Title: Professor David Eastwood, School of Environmental Studies, University of Ulster Chairman Subject Ben
1The 2000 Environmental Sciences Benchmark
Statement perspectives
Professor David Eastwood, School of
Environmental Studies, University of Ulster
Chairman Subject Benchmark Group - Earth
Sciences, Environmental Sciences and
Environmental Studies
1
2The 1997 Report of the National Committee of
Inquiry into Higher Education (the Dearing
Report) proposed that benchmark information
should be used by institutions, as part of their
programme of approval process, to set degree
standards. The Committee was attracted to the
proposition that standards should be developed by
the academic community itself, through formal
groupings for the main areas of study. It
envisaged that subject associations and
professional bodies will play a role in
developing benchmarks. It recommended that, as
one of its early tasks, the Quality Assurance
Agency for Higher Education (QAA) should work
with institutions to establish small, expert
teams to provide benchmark information on
standards.
2
3- to furnish benchmarking information about
- the conceptual framework that gives a discipline
its coherence and identity - the intellectual capability and understanding
that should be developed through the study of
that discipline (to honours degree level) - the techniques and skills which are associated
with developing understanding in that discipline - the level of intellectual demand and challenge
which is appropriate to an honours degree study
in that discipline.
3
4- The process of subject review . . . as a means
of determining the fitness of purpose of
individual programmes . . . institutions should
be able to demonstrate how benchmark information
has been used to inform the specification of the
intended outcomes of a programme, and in
calibrating the overall demands of their
assessment framework.
4
5- The ES3 Panel, its timetable and remit
- The QAA contacted David Eastwood, as Chairman
of the Committee of Heads of Environmental
Sciences (CHES) , on 5 May 1999, and asked for
your formal involvement in the setting up of the
benchmark group in your subject area (earth and
environmental studies) and to outline the overall
timetable and expectations for the work of the
group. The Agency were looking to receive
nominations for the benchmarking group by 1 June
1999 and to have secured an initial meeting of
the group by the end of June or the beginning of
July.
5
6In The Criteria for Membership of Benchmarking
Groups the QAA state The prime consideration
in proposing membership of benchmarking groups is
that individuals have acknowledged expertise in
the discipline or subject area and have the
respect and confidence of their peers in the
subject community.
6
7The first meeting of the benchmark group took
place on 6 July, with QAA representatives in
attendance to give guidance and to clarify the
groups remit, especially the problem posed by
the designated benchmark area earth and
environmental studies. Following prolonged
discussion it was clear that the group felt that
earth and environmental sciences was a more
coherent grouping. However, it was also noted by
the QAA that, if environmental studies was not
included, it would not fit into any other group
(the QAA having decided to restrict benchmark
groups to c.24). Consequently, the compromise
title earth sciences, environmental sciences and
environmental studies (ES3) was finally adopted.
7
88
9Although the QAA defines the purpose of
benchmarking as fourfold (subject review,
external examining, programme design/validation
and public information) the benchmark group was
under no illusions that the primary concern for
the academic community would focus on the way in
which the statement would be used in the QAAs
new programme of academic review. Certainly this
consideration was uppermost in the minds of the
group and the statement was carefully written to
reflect this concern.
9
10The statement is not designed, therefore, nor
should it be interpreted as, either a National
Curriculum by the backdoor, or as a tablet of
stone manual for academic reviewers to create
total homogeneity in ES departments or
programmes. Consequently, the language used had
to be not only accessible as the QAA remit
prescribes, but also very precise and, therefore,
great care must be taken in reading and
interpreting the statement.
10
11Two basic concepts underpin the structure and the
wording of the statement. These
are (i) Congruence rather than
difference (ii) Indication rather than
prescription
11
12Recognition of the choice of key words between
the indicative, (eg, typically, might) as
opposed to the prescriptive, (eg, should,
requires, will have) is therefore crucial to
any accurate interpretation of the statement and
any reading of the statement must concentrate on
these carefully worded steers.
12
13For example, section 2.3.2. is clearly
essentially indicative. Typical programme
elements might include climatology, ecology,
environmental biology, environmental chemistry,
geochemistry, Geographic Information Systems and
remote sensing applications, geomorphology,
geophysics, hydrology, meteorology, oceanography,
pollution science, Quaternary studies and soil
science BS2.3.3.
13
14In contrast, Section 2.3.4 is clearly essentially
prescriptive The subject area, therefore,
requires an understanding of principles and
methodologies of the natural and social sciences
BS2.3.4
14
155. Knowledge and Graduate Key Skills
- (i) Knowledge
- Each undergraduate honours degree will have its
own characteristics with a detailed rationale for
the content, nature and organisation as outlined
in the relevant programme specification. While it
is recognised that degree courses will vary
considerably in the depth and specificity to
which they treat subjects, it is expected that
all graduates will have appropriate knowledge of
the main aspects of environmental science given
below. - The Earth as a system
- Human systems and their interaction with global
systems - Inter-disciplinary/multi-disciplinary context
- Activities, patterns, processes, impacts and
responses - Temporal and spatial scales
- Terminology, nomenclature and classification
- Environmental issues (BS Appendix 2b)
15
16Generic knowledge in ES3 (listed in section 3.2.2
of the statement) carries similar prescriptive
warnings The generic knowledge base described
in Section 3.2 should be applicable to all degree
programmes in ES3. BS2.1.1 However, like
subject-specific knowledge, the way in which this
generic knowledge should be included in
programmes remains flexible Each institution
is free to decide on the exact content and
emphases of the degree programme(s) and their
constituent parts. 3.1.1
16
175. Knowledge and Graduate Key Skills
(ii) Graduate key skills (GKS) This is perhaps
the most prescriptive section of the benchmark
statement. Prior to listing the six graduate key
skills (intellectual, practical, communications,
numeracy/CIT, interpersonal/teamwork, self
management/professional development) the
statement says quite bluntly that all of these
skills should be developed in ES3 degree
programmes. Exactly how they should be
incorporated into specific programmes lies with
the programme designers and managers, but
incorporated they must be.
17
186. Learning, Teaching and Assessment This
section of the benchmark statement is perhaps the
least prescriptive, leaving learning, teaching
and assessment matters almost entirely to
programme designers and managers, but with the
firm proviso that they must be able to justify
their choices in terms of their own specific
learning outcomes.
18
197. Performance Levels Performance levels in the
statement are expressed as statements of learning
outcomes for the six main categories of Graduate
Key Skills. It is important to emphasise that
levels of performance can only be established in
terms of the shared values of the academic
community as moderated internally and externally
by academic quality procedures, including the
external examiner system. BS5.1
19
208. Academic Review The benchmarking group was
acutely conscious that the benchmark statement
would play a significant role in the new QAA
process of academic review. The problem was
precisely what this role would be? Certainly
academic reviewers should use the statement as a
guideline, not as a prescriptive check list. As
John Randall put it at the training course,
benchmarks should be what were formerly in the
heads of external examiners, i.e. perspectives
derived from long and wide experience. Therefore,
the onus will be firmly on course teams/programme
managers etc. to convince academic reviewers that
the benchmark guidelines are being met.
20