The Future of Higher Education

Written evidence from the Higher Education Academy

About the Higher Education Academy

1.1 The Higher Education Academy (HEA) is an independent organisation owned by Universities UK and GuildHE.

1.2 The HEA’s mission is to support the higher education sector in providing the best possible learning experience for all students. It has strong links into the higher education sector including through the provision of events and extensive collaborative work with universities and academics on a range of projects. It has extensive networks and programmes of support in the discipline areas served by Subject Centres, and a growing community of Associates and Fellows.

1.3 The HEA is the leading agency working with higher education institutions across the UK to enhance the student learning experience. It has recently revised its focus and developed an approach to working with HEIs on teacher excellence, the development of academic practice and institutional strategy. It has a distinctive role in supporting the sector on quality enhancement on all matters relating to the student learning experience including, but not limited to, addressing issues that are identified in institutional audit.

1.4 The HEA:

· provides national leadership in developing and disseminating evidence-informed practice about enhancing the student learning experience.

· operates as an independent broker, enabling expertise to be shared across institutions and subject areas.

· works at multiple levels, with individual academics, subject communities, departments, faculties and institutions.

· works across all parts of the UK, recognising the distinctive policy contexts and priorities of the devolved administrations but also providing opportunities to share expertise among them.

1.5 The HEA is currently undergoing change in response to a reduction in funding and changes in the higher education sector. It is moving to a single management structure, away from a model of grant funding separate Subject Centres. This will free up a greater proportion of resource to provide direct support for academics and institutions in their delivery of learning and teaching. The HEA has taken an opportunity to refocus and align its work to meet the requirements of the sector, including reflecting student and staff profiles and needs in particular discipline areas. The related discussions with the sector have informed views on many of the issues addressed in this paper.

1.6 The HEA does not have a specific remit around funding of higher education. This evidence does not therefore address the second part of the Select Committee’s remit, the role and future of state funding of higher education in any detail, beyond making brief commentary on the Browne review.

1.7 The main recommendations in the HEA’s evidence to the Select Committee are:

· The HEA would welcome clear statements from government on the importance of teaching in higher education.

· The HEA does however caution against taking a prescriptive approach to the training and qualification of staff. HEIs have developed their own provision. The HEA is in a strong position to support HEIs in supporting the initial training and continuing professional development of their teaching staff.

· A strong emphasis on quality enhancement is valuable to the sector.

The Browne review

2.1 The HEA submitted written and oral evidence to the Browne review.

2.2. The HEA’s broad contention was that any funding regime should:

· Continue to encourage participation and ensure any future funding burden does not deter suitable applicants from entering higher education.

· Enable the UK to remain internationally competitive in the global higher education market.

· Maintain the quality of the student learning experience and the diversity, integrity and reputation of the UK higher education system.

· Ensure the higher education system is sustainable in the long term.

2.3. The HEA’s role is to support institutions to enhance the quality of the student learning experience and encourage all staff who teach to engage in learning and teaching related continuing professional development. It is committed to the view that student learning benefits when academic staff who teach engage in continuing professional development or complete an appropriate teaching qualification. It is highly desirable that all academic staff who teach are trained and the HEA works with the sector to provide ways of achieving this ambition.

2.4 Many institutions are taking major steps in this direction. The HEA already accredits 378 programmes in 140 institutions. This is a voluntary process. The HEA neither has nor seeks a regulatory role and does not seek implementation of recommendations from the Browne review that HEA accreditation become mandatory.

2.5 The HEA has recently undertaken a review of the UK Professional Standards Framework (UKPSF). This is a sector-owned framework that the HEA manages on behalf of the sector. It is a descriptor-based framework against which institutions can develop training and development programmes for staff who teach in higher education. It is an important tool for supporting staff development and the development of teaching expertise. The HEA has a role in ensuring that the UKPSF continues to meet this need.

2.6 A detailed analysis of the results of the review is currently being undertaken with a preliminary report due in the spring. The HEA anticipates that a final report on the consultation and any subsequent revision to the Framework will be available to the sector before the start of the new academic year 2011-12. Preliminary results from the consultation show that:

· The sector welcomed the review and the aim of further developing the Framework to ensure it remains fit for purpose in the current and emerging landscape of higher education.

· There is broad agreement about the need to acknowledge that academics have multi-faceted roles which would benefit from being made explicit in the Framework.

· A number of institutions emphasise the need for the Framework to ensure that learning support staff needs are served appropriately.

· Whilst there was broad general support for the principle that those who teach in higher education should be appropriately qualified, a number of questions were raised about how this should best work in practice. There was also concern that any further developments need to take full account of mission differences, diversity of provision and institutional autonomy.

· There was general support for the potential value of objective teaching-related indicators as a potential support for institutional promotion, reward and recognition purposes. There was also confirmation from a number of respondents that institutional discretion and determination must be acknowledged as central in such matters.

