HEFCE : Publications : 1996 : M 11/96 - Fast and Flexible: The AIRs Experience

HEFCE

Fast and Flexible: The AIRs Experience

Reference M 11/96

Leah Sims and Maggie Woodrow

Published by the HEFCE, April 1996

Executive Summary: 1. What is an Accelerated Degree?; 2. How Were the Courses Evaluated?; 3. What is the National Context?; 4. Conclusions; 5. Recommendations
Project Findings: Chapter 1 The Nature of the AIRs Student Body; Chapter 2 Providing a Comparable Experience; Chapter 3 AIRs and Employability; Chapter 4 The Funding Implications; Chapter 5 Operating a Flexible Framework
Appendices: Appendix I Key Information on the AIRs Programmes; Appendix II Steering Committee Membership; Appendix III Table V: Final Degree Results (First Cohort Students); Appendix IV List of Identified Respondents to the Survey of Employers; Appendix V List of Identified Respondents to the Survey of Professional Bodies; Appendix VI Topics Covered by the Annual Reports

Executive Summary

1. What is an Accelerated Degree?

Since June 1992 eleven Accelerated and Intensive Routes (AIRs) have been piloted in ten universities. The AIRs programmes have exactly the same curricula as the conventional degrees on which they are based, but a typical AIRs course operates a forty-five week teaching year as distinct from the standard thirty weeks, so enabling students to complete in two or three years a course of study which would usually take three or four. 'Acceleration', therefore, is not in the length of the course in weeks, but in its duration in years of study, and is achieved by teaching during the normal long summer vacation and reducing other holiday periods. The pilot programmes were designed to cover a range of disciplines including science, engineering, business studies, arts and humanities, law, computing and teacher education. AIRs courses in this Report are often referred to as 'pilot' courses and the standard length courses on which they are based as 'parent' courses. (See Appendix I for more information about the programmes involved in the Pilot Scheme.)

2. How Were the Courses Evaluated?

This publication is the culmination of the work of the Pilot Scheme's Monitoring and Evaluation Project undertaken by the University of North London, which has been examining the effectiveness and quality of all aspects of the Scheme, with a particular focus on its contribution to wider access. It draws upon the main findings of the project's three Annual Reports which looked at the first, second and (where appropriate) third years of operation of the AIRs courses. (Further information on the topics covered by previous reports can be found in Appendix VI.) This Report examines:

the perceptions of the staff and students involved in the Scheme;
the key course related issues for AIRs in terms of the nature of the student body;
the quality of the AIRs student experience;
the employability of AIRs graduates:
the financial implications of AIRs;
the attitudes of employers, External Examiners and the professional bodies to accelerated degrees.

The monitoring data are examined within the broader historical context of the initiative, and will provide a discussion of the future role of AIRs in the light of more recent educational policy developments. These include the changing nature of HE curriculum and the increasing emphasis on the development of transferable skills; the financial implications of AIRs within the wider political debate about the future of student funding and the funding of higher education; and the potential for operating AIRs within the context of a flexible framework.

3. What is the National Context?

The AIRs initiative was originally launched by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council (PCFC) in 1991 (and inherited by the Higher Education Funding Council for England in April 1993) in the context of its commitment to widening access to higher education and increasing participation rates among under-represented groups. It was envisaged that the main target groups would include:

employees looking to improve their career prospects by returning to full time study for a degree and then re-entering work as quickly as possible;
women looking to re-enter the labour market but with the greater career opportunities which a degree can bring;
mature students with plenty of practical on-the-job experience who thought they would never have the opportunity to gain a degree;
people facing redundancy or considering a major career change.

The 1991 White Paper 'Higher Education: A New Framework' had reaffirmed the Government's intention to continue to increase the number of 18-19 year olds, as well as mature students, entering higher education. In this document, the Government had also encouraged the review of conventional three or four year degree courses by institutions and welcomed the development of different approaches to achieving efficient and flexible expansion in higher education. In addition, the paper described the "scope for more extensive use of credit accumulation and transfer and for providing courses on a more intensive basis, making more effective use of existing buildings and equipment." (p12). The pilots were established in this context of a commitment to increasing flexible learning opportunities for mature students; a rapidly expanding HE system; buoyant student demand; the abolition of the binary line and the creation of a single framework for higher education; and financial incentives to encourage expansion in the form of an increase in the undergraduate tuition fee paid to institutions on behalf of students in receipt of an award.

By the November 1992 Autumn Statement, however, the Government's projected 1992/93 figure of 776,000 full-time students in higher education had already been exceeded by 55,000. A rein on university expansion was announced, tuition fees were cut and new funding arrangements were implemented in order to constrain further growth. Further consolidation was announced in the Autumn Statement of 1995, and this year's budget involves a 5% real term cut in HE funding.

Today, there are more than a million full-time students in the United Kingdom, with an additional half a million people studying part-time. In the 1960s, one young person in 17 went on to higher education, now the figure is approaching one in three. This dramatic rise in the level of participation, combined with the reductions in the unit of resource that have been imposed across the sector during the past three years, have led to calls to find a solution to the problem of under-funding in universities and colleges. Many practitioners and politicians from all sides believe that fundamental questions regarding the nature and purpose of HE need to be addressed, and that alternative strategies for funding a high-quality mass education system must be found. Part of the Government response has been to set up a Committee of Inquiry, to be chaired by Sir Ron Dearing, into the future of higher education. It will make recommendations on how the shape, structure, size and funding of HE should develop to meet the needs of the country during the next 20 years. The Committee will report to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment by the summer of 1997. It is during this period of turbulence in higher education that this AIRs Report is presented.

4. Conclusions

4.1 Successful Aspects of AIRs Courses

Overall, and despite early apprehensions, the AIRs pilot courses have been demonstrably successful in the following ways.

4.1.1. Student Performance

The overall degree result of first cohort pilot students who completed their course, was extremely good, with a pass rate of 95% compared to 96% of parent students. Moreover, a higher percentage of these AIRs students were awarded first class or upper second class degrees than among parent course students. External Examiners have confirmed the comparability of the quality of the achievement of the AIRs students, both in relation to their depth of knowledge and their general and subject specific skills.

