Moving beyond compliance to elevate learning and teaching with standards and bench – Nikolai Elkins

18 Nov 2024

“Moving beyond compliance to elevate learning and teaching with standards and benchmarks,” examines how embedding sector standards, such as the Subject Benchmark Statements (SBS) and Sector-recognised Standards (SrS), can enhance education at the University for the Creative Arts.

Although creative courses often emphasise innovation and personal expression, thoughtful application of these standards can support essential competencies, foster inclusivity, and maintain creative freedom. The article argues that standards help structure the curriculum, guide assessments, and shape learning outcomes, benefiting students and ensuring quality and consistency in higher education qualifications. It highlights challenges, including potential restrictions on creativity, and suggests strategies for interdisciplinary alignment and flexibility in program design. Ultimately, the article promotes using benchmarks as tools for grounding educational excellence while supporting creative innovation and industry relevance. (2440 words/12 minute read))

______________________________________________________________________________

Embedding sector standards and benchmarks can often feel at odds with the creative expression that define many of our subjects at UCA; creative courses—whether in art, design, architecture, or business—are all about innovation, expression, and personal growth. Yet, when we introduce standards like Subject Benchmark Statements (SBS) and Sector-recognised Standards (SrS), there can be an initial hesitation from educators. These benchmarks can feel restrictive, as they seem to place boundaries around something that thrives on freedom and individual expression.  But, when applied thoughtfully, these standards can guide our teaching practices, ensuring our students meet essential competencies while advancing inclusivity and allowing for creative voices to flourish.  

Even if you’re not directly involved in designing courses, benchmarks are still relevant to your teaching practice – yes, even in a technical and/or supporting role. They shape the curriculum, guide assessments, and inform the learning objectives/outcomes that students are expected to meet. Understanding benchmarks help align teaching with broader goals of the program, ensuring students develop the skills and knowledge needed to succeed in their field. They offer frameworks for evaluating student progress - especially useful in creative subjects, where assessments can feel subjective. So, while you might not be in charge of setting these benchmarks, they’re part of the educational ecosystem that shapes how you support, assess, and guide your students on their creative journey. 

What are the OfS Sector-Recognised Standards? 

The Office for Students (OfS) – the sector designated quality body - define sector-recognised standards (SrS) as a framework to uphold the quality and credibility of higher education qualifications in England. These standards set the expected academic level of various qualification types, such as undergraduate and postgraduate degrees, ensuring consistency across institutions. The OfS's regulatory framework, specifically Condition B5, mandates that higher education providers ensure their awards reflect these standards. This condition ensures that qualifications are both reliable and consistent across the sector, helping students and employers have confidence in the academic value of each award. Many industries use these mechanisms from healthcare to the food industry – they provide trust and consistency and have become increasingly important in a market driven higher education. Students need assurance that they are getting what they are paying for. 

In recent years you may have been hearing more and more about the OfS and the SrS, but this is nothing new. OfS took over as the designated quality body (DQB) on the 1st April 2023, and with it brought in the SrS, which replaced the Quality Assurance Agency’s (very similar) Framework for Higher Education Qualifications – now The Frameworks for Higher Education Qualifications. 

What are the QAA’s Subject Benchmark Statements? 

With the Quality Assurance Agency’s work no longer being compliant with European Standards and Guidelines, the agency stepped down as the DQB in March 2023 with OfS taking over the role. Despite this, their work still continues with an aim to continue being European Quality Assurance Registered, so, because of this their work – while immensely useful – is not a quality compliance for universities.  

An area that the OfS hasn’t taken control over, is the incredibly helpful Subject Benchmark Statements (SBS) provided by QAA. These statements outline key academic standards and expected learning outcomes for students across disciplines, developing a foundation that define what graduates should know, understand, and be able to do at the end of their studies. There are benchmarks for Art and Design, Architecture and Business and Management, amongst others, each tailored to the unique standards and competencies of their disciplines. 

Since their initial publication, the SBS documents have evolved to reflect emerging industry standards, technological advancements, and the changing needs of both students and employers. Reviewed and revised periodically by industry experts, these statements ensure that curricula remain relevant and responsive to contemporary issues such as global sustainability, digital transformation, and cultural diversity. Each SBS edition allows flexibility in course design while upholding the shared academic standards that define our university’s educational mission - they are not, and should not be taken as prescriptive. So even though QAA are no longer acting as the DQB, their Subject Benchmarks continue to be valuable for institutions in maintaining the contemporary currency of their programmes.  

