspections and check-
Such a Student Charter will also allow a formal undertaking by students with regard to plagiarism – a
growing problem in quality assurance systems for education, given the prevalence of digitally available
information.
27
Quality Assurance at UCT/ 19
lists. There is good evidence from international practice that this does not work.28 It is
preferable to find ways to reaffirm the primary task of lecturers by promoting and
supporting good practice through opportunities for professional development and by
strengthening the ways in which we acknowledge sound and innovative teaching
practices. This developmental approach underpins our recommendations for quality
assurance measures in this area.
The foundation for quality assurance in teaching at UCT is the processes for academic
staff recruitment and selection. UCT has a well-functioning system of recruitment,
which requires external advertisement in all but exceptional cases, and of selection,
which requires that all selection committees follow approved guidelines in their
composition, and that membership is approved by the Senior Deputy Vice Chancellor.
We have, though, been less consistent in the execution of current policy for promoting
equity in academic staff appointments. All selection committees are required to
consider ways in which candidates from “designated groups” can be found, and
encouraged to apply, before a position is advertised. In practice, some selection
committees only consider equity after they have short-listed candidates for
appointment, and for the purposes of formal reporting. It is widely recognised (and
acknowledged in UCT’s own tradition of research and practice in the field of equity)
that such pro forma approaches can perpetuate the status quo by drawing candidates
only from traditional recruitment pools. This aspect of quality assurance requires
attention by the Equal Opportunity Office.29
Following recruitment and selection, continuing quality assurance for academic staff
rests on the system of performance planning and review, set out in the Staff Manual.
This is an explicitly developmental approach: “UCT seeks to provide academic staff
with optimal opportunities for professional development and career advancement. To
this end, opportunities are afforded annually to each member of the academic staff for
planning and reviewing his/her performance with his/her Head of Department (HOD)
and for discussing development issues.” 30
In summary, this system requires that:
 Each academic staff member plans his or her activities with the Head of
Department, preferably on an annual basis for more junior members of staff,
and at least every three years for established staff members.
 The Head of Department reviews each year a work portfolio or its equivalent,
comparing this with the normal expectations of the department and the generic
job description for the Faculty. The performance of all Heads of academic
departments is reviewed annually by the Dean of the Faculty, and the
performance of all Deans is reviewed annually by the Senior Deputy ViceChancellor.
Again, the best evidence of failure is the United Kingdom’s system of teaching assessment, which
has low credibility and high costs, and which has generated a lucrative consulting industry of avoidance
techniques.
29
“Designated Groups” are specified in the Employment Equity Act, and UCT is required to specify its
equity targets in its Employment Equity Plan. Under the provisional proposals for restructuring the
Human Resources Management Department, the Equal Opportunity Office will report directly to the
Office of the Vice-Chancellor.
30
“Performance Management Processes for Academic Staff”.
http://www.uct.ac.za/depts/hrm/staffman/2-5-1.htm.
28
Quality Assurance at UCT/ 20


This review should cover the fields of research, administration and other
activities – and also teaching. Areas of weakness should be identified and
developmental strategies to address these weaknesses should be adopted.
The outcomes of this review should be recorded so that expectations are clear
both to the Head of Department and to the academic staff member.
It should be noted that, although this performance review can be used in subsequent
consideration of promotion, the periodic review is important in its own right, and
applies to all academic staff, whether or not they wish to be considered for promotion.
In its design, this represents a strong basis for quality assurance. However – and as
with other aspects of quality assurance in this area – the system of performance
review lacks an “upward reporting” mechanism to ensure that reviews are completed
in the spirit of the policy. This weakness will present problems in reporting to the
Higher Education Quality Committee, which can be expected to require evidence that
our quality assurance system is working effectively. But it also reduces our capacity
to respond to staff development needs in an effective way across the university as a
whole. Without a facility to assemble a general view of academic staff strengths,
aspirations and needs, it is difficult to put in place appropriate policies, or to allocate
resources where they are needed. Teaching modes vary enormously across UCT, and
include studio teaching in the creative and performing arts, large class lectures in the
humanities and commerce, small tutorial groups in many fields, laboratory work in
the sciences, construction projects in Engineering, the immersive experience of
architecture, intensive fieldwork projects away from the campus and clinical work and
internship in the Health Sciences. Academic staff in these areas have both
professional development requirements and a broad pool of experience and creative
ideas for the continual improvement in the quality of teaching. The lack of “upward
reporting” of the outcomes of periodic reviews of acacdemic staff makes it difficult to
translate such rich experiences into effective policies to promote improved practice.31
In effect then, and despite the provisions of the Staff Manual, our teaching practices
(both good and bad) tend to be invisible for the purposes of our own reflective
conversation within the institution. Our goal should be to make the creative and
critical engagement with teaching and learning more visible in the institution, and to
acknowledge and reward such work more effectively.
In addition to the information that should come from the effective implementation of
periodic reviews of academic staff are those requirements which, together, constitute
the benchmark of basic acceptable practice. This benchmark is second nature to good
teachers in UCT. Nevertheless, it is important that such basic acceptable practices are
acknowledged and codified as part of our quality assurance system. They would
include the following:
 The provision of clearly written course guides, setting out what is expected of
students for the complete course, and available well in advance of the
beginning of the course, to allow students adequate time to prepare.
 Lists of required and recommended reading for courses, in advance of the
beginning of the course, and the provision of this material either in the
The same arguments, of course, apply to the other outcomes of academic performance reviews –
administrative work, extension work, research and other key activities.
31
Quality Assurance at UCT/ 21








University Library (in adequate numbers of copies) or in local bookshops (by
timeous submission of reading lists).
A clear and well designed system of assessment for the course, which sets out
what is expected of a student, and the relative value of different coursework,
test and examination components.
Clear and consistent DP requirements for courses, consistently enforced.
A fair and consist approach to hearing requests for concessions and remarking of assignments, and for leave of absence from lectures, tutorials and
other class sessions.