4.1.2. The Quality of the Learning Experience

There was a high level of satisfaction among AIRs students with the quality of their higher education experience, and they were much more satisfied with the support and resources that they received than parent course students were. Both students and staff rated highly the student-centred approach which responded to the learning needs of the target group, and was adequately resourced.

4.1.3. The Innovatory Impact of AIRs Courses

Pilot institutions reported that AIRs had a catalyst effect across the curriculum, providing a stimulus to experimentation in developing innovations, for example in respect of the development of distance learning techniques, which students felt had increased their range of skills.

4.1.4. Promoting Wider Access

The Pilot Scheme has illustrated the potential of non-traditional mature students and the value of higher education provision which capitalises on their experience. In so doing AIRs course have successfully challenged prejudices remaining within the system about the calibre of these students.

4.1.5. The Use of the Summer Recess

The AIRs pilot has demonstrated the feasibility of using the summer recess as an integral part of undergraduate courses. Staffing, using primarily overtime, with some part-time contracts, has been surprisingly unproblematic, and students have welcomed the advantages of an uncrowded campus.

4.1.6. The Employability of AIRs Graduates

Both in terms of employer perceptions and student first destination data, there is little evidence that an accelerated degree is harmful either to graduates' employment prospects or to their opportunities for post-graduate study.

4.2 Some Problematic Aspects of AIRs Courses

4.2.1. Limited Appeal in Access Terms

The courses have been successful in attracting mature students, but less so in increasing the participation of women, students from minority ethnic groups and those with disabilities.

4.2.2. Withdrawal Rates

Although withdrawal rates for AIRs students were below the national average, they were nevertheless higher than for those on parent courses. Where reasons were provided for this, they usually related to financial and domestic, rather than to academic problems.

4.2.3. Limited facilities in the summer recess

For equivalent student facilities to be provided in the summer recess on a cost-effective basis, it would be necessary to offer accelerated routes to significantly larger student cohorts, thus sailing very close to the full-scale introduction of a third semester academic year.

4.2.4. Professional body recognition

Although the responses of professional bodies to the survey undertaken as part of the monitoring pilot were generally positive, in practice it appears that they may have pre-judged and under-estimated the potential of the pilot courses, and they have been reluctant to grant recognition.

4.2.5. Learning strategies

While welcoming the small-group approach to course delivery, students have expressed reservations about other aspects of the course, though their reaction has generally been to the effectiveness of the implementation rather than to the mode of learning itself. Greater care, it seems is needed in the delivery of open-learning techniques, study skills and the development of transferable skills.

4.2.6. Integration and acceleration

Opinions of both staff and students varied widely about the desirability of integrating accelerated and parent group students. Some felt that the supportive, small group identity of the AIRs students was one of their greatest strengths; others emphasized the restrictions of a narrow isolation and the need to mix more widely.

4.3. Overall Conclusion

Reactions to the AIRs experience are inevitably conditioned by individual perceptions of the nature of the university experience. AIRs students have an instrumental approach to their courses, which contributes to their success and which is driven by a desire to get back to the 'real world' as soon as possible, and for this reason they are less interested in the 'frills' of university life. In the context of the current debate about 'graduateness', this data provides some interesting insights.

In practice, the enormous diversity of the UK higher education environment, both in terms of attendance patterns and institutional characteristics, means that there can be no such thing as a norm. The AIRs experience is thus typical, as being no more than another variant in a system noted and appreciated for its variety.

5. Recommendations

5.1. All those involved in planning, delivering and monitoring higher education provision, and in employing graduates, are recommended to note the success of the AIRs Pilot Scheme and the reasons for it.

5.2. All institutions seeking to develop within their portfolio, a coherent package of opportunities for diverse student groups across different programmes of study are recommended to give serious consideration to accelerated routes. Such institutions are advised to:

Offer accelerated routes as options through modular schemes to enable mature students with work experience to graduate within a timing that suits their academic needs and personal circumstances.
Provide pathways which offer adequate choice, coherence and logical sequencing.
Ensure that the situation in respect of professional recognition is clarified before the start of the course.
Promote AIRs opportunities for those with family responsibilities, ethnic minority students and people with disabilities and ensure that the facilities provided on accelerated routes are consistent with equal opportunities policies.
Provide adequate and explicit information in advance about the nature of accelerated routes, including professional body reactions where relevant.
Investigate the reactions of mature students to computer learning techniques and provide adequate training for staff and students.
Review study skills provision, tutorial arrangements, and group assignment practices in the light of responses from mature students.
Build planning for AIRs provision properly into academic calendars, including time for Examination Board meetings and re-sits.
Review the cost-effectiveness of the use of campuses during the summer recess, in relation to student needs.

5.3. The DfEE is recommended to:

recognise the positive achievements of adequately funded accelerated routes.
accept AIRs as a legitimate and worthwhile addition to the structure of higher education for the future and respond accordingly.
encourage the development of flexible patterns of attendance which encompass accelerated routes.
review the relative value of awards allocated to AIRs students.
promote the findings of this report, with a view to encouraging wider access, curriculum innovation and quality in meeting student learning needs.

5.4. Professional bodies are recommended to:

examine all the evidence on AIRs courses and gain a full and accurate understanding, before making decisions about recognition.
give greater emphasis to the quality of higher education provision and to student achievements rather than to specific attendance patterns.

5.5. The HEFCE is recommended to:

ensure that something which it has funded successfully in the pilot stage is now built into future planning
ensure that professional bodies and employer organisations are adequately informed about the duration (in weeks) of AIRs courses, about their work experience component and about quality assurance arrangements.
involve the professional bodies in discussions about the quality aspects of AIRs courses
produce a Guidance Document to provide information about AIRs courses to prospective students, employers, careers advisers, and professional bodies.
ensure that the project findings are widely and appropriately disseminated, to obtain widespread recognition in particular for the following:
- the academic achievement of AIRs graduates, especially in certain disciplines.
- the particular suitability of AIRs for mature students.
- the employment prospects of AIRs graduates.
- the effective use of the summer recess.
- the effective use of open learning techniques.

