Programme Design and Accreditation: Ensuring Coherence and Intellectual Credibility

1. QA Forum - Private Providers Programme Design March 2012

2. Programme Design and Accreditation • Most fundamental aspect of accreditation is programme design – Criterion 1 “The programme is consonant with the institution’s mission, forms part of institutional planning and resource allocation, meets national requirements, the needs of students and other stakeholders, and is intellectually credible. It is designed coherently and articulates well with other relevant programmes, where possible.”

3. Intellectual credibility? • Subjective? Yes and no. • “curriculum evaluation refers to the process or processes used to weigh the relevant merits of those educational alternatives which, at any given time, are deemed to fall within the domain of curriculum practice” (Hamilton, 1976, p.4) • Recognises that curriculum evaluation is changing with changes in context. • Object of curriculum evaluation is changing with changes in knowledge • Evaluation implies human judgement (one person’s technology is another’s archaeology).

4. However… • Guidelines (criteria) that indicate what is privileged in this evaluation – (coherence) • Spell out requirements – (integrated into the mission of the institution, needs articulation etc…) • Levels in background… • Context-relevant – meet needs etc.

5. Coherence • Used to privilege content – syllabus, topics what stuff someone would learn. Implicit understanding of knowledge as determined, some more important than others – canon. • 90s – competence model – outcomes precise, observable, on what someone could do, separate items of ability

6. Critique • Fragmentation of knowledge • “A cyclist never learns separately to incline the body, to turn the wheel, to press the pedals, and to judge the fall of the bike from the vertical; all this happens in a coordinated whole… the elements of skill are not recognisable or separable from the complex whole.”(Ashworth & Saxton, 1990, p.12) • Lack of concern for context and individual psychologies • Skills are transferable across contexts… what about theory?

7. Effective performance specified in a unit standard and is independent of the site of learning… • The privileging of stand-alone units of knowledge over a clearly defined curriculum and specific institutional location has the following problems: • diminishes the importance of knowledge progression • atomised assessment • assumes assessment is technical

8. Higher Education • Has to be more than a training paradigm – knowledge is still sexy • Privilege design and coherence – knowledge progression • Foreground purpose (what are you trying to do?) • Design (how does your programme architecture speak to that purpose) • Strategy (how will you make this happen?)

9. Problems in Criterion 1 • Fragmentation – smorgasbord of tiny modules • No space for depth in a module • Lack of knowledge progression • Can’t see link between stuff and purpose • Modules not relating to each other • Credit counts wrong… contradictions… arbitrary

10. Problems contd • Inappropriate animal chosen • Level of complexity not appropriate • Assessment level 5 – evaluate and assimilate level 9 – describe and identify…. • Knowledge Introduction to economics in a commerce-related postgrad qualification

11. Problems contd • Skewness – content not fitting name e.g. Fashion or fashion design? Fine Art or Art History? • Design in relation to mode… and resources… and strategy. • Not all bits cohere – purpose, design, assessment, experiential learning, resources etc.

12. Links • Criterion 1 with resources. Matters who is teaching it – whether there’s a reasonable chance of the purpose being achieved. • Integration of technology and library resources. How built into curriculum? • Support etc.

13. Conclusion • Appropriate knowledge, wholeness and coherence, underpinnings of some theory (why, purpose, clear rationale), related to context, resources and strategy. • Primary identity is higher education – think, reflect, critique, problem-solve, analyse, evaluate. Bring judgement to bear. Know what, how and why – theoretical underpinnings crucial.