Adherence to an agreed and published timetable for lectures, tutorials and
other teaching sessions, that respects the need of students to plan their class
attendance and study time.
Adherence to the scheduled times of classes, including prompt arrival,
finishing on time, and cancelling a scheduled class only as a last resort
The availability of lecturers and other teaching staff to meet with students,
with advertised office hours.
Return of work submitted for assessment within a reasonable period of time,
and with adequate and appropriate comments and other forms of evaluation.
Consistent marking of examination papers and, for large classes, effective
moderation of examination marking by the lecturer concerned.
As they stand, each of these basic acceptable practices require further definition and
amplification. In line with the formative approach adopted throughout this report, this
amplification is best carried out by educators themselves, rather than through an
inspection-and-compliance regime. We recommend that this is accomplished by
means of a Teaching Charter, drawn up by representatives of the Faculties and of the
Academics’ Association.
Any system of quality assurance that attempts to be developmental requires incentives
and rewards. As Brennan and Shah note, “staff engage in quality assessment because
they have to, whatever the enthusiasm or enthusiasm they may bring to the tasks or
acquire in the process of carrying them out”.32 Such incentives and rewards are
diverse. They include, of course, appropriate remuneration. But they also include
recognition in a disciplinary field (leading to complex allegiances beyond the
university), the respect of both students and peers, responsiveness of the institution to
good practice and innovative ideas, the opportunity of contributing to societal goals,
and the satisfaction that is gained from students’ successes. Such incentives and
rewards constitute the motor of an effective quality assurance system, and the
protection from decline into a set of superficial compliances.
Again, the foundation of UCT’s system of recognition and reward for academic staff
is defined in the Staff Manual. Performance assessment is based on – but is distinct
from – the system of periodic reviews of academic staff described earlier. Staff
members who consider themselves to be “high achievers” complete a self-assessment
against a rating system: “Each Faculty has a framework for a rating system against
which staff are ranked. These rating systems consist of a list of attributes in the areas
of teaching, research and University contributions (including administration,
professional contributions and extension work) by which levels of performance and
32
Brennan and Shah 2000: 88.
Quality Assurance at UCT/ 22
achievement can be recognised. The list of attributes has been adapted by each
Faculty to be appropriate to serve its particular needs. The rating system attempts to
provide an objective set of criteria against which candidates are ranked and scored.”33
These self-assessments, along with the recommendations of Heads of Department and
referees reports, are considered by a Faculty Merit Committee, which recommends ad
hominem promotion or merit awards. In essence, then, this system is a combination
of self-review and peer-review and part of the broad tradition of academic selfgovernance that defines the modern university.
It is difficult to imagine a recognition system being based on anything other than peer
review in a university. However, it also needs to be acknowledged that such systems
tend to be seeped in strong concepts of an established order, and tend to be inherently
conservative. A manifestation of this tendency has been a reluctance on the part of
merit committees in research universities such as UCT to recognise the value of
quality in teaching unless good teaching is matched or exceeded by a strong research
record. It is lore in academic corridors that junior staff who concentrate on innovative
teaching and neglect traditional measures of research will jeopardise their careers:
whether this is true or not, such beliefs act as a brake on advances in educational
approaches in higher education. Consequently, parallel incentives that valorise
quality in teaching are important.
Such parallel incentives are weakly developed at UCT. Senate confers six
Distinguished Teacher Awards each year. However, this is a competitive system,
rather than one that is criterion-determined. As a consequence, the DTA system
“punishes” excellent teachers by means of a process that requires a very
comprehensive review for all nominated candidates, and then declines to recognise
the majority even if they meet criteria for recognition of merit.34 There have been
various suggestions for modifying the recognition of high achievement in teaching,
including Faculty-level awards, increasing the number of awards, and introducing
new categories of recognition. It would seem appropriate for the Distinguished
Teacher Award Committee to consider this issue,, and to bring recommendations for a
revised system of recognising merit in teaching to Senate for consideration.35
2.3.
Beyond graduation
In addition to the proximate measures of quality in student recruitment and
undergraduate education, many of which have been mentioned in earlier sections of
this report, there are longer term factors which, together, constitute the key domain of
the University’s general quality-by-reputation. Central to these is the employability
and career success of our graduates.
“Performance Assessment”. http://www.uct.ac.za/depts/hrm/staffman/2-5-1.htm.
Most candidates for Distinguished Teacher Awards are nominated, although some applications are
received.
35
One suggestion is that the number of Distinguished Teacher Awards should be restricted to one or
two per year – maintaining a competitive element – and that additional, criterion-based awards for
merit should be made, with no restriction on number. The value of this model is that it would provide a
university-wide standard for the recognition of outstanding teaching that could then be used by Faculty
Merit Committees in rewarding achievement in teaching via the remuneration system.
33
34
Quality Assurance at UCT/ 23
In this regard, systematic and regular destination studies are important for collecting
information about graduate careers, and for feeding back intelligence about graduate
requirements to those at the “chalk-face”.
UCT currently conducts regular surveys at the point of graduation. But (and as
acknowledged by the authors of these reports) these tell us comparatively little about
what happens to our graduates. We have some systematic information from
professional fields (where professional bodies collect the views of their members), but
very little systematic knowledge of graduate destinations in the formative disciplines
in the sciences and humanities.
In addition, work in this field has shown that it is important to track graduate careers
some years after graduation, since the “deep value” an educational qualification might
only become fully apparent some time after leaving the university.36
Destination studies can be expensive to administer, because of the difficulty in
attaining acceptable response rates. However, the results are likely to be worthwhile,
and UCT has considerable potential capacity in this area through the newly
constituted department of alumnae relations.
2.4.
Postgraduate Education
2.4.1. Reviewing postgraduate studies
A well-functioning postgraduate sector is central to UCT’s vision of being “an
outstanding research and teaching university”. It is now recognised that more
attention – and resources – needs to be given to this sector if this vision is to be met.