Project Findings

Chapter 1 The Nature of the AIRs Student Body

1.1 AIRs and Wider Access

The remit of the Pilot Scheme was to facilitate access to HE for mature students seeking to reduce their length of study and periods of absence from the labour market. Recruitment for the AIRs courses has therefore been predominantly targeted towards highly motivated mature students; without formal entry qualifications, but with work experience; who work well under pressure, but would find it difficult to commit themselves to a three or four year degree.

1.2 The AIRs Student Body

A comparative analysis of the enrolment data of the first (1992/93) and second (1993/94) cohorts of pilot and parent students shows that in many respects, the AIRs courses have indeed succeeded in widening access to higher education. The profiles of the first and second cohorts pilot course students were remarkably similar, and very different in both cases from those of the parent course students. As indicated below, AIRs students, by comparison with those on parent courses, have been more likely to be adult returners; from the local area (within a 50 mile radius); more likely to be 'non-standard' entrants (i.e. without 'A' levels or BTEC qualifications); and more likely to have been previously employed before entry on to the course. Accelerated routes have not, however, proved any more attractive than parent courses to students with disabilities or from under-represented ethnic groups. Nor have they proved more attractive to women - a reaction most likely to be attributable to their family responsibilities, especially during the summer period. Some of the pilot programmes were also open to younger (18-20 year old) students with a very sound academic background.

Table I Pilot and Parent Course Student Profiles

	Parent Course	Pilot Course
Adult returners	28%	90%
From the locality	45%	71%
Non-standard entrants	15%	41%
Previously employed	9%	41.5%

(Figures are expressed as an average of first and second cohort statistics.)

1.3 Patterns of Recruitment by Subject Area

Patterns of recruitment in general were remarkably consistent across the pilot courses despite the wide range of subject areas. Generally, the distribution of applications and enrolments for AIRs followed the pattern for 'conventional' courses. A gender breakdown by subject showed that women, as one might expect, formed the majority on Humanities, Art and Design and Teacher Education courses. By contrast, the recruitment of female students on to the remaining pilot courses, especially those in science, computing and engineering, was substantially lower even, in many cases, than the proportion on parent courses. Women comprised only 3.3% of second cohort students on engineering based pilot programmes compared with the 1992/93 figure of 5.9%. Contributory factors to this profile were both recruitment strategies and student preferences, although it was not clear in what proportions.

1.4 Perceptions on the AIRs Student Profile

In terms of the perceptions of those who have either been involved in the pilot programmes or have been concerned with the quality of AIRs courses and the calibre of AIRs graduates, most have been mainly positive about the scheme. AIRs were considered to have an important role to play in enabling mature students to graduate, although many felt that they were less appropriate for 18 year olds - a view shared by employer representatives, members of professional bodies, staff from pilot institutions and the students themselves.

1.4.1 Employers

A survey of employers from a wide range of geographical locations and professions revealed that most respondents perceived there were advantages of AIRs to both employers and industry and students, although the majority (61%) felt recruitment should be restricted to certain student groups. Two-thirds of these respondents felt they should only be available to, "mature students wishing to return to education by building on work experience". They did not regard AIRs "as a benefit to 18 year olds, as often the academic ones lack interpersonal skills and benefit from the 3/4 years integration with university life".

1.4.2 Professional Bodies

Similarly, while over a third of professional bodies surveyed thought AIRs should be widely available in all subject areas or as an option to all HE institutions, the majority thought that, "AIRs should be limited to able mature students who do not need a period of maturation and who can cope with intensive study at HE level".

1.4.3 Staff

Although many staff saw AIRs as "a way of opening up higher education to people who wouldn't otherwise have the opportunity", the majority stressed the importance of limiting participation on AIRs courses, primarily to mature students: "I wouldn't want it to become the norm...It would be very difficult for us to feel so calm about it if we were getting a lot of 18 year olds because they have great difficulty coping with the 3 year course".

1.4.4 Students

Students also welcomed AIRs as "a marvellous idea for mature students", although they stressed that AIRs are: "certainly not a good idea for 18 year olds, however bright they are, as they need time to grow up and mature at university". Furthermore, many students felt, "It would be a complete disaster if all courses became 2 years...It will never replace the three year degree, but it's ideal for a limited number." Of the students surveyed at the end of their two year pilot programmes, most thought that AIRs should be available in all subject areas, although 83% felt that AIRs should be restricted to certain types of students, with 50% recommending mature students only. A further 19% wanted only, "students with previous work experience". The majority of students surveyed at the end of their three year pilot courses also thought that AIRs should be widely available (82%), and just under half felt it was necessary to limit recruitment to mature students and to those, "who are willing to work intensively and on their own initiative, and can afford to". In the main, negative student comments concerned the practicalities of course implementation, rather than the concept of AIRs.

1.5 Consensus on AIRs Student Profile

The consensus of opinion above endorses the recruitment outcomes of the pilot courses. Participating institutions have been pleased with their AIRs student profile which in most cases, they feel, has been consistent with their Mission to widen access and meet the needs of their local communities.

Chapter 2 Providing a Comparable Experience

2.1 The Learning Environment

Diversity is an accepted feature of the British system of higher education, where the enormous differences between campuses, facilities, locations, course structures, patterns of attendance and teaching and learning strategies combine to ensure that there is no such thing as a typical student experience. Nevertheless, it has been assumed that the accelerated degree course per se, provides a student experience that is radically different from any other. The difference is perceived as encompassing not only course specific issues, but the academic environment in its widest sense. This chapter investigates the validity of this assumption by examining: the perceptions of pilot students concerning their experience of studying on an AIRs course and the adequacy of the academic and pastoral support systems provided; the views of External Examiners regarding the comparability of standards on pilot routes and 'conventional' courses; and the quality of AIRs in terms of outcomes through a comparative analysis of the performance and retention rates for pilot and parent programmes.

2.2 Course Specific Issues

It is important to distinguish what the distinctive features of the AIRs course are. All the accelerated routes have been derived from parent courses that have been running successfully for a number of years in their standard three or four year mode. AIRs courses are not therefore new courses, but new modes of study of established programmes. As such, they have had the same curricula as the 'conventional' degrees on which they were based, and AIRs students have had the same mode of assessment and examination as 'normal' students. All AIRs courses have been monitored by the same internal quality assurance mechanisms as those of their parent courses using the same criteria.

