heed9(1)-01ph d halford_20150730

Higher Education Evaluation and Development 9:1 (June 2015): 1-17DOI: 10.6197/HEED.2015.0901.01©2015 HEEACT, APQN & Airiti Inc.

Manuscript received: 2015.4.29; Revised: 2015.6.28; Accepted: 2015.6.301,* Elizabeth Halford: Head of Research and Intelligence, Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education,

UK; E-mail: [email protected] Stephen Jackson: Associate Director International, Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, UK.3 Anthony McClaran: Chief Executive, Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, UK.

Diversity and Its Discontents: An Examination of How UK Higher

Education is Responding to Diversity, and the Implications for Quality Assurance

Elizabeth Halford1,*, Stephen Jackson2, and Anthony McClaran3

Abstract

This paper considers the nature of diversity within the context of UK higher education as it has expanded from an elite to a mass system. It discusses the challenges (or “discontents”) this presents, from the perspective of different stakeholders; namely higher education providers, students and the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA). Three different and distinct aspects of diversity are discussed, with a particular focus on teaching and learning, in relation to meeting the needs of diverse student cohorts and facilitating a successful transition to higher education.

The paper draws upon recent research in the field of educational development to support a pedagogic approach which promotes independent learning and student engagement, which is complemented by a quality assurance system of institutional review which encourages enhancement of the learning experience. The paper also reflects upon the challenges of diversity associated with widening participation in, and improving access to, higher education, as policies of social justice and national economic competitiveness are pursued.

The paper concludes by identifying four issues central to the future of quality assurance in a system of expanded global higher education:

Keywords: Diversity; Higher Education Policy; Quality Assurance

2　Higher Education Evaluation and Development 9:1 (June 2015)

1. Introduction

This paper considers the various components of diversity in UK higher education and examines the possible implications for the quality of the learning experience and academic standards; namely, what are the inherent challenges in pursuing the policy aspirations of a diverse system of higher education?

The title of this paper refers to a work of the American economist Joseph Stiglitz, Globalization and its Discontents (2002), which in turn, takes its title from the work of Sigmund Freud Civilisation and its Discontents (1930). Both Freud and Stiglitz present the view that individual freedoms are necessarily constrained for the greater good, and this paper pursues the theme that the freedom of higher education institutions (in an increasingly expanded and diverse system) is subject to constraints to assure the quality of the student experience, the maintenance of academic standards and effective public investment. The resulting constraints may give rise to a range of discontents on the part of different stakeholders in higher education.

The question of whether diversity is necessarily a good thing is set against the backdrop of the global expansion of higher education from elite to mass systems. The perceived economic benefits of higher education for society and individuals have promoted an approach to widening participation which has created an expanded and diverse sector.

This diversity of provision must accommodate a responsiveness to the diverse needs of an increasing number of entrants, presenting challenges for higher education providers, students and quality assurance agencies.

1.1 The Context: UK Higher Education and the Role of QAA

The system of higher education in the UK is one which devolves political responsibility to the administrations in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Within this system, universities and bodies with degree awarding powers are autonomous and independent organisations. Devolution has resulted in a consequent divergence of educational policy, between the four countries, particularly in relation to tuition fees. However, the responsibility for regulating higher education throughout the UK is contracted to a single organisation, The Quality Assurance Agency (QAA). This presents challenges for QAA in terms of delivering a coherent, single, national system of quality assurance, while also recognising and respecting policy differences between the four nations.

Halford, Jackson and McClaran: Diversity and Its Discontents: An Examination of How UK Higher Education is Responding to Diversity, and the Implications for Quality Assurance

3

QAA was established in 1997 and is contracted by the funding councils of the four nations within the UK to safeguard the standards of UK higher education, delivered both domestically and internationally. As the system of quality assurance has become established, with the concurrent development of reference points such as the Frameworks for Higher Education Qualifications (FHEQ), Subject Benchmark Statements and the UK Quality Code for Higher Education (Quality Code), the approach has moved from one of assuring the compliance of higher education providers (with published criteria) to promoting sector-wide enhancement (the deliberate steps to facilitate improvement).