For, although UCT has continued to attract excellent students at the postgraduate
level, there are indications that this record will not automatically be retained. These
concerns have been heightened by the National Plan for Higher Education, which has
set targets for increasing postgraduate numbers in the sector as well as improving
throughput.
In recognition of these needs, the University Strategy Committee has convened a
Project Group for Postgraduate Study. This Project Group has established several
sub-groups to address each of the following areas:





Planning and delivery of postgraduate programmes;
Marketing and recruitment;
Governance and Organization;
Quality of life;
Performance measure and evaluation.
We anticipate that this work will lead to the URC introducing new quality assurance
measures in the postgraduate area. The paragraphs that follow should be read in this
light.
36
It is widely recognised that the baseline for effective destination studies should be patterns of
employment five years after final graduation.
Quality Assurance at UCT/ 24
2.4.2. Postgraduate recruitment and enrolment
The Quality Assurance Working Group’s focus group that discussed issues in
postgraduate studies concluded that there is a need for an institutionally co-ordinated
approach to recruitment and enrolment in this area. This will increase as a need as
UCT moves away from being a relatively closed postgraduate community, in which
research students were mostly selected from undergraduate cohorts, and towards an
open, international university, in which postgraduate students are actively recruited
from all parts of the world. This will result in a number of issues of importance in
postgraduate recruitment and enrolment, including:
 The recognition of previous educational qualifications from a more diverse
range of educational institutions, and the evaluation of prospective students’
potential to succeed
 Responding to the needs of increasing numbers of foreign students who
experience difficulty studying in English.
 The need to promote equity at the postgraduate level, working towards a
representative demographic profile from which well qualified professionals –
and future academic staff – can be appointed
As with undergraduate admissions, there is a need for clarity about the roles of the
various players in postgraduate recruitment and enrolment – of departments,
Faculties, REMO, the Department of Research Development and the Postgraduate
Scholarships Office, Student Housing, and the International Academic Programmes
Office.
2.4.3. Postgraduate learning
UCT has an enviable reputation for research, and many academic staff have won
recognition for the quality of postgraduate supervision. But there are also indications
that the quality of supervision is uneven. The Postgraduate Students’ Association
reports that some students are unhappy with the guidance that they receive, and there
have been cases where students, although registered, have not been allocated a
supervisor, and other cases where a supervisor has left UCT without being replaced in
this role. The Writing Centre has reported cases in which students have visited
repeatedly in expectation of the support and guidance that would normally be
expected in an academic department.
There is also a growing recognition, at UCT and at universities in general, that
effective guidance at the academic level requires more than just intellectual input. As
the backgrounds of postgraduate students become more diverse, increased levels of
support are necessary in the “life skills” of successful research activity. Taken
together, this indicates the need for a focus on mentorship in general, and the
enhancement of the ability of academic staff to provide such mentorship.
In addition to supporting and strengthening thesis work – the traditional core of
postgraduate study – account needs to be taken of the steady increase in postgraduate
coursework. Although this has always been a component of the curriculum at UCT,
Masters-level coursework programmes have proliferated in recent years, and there is
some suggestion of doctoral degrees by coursework (a suggestion that attracts nearviolent responses in some cases). Postgraduate coursework requires broadly similar
quality assurance measures as undergraduate programmes, although there will tend to
Quality Assurance at UCT/ 25
be differences in forms of assessment and a greater need for integration across
programmes of study as a whole. Care will also need to be taken that there are
adequate resources available, as postgraduate coursework is usually more expensive
than research by dissertation, and budget structures may not allow adequately for this.
Finally, close attention needs to be given to the quality of life of postgraduate
students. These provisions need to include adequate financial aid (where appropriate),
suitable housing and social and recreational facilities that allow a community of
scholarship to prosper. Such provisions are standard at the international institutions
that UCT claims as its equivalence in quality.
Given these concerns, it is proposed that UCT move to a system of formal agreements
between postgraduate students and their supervisors. Such agreements have already
been adopted at a number of South African universities, and set out expectations both
of the supervisor (frequency of meetings, return time for draft work, levels of practical
and financial support, intellectual property rights, etc), and of the research student
(commitment to the research topic, participation in the life of the academic
department, ethics and the avoidance of plagiarism, acquisition of additional skills,
etc.). Such agreements serve to limit the general liability of a supervisor and of the
university. Under present arrangements, the University has contractual obligations to
students via their enrolment, and academic staff have contractual obligations to the
University through their employment. Memoranda of understanding between
postgraduate students and their supervisors “complete the triangle”, to the benefit of
all parties.
2.4.4. Postgraduate Examination and Assessment
UCT currently has a mixed system of examination and assessment for postgraduate
studies. Postgraduate diplomas, Honours qualifications and Masters degrees are
administered at the Faculty level, through appropriate committees and Faculty
Examination Committees. Doctoral degrees (although not all doctorates) are
administered centrally, and validated by the Doctoral Degrees Board, on which all
Deans or their representatives sit. Financial support for postgraduate students is
administered centrally, through the Postgraduate Scholarships Committee.
It is clearly appropriate for the weight of postgraduate examination and assessment to
rest with the Faculties. This is particularly the case given UCT’s Academic Planning
Framework, which emphasises the connection between undergraduate and
postgraduate study, requiring that undergraduate programmes provide well-signposted
routes into postgraduate study. However, given the increasing concern with
postgraduate retention and throughput across the university, there also seems a case
for stronger, central, steering of policy in postgraduate study. In this regard, it is
recommended that a new Senate-level committee be established – the University
Board of Graduate Studies (UBGS). This new committee will be custodian of the
quality of postgraduate study in the University as a whole, bringing reports and
recommendations for Senate’s consideration. The Doctoral Degrees Board will
continue as constituted, and will be accountable to the University Board of Graduate
Studies. The Doctoral Degrees Board should be charged with drawing up terms of
reference for the UBGS and bringing these to the Senate Executive Committee for
consideration and recommendation to Senate and Council.
Quality Assurance at UCT/ 26
3. A Quality Assurance System for UCT
3.1.