Each SBS document shares a common purpose - to develop critical thinking, practical application, ethical awareness, and independent learning in students, whilst also addressing some unique demands of their disciplines. For example, while Art and Design and Architecture benchmarks emphasise creativity and design, Architecture incorporates regulatory standards and technical skills within it to meet the requirements of professional practice. In contrast, Business and Management benchmarks prioritise strategic thinking, data-driven decision-making, and financial literacy. You will also find that the pedagogical approaches vary—studio-based and project-driven learning is central in Art and Design and Architecture, while Business and Management often employs case studies, simulations, and team projects to build analytical and collaborative skills.  

At UCA’s Business School for the Creative Industries, it’s especially important to approach the SBS with a dual focus on creative arts and business principles. While Art and Design benchmarks emphasise creativity, interdisciplinary exploration, and practical engagement with media and materials, Business and Management - by contrast - centres on strategic thinking, entrepreneurship, and market-oriented skills. The disciplines intersect where creative problem-solving meets strategic and analytical business practices, and a hybrid perspective between the two must be taken to truly deliver on what it means to be, “specifically tailored to creative sectors.”   

How do I actually align learning and teaching practices with sector standards and benchmarks? 

The first place to start is by familiarising yourself with the specific benchmarks and standards relevant to your discipline and level of the programme. Visit the QAA page on Subject Benchmark Statements and the OfS Sector Recognised Standards. There are no shortcuts; take time to read each document, noting the specific knowledge areas, skills, and learning outcomes emphasised. Consider how these expectations align with your existing teaching practices, and where adjustments may be necessary.  

How can I Integrate these into course Learning Outcomes/Objectives? 

If you are reading this and you are revalidating/validating a course, now is a great time to review your course’s learning outcomes/objectives and map them to the core competencies identified in the standards and benchmarks. The SrS are great for developing the levelness of your programme, ensuring that there is progression across the years. Thoroughly mapping, or matching, your unit learning outcomes/objectives ensures that there are no gaps in the curriculum, or that areas aren’t over-emphasised or over-assessed. A thorough mapping ensures you are offering opportunities for consolidation across the years, developing an effective spiral curriculum, giving opportunities for students to appropriately return to concepts throughout their learning and develop robust understanding and technical skill.  

Mapping objectives and outcomes doesn’t need to just stop at unit design, you can take this into your curriculum planning to ensure that each unit’s teaching sessions are aligned with the learning outcomes/objectives and competencies outlined in the benchmarks and standards. This ensures that the content and activities of each session are purposefully designed and constructively aligned to support the progression toward the objectives/outcomes. This approach will also allow you to identify areas where additional support may be needed to meet the required standards, ensuring students have the necessary resources to succeed.  

How do I Design Assessments that Reflect Standards and Benchmarks? 

Unlike objectives/outcomes of a unit at UCA, assessment outcomes don’t always need to remain fixed by a course validation – only the defined ‘type’, e.g.: portfolio, essay, dissertation or presentation. This gives you greater scope to reflect current industry demand for your students and demonstrate responsiveness to your cohort.  

One of the first aspects that must be at the centre of your assessment design, is ensuring it is reflective of the required academic rigour of the programme and notional hours as indicated in the SrS. To do this, you will need to consider the breakdown of hours indicated by the assessment type. This can be achieved by calculating the notional hours (30 UG credits = 300 hours of learning) and considering the indicative amount of time students should be spending on the task, including independent self-directed, directed and taught study. There are challenges to this as it can become a very subjective measure. So, looking to other courses, and other institutions, can help guide the appropriate assessment load ensuring that students aren’t being under or over-assessed.    

Each assessment task you set, must map to a learning objective/learning outcome so that it can be effectively and fairly assessed. If the assessment task doesn’t align, then it shouldn’t belong in the unit. This sounds quite simple in practice, but there can be subtle differences across the levels. For instance, at Level 6, students might be expected to critically engage with existing literature and apply it to practical scenarios, while at Level 7, it is necessary to begin demonstrating an originality in the application of this knowledge. Choosing a suitable task that meets these very specific requirements should be considered when selecting the assessment task(s). 