· A majority of respondents agree, in principle, with the publication of anonymised information about teaching qualifications although queries were also raised about the potential for unintended outcomes. Identified benefits included the adoption of greater transparency in line with other national developments; the impact of higher fees on student expectations about teaching qualifications; its potential as an incentive for the internal take-up of training; its support for raising the profile of teaching; and the potential for internal benchmarking. Reservations identified included concerns over additions to workloads in gathering data within/across institutions and the potential impact in terms of the development of league tables.

White Paper

3.1 The HEA would welcome clear statements from government on the importance of teaching in higher education. It does however caution against taking a prescriptive approach.

3.2 The HEFCE/GuildHE/UUK consultation on public information about higher education proposes the publication of a Key Information Set (KIS) which would combine existing information regarding quality of provision in one place in order to inform student choice. The Browne review also recommended better information regarding teaching quality to drive up student demand.

3.3 There is current debate on requiring institutions to report on numbers of teaching-active staff who have a qualification accredited against the UKPSF. Given that the sector has to date both voluntarily engaged with the UKPSF to a considerable degree and voluntarily applied for HEA accreditation for their PG Certificates, this approach is likely to have greater acceptance than requiring that new staff complete a compulsory PG Certificate. The HEA is keen to work with other sector agencies, including funding bodies and the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) in order to develop greater transparency of information around learning and teaching. It believes that information reflecting the professionalisation of teaching could be included in public information. It is of potential value to students making choices about where to study as an indicator of the quality and teaching they might experience.

3.4 The HEA is well-placed to promote dialogue within the sector around the quality of the learning, teaching and assessment methods provided. Research undertaken by Graham Gibbs, Dimensions of Quality, on behalf of the HEA, identifies a number of quality indicators that can be beneficial to the sector. Professor Gibbs’ full report is available on the HEA website (reference 1)

Widening access

4.1 Institutions can be encouraged and supported to develop and embed inclusive policies and practices to enhance the learning experiences of students from under-represented groups. It is not simply a question of access to higher education but to ensuring the retention and success of those students.

4.2 The HEA runs a number of institutional change programmes that work intensively with HEIs on different issues. One such programme, in 2007-08, focused on ‘Developing and Embedding Inclusive Policy and Practice in Higher Education’. This involved ten higher education institutional teams. It offered a framework to facilitate and support HEIs in this aim. Over the course of the programme, the HEA conducted research to explore the institutional teams’ experience of implementing inclusive policy and practice (May and Bridger; 2010, reference 2). Key emerging conclusions were as follows:

· That change is required at both an institutional and individual level to bring about inclusive policy and practice

· That it is essential to build an evidence base from which to bring about change

· That a multi-method, tailored approach is necessary involving different stakeholder groups across the institution.

4.3 From 2005 the HEFCE Strategic Development Fund supported a series of Flexible Learning Pathfinder (FLP) pilots, in response to the 2003 White Paper ‘The Future of Higher Education’, which expressed the need for more flexible higher education programmes suitable for a more diverse student body. The HEA’s review of the final and interim reports of the pilots suggests that: ‘there are constituencies of students for whom flexible learning provision is more desirable than ‘traditional’ course provision. Typically, this provision enables learners to progress more quickly through vocational routes or to undertake higher education study at the same time as working, and also to engage new types of learner with higher education study’. (Reference 3)

Flexible learning is now more meaningful to learners and programme providers due to a greater diversity of students and their expectations, and the possibilities opened up by new learning technologies.

4.4 The Flexible Learning Pathfinder pilots have endorsed the findings of earlier evaluations that there is support for flexible learning development from employers and professional bodies. The projects have also demonstrated the necessity of careful market research and marketing of flexible learning provision to increase awareness and understanding amongst learners and providers, and the importance of locating flexible learning development within wider institutional strategic developments.

4.5 At present, the UK is a popular destination for international students, an outcome which is driven by choice of university and reputation rather than simple choice of country. It is therefore critical that this quality of provision is maintained. International students have diverse learning needs. It is also important that teaching methods benefit all students (including UK-domiciled students enrolled in programmes alongside international students).

4.6 The HEA is addressing these issues through its joint initiative with the United Kingdom Council for International Student Affairs (UKCISA) on the Teaching International Students project. This is a two-year project that focuses on the ways that lecturers and other teaching staff can maintain and improve the quality of teaching and learning for international students. This is done through providing guidance and information about how to meet the diverse learning needs of international students.

10 March 2011

References

1. Dimensions of Quality, Professor Graham Gibbs, Higher Education Academy September 2010, http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/ourwork/evidence_informed_practice/Dimensions_of_Quality

2. Developing and Embedding Inclusive Policy and Practice in Higher Education, May and Bridger, Higher Education Academy, January 2010 http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/ourwork/inclusion/DevelopingEmbeddingInclusive_SummaryandReport

3. Flexible Learning Pathfinders: A review of the pilots’ final and interim reports. Higher Education Academy March 2009 http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/Flexible_learning_pathfinders_a_review