DIRECTORATE: STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT

1. DIRECTORATE: STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT A FRAMEWORK FOR QUALIFICATION STANDARDS IN HIGHER EDUCATION Quality Assurance Forum August-September 2011 “The very concept of standards is riddled with ambiguity” (Becher, 1997)

2. The current situation Conceptualization • Analysis and evaluation of previous CHE research (2006-2009) • Analysis and evaluation of international trends • Draft ‘Framework for Qualification Standards in Higher Education’ • Discussion and review • CHE Senior Management, April 2011 • HEQC Board Workshop, July 2011 • Ad hoc Standards Reference Group, August 2011

3. Critical questions What do qualification standards wish to achieve, and for whose benefit? Will the development of standards justify the costs, in terms of human and financial investment? Will the exercise have long-term sustainability? How will the benefits be assessed (by the state, the HEI sector, institutions, academics, students, society at large)? Can standards generation serve as an academic stimulus for institutions, rather than an exercise in compliance?

4. More questions How will national standards recognize and accommodate institutional autonomy, and accountability? Can qualification standards accommodate institutional and contextual diversity? And accommodate field/disciplinary identity, authority and expertise (institutional systems of QA, e.g., external examination)? And allow for innovation, and inter-disciplinary initiatives? And find a balance between durability (for long-term planning) and flexibility (to accommodate new academic developments)?

5. And a further question How should qualification standards be distinguished from: Institutional standards (capacity to offer qualifications) Content (curriculum) standards Performance (achievement) standards, e.g., individual student achievement (grading) student cohort achievement (throughput rates) market-place achievement (employment rates) teaching and learning standards research and publication standards Professional body requirements for designation?

6. What standards might do(in vacuo)

7. What should standards AIM to do? • Provide a framework for consistent, coherent development of qualifications • Clarify the meaning, purpose and distinctiveness of qualification types • Guide accreditation and recognition of programmes within the context of qualification types (what a degree is; what it is not) • Provide broad guidelines for graduate/diplomate attributes

8. What should standards AIM to do? Contribute to quality assurance of programmes, within and between institutions (Global context): establish benchmarks for international comparability Strengthen public confidence in the value and credibility of qualifications Establish qualification benchmarks for institutional self-accreditation .

9. What standards CANNOT do • Form the basis for external rankings of institutions or their programmes • Enforce any particular educational philosophy, pedagogical model or assessment regime • Resolve all issues surrounding the academic quality of programmes • Dictate the design of programmes (other than relations between purpose, characteristics and outcomes) • Provide a template for programme design • Guarantee the transferability of credits from one qualification (or institution) to another • Establish a platform for addressing extraneous institutional issues.

10. The concept of qualification ‘pathways’ International trends: • Different approaches to the trade/ occupational/ vocational/ professional/ general qualification spectrum. Recommended: three ‘pathways’: • trade/occupational/vocational qualifications; • professional qualifications; • general (formative) qualifications. (Alternative terms: ‘streams’, ‘routes’, ‘tracks’, ‘orientation’).

11. Qualification ‘pathways’ Organizing basis Contextual emphasisConceptual emphasis Proposed ‘pathways’ VocationalProfessionalGeneral/Formative Learning outcome domains Applied competence Skill Knowledge

12. Proposed ‘pathways’

13. Qualifications and ‘pathways’

14. What ‘standard’ of standards? • A ‘threshold’ standards model Qualification A (best practice: unacknowledged) Qualification B (typical: unacknowledged) Qualification B (threshold) NQF level n Qualification C (below standard) A ‘typical’ standards model Qualification A (best practice: unacknowledged) Qualification B (typical) Qualification C (threshold) NQF level n Qualification D (below standard)

15. What ‘standard’ of standards? A ‘range of standards’ model Qualification A (best practice) (Guidance) Qualification B (typical) NQF level n Qualification C (threshold)

16. How will standards link with other CHE activities? National reviews • Standards serve as guide to programme criteria Institutional reviews • Standards are the benchmark for institutional quality assurance, programme design, student achievement, etc. Accreditation • Standards guide accreditation minimum standards as they are applied to specific qualification types

17. Proposed approach to standards • Function is distinct from NQF level descriptors, HEQF specification, accreditation minimum criteria, etc. • Optimal institutional autonomy (programme design, delivery, assessment) • Strong influence of field/disciplinary expertise: must be accompanied by strong systems for external examination • ‘Development’ emphasized over ‘generation’ and ‘setting’ • Approach that is transparent, legitimate, applicable to the nature and purpose of HE, adaptable to academic innovation

18. A model for qualification standards

19. How will this affect HEIs? • A programme is linked to a qualification and its standards. • A qualification is linked to a pathway. • The mission and goals of a HEI are linked to one or more pathways, and to all or some qualification levels and types. • Each qualification must, minimally, achieve threshold standards. • The HEI assesses its capacity to enhance threshold standards to “typical” or to “aspirational (best practice)” levels. • Institutional and national programme reviews assess HEI capacity to enhance standards, and progress in doing so. • A “hierarchy” of practice becomes intra-institutional rather than inter-institutional.

20. How many layers in the ‘nested approach’ should CHE standards address? • Qualification types • Qualification types and ‘pathways’ Initial phase • Generic standards: qualification types and variants simultaneous with • Specific standards: selected fields (designator – or/and, where appropriate, qualifier) • All qualification types, descriptors, ‘pathways’ and designators • All qualification types, descriptors, ‘pathways’, designators and first and second qualifiers

21. Qualification types and variants

22. Selected fields: sources • Request from the Minister • Field selected for HEQF National Review • Recently modified, or currently modifying, field • Request from a representative party in higher education (e.g., forum of VCs/DVCs; Deans) • Request from an authorized professional body • Selection by CHE (e.g., arising from other HEQC QA activities)

23. Outstanding issues • Relations with QCTO; effect on NQF 5-6 standards • Reconciling the pace of standards development with expectations of the HE sector • Aligning standards development with existing field/disciplinary peer review procedures • Developing a ‘range of standards’ model (benchmark, typical, enhanced standard-levels) while avoiding a real or implied (external) institutional ranking system • Aligning standards development with both CHE and field/disciplinary peer capacity

24. Proposedstages (1) • Draft Framework to HEQC Board for comment • Draft Framework to CHE for approval • Approved Framework to HE sector for comment • Review of Framework by CHE (in the light of HE sector comments), and formal publication • Formation of representative Standards Reference Group

25. Proposedstages (2) • A model for generic qualification type and variant standards development • A model for specific field/discipline standards development • Selection of pilot-phase fields/disciplines for standards development • Communiqué to HE sector: pilot-phase fields/disciplines, methods and procedures • Promoting the cause: workshops/conference on qualification standards

26. Proposed stages (3) Establishment of select expert peer groups, for a) generic and b) specific standards development Selected draft qualification standards for public comment Standards Reference Group evaluates public comments, and advises CHE CHE determines roll-out: methods, scale and timelines.