Personal Blogs

In an earlier blog article, I described the structure of an undergraduate honours degree in terms of academic credits (or points). Degrees are organised into modules, and modules attract credit. To gain a degree you need 360 credits.

I am sometimes asked the following question: ‘is a degree from a brick university the same as a degree from the OU?’ The answer is, ‘of course it is’. A related question is, of course, ‘who defines what goes into a degree that makes them the same?’ 

This is where the QAA comes in. QAA, an abbreviation for the Quality Assurance Agency (for Higher Education) is a government quango (a quasi-non-governmental organisation) that defines what goes into a degree. Academics who are writing and delivering modules, and external examiners who help to maintain academic standards all need to know about QAA Benchmark Statements.

Here’s a definition of what they are, taken from the QAA website: “Subject Benchmark Statements describe the nature of study and the benchmark academic standards expected of graduates in specific subject areas, and in respect of particular qualifications. They provide a picture of what graduates in a particular subject might reasonably be expected to know, do and understand at the end of their course or programme.”

What follows is a mild ‘deep dive’ into a couple of subjects: Computing (which I’m involved with teaching), and English Literature (which I’m currently studying). If you are not interested in either of these, you can still find your own subject by having a rummage through the QAA website. An interesting activity would be to see how the learning outcomes for the module that you are tutoring are expressed on the QAA website.

I begin with computing, looking at computer science. I then move to look at Artificial Intelligent (AI) and then software engineering (which is a module I have some responsibility for), before looking at any accompanying QAA guidance that relates to project modules. This is followed by a contrasting look at English. I conclude with some reflections. To give you a good idea of what is contained within the QAA materials, I’m taking liberty of quoting extensively.

Computing

The QAA Computing benchmark statements are presented in two documents: a summary document (the basics), and a more detailed subject statement. At the time of writing, both documents were dated March 2022.

I began by looking at ‘the basics’ document. The purpose of a computing degree is to gives students “the opportunity to explore creative and dynamic technologies” and to “improve their employment prospects in a rapidly evolving global digital skills economy” (p.3). I was also drawn to a comment about assessment, which includes varied methods that are accessible to all students. Assessments should be authentic and tied to real-world contexts and constraints, allowing students to practically demonstrate the skills they have developed” (p.2).

Turning to the larger document, IEEE and ACM computing curricula (1.2, p.3). Before digging to the ACM curriculum and important subtopics within computing, below is a summary of points from the first three sections of the statement that struck me as being interesting and important. 

• Sustainability is to be addressed throughout the curriculum. The curriculum should make students aware of ‘the resource consumption of massive data centres used for cloud computing, and more generally, the environmental costs of both building hardware to support computing and disposing of electronic waste’ (1.16, p.6).
• On the topic ‘content, structure and delivery’, ‘educators should consider the balance between subject-specific and transferable skills development between educational and workforce requirements as courses are developed and maintained’ (3.4., p.15). In other words, learning activities should help students to develop skills that are useful in the workplace.
• On the topic of pedagogy, ‘teaching should encourage students to reflect, evaluate, select, justify, communicate and be innovative in their problem-solving; and prepare them to become adaptable independent learners throughout their lifelong learner-earner journey.’ (3.9, p.16)
• On the topic of defining what is to be learnt, computing ‘curriculum will define the knowledge students will gain and the course learning outcomes indicate the areas in which graduates will have knowledge competence or capability.’ (3.12, p.17)
• Computing is also a practical subject: ‘[t]he hardware and software resources available should facilitate a practical approach to the delivery of the course’ (3.13, p.17). 

Section 4 of the document summarises the benchmark standards, which are divided into the following areas: subject knowledge, understanding and skills, intellectual skills, computational problem solving, practical skills across the computing lifecycle, interpersonal and team working, and professional practice. The professional practice topic includes the importance of working with a legal and ethical framework, understanding the important of equality, diversity and inclusion, and sustainability.

Three levels of attainment are outlined: threshold (students must demonstrate a requisite understanding to get a pass), typical (students should demonstrate a sound understanding), excellent (students are to show an exceptional understanding, showing an ability to be creative and innovative).

Curricula summaries

Appendix 3 of the benchmark statement shares some further guidance about what should go in computer science degrees. Educators should be aware of the ACM (Association of Computing Machinery) curricula recommendations. From here, it is possible to find your way to a digital book, Computer Science Curricula 2023 by Kumar et al. (2023) which was published in January 2024. It is useful to note that the document summarises ‘core’ and ‘non-core’ subjects. 

There are connections between the subject of computing and related named degrees, such as artificial intelligence and software engineering, which are sketched below. This is followed by a brief summary about the importance and significance of project work.

Artificial intelligence

Artificial intelligence (AI) can be a named degree, but the QAA does not publish its own benchmark statement that is specific to AI. Instead, at the time of writing, it falls under the subject of computing. 

In the ACM 2023 Computer Science curriculum, AI is covered from pages 65 to 86. Two notable points summarise some recent changes: ‘importance of understanding and assessing the broader societal impacts and implications of AI methods and applications, including issues in AI ethics, fairness, trust, and explainability’ and ‘there are explicit goals to develop basic AI literacy and critical thinking in every computer science student’ (p.66).

Important AI topics include searching (for solutions), the use of heuristics, knowledge representation, machine learning, applications and (as mentioned) the societal impact of AI. Machine learning is a significant topic since it can relate to different approaches, and highlights the importance of working with data. Other areas (which are currently considered non-core) includes natural language processing, robotics, and computer vision.