A systemic approach
This section of the report considers how these key aspects of quality assurance can be
integrated into a Quality Assurance System that will meet both UCT’s internal
requirements, and the requirements of the Higher Education Quality Committee.
There are many examples of such systems, each of them coloured by the combination
of institutional history, regulatory requirements and specific preferences. Three
examples can serve to illustrate the range of possibilities.
The University of Wales Cardiff (which is about the same size as UCT, and similarly
structured) has a formal “Academic Quality System” which is derived from the
institution’s strategic plan, and which applies to all academic departments. Full
details of the system are specified in an Academic Quality System Manual. The
system relies on the role of Senate, and of a number of key committees: the Standing
Committee of Senate, the Graduate Research Board, the Research Committee, the
Teaching and Learning Committee, Departmental Boards and the Board of Studies.
The quality assurance role of these key committees is co-ordinated by an Academic
Quality Assurance Committee. The system is given life by means of internal quality
reviews, which are based on departmental self-evaluations and peer assessments.
Internal quality reviews are conducted by panels that include external advisors, and
which are appointed by the Vice-Chancellor on the advice of the Academic Quality
Assurance Committee.37
Mexico has a long tradition of institutional autonomy, and this is reflected in quality
assurance measures for its university system. The Universidad Autónoma
Metropolitana (UAM) in Mexico City, a new university with some 40 000 students,
undertakes internal quality assessment in an agreement with Mexico’s national quality
assurance agency (Comisión Nacional de Evaluación de Educación Superior, or
CONAEVA). Programme evaluation is a key element, and these evaluations are
conducted by inter-institutional committees comprising academics and representatives
of employers, professional associations and government. Reviews focus on the
curriculum, and include direct interactions with those teaching on the programme, and
with students. The review committees report on measures that will improve
programme performance.38
Quality Assurance at Harvard is primarily the responsibility of the Board of
Overseers, one leg of this university’s unique system of governance. The Board of
Overseers comprises thirty members who are elected by Harvard’s graduates. One of
its functions is to appoint visiting committees for every school and department in the
university. Visiting committees are made up of members of the Board and academics
from other institutions, look at all aspects of a department’s work (research, graduate
and undergraduate teaching, science equipment, libraries and forward plans), and talk
Christine Daniels, “Quality Assessment: Cardiff University of Wales, United Kingdom”.
http://www.oecd.org/els/pdfs/EDSIMHEDOCA024.pdf
38
G Valenti and G Valera, “ Case study of Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Mexico”.
http://www.oecd.org/els/edu/imhe
37
Quality Assurance at UCT/ 27
to academic staff and to students. Visits take place every two years, and reports are
sent to the Dean and to the Board.39
3.2.
The central role of reviews
A feature of these examples of systemic approaches, and of all internal quality
assurance systems at universities of a standard which UCT would consider an
appropriate benchmark, is the regular review of all major units involved in teaching
and learning.
This is particularly the case when institutions are concerned about the invasiveness of
reviews by national quality assurance agencies, and the danger of a culture of
compliance which reduces quality assurance to a set of superficial indicators.
Although this may at first appear to be a contradiction in terms, a consideration of the
general principles and politics of quality assurance shows why this is the case.
Without regular reviews driven from within universities, institutional self-appraisal
will lack public credibility, forcing national quality assurance agencies, which are
publicly accountable, to adopt more invasive approaches. Consequently, it is notable
that, in challenging the role of Britain’s Quality Assurance Agency, University
College London, the London School of Economics, and the Universities of Oxford,
Cambridge, Edinburgh and Birmingham have not proposed abandoning quality
assurance. They are rather proposing to establish a consortium within which quality
assurance measures would be harmonised, and institutions within the consortium
would validate one another’s academic programmes. In addition, the proposed
consortium would work with international organisations to ensure an international
standard.40 Similarly, although Neil Rudenstine, outgoing President of Harvard, can
assert that any accreditation agency declining to accredit Harvard would itself lose
credibility, it is notable that Harvard takes quality assurance through regular
departmental review seriously.
Given these considerations, what review system is appropriate to UCT’s specific
needs – for its organisational structure, existing policy frameworks and institutional
objectives?
In seeking to address this question – perhaps the most important in this consideration
of quality assurance at UCT – it is first important to be clear about the intended
purposes of a review system.41 Brennan and Shah observe that there is often
confusion here, even in well-established national and institutional systems. They note
that intentions are often confused with outcomes, and that organisational actions (such
as establishing committees for quality assurance) are often mistaken for educational
consequences. This is compounded by the prevalent assumption that “improvement”
Times Higher Education Supplement, May 4 2001; “The Harvard Guide”,
www.news.harvard.edu/guide. For an example of a Board of Overseers visit to the University Library,
see http://hul.harvard.edu/publications/library_notes/1296/articles/committee.html.
40
“Gang of five plans to escape QAA grip”. Times Higher Education Supplement, April 6 2001.
41
Brennan and Shah identify for sorts of “quality values” that structure approaches to quality
assurance. These are traditional academic values (disciplinary focus, and the assumption that quality
will follow from strong academic control), managerial values (procedures and structures, and the
assumption that quality will follow from good management), pedagogic values(teaching skills and
practices, and the assumption that quality will follow from effective delivery) and outcomes values
(the assumption that quality will follow from a focus on the desired characteristics of graduates).
39
Quality Assurance at UCT/ 28
is a given, rather than a construct related to policies, politics and ideological
positions.42
Firstly, it is apparent that the “double grid” of the Academic Planning Framework
requires two sets of reviews: reviews of academic programmes, and reviews of
academic departments. 43 Both sets of reviews require appropriate “organisational
actions” that will ensure that processes are efficient and well supported, and do not
impose additional burdens on academic staff or on support departments that are
already fully committed. The intended educational consequences will be the
attainment and maintenance of appropriate management systems for teaching and
learning, and the promotion of an effective environment in which teaching and
learning can prosper. The unifying objective will be to support and enhance the
creative drive of academics as teachers, and to recognise and reward the commitment
made by students as learners. The bottom line is quality interpreted through critical
self-appraisal. In Finch’s words, “the whole of the academic enterprise depends on
there being a reasonably clear collective understanding between academics in a given
discipline that a particular piece of work counts as good and something else as less
good. Without that collective understanding, academic disciplines really do not exist.