The UK higher education is a mass system and in common with other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, it has undergone this shift from an elite system within the last thirty years. According to Trow (cited in Parry, 2003, p. 1) this occurs when student enrolments reach the 15 to 20% level, which UK higher education achieved between 1988 and 1993 (Parry, 2003). This transition was driven primarily by public behaviour (increased student demand) and was not accompanied, to a significant extent, by the changes to structural and institutional systems, usually cited as preconditions for achieving growth. The systemic changes necessary to support the increasing diversity of higher education were developed following the move to a mass system. Significantly, by the 1992 Further and Higher Education Act and the 2011 White Paper Higher Education: Students at the Heart of the System, Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) (June, 2011).

The current participation rate in UK higher education has reached 40.5% of 19 year olds and a total student population of 2.3 million. In September 2014, more than half a million (500,000) students entered UK higher education for the first time, according to data from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS). The government has sought to encourage a more diverse system through its policy to establish “a level playing field” for publicly and privately funded providers of higher education in terms of regulation, and to enable increased student choice supported by improved public information.

An expanding system of higher education raises questions about how it will be funded and regulated, to ensure that standards and the learning experience are maintained across a diverse and differentiated range of provision. In September 2012, the system of funding undergraduate education in England changed to allow higher education providers to determine their own tuition fees (up to a maximum of £9,000 per year). Students are now able to access loans from the


Student Loans Company (SLC) to fund the tuition and maintenance costs of their undergraduate studies. In this system, grant funding from the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) has been retained for the strategically important and vulnerable subjects. Student number controls have been relaxed and will be removed completely from September 2015.

Private providers (known as alternative providers) of higher education are also able to apply for their courses to be designated for student financial support of up to £6,000 per year, enabling them to access public funding from the SLC in the form of tuition fee loans to students.

This paper will now consider three research questions:

• what are the aspects of diversity, within UK higher education?

• how do the prior learning experiences of entrants to higher education influence their experience of transition?

• what are the implications of diversity for teaching, learning and quality assurance?

2. Aspects of Diversity

2.1 Diversity of Student Cohorts

A system of mass higher education is predicated on an expanded student base, resulting from widening participation in, and improved access to, higher education. Consequently, there are increasing numbers of entrants from “non-traditional” backgrounds, with differing expectations. In the UK in September 2014, there was not only an increase in total student numbers but, alongside this rise, there was a growing diversity among the student cohort, presenting challenges for providers to support the needs of different types of students in their transition to higher education. In its End of Cycle Report 2014, UCAS noted the following statistical changes (Universities & Colleges Admissions Service, 2014):

• 4.1% increase in 20-24 year olds entering UK higher education

• 8.6% increase in over 25 year olds

• 6.7% increase in those entering with BTEC (or more vocational) qualifications. Students are now more than 120% more likely to enter higher education with a BTEC qualification than in 2006

• entry rates for disadvantaged groups are also increasing. It is now 60% more


5

likely for these students to enter higher education than in 2006 and 40% more likely to enter higher tariff institutions than three years ago.

2.2 Diversity of Teaching and Learning Strategies

This diversity of students necessitates changing approaches to teaching, learning and assessment, which are now incorporated in higher education provision, and there is a substantial corpus of literature to inform pedagogical developments in higher education. Cross (1996) provides three conditions for excellence in teaching, learning and assessment: high expectations; student participation and involvement; and assessment and feedback. Chickering and Gamson (1987) also contend that good practice in undergraduate education should encourage contacts between students and faculty; develop reciprocity and cooperation among students; and use active learning techniques. This active learning approach is further articulated by Race (2010), who promotes helping students to develop ownership of the need to learn, and deepen their learning by coaching other students and assessing their own, and others, learning.

The provision of timely feedback to learners is recognised as a crucial ingredient of active learning; they need to know what they are trying to accomplish, and how near they are to achieving the goal and Taras (2002) argues that assessment and feedback is the weakest link in this triumvirate of expectations. This is reflected in student satisfaction data from the National Student Survey (NSS), where assessment and feedback consistently results in the lowest score.

