Quality standards and the reflective tutor
| Date | 01 December 1996 |
| Published date | 01 December 1996 |
| Pages | 17-25 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/09684889610146154 |
| Author | Kate Ashcroft,Lorraine Foreman‐Peck |
| Subject Matter | Education |
17
Introduction
The move to mass college and university
education in the UK and continuing financial
pressures on institutions in most developed
countries have generated concern about
declining quality and standards of educational
provision. This has stimulated a debate in
which the terms “quality” and “standards”
are variously defined (see Harvey and Green,
1993). Central to this are competing models
of quality assurance, quality assessment and
the evaluation of quality.
Quality assurance usually refers to issues of
standards, especially as they relate to the
reliability of outcome measures, such as the
consistency of application of criteria for suc-
cess within particular courses. It is therefore
generally centred on systems analysis.
Quality assessment refers to a number of
measures of effectiveness and efficiency as
defined by various of the more powerful
stakeholders in education: in particular, the
funders of education (especially, government,
who may be interested in aspects of value-for-
money such as student wastage rates) and the
representatives of the academic establishment
(especially discipline groups, who may be
interested in the integrity of the subject as
demonstrated by features such as the qualifi-
cations of the staff teaching a programme).
Quality evaluation may refer to the assess-
ment of quality generally seen as important by
those closest to the “chalk face”, especially
systematic evaluation of the “value” of pro-
grammes, teaching and learning by students
and tutors. It enables tutors and institutions
to find appropriate ways to take account of the
needs and interests of minority or relatively
powerless groups, which might not otherwise
find a voice (see Ashcroft et al., 1996 for more
detail on such methods, including self-
advocacy approaches to evaluation).
The use of these concepts is related to
matters of control. For example, in the UK,
there currently is tension between perfor-
mance indicator systems, favoured by the
Higher Education Funding Council and the
Council of the Committee of Vice Chancel-
lors and Principals’ emphasis on quality
measures based on self-assessment, and the
institutional mission (see, for instance, The
Times Higher Education Supplement, 1995).
In this paper, we argue that ideas of “quali-
ty” and “standards” in higher education are
highly problematic. They may be defined
Quality Assurance in Education
Volume 4 · Number 4 · 1996 · pp. 17–25
© MCB University Press · ISSN 0968-4883
Quality standards and
the reflective tutor
Kate Ashcroft and
Lorraine Foreman-Peck
The authors
Kate Ashcroft is Professor and Dean of the Faculty of
Education, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK.
Lorraine Foreman-Peckis Senior Lecturer in Professional
Development, Westminster College, Oxford, UK.
Abstract
Discusses various definitions of quality and standards used
within the college and university sector and highlights
their advantages and disadvantages. Looks particularly at
their implications for reflective practice. Argues that the
various definitions of quality have implications for the
ways in which professionalism is defined, and that some
definitions may be inimical to the values encapsulated in
the “reflective practitioner” model.
To continue reading
Request your trial