Were that to disappear, the resulting intellectual anarchy would bring down the whole
edifice, since there would be no reason at all why taxpayers should pay us to educate
the young, nor why sponsors should pay us to conduct research”.44
Both acacdemic departments and Academic Programmes should be reviewed in five
year cycles, organised so that reviews are staggered, and distributed between Faculties
to ensure that indivisual work loads are appropriately spread.
In many cases, Academic Programmes and Academic Departments are sufficiently
distinct to require independent review cycles. But in other cases a substantial
majority of courses and options constituting an Academic Programme are offered by a
single academic department. In some cases again (particularly in the Faculties of
Law, Engineering and the Built Environment and Health Sciences and Commerce)
Academic Programmes are subject to periodic review by external professional bodies
(which will be registered ETQAs in terms of the SAQA legislation). In theses cases,
it is proposed that the Dean of the faculty concerned should have the discretion to
combine departmental and programme reviews and, where appropriate, to amalgamate
internal and external ETQA reviews. The intention in determining review cycles
should be to achieve maximum efficiency and effectiveness, minimising
administrative work, but adhering to the benchmark that every Academic Programme
and Department should be subject to internal review in some form at least every five
years.
Brennan and Shah, 2000. The assumption that “improvement” is a given, rather than a concept that
needs dissection and analysis, is certainly a feature of the rhetoric of quality assurance in South Africa,
where “improvement” is usually taken as a synonym for “development”.
43
Periodic reviews of academic programmes are specified in the Academic Planning Framework, and
are therefore part of current policy at UCT. Regular reviews of academic departments were conducted
under the auspices of the former Academic Planning Committee, but have now fallen into abeyance.
44
J. Finch, “Power, legitimacy and academic standards”. In J. Brennan, P. de Vries, and R. Williams
(eds), “Standards and Quality in Higher Education”, London, Jessica Kingsley, 1997: 152.
42
Quality Assurance at UCT/ 29
In contributing to this “clear collective understanding”, reviews of academic
programmes will concentrate on the management of the curriculum. Among other
things, academic programme review committees could be expected to explore:
 The ways in which a programme’s curriculum is managed, and whether its
structure meets the generic requirements of the Academic Planning
Framework
 Measures in place to ensure that student throughput and retention are not
hampered by inappropriate bureaucracy
 The calibre of programme handbooks and information for students
 Whether the educational objectives of the programme are met
 The nature of the “enabling environment” (library resources, laboratory
facilities, studio facilities, computer facilities etc);
 Programme governance, and whether the Academic Programme Committee is
appropriately constituted, meets regularly and manages the programme in a
consistent and effective manner
 The details of admission requirements, internal placement processes (where
appropriate) and readmission review processes
 The nature of integrated assessment methods
 The articulation of undergraduate programmes with postgraduate courses of
study
 Attention given to academic development requirements through extended
curricula and other methods
 Career development for students within the programme, and the extent to
which the professional requirements of graduates from the programme are
met.
Academic Programme Review Committees would include a member of the
Academic Programme under review, a student who has experience of the programme,
a member of UCT’s staff from another Faculty, a member from the Centre for Higher
Education Development, and an academic from another university.
Reviews of academic departments, while necessarily overlapping to some extent with
academic programme reviews, will tend to have as their focus of attention the learning
and teaching environment – the day-by-day quality of intellectual life in a department,
and the ways in which this environment constitutes the quality of courses offered by
the department, of research, and of community service. Here, the “desired outcomes”
of a review could include:
 Ensuring that course descriptions and requirements are clearly specified,
comprehensive, and available before the course begins
 Ensuring that course assessment is fair and appropriate, and clearly specified
 Ensuring that DP rules are unambiguous and consistently applied
 Ensuring that courses are fully taught by appropriately qualified staff who
have been appointed via agreed selection procedures, and whose performance
is reviewed annually
 Ensuring that student work is appropriately graded and returned timeously,
and that examinations are consistently administered and appropriately
moderated
 Ensuring that processes of external examination are appropriate, and that they
are consistently applied
Quality Assurance at UCT/ 30

Ensuring that each course has a student survey, that student surveys are
appropriately reviewed within the department, and that issues raised are
discussed and acted upon
Similar intended outcomes of departmental reviews would be specified for research
and for community service. Departmental review committees should include a
member of the department under review, a Deputy Dean from the Faculty, a
representative from another Faculty, and at least two academics from the same
disciplinary field in other universities.
There are many examples of the ways in which such programme and departmental
reviews could be conducted: as already noted, universities of a standard at which UCT
would expect to be placed have regular systems of reviews in place. For instance,
Dutch universities collaborate with each other through the Association of Dutch
Universities (VSNU) in an arrangement that is the equivalent of SAUVCA’s former
Quality Promotion Unit. Each university’s academic programmes are regularly
reviewed by means of:45
 A self-analysis that covers the basic philosophy and purposes of the academic
programme, the curriculum, student enrolments and completion rates,
examples of student work, facilities and infrastructure, academic and support
staff, and programme level methods of quality assurance.
 A review committee of four experts in the disciplinary area of the programme,
an educational expert, and a student representative. Each member of the
review committee evaluates the self-analysis documentation.
 A two-day visit by the review committee, which holds discussions with those
responsible for the programme, students, and members of the Faculty Board
under which the programme falls.
 At the end of the visit, the review committee presents an oral report to those
with whom it has met. This is followed by a written report, to which those
involved with the programme are invited to respond. The report, and the
responses, is a public document.