The distinctive AIRs features are not then in course content, assessment and quality assurance processes, but in course structure. The courses have not been condensed, but intensified, and curriculum delivery, rather than curriculum content has been the main distinguishing point between pilot and parent courses. It is this basic set of characteristics about AIRs which has been most difficult to convey - particularly to lay audiences such as employers or professional bodies where there is an inherent nervousness regarding AIRs.

2.3 Perceived Advantages and Disadvantages of AIRs

The majority of pilot students surveyed (approximately 70%) expressed satisfaction with their choice of an accelerated route. Students felt that less time was wasted on an AIRs course and that they could study at a steady and uninterrupted pace. There was little indication that AIRs students missed the long summer vacation, and many said that their experience in employment meant that they were accustomed to taking only a short break.

Of the students surveyed on the two year pilot programmes, most (78%) thought they had had sufficient time to reflect on their studies and consolidate their learning. Sixty-three per cent of students surveyed on three year pilot programmes felt that they had needed more time, however. Some pilot students felt they had missed out on opportunities to mix and interact with a wider range of students (22% of two year students and 59% of three year students), although many of those on AIRs courses, like other mature students, were more concerned about the availability of creche facilities than sports facilities and, in general, social activities were perceived as being a very small part of the learning experience.

2.4 Provision of Student Support

Staff were concerned to provide pilot course students with the support and feedback that they needed to, "keep them interested and motivated". AIRs students, staff explained, "need encouragement and reassurance. They're very concerned about their ability and could easily be knocked back." Many staff were emphatic that support of this kind was essential to the success of the pilot courses, and students on almost all courses spoke highly of the tutorial support they received, although they were less impressed by the availability and consistency of essential information.

Staff and students were in agreement over the benefits of regular staff/student consultation and of student involvement in course boards and committee meetings. Staff demonstrated commendable willingness to listen to and act upon the often considerable demands made of them by AIRs students.

AIRs students were in fact far more satisfied with the general level of support and resources provided on their course than parent students (73% of two year pilot students and 91% of three year pilot students surveyed expressed satisfaction, compared with 54% and 41% of parent students in the corresponding years). Some parent students felt that AIRs courses were actually better resourced than their own.

2.5 Availability of Resources During the Summer

The use of the summer recess as an additional term or semester has been one of the more controversial aspects of the pilot scheme and one which would significantly alter students' perceptions of university life, and whilst. A third of AIRs students surveyed expressed concerns about the reduced availability of accommodation, catering, library, computing and creche facilities during the first holiday semesters. However, the proportion of satisfied students rose from 43% in the first year of the scheme, to approximately 55% in the final year as most of the pilot institutions improved their provision in this respect as the Pilot Phase progressed. Some students still felt that there was room for improvement, however, and maintenance work and the movement of departments to new sites over the summer caused fairly frequent disruption to students on several AIRs courses.

2.6 External Examiner Perceptions

The findings of a survey of the External Examiners for the pilot programmes were generally very favourable. Of the thirty survey questionnaires that were distributed, 53% (16) were returned by External Examiners at seven of the pilot institutions. The majority of respondents (80%), External Examiners for pilot courses in a variety of subject areas, thought the overall quality of the performance of AIRs students compared favourably with that of conventional route students, or was of the same quality. A further 80% of respondents felt that AIRs students had demonstrated the same depth of knowledge as conventional route students, and the same number again thought AIRs students had shown the same or a higher level of general and subject specific skills as conventional route students. Just over half of the External Examiners surveyed expressed concern that the intensive nature of AIRs did not give students sufficient time to reflect on and consolidate their learning, however. The evidential base for this observation is not clear.

All those who were aware of the level of resourcing provided on the AIRs course generally said that they felt it was equivalent to that on the parent route. Only one respondent thought the level of resourcing decreased during conventional vacation time.

Most External Examiners (86%) felt that the overall quality of the pilot course compared favourably with that of the parent route or with comparable courses in other institutions, or was of the same quality. Finally, in terms of the quality of the educational experience of students on AIRs courses compared to that of conventional route students, 69% of respondents felt that this compared favourably or was of the same quality as that experienced by other students. Only one Examiner thought the experience of the pilot course students compared unfavourably. One other respondent was undecided. In the current debate about graduate standards, this endorsement from External Examiners becomes a key quality 'guarantee'.

2.7 Student Performance

2.7.1 End of First Year Results

End of first year student performance was good for both first and second pilot cohorts, especially in Arts, Humanities, Social Sciences and Business Studies. Pass rates of first year AIRs students were high and were comparable to those of parent course students. Completion rates for both first and second cohort students were however lower on most Engineering programmes, and on Science and Technology pilot courses. (Their performance parallels that of the students on the parent routes.) This may indicate a need for more rigorous selection procedures in these disciplines. For both intakes, the withdrawal rate of AIRs students was lower than the national average (15.1% in 1992/93 and 10.9% in 1993/94), but in both years the numbers were higher than those withdrawing from parent programmes. The transfer figures of pilot course students were also slightly higher than the parent figures (approximately 8% for both first and second intakes of AIRs students). Withdrawal and transfer rates went hand in hand on most AIRs courses.

Very few institutions were able to provide reasons for student withdrawal. Of those that did, reasons given were usually financial and family, rather than academic pressures. The lack of, cost of, or inadequacy of creche provision, both in general and over the summer recess, seemed to be the main cause of withdrawal for a number of first cohort female students - on one course all the women dropped out during their first year. It appears that the situation improved in subsequent years, however, since less than 20% of final year pilot students surveyed said they had encountered difficulties with domestic responsibilities or childcare arrangements during the summer teaching period, compared with almost a third of first year pilot students.

2.7.2 Final Year Results

When the performance figures are calculated from the number of students that were actually entered for their final examinations, however, performance rates for pilot students compare much more favourably. The overall pass rate of first cohort pilot students who were entered for their exams was extremely high and compares very well with the parent student pass rate (95% of pilot students compared with 96% of parent students). Calculated on this basis, a breakdown of final degree results by classification reveals that first cohort AIRs students were more likely to be awarded first class degrees or upper seconds than parent students (7% of pilot students entered for their examinations were awarded first class degrees compared with 3% of parent students, and 43% of pilot students entered for their examinations were awarded upper seconds compared with 36% of parent students).

