anglia polytechnic university · web viewthe senate. summary report of the annual monitoring of...

ANGLIA RUSKIN UNIVERSITY

The Senate

Summary Report of the Annual Monitoring of Taught Pathways Delivered in the Academic Year 2009/10

1. Introduction

1.1 The purpose of this paper is to provide a summary to the Senate on the annual monitoring process for pathways delivered in 2009/10, conducted between September 2010 and March 2011.

1.2 The five Faculty Board overview reports (Faculty of Arts, Law & Social Sciences (ALSS); Lord Ashcroft International Business School (LAIBS); Faculty of Education (FoE); Faculty of Health & Social Care (FHSC); Faculty of Science & Technology (FST)) are attached as Appendices 1-5 and were the main sources of information for the Summary Report. All overview reports were approved by the relevant faculty boards at meetings held in February/March 2011;

1.3 The Senate is invited to consider this report, agree appropriate action where necessary and conclude the annual monitoring process of delivery in 2009/10.

2. Process

2.1 The main structure and organisation of the annual monitoring process was largely unchanged and operated as outlined in the Senate Code of Practice on Curriculum Approval and Review.

2.2 In response to feedback from the process conducted in the previous year, two faculties agreed to convene the meeting of their Annual Monitoring Subcommittee earlier than in previous years (before Christmas) in order to bring forward the conclusion of the Faculty stage of the process. This change worked well with no difficulties reported from either Faculty.

2.3 It was agreed that the FoE could use the self evaluation documents (SEDs) produced for PSRB purposes as part of Anglia Ruskin’s annual monitoring process instead of completing a separate AMR.

2.4 The LAIBS Overview Report for 2008/09 noted that due to the large number of pathways and delivery locations for the Undergraduate Programme, detailed analysis proved challenging including significant challenges for the Undergraduate Programme Leader in completing detailed comparative analyses of the large number of deliveries of each of the pathways. In April 2010, the Senate agreed to permit the Head of Quality Assurance and Institutional Quality Assurance Officer to work with the LAIBS Deputy Dean and Faculty Quality Assurance Officer to agree a minor amendment to the annual monitoring process for LAIBS which is not solely based at the level of the Programme in order to address the concerns above.

Summary Report to the Senate 1 Annual Monitoring of 2009/10

SEN/11/48

2.5 This year’s process incorporated two briefing events, held in early September 2010, for those colleagues involved in the process which included a detailed session on access to and use of Programme and Pathway statistical reports and the provision of exemplar annual monitoring reports.

2.6 In general, it can be reported to the Senate that the process in the year to which this report refers has operated smoothly and efficiently.

3. Conclusions

3.1 All five Faculty Board overview reports confirm that the annual monitoring process of the delivery of pathways in 2009/10 was conducted effectively and undertaken in a sufficiently critical and reflective manner.

Essential Requirements of the Annual Monitoring Process

3.2 All the faculties report that satisfactory AMRs and Readers’ Reports for each Programme have been received and considered by the Faculty Board Annual Monitoring Subcommittees

Previous Year’s Action Plans and Readers’ Reports (for implementation during 2009/10)

3.3 All the overview reports confirm that, following some minor interventions by the Faculty subcommittees, the vast majority of actions identified in the previous year’s SMART Action Plans had either been completed or rolled forward for inclusion in the Action Plan for 2010/11, due to the medium-long term nature of the issue or where timescales had required revision. In some cases, Action Plans were referred back to AMR authors for further information as progress on actions was not clear.

Statistical Data

3.4 All five overview reports confirm that Programme Leaders used and analysed statistics available via the Oracle Portal in the compilation of their reports. In several cases, this data was supplemented with locally held data in order to improve the detail of the information.

3.5 A number of the Faculties suggested that the statistical data provided should be enhanced to provide diagrammatic and pictorial representations of the information in order to aid analysis and understanding (the current presentation of data is solely statistics provided in a tabular format). This development will be considered for further years.

3.6 The ALSS report noted that statistics via the Oracle Portal do not support the non-modular provision in the Anglia Law School and that local arrangements were made to provide the data. The current arrangements do not support non-modular provision and this will be reviewed for future years.


Curriculum Efficiencies

3.7 The majority of Faculties reported that the Spring 2010 Curriculum Rationalisation Project had led to efficiencies as a result of the reduction in modules and pathways. FST expressed concern at the speed at which the Project had progressed and that work is continuing during 2010/11 to embed the revised curriculum offering.

3.8 FHSC noted the continuing challenges in securing good, high quality placements for its students in accordance with the revised curriculum and the need for this to be monitored closely within the Faculty.

External Examiners’ Reports

3.9 All the overview reports confirm that External Examiners’ reports were used effectively as part of the annual monitoring process. In general, responses to the actions identified reports had all been provided and the overview reports confirm that SMART Action Plans included reference to External Examiners’ comments where applicable (although some minor interventions by the subcommittees were required in relation to a few action plans which required amendments). It should be noted that Faculty responses to the few ‘academic standards as risk’ areas highlighted by External Examiners was received by the Senate at its November 2010 meeting.

3.10 The LAIBS report highlighted that external examiners had some concerns over the number of missing marks from Departmental Assessment Panel meetings and that, whilst this has improved, further improvement is still required.

3.11 Several of the Faculty reports highlighted the need to ensure consistency in feedback comments to students on assessed work, ensuring a positive and constructive approach and equivalence to the mark awarded. The recent Quality Enhancement Audit on Student Feedback on Assessed Work has reported on this issue to the Senate’s Quality & Standards Committee (QSC) and an action plan for the outcomes of the audit, including the issue of consistency of feedback, will be considered by the QSC in June 2011.

3.12 The increasing workload on external examiners as a result of higher student numbers and increased collaborative activity was highlighted by LAIBS which has recently appointed two extra external examiners to help address this situation.

Future Action Plans (ie for implementation during 2010/11)

3.13 The Faculty Overview Reports confirm that, in general, the action plans attached to the individual AMRs reflected the issues identified in the associated reports, were informed by statistical analysis (where appropriate) and followed the SMART format. There were a small number of action plans which required revision following the meeting of the subcommittees; either to include actions which had been noted in the text but omitted in the plan, or to ensure the plan met the ‘SMART’ format.