Active learning is also dependent upon the development of students as independent learners. Higher education is often distinguished from general and secondary education by its focus on independent learning. According to Candy (1991) independent learning is a method and educational philosophy in which learners take increased responsibility for their learning, and acquire knowledge by themselves, developing the ability to undertake enquiry and critical reflection. This definition places the responsibility for learning in higher education on students, but sees a central role for the curriculum in setting learning objectives and outcomes, and an active role for teaching staff to guide and shape the learning. Another dimension of independent learning is the conception of students as producers of knowledge rather than as mere consumers of knowledge Neary (2014). This concept of students as co-creators of knowledge is reflected in the increased level of student engagement initiatives in UUK higher education.


Recent research commissioned jointly by QAA and the Higher Education Academy (HEA) Effective Practice in the design of independent learning opportunities, Thomas, Jones, and Ottaway (2015) advises that practice should:

• provide suitable independent learning opportunities, which includes clarity and structure, relevance, support, flexibility and inclusiveness, and student monitoring

• develop understanding of learning gain rather than contact hours

• develop student capacity and engagement.

In order to enhance their practice, the study recommends that institutions:

• take an integrated approach to improving directed independent learning (DIL)

• adopt a clear definition of DIL and foster understanding of this among staff, students and other stakeholders

• reflect this in their institutional polices, processes and functions

• ensure that relevant communications provide clarity about what DIL and its benefits

• ensure that learning is delivered flexibly and inclusively to all students supported by a range media

• should not assume that students have all the necessary academic or practical skills to be effective independent learners, on entry and provide appropriate support for transition.

This conception has informed the QAA’s approach to student engagement in quality assurance processes, for example the inclusion of students as full members of review teams, and the expectations of higher education providers in relation to student engagement are articulated in the Quality Code, Chapter B5: Student Engagement, or student effort, is widely recognised as a significant contributory factor in achievement by Schuller et al. (2001). However, Gibbs (2010, 2012) in his work on the Dimensions of quality is explicit in his conclusions that the number of class contact hours has very little to do with educational quality, but rather that the pedagogical model and the quantity and quality of independent study is what determines the value of the educational experience. This notion of a student’s interaction with learning builds upon earlier research about surface and deep approaches to learning by Ramsden (1979).

In European higher education this has been interpreted as “student effort,” while in other countries, including the UK, this has been understood as student


7

engagement in their learning (Trowler, 2010). Action-learning, enquiry-based, problem-based and peer learning are approaches that all aim to involve students in the process of learning, as opposed to a more traditional knowledge transmission model, both within the classroom and independently.

Effective and engaged learning is dependent upon the evolution of an infrastructure to promote the shift from passive learners in a teaching culture, to active participants in a learning culture. This is influenced by an understanding of what constitutes a “quality” learning experience and how this can be determined. In the context of higher education, quality is about providing an environment that creates the potential for students to succeed in their studies. This is essentially a subjective matter, and is more commonly measured in a qualitative rather than a quantitative way, and by a range of factors that include:

• support for individuals’ needs and entitlements

• the quantity, quality and timeliness of feedback on assessed work

• the transparency of assessment criteria

• access to learning spaces and resources such as libraries, laboratories or

• design studios

• the availability of information and communications technology as an aid to learning

• the extent to which the institution takes account of students’ feedback in making

• continual improvements to existing provision.

A range of approaches to learning and teaching is in use across UK higher education. This flexibility and diversity allows providers to:

• be responsive both to individuals and cohorts of students

• take account of the latest developments in educational research and technology

• deliver courses in the most appropriate ways for the subject or area of practice

• accommodate different modes of course delivery using technology enabled learning (Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, 2013).

The increased marketisation of higher education has resulted in the concomitant importance of public information to inform student choice and protect the student interest. The learner must be an active participant in this process, and alerting students to the expectations about mutual responsibilities


for learning should be a function of the published information about each course, leading some higher education providers to review the way in which their curriculum offer is designed and described.

