Overview of subject review

The new methodology is based on a six year cycle, during which subject review is intended “to continuously update the picture that the Agency has of the institution”.

The QAA argues that the new method will be more efficient and occupy less institutional resource; this is referred to as a ‘lighter touch’. The intensity of scrutiny will be variable and, in theory, in inverse proportion to success; that is, where the Agency has confidence in an institution’s ability to assure quality and standards, the intensity of scrutiny will be less.

This ‘lighter touch’ will, it is argued by the QAA, be achieved through the following changes:

• it will be possible for institutions to negotiate the timing and aggregation of subject reviews with the Agency so that subject review can be coordinated with internal review and professional body accreditation timetables
• review patterns will no longer be concentrated in four-day visits, but spread over a longer period to reduce the amounts of information prepared specifically for review. Thus instead of a base room, departments/schools will provide documents as and when requested (although many feel there may still be a need for a ‘shadow’ – or perhaps even virtual – base room containing the range of documents which might be called for).
• for each subject review three main factors will determine the intensity of scrutiny: the institutional review report (or the institutional profile), the previous subject report and the self-evaluation document. The evidence from Scotland, where the new method commenced in 2001, is that the quality and self-criticality of the self-evaluation document is a key factor in securing a lighter touch.

Assuming that some form of sampling of subjects is introduced then, although this will obviously represent a lightening of the load, you can expect that there will still be debate about the intensity of scrutiny to ensure the lightest possible touch in each area.

It is also possible that the QAA may regard the introduction of sampling as representing a lighter touch in itself, and therefore opt for a standard intensity of scrutiny for every department/school visited.

The value of subject review

The process of preparing for subject review represents a valuable opportunity for a rigorous self-appraisal of the quality of the learning experience departments/schools provide for their students and to identify areas where improvements are needed.

The preparation of a self-evaluation document and addressing the range of documentary evidence that may be required enables departments/schools to clarify and systematise procedures in a way that will be of long-term benefit.

The process of self-evaluation can bring significant benefits in terms of course development, quality enhancement and improvements in delivery of long-term value to staff and students.

The subjects nationally that have achieved the highest grades are those where staff have enthusiastically engaged with the opportunity presented by subject review to improve the quality of learning and teaching.

This second round of reviews gives departments/schools the opportunity to reflect on progress made since their previous visit and to highlight evidence of success in relation to recommendations made in the published report.

Why you need to achieve the best possible results

You should be aiming for the highest grades for a number of reasons:

• an opportunity to shine – high ratings confirm the high quality of education which you know is offered by your department/school. A good result provides external validation of the quality of taught courses, the ability of staff and the support you provide for your students.
• market advantage – in an increasingly competitive market with ever more discerning consumers, the marketing advantage of high gradings becomes more critical (especially in overseas markets). League tables (no matter how critical we are of their methodologies or how distasteful we find them in principle) will continue to appear and command national interest subject review gradings will continue to form a major component in determining institutional rankings in such tables.
• self-evaluation – the process of self-evaluation prior to a review visit is useful in itself, and can bring significant benefits in terms of course development, quality enhancement and improvements in teaching of longer term value to staff and students
• funding link – it is still possible that more teaching funding will flow to units with high subject review grades. HEFCE’s Fund for the Development of Teaching and Learning currently favours bids from those with high ratings. High grades will continue to be a pre-condition for some types of additional funding.

Subject review reports and subject overview reports are distributed widely. Each subject report, for example, is made available in hard copy to some 7,500 destinations, including all secondary schools, sixth form colleges, further education colleges, careers services and main public libraries, as well as all higher education institutions and the press across the UK.

Success factors

There are a few factors that are significant in contributing towards success in subject review:

• a positive attitude to the process – seeing subject review as an opportunity rather than a threat
• an active, enthusiastic, well-organised and respected subject review coordinator in the department/school
• ownership of the self-evaluation by the whole subject team
• taking fullest advantage of the support and advice provided by staff in your central quality office and subject review veterans from other departments/schools in your institution
• willingness to learn from the experience of previous visits, at your own institution and elsewhere
• maintaining effective liaison with your central services (including the library, careers service, computing/IT services and central counselling)
• having a member of the subject team who has been trained as a subject reviewer by QAA
• being fully aware of students’ perceptions of the subject
• detailed checking of materials provided for reviewers (especially samples of student work) and materials available on the Web
• correct operation of your institution’s quality assurance procedures
• thorough documentation of departmental level quality assurance procedures
• preparation, preparation, preparation…

Support

The central quality team in your institution should be able to provide a range of materials and events to support departments/schools preparing for, during and after subject review visits.

Areas in which you may particularly need assistance might include:

• briefings on the subject review methodology
• arrangements for the timing of the visit
• sessions on preparing the self-evaluation document
• critical external advice on drafting the self-evaluation document
• dealing with benchmark statements on standards, the code of practice, course specifications and the national qualifications framework
• guidance on supporting documentation
• preparing for observation of teaching

Your central team is likely to have considerable experience of preparing for subject review and ought to be a valuable source of assistance. They will also be able to provide you with definitive information on the latest position in terms of the implementation of the new QAA framework.

Last Modified: 30 June 2010