4. Issues of Institutional Significance

4.1 The following issues of institutional significance were identified:

(a) the reduction in participation in the module evaluation process since the on-line systems replaced the paper based system (although it is acknowledged that the new systems did lead to a speedier provision of outcome data). This issue is currently being considered in detail by the Student Satisfaction Improvement Group (SSIG).

(b) the effective implementation of the new Curriculum Management Committees at partner institutions. The Academic Office is currently reviewing this area.

(c) word limits for major project modules which are considered to be very high in comparison to other institutions. This issue has been considered by the Academic Regulations Subcommittee and is subject to proposals for amendment in a separate paper to the Senate.

(d) the application of the existing regulations regarding word counts for assessed work. This issue has been considered by the Academic Regulations Subcommittee and is subject to proposals for amendment in a separate paper to the Senate.

(e) the need to make DAP meetings less paper based. The Academic Office is piloting an electronic approach to DAPs during June 2011 with the Department of Psychology in the Faculty of Science & Technology with a view to introducing such innovations to all DAPS during 2011/12.

(f) limits on file storage size on the VLE. Several faculties requested that this is reviewed particularly in relation to modules which involve work video and other multimedia formats. It is proposed to refer this matter to Learning Development Services and Information Systems and media Services for review and feedback to the faculties.

5. Examples of Good and Innovative Practice and Commendable and/or Significant Achievements for Wider Dissemination

5.1 Anglia Ruskin University defines good practice as:

"a method, strategy, system, procedure or process, which has, over an appropriate period of time, resulted in improved academic standards, an enhanced quality of education and/or an improved level of service to stakeholders (eg: students, staff, external examiners, collaborative partners, employers etc.) and which can, when appropriately adapted, be implemented in other areas of the institution."

5.2 The Senate is invited to endorse the examples of good and innovative practice listed below listed in each Faculty Summary Report (see appendices 1-5) which shall then be disseminated to the wider Anglia Ruskin community with details of colleagues who can be contacted for further details. The information will be provided to all Deans and Deputy Deans of Faculty, Directors of Studies, Heads of Department, Programme Leaders and HE Co-ordinators at partner institutions.


5.3 It is proposed that further information is required prior to circulation in order to demonstrate the impact of these examples on the student experience and therefore aid colleagues when considering their adoption within their own practices.

6. Further Enhancements and Amendments to the Future Process

6.1 In previous years, this section of the Summary Report highlights enhancements and other proposed changes to the annual monitoring process for implementation during the following academic year.

6.2 During the 2010/11 academic year, the Senate’s Quality & Standards Committee has considered proposals for a fundamental change in the approach taken to annual monitoring with a view to moving away from a process based on narrative reports to a series of Departmental based meetings where the focus is on statistical data and other performance indicators (including outcomes from surveys such as the NSS and comment from external examiners’ reports). This follows the successful use of a series of similar meetings held in Autumn 2010 and the adaptation of these meetings to introduce a revised annual monitoring process.

6.3 Full detailed proposals for this new approach are being considered by the Senate as a separate item for discussion at its meeting of 22nd June 2011.

PAUL BAXTERDirector, Academic Office

April 2010


Appendix 1 (ALSS Summary Report)


FACULTY OF ARTS, LAW AND SOCIAL SCIENCESQUALITY AND STANDARDS SUBCOMMITTEE ANNUAL MONITORING OVERVIEW REPORT

Prepared by: Dr Apurba KunduBased on discussions of the above meeting held on: 21 January 2011Present at the meeting: Sarah Burch (FHSC), Nikki Dibb, Sarah Fitt,

Apurba Kundu (Chair), Shaun Le Boutillier, Vicky McCormick, Richard Monk

1. Essential requirementsConsider any matters arising in respect to the following criteria ( see guidance note 2.2 (a) – (k)

I can confirm that the following Annual Monitoring Reports (AMR) and Reader’s Reports were received and considered by the Faculty of Arts, Law and Social Sciences (ALSS) Quality and Standards Subcommittee: Art, Design and Media / Dr Apurba Kundu* Communication Film and Media / Julia Ramsay English and Writing / Julia Ramsay English as a Foreign Language / Dr Zoe Bennett English Language and Intercultural Communication / Dr Zoe Bennett Humanities / Sarah Fitt Law (Academic) / Melanie Bell Law (Professional) Dr Shaun Le Boutillier Music / Dr Shaun Le Boutillier Performing Arts / Dr Mick Gowar Social Sciences / Sarah Fitt

I can further confirm that: The list of pathways within the scope of the AMR has been completed Last year’s Reader’s Reports were attached as an appendix Last year’s Action Plans were attached as an appendix The External Examiners’ reports were attached as an appendix to each AMR The response letters to External Examiners’ reports were attached as an appendix to each AMR (with

the exceptions noted as Actions 5.a.3-4 below) SMART Action plans for 2010/11 have been attached as an appendix to each AMR

*Due to a delay in the submission of this AMR, this Reader’s Report was received and considered by Chair’s action.

2. Readers’ Reports

The Subcommittee notes that appropriate actions have been taken in response to any and all issues raised in the 2009-10 Reader’s Reports in all cases with the following exceptions and, where necessary, actions:

That the good practice in relation to student feedback identified by the Reader for Law (Academic) had not been followed through in 2009-10.Action 2.1: Law (Academic) Programme Leader Kathy Quinlan to see how this good practice can be disseminated in the department and/or faculty, perhaps at departmental staff meetings or the annual faculty away day.

6


That, while the Department of English, Communications, Film and Media has discussed teaching only posts in the English as a Foreign Language programme, additional clarification of what measures have been/are being taken is necessary.Action 2.2: English as a Foreign Language Programme Leader Nick Hillman

3. Last year’s action plans

The Readers’ Reports detail the extent to which the changes included in last year’s SMART action plans were successfully implemented in 2009-10. Where these have not been successfully concluded, they have been carried forward to the relevant 2010-11 Action Plans (see, for example, those for Arts, Design and Media, Performing Arts, and EFL).