The overall proportion of first cohort pilot students passing their degrees was lower than that of parent students (61% of pilot students compared with 80% of parent students). The overall final year withdrawal/transfer rate of first cohort pilot students, as in previous years, was higher than that of parent students (36% compared with 16% of students in the final year). The overall failure rate of both pilot and parent students was very low, with only 2% of pilot and parent students failing their degrees. (See Appendix III for more detailed information on first cohort degree results.)

2.8 A Comparable Experience?

Despite the reservations of some, the views of the pilot students and External Examiners surveyed, and the overall examination results of AIRs students, would appear to show that Accelerated and Intensive Routes can provide a comparable student learning experience of higher education for particular groups within the wider student community.

Chapter 3 AIRs and Employability

3.1 Meeting the Needs of Employment

There are many who believe that there exists in Britain today an imbalance in the process described as 'education' and 'training', which is proving harmful to industry and to society as a whole. According to "The Education for Capability Manifesto" produced by the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce:

"The idea of the 'educated' person is that of a scholarly individual who has been neither educated nor trained to exercise useful skills...They acquire knowledge of particular subjects, but are not equipped to use knowledge in ways which are relevant to the world outside the education system." (Capability, Vol. 1, 1994, HEC.)

It is within the context of this debate that many in higher education, aware of the discrepancy between the type of skills and knowledge learnt in academia and the "requisites of the world of work" (Roles for Graduates in the Twenty-first Century: Getting the Balance Right, 1993, The Association of Graduate Recruiters), are turning their attention to the development of curricula that will produce graduates who can demonstrate the adaptable, life-long capabilities or transferable skills valued by employers.

AIRs programmes, it could be argued, go some way towards bridging this gap, since the emphasis on the development of transferable skills on many of the pilot courses could be seen as being of greater relevance to employers' needs.

3.2 Employer Perceptions

3.2.1 Advantages of AIRs. The findings of an employer survey indicated that respondents had no reservations about taking on AIRs graduates and, as Table III shows, some felt that AIRs courses would be more likely to develop the skills needed for employment. The majority (80%) felt there were advantages for employers and industry of accelerated courses and graduates.

Table III Main Perceived Advantages of AIRs Graduates for Employers

Better time-management skills	21%
Increased motivation	20%
More useful prior work experience	19%
A more mature attitude to work	17%

3.2.2 Disadvantages of AIRs

Most employers (86%) also felt there were some disadvantages of AIRs, however. The most common concerns were that AIRs students miss out on opportunities to take part in social or other extra-curricular activities (33%) - a feature of the HE experience seen as a luxury by many mature students with domestic commitments; AIRs courses in certain disciplines may not have been granted professional recognition (28%); and students have insufficient time for the assimilation of knowledge (27%).

3.3 Student Views on Employment Prospects

AIRs students surveyed during their final year were fairly evenly divided in their opinion as to whether an accelerated course would improve or impede their employment prospects, but there was a wider concern that employers may not be adequately informed about AIRs courses. Most parent course students, by comparison, felt that employers would not be influenced in either direction.

3.4 Graduates' First Destinations

There is little evidence that an accelerated degree is harmful to graduates' employment prospects. As Table IV indicates, the percentage of 1994 AIRs graduates in employment, at 58%, was the same as the national figure of graduates in employment from conventional courses in the same year. The proportion of unemployed AIRs graduates however was greater, at 19%, than the national rate (of 10%). Almost half the AIRs graduates currently unemployed were from Engineering programmes. Twenty-seven per cent of AIRs graduates were in full-time employment, by comparison with only 7% at the start of their course. Most of the AIRs graduates were in employment which was unrelated to their pre-degree employment. Only 9% of the graduates had taken a sabbatical from their employment to study for their degree and more than a quarter of these were Engineering students. The proportion of AIRs graduates undertaking post-graduate study, at 18%, was only slightly lower than the national figure of 21% of graduates from conventional courses on post-graduate programmes - a figure which includes the 'old' as well as the 'new' universities. The fast-track degree thus provides a reasonable route to post-graduate study given that the primary purpose was fast-track to a first degree and employment.

3.5 Professional Body Perceptions

Opinion of the forty professional bodies surveyed was divided as to whether AIRs students should receive professional recognition, although very few organisations felt that no AIRs course should receive recognition. (Issues with the professional bodies for engineering programmes remain unresolved, however.) More widespread was the view that recognition should be given not to AIRs courses as a qualification, but to graduates on their individual merits, and that maturity would be a prime consideration. Most organisations did not reject the possibility of future recognition of AIRs courses, and the majority wished to reserve their judgement about the courses until the completion of the evaluation project. Some negative reactions to the accelerated routes, based on inaccurate information, were evident, however.

Several of the professional bodies were either unaware or unconvinced that the number of weeks in an AIRs course is the same as that for conventional routes, and that for AIRs courses with a work placement element, this is the same as that on parent courses. In some cases, the impact on student 'opportunity' of 'reserving judgement' or individualising recognition appeared to be poorly understood.

Most professional bodies (70%) felt that AIRs graduates offered experience which would be valued by employers, including time-management skills, work experience and the experience of working under pressure. Employers, they felt, would also benefit from the greater maturity and motivation of AIRs graduates. A larger number however (85%) noted disadvantages of AIRs, including insufficient time for reflection and the consolidation of learning, and the lack of opportunities to participate in extra-curricular activities.

3.6 Staff Perceptions

Many staff felt that pilot course students would bring highly marketable skills to the workplace.

Professional bodies were generally considered by staff to have taken an "old-fashioned view" , re-iterating concerns about lack of assimilation time and political motives behind the scheme. They were also deemed unrealistic in their expectations of students gaining practical experience during the holidays: "many of them can't get a job because of the recession and end up working in Burger King, which isn't very educational."

