2. 2 Higher Education Evaluation and Development 9:1 (June 2015)
1. Introduction
This paper considers the various components of diversity in UK higher
education and examines the possible implications for the quality of the learning
experience and academic standards; namely, what are the inherent challenges in
pursuing the policy aspirations of a diverse system of higher education?
The title of this paper refers to a work of the American economist Joseph
Stiglitz, Globalization and its Discontents (2002), which in turn, takes its title
from the work of Sigmund Freud Civilisation and its Discontents (1930). Both
Freud and Stiglitz present the view that individual freedoms are necessarily
constrained for the greater good, and this paper pursues the theme that the
freedom of higher education institutions (in an increasingly expanded and diverse
system) is subject to constraints to assure the quality of the student experience,
the maintenance of academic standards and effective public investment. The
resulting constraints may give rise to a range of discontents on the part of
different stakeholders in higher education.
The question of whether diversity is necessarily a good thing is set against
the backdrop of the global expansion of higher education from elite to mass
systems. The perceived economic benefits of higher education for society and
individuals have promoted an approach to widening participation which has
created an expanded and diverse sector.
This diversity of provision must accommodate a responsiveness to the
diverse needs of an increasing number of entrants, presenting challenges for
higher education providers, students and quality assurance agencies.
1.1 The Context: UK Higher Education and the Role of QAA
The system of higher education in the UK is one which devolves political
responsibility to the administrations in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern
Ireland. Within this system, universities and bodies with degree awarding
powers are autonomous and independent organisations. Devolution has resulted
in a consequent divergence of educational policy, between the four countries,
particularly in relation to tuition fees. However, the responsibility for regulating
higher education throughout the UK is contracted to a single organisation, The
Quality Assurance Agency (QAA). This presents challenges for QAA in terms
of delivering a coherent, single, national system of quality assurance, while also
recognising and respecting policy differences between the four nations.
3. Halford, Jackson and McClaran: Diversity and Its Discontents:An Examination of How UK
Higher Education is Responding to Diversity, and the Implications for QualityAssurance
3
QAA was established in 1997 and is contracted by the funding councils of
the four nations within the UK to safeguard the standards of UK higher education,
delivered both domestically and internationally. As the system of quality
assurance has become established, with the concurrent development of reference
points such as the Frameworks for Higher Education Qualifications (FHEQ),
Subject Benchmark Statements and the UK Quality Code for Higher Education
(Quality Code), the approach has moved from one of assuring the compliance
of higher education providers (with published criteria) to promoting sector-wide
enhancement (the deliberate steps to facilitate improvement).
The UK higher education is a mass system and in common with other
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries,
it has undergone this shift from an elite system within the last thirty years.
According to Trow (cited in Parry, 2003, p. 1) this occurs when student
enrolments reach the 15 to 20% level, which UK higher education achieved
between 1988 and 1993 (Parry, 2003). This transition was driven primarily by
public behaviour (increased student demand) and was not accompanied, to a
significant extent, by the changes to structural and institutional systems, usually
cited as preconditions for achieving growth. The systemic changes necessary to
support the increasing diversity of higher education were developed following the
move to a mass system. Significantly, by the 1992 Further and Higher Education
Act and the 2011 White Paper Higher Education: Students at the Heart of the
System, Department for Business, Innovation Skills (BIS) (June, 2011).
The current participation rate in UK higher education has reached 40.5%
of 19 year olds and a total student population of 2.3 million. In September 2014,
more than half a million (500,000) students entered UK higher education for
the first time, according to data from the Universities and Colleges Admissions
Service (UCAS). The government has sought to encourage a more diverse system
through its policy to establish “a level playing field” for publicly and privately
funded providers of higher education in terms of regulation, and to enable
increased student choice supported by improved public information.