4. Statistical analysis

The Reader’s Reports state that statistical data from our university portal and within various programme areas has been accessed and analysed appropriately in most areas and, in the main, the data has been used to inform future action plans with following exceptions and, where necessary, actions:

Central statistics are not available for the Law (Professional) courses, and so the AMR author had to make use of appropriate departmental statistics.

The statistics for the English Language and Intercultural Communication programme are presented in a format which suggests that each language combination is a pathway in its own right. This is somewhat confusing, especially in the case of part-time students.

The Subcommittee recognise that statistics for the English as a Foreign Language programme provided by our university portal have not been particularly reliable due to a combination of the nature of the short courses on the programme and the way our university records and/or reports students as full-time equivalents (FTEs).

A discrepancy in the retention rate data for the BA (Hons) Psychosocial Studies at core should be reported to Academic Office Assistant Director (Strategic Planning) Ruth Bourne.Action 4.1: Social Sciences Programme Leader Liz Bradbury

The Subcommittee requests that target 3 of the action plan in the AMR for the Law (Academic) programme be clarified as to the specific action being referred to, and its reference to “C.1.2” be deleted. Action 4.2: Law (Academic) Programme Leader Kathy Quinlan

5a. Academic Standards: Key issues, themes and trends

The Reader’s Reports confirm that the AMRs demonstrate a reflective and evidence-based evaluation of both curriculum delivery and student achievement. Any issues of significance regarding the efficiency of the delivery of the curriculum or other streamlining activities as they pertain to “academic standards” are noted and, where necessary, actioned as follows:

Curriculum delivery and achievement

The Reader for Law (Professional) programme believes there is “some scope for design modification at the module/course level—as indicated from the external examiners’ comments on specific courses”. However, as the course is due to be updated for 2010-11 to conform to demands of the Solicitors Regulatory Authority, no specific actions are recommended.

7


Curriculum efficiency

The Subcommittee discussed the discontinuation of two-subject awards within the Law (Academic) programme, and the negative impact this has had on work placements. No specific action points are considered necessary as it is understood that the newly designed LLB has an explicit focus on employability skills.

The Subcommittee requests the Reader of the AMR for Performing Arts provide a more detailed response to this section of the Readers’ Report, ensuring that each subsection of the template is addressed.Action 5.a.1: Performing Arts AMR Reader Dr Mick Gower

External Examiners reports

External Examiners’ reports are almost uniformly positive, and our AMRs have responded satisfactorily to any issues or areas of concern raised by them, with the following notes, exceptions and, where necessary, actions:

The Subcommittee notes the two matters pertaining to academic standards at risk as reported to Senate, and the (satisfactory) responses given by the Heads of Department.

The Subcommittee discussed the issues raised by the Performing Arts external examiner Joshua Abrams, and noted action point 5 (concerning partner University Centre Peterborough) within the action plan. The Subcommittee considered that faculty-level support should also be included in the monitoring of this target, and suggests that the Deputy Dean (Academic Development) be included within the named monitors.Action 5.a.2: Performing Arts Programme Leader Gianna Bouchard/Deputy Dean (Academic Development) Dr Apurba Kundu

The Subcommittee requests confirmation on whether a response has been made to the report of Law (Academic) External Examiner Prof Maria Tighe and, if yes, that the response be appended to the programme’s AMR.Action 5.a.3: Law (Academic) Programme Leader Kathy Quinlan

The Subcommittee requests confirmation as to whether a response has been made to the report of Music External Examiner Simon Atkinson and, if yes, that the response be appended to the programme’s AMR.Action 5.a.4: Music Programme Leader Justin Williams

The Subcommittee notes the Reader’s comments re whether a formal response to English and Writing External Examiner Prof Raymond’s comments last year has been sent on behalf of our university and request confirmation from the Academic Office. Action 5.a.5: ALSS Faculty Quality Assurance Officer Vicky McCormick

The Subcommittee is concerned that actions within the British Council Action Plan of the English as a Foreign Language AMR which relate to our University Accommodation Service remain outstanding in spite of repeated requests from the programme leader. The Chair of the Subcommittee agreed to refer this matter to the Chair of Faculty Board.Action 5.a.6: Deputy Dean (Academic Development) Dr Apurba Kundu

The Subcommittee suggests that comments by Music Therapy External Examiner Donald Wetherick in relation to word limits are referred to our university’s Academic Regulations Subcommittee.Action 5.a.7: ALSS Director of Studies Dr Shaun Le Boutillier

5b. Quality of Education: Key issues, themes and trends

Key issues, themes and trends concerning “quality of education” are noted and, where necessary, actioned

8


as follows:

Student feedback

The Subcommittee notes all that all our programmes use the student module evaluation questionnaire (SMEQ) as a key tool in understanding the performance of our learning and teaching efforts within modules. However, a number of Readers point out that programmes suffered a sharp drop in response rates following the introduction of an online SMEQ from Semester 2, 2009-10.

The AMRs report considerable student engagement at programme subcommittee meetings, but some Readers note that the minutes from these meetings are not always appended to the AMRs. The Subcommittee suggests that, in future, these minutes are included as an appendix to the AMR.Action 5.b.1: ALSS Faculty Quality Assurance Officer Vicky McCormick

The Subcommittee notes the Reader’s concern regarding the Communications, Film and Media programme’s Action Plan: “ Insufficient information is given as to the nature of one particular issue concerning a module at Peterborough making it impossible for a Reader to report as to what the issue was, whether it comes under the heading of a ‘key issue’ or whether the action taken is appropriate and needs an action point in the future action plan” The Subcommittee recommends the author review this section of the report and include an appropriate action point in the 2010-11 Action Plan.Action 5.b.2: Communications, Film and Media Programme Leader Dr Nina Lübbren

The Reader of the Performing Arts AMR has removed the subheadings within this section of the report. The subcommittee request he revisit this section of the report and addresses each subheading included on the AMR template.Action 5.b.3: Performing Arts AMR Reader Dr Mick Gower

Student retention

The Subcommittee notes that a number of positive measures have been implemented across the faculty, including: improved attendance monitoring procedures in the Music, Performing Arts, and Communications, Film and Media programmes; improvements to the Personal Tutor system in the English Language and Intercultural Communication, and Social Sciences programmes; and a new mentoring system by second year students within the Music Therapy pathway of the Music programme.