3.7 External Examiner Perceptions

Half the External Examiners surveyed were of the opinion that the AIRs course with which they were involved should be awarded professional recognition because: "If a student can achieve the usual standard in less time, they are at least as good as normal students". Only two respondents felt that recognition should not be awarded. One said: "I have strong reservations about the professional recognition of engineering AIRs courses". These appeared to be motivated by concerns about the lack of time for AIRs students to consolidate their learning and not about the quality of the course or the performance of the students, since the respondent felt these were of the same quality as conventional programmes and their students.

3.8 Consensus on Employability

In the light of the findings of the opinion surveys and the data on AIRs graduates' first destinations, AIRs courses in many subject areas seem to provide an effective progression route to employment and other post-completion opportunities.

Chapter 4 The Funding Implications

This chapter considers the financing of AIRs students and AIRs courses in the context of the current major debate about the future funding of higher education. The huge expansion of student numbers over the past 15 years, combined with the reluctance of governments to finance this expansion, has led to calls for radical changes in funding. It was not surprising therefore that from the start of the pilot courses, staff feared that there was a hidden agenda - to provide a rationale for further cuts. AIRs seemed to represent the thin end of a wedge leading to the widespread introduction of shorter degrees (in terms of years), within a three semester academic calendar. Associated with this were apprehensions about the usage of AIRs as a device for sub-dividing elite research-based universities from basic undergraduate teaching universities, which would be the sole providers of the two-year track.

In practice, as this report indicates, these fears have not been realised, although the AIRs pilot has raised questions about funding for both students and courses, which are of relevance to the present debate.

4.1 Student Funding

4.1.1. The National Context

The attempt to shift student funding from grants to loans, through the steady reduction in the value of the grant, has been resisted, not least because of dissatisfaction with the current loans scheme and the absence to date, of a workable alternative. Students have also been badly affected by changes in social security payments, particularly the loss of housing benefit. Moreover the long-term recession has drastically limited opportunities to supplement their income by part-time employment, and where work is available, it involves long hours for low pay. The result has been increasing dependence on parental or partner support, or on alternative sources of income. Overall there is a fear that access to higher education is again becoming access mediated by ability to pay.

The 'Access Funds' which provide institutions with very limited additional funding , serve to highlight student hardship without providing adequate resources for it to be addressed. Moreover there is a strong likelihood that full-time students on first degree courses may soon be required to pay their own fees. This year's 5% real cut in funding, coming on top of earlier reductions, has convinced several Vice-Chancellors that the introduction of fee-paying for some full-time students is imminent, at local if not at national level.

4.1.2. Grants for AIRs Students

Almost all (96%) of AIRs students received a grant, but more than two thirds felt that the increase to cover the summer recess period was inadequate. Awards are not for 52 weeks, but for 45 weeks with a reduced amount for the summer - an irrational allocation from the students' perspective because "our financial commitments are still there."

An initial failure by several LEAs to accept any additional grant entitlement for AIRs caused major problems for the first cohort, which were eventually ameliorated, though only after some extensive campaigning and intervention by the Department for Education. Over a third of AIRs students however still experience delays in receiving grants, slightly more than are reported by parent course students and with serious implications for their studies.

4.1.3. Other Sources of Income for AIRs Students

On average, 45% of AIRs students are in receipt of other forms of financial support, by comparison with 59% of parent course students. As the majority of AIRs students are adult returners, it is not surprising that only a quarter of them, by comparison with half of those on the conventional route, received any parental financial support. However this difference was rarely made up by partner support from which 10% of pilot course students benefit, only marginally more than those on parent courses.

Sponsorship from employers was also rare (only 3% of AIRs students). More frequently the institutions themselves try to help, either with small contributions from their Access Funds, or through subsidies e.g. for student accommodation, and in one instance by reportedly diverting some of the additional course funding to financial support for the students.

4.1.4. Part-time Employment for AIRs Students

One of the initial concerns of AIRs students about their financial position was that opportunities for employment were limited by the intensive nature of their course and the absence of a long vacation. It is surprising to find therefore that part-time work is the most common additional source of income for AIRs students, involving over 40% of them by comparison with less than 30% of parent course students. Fears that AIRs students might lack on-course work experience are thus evidently unfounded, but the financial and consequent time pressures on these students remain a cause for concern, particularly for those with young families.

4.2 Funding AIRs Courses

4.2.1. The National Context

With unit costs down by 30% over the last decade and the latest budget figures requiring a real term cut of £500 per student over the next 3 years, the reactions of institutions participating in the pilot scheme have been quite predictable. In the first place, they have shown enthusiasm for any scheme with additional resources which would enable them to provide a better service to students: in the second, they have been understandably wary of seeming to demonstrate that acceleration is a strategy for saving money.

4.2.2. The Adequacy of AIRs Course Funding

Course Leaders were unanimous that without the additional funding available, AIRs courses could not run. Continuation of the scheme would require 'appropriate funding' to cover the additional costs of operating in the summer term. Opinion is however divided as to whether or not the pilot courses were themselves 'appropriately' funded. The majority of pilot institutions feel that funding was adequate, but one or two report that their original submission under-estimated the additional costs, and they had resorted to subsidising the AIRs programme from resources initially allocated to the parent course.

4.2.3. Are AIRs Courses Cost-effective?

Here again the opinions of institutions differ. The accelerated route is seen as being more effective in the use of students' time and in the better use of facilities over the year. Moreover it was found that the potential loss to income-generating activities over the summer had been exaggerated.

However in many respects running AIRs courses was found to be "a time-consuming operation", and costly in terms of: class sizes; staff time, which is "more expensive in the summer'"; the "level of tuition necessary to support exclusively mature and largely non-traditional entrants"; and the heavy requirement for computing equipment, which was, "more expensive than we had thought".

The overall conviction is that AIRs courses can never really be cost-effective "where they are run in isolation and all other provision is on a two semester basis". Nevertheless the success of the AIRs students bears witness to the effectiveness of additional resources, judiciously targeted to meet the learning needs of a particular group of students.

4.2.4. The Implications for the Future Funding of Higher Education

The finances of the AIRS pilot, both in terms of student funding and course costs would have been very much simpler had higher education funding in general been based, along the lines of the Robertson Report, on a module rather than a course basis. The problems relating to the students' grants would have been avoided, as would the negotiation of additional funds for the summer semester. The future solution for funding accelerated routes would therefore seem to be within a module-based flexible system, where both the time of year, and the course length in years are irrelevant to the funding methodology.