An expanding system of higher education raises questions about how it will
be funded and regulated, to ensure that standards and the learning experience are
maintained across a diverse and differentiated range of provision. In September
2012, the system of funding undergraduate education in England changed to
allow higher education providers to determine their own tuition fees (up to a
maximum of £9,000 per year). Students are now able to access loans from the
4. 4 Higher Education Evaluation and Development 9:1 (June 2015)
Student Loans Company (SLC) to fund the tuition and maintenance costs of their
undergraduate studies. In this system, grant funding from the Higher Education
Funding Council for England (HEFCE) has been retained for the strategically
important and vulnerable subjects. Student number controls have been relaxed
and will be removed completely from September 2015.
Private providers (known as alternative providers) of higher education are
also able to apply for their courses to be designated for student financial support
of up to £6,000 per year, enabling them to access public funding from the SLC in
the form of tuition fee loans to students.
This paper will now consider three research questions:
• what are the aspects of diversity, within UK higher education?
• how do the prior learning experiences of entrants to higher education influence
their experience of transition?
• what are the implications of diversity for teaching, learning and quality
assurance?
2. Aspects of Diversity
2.1 Diversity of Student Cohorts
A system of mass higher education is predicated on an expanded student
base, resulting from widening participation in, and improved access to, higher
education. Consequently, there are increasing numbers of entrants from “non-
traditional” backgrounds, with differing expectations. In the UK in September 2014,
there was not only an increase in total student numbers but, alongside this rise, there
was a growing diversity among the student cohort, presenting challenges for
providers to support the needs of different types of students in their transition to
higher education. In its End of Cycle Report 2014, UCAS noted the following
statistical changes (Universities Colleges Admissions Service, 2014):
• 4.1% increase in 20-24 year olds entering UK higher education
• 8.6% increase in over 25 year olds
• 6.7% increase in those entering with BTEC (or more vocational) qualifications.
Students are now more than 120% more likely to enter higher education with a
BTEC qualification than in 2006
• entry rates for disadvantaged groups are also increasing. It is now 60% more
5. Halford, Jackson and McClaran: Diversity and Its Discontents:An Examination of How UK
Higher Education is Responding to Diversity, and the Implications for QualityAssurance
5
likely for these students to enter higher education than in 2006 and 40% more
likely to enter higher tariff institutions than three years ago.
2.2 Diversity of Teaching and Learning Strategies
This diversity of students necessitates changing approaches to teaching,
learning and assessment, which are now incorporated in higher education
provision, and there is a substantial corpus of literature to inform pedagogical
developments in higher education. Cross (1996) provides three conditions for
excellence in teaching, learning and assessment: high expectations; student
participation and involvement; and assessment and feedback. Chickering and
Gamson (1987) also contend that good practice in undergraduate education
should encourage contacts between students and faculty; develop reciprocity
and cooperation among students; and use active learning techniques. This active
learning approach is further articulated by Race (2010), who promotes helping
students to develop ownership of the need to learn, and deepen their learning by
coaching other students and assessing their own, and others, learning.
The provision of timely feedback to learners is recognised as a crucial
ingredient of active learning; they need to know what they are trying to
accomplish, and how near they are to achieving the goal and Taras (2002)
argues that assessment and feedback is the weakest link in this triumvirate of
expectations. This is reflected in student satisfaction data from the National
Student Survey (NSS), where assessment and feedback consistently results in the
lowest score.
Active learning is also dependent upon the development of students as
independent learners. Higher education is often distinguished from general and
secondary education by its focus on independent learning. According to Candy
(1991) independent learning is a method and educational philosophy in which
learners take increased responsibility for their learning, and acquire knowledge
by themselves, developing the ability to undertake enquiry and critical reflection.
This definition places the responsibility for learning in higher education on
students, but sees a central role for the curriculum in setting learning objectives
and outcomes, and an active role for teaching staff to guide and shape the
learning. Another dimension of independent learning is the conception of students
as producers of knowledge rather than as mere consumers of knowledge Neary
(2014). This concept of students as co-creators of knowledge is reflected in the
increased level of student engagement initiatives in UUK higher education.