It's worth mentioning that you should only ever be assessing to sector standards - not your subjective measures of excellence. This is regardless of the number of years’ experience you may have. You may also be wondering whether knowing all these standards are necessary, especially in the presence of a generic marking criteria at UCA, which has already been aligned to these standards. However, knowing the specific benchmarks and sector standards allows you to confidently and transparently justify your assessments, ensuring they align with both the academic rigour required by the program and the professional expectations of the industry. It also ensures that your assessments are fair, inclusive, and provide a clear path for students to demonstrate their growth and mastery within their discipline. Having a thorough understanding of sector standards means you can better articulate why a student meets, exceeds, or falls short of the expected outcomes, providing them with more meaningful feedback, potentially reducing student complaints.  

But I don’t do summative assessment? 

There is still space for sector standards and benchmarks for those who do not summative assess in the form of formative assessment. Formative assessments are designed to give students ongoing feedback, allowing them to identify areas of strength and areas needing improvement before final evaluations. By integrating sector standards into your formative assessments, you can ensure students are consistently engaging with core competencies expected of them. 

Consider integrating standards and benchmarks as part of peer reviews and self-assessments to not only reinforce students' understanding of what is expected but also allow them to develop metacognitive skills in self-regulation and independent learning. 

What about the problems, and are there any solutions to these? 

As mentioned, many creative disciplines thrive on innovation and personal expression, which can sometimes clash with standardised frameworks, and some educators may feel that ensuring students meet required competencies limits some creative freedoms – both in their delivery and curriculum design. If you haven’t reviewed them already, the Sector Recognised Standards and Subject Benchmarks Statements particularly, feature innovation and self-direction at the forefront of their priorities. While it has been critiqued that the OfS lack the necessary expertise and independence to assess educational quality effectively, and that their introduction as a Designated Quality Body poses risk to creating a homogenised approach to higher education, neither SrS or SBS dictate what should be learned or explicitly how it should be taught. There is still plenty of room for students to exercise creative freedom, whilst still upholding the rigour of the programme. Educators still have opportunities to build flexible pathways within the curriculum that allow for multiple ways of meeting the same standards. With ever growing standards pushed on the primary and secondary school sector, the push to meet standards has impacted pedagogic risk, and there is real danger that it will have the same on the Higher Education sector too. While reflective practice, and collaboration may help mitigate some of this, they aren’t going to take away the looming threat hanging over them – a metaphorical sword that feels it may drop at any minute with a bad National Student Survey (NSS) score. 

 A critique also may be that the standards or benchmarks are too broad, making them open to interpretation, which can then lead to inconsistencies in applying standards across different courses, programmes and/or Schools. Or, that they don’t keep up with the fast pace of the ever-changing industry. As of writing this, the Art and Design SBS haven’t been updated for 5 years, and there have been colossal advancements in this time - particularly regarding generative AI. These issues can be mitigated at course design through course design teams and ensuring that there is appropriate industry input and external input from academic teams outside of UCA. During the life cycle of a programme, your course external examiner will also be asked to comment on whether the learning and teaching activities are indicative of what is expected within the sector. Additional opportunities to ensure there are consistent standards are through internal calibration and internal verification, which involves internal reviewers comparing assessments, grading criteria, and outcomes across various courses to ensure alignment with the established standards. Internal calibration sessions should be held regularly within programmes, allowing staff to discuss and align their interpretation of standards - this approach can help identify any discrepancies or inconsistencies early on, promoting a shared understanding of expectations. 
 
For programs with interdisciplinary, collaborative or hybrid elements aligning courses cohesively with benchmarks can be incredibly complex. Balancing SBS focused on strategic thinking with those emphasising creativity can be challenging and may lead to prioritising one set of competencies over others. A solution for this might be to look at establishing cross and inter-disciplinary working groups and workshops to ensure there is cohesive application of standards. This of course, along with all the strategies mentioned, adds some form of administrative burden; a robust tracker, to support the mapping process, can help streamline this better for teaching teams. Sharing this on the University SharePoint also ensures that all teams, including support staff, have access to all course documentation, resulting in meaningful and aligned planning, teaching, support and assessment at all points of the student learning journey.

Conclusion 

Mapping creative education programs to sector standards isn't just about compliance; it’s about ensuring that our students are prepared for the dynamic and competitive world they are entering. Embracing standards shouldn’t restrict creativity; rather, it underpins it with credibility, ensuring that every student’s journey at UCA is grounded in excellence recognised across the industry. As we continue to refine and adapt our programs to lead industry trends, we need to continue using benchmarks as a springboard for innovation, inclusion, and quality across all aspects of teaching and learning.