Departmental and academic programme reviews at UCT will be underpinned by the
established system of external examination. It has been suggested earlier that the
Examination and Assessment Committee should conduct a review of the role of
external examiners. A prima facie impression is that this role is variable. Some
external examiners look at the full range of courses that a department offers, all
coursework requirements for the courses they are concerned with, the formal
examination system, and other examples of student work. They write exemplary
reports which constitute much of what a formal departmental review could be
expected to achieve. Others do little more than moderate examination results, and
write cursory reports that confirm internal examination processes, with minor
adjustments. Other than in those cases where the curriculum of an academic
programme is contained within a single academic department, external examiners to
not review academic programmes, and do not have oversight of the student’s whole
educational experience. It will be important that the external examination process be
strengthened in order to ensure appropriate annual benchmarking activities for quality
assurance across the university.
45
Brennan and Shah 2000: 62-63.
Quality Assurance at UCT/ 31
There is always a danger that departmental and programme reviews degrade to
compliance exercises, either honoured in a cursory manner or else geared for
advocacy in a resource-hungry environment. This tendency can be avoided – to an
extent – by appropriate guidelines:
 Reports should include both the conclusions of the review team, and also the
responses to these conclusions from the academic department or programme
under review
 Reviews should not be used as a means for determining basic resourcing of
academic departments and programmes. Decisions as to appropriate
staff/student ratios, the provision of teaching and research equipment and the
size of departmental grants can be made using operational guidelines that are
independent of periodic reviews. Decisions about minimum course and
programme registrations are strategic and operational decisions that, in any
case, need to be evaluated on a continual basis. Although departmental and
programme reviews will obviously have an impact on resource allocation
decisions, comparative experience has shown that, where “rewards” are
narrowly linked to resource allocations, critical self-review is, rather
understandably, diminished.46
 Primary reporting should be to Faculty Boards. UCT’s governance system
rests on the concept of collegiality. The composition of Faculties organises
UCT’s range of disciplinary teaching and enquiry into broadly cognate
clusters, which also serves to assemble the most appropriate groupings of
expertise to discuss the outcomes and recommendations of reviews.
 Secondary reporting should be to the Senate Executive Committee, via the
Dean of the Faculty. It will not be appropriate for the Senate Executive
Committee to debate in detail each departmental or programme review.
However, Deans should highlight principle points for consideration.
 Review reports should be generally available to the university community, via
the Principal’s Circular and the intranet (following the principle of open
governance adopted by Senate and Council).
In addition, reviews of Academic Programmes and departments can be used to
advantage, as opportunities for the unrealised potential of a department – or
programme – to be demonstrated. The collegial nature of reviews, with academic
staff from cognate disciplines and departments, allows strong departments to explore
new areas of development, while upward reporting mechanisms allow departments
and Academic Programme Committees to make the case for expanded enrolments,
beneficial curriculum developments, increased resources and other assets. Quality
assurance must continually create opportunities for change. It should represent a
dynamic process in which new changes within teaching are expected, respected and
allowed to develop, in the context of thorough evaluation and dissemination. It will
be important that there are appropriate opportunities for staff development to support
these processes.
3.3.
Quality Assurance at UCT
The combination of academic self-appraisal, regular reviews and internal quality
assurance measures means that accountability for quality assurance in credible
46
Brennan and Shah 2000.
Quality Assurance at UCT/ 32
systems will rest with a university’s principal academic body. Although a quality
assurance committee may be responsible for co-ordinating the processes of quality
assurance, it is difficult to see how such committees can have full accountability
delegated to them (or to managerial quality promotion units) without the risk of either
marginalizing quality assurance, or resorting to inspection regimes.
In universities organised like UCT, this means that accountability for quality
assurance must rest with Senate and with its Faculty Boards. Structures such as
UCT’s Centre for Higher Education Development, Quality Assurance Working
Group, Institutional Information Unit and Department of Research Development will
provide expertise and assistance but they cannot, without risk, assume primary
responsibility for the quality of teaching, learning and research in the university.
This central role of Senate and the Faculty Boards is encapsulated in UCT’s enabling
legislation. While the power to govern is vested in Council, Senate plays the key role
in the academic affairs of the University: “the senate organises and controls the
teaching, curricula, syllabuses, examinations and research of the University”. The
Institutional Statute outlines the functions of a Faculty Board, including the provision
that “The Faculty Board a) is responsible to the Senate for organising and controlling
the teaching, curricula, syllabuses, examinations and research of the Faculty; b) must
make proposals to the Senate for rules prescribing the requirements for each degree,
diploma and certificate offered in the Faculty, including the requirements for
admission and readmission”. 47
In turn, responsibility for giving effect to Senate policy, including quality assurance,
rests with the University’s Executive. While the allocation of DVC portfolios is at the
discretion of the Vice-Chancellor, it is probable that the primary responsibility for the
day-by-day implementation of quality assurance will rest with the Senior Deputy Vice
Chancellor, as the SDVC is accountable for teaching and learning in the university,
and is the primary point of liaison between the Deans and the Office of the Vice
Chancellor.
Recognising the central role of Senate and the Faculty Boards in quality assurance
allows, in turn, the identification of the key committees that can constitute a quality
assurance system appropriate for UCT.
From this, we can identify a cascade of key committees that, together with the role of
individuals with executive responsibilities, constitute a Quality Assurance System
appropriate for UCT. This system is set out in the table below.
Accountability
Council
Domain
General governance
Agencies
Senate
Senate
Academic sector
Senate Executive
Committee
Senate Executive
Committee
Academic sector
Quality Assurance
Working Group
47
Activities
Receives, and comments on,
reports from Senate
Acts on reports and
recommendations from Senate
Executive Committee
Receives reports on quality
assurance from the Quality
Education White Paper 3, 1997;University of Cape Town (Private) Act, 1999; Institutional Statute
Quality Assurance at UCT/ 33
Admissions Committee
University Research
Committee
Executive Director of
University Libraries
Examination and
Assessment Committee
Distinguished Teacher
Award Committee
University Board of
Graduate Studies
Institutional Information
Unit (Planning
Department)
Quality Assurance
Working Group
Academic sector
Admissions Committee
Faculty Boards
Management Services
Committee
Institutional Forum
Assurance Working Group,
Admissions Committee,
Examination and Assessment
Committee, Distinguished
Teacher Award Committee,
University Board of Graduate
Studies and Libraries.
