|
Benchmarking and the New Method for Academic Review
The New Academic Review Process The morning plenary session saw Professor Gus Pennington explain the current situation with respect to the consultation for a revised method for quality assurance (short media clip available). He reminded the audience that 'these are uncertain times', and that whatever the outcome of this consultation, quality assessment will still take place: only the extent and depth of assessment can be influenced by the consultation process. After the presentation and the discussion of many questions from the floor, the participants split into groups to discuss a mock SED from the 'Modern University of Malham'. This SED is used in reviewer training and inspired lively debate. PowerPoint presentation downloadable*, with thanks to Prof. Pennington. Subject Benchmarking Overview Professor Pennington started one of the afternoon sessions by reviewing the reasoning behind benchmarking. Discussion covered the problems associated with Joint Honours degrees, the benefits and pitfalls of benchmarks, and the inclusion of a pedagogical aspect. Benchmarks Both the Bioscience, and the Agriculture, Forestry, Agricultural Science, Food Sciences and Consumer Sciences (AFAFC) Benchmark are undergoing formal consultation at present. Comments must reach QAA by Monday 19th November. The York meeting offered an opportunity to discuss the draft documents, raise issues of concern and gain an insight into the thinking behind the documents with members of the benchmarking groups. Dr Simon van Heyningen, Chair of the Bioscience Benchmarking Group, and Dr Martin Luck from the AFAFC Benchmarking Group, chaired these sessions. PowerPoint presentations available for the Bioscience Benchmark* and the AFAFC Benchmark*, with thanks to Dr van Heyningen and Dr Luck. Conclusions Feedback from the sessions indicates that the most valuable aspect of the day for many participants was the chance to discuss issues with colleagues. It was suggested that a forum to share information about how departments are dealing with benchmarks and the new method for academic review would be useful. Another aspect is that the review process is intended to be a co-operative venture between departments and reviewers with the aim of enhancing the quality of provision. Could LTSN Bioscience play a role in supporting such actions? We would like to hear your views on how this might best be achieved. * Copyright over these items sits with the author. Any person wishing to use these presentations for any purpose must first approach the author via LTSN Bioscience.
|