6. 6 Higher Education Evaluation and Development 9:1 (June 2015)
Recent research commissioned jointly by QAA and the Higher Education
Academy (HEA) Effective Practice in the design of independent learning
opportunities, Thomas, Jones, and Ottaway (2015) advises that practice should:
• provide suitable independent learning opportunities, which includes clarity
and structure, relevance, support, flexibility and inclusiveness, and student
monitoring
• develop understanding of learning gain rather than contact hours
• develop student capacity and engagement.
In order to enhance their practice, the study recommends that institutions:
• take an integrated approach to improving directed independent learning (DIL)
• adopt a clear definition of DIL and foster understanding of this among staff,
students and other stakeholders
• reflect this in their institutional polices, processes and functions
• ensure that relevant communications provide clarity about what DIL and its
benefits
• ensure that learning is delivered flexibly and inclusively to all students
supported by a range media
• should not assume that students have all the necessary academic or practical
skills to be effective independent learners, on entry and provide appropriate
support for transition.
This conception has informed the QAA’s approach to student engagement in
quality assurance processes, for example the inclusion of students as full members
of review teams, and the expectations of higher education providers in relation
to student engagement are articulated in the Quality Code, Chapter B5: Student
Engagement, or student effort, is widely recognised as a significant contributory
factor in achievement by Schuller et al. (2001). However, Gibbs (2010, 2012)
in his work on the Dimensions of quality is explicit in his conclusions that the
number of class contact hours has very little to do with educational quality, but
rather that the pedagogical model and the quantity and quality of independent
study is what determines the value of the educational experience. This notion of a
student’s interaction with learning builds upon earlier research about surface and
deep approaches to learning by Ramsden (1979).
In European higher education this has been interpreted as “student effort,”
while in other countries, including the UK, this has been understood as student
7. Halford, Jackson and McClaran: Diversity and Its Discontents:An Examination of How UK
Higher Education is Responding to Diversity, and the Implications for QualityAssurance
7
engagement in their learning (Trowler, 2010). Action-learning, enquiry-based,
problem-based and peer learning are approaches that all aim to involve students in
the process of learning, as opposed to a more traditional knowledge transmission
model, both within the classroom and independently.
Effective and engaged learning is dependent upon the evolution of an
infrastructure to promote the shift from passive learners in a teaching culture, to
active participants in a learning culture. This is influenced by an understanding of
what constitutes a “quality” learning experience and how this can be determined.
In the context of higher education, quality is about providing an environment that
creates the potential for students to succeed in their studies. This is essentially a
subjective matter, and is more commonly measured in a qualitative rather than a
quantitative way, and by a range of factors that include:
• support for individuals’ needs and entitlements
• the quantity, quality and timeliness of feedback on assessed work
• the transparency of assessment criteria
• access to learning spaces and resources such as libraries, laboratories or
• design studios
• the availability of information and communications technology as an aid to
learning
• the extent to which the institution takes account of students’ feedback in
making
• continual improvements to existing provision.
A range of approaches to learning and teaching is in use across UK higher
education. This flexibility and diversity allows providers to:
• be responsive both to individuals and cohorts of students
• take account of the latest developments in educational research and technology
• deliver courses in the most appropriate ways for the subject or area of practice
• accommodate different modes of course delivery using technology enabled
learning (Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, 2013).
The increased marketisation of higher education has resulted in the
concomitant importance of public information to inform student choice and
protect the student interest. The learner must be an active participant in this
process, and alerting students to the expectations about mutual responsibilities
8. 8 Higher Education Evaluation and Development 9:1 (June 2015)
for learning should be a function of the published information about each course,
leading some higher education providers to review the way in which their
curriculum offer is designed and described.
2.3 Diversity of Higher Education Provision
Expansion in higher education in the UK has also been met by an increased
diversity of providers, from universities to colleges of further education which
offer validated programmes in partnership with degree awarding bodies, or
possess their own foundation degree awarding powers. In addition, there has
been a notable growth in alternative providers, some of whom are able to access
financial support through the UK’s Student Loans Company, if they meet the
requirements of QAA’s review process. This diversity of provision is illustrated
by HEFCE’s Register of HE Providers and Operating Framework. The Register
provides
a directory of higher education providers regulated in England which have
one or more of the following features: receive direct public grants for HE,
have courses which have been specifically designated by the Government
as eligible for the purposes of English student support funding, are higher
education institutions (HEIs), have the right to award one or more types of
UK degree.