Physical resources

The Subcommittee discussed a number of issues relating to our university’s new virtual learning environment (VLE) as a theme running across several programmes. The Subcommittee is concerned about the size limits for file storage as this can be limiting, particularly where files include video and other multimedia resources.Action 5.b.4: Learning Technologist Julian Priddle to continue to raise this concern at the VLE Implementation Board and/or other meetings.

The lack of IT facilities was identified as a resource issue in the programme areas of Law (Academic) and Communications, Film and Media programmes.

Readers have identified a perceived lack of library resources in the English and Writing, and Law (Academic) programmes.

The Subcommittee discussed comments raised by the Reader for the Social Sciences AMR in relation to staff turnover at University Centre Peterborough, and whether there is a link between this and student retention.

9


Stakeholder feedback

No significant issues are noted by the Readers.

Enhancement activity by staff

The Subcommittee is pleased to note Readers consider that staff in the majority of our programmes are carrying out significant enhancement activities, but request that each Reader provides two examples per report. Action: 5.b.5: ALL AMR Readers

5c. Issues requiring attention by Anglia Ruskin in 2010/11 at institutional level

The Subcommittee notes that, in a number of cases, Curriculum Management Committee meetings at partner institutions are being held in an inconsistent and/or irregular manner (e.g., lack of documentation in advance, no minutes, no student representatives in attendance, etc), if at all. The Subcommittee asks for this matter to be referred to the Academic Office.Action 5.c.1: ALSS Faculty Quality Assurance Officer Vicky McCormick/Deputy Head of Quality Assurance (Partnerships) Peter Worker

6. Good and innovative practice

Good practice is defined as a method, strategy or system, procedure or process, which has, over an appropriate period of time, resulted in improved academic standards, an enhanced quality of education and/or an improved level of service to stakeholders (eg students, staff, partner institutions, employers etc) and which can, when appropriately adapted, be implemented in other areas of the institution.[Overview report template]

Good and innovative practice in learning, teaching and assessment

The actions taken and planned to improve performance in first year modules [on the Law (Academic) programme], particularly regarding feedback, as well as the planned enhancement of the role of the Personal Tutor, are impressive and appear to be examples of good practice.

Fine Art External Examiner Margaret Ayliffe cites the

use of off site exhibitions/projects to develop individual ambition and transferable skills key to working in the creative industries. The use of external projects and staff exhibitions to enhance the regional and national profile of the programme. The Fine Art catalogue both promotes the course in a strong professional and aspirational light but gives students enhanced professional development. Study trips provide students with the opportunity for formal and informal learning outside of the University and clearly inform progression and ambition within a wider context. The integration of postgraduate and PhD students within the department provides a clear progression route for students and an aspirational model.

The enhancement of [Communications, Film and Media programme] students’ understanding of the connection between critical theory and creative practice, for example, by screenings and analysis of work of established creative practitioners embedded into a range of theory and practice modules, often via special events.

Art, Design and Media External Examiner Robert Kurta cites the “use of the blog on the final major project. Not only is it easy to chart the performance of the students across the module and for staff to track this to make timely interventions, the blog itself contains a wealth of detail on the technical, artistic and collaborative nature of the project the students have engaged in. This is excellent.”

10


Art, Design and Media External Examiner Robert Kurta is

very impressed with the peer assessment checklist that was used for the group project in the Animation module. Group work is very important in degrees and allowing for students to comment on and mark the performance of others within the group is excellent practice. The grid expresses clearly and unambiguously what the expectation and behaviour of students should be in order to achieve high marks and is to be commended.

The Social Sciences programme makes good progress in the adoption of explicit marking criteria for all assessed work and has been at the forefront in the integration of wiki, blogging and other social networking facilities alongside the new VLE.

Photography External Examiner Andrew Golding cites the

written feedback for the module Specialisation AC230001S was particularly well written and exemplary in summarising achievement and qualities of the work, and in making creative, supportive suggestions for students to advance and improve their understanding and practice…this module produced feedback, which could become an exemplar for all.

The provision of entire cohort grades to external examiners of the English Language and Intercultural Communication programme is noted by a Reader.

Student support

The role or involvement of the Music’s programme leader and pathway leaders in the attendance monitoring process goes beyond ARU expectations.

Tutorial support and regular informal meetings with the English as a Foreign Language programme leader that enhance the student experience.

Organisation and management

External Examiner Tim Holmes of the Communications, Film and Media programme cites the “ways in which the two satellite colleges (Harlow and Peterborough) co-ordinate their approaches to teaching and learning with each other and within the context of the degree ...”.

The work-based learning module on the Social Sciences programme is an example of good practice as evidenced by students who report that “the placement helped them to confirm their career choice, added to their confidence in applying for Post Graduate training in such work and helped motivate them for their final year of study.” (Social Sciences external examiner)

Details of any such items from last year’s process (disseminated in May 2010) which have been adapted/adopted by Programme areas in 2009/10

The incorporation of PDP as an integrated element within the compulsory core modules of all pathways at all levels in the Communications, Film and Media programme.

The excellent use and modes of constructive feedback, detailed comments and feed-forward on the Communications, Film and Media programme has previously been praised by external examiners on the Law (Academic) programme.

The design and delivery of interdisciplinary modules in the Performing Arts programme.

11


The creation of a reference collection of student work as a means of sharing good assessment practice in the Performing Arts programme.

The forms of continuous assessment being introduced in the Performing Arts programme to try and overcome problems of poor attendance, which can have particularly unfortunate effects on the quality of work and morale of fellow students when students are engaged in group work.

See also Action 2.1 above.

Significant and/or commendable achievements to be highlighted to a wider audience

Fine Art External Examiner Margaret Ayliffe states that

The BA (Hons) Fine Art “is now a well established and confident course. It is recruiting good students who are achieving strong results. The course structure is providing students with the conceptual, material and professional acumen to pursue a variety of careers in the cultural industries and to make successful applications to postgraduate courses. The academic infrastructure within the department is developing a strong profile with the new MFA course, PhD students and a reader in Fine Art. Externally the course is continually creating opportunities to boost the profile of the university through student and staff exhibitions and staff contributions to national and international symposia and conferences. This constitutes, in my opinion, quite a remarkable development…over 5 years.”

