QAA is "conducting a short consultation" on a paper under the title "Graded
Profiles and League Tables", which it is "minded to publish by way of
guidance
to interpreting graded [Subject Review and HEFCE Quality Assessment]
profiles", "for general readers of the reports, included [sic] school and
career
services... [and] journalists to make more accurate use of the data". The
paper
"commends" "single number" weighted score on a new scale of 0 to 6 (see
below).
The paper will give sustenance to detractors of the QAA, of Subject Review
(TQA) and of universitiy provision, its quality and standards.
The paper is overwritten and repetitious. "What does TQA measure?"
(pp. 1-2 ) is especially prolix. The examplification of aims and objectives
(rather than succinct descriptors from the Subject Review Handbook) is
confusing and wasteful when there is so much to communicate quickly. So
are the later "examples", under "Does a Number Tell the Whole Story?"
(pp. 3-4), of "one programme" (sic) and "a mathematics department" (sic).
(I write "sic" because provision - "learning opportunities" in a "unit of
assessment" - is what is reviewed not an individual programme or
department.)
In part because of the overwriting, the paper will not have the allegedly
desired effect, and the new "conversion table", which will facilitate new
"league tables" will have (presumably?) unintended consequences.
QAA should say up front what makes "translations" of graded profiles into
"single numbers" suspect. But how can it do that when it goes on to
"commend"
an ex post facto "conversion table" for Subject Review profile scores (p.5:
"A
Single Number"). This will have a deleterious ("gaming") effect on future
Subject Reviews. The degredation of "the second three aspects" (SSG, LR,
QME) will not go unnoticed. Nor will the fact that the Quality Assurance
Agency considers that what is "concerned with the securing of the
programme",
that is, its "quality assurance", as of less importance than "fundamental
issues" of
design, measuring and progression (the first three aspects: CDCO, TLA, SPA).
That might just be acceptable for a validating body, but for QAA?
One would like to see a system breakdown of scores given to date in the
"first three" and "second three" aspects. Which institutions will gain/lose
from
the weighted priority given to the former?
This is what is the QAA paper "commends":
4 in all aspects: 6
three 4s in first half (first three aspects), nothing below 3 in second half
(second three aspects): 5
two 4s and a 3 in first half, nothing below 3 in second half: 4
nothing below 3: 3
any 2 in second half: 2
any 2 in first half: 1
two 2s in first half: 0
three or more 2s: 0
any 1: 0
Numbering consecutively by "Aspect" from CDCO to QME,
444 443 (unweighted aggregate 23) would equate to 444 333 (21) - both
gaining a (weighted) "single number" score of 5
333 333 (18) equates to 334 444 (22) - both gaining a single number score of
3
and
444333 (21) gets the new score of 5; 443 333 (20) gains a single number
score of 4; and 334 444 (22) gains the single number score of 3.
It's very disappointing that the Board is "minded to publish" but perhaps it
could agree not to publish THIS paper.
I need to say that these are my views and do not necessarily reflect those
of my institution.
Arnold
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Professor Arnold Goldman, Director of Quality Enhancement
University of Kent at Canterbury tel: +44 (0)1227 764000
Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NZ, UK fax: +44 (0)1227 827192
direct line: +44 (0)1227 827778
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|