Lastly, it is important to note the External Examiners' forecast that accelerated degrees "will become more attractive to self-funding students and parents" as the cost of higher education rises.

Chapter 5 Operating a Flexible Framework

5.1 The National Context

Flexibility is one of the most fashionable words in higher education in the '90s, and this has created a favourable climate for the AIRs pilot. Most institutions today, and not just the 'new' universities, would lay claim to flexibility and with some pride, but interpretations of the word are as flexible as anything else about it. Modularisation and semesterisation are often regarded as the sine qua non of flexible systems, though universities, including Oxbridge, without these developments would probably regard their provision as being equally flexible. Closely linked to flexible course structures are flexible approaches to the curriculum, as new technology makes time and place increasingly irrelevant factors in the learning process. Lastly institutions are seeking to achieve flexibility in the use of their capital resources over the calendar year, not only as discussed earlier in response to financial pressures, but also with the more disinterested motive of greater service to the community. This chapter examines how AIRs courses relate to these three aspects of the current debate, evaluates what they have contributed to it, and predicts their role in determining the future of flexibility in higher education.

5.2 AIRs Within Modular Course Structures

5.2.1. At the developmental stage

While there are significant differences in course structure among the pilot courses, and not all are based on a semester model, modular systems are the most common, and all are designed to incorporate the summer recess. Staff were inclined to enthuse over their modular structures, as for example, "We're very proud of this. I don't see how we could squeeze any more flexibility out of it." At the developmental stage of the pilot courses, those institutions with well-established modular structures claimed that an appropriate framework was already in existence. A "pick and mix'" arrangement meant that the planning work was already done, and one institution claimed to have developed its AIRs course in half an hour.

5.2.2. Timetabling

In practice however on several courses both staff and students began to lose sleep over implementation. Staff reported, "a nightmare in terms of the timetabler's time": students referred to the modular scheme as "a bureaucratic nightmare", "when you try to stick it into a two year frame, it just can't be done". Other institutions found timetabling students less problematic than scheduling exam boards and external examiners for 'non-traditional' times of the year. Overall, Course Directors emphasized the importance of allocating adequate time to detailed planning and effective course management.

5.2.3. Choice of Modules

Choice for AIRs students was unavoidably limited, in particular because of the small group size over the summer. Staff worked hard to select modules which would be attractive to mature students, but emphasized that AIRs was, "not a cafeteria system, more a guided tour through". Student satisfaction varied, with concern not so much about limited choice, as the need for earlier information, and the more serious problem of disrupted sequencing which changed the logical academic order of modules and left students taking them 'in the wrong order'.

5.2.4. Integration

Modular schemes with individual timetables do however enable AIRs students to follow the norm, rather than some exceptional or experimental pattern, and for many of their modules they were integrated with parent course students - an experience for which enthusiasm was mixed. Those who began as a distinct AIRs group felt that they had a more serious approach to study and benefitted most from "being in a small, discrete group where you can give each other confidence and support". Others however considered that, "an important part of coming to university is to develop ideas and meet a wide range of people". Specific activities to encourage integration were not appreciated - group cohesion, it appeared, was organic and could not be externally imposed.

5.3 The Impact on the Learning Process

5.3.1. Course Delivery

Staff sought to cope with the time constraints and to respond effectively to the learning needs of a distinctive student cohort - these two objectives being complementary. Care taken in relating learning strategies to students' background and experience was seen as crucial to their success on accelerated routes. To this end, APEL was used as a diagnostic tool rather than a means of offering advanced standing. The curriculum emphasis was on tutorials, seminars and individual learning techniques, rather on lectures - and even here staff sought to provide notes, hand-outs and reading well in advance to maximise the time for assimilation.

5.3.2. Open Learning Approaches

Most institutions found that the AIRs experience considerably extended their experience of open learning techniques. By some AIRs was perceived as a catalyst, by others just part of a general trend, "rather than being a trailblazer", Despite initial student anxiety about open and computer-based learning, some staff found the outcomes "truly impressive"; others that students still "get panicky" and one course reduced its open learning component "to do it the more traditional way as we thought the ongoing contact was important." Student responses were also mixed, with open learning perceived variously as a valuable and essential part of the course, or as "a bit of a cop-out" to save staff time in the summer. In general students wanted more introductory training sessions, and if anything, the more highly structured "Open University" type of learning packages.

5.3.3. Study Skills

While all AIRS students recognise the greater learning value of small group participation, they have reservations about transferable skills, study skills and group assessment. Their message is that these are not quick panaceas for study problems, but require time and training for staff and students if they are to be effective. The AIRs students who view study skills as a waste of time in one institution and a lifeline in another, are clearly responding to a variety of circumstances.

5.3.4. Innovatory Impact

Most, but not all institutions found the AIRs experience beneficial across the curriculum - a benefit variously described as "encouraging a more open-minded attitude among staff"; "getting useful and honest feedback from students on Course Committees"; "giving us space to develop new modes of study"; "creating less pessimism about non-traditional students", "making staff think more about specific aspects of their subject"; and "improving staff attitudes towards experimentation". "A flagship for the faculty's provision", one institution said. However on the more negative side, another felt that AIRs had "produced a major disturbance and we want to get back to concentrating on the main thrust of what some people in the department think is really important".

5.4 The Use of the Summer Recess

5.4.1. The Catch 22 of AIRs Courses

While most pilot institutions, especially for the second intake, offered reasonable if restricted facilities in the summer, the small number of students made it difficult to justify, let alone extend them. As one Course Director said, "Even though there's the goodwill, there isn't the infrastructure". Larger numbers of accelerated students would resolve this issue, but only by running into the more controversial one of the full-scale three semester year.