External Examiner Finlay Taylor admires the “opportunities taken within Cambridge to show the students’ work beyond the institutional site” on the Master Fine Art pathway.

Re graphic design, External Examiner James Brogden notes the “strong evidence of creative typography across the available software media outcomes. Several students have been commended / nominated for national design competitions, including Penguin Books, YCN.”

The Reader of the Communications, Film and Media AMR states that

The range of work placements, non-assessed work experience and extra-curricular activity directly relevant to pathways within the Programme area and which are undertaken by students is extremely impressive. The AMR includes details of a whole host of activities too numerous to mention individually here but which clearly build and enhance students’ employability skills.

Communications, Film and Media External Examiner Tony Sampson states that the “link between the Cultures of the Digital Economy research institute and the degree programme should be stressed”.

The Reader of the English and Writing AMR cites the quantity and quality of student’s external achievements on the MA Creative Writing pathway of the English and Writing programme, including one gaining Arts Council funding and an Escalator award, a second achieving a two-book publishing deal, and a third being shortlisted in national competitions.

The success of the English and Intercultural Communication programme’s “Routes into Languages” programme with schools.

The growing relationship between the Humanities programme’s history section and the Imperial War Museum is commendable, especially with regards to how a traditionally non-vocational subject is showing innovative ways of demonstrating employability.

The Reader of the Performing Arts AMR cited this programme for a number of notable achievements,

12


including its: work-based and practice-based learning through Peterborough NHS Trust, CanDoCo, etc; efforts to address assessment problems at University Centre Peterborough through standardisation meetings and sharing examples of good practice; and providing greater student learning support through new ‘drop-in surgeries’ and e-feedback.

7. Future action plans

The Subcommittee endorses the Reader’s Reports confirmation that the 2010-11 Action Plans for the ten programmes in the faculty adequately cover issues identified in the annual monitoring reports.

8. Additional comments

None.

9. Outstanding actions

All relevant actions are listed above and below in the body of this Overview Report.

10. Effectiveness of the annual monitoring process and its operation

The process has been conducted relatively effectively within the faculty. Only four (of 10) AMRs were received before or by the deadline of 12 November 2010, and the corresponding Readers’ Reports were also then delayed. However, with one exception, all AMRs and Reader’s Reports were completed before the winter break. The subcommittee operated effectively, and found the actions grid provided by the Academic Office to be very useful.

It is difficult to comment on the information contained within the individual AMRs as no one academic is responsible for viewing all the AMRs and Reader’s Reports in any detail. That said, inconsistencies are apparent in the appendices provided in the various AMRs. Also, while the quality of statistical data provided to support the annual monitoring process has improved, the Subcommittee notes that non-traditional programmes like Law (Professional) remains dependant on data held locally rather than by our university.

In general, the Subcommittee is satisfied with the quality of the Reader’s Reports, although better use could be made of External Examiner’s comments to illustrate issues of concern, as well as of good practice and/or commendable achievements. The Subcommittee noted that the AMR action plans were not always SMART, and suggests that their authors are reminded of this requirement, perhaps by a better template and/or guidance notes. In particular, some Readers identified the re-use of generic action points in AMRs from the previous year rather than the identification of new action points through the evaluation of specific issues raised by students, staff and External Examiners.

The Subcommittee was informed by the Academic Office representative that the university’s overall annual monitoring process is currently under review, and this may be the last year it is delivered in its current form. This is a welcome development if it reduces the number of steps that the annual monitoring process currently undergoes; e.g., AMR-Reader-Quality and Standards Subcommittee-Overview Report-Faculty Board-Academic Office-Senate, etc. This development will also be welcome if it decreases the time lag between the academic year being monitored, any necessary analysis, and when changes can be implemented (as noted in last year’s Overview Report, it is “difficult for programmes to adapt/adopt good practice identified in the Faculty Board overview report or Senate Summary report if these documents are not available until March and April of the academic year, leaving very little time for good practice to be adopted in that academic year and for meaningful evaluation of its impact in the next Annual Monitoring report”).

The subcommittee notes that the Faculty Annual Monitoring Overview Report will be submitted for discussion and approval to the next meeting of the ALSS Faculty Board scheduled for 2 March 2011.

13


Action 10.1: Deputy Dean (Academic Development) Dr Apurba Kundu

The subcommittee agrees that confirmed AMRs should be submitted in electronic format with amendments (where necessary) by 31 March 2011 to the Faculty Quality Assurance Officer who will arrange for their distribution to our external examiners.Action 10.2: ALSS Faculty Quality Assurance Officer Vicky McCormick

Date completed: 1 March 2011

14

Appendix 2 (LAIBS Summary Report)


AIBS QUALITY AND STANDARDS SUBCOMMITTEE OVERVIEW REPORT

Prepared by: Sue StirkBased on discussions of the above meeting held on: 31st January 2011Present at the meeting: Sue Stirk (Chair), Dr Mahmoud Al-Kilani, Dr Penny Hood, Jonathan

Knowles, John Rayment, Dr John Webb, Graham Webster, Caroline Watts, Claire Moorey (Secretary)

1. Essential requirements

Annual Monitoring Reports (AMRs) were considered for the following programmes:

- Postgraduate Pathways- Undergraduate Pathways- Professional pathways

It was confirmed that all the essential requirements of the AMRs had been met.

2. Readers’ reports

The sub-committee confirmed that the actions from last year’s Readers Reports had either been carried out or rolled forward into the AMRs action plans.


It was confirmed that some actions from the Professional AMRs action plan from last year had not been completed nor brought forward. It was noted that student dissatisfaction with the Michael Ashcroft Building was ongoing, but that it had already been raised and discussed at Senate. A further action which was carried forward was the unavailability of the results of professional exams to the faculty. This was problematic and placed restrictions on the AMR author as it was impossible to comment on results that were unavailable. However, it is not possible to carry this further as the Professional bodies do not provide such results as a matter of policy.


Statistics were used thoughtfully for postgraduate pathways and retention on postgraduate awards was good. At undergraduate level, the situation is more complex. The Faculty has a large number of collaborative partnerships, each of which often delivers a number of pathways. This makes it very challenging to make comparisons between the same pathway delivered at different locations. On campus, the statistics show low continuation numbers, however many of these are actually transfers to other pathways. The discontinuation rate is around 4 to 5% at the end of Level 1.