2.3 Diversity of Higher Education Provision

Expansion in higher education in the UK has also been met by an increased diversity of providers, from universities to colleges of further education which offer validated programmes in partnership with degree awarding bodies, or possess their own foundation degree awarding powers. In addition, there has been a notable growth in alternative providers, some of whom are able to access financial support through the UK’s Student Loans Company, if they meet the requirements of QAA’s review process. This diversity of provision is illustrated by HEFCE’s Register of HE Providers and Operating Framework. The Register provides

a directory of higher education providers regulated in England which have one or more of the following features: receive direct public grants for HE, have courses which have been specifically designated by the Government as eligible for the purposes of English student support funding, are higher education institutions (HEIs), have the right to award one or more types of UK degree.

Across all of these provider types, there is a wide range of sizes and missions, subject to different quality assurance arrangements administered by different agencies as shown by the accompanying Operating Framework (Table 1) below.

2.4 Diversity of Contexts

As illustrated by the types of provision listed above, higher education providers now operate across different sectors of UK education. This is frequently described as a binary divide between higher and further (or tertiary) education. Higher education in the UK is commonly defined as level 4 and above and is differentiated from compulsory education (which ends at age 16) and further education, which tends to offer post compulsory education, both vocational and academic to a wide range of students, both full and part-time, in colleges of further education (FECs). The further education sector is frequently seen as most


9

Tabl

e 1.

HE

FCE

Ope

ratin

g Fr

amew

ork

Asp

ect r

evie

wed

Inst

itutio

n ty

pe

Aca

dem

ic q

ualit

y an

d en

hanc

emen

tFi

nanc

ial s

usta

inab

ility

Acc

ess a

nd

parti

cipa

tion

Dis

pute

reso

lutio

nIn

form

atio

n pr

ovis

ion

Deg

ree-

awar

ding

bod

ies n

ot H

EFC

E-fu

nded

No

requ

irem

ents

und

er re

gula

tory

fram

ewor

kM

embe

rshi

p O

IA

requ

ired

No

requ

irem

ents

und

er

regu

lato

ry fr

amew

ork

HE

FCE

-fun

ded

degr

ee-a

war

ding

bo

dies

Hig

her E

duca

tion

Rev

iew

by

QA

A

HEF

CE

annu

al

acco

unta

bilit

y pr

oces

sO

FFA

acc

ess

agre

emen

ts if

fees

ab

ove

£6,0

00 a

yea

r

HES

ES N

SS d

ata

KIS

dat

a H

ESA

dat

a

HEF

CE-

fun

ded

furt

her

educ

atio

n co

llege

sM

onito

ring

by S

kills

Fu

ndin

g A

genc

yN

o re

quire

men

ts u

nder

re

gula

tory

fram

ewor

kH

EIFE

S IL

R d

ata

NSS

da

ta K

IS d

ata

DLH

E

Prov

ider

s w

ith

spec

ific

cou

rse

desi

gnat

ion

Rev

iew

for S

peci

fic

Cou

rse

Des

igna

tion

by

QA

A

Ann

ual m

onito

ring

by

HEF

CE

on b

ehal

f of

BIS

No

requ

irem

ent u

nder

re

gula

tory

fram

ewor

kC

ompl

aint

s pro

cess

re

quire

dH

EAPE

S H

ESA

AP

data

Prov

ider

s w

ith

rene

wab

le d

egre

e aw

ardi

ng p

ower

s (D

AP)

and

with

out

HEF

CE

fund

ing

DA

P re

view

ed b

y Q

AA

eve

ry si

x ye

ars

No

requ

irem

ents

und

er re

gula

tory

fram

ewor

k

Initi

al te

ache

r tra

inin

g pr

ovid

ers

OFS

TED

Nat

iona

l Cen

tre fo

rTe

achi

ng a

nd L

earn

ing

(NC

TL)

Prov

ider

s may

not

ch

arge

in e

xces

s of

£9,0

00 p

er y

ear

No

requ

irem

ents

und

er

regu

lato

ry fr

amew

ork

NC

TL re

turn

s

Prov

ider

s w

itho

ut d

irec

t pu

blic

fu

ndin

g or

deg

ree

awar

ding

pow

ers

No

requ

irem

ents

und

er re

gula

tory

fram

ewor

k

Sour

ce: H

ighe

r Edu

catio

n Fu

ndin

g C

ounc

il fo

r Eng

land

(H

EFC

E, 2

014)

.


appropriate to the development of higher technical or vocational skills, because of effective employer links (at a local level) and an ability to respond quickly to government and labour market initiatives. In the UK, different funding bodies have responsibility for the respective sectors; however, there is much cross-sector provision between further and higher education, which has led to a blurring of boundaries. There is also expanding alternative provision, much of which is well established in specific vocational and professional disciplines.

