12th October 2000

Group Minutes

Notes on the fourteenth meeting, SCONUL Secretariat, 12 October, 2000.
Actions agreed at this meeting
1. Elizabeth Heaps would attempt to open liaison with the Institute for Learning and
Teaching.
2. Scott Robertson and Ian Winkworth would complete redrafting of the OFSTED
materials.
3. Jeremy Atkinson would circulate news of QAA developments via the relevant e-mail
lists.
4. Michael Breaks would enquire of Scottish institutions about their initial experiences
of Academic Review and report back to the Group.
5. Howard Nicholson would enquire of SCONUL Executive via Toby Bainton whether
the Group could make its Web pages available to the public, outside the members’
pages, or not.
6. Jeremy Atkinson would make proposals for the Group’s future membership to the
SCONUL Executive.
7. Nik Pollard agreed to liaise with the Standing Conference of Heads of Media Services
about covering teaching accommodation and equipment within the revision of the
Aide-memoire.
8. Nik Pollard would attempt a first revision of the Aide-memoire and draft a covering
letter for the QAA.
9. Jeremy Atkinson would continue liaison with Nicola Channon/Peter Milton at QAA,
with particular regard to the revision of the Aide-memoire.
Notes on discussion

1. Present
Alison Allden (UCISA, University of Warwick)
Jeremy Atkinson (University of Glamorgan)
Michael Breaks (Heriot-Watt University)
Elizabeth Heaps (University of York)
Howard Nicholson (University of Bath)
Nik Pollard (Kingston University)
Scott Robertson (HCLRG, University College, Chichester)
Apologies were received from Ian Winkworth (University of Northumbria).
2
2. The Chair welcomed Michael Breaks back to membership of the Group.

3. Minutes of the meeting of 2 May, 2000
The minutes were confirmed, subject to the correct spelling of Elizabeth Heaps’ name
in Minute 4 (3).

4. Action list from the thirteenth meeting
5. Ian Winkworth and Scott Robertson had circulated the draft OFSTED materials to
SCONUL/HCLRG members, for comment, on 8 June, 2000. The redrafting of their
report was on-going.
6. Jeremy Atkinson would report verbally to members of the Group on his meeting
with Nicola Channon, 9 May, 2000.
7. Nik Pollard had initiated review of the Group’s Aide-Memoire. A paper was before
the meeting.
8. Ian Winkworth had circulated to SCONUL and UCISA the extracts about learning
resources from the 1996-1998 Subject Review reports.
9. Was on the agenda.
10. Was pending.

5. Other matters arising
QAA’s Guidelines on the Quality Assurance of distance learning
John Heaps (Leeds Metropolitan University) had prepared a report for UCISA, a copy
of which was tabled. The report of the SCONUL Task Force on Access was expected
in November 2000.

6. HEFCE/QAA matters
(i) Jeremy Atkinson’s meeting with Nicola Channon (QAA), 9 May, 2000
The meeting had been held at the time of the circulation of the new
Handbook for Academic Review. Nicola Channon had expressed support for the
idea of the Group providing input to the training of Academic Reviewers,
particularly via a revised Aide-memoire. Nicola Channon confirmed that
consideration was being given to thematic reports, as had been reported to the
Group by Elaine Dunphy at the previous meeting, but Nicola knew no details.
Half of the subjects under Academic Review now had benchmark statements
agreed for them. The QAA recognised the fine balance that existed between a
subject-led approach and the opportunity for a generic/common approach in areas
such as learning resources. Nicola Channon confirmed that the benchmark
statements would themselves be subject to periodic review, but that this process
had yet to begin. There would also be further codes of practice.
Continuation Audit would continue until December 2001, by when almost all
institutions will have been audited. Continuation Audit would be replaced by
Institutional Review from January, 2002. Any institutions that had not been
subject to Continuation Audit would be first in line for Institutional Review.
The new process of Academic Review was currently starting in Scotland. Wales
had asked for a delay and England and Wales would begin Academic Review in
the 2001/02 session. Jeremy Atkinson reported that observation of teaching is
now optional under the new method.
Jeremy Atkinson had asked Nicola Channon about the relationship between
Academic Review and inspections by other public and statutory bodies (PSBs).
Nicola Channon reported that various models were being looked at for the
optimal timing of these processes.
Nicola Channon was happy for the Group’s Aide-Memoire to be reviewed and
resubmitted, which the Group welcomed.
Jeremy Atkinson undertook to circulate a report of developments to the relevant
e-mail lists.
(ii) QAA Handbook for Academic Review
The Group noted that pages 16, 32 and 42 contained the main sections of
relevance for Learning Resources. Importantly, it was noted that Learning
Resources now includes staffing and staff development, as well as elements such
as teaching rooms, technical support staff, etc, which had previously been
included. Again it was noted that there are no weightings for these various
elements.
It was thought that the recommended question for Reviewers, “Is there a strategy
for Learning Resources?”, could be met by reference to other strategic statements,
e.g. the institution’s strategies for teaching and learning, information and
communications technology, library collection development, or whatever.
(iii) National qualifications framework
The growing groundswell of opposition within institutions to the QAA’s
proposals for a national qualifications framework was noted; both the ’94 and
Russell Groups had made representations. It was agreed that the Group and
SCONUL did not need to respond to the consultation.
(iv) QAA Code of practice for career education, information and guidance
This new code of practice was noted.
(v) Points to be raised in future liaison with Nicola Channon
It was agreed that the main thrust should now be an agreed revision of the Aidememoire.

7. English quality matters
It was generally agreed that the visible upwards drift in TQA scores was the result of
improved handling and presentation within institutions. There was suspicion that TQA
assessors were generally becoming more elderly, or retired, but no evidence could be
established to prove this. Most institutions now realised how important the Self
Assessment Document (SAD) was, but involvement of staff with responsibility for
Learning Resources was still uneven between institutions.

8. Scottish quality matters
It was too soon to report on the new method for Academic Review. Michael Breaks
undertook to make enquiries about the initial experiences within Scottish institutions
and report back to the Group.

9. Welsh quality matters
There was nothing further to report.

10 SCONUL Web site
Howard Nicholson reported that he had liaised with Wayne Morris and that they
recommended that the “Useful links” page should be developed first, but that the
Group’s other ideas for the site would have to put forward to the SCONUL Web
Weavers Group. It was hoped that the “Useful links” page could include a direct link
to and from the UCISA pages for the mutual convenience of UCISA and SCONUL
members.
The Group discussed whether the Group’s pages needed to be within the secure
perimeter of the SCONUL site’s members’ pages or not. It was agreed that this
question should be referred to the SCONUL Executive for a policy decision.

11. Membership of the Group
Howard Nicholson and Nik Pollard had asked to stand down from membership.
Michael Breaks agreed to take over the Secretary’s role from Howard Nicholson and
the SCONUL Secretary had other volunteers for membership. Jeremy Atkinson agreed
to consider the vacancies and volunteers in light of the geographic, old/new university
and expertise factors and would submit proposals for the Group’s membership to
SCONUL Executive.
Howard Nicholson and Nik Pollard agreed to attend one further meeting, to allow for
some continuity.

12. Co-operation with CONUL
Nik Pollard relayed a request from CONUL for an exchange of papers and possible
joint membership. It was agreed that the costs of this should be investigated and that a
plan for the most cost-effective way of achieving the desired liaison should be
determined.

13. Working papers on institutions’ practices for TQA
Nik Pollard had received a suggestion that the Group should pull together a volume of
working papers on institutions’ procedures for handing TQAs. Alternatively the
Group might organise an event on the same theme. It was agreed to defer following up
this suggestion until the new Academic Review methodology was more widely
established.

14. Revision of the Aide-memoire
The Group agreed that the revision should reflect page 42 of the new Handbook. The
greater emphasis on a “strategic approach” was noted. There was concern amongst
the Group about covering the issues such as accommodation and teaching equipment
within the revision. Nik Pollard agreed to liaise with the Standing Conference of
Heads of Media Services (SCHOMS).
It was agreed that Nik Pollard would make a first attempt at a revision, together with a
covering letter for the QAA, which would then be seen by Alison Allden, before being
circulated in draft to the Group. It was agreed that this was quite urgent.

15. Date of the next meeting
The next meeting was proposed for 15 May 2001; the date and location would be
consulted further with members, new and old, by e-mail.
Howard Nicholson