Across all of these provider types, there is a wide range of sizes and
missions, subject to different quality assurance arrangements administered by
different agencies as shown by the accompanying Operating Framework (Table 1)
below.
2.4 Diversity of Contexts
As illustrated by the types of provision listed above, higher education
providers now operate across different sectors of UK education. This is frequently
described as a binary divide between higher and further (or tertiary) education.
Higher education in the UK is commonly defined as level 4 and above and is
differentiated from compulsory education (which ends at age 16) and further
education, which tends to offer post compulsory education, both vocational and
academic to a wide range of students, both full and part-time, in colleges of
further education (FECs). The further education sector is frequently seen as most
9. Halford, Jackson and McClaran: Diversity and Its Discontents:An Examination of How UK
Higher Education is Responding to Diversity, and the Implications for QualityAssurance
9
Table1.HEFCEOperatingFramework
Aspectreviewed
Institutiontype
Academicqualityand
enhancement
Financialsustainability
Accessand
participation
DisputeresolutionInformationprovision
Degree-awardingbodiesnotHEFCE-
funded
Norequirementsunderregulatoryframework
MembershipOIA
required
Norequirementsunder
regulatoryframework
HEFCE-fundeddegree-awarding
bodiesHigherEducation
ReviewbyQAA
HEFCEannual
accountabilityprocessOFFAaccess
agreementsiffees
above£6,000ayear
HESESNSSdata
KISdataHESAdata
HEFCE-fundedfurthereducation
colleges
MonitoringbySkills
FundingAgency
Norequirementsunder
regulatoryframework
HEIFESILRdataNSS
dataKISdataDLHE
Providerswithspecificcourse
designation
ReviewforSpecific
CourseDesignationby
QAA
Annualmonitoringby
HEFCEonbehalfof
BIS
Norequirementunder
regulatoryframework
Complaintsprocess
required
HEAPESHESAAP
data
Providerswithrenewabledegree
awardingpowers(DAP)andwithout
HEFCEfunding
DAPreviewedby
QAAeverysixyears
Norequirementsunderregulatoryframework
InitialteachertrainingprovidersOFSTED
NationalCentrefor
TeachingandLearning
(NCTL)
Providersmaynot
chargeinexcessof
£9,000peryear
Norequirementsunder
regulatoryframework
NCTLreturns
Providerswithoutdirectpublic
fundingordegreeawardingpowers
Norequirementsunderregulatoryframework
Source:HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland(HEFCE,2014).
10. 10 Higher Education Evaluation and Development 9:1 (June 2015)
appropriate to the development of higher technical or vocational skills, because
of effective employer links (at a local level) and an ability to respond quickly to
government and labour market initiatives. In the UK, different funding bodies
have responsibility for the respective sectors; however, there is much cross-sector
provision between further and higher education, which has led to a blurring of
boundaries. There is also expanding alternative provision, much of which is well
established in specific vocational and professional disciplines.
This diversity of contexts is reflected, to some extent, in HEFCE’s Operating
Framework, which illustrates the different quality assurance arrangements in
place for different types of provider, based upon the receipt of public funding.
However, there is not a simplistic distinction between institutions which are
publicly or privately funded. Government policy in England, since 2012, has
created a market in which public subsidy for higher education is channelled
through a system of loans and grants to institutions charging tuition fees of up
to £9,000 per annum (in HEFCE funded providers) administered by the Student
Loans Company (SLC) and subject to individual Access agreements with the
Office for Fair Access (OFFA), and loans for tuition fees of up to £6,000 per
annum for courses designated as eligible for support (in non-HEFCE funded
providers). This increasing diversity and differentiation of higher education
provision has the twin drivers of the pursuit of economic competitiveness
(an aspiration to increase participation in higher education) and social justice
(improving access for non-traditional demographic groups). In terms of quality
assurance, it has been accompanied by the desire to create a level playing field for
all providers and to introduce a system of risk-based quality assurance, which is
both proportionate and cost effective.
