This Funding Council document was produced as a summary statement of the findings of the last subject assessment round (known as TQA), which took place in 1994-95. Much has happened since then of course (including the foundation of the QAA) and the next round of academic review, as it is now termed, will commence under the new method announced by QAA which incorporates the Subject Benchmark statement. The new method is announced as a ‘lighter touch’ approach, and one involving comparatively less direct observation of teaching. Whereas the 94-95 visits were selective, every institution will be visited in the new system. What follows here is a broad summary of the Subject Overview report, and it is offered as the preamble to the Subject Centre’s engagement with the next round of assessments.
The Subject Centre’s remit is to support teaching and learning developments across the range of activities. Clearly a major priority for English Departments this year will be preparation for Academic Review under the new method, due to commence in 2001. Therefore, we are proposing three events in early 2001 designed to support such preparations, and in order to orientate our approach, I am beginning with a reading of the summary report which, if nothing else, may serve to stimulate reflection and debate. It is important that individual departments go to the original document to construct their own readings of its significance. What is offered here is not a definitive reading, but a guide to the issues that were picked out in the conclusion of the report as being in need of address.
The summary report is generally positive, emphasising the diversity of the subject and its range of curricula catering for a broad constituency of students. The main strengths in the whole provision are summarised as consisting of a vigorous curriculum and enthusiastic students; diversity and choice balanced with clearly focussed aims and coherence; successful widening of access alongside sustaining quality; high retention rates alongside intellectual challenge and academic progression; development of valuable skills alongside knowledge and understanding; excellent staff-student relations.
The report also emphasises that there are areas for improvement, as follows:
Clearer articulation of aims and learning objectives.
More effective quality assurance procedures.
Better integration of IT.
Greater intellectual rigour in classroom practice, and more effective use of small group teaching.
Improved research methods support for postgraduates, and more effective marking and return of work.
Improved library provision.
More careful relation between the stated aims for preparation for employment and specific learning objectives.
Greater participation in staff development programmes for teaching, learning and assessment.
Some of these receive more detailed or fuller treatment in the report (which runs to around seven pages). A brief summary of such amplification follows.
Articulation of Aims and Learning Objectives. Early in the report it is noted that the diversity of English requires its prospective students to be carefully guided by the objectives of each individual programme. It goes on to remark that many departments need to make clearer statements between ‘subject aims, methods of learning, criteria and methods of assessment, and intended learning objectives.’ Later, the report identifies one factor in departments falling short of an excellence rating to be an insufficiently rationalised notion of the course aims, and ‘more specifically, the learning objectives of specific course components’. It points out that such statements should work for the benefit of students and staff. The report also notes strengths in this area, and implies that excellent ratings saw the ‘notable strength’ of ‘the effective match between the student learning experience and the expressed aims and objectives’.
It is clear, therefore, that this issue was of sufficient proportion to give some concern last time round, to the extent that it is mentioned on a number of occasions in the overview report.
More effective quality assurance. About half of those departments visited in 94-95 were deemed to fall short in demonstrating the effective impact of quality assurance processes on the provision. Little amplification on this point is found in the body of the report, although it seems likely that this refers to departments whose evaluation procedures (such as Annual Review) noted concerns which were not subsequently addressed. The report observes that around 50% of quality assessment reports ‘consider library facilities inadequate for the courses they support’, this inadequacy consisting mainly of a shortage of space and texts. A related matter is the report’s observation that the most frequent student complaint was the slow return of marked work.
Better integration of IT. The report does not elaborate on this much beyond the observation that ‘many providers are still not meeting their aims and objectives in this area.’ It also remarks that although IT skills are frequently cited as being acquired in English, they are actually more often ‘in need of development.’
Greater intellectual rigour and effective use of small groups. These two critiques are bound up together in the report, indicating, perhaps, a lack of variation in teaching techniques in seminars or in lengthy teaching sessions. The summary notes early on that ‘greater intellectual rigour’ was needed to push half the providers visited up to an excellent rating, and it links this to a need for more effective teaching, and a consideration of ‘the part played by students in small groups.’ The point is made again later in the report, where student passivity and a lack of opportunity for student contribution are also mentioned, together with the difficulties of handling two- or three-hour teaching blocks.
Postgraduate support/research skills. The report states that postgraduate work is a growing area in English, and that in almost half the visits, improvements are needed in student support, the prompt turnaround of work, and the teaching of research methods. No further details are provided.
Enhancement of Library Provision. While the report sings the praises of excellent provision in some institutions, it states that around half of the provision is inadequate for the courses it supports, and that the most common criticism was the lack of reading spaces and texts. Further, there were concerns that attempts to compensate this deficit by the provision of photocopies engendered other disadvantages. Other means of alleviating pressures (flexible lending, flexible opening hours, focus on supplies of texts meeting stated learning objectives etc) are commended.
Employment and Learning Objectives. The report observes that the listed aims for most English programmes include preparation for employment. It also notes that in practice such skills are not articulated as specific learning objectives. The body of the report gives no further details. It comments, however, that there is commonly an understatement of transferable skills and their latent employment value, and gives examples of the ‘abilities to enquire, to make sound judgements, write clearly and succinctly and meet tight deadlines.’
Staff Development. The report opines that there was insufficient take-up of institutionally-devised programmes of staff development, and notes that this phenomenon frequently coincided with a satisfactory (rather than an excellent) grading. It states that all providers could improve by a broader spread of good practice.
Alongside the summary report colleagues might also like to consider the CCUE Report, The English Curriculum: Diversity and Standards, delivered to the Quality Assurance Agency in 1997.
This academic year, the Subject Centre will organise events to discuss and address these issues, and will include invited speakers qualified to address the new method of Academic Review. Further details of these events will appear in future issues this newsletter.
It is probably also worth noting that the Summary Report’s concern about staff development is a concern addressed by the Funding Councils’ inauguration of the Subject Centre.
Back to top 
Newsletter Issue 1 - May 2001
© English Subject Centre