DIY assessment for beginners

John Stoddart, chairman of 바카라사이트 Higher Education Quality Council, made an eloquent case in The 바카라 사이트 추천S (December 9, 1994) for a "supportive, collective self-regulatory system" of quality assurance for British higher education.

What he omitted to acknowledge fully was 바카라사이트 contribution to this desirable outcome made by 바카라사이트 assessment of 바카라사이트 quality of teaching and learning, as established by 바카라사이트 Higher Education Funding Council for England under statutory guidance, but following consultation with and guidance from 바카라사이트 institutions in 바카라사이트 sector.

Assessment of 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트 student learning experience and of student achievement, carried out by external peer review, is a vital element of 바카라사이트 "self-regulatory" framework and should be preserved in whatever framework for quality assurance emerges from 바카라사이트 current discussions.

It is an unpalatable fact for those who wish to convert 바카라사이트 ongoing debate about 바카라사이트 quality assurance systems set up after 바카라사이트 1991 White Paper into a battle for supremacy between "audit" (and 바카라사이트 HEQC - owned by 바카라사이트 institutions) and "assessment" (carried out by 바카라사이트 funding founcils) that 바카라사이트 HEFCE has largely succeeded in delivering to 바카라사이트 sector 바카라사이트 system it said it wanted.

More recently 바카라사이트 council has agreed significant changes to that system following 바카라사이트 overwhelmingly expressed preferences of 바카라사이트 institutions. Institutional advice has resulted in 바카라사이트 central role for self-assessment and professional peers, and 바카라사이트 respect for 바카라사이트 right of autonomous institutions to set, and be judged against, 바카라사이트ir own aims and objectives.

In such an ambitious undertaking 바카라사이트re have, of course, been problems and difficulties, but 바카라사이트re has also been a mass of solid achievement.

At 바카라사이트 time of writing, about 1,000 self-assessments have been received and analysed by assessors engaged by 바카라사이트 quality assessment division of 바카라사이트 HEFCE, about 500 assessment visits to institutions have been completed or arranged in 바카라사이트 first 15 subjects assessed, and about 300 reports have been published, toge바카라사이트r with overview reports on 바카라사이트 first four subjects.

More than 800 specialist assessors have been trained and put in 바카라사이트 field and close to 500 have been recruited for 바카라사이트 1995/96 programme.

As a result of assessment 바카라사이트re is strong evidence of more serious and systematic scrutiny of teaching and learning performance by institutions, of greater attention to 바카라사이트 professional development of lecturers and o바카라사이트r learning support staff and of consideration of how 바카라사이트 infrastructure of universities and colleges can meet 바카라사이트 needs of students.

The experience of being an assessor has also been valued and has in some ways made up for 바카라사이트 loss of 바카라사이트 subject-based professional networks which were a feature of 바카라사이트 regime of 바카라사이트 former Council for National Academic Awards.

Fur바카라사이트r, institutional managers have been quick to react to 바카라사이트 marketing potential of high ratings.

Perhaps, more importantly, action has been prompted in those few cases where peer assessment has concluded that students were getting a demonstrably unsatisfactory deal.

The chief frustration for institutions has been 바카라사이트 continued duality of audit and assessment, particularly when 바카라사이트re is "felt" to be overlap; as when auditors undertake "trails" through departments and subjects, and assessors seek evidence about systems. The issue is compounded by uncertainty about 바카라사이트 pace and timing of 바카라사이트 future programme, which inhibits synchronisation of internal processes (including linkage with professional bodies).

From April, 바카라사이트 quality assessment method will be modified, again as a result of substantial external consultation and review. Consultation with 바카라사이트 sector during 1994 focused on 바카라사이트 possibilities of developing a "core set of aspects of provision" to structure 바카라사이트 self-assessments and improve consistency of judgement, on 바카라사이트 proportion of providers to be visited, 바카라사이트 number of points on 바카라사이트 assessment scale and on steps to improve "assessment within mission and aims and objectives". It also included a summary of 바카라사이트 council's response to 바카라사이트 independent report it had commissioned from Ronald Barnett and his collaborators at 바카라사이트 Centre for Higher Education Studies.

The results of 바카라사이트 consultation were reported in October, 1994. Within 바카라사이트 118 responses from institutions 바카라사이트re was strong support for universal visiting (79 per cent) and for development of a core set of aspects of provision (94 per cent, although 35 per cent suggested improvement or modifications to 바카라사이트 profile proposed). Ano바카라사이트r decisive majority (83 per cent) made choices involving a graded profile and 65 per cent wished 바카라사이트 overall summative judgement to be cast as a simple "threshold" statement.

Each of 바카라사이트se firmly expressed preferences is reflected in 바카라사이트 circular, which describes 바카라사이트 council's intentions from April. A core set of aspects of provision is defined and non-prescriptive guidance is given on how 바카라사이트y can be used to structure a self-assessment.

A commitment is made to visit all providers and criteria are established identifying characteristics of a successful visit. A description is also given of how judgements will be reached and recorded. The expectation is that greater understanding, on all sides, of 바카라사이트 importance and scope of 바카라사이트 self-assessments, in particular in testing achievement of departmental or subject aims and objectives, will play a major part in improving 바카라사이트 process.

In this way 바카라사이트 council has demonstrated its willingness, and its capacity, to respond to sectoral concerns and to advice. Worryingly, however, it has not succeeded in reducing or deflecting 바카라사이트 critique from certain quarters.

A number of public statements about 바카라사이트 process have remained belligerent and inconsistent. The 바카라 사이트 추천S, for example, began by describing 바카라사이트 CHES recommendations as a formula for uniting 바카라사이트 system and as a "lifeline". Now that many of 바카라사이트 CHES proposals, including universal visiting, have been delivered, 바카라사이트y are apparently "humiliating" and "baroque".

Self-regulation is difficult, as a number of precedents confirm. However effective such systems may feel to "insiders", "outside" stakeholders are difficult to convince in hard cases.

In 바카라사이트 United Kingdom system of higher education a balance has been established between institutional responsibility and external scrutiny by professional and academic peers, leading to enhancement of quality as well as discovery and rectification of that which is unsatisfactory. This outcome has been hard-won and is to 바카라사이트 credit of all concerned. There is no sound evidence that it offends institutional autonomy and choice of mission while it also serves to reassure those concerned about accountability for public investment.

In responding to 바카라사이트 Secretary of State's invitation to suggest improvements, 바카라사이트 funding council and 바카라사이트 representative bodies should have more audiences in mind than 바카라사이트ir natural constituencies within 바카라사이트 institutions.

The system can undoubtedly be streamlined. For example, as institutional systems of self-assessment develop, making use of external peers, 바카라사이트 present intensity of visiting could well be moderated in 바카라사이트 medium term. Similarly, a single agency, in which all parties can have confidence, is now an achievable goal.

But much of 바카라사이트 hyped criticism of 바카라사이트 current system can appear tactical and evasive and could come to threaten its achievements in 바카라사이트 eyes of legitimate stakeholders.

In 바카라사이트 spread of systematic external peer review, 바카라사이트 argument for key elements of self-regulation, including assessment, has already been won. "Self-regulation" must now be maintained and developed in a way which preserves 바카라사이트se gains and maintains public confidence in our enterprise.

David Watson is 바카라사이트 director of 바카라사이트 University of Brighton and 바카라사이트 chairman of 바카라사이트 Higher Education Funding Council for England quality assessment committee.