Although report authors were able to make sense of the statistical data provided, it was thought that the presentation of the data was somewhat old fashioned and that it should be provided in a more visual and graphical way to enable immediate comparisons to be made between pathways and in particular between pathway delivery locations. It was also noted that much of the pathway data is repetitive due to the commonality of modules across pathways. Although details of how to access statistical data is provided to Module and Pathway Leaders, it was clear that there is a need for training in order for them to be able to access and manipulate the data available.

15


5a. Academic Standards: Key issues, themes and trends

The AMRs could have provided a more reflective evaluation of both curriculum delivery and student achievement. However, it was thought that the Annual Monitoring process and templates themselves limits free-text reflection by report authors. For example, in some cases pathway reports had not been received, or were in themselves insufficiently detailed or reflective. Nevertheless, the curriculum was discussed in detail, including the Undergraduate Review 2010 which helped to maintain the currency of the curriculum and to remove some of the problem areas identified the previous year. The potential for further streamlining of postgraduate pathways was highlighted by one Reader. Concern was noted at the lack of Pathway Reports received from international partners and some undergraduate pathway leaders. (See section 10)

In general, External Examiner reports were very positive, though there were two main issues raised in relation to academic standards. The first concern was that of attendance by academic staff at the DAPs. One difficulty is that Semester 1 DAPs coincide with the first week of teaching. In an attempt to respond positively to the External Examiner’s comments the Faculty asked Timetabling to ring fence DAP meetings as a constraint so that attendance could be ensured. However, the Faculty was told this was not possible therefore another solution is being sought.

The second concern was the number of missing marks at DAPs and the resultant number of Chair’s actions. Although this has improved enormously in 2010/11 this is still an issue of concern for the Faculty and is subject to an internal review.

Other External Examiners commented on the variable quality of feedback provided to students. In some cases, comments were also made on inconsistencies in marking between delivery centres. The Faculty will be placing much greater emphasis on the moderation process and on the need for Module Leaders to communicate with their teaching teams to ensure consistency.

Additionally, some Externals expressed concern about their own workload, which has led to the appointment of two further External Examiners. A full mapping of External Examiner workload is currently being undertaken.

One report is outstanding due to an External Examiner being on maternity leave.


A number of key issues have been raised via the National Student Survey (NSS) and it was noted that these had been carried through to action plans. The issues concerned teaching and feedback and are of great concern to the Faculty. Two pathways in particular were identified which had satisfaction rates below 50%. In both cases recruitment to the pathways has been suspended until improvements are put in place. On the Accounting and Finance pathway course meetings have been held regularly and any academic and operational issues are addressed quickly, in order to improve both satisfaction rates, and retention on this pathway. The Pathway Leader has increased interaction with students, through visiting during classes, emailing job notices, and generally promoting course identity. Stronger links have also been developed to the professional bodies (ACCA\CIMA\CIPFA) via visits and inviting representatives from these bodies to speak to students. On the Tourism Management pathway, the curriculum has been changed to ensure that it is fit for purpose, external visits and speakers have also been arranged and students appear to be much more satisfied. Many of the difficulties experienced by students on these pathways appear to have also arisen due to previous curriculum difficulties which have been addressed both in the new curriculum and subsequent revisions.

16


In line with university policy, on-line Module Evaluation was used to collect student feedback but had an extremely low response rate and methods need to be found to encourage students to complete these.

Partner colleges (home and overseas) have held meetings and used paper based evaluation forms to elicit student feedback. In all cases feedback appears to be positive.

Students have raised issues with the suitability of teaching rooms both at Cambridge and Chelmsford often reporting them as too small for the size of group (MAB), or having poor acoustics making it difficult to hear lecturers (COS 405/6)

5c. Issues requiring attention by Anglia Ruskin in 2010/11 at institutional level

Consider purchase of a more sophisticated statistical tool to interact with SITS’ data in order to provide greater clarity and graphical presentation. Staff present at the annual monitoring sub-committee all commented that as external examiners themselves, they had seen more effective methods of presentation at other universities and that it would be useful if ARU were able to provide statistical data in this way.

External Examiners have commented on the wordcount policy being inconsistently applied. As a result, staff have requested that the word count should be + or – 5% before penalty which, they claim, would result in greater buy-in by staff.

Consider a request raised by Muslim students at Programme Committee meetings that Friday afternoons be free of teaching as Muslim students miss sessions due to being at prayer.

Consider a different method of annual reporting which is more action focussed and which takes place earlier in the year to ensure benefit for students, and so that academic staff can see the value of the process.


BA (Hons) Entrepreneurship and Entrepreneurial Management has been recognised as an innovative degree with the embedding of entrepreneurs in the teaching and assessment as a differentiator. The pathway was submitted to the “Times Higher Education” in the “Outstanding Employer Engagement" category. The use of guest speakers and external visits on a number of pathways enhances the student experience at all levels and supports the practice-based curriculum.

The conduct of master classes with an International partner was warmly received.


It was noted that the Professional AMR’s action plan should include an action point about the university policy on deduction of 10% for exceeding the word count as this was identified as being inconsistently applied.


17


None


An updated Action Plan for the Professional AMR should be provided to include an action point on the word count and cross site moderation.

10. Effectiveness of the annual monitoring process and its operation

The engagement of academic staff and collaborative partners in the AMR process is questionable. Submission rates of Pathway Reports was as follows:

Undergraduate pathways 39% Postgraduate Pathways 61% Professional Pathways 100% Collaborative partner reports 31%

This clearly made it very difficult for the authors of the overall Programme reports to produce high quality summaries.

The current process of providing programme summary reports of pathway reports results in an overall report which is somewhat anodyne in nature and which does not always critically assess the issues and their impact on students. The complexity within AIBS in terms of its large number of international partners contributes to this difficulty. The Readers’ Reports were rather brief and often contained Yes or No answers and no commentary, which is not always helpful.

The general consensus was that another method of annual reporting might be more effective.

