ABSTRACT
There are many questions relating to CBMS that have been given less than a full airing and the processes of quality assurance are among these. We intend to provide some insights into some ways in which individual solutions can be determined by universities in their particular circumstances and with their particular model of CBMS. It is interesting to note the swansong of the Council for National Academic Awards published in 1992, which, although it had a focus on credit and the Council itself was very much part of the early modular movement, is nevertheless rooted in the language of conventional courses, validation and peer review by groups (CNAA, 1992). By comparison that of the Higher Education Quality Council (HEQC) only five years later, in one of its last publications before being superseded by the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), confronts modularity more squarely (HEQC, 1997a). However, HEQC offers little practical advice about the processes of quality assurance within CBMS, although it does in its various guidelines give much food for thought in the questions it poses to institutions travelling down the CBMS road (HEQC, 1995b). This is perhaps appropriate for an external body, keen to respect the autonomy of the institutions with whom it relates and mindful of the diversity of ‘organizational systems and cultures’. However, HEQC points out:
The flexibility of the modular curricular environment offers great potential for innovation and the creation of new learning opportunities but also poses real challenges to the design and provision of programmes which are both fit for their intended purpose and which fulfil appropriate purposes. It is the latter which is increasingly being questioned in the context of the debate on academic standards. (HEQC, 1997a, p. 30)
CBMS presents institutions with major issues in terms of quality assurance processes. These stem from the flexibility that is built into the CBMS philosophy and the consequences that result. We need to look at the quality assurance aspect of CBMS from two viewpoints. The first in terms of the systems that need to be put in place for the granting of credit through programme validation and subsequent monitoring, and the second for the processes that are in place to oversee the granting of credit to individual students who may embark on
negotiated programmes or seek AP(E)L credit. The different ends of the CBMS continuum require different approaches to quality assurance, although based on the same underlying principle, namely; the clear distinction between those making proposals and those making judgments about them.