3. Challenges
So why do these examples of growing diversity matter for the higher
education sector and for quality assurance? It is hard to argue against the benefits
of widening participation, for example, or offering greater choice for students
in how and where they study. Yet there are undeniable challenges, in terms of
tensions or “discontents” which have emerged from this diversity.
3.1 The Policy Challenges
In terms of public policy, challenges have emerged from the move towards
a more“level playing field” for providers -- including alternative providers -- as
11. Halford, Jackson and McClaran: Diversity and Its Discontents:An Examination of How UK
Higher Education is Responding to Diversity, and the Implications for QualityAssurance
11
set out in the white paper, Students at the Heart of the System (Department for
Business, Innovation Skills [BIS], 2011):
Responding to student demand also means enabling a greater diversity of
provision. We expect this to mean more higher education in further education
colleges, more variety in modes of learning and wholly new providers
delivering innovative forms of higher education.
While the white paper set out a clear policy path to open up the higher
education sector, the subsequent legislation which was expected to underpin
its regulation (in the form of a new Higher Education Bill) did not materialise
and has led to uncertainty and gaps in the regulatory system. During 2014,
there were a number of high profile concerns raised in national media about
oversight and funding of some alternative higher education providers, which led
to an investigation by the UK’s National Audit Office on behalf of the House of
Commons Committee of Public Accounts. A report was published in February
2015 which set out a number of recommendations for government action,
particularly in the areas of risk management, oversight of the alternative provider
sector, protection of public money, safeguarding student interests and teaching
quality, and taking action swiftly where required (BIS, 2015).
In parallel, there has also been a recent shift in policy language, moving
from references in the 2011 white paper to“lighter touch regulation” and
removing“barriers to entry,” to an emphasis on tightening standards and more
robust quality assurance processes. At the beginning of 2015, the government’s
Department for Business, Innovation Skills also announced the establishment
of a multi-agency rapid response investigatory team, as part of a number of steps
to improve standards amongst alternative providers. In future, it is also possible
that new indicators for risk monitoring might be introduced, such as attendance,
non-completion and achievement rates.
3.2 The Pedagogical Challenges
In terms of pedagogy, implicit within an analysis of the shift from teaching
to learning and how quality assurance processes in the UK have responded to
this changing dynamic, is a consideration of the implications of moving from an
approach where the student is a passive recipient of knowledge, to one where the
student is an engaged and active learner, making informed choices about their
studies (Halford Lea, 2014).
12. 12 Higher Education Evaluation and Development 9:1 (June 2015)
To support this informed choice, QAA in consultation with other sector
stakeholders has published guidance documents for higher education providers
and current and prospective students, to explain four aspects of the learning
experience:
• student workload
• class size
• teaching qualifications
• responding to student feedback
These documents are available at: www.qaa.ac.uk/improving-higher-
education/research. Accessible, reliable and trustworthy information is necessary
to ensure that prospective students understand the nature of the learning
experience they can expect on particular programmes from a higher education
provider and enables applicants to make informed choices in the light of their
career aspirations and preferred learning styles, ensuring that the investment
they make will be based on an accurate understanding of what is offered. When
publishing such information, providers should refer to Part C of the Quality
Code, which addresses how providers make available information that is fit for
purpose, accessible and trustworthy. The guidance relates to information about
higher education provision that providers publish on their websites and in their
promotional material, as distinct from the Key Information Set required by
HEFCE, Higher Education Funding Council Wales (HEFCW) and Department
for Education and Learning in Northern Ireland (DELNI) (HEFCE, 2011).
Increased diversity of entrants to higher education, with a wide variety of
prior educational experiences, has also placed an emphasis on how this transition
is supported, particularly in the first year of undergraduate education. In 2011-
12, the First Year Student Experience was a thematic element of QAA review,
looking at:
• how students were supported during their transition period into higher
education
• information provided to first year students
• assessment arrangements and feedback
• monitoring of student progress and retention.