Makes recommendations for
actions by Faculties (via
Deans), and by Senate (via PC
or plenary Senate).
Receives summary reports of
departmental and programme
reviews from Deans
Integrates, and works
interactively with, Admissions
Committee, Faculty Boards,
Management Services
Committee and Institutional
Forum
Brings recommendations to,
and prepares reports for,
Senate Executive Committee
Senior Deputy Vice
Chancellor
Quality Assurance
Senate
Deans
Dean of Higher
Education Development
Quality Assurance
Executive Director,
University Libraries
Library services
Quality Assurance
Coordinator
Quality Assurance
Working Group
University Libraries
Working Group
Director of Institutional
Planning
External reporting
Planning Department
Admissions Committee
Recruitment and
Enrolment
Examinations and
Assessment Committee
Examinations and
assessment systems
Recruitment and
Enrolment Management
Office
Department of
Communication Marketing
Undergraduate Financial
Aid
Student Housing
Assessment and
Evaluation Unit (CHED)
Faculty Offices
Faculty Examination
Committees
Faculty Boards
Academic programmes
Academic departments
Academic Programme
Committees
Heads of Academic
Accountable for overall design
and implementation of quality
assurance policies
Responsible for bringing
integrated quality assurance
reports to Senate Executive
Committee and Senate
Reports directly to the Senate
Executive Committee and
Senate on quality assurance in
University Libraries
Responsible for external
reporting to Department of
Education and HEQC
Annual admissions reviews
Financial aid reports
Longitudinal studies of
placement test results
Annual report to Senate
Executive Committee
Occasional reports
Annual report to Senate
Executive Committee
Performance Reviews for
Quality Assurance at UCT/ 34
Departments
Faculty accreditation
committees (or
equivalent)
Faculty Readmission
Review Committees
Faculty Merit Committees
Review committees of
academic departments and
academic programmes
Doctoral degrees office
Postgraduate Scholarships
Committee
Faculty postgraduate
committees
academic staff
Ad hominem promotion and
recognition of merit
Consideration of review
committee reports on
academic departments and
academic programmes
University Board of
Graduate Studies
Postgraduate studies
Institutional Forum
Institutional culture
Basic acceptable practices
for teaching
Principles of student
responsibilities
Enabling environment,
All support departments
Service Level Agreements
Academic staff
recruitment and selection
Equal Opportunity Office
Staff Recruitment Office
Recruit and select
appropriately qualified
academic staff
Promote UCT’s employment
equity plan
Recognition of individual
merit
Annual awards
Annual report to Senate
Executive Committee
Self evaluations of Research
Units
Management Services
Committee
Selection Committees
for academic staff
Distinguished Teacher
Award Committee
Teaching and learning
University Research
Committee
Research
Annual report to Senate
Executive Committee
Occasional reports
Occasional reports
Teaching Charter
Students Charter
Department of Research
Development
Three examples, related to different stages in the “student career”, illustrate how this
system will work.


In reviewing quality assurance in the domain of undergraduate recruitment and
enrolment Senate, through the Senate Executive Committee, will consider an
annual report from the Admissions Committee. In fulfilling this responsibility,
the Admissions Committee will depend on information and an evaluation of
admission trends from the Director of the Recruitment and Enrolment
Management Office, reports from Faculties, and evaluations of the financial
aid position from the Undergraduate Financial Aid Office and of student
housing from the Student Development and Services Department. The
Admissions Committee may also want to take into account reports from
CHED’s Assessment and Evaluation Unit on admissions to extended curricula,
and on the success in enrolling students through alternative admission routes,
and from the Executive Director of Communication, on co-ordinated
marketing strategies in support of recruitment and enrolment.
In reviewing quality assurance in the domain of undergraduate education
Senate, again through the intermediary stage of the Senate Executive, will be
concerned with reviews of academic programmes and academic departments
(and reports from Faculty accreditation committees or their equivalents), the
Quality Assurance at UCT/ 35

validity and reliability of assessment (with reports from the Examination and
Assessment Committee) the quality of teaching (with reports from the
Distinguished Teacher Award Committee and Faculty Merit Committees), the
processes of selecting academic staff (with reports from the Equal Opportunity
Office) and the general enabling environment in which teaching and learning
takes place (with reports from the Institutional Forum, the Management
Services Committee and the Executive Director of University Libraries).
In reviewing quality assurance in postgraduate studies, Senate will receive
inputs from the University Board of Graduate Studies, the Postgraduate
Scholarships Committee, Faculty postgraduate committees and the University
Research Committee.
These examples also highlight the role of the Quality Assurance Working Group
(QAWG). In common with other working groups (as established by the
Organisational Design and Governance proposals adopted by Senate in 2000), QAWG
is not a committee with formally delegated authority and responsibilities. It rather
serves to add value to the work of such committees – in this case, the Senate
Executive Committee and the key committees working in the area of quality
assurance, listed above. It will readily be apparent that the Senate Executive
Committee will not have the capacity to pull together the many strands of information
that together constitute Senate-level reports of the kind given in the examples above.
This co-ordinating function is performed by QAWG, which has the following
responsibilities:




To pull together information from different parts of the quality assurance
system, preparing consolidated reports and appropriate recommendations for
consideration by Senate, via the Senate Executive Committee.
To respond to issues that arise from Senate’s consideration of quality
assurance reports, adding value on its own account, and bringing matters to the
attention of appropriate committees when this is necessary.
Advising the Senate Executive Committee on the effectiveness of UCT’s
quality assurance system as a whole, taking into account both UCT’s internal
developmental need, and the University’s external reporting obligations.
Providing the Director of Institutional Planning with information to include in
UCT’s reports to the Higher Education Quality Committee.
This quality assurance system is illustrated in the diagram below.
