Do you agree with the description of
accreditation as the process of approval of a programme or pathway by which an individual
can gain registration as a member of the Institute for Learning and Teaching
Yes. This seems to define an effective and
efficient route to the establishment of a national system for accreditation
Should the accreditation scheme focus on
broad outcomes, underpinning knowledge and professional values
Yes, for the reasons stated in
response to question a.
Should a definition be offered of a
threshold level of academic study (e.g. Masters) and a minimum number of credits?
Yes. Thresholds could relate to all
levels of post-graduate study - Certificate, Diploma, Masters. Credits should be
transferable from other appropriate professional accreditation schemes.
Should the outcomes be framed in terms
of occupational competence and standards?
Yes. The outcomes should be framed in
such away as to encompass the full range of competences and standards required for the
creation and maintenance of effective teaching and learning environments.
Do you agree with the proposal that
there should be two stages to Associate Membership of the Institute
We recognise and support the case for
two Parts for Associate Membership. However, the danger that Part One is seen as both the
beginning and the end of progression for staff who are not mainstream lecturers should be
recognised. A two-tier system in which Part Two is for mainstream lecturers and Part One
is for others is not appropriate at a time when the centre ground of teaching and
learning, the curriculum, is increasingly receiving contributions from a range of staff,
including librarians, who are not mainstream lecturers.
Please comment on the suggested national
statement which is expressed in terms of broad outcomes, underpinning knowledge and
professional values.
The underpinning knowledge should not
necessarily be concerned with a curriculum subject. Underpinning knowledge could equally
relate to non subject-specific areas in teaching and learning such as learning resources,
learning methods, research methods, and information management and appreciation. The
emphasis in the Key Principles on "effective subject-specific practice"
and the all-pervasive ethos of classroom and discipline-based activity should be reviewed.
We have assumed that it would be
necessary for candidates to achieve all of the outcomes illustrated. Do you agree? Are
there others that should be added?
Achievement of all outcomes, as
currently expressed, may be overly prescriptive in relation to institutional ownership of
and responsibility for programmes and approaches. The outcomes assume a classroom learning
environment and a subject discipline. The outcomes should be reviewed and re-cast for
greater flexibility.
In developing our views on the
accreditation and quality assurance of programmes and pathways, we have favoured an
approach which integrates with an institution’s own internal review process. Do you
Agree?
Yes. It is in the interests of both
institutional ownership, and of efficiency, to integrate with existing institutional
processes. Accreditation must ultimately relate to individual institutional missions and
learning strategies.
Is the approach to accrediting a wide
range of programmes and pathways, including AP(E)L, practicable?
Yes, we believe this is practicable
Will this give sufficient scope for
institutions to develop their own solutions for meeting the national statement in their
own way?
It should, but there is a need to
recast the outcomes for greater flexibility as stated in the response to question d.
Our proposals are based on institutional
autonomy in the provision of programmes and pathways. Do you support this?
Yes, this is essential for real
ownership and integration. Accreditation must sit within the frame of individual
institutional missions and learning strategies.
Should more emphasis be placed on
collaborative approaches by consortia of institutions?
Institutions should certainly be
encouraged to enter into voluntary consortia based on commonality of approach and mission.
Such collaboration would serve the interests of sharing good practice, and of
cost-effectiveness. Where collaboration is undertaken on this basis, it complements rather
than conflicts with institutional autonomy.
What approach should be adopted to meet
the resource needs of institutions and the Institute for Learning and Teaching in
developing the scheme?
The fundamental issues in
accreditation are those of quality and standards. Government and the Funding Councils will
need to express their commitment by making resources available both for the establishment
and maintenance the Institute, and for the establishment of institutional accreditation
programmes. Institutions should be in a position to resource the continued maintenance and
development of programmes, once established, from their existing staff development
resources. A degree of collaboration may contribute to cost-effective use of resources.
Should successful completion of Part Two
Associate membership be a condition for successful completion of probation?
Accreditation should be seen as
fundamental to occupational competence in teaching and learning.
Should membership of the Institute be an
entirely voluntary matter for existing staff?
No. There is a need for HE to
demonstrate full commitment to quality and standards in teaching and learning. All staff
engaged in teaching and learning should follow a pathway to membership, using portfolios
and AP(E)L when appropriate.
Please add any other comments
1. The Foreword indicates that the
Terms of Reference requested a focus on the teaching function and yet the Terms of
Reference (as set out in 1.2.1) refer to "the needs of staff engaged wholly or partly
in the delivery of teaching and learning". This suggests that a definition of
‘Teaching and Learning’ would be helpful, perhaps to contrast with the
definition of ‘Academic practice’ (1.7).
2. There is a tendency to assume a
subject-specific teaching context or discipline which might be seen to preclude the wide
range of generic skills that form part of student learning and to which some parts of the
curriculum are specifically dedicated e.g. Effective Learning; Information skill modules;
Research methods. These skills may need to be clearly accepted as ‘subjects’ in
which case the Key Principles (C.2.1) will need to be reviewed or re-defined in respect of
"effective subject-specific practice".
3. There is also a tendency to refer to
‘classroom practice’, when much independent (but directed) learning takes place
outside the classroom, particularly in Learning Resources Centres. The NCIHE report (8.12)
notes that: "the pattern of learning has been changing, with an increased proportion
of time spent outside the classroom in independent study".
4. There needs to be consideration of the
growing number of ‘teachers’ who are engaged in teaching and learning activities
but have no classroom contact and may not even have a subject focus. Such specialists may
be employed as experts in distance learning methods, work-place learning or the selection
and provision of information and IT learning resources with attendant student support
mechanisms.
5. Following agreement on policy for the
scheme, ongoing consultation with, and participation by, those bodies representing
non-teaching roles in teaching and learning e.g. SCONUL, The Library Association.
Representative experts from these specialist areas might be invited by ILTHE to contribute
to the scheme and could be included in the initial process as described in B.1.2.