Software engineering

Software engineering, like AI, can be a named degree. Appendix 3 of the QAA benchmark standard (p.34), contains a useful summary of software engineering, suggesting that students need to understand:

• problem definition, specification (including formal specification), design, implementation (including debugging) and maintenance, software testing, change management and documentation;
• cybersecurity, including information security, and safety-critical systems;
• understanding risk, reliability and scalability of the range of possible options and an appreciation of design trade-offs.  (QAA Computing Subject Benchmark Statement, 2022, p.34)

ACM offers some specific guidance about Software engineering courses, specifically SE2014 Curriculum Guidelines for Undergraduate Degree Programs in Software Engineering. In the recent 2023 ACM curriculum book software engineering is covered on pages 237 to 254. Topics that courses should cover includes teamwork, tools, requirements (functional and non-function, which can include sustainability), design, software construction, software refactoring, software reliability, and formal methods. It is interesting to note that formal methods has now been relegated to being a ‘non-core’ subject, which reflects both current trends and practices.

Another source of guidance for educators is something called the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge, which is also known as the SWEBOK. The most recent version, SWEBOK V4 was made available towards the end of 2024

Computing projects

When I was an undergraduate in computing in the 1990s, I had to do a computing project towards the end of my degree. The OU’s named Computing degree is formally accredited by the British Computer Society (BCS). This means that students must complete a project to gain a specific named degree.

The QAA benchmark guidance offers comments on the notion of a project in paragraph 3.19: “[c]omputing courses often conclude with a capstone activity, which brings together knowledge and practical and analytical skills that learners have developed throughout the course. This may take the form of a traditional project or end-point assessment, but other formats can be appropriate, whether research or practice-led” (p.18). Students who are studying on degree apprentices will work on a project that integrates together professional practice and independent study. 

The 2023 ACM curriculum book also offers a bit of guidance about projects, suggesting that ‘many of the fundamental topics of software engineering are best experienced in a hands-on fashion’ (p.238) whilst also emphasising the importance of feedback.

English Literature

The QAA benchmark standard for English was published in 2023

It shares the following characteristics of an English degree:

• 'English involves the study of language, literature and the practice of creative writing’ (p.3)
• ‘The study of language, of literary and cultural works, and the production of critical and creative work, enable students to interpret and interrogate past and present cultures, to anticipate their future transformations, and to enhance their ability to understand themselves, other people and our shared world.’ (p.3)
• English graduates should be able to: read critically, analyse texts, reflect critically, develop persuasive interpretations, articulate an understanding of complex texts, communicate, and apply a scholarly approach.

Just like the computing benchmark standards, there are three levels: threshold, typical, and excellent (p.14). To gain a pass, students must meet the threshold level. The benchmark is split into categories: generic skills; subject knowledge; understanding of EDI (equality, diversity and inclusion), access, sustainability and entrepreneurship.

Subject the subject knowledge is understandably quite descriptive, highlighting the importance of close reading of texts, helping students appreciate that different texts can carry multiple meanings, help students to understand the ‘rhetorical properties of texts’ (p.16), including pre-1800 texts, and how culture of the time would have influenced the production of texts. 

When looking through the benchmark standard, the following struck me as both interesting and important:

• ‘English courses often link literature, language or creative practice to sustainability and environmental challenges through exploring the relationship between humans and the natural environment across different periods and discourses, and between different modes and genres of writing. Ecocriticism places the environment at the centre of its interpretative focus.’ (1.15, p.5)
• ‘Creativity is fundamental to all aspects of English. Students of English demonstrate open-mindedness, initiative and independent thinking, as well as abilities in innovation, problem-solving and solution finding.’ (1.21, p.6)
• ‘The subject of English enhances the critical and analytic thinking that is crucial for enterprise and entrepreneurship, by encouraging curiosity, questioning, observation, pattern recognition, and problem identification.’ (1.22, p.6)

Unlike the computing subject benchmarks, there are no detailed appendices that provide pointers to other curriculum summaries.

Reflections

This has become more than a ‘quick’ look at QAA. To prepare this blog, I actually had about three goes of looking through it and reflecting on it before compiling this post.

There are some clear similarities and differences between the computing and English standards. Beginning with computing, I felt the QAA guidance tries to offer a balance of providing sufficient detail to be useful, whilst at the same time offering pointers to organisations which are able to offer a more comprehensive summary of the state of the curriculum in a fast moving field.

I was struck by the extent to which sustainability was emphasised, and I was impressed that it provided pointers toward helpful papers. When digging further into the computing curricula reports, I was struck that computing history is considered to be non-core. Computing clearly has an history, and understanding of how things are they way they are is important to understanding computing practices and tools.

Turning to English, the benchmark statement felt more complete, but I don’t think that should come as a surprise. It was striking was that nothing was mentioned about the canon; texts that are broadly recognised as being significant and worthy of study. This said, the standard wasn’t specific to English literature. This begs the question: do English academics have more of a free reign to choose texts? I have heard of instances where lecturers and students have worked together to study texts that they themselves identify as important.

There are clear points of similarity. There is the importance of skills, knowledge and critical thinking. Both subjects emphasise the importance of academic practice; what it means to study the respective subjects at a degree level.

It is interesting to see close reading emphasised in the English benchmark; it is certainly emphasised within the modules that I have been studying. Computing students have to do close reading too. Rather than analysing novels and poems, computing students need to analyse code. Code has, of course, two audiences: the machine, and software engineers working within the culture in which the software exists. There’s another important similarity, which is perhaps emphasised more in the English degree than it is in the computing degree: the importance of creativity. To get things done, computing students need to study a range of sources (different software components) and combine them together in creative ways.

So, what have I learnt from all this? I now know that the benchmark standards have a consistent structure, and I’ve given myself even more curriculum guidance to look through. I’m going to assume that’s a good thing.

Acknowledgements

I have drawn on the QAA subject benchmarks statements extensively in this post. They are worth spending a bit of time looking at. This article has been written as a part of an eSTEeM project about tutor practice.