Quality Assurance at UCT/ 36
Admissions
Committee
Examinations
and
Assessment
Committee
Institutional
Forum
University
Research
Committee
University Board
of
Graduate Studies
Senate/
Senate Executive
Committee
Faculty
Boards
Management
Services
Committee
Distinguished
Teacher Award
Committee
A Quality Assurance System for UCT
4. Recommendations
As set out at the beginning of this report, our intention in designing an effective
Quality Assurance System for UCT has been to meet the requirements that we
anticipate from the Higher Education Quality Committee through strengthening and
streamlining our existing practices. The following recommendations set out those
actions that we believe will be necessary in achieving these goals.
Organisational measures
One.
Senate should be asked to adopt a defined Quality Assurance System for
UCT. Responsibility for the effective operation of the Quality Assurance
System should rest with the Senate Executive Committee, supported by
the Quality Assurance Working Group. Responsibility for complying
with the reporting requirements of the Higher Education Quality
Committee should rest with the Director of Institutional Planning. The
Centre for Higher Education Development, though the Quality Assurance
Co-ordinator, should be responsible for producing, and periodically
updating, a Quality Assurance System Manual, which will be available to
the university community via the UCT web page. Overall accountability
for the effective implementation of quality assurance should rest with the
Senior Deputy Vice Chancellor.
Two.
Student government, in consultation with (and with the support of) the
Dean of Students, should draw up a Student Charter for consideration by
the Institutional Forum and recommendation to Council.
Three.
A Project Group comprising representatives of the Faculties and the
Academics Association should draw up a Teaching Charter which sets out
basic acceptable standards as a benchmark for teaching practices, and
Quality Assurance at UCT/ 37
Four.
Five.
Six.
Seven.
Eight.
which replaces the existing “standard minimum expectations” in the
Generic Job Description for academic staff.
Academic Programmes and academic departments should be reviewed
every five years, and the terms of reference for reviews should be agreed
by the Senate Executive Committee. Where the substantive part of an
Academic Programme is offered by a single Academic Programme, the
Dean of the Faculty in which the department is located should have the
discretion of combining the departmental and programme reviews as a
single review. Where Academic Programmes are also subject to external
accreditation by recognized ETQAs, internal reviews should be
coordinated with external reviews to avoid duplication of processes. The
guiding principle in coordinating review processes in the interests of
efficiency should be that all UCT Academic Programmes should be
internally reviewed (whether independently or as part of combined
reviews) in a five year cycle. Reviews should by asynchronous in order to
achieve equitable workloads for academic and administrative staff
involved.
A new committee of Senate – the University Board of Graduate Studies –
should be established, with responsibility for university-wide policies and
practices in postgraduate education. The present Doctoral Degrees Board
should continue, and should be accountable to the University Board of
Graduate Studies. The DDB should draft terms of reference for the
University Board of Graduate Studies, for consideration by the Senate
Executive Committee for recommendation to Senate and Council.
The Distinguished Teacher Award Committee should be asked to develop
a two-tier system of recognising merit in teaching – retaining and
strengthening the present system of Distinguished Teacher Awards – and
to bring forward recommendations for consideration by Senate.
The Planning Department should conduct regular destination studies of
UCT graduates across all faculties, reporting to Deans and to the Senate
Executive Committee, and working in conjunction with the Career
Development Programme.
There should be a statement of the respective rights of graduate students
and their supervisors, and the relationship between them.. The form of
such a statement should be flexible to accommodate the varying needs of
disciplines, and should be approved by the University Board of Graduate
Studies.
New reporting responsibilities
Nine.
Each Faculty should report annually to Senate, via the Senate Executive
Committee, a report on the activities and decisions of its Faculty
acceditation committee (or equivalent committee).
Ten.
Each Faculty should report annually to Senate, via the Senate Executive
Committee, a report on the work of its Academic Programme Committees.
Eleven.
The Dean of Higher Education Development should report annually to
Senate, via the Senate Executive Committee, on general educational issues
related to academic programmes.
Twelve. Deans should report annually to the Senate Executive Committee on the
outcomes of reviews for all academic staff in their faculties, and on the
work and decisions of Merit Committees in their faculties.
Quality Assurance at UCT/ 38
Revisions of existing policies and practices
Thirteen. The Examination and Assessment Committee should review the present
system of external examination, within a policy the recognises external
examination as a key element of the university’s system of quality
assurance.
Fourteen. The Admissions Committee should review UCT’s admissions policies,
and bring recommendations to the Senate Executive Committee that will
stabilise admissions policies within current policy guidelines.
Fifteen.
Faculty admissions staff should be required by Deans to follow current
admissions policy consistently, including agreed Senate policy for
alternative admissions. Adherence to admissions policies should be
monitored by the Recruitment and Enrolment Management Office
(REMO), reporting to the Senate Executive Committee via the
Admissions Committee.
Sixteen. The Director the Recruitment and Enrolment Management Office should
draw up guidelines for Faculty admission staff that set benchmarks for
programme documentation and the specification of programme admission
requirements and sub-minima requirements, and give deadlines for the
finalisation of changes to academic programmes, allowing recruitment to
proceed with accurate information.
Seventeen. The Dean of Students should give attention to the co-ordination of the
activities of the Recruitment and Enrolment Management Office, the
Undergraduate Financial Aid Office and Student Housing
Eighteen. The Executive Director of Communication and Marketing, in conjunction
with the Director of REMO and Faculty Officers, should draw up a coordinated marketing strategy to support student recruitment and enrolment
at both the undergraduate and the postgraduate levels.
Nineteen. The Equal Opportunity Office should establish the extent to which agreed
employment equity policies are being put into practice by staff selection
committees, and should report to the Vice-Chancellor.
So what is “quality” , and can the dilemma of mental cogs that find no traction be
resolved? We have suggested in this report that quality assurance in higher education
should be the measure of what we do, and the extent to which our practices in
teaching and learning, research, and community service meet the expectations that we
set for ourselves.