This diversity of contexts is reflected, to some extent, in HEFCE’s Operating Framework, which illustrates the different quality assurance arrangements in place for different types of provider, based upon the receipt of public funding. However, there is not a simplistic distinction between institutions which are publicly or privately funded. Government policy in England, since 2012, has created a market in which public subsidy for higher education is channelled through a system of loans and grants to institutions charging tuition fees of up to £9,000 per annum (in HEFCE funded providers) administered by the Student Loans Company (SLC) and subject to individual Access agreements with the Office for Fair Access (OFFA), and loans for tuition fees of up to £6,000 per annum for courses designated as eligible for support (in non-HEFCE funded providers). This increasing diversity and differentiation of higher education provision has the twin drivers of the pursuit of economic competitiveness (an aspiration to increase participation in higher education) and social justice (improving access for non-traditional demographic groups). In terms of quality assurance, it has been accompanied by the desire to create a level playing field for all providers and to introduce a system of risk-based quality assurance, which is both proportionate and cost effective.

3. Challenges

So why do these examples of growing diversity matter for the higher education sector and for quality assurance? It is hard to argue against the benefits of widening participation, for example, or offering greater choice for students in how and where they study. Yet there are undeniable challenges, in terms of tensions or “discontents” which have emerged from this diversity.

3.1 The Policy Challenges

In terms of public policy, challenges have emerged from the move towards a more“level playing field” for providers -- including alternative providers -- as


11

set out in the white paper, Students at the Heart of the System (Department for Business, Innovation & Skills [BIS], 2011):

Responding to student demand also means enabling a greater diversity of provision. We expect this to mean more higher education in further education colleges, more variety in modes of learning and wholly new providers delivering innovative forms of higher education.

While the white paper set out a clear policy path to open up the higher education sector, the subsequent legislation which was expected to underpin its regulation (in the form of a new Higher Education Bill) did not materialise and has led to uncertainty and gaps in the regulatory system. During 2014, there were a number of high profile concerns raised in national media about oversight and funding of some alternative higher education providers, which led to an investigation by the UK’s National Audit Office on behalf of the House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts. A report was published in February 2015 which set out a number of recommendations for government action, particularly in the areas of risk management, oversight of the alternative provider sector, protection of public money, safeguarding student interests and teaching quality, and taking action swiftly where required (BIS, 2015).

In parallel, there has also been a recent shift in policy language, moving from references in the 2011 white paper to“lighter touch regulation” and removing“barriers to entry,” to an emphasis on tightening standards and more robust quality assurance processes. At the beginning of 2015, the government’s Department for Business, Innovation & Skills also announced the establishment of a multi-agency rapid response investigatory team, as part of a number of steps to improve standards amongst alternative providers. In future, it is also possible that new indicators for risk monitoring might be introduced, such as attendance, non-completion and achievement rates.

3.2 The Pedagogical Challenges

In terms of pedagogy, implicit within an analysis of the shift from teaching to learning and how quality assurance processes in the UK have responded to this changing dynamic, is a consideration of the implications of moving from an approach where the student is a passive recipient of knowledge, to one where the student is an engaged and active learner, making informed choices about their studies (Halford & Lea, 2014).


To support this informed choice, QAA in consultation with other sector stakeholders has published guidance documents for higher education providers and current and prospective students, to explain four aspects of the learning experience:

• student workload

• class size

• teaching qualifications

• responding to student feedback

These documents are available at: www.qaa.ac.uk/improving-higher-education/research. Accessible, reliable and trustworthy information is necessary to ensure that prospective students understand the nature of the learning experience they can expect on particular programmes from a higher education provider and enables applicants to make informed choices in the light of their career aspirations and preferred learning styles, ensuring that the investment they make will be based on an accurate understanding of what is offered. When publishing such information, providers should refer to Part C of the Quality Code, which addresses how providers make available information that is fit for purpose, accessible and trustworthy. The guidance relates to information about higher education provision that providers publish on their websites and in their promotional material, as distinct from the Key Information Set required by HEFCE, Higher Education Funding Council Wales (HEFCW) and Department for Education and Learning in Northern Ireland (DELNI) (HEFCE, 2011).

