*3.1.2 Enhancing teaching quality*

Connected to the concept of benchmarking, the enhancement of teaching quality was mentioned in various ways as a key motivator behind institutional accreditation, including: *'quality enhancement', 'raising standards', 'developing a culture of teaching'* and *'assuring high quality education'.* Respondents frequently revealed a direct connection with the UKPSF and the strategic direction of the institution, as articulated in policy documents such as 'Teaching and learning strategies'. Inherent here is the assumption that engagement in accredited provision *does* manifest in teaching quality enhancement. As we, and others, have argued elsewhere [5, 50, 51] this is a somewhat problematic assumption to make, particularly since accredited CPD schemes (rather than taught courses) rely on applicants reflecting back on previous teaching experiences (usually in writing), instead of considering how improvements to future teaching activities might be implemented. Nonetheless, a quarter of survey respondents mentioned improving quality as a key driver for accreditation, and several of these were positioned in relation to research as illustrated here:

*There is a desire to provide staff with a robust route to professional recognition, reinforcing the importance of assuring high quality student education alongside high quality research.*

Accredited in-house CPD schemes were also mentioned as being accessible and inclusive. A key growth area, similarly reported in the literature [5, 52], is the creation of opportunities for engagement for part-time and non-academic staff (e.g. librarians, learning technologists, technicians, graduate teaching assistants; and research students) as the following quotation demonstrates:

*For the CPD scheme, this enables our experienced staff with a wide range of associate lecturers and industry linked professionals with different career paths, to also complete Fellowships (an internal accredited scheme can do this, and external application would be more expensive and have far less uptake).*

In an increasingly commercially-driven HE market place we also see here the concept of 'value for money' tacit in this excerpt. Without institutional accreditation, for staff to gain Fellowship at Descriptor 2 (FHEA) via a direct entry

application to Advance HE currently costs £220 per applicant for a subscribing institution or £440 per applicant for a non-subscribing institution [53]. At Senior Fellow (SFHEA) level the costs increase to £330 and £660 respectively. Conversely for institutions with accredited provision, there is no cost beyond the annual subscription fees. For large institutions then, with a strategic drive towards growing the number of staff with recognised teaching status, it is easy to see why accredited provision delivered in-house is an appealing option. In fact, one could argue, institutions have limited choice if they are to 'compete' in the teaching league tables alongside similar institutions. Perhaps this is one reason why, in the UK, accredited provision is so pervasive.

#### *3.1.3 Supporting career development*

Alongside the neoliberal discourses of quality improvement and target setting, a quarter of respondents highlighted the importance of Advance HE accreditation in supporting the career development of those primarily engaged in educational activities and demonstrating individual as well as institutional credibility. This was particularly significant for teaching-focused institutions: *'As a teaching-focused institution it is important that we provide opportunities for staff to develop their teaching expertise'.*

In academic circles, there have long been calls for teaching to be recognised on an equal footing to research. In the UK, The Government White Paper 'Students at the Heart of the System' [54] highlighted the need for institutions to redress such imbalances and properly reward and recognise teaching. Despite progress in terms of policy development, promotion and tenure are still proving to be elusive for academics focused on teaching [55, 56] signalling a clear gap between policy and practice.

Reflective of the professionalisation of HE teaching, survey respondents here referred to the achievement of Fellowship as providing an *'enhanced professional reputation'* and a *'professional as well as academic award'*. Institutions outside of the UK also noted the *'transferable qualities'* of the professional accreditation and regarded it as a 'portable asset' for teaching staff. As one respondent described: *'It give graduates an internationally recognised certification to support their career development'*. Respondents also noted the *'importance of having a process for recognition and reward'*. Similar to the findings of van der Sluis [51], our research illustrated the importance of having sector standards and a professional body to champion teaching and learning in a sector historically dominated by research. 39% of respondents confirmed that Fellowship or the UKPSF was explicitly mentioned in their institution's promotion criteria, with a further 39% reporting that it was mentioned under some circumstances.

*The Fellowship scheme was seen to be a motivator to encourage engagement with professional learning. The scheme is part of a strategic initiative to transform teaching and learning. The transformation required increased engagement with professional learning to build capacity. Engagement with professional learning ultimately culminates in Fellowship which is a concrete measure recognized in annual appraisal and promotion processes, hence the motivator to engage with professional learning and capacity building.*

#### **3.2 How does advance HE accreditation impact on teaching and learning?**

When asked to determine the level of impact institutional accreditation has on teaching and learning, via a 5-point Likert scale, 95% responded positively. Specifically, respondents reported positive impacts on: the quality of learning

#### *Institutional Accreditation and the Professionalisation of Teaching in the HE Sector DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99805*

activities (94.6%); the championing of teaching and learning practice and innovation (94.6%); the establishment of internal teaching and learning networks (89.2%); the design of teaching (78.5%); and the quality of assessment (76.8%). Impacts were reported as significant at the individual level but harder to articulate at an institutional level. Despite the very positive responses derived from the Likert scale questions regarding teaching and learning practices, of the 20 respondents who elected to add a qualitative commentary, 8 noted, in various ways, the challenges of correlating accreditation directly with teaching and learning practices.

*It's difficult to identify how accreditation can have had a specific impact on some of these areas - I get the feeling that in technology-enhanced learning for example, developments were happening among the keen people anyway.*

*Advance HE accreditation is aligned with institutional (and School priorities and plans) so it is hard to disentangle impact. My 'gut feeling' is a positive impact, but the scale of impact depends on institutional actions and commitments (which are considerable)*

*There is a difference between valuing educators and Advance HE accreditation while at the moment accreditation is seen as one way of demonstrating the value, I don't think this is the only way, by any means, of achieving that valuing, so I am hesitant about some of my answers here. This is a much more nuanced situation and, while I'm supportive of Fellowship (very much), I'm also cognisant of the fact that there are other ways to measure excellence in education, and that measuring the impact of this approach is a much more subtle thing than simply saying 'it works because we think it works'. We would need to be able to trace a direct line between Fellowship and, say, NSS scores in order to be able to say categorically that the impact has been positive; all I can really say comfortably at this point is that encouraging people to professionalise as educators and to recognise that via Fellowship might create an atmosphere in which Fellowship has an impact.*

These responses illuminate the perennial issue of measuring the impact of educational initiatives [57, 58]. Almost 34% of respondents said that they were undertaking evaluation work explicitly to measure the impact of institutional accreditation. We do not know the details of this evaluation work, but several respondents noted the difficulties of disentangling impact when there were various initiatives operating simultaneously, all aimed at driving up the quality of teaching and learning. 57% of survey respondents were not undertaking any evaluation work. Educational developers play a key role here, as does the institutional culture and overarching support for teaching and learning initiatives. Ironically, whilst benchmarking with other institutions was regarded as an important motivation for institutional accreditation, respondents did not appear to have developed or implemented teaching benchmarks through which they could evaluate their own development against. That said, in our study, whilst respondents were aware of the compounding influences of multiple initiatives all aimed at driving up teaching quality, there was still a very strong perception that accreditation helped do this. One respondent described the impact like this:

*In reality [accreditation] provides a gateway for the academic development team to build relationships, build confidence and self-efficacy in staff to make significant changes to teaching, learning and assessment practices. It has been truly transformational in getting staff to believe in themselves and to realise they do great work and they can influence and change things.*

Accredited provision was regarded as the *'golden thread'* that connected various institutional initiatives to enhance teaching. These initiatives included: building capacity by developing a pool of mentors and assessors (91%); raising the profile of teaching and learning (87.5%); providing leadership opportunities (73%); and increasing engagement with teaching-related scholarship activities (57%).