Date completed: 23/2/2011

18

Appendix 3 (FoE Summary Report)


Faculty of Education Quality and Standards Subcommittee Overview Report 2009/10

Prepared by: Dr Jenny Gilbert, Deputy Dean, FoE

Based on discussions of the above meeting held on: 20th January 2011

Present at the meeting: Dr Jenny Gilbert (Chair), Dr Simon Pratt-Adams, Dr Margaret Hutt, Dr Anne McKee, Robin Jennings, Viki Muller (for Ray Petty), Sara Cobbett (Secretary)


For the two programme areas in the Education Studies Department Annual Monitoring Reports (AMRs) were produced. Within the Teacher Education Department one AMR was produced to address Masters and Secondary phase Programme (partial, Masters only). The remaining areas in Teacher Education require annual report documents to be produced and submitted to the Ofsted, the PSRB either directly or through the Training and Development Agency for Schools (TDA). These Self Evaluation Documents (SEDs) have a different focus from that of the Annual Monitoring Reports (AMRs), and there is a higher level of scrutiny with more in-depth analysis of data required. In view of the level of scrutiny coupled with the time involved in producing the SEDs, and the fact that the deadline was later than that for AMRs, it was agreed that for the three areas concerned the SEDs could replace the AMRs. These three SEDs address a) PGCE Secondary Phase SED corresponds to Masters and Secondary phase

Programme (partial)b) PGCE and BA Primary Phase SED corresponds to Primary and Further Education

Programme (partial)c) Further Education Phase SED corresponds to Primary and Further Education

Programme (partial).The Teacher Education programmes described above reflect the new programme structure not the 09/10 structure where the Primary Phase SED would have cut across two programmes. The programme structure has been recently altered to best match the Ofsted reporting requirements.

All reports included the list of pathways within the scope of the report. Readers’ Reports from the previous year were attached to the AMRs but are not a SED requirement. The previous year’s SMART action plans were included in the AMRs and the SEDs as were the current year’s SMART action plans. External Examiners’ reports were included in the AMRs but are not a SED requirement. The SEDs do, however, comment on the effectiveness of the quality assurance procedures and include relevant comments from External Examiners. Not all responses to External Examiners’ reports were included in AMRs and they are not required in SEDs. Authors have been asked to provide them.

19



Action was taken in response to last year’s Readers’ Reports. In respect of the only outstanding action the Subcommittee agreed that the issue raised by the External Examiner which was the recommendation for criteria to distinguish/provide greater articulation between work awarded a mark over 70% and that over 80% would be best dealt with by devising Faculty wide criteria. This has already been implemented in some Teacher Education Department modules and it is recommended that the Faculty Learning and Teaching Advisor should share and adapt the model as necessary.


Some actions have been rolled forward into 2010/11 and in certain cases queries were raised regarding their continuing suitability. It was noted that in Teacher Education previous action places have been superseded by the Secondary Improvement Plan and the Primary Recovery Plan devised following the March 2010 Ofsted visit.


No problems were reported in respect of access to the statistical data. However, the Subcommittee did feel that better use could be made of the statistical data available and that this could give more authority to the claims being made. One of the AMRs commented on the statistics from pathways covered by a SED. This was helpful given that SEDs do not include any analysis of module statistics. The SEDs do, however, include data on admissions, on performance during school experience as a whole and broken down by different aspects and on employment. The data is also analysed by different categories so that, for example, teaching performance is compared with classification of entry degree for post-graduate students. Performance of different groups is also analysed e.g by gender, by ethnicity. A small proportion of the SED data is available from the TDA but most is collected and analysed within the Faculty. If this data were made available more generally it could be useful as an analytical tool on other programmes. In one programme the reader felt that the data was not being used to set targets,

5a Academic Standards: Key issues, themes and trends

The major issues raised in Teacher Education relate to auditing and tracking trainees’ progress, knowing trainees well and clarifying roles and responsibilities for Quality Assurance. Consistency of support for partners or across partners is an issue for placement in school and for partner delivery in FE. In Teacher Education this is being addressed through a newly constituted partnership model, a revised school experience grading system and new student support mechanisms. In Education Studies overlap between modules has been highlighted and this will be addressed in a forthcoming review of the curriculum. The only common theme in External Examiners’ comments relates to lack of consistency of feedback between markers, moderators’ comments and moderation paperwork. The Subcommittee was advised that the Faculty was aware of the need for consistency in these areas and that it would also be discussing our processes with External Examiners to ensure familiarity.

20



Action taken by the Education Studies Department to promote retention has focussed on more appropriate selection to the pathways and enhanced support offered to students to assist in their transition to higher education. The role of Personal Tutors is also key and the role within the Teacher Education Department is an extended role. In terms of learning resources it was acknowledged that the Faculty should consider looking at more efficient ways of monitoring work loads in order to identify staffing issues. In relation to specialist art and science space the Faculty is well aware of the need to ensure all rooms it has at its disposal are put to full use in order to ensure the space continues to be available.

6. Good and innovatory practice

The following good and innovative practice was identified within AMRs

the use of patchwork text for Teacher Education Art provision, together with the External Examiner’s comments which referred to ‘a positive role model for other institutions that have not as yet embraced patchwork text’;

The ‘retreat’ held at Belstead House: staff and students were invited and this was a good example of building a strong academic community.

The SEDs identified Fast developing tracking system for trainee performance Stronger relationship with schools through new Partnership model and strengthened

roles for staff within this to improve trainee support

Further examples to celebrate are

Newly launched Educational Society; Internal conferences open to staff and usually also to students; Increase in Research Groups; Project to explore the use of white boards.


Action plans generally covered the necessary issues but in many cases authors were required to tidy up and clarify action plans. In one instance an additional target was suggested. Action Plans in SEDs are not in the same format and do not make clear the owner of the action or the precise timescale.


Given the combination of AMRs and SEDs it was agreed with the Academic Office that we would not expect Readers’ Reports for the SEDs. They have been subject to a high level of internal scrutiny before being submitted to the PSRB.


All requirements identified by the Subcommittee have been completed.

21


10. Effectiveness of the Annual Monitoring Process and its operation

The annual monitoring process has been challenging for the Faculty this year due to the reliance on different styles of report: AMRs and SEDs. The current annual monitoring process does not easily lend itself to PSRB requirements and the lack of convergence generates additional work and complexity.

