SSPEL Newsletter: Research and Scholarly Activities

I was recently invited to be the external academic on two validation events at different HEI’s. The first event was the validation of a single honours BSc (Hons) Sport and Coaching Science degree programme and the other was a Foundation Degree in Sports Coaching. Both events were all day affairs including a tour of the facilities, meeting the staff, presentations by the proposing team, a question and answer discussion with the proposing team and a final feedback session. Both programmes were successful in their respective events but with a variety of conditions and recommendations.

There are a number of reasons why we should consider being part of this process, if given the opportunity. It is therefore the aim of this brief paper to give a personal reflection on my experience of these events.

The Documentation

There is a fine line between ‘comprehensive’ paperwork and ‘half a rainforest’. This can vary from programme specifications, QAA benchmark literature, the framework for higher qualifications and module descriptors through to the history of Egypt and its impact on sports coaching and PE ! There is a need to be succinct, concise and precise and keep the paperwork to a minimum. It is harder to write 1500 words than 2000 words on an assignment and cover the same information, detail and critical analysis. If we are asking students to do this why can’t we (as proposing teams) ? Not only that but do the Validation Panel actually read everything ? In my experience I am lucky if I receive the documentation 4 days before the event, realistically I cannot read it all so I have to rely on other panel members to be able to pick up certain aspects. Furthermore the cost of reproducing up to 20 copies of all the documentation must be enormous, can HE institutions really afford such costs, I wonder how that money could be better spent.

Another point I am always curious about is the role of the Q & A session with the proposing team. If the documentation is comprehensive why have a panel, why have a Q & A session ? How does this impact on the validation event ? Is it convention ? What is its role ? If the documentation is comprehensive why don’t the panel just ‘mark it’ and give feedback and make written recommendations and conditions, why seemingly waste time with ‘interviewing’ the proposing team ? Would it be worthwhile to reduce the paperwork and allow the proposing team to discuss and expand on the documentation and permit this verbal interaction to supplement the written material ? In my view this would seem the most interesting and most enriching way of exploring new degree programmes and really discovering what we are trying to achieve. God forbid that we may have to communicate our ideas in an effective verbal and critical manner….isn’t that a transferable skill ?

Nonetheless the paperwork is important and it is interesting to read how proposing teams view the sport and leisure industry in terms of jobs, employability, career prospects, entry requirements and more importantly the rationale for introducing new degree programnmes.

The Validation Event

I have been very lucky to be part of many validation panels and meet and interact with many an admired and experienced academic. For this experience alone it is a worthwhile event. It is interesting to note how each member has their own agenda and I am sure that I am no exception in that respect. It is sometimes a ‘battle’ between the panel members and a game of ‘one-up-manship’ to see who can make the Proposing Team squirm the most (I hasten to add that this is very very rare).

The Validation Panel is often introduced as a critical friend and consists of external academics, internal academics an industry representative and Quality Officer. The whole event is chaired by a senior in-house academic. As an external member you rely on the internal academics to insist on the correct convention in terms of the paperwork for the institute. It is the job of the externals to review and question the specifics of the programme.

It is often interesting to note how the proposing team defend the programme and how much they work together as a team in terms of their responses. There are usually several key questions such as:- Why introduce the programme (this is basically an expansion of the rationale); how do the module LO’s link to the overall programme aims and educational aims; where is the mapping between the programme aims and the QAA benchmarks etc… these are the basic and standard questions but it is surprising how many proposing team members cannot respond appropriately to them. Similarly it is surprising how difficult some teams find demonstrating progression through routes in terms of specific disciplines, LO’s and assessment and how often the term ‘critical reflection’ does not appear in Level H work or even educational aims ! When compared to our existing programmes in SPEL I feel we are so far ahead of many of these other institutions in all those aspects that it sometimes makes all the hard work we put into our documentation seem worth it…..but only sometimes !

The whole day is usually completed by feeding back to the proposing team on all aspects of the programme and with the panel forwarding conditions and recommendations. I sometimes find recommendations as a waste of time as I have never received from a proposing team information to say that they have considered the recommendations. Why not just make everything a condition after all the aim of the event is to make the programme as best as it can be irrespective of the timescale before the first cohort arrive.

The Impact on the ASC degree programme

The experience is invaluable from networking through to course development and competition for students. The bullet points below summarise the benefits that I have taken away from my two recent experiences.

Rationales – the current literature referenced, information pertaining to graduate employability and overview of the courses on offer in terms of competition and entry requirements. This will be very useful when the ASC team go for single honours and the rationale for such a proposal.

Modules – the suite of modules offered in terms of their compatibility to the learning outcomes, assessment strategy and type of assessment (variety), discipline pathways, key skills in relation to LO’s.

Aims – link between the QAA benchmarks, higher education frameworks, educational aims and subject specific outcomes and LO’s. Evidence for their links and rationale and justification. Examples of links.

Coaching and Sports Science developments – module content and literature sources.

Progression routes and FD involvement and/or development – could the ASC course take direct entry year 3 from a FD ? SPEL potential involvement in FD’s and the positives and negatives of any involvement.

Work based learning – links with outside partners and placement venues and how they are managed and quality assured. How much WBL ?

In Conclusion

I thoroughly enjoy the experience of validation events and hope to be part of more in the future. It is a great opportunity to meet new colleagues and interact at a different academic level in terms of exploring new ideas and concepts and how they can best be represented and delivered to an unsuspecting student population. I often find myself defending the proposing team when questioned by the internal academics who have no idea about the sport and leisure industry and this I find to be rewarding. It is this interaction that sells our industry…but can we please consider the rainforests !!!

Lance Doggart.