Increased diversity of entrants to higher education, with a wide variety of prior educational experiences, has also placed an emphasis on how this transition is supported, particularly in the first year of undergraduate education. In 2011-12, the First Year Student Experience was a thematic element of QAA review, looking at:

• how students were supported during their transition period into higher education

• information provided to first year students

• assessment arrangements and feedback

• monitoring of student progress and retention.

The key findings identified that in the main, the first year student experience had been managed effectively by institutions, with support and information


13

being provided at suitable times during the first year. Arrangements regarding assessment and feedback were usually appropriate and timely.

Transition was supported by the use of structured induction programmes to support students. These tended to include a variety of academic support activities and guidance in relation to assessment offences such as plagiarism. Advice is available on more practical issues such as accommodation and banking. Institutions provide social and pastoral activities to help students adjust to life at their institution.

Tailored support is often provided for specific student groups, including additional support for international students; specific arrangements for students with disabilities; information and guidance tailored specifically for mature students; and additional mentoring and monitoring for students recruited through access schemes.

Information was provided in a variety of forms, using information technology, including the use of memory sticks containing key documents, the institution’s website, intranet and virtual learning environment.

3.3 The Quality Challenges

It is clear, therefore, that this complex diversity presents challenges for many stakeholders in higher education, including institutions, students and quality agencies. For whom the importance of navigating and responding to current and emerging “discontents,” in the context of safeguarding quality and standards amidst continuing higher education diversification and policy changes, is a significant driver.

The importance of designing methods of review, audit or accreditation that are fit for purpose for a wide range of different higher education providers with different missions, purposes and traditions is a necessary and contingent factor of a diverse system of higher education.

This is addressed by the concept of threshold standards and risk-based review. The implementation of risk-based approaches to quality assurance offers a response to managing diversity which is more proportionate, reflecting the levels of perceived risk at different types of institution, based on both retrospective and predictive indicators. In parallel with this, agencies must continue to develop and improve their methods for monitoring and analysing information and data about provision, to ensure they have robust risk indicators and triggers in place.


A revised review methodology in England was introduced in September 2013. This new method, Higher Education Review, applies to all higher education providers and presents the opportunity to reduce the“burden” of bureaucracy on established institutions and provides a more efficient way of managing external review while still fulfilling the objectives of public assurance and accountability. It is an indication of how a single common review framework can be adapted to reflect the different circumstances of individual providers. Its fitness for purpose is illustrated by a lighter touch approach for established institutions and a more challenging review for institutions that are new to the sector and have yet to establish demonstrable quality assurance practices and procedures.

Greater policy changes in relation to sector diversity have occurred concurrently with changes in pedagogy and practice in higher education, as technology-enabled learning is used to promote innovation, for example with massive open online courses (MOOCs). It is also crucial for quality assurance to be able to ensure equity of the learning experience and consistency of threshold standards wherever, and however, higher education is delivered, while also embracing enhancement and recognition of excellence. Ultimately, this must support an equitable student experience, regardless of place or mode of delivery.

4. Conclusions

In summary, this paper poses the view that the shift from teaching to learning, with the concomitant emphasis on active and independent learning by students, has been mirrored by a similar shift in quality assurance processes in the UK, where higher education institutions become more self-reflecting and active participants in review processes.

This approach reflects the expectation that as the quality assurance system in the UK has matured since 1997, institutions will engage with enhancement by taking deliberate steps to improve their performance, and Enhancement is now one of the judgment areas of Higher Education Review (HER), applied to all publicly funded providers and to HER (Plus), the method applied to privately funded providers.