5.4.2. Staff Reactions

Staffing over the summer was by overtime, or the use of part-time staff and has worked well. It appears that staff are not resistant to teaching over this period, but only to the prospect that they may be required to do so in the future, and that the pilot scheme will increase the likelihood of this. For some, AIRs courses are still perceived as the advance guard of a teaching invasion of summer research territory, and in this respect, AIRs has highlighted those tensions between the primacy of teaching and research which are part of a wider national debate. Staff are becoming increasingly uncertain and anxious about the support that they can expect for research in the future, and there are fears that AIRs may compound the difficulties that they have in distributing the workload.

5.4.3. Student Reactions

Students welcomed the peace of studying in the summer recess, the "feeling of being a bit special", and the chance to escape term-time queues and the trauma of seeking elusive temporary vacation work. On the debit side, almost a third deplored the reduction in facilities, and interruptions caused by building work and maintenance. Women students especially felt that the lack of creche provision in particular, and the summer semester in general, made AIRs courses less suitable for those with family responsibilities.

5.5 The Future of AIRs Courses

5.5.1. Continuation of AIRs

Pilot institutions recommend the continuation of AIRs, with three provisos - a small, dedicated, mature student intake, adequate funding, and prior professional recognition . Yet only five plan to continue and none with any increase in intake. Those deciding to discontinue attribute this to: financial constraints, a potential fall in demand, organisational problems, and the negative reactions of professional bodies. Several however, planned to re-deploy their AIRs provision by developing flexibility in other ways, including more part-time options within their modular schemes. Such plans were in line with the External Examiner view that special AIRs programmes were un-necessary, as in a good modular scheme "it should be an option for students to accumulate credits at the rate which suits them ." In this case "the sooner they are absorbed into the system and are seen as part of a range of options rather than something special, the better. "

5.5.2. Advice to potential AIRs providers

Here the staff were encouraging, as follows: "Choose the subject and the students very carefully". "Think very hard about it and talk to those who've done it before. Make sure you get the funding, the timetabling and the timing right, and that the unions are involved in the discussions." "Warn the students about the stress factor and try to spread the load evenly across the course" , and lastly, "Go ahead and Good Luck. It's been at times very rough, but overall well worthwhile"

Appendix II Steering Committee Membership

Project Management has been through a Steering Committee including representatives of professional bodies, universities, employers and the HEQC and HEFCE.

Steering Committee Membership

Ann Bailey	The Engineering Employers' Federation
Dr Julie O'Donnell	Higher Education Funding Council for England
Dr Sepp J Gruber	Council for Science and Technology Institutes
Hugh TB Smith	Association of Graduate Recruiters
Nizam Mohammed	University of London
Prof Peter B Morice	The Engineering Council
Prof Dianne Willcocks (Chair)	Sheffield Hallam University
Anthony Woollard	Educational Policy Consultant (formerly of the DfE)

Other Advisers

The Project Team would also like to thank the following for their contributions:

Martin Groom	Association of Graduate Recruiters
Mee Foong Lee	(formerly of) University of North London
Clare Matterson	(formerly of) Higher Education Quality Council
Linda Regan	University of North London
Ruth Williams	The Open University

Appendix IV

List of Identified Respondents to the Survey of Employers

Employers that were involved in the questionnaire survey included:

Acorn Computers Limited
AXA Equity and Law
The Boots Company Plc
CD-ROM Publishing Company
Care for People with a Mental Handicap
Cheshire County Council
EDS-Scicon
Employment Department Group
Government Communications Headquarters and Joint Technical Language Service
Grand Metropolitan
ICI Plc
Imperial Cancer Research Fund
Inlingua Teacher Service
Institute of Housing
Kay & Company Limited
McDonald's Restaurants Ltd
Majestic Wine Warehouses
Metropolitan Police Service-Civil Staff
Midland Bank Plc
National Westminster Bank Plc
Nuclear Electric
The Post Office
Rentokill Group Plc
Refuge Assurance Plc
Tarmac Construction
Vodafone Group Plc

Appendix V

List of Identified Respondents to the Survey of Professional Bodies

Association of Building Engineers, The
Association of Cost and Executive Accountants
Board of Accreditation of Educational Courses (for the Accountancy profession)
British Association for Counselling
British Computer Society, The
British Medical Association
Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work
Chartered Institute of Management Accountants, The
Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy
Chartered Society of Designers, The
Institute of Charted Accountants
Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators
Institution of Agricultural Engineers
Institution of Chemical Engineers
Institution of Civil Engineers, The
Institution of Electrical Engineers, The
Institution of Electronics and Electrical Incorporated Engineers, The
Institution of Engineering Designers, The
Institution of Incorporated Executive Engineers
Institution of Mining, Electrical and Mining Mechanical Engineers
Law Society, The
National Association for Primary Education
Royal Geographical Society
Royal Institute of British Architects
Royal Society of Chemistry, The

Appendix VI Topics Covered by the Annual Reports

1. The First Annual Report of the AIRs Research and Evaluation Project covered the following:

(i) key information on pilot courses;

(ii) an analysis of first cohort enrolment data;

(iii) initial pilot and parent student perceptions;

(iv) initial staff perceptions.

2. The Second Annual Report covered the following:

(i) an evaluation of the profile and perceptions of students recruited on to the second cohorts of pilot

programmes and a comparative analysis of first and second cohort student views;

(ii) a summary and analysis of data on the performance and retention rates of first cohort students and their end of course perceptions;

(iii) an examination of the attitudes of employers to the AIRs courses;

(iv) the identification of particular elements of each pilot scheme and of the most effective models, utilising staff and student data.

3. The Third Annual Report covered the following:

(i) the performance, retention and transfer rates of second cohort pilot and parent course students at the end of their first year;

(ii) the end of course perceptions of students on the three year pilot courses;

(iii) the first employment destinations of AIRs graduates from the two year programmes;

(iv) the attitudes of the professional bodies to Accelerated and Intensive Routes.

Copies of the Three Annual Reports are available price £5.00 from:

External Relations
HEFCE
Northavon House
Coldharbour Lane
Bristol
BS16 1QD

Telephone 0117 931 7438 or 7339
Telephone 0117 931 7436 (answerphone)
Fax 0117 931 7463
Email hefce@hefce.ac.uk

The HEFCE is grateful to Anglia Polytechnic University for the use of the photograph on the front cover of this report.

Fast and Flexible: The AIRs Experience

Contents

Executive Summary

Project Findings