It is noted with concern that the current annual monitoring process failed to pick up on the serious quality assurance concerns that were raised by the professional body in the year in question. Accordingly, the Faculty would welcome a change, ideally to a more real-time process that would allow Faculties to respond to the issues identified in a timelier manner. The standard of the Readers’ Reports was good and the statistical data had been provided in good time this year. The SMART Action Plans have varied in quality and further revisions were necessary to ensure these were completed appropriately and met the required standard. This suggests a possible training need.

22

Appendix 5 (FST Summary Report)

Faculty of Health & Social CareOverview Report of

Annual Monitoring of Delivery in 2009/2010for Discussion at Faculty Board Meeting of 10 March 2011

1. Essential Requirements

Annual Monitoring Reports have been received and considered from the following Programmes:-

Acute Care Pre-RegistrationAcute Continuing DevelopmentAllied HealthChild and CommunityFoundation ProgrammeInterprofessional LearningMental Health & Learning DisabilitiesPrimary and Public HealthSocial Work & Counselling

These reports meet the essential requirements for AMR.


No action was required in response to 6 readers’ reports from last year.The remaining 3 AMR authors provided the additional information and/or further detail in their action plans as per readers’ requests.

3. Last Year’s Action Plans

The panel noted that a number of plans were carrying actions forward or there was lack of clarity re completion/success of all actions.

The following AMRs gave detailed feedback on last year’s action plan with actions carried forward in some cases:

Child and CommunityFoundation ProgrammeInterprofessional LearningSocial Work & CounsellingPrimary and Public Health

In the remaining programmes the narrative did not always make it clear where actions had been completed and/or achieved successfully.

Carrying forward actions over one or more years means that quality enhancement within the programme is not always explicit. This practice was referred to in last year’s AMR overview report and continues to happen in some cases. Programme leads and their colleagues need to review SMART actions and consider what is measurable and achievable within the year. The programme sub-committee standardised agenda, implemented in the FHSC from Semester 1 2010, requires programme subcommittees to review and report on AMR action plans at each meeting and is explicit in its requirement for programme leaders to identify enhancement as an outcome of AMR. Feedback

23


on progress from AMR action plans and programme enhancements achieved will be clearly reported on via the summary of programme subcommittee meetings forwarded to Faculty Board.

4. Statistical Analysis

8 of the 9 reports have used statistical data to inform their action plans. Data is also used in the 9th report’s action plan but the link between the report text and the action plan is less evident to the reader.

Four reports did not identify a problem with the statistical information provided by Oracle. Difficulties associated with the use of this missing data or inaccurate, data include Oracle not reporting data by cohort, and Regional partners inability to access data. These AMR’s used local data to supplement Oracle.

The analysis of retention in each report was variable with 3 reports indicating improved retention rates, supported by the data. The remaining reports required further data or analysis to support their broader discussion.

There is an improving trend in relation to modules with a high level of academic failure which has been reduced by several strategies including additional work with students around study skills and formative assessment, review of assessment strategy or discontinuation of the module. Similar strategies to improve academic standards are being utilised to address modules identified with a mean mark of less than 50%.

Improving or acceptable continuation and/or award classification is identified in 4 reports. Other AMRs discuss these issues broadly and would benefit from a more detailed analysis of the data.

5a. Academic Standards: Key Issues, Themes and Trends

All reports provided a narrative analysis of key issues with reference to External Examiner reports, PSRB reviews and student and stakeholder feedback. Within some reports there was a tendency to rely on External Examiner feedback extensively. There remains scope to strengthen the student perspective within the review process but this area was improved by comparison with last years AMR’s.

Curriculum efficiencies continue to be achieved via archiving modules and the UG and PG framework has resulted in a reduced number of pathways.

Placement learning is discussed in 3 reports where it is noted that the availability of good quality practice experience continues to prove a challenge to course teams. Student expectations around some aspects of work-based learning, e.g. travel are being managed more effectively. There has been

24


significant activity to develop the number of practice based mentors to support students’ learning in practice, and to update already qualified mentors via online mentor updates. Academic staff taking the role of ‘Educational Champion’ have been utilised and evaluated positively to align practice and academic learning and support students in practice. Clinical support documents for students with learning difficulties have been developed. The Educational Champion role has been commended in 3 separate external reviews of the curriculum, the NMC review in November 2010, the RN approval in February 2011 and the PQAF review in March 2011

Key strategies noted across the faculty to enhance the efficiency of curriculum delivery and pedagogy include more extensive use of the VLE to provide blended learning, with several reports indicating their intention to offer fully distant learning options in the next academic year. Several reports note actions relating to streamlining assessment methods to reduce the assessment load for students and teachers. Staff have engaged in workshops related to assessment feedback and good academic practice, with extensive use of ‘Turn it in’ across our Faculty.

External examiner reports have been very positive in relation to the content and currency of the programmes, the support for students, the quality of student work in some areas, e.g. research projects; and in most cases the quality of assessment and feedback. Where concerns have been highlighted actions are in place to address these.

5b. Quality of Education: Key issues, Themes and Trends

As mentioned above some reports noted low response rates especially in relation to online module evaluation but 7 of the 9 reports reviewed, summarised key issues raised through student feedback. These included organisation related to timetabling, access to e-vision and communication of changes. Student evaluation within programmes also referred to specific concerns with some aspects of placement learning, the use of HPLs, the sequencing of modules and academic support. There is a detailed strategy in place within our faculty to improve the response rate in online evaluation to at least our university target of 40%.

Every programme is implementing actions to promote student retention with emphasis on the joining points in pathways, e.g. induction, buddying and student support schemes, and early intervention with learning difficulties via study skills, tutorial support and formative assessment. While the AMRs indicate appropriate strategies to improve retention, the impact of these in relation to benchmark targets is not explicit. Data cleansing currently underway in our Faculty should provide statistics to encourage this impact analysis.

VLE was the learning resource discussed extensively in most reports and its use in all modules noted. It is recognised as a useful addition to other learning resources available to the students and its flexibility is appreciated.

25


Limitations of learning and other resources are noted on the Peterborough site and will be resolved with our move to Guildhouse on the 18th March 2011.

There were several references to good partnership working with employers/stakeholders and one programme within Allied Health has created a facