Quality_Assurance_and_Quality_Improvement_Processes

Quality Assurance and Quality Improvement Processes in Beauty Therapy In this report I shall be considering the role of quality assurance (QA) and quality improvement (QI) processes within my area of teaching, which is the City and Guilds level 2 diploma in beauty therapy at Newcastle College. In particular, I wish to focus on how these processes govern the process of assessment. QA can be defined as ‘a systematic process of verifying that a product or service being developed is meeting specified requirements’ (Dept. of Health, 2009). The specified requirements of assessment I am considering are overseen by City and Guilds as well as Newcastle College. The college has clear, well defined and comprehensive QA processes, including how courses are planned and validated, annual course monitoring, working with other institutions (e.g. who also run the same beauty therapy diploma course), and external verification. The usual process of assessment can be summarised in a diagram (see attached). The first stage requires that the tutor designs assessment tasks. According to the Lifelong Learning UK (LLUK) standards these should ‘produce valid, reliable and sufficient evidence’ (EP 2.2) and that these methods should be applied ‘fairly and effectively’ (EP 2.1). Within the beauty therapy course, a range of assessment methods are used. These include ongoing formative assessments, such as observation of practical skills and regular coursework assignments which create a portfolio of evidence, and final summative assessments, such as the GOLA test (global online assessment) which occurs towards the end of the course and tests students’ underpinning knowledge and understanding. Assessments, such as written assignments, are designed to have validity, currency, authenticity and sufficiency. Validity means they should accurately reflect the learning they are designed to measure, currency requires that they reflect current knowledge, authenticity means they must be actually produced by the student concerned, and that they sufficiently cover the assessment criteria. The wider the range of assessment tools used throughout the course, arguably the more valid and reliable the data gathered will be. For example, although written assignments completed by a student in their own time may raise questions of authenticity -is it all their own work'- actually observing a student’s practical work in class will not raise this concern. And while assignments marked by only one tutor may give space for subjective judgement of marks, an online multiple choice exam such as the GOLA test is much more objective and valid. Students often perform better in certain types of assessment than others, for example depending on whether they get very nervous when taking an exam, but will do better in other types of less pressured test, such as a peer assessment of practical skills. This is another reason for using a wide range of assessment tools throughout the course. The beauty therapy course is in a good position to deliver valid and reliable assessment data for this reason. It challenges both practical and theoretical knowledge both formatively and summatively, and a comprehensive structure for QA is in place to guide the process within the college. The second stage of the quality framework for assessment shown in the attached diagram is internal verification within the teaching team. This would take place, for instance, after the tutor had designed a new assessment task, before the start of term. This stage of the process is again designed to ensure validity- that the task tests what it is required to test, and that it is relevant. This relates to the LLUK standards that state that teachers ‘collaborate with others, as appropriate, to promote equity and consistency in assessment processes’ (EP 2.4). After this internal verification has taken place, the third step in the quality framework is that students actually complete the assessments, and then fourthly the work is marked by the tutor. Feedback and provisional marks are given to the students. It is important that tutors maintain regular continued professional development (CPD) throughout the year, so that their knowledge and skills are kept up to date, and to assist them in confidently producing and marking assignments. It may also give them new innovative ideas for enrichment activities to assist the students with their learning and understanding. One example of CPD is working alongside another related professional on a regular basis, as discussed by Cordingley et al (2003) in ‘The impact of collaborative Continued Professional Development (CPD) on classroom teaching and learning’. Based on a systematic review of studies, the authors describe a range of positive outcomes of collaborative CPD, such as greater confidence amongst the teachers, for example, in taking risks, a greater commitment to changing practice, and the development of enthusiasm for collaborative working. This study highlights the importance of peer observations and feedback between teachers, and partnerships with external specialists, to offer current knowledge and expertise as well as practice and peer support. Within beauty therapy at Newcastle College, this occurs when tutors observe each other on specific occasions through the academic year, and when external specialists are enlisted to provide short term, specific skills training, for example in a particular brand’s treatment such as St Tropez tanning. This provides a student with certification in a recognised industry skill, which improves their employability. Stage five of the quality framework for assessment requires that four examples of marked student work are double marked internally. These will be examples of what the tutor considers a referral, pass, merit and distinction. Double marking is designed to ensure reliability of assessment data, significantly reducing subjective decision making and making the marks fairer for the students. For example, the class tutor may be biased when marking work by particular students whom she has observed in the class to be lacking in attendance or motivation, whereas a different internal moderator would not know the students individually and so would be more objective. In stage six, the external City and Guilds verifier would receive the same sample of four marked assignments and would mark them again, also giving feedback on the assignment brief and design. This normally happens around January time, which can provide a challenge for the department to have work marked and ready for the EV. It also can mean that modules taking place after January may never be externally verified, which could be a seen as a negative aspect of the EV process. In the seventh stage of assessment in the City and Guilds course, all markers and moderators agree on final marks and any inconsistencies are reviewed. Finally in stage eight, the overall assessment process is reviewed, considering both staff and student feedback as well as examination board data, for example the overall pass rate for the course and the marks that students achieved both within the college and nationally. Within domain E of the LLUK standards, this fits in with requirement ES 3 for ‘learner involvement and shared responsibility in the assessment process’ as well as EK 3.1, that ‘teachers know and understand ways to establish learner involvement in and personal responsibility for assessment of their learning’. An example of obtaining student feedback on assessment is through an exit survey, as well as informally throughout the year as a tutor will know from talking to students how easy or difficult they are finding particular tasks, and from how much help the students needed, and overall how they scored in their final marks. The process of moderating and ensuring quality in the assessment process is a long term cycle and each year should yield improvements. In ‘The Reflective Institution: Assuring and enhancing the quality of teaching and learning’ John Biggs (2001) argues that quality assurance should be defined as either retrospective or prospective. Retrospective quality assurance sees QA in terms of accountability, and conforming to externally imposed standards, such as quality as ‘value for money’ for the student, whereas prospective QA is quality as teaching being fit for purpose for the institution and as ‘maintaining and enhancing the quality of teaching and learning in the institution’. Biggs argues that prospective QA is more important, in which our focus should be forwards towards making things better in our teaching and our institution, for instance through quality enhancement and staff development (CPD). However it seems that we must both look forwards and back in our search for ever improving teaching practice in our assessment methods. We must integrate feedback from others and work as part of a team to improve validity and reliability of our practice, to provide the best possible learning and assessment experience for our students. References Biggs, J. (2001) ‘The Reflective Institution: Assuring and enhancing the quality of teaching and learning’ In: Higher Education Springer Netherlands. Volume 41. Number 3/April 2001 pp 221-238. Available at http://www.springerlink.com/content/m2472106v357t754/ (Accessed 12th December 2009) Cordingley, P. et al (2003) ‘The impact of collaborative Continued Professional Development on classroom teaching and learning’ In: Research Evidence in Education Library London: EPPI Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education. Available at http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/ (Accessed: 12th December 2009) Department of Health http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/index.htm LLUK Professional Standards available at http://www.lluk.org/2986.htm Bibliography Campbell, Anne and McNamara , Olwen (2004) Practitioner research and professional development in education Paul Chapman Petty, G. (2004) Teaching Today, Nelson Thornes. Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education http://www.qaa.ac.uk/