The key findings identified that in the main, the first year student experience
had been managed effectively by institutions, with support and information
13. Halford, Jackson and McClaran: Diversity and Its Discontents:An Examination of How UK
Higher Education is Responding to Diversity, and the Implications for QualityAssurance
13
being provided at suitable times during the first year. Arrangements regarding
assessment and feedback were usually appropriate and timely.
Transition was supported by the use of structured induction programmes
to support students. These tended to include a variety of academic support
activities and guidance in relation to assessment offences such as plagiarism.
Advice is available on more practical issues such as accommodation and banking.
Institutions provide social and pastoral activities to help students adjust to life at
their institution.
Tailored support is often provided for specific student groups, including
additional support for international students; specific arrangements for students
with disabilities; information and guidance tailored specifically for mature
students; and additional mentoring and monitoring for students recruited through
access schemes.
Information was provided in a variety of forms, using information
technology, including the use of memory sticks containing key documents, the
institution’s website, intranet and virtual learning environment.
3.3 The Quality Challenges
It is clear, therefore, that this complex diversity presents challenges for
many stakeholders in higher education, including institutions, students and
quality agencies. For whom the importance of navigating and responding to
current and emerging “discontents,” in the context of safeguarding quality and
standards amidst continuing higher education diversification and policy changes,
is a significant driver.
The importance of designing methods of review, audit or accreditation that
are fit for purpose for a wide range of different higher education providers with
different missions, purposes and traditions is a necessary and contingent factor of
a diverse system of higher education.
This is addressed by the concept of threshold standards and risk-based
review. The implementation of risk-based approaches to quality assurance offers a
response to managing diversity which is more proportionate, reflecting the levels
of perceived risk at different types of institution, based on both retrospective and
predictive indicators. In parallel with this, agencies must continue to develop and
improve their methods for monitoring and analysing information and data about
provision, to ensure they have robust risk indicators and triggers in place.
14. 14 Higher Education Evaluation and Development 9:1 (June 2015)
A revised review methodology in England was introduced in September
2013. This new method, Higher Education Review, applies to all higher education
providers and presents the opportunity to reduce the“burden” of bureaucracy on
established institutions and provides a more efficient way of managing external
review while still fulfilling the objectives of public assurance and accountability.
It is an indication of how a single common review framework can be adapted to
reflect the different circumstances of individual providers. Its fitness for purpose
is illustrated by a lighter touch approach for established institutions and a more
challenging review for institutions that are new to the sector and have yet to
establish demonstrable quality assurance practices and procedures.
Greater policy changes in relation to sector diversity have occurred
concurrently with changes in pedagogy and practice in higher education, as
technology-enabled learning is used to promote innovation, for example with
massive open online courses (MOOCs). It is also crucial for quality assurance to
be able to ensure equity of the learning experience and consistency of threshold
standards wherever, and however, higher education is delivered, while also
embracing enhancement and recognition of excellence. Ultimately, this must
support an equitable student experience, regardless of place or mode of delivery.
4. Conclusions
In summary, this paper poses the view that the shift from teaching to
learning, with the concomitant emphasis on active and independent learning by
students, has been mirrored by a similar shift in quality assurance processes in the
UK, where higher education institutions become more self-reflecting and active
participants in review processes.
This approach reflects the expectation that as the quality assurance system
in the UK has matured since 1997, institutions will engage with enhancement
by taking deliberate steps to improve their performance, and Enhancement is
now one of the judgment areas of Higher Education Review (HER), applied to
all publicly funded providers and to HER (Plus), the method applied to privately
funded providers.
This shift has occurred concurrently (in the UK) with the growth of student
numbers and increased tuition fees, combined with a policy imperative to place
students at the heart of the higher education system. The resultant mass system
of higher education means that student cohorts are more diverse and will have
experienced a range of prior educational experiences which can make the
15. Halford, Jackson and McClaran: Diversity and Its Discontents:An Examination of How UK
Higher Education is Responding to Diversity, and the Implications for QualityAssurance
15
transition to higher education a challenge. The expectation that a student will
function effectively as an independent learner, is one which needs active support
from the institution, throughout the course of study. Becoming a co-producer
of learning can create tensions for both students and staff, as the nuanced
relationship based upon mutual trust and respect is developed, and both have to
engage with notions of the ownership of knowledge and how this is embedded
in processes of programme approval and delivery. The following four issues are
central to the views articulated in this paper and have a general applicability to
quality assurance outside the UK:
• national quality assurance agencies should have a role in promoting a culture
of enhancement
• changing approaches to teaching, learning and assessment develop students as
independent learners and co-producers of knowledge
• appropriate infrastructures are necessary to support effective and innovative
teaching and learning
• transparent and accurate public information should be available to inform
student choice.
Future challenges (or discontents) are likely to focus on how these issues
are interpreted by quality assurance systems engaging with increasingly diverse
higher education providers (public and private) and how the needs of students are
met in expanded global higher education.
References
Candy, P. (1991). Self-direction for lifelong learning: A comprehensive guide to
theory and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Chickering, A. W., Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice
in undergraduate education. American Association of Higher Education
Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.
Cross, K. P. (1996). Improving teaching and learning through classroom assess-
ment and classroom research. In G. Gibbs (Ed.), Improving student learn-
ing: Using research to improve student learning (pp. 3-10). Oxford, UK:
Oxford Centre for Staff Development.
Department for Business, Innovation Skills. (2011). Students at the heart of
the system. London, UK: The Stationery Office.
Department for Business, Innovation Skills. (2015). House of commons writ-
ten statement: Higher education. London, UK: The Stationery Office.
16. 16 Higher Education Evaluation and Development 9:1 (June 2015)
Gibbs, G. (2010). Dimensions of quality. York, UK: Higher Education Acad-
emy.
Gibbs, G. (2012). Implications of “dimensions of quality” in a market environ-
ment. York, UK: Higher Education Academy.
Halford, E., Lea, J. (2014). Changing education -- QA and the shift from
teaching to learning. Retrieved July 7, 2015, from http://eua.be/Libraries/
EQAF_2014/Ib_6_Halford_Lea.sflb.ashx
Higher Education Funding Council for England. (2011). Key information set:
Publication of technical guidance and further information. Bristol, UK:
HEFCE.
Higher Education Funding Council for England. (2014). Operating framework
for higher education 2014. Retrieved July 7, 2015, from http://www.hefce.
ac.uk/reg/of/
Neary, M. (2014). Student as producer: 2010-2013. Retrieved July 7,
2015, from http://qaa.ac.uk/publications/information-and-guidance/
publication?PubID=2843
Parry, G. (2003). Mass higher education and the English: Where in the col-
leges? Higher Education Quarterly, 57(4), 308-337.
Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. (2013). Explaining student
workload Guidance about providing information for students. Gloucester,
UK: Author.
Race, P. (2010). Making learning happen. London, UK: Sage.
Ramsden, P. (1979). Student learning and perceptions of the academic environ-
ment. Higher Education, 8(4), 411-427.
Schuller, T., Bynner, J., Green, A., Blackwell, L., Hammond, C., Preston, J., et al.
(2001). Modelling and measuring the wider benefits of learning: A synthesis.
The wider benefits of learning papers. London, UK: Institute of Education.
Taras, M. (2002). Using assessment for learning and learning from assessment.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(6), 501-510.
Thomas, L., Jones, R., Ottaway, J. (2015). Effective practice in the design of
independent learning opportunities Retrieved July 7, 2015, from http://
heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/resources/Effective%20practice%20
in%20the%20design%20of%20directed%20independent%20learning%20
opportunities.pdf
Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review. York, UK: Higher
Education Academy.
17. Halford, Jackson and McClaran: Diversity and Its Discontents:An Examination of How UK
Higher Education is Responding to Diversity, and the Implications for QualityAssurance
17
Universities Colleges Admissions Service. (2014). UCAS undergraduate
2014 end of cycle report. Retrieved July 7, 2015, from http://ucas.com/
corporate/data-and-analysis/analysis-reports
