Skip to main content

New data items required

Registration and awarding body

62% of respondents expected the registration and awarding body arrangements to be consistent for all students on a given course, versus 23% who disagreed and 15% who were unsure. 46% of respondents supported the proposal for the data to be collected on the Course entity, 23% opposed the proposal, and 31% were unsure.

38% of respondents scored the set-up burden of submitting data on who registers TNE students in the “4-7” category and 46% of respondents scored the run burden in the “1-3” category.

54% of respondents could see a benefit to submitting data on the specific organisation(s) who register TNE students, with 38% unable to see a benefit and one respondent undecided.

46% of respondents scored the set-up burden of submitting data on which specific organisation registers TNE students in the “4-7” category and 38% of respondents scored the run burden in the “1-3” category.

Comments in support of the proposal noted the utility of data on registration and awarding bodies for TNE students, with one respondent noting that a UK-wide approach would be preferred to enable comparisons and benchmarking. The concerns raised by respondents included the risk that the same course could be offered by distance learning for both TNE and non-TNE students on different timescales; that some collaborative programmes could be set up with different registration arrangements; and the fact that the proposals were reliant on the free-text venue name field, raising issues of consistency between providers and years.

There were calls for clarification around requirements when a student is registered with more than one provider, consideration of whether the same requirements could be added to the Student data model for non-TNE collaborative provision, and for additional detail on the intentions of the users of the data.

Course delivery

46% of respondents scored the set-up burden of submitting data on who delivers the course to TNE students in the “4-7” category and 46% of respondents scored the run burden in the “4-7” category as well.

Respondents flagged concerns that the data is not necessarily centrally stored or managed and that development work would therefore be required; that variation in courses offered would make the data burdensome to collect; and that the precise definitions around different types of programme could necessitate duplication of data.

One respondent asked that the data be aligned more closely to how it is structured in the Course role entity in the Student record, noting that it would be burdensome to add separate values solely for the purposes of the AOR.

Distance learning

38% of respondents scored the set-up burden of submitting data on the location of distance learning TNE students in the “4-7” category and 46% of respondents scored the run burden in the “4-7” category as well.

One respondent noted in support of the proposal that they already collect and hold the necessary data in their student record system. One noted that this was in line with the current approach for the AOR as well. Others expressed concerns to the effect that the location of students is difficult to track, particularly for TNE students, and that work would be needed to improve the corresponding processes. One respondent noted that they have no internal use for the location of these students and that they felt the burden was disproportionate to the benefit. Two providers highlighted the difficulty of collecting location data for distance learners due to the arm's length nature of their relationship with their provider.

Additional clarity was requested around the intended use of the data and the guidance for distance learners undertaking collaborative provision.

Venue name

46% of respondents scored the set-up burden of submitting data on venue names in the “4-7” category and 46% of respondents scored the run burden in the “4-7” category as well.

Respondents made several comments in support of the proposal, including their confidence that this would be straightforward to maintain for new and continuing students, and that it could easily be derived from the student location. Concerns were raised by respondents as well, primarily that this data would not be comparable without quality assurance or a list of valid options from which to select – and consequently, that data without such safeguards would be inconsistent to the point of being unusable, and therefore difficult to provide a use case for. There were also concerns that some form of venue name would be required for distance learners.

Qualification subject

38% of respondents scored the set-up burden of submitting data on qualification subjects in the “1-3” category and 54% of respondents scored the run burden in the “1-3” category as well.

A significant proportion of respondents noted that they already held subject level data on programmes or awards and could meet this requirement. Other respondents highlighted the burden of readying systems and processes to provide the data, with one noting their concern that research activity could be more difficult to code.

Replacing the TYPE field

46% of respondents scored the set-up burden of submitting data on programme and venue types in the “4-7” category and 46% of respondents scored the run burden in the “4-7” category as well.

The majority of respondents expressed their support for the proposal to classify TNE provision by programme and venue type, including comments to the effect that the definitions were useful and would bring additional consistency and comparability to the data.

One concern raised by respondents was around the limitations of these definitions, noting that some types of TNE activity are excluded. Other respondents referred to the burden of collecting the data on an ongoing basis, the work involved to redefine their suite of programmes in these terms and to ensure that they were used consistently within their provider, and concerns that the data they currently held in this regard was neither systemised nor sufficiently robust.

There were also requests for additional clarity around the definitions and the permissible combinations of programme and venue type. One respondent suggested that the definitions would be of use for categorising non-TNE provision as well.

The sector body that responded to the consultation agreed that the proposals would allow for more accurate classification of TNE partnership activity and better data on the locations where this activity takes place.

Headcounts

46% of respondents scored the set-up burden of submitting data on separate headcounts in the “4-7” category and 69% of respondents scored the run burden in the “4-7” category as well.

Comments in support of the proposal included that some respondents held the necessary information in their systems already, and that the decision to continue to exclude dormant students was welcome. One respondent noted their dependence on software suppliers provisioning the necessary systems.

A number of respondents raised concerns, including:

  • The burden of quality assuring the different headcounts, noting that TNE provision follows a different academic year cycle than domestic provision, and that processes around registration, enrolment, continuation, and assessments would all need to be tightened
  • Difficulties interpreting and tracking dormancy, particularly for distance learners, as well as shifts from full to part-time modes or vice versa
  • The need for more justification around the requirement for the individual headcounts and omission of data on withdrawals
  • That including students in multiple headcounts may complicate quality assurance efforts and use of the data