This shift has occurred concurrently (in the UK) with the growth of student numbers and increased tuition fees, combined with a policy imperative to place students at the heart of the higher education system. The resultant mass system of higher education means that student cohorts are more diverse and will have experienced a range of prior educational experiences which can make the


15

transition to higher education a challenge. The expectation that a student will function effectively as an independent learner, is one which needs active support from the institution, throughout the course of study. Becoming a co-producer of learning can create tensions for both students and staff, as the nuanced relationship based upon mutual trust and respect is developed, and both have to engage with notions of the ownership of knowledge and how this is embedded in processes of programme approval and delivery. The following four issues are central to the views articulated in this paper and have a general applicability to quality assurance outside the UK:

• national quality assurance agencies should have a role in promoting a culture of enhancement

• changing approaches to teaching, learning and assessment develop students as independent learners and co-producers of knowledge

• appropriate infrastructures are necessary to support effective and innovative teaching and learning

• transparent and accurate public information should be available to inform student choice.

Future challenges (or discontents) are likely to focus on how these issues are interpreted by quality assurance systems engaging with increasingly diverse higher education providers (public and private) and how the needs of students are met in expanded global higher education.

ReferencesCandy, P. (1991). Self-direction for lifelong learning: A comprehensive guide to

theory and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice

in undergraduate education. American Association of Higher Education Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.

Cross, K. P. (1996). Improving teaching and learning through classroom assess-ment and classroom research. In G. Gibbs (Ed.), Improving student learn-ing: Using research to improve student learning (pp. 3-10). Oxford, UK: Oxford Centre for Staff Development.

Department for Business, Innovation & Skills. (2011). Students at the heart of the system. London, UK: The Stationery Office.

Department for Business, Innovation & Skills. (2015). House of commons writ-ten statement: Higher education. London, UK: The Stationery Office.


Gibbs, G. (2010). Dimensions of quality. York, UK: Higher Education Acad-emy.

Gibbs, G. (2012). Implications of “dimensions of quality” in a market environ-ment. York, UK: Higher Education Academy.

Halford, E., & Lea, J. (2014). Changing education -- QA and the shift from teaching to learning. Retrieved July 7, 2015, from http://eua.be/Libraries/EQAF_2014/Ib_6_Halford_Lea.sflb.ashx

Higher Education Funding Council for England. (2011). Key information set: Publication of technical guidance and further information. Bristol, UK: HEFCE.

Higher Education Funding Council for England. (2014). Operating framework for higher education 2014. Retrieved July 7, 2015, from http://www.hefce.ac.uk/reg/of/

Neary, M. (2014). Student as producer: 2010-2013. Retrieved July 7, 2015, from http://qaa.ac.uk/publications/information-and-guidance/publication?PubID=2843

Parry, G. (2003). Mass higher education and the English: Where in the col-leges? Higher Education Quarterly, 57(4), 308-337.

Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. (2013). Explaining student workload Guidance about providing information for students. Gloucester, UK: Author.

Race, P. (2010). Making learning happen. London, UK: Sage.Ramsden, P. (1979). Student learning and perceptions of the academic environ-

ment. Higher Education, 8(4), 411-427.Schuller, T., Bynner, J., Green, A., Blackwell, L., Hammond, C., Preston, J., et al.

(2001). Modelling and measuring the wider benefits of learning: A synthesis. The wider benefits of learning papers. London, UK: Institute of Education.

Taras, M. (2002). Using assessment for learning and learning from assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(6), 501-510.

Thomas, L., Jones, R., & Ottaway, J. (2015). Effective practice in the design of independent learning opportunities Retrieved July 7, 2015, from http://heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/resources/Effective%20practice%20in%20the%20design%20of%20directed%20independent%20learning%20opportunities.pdf

Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review. York, UK: Higher Education Academy.


17

Universities & Colleges Admissions Service. (2014). UCAS undergraduate 2014 end of cycle report. Retrieved July 7, 2015, from http://ucas.com/corporate/data-and-analysis/analysis-reports

heed9(1)-01ph d halford_20150730

Documents

higher education evaluation

higher education providers

global higher education

higher education qaa

context of uk higher

quality assurance agency

future of quality assurance

challenges of diversity