Course approval processes
| Pages | 96-99 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880010371726 |
| Date | 01 June 2000 |
| Published date | 01 June 2000 |
| Author | Margaret Horsburgh |
| Subject Matter | Education |
Course approval
processes
Margaret Horsburgh
Introduction
Although there are different perceptions of
quality in higher education, quality
monitoring (the term quality monitoring is
used to refer to the broad set of quality related
activities or evaluations which occur, either
external or internal to an organisation),
whatever its focus, has become the vehicle
through which accountability is addressed.
Accountability is associated with efficiency
and effectiveness, with concepts of quality
based on dimensions of high standards, zero
defects, and value for money or fitness for
purpose (Harvey and Knight, 1996). It is
argued that none of these concepts directly
encompasses the core activities of higher
education, those associated with teaching and
learning. The focus for quality should in a
rapidly changing world, be on the attributes of
graduates, where transformation of the
learner is central. Quality monitoring should
be concerned with improvement and
enhancement of student learning. This paper
focuses on processes of course approval,
which lead to enhancement of curriculum and
student learning. In a recent study
(Horsburgh, 1998) concerned with the broad
question of the extent to which quality
monitoring impacts on the student experience
of learning, the curriculum and how it was
approved emerged as significant factors.
Quality in higher education is multifaceted
and complex, and there is no one definition
that encompasses all aspects of quality and
that can provide a single focus or approach for
quality monitoring. There is no question that
higher education should be accountable to its
stakeholders, but until recently there has been
little attempt to acknowledge what it should
be accountable for, or exactly at what higher
education should be effective and efficient. It
is, however, now clearer at what stakeholders
expect higher education to be effective.
Increasingly commentators indicate that
graduates need to have the skills to cope with
a rapidly changing world. Effectiveness of
higher education can be conceptualised in
terms of how well graduates are prepared for
coping with change. The recent Australian
report, Review of Higher Education Financing
and Policy (West, 1998), is very clear that the
``quality of education must be measured in
terms of what students know, understand and
can do at the end of their education
experience'' (West, 1998, p. 46). The
The author
Margaret Horsburgh is Director of Academic
Programmes (Nursing) at the University of Auckland,
New Zealand.
Keywords
Quality, Curriculum
Abstract
Focuses on processes of course approval, which lead to
enhancement of the curriculum and student learning.
Findings from a recent study concerned with the question:
To what extent does quality monitoring impact on the
student experience of learning? showed the curriculum,
and how it was approved, to be significant factors in
enhancing student learning. It is argued that the focus for
quality in a rapidly changing world should be on the
attributes of graduates, with quality monitoring
concerned with improvement and enhancement of
student learning. Where quality monitoring does have a
positive impact on student learning, through the approval
and ongoing monitoring of the curriculum and its
outcomes, then these processes should be improved. This
should be through a process which fosters collegiality and
encourages pedagogical discussion amongst academic
colleagues. A series of prompts or questions, which seek
to challenge teachers and enhance dialogue with
colleagues, is proposed.
Electronic access
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
http://www.emerald-library.com
96
Quality Assurance in Education
Volume 8 .Number 2 .2000 .pp. 96±99
#MCB University Press .ISSN 0968-4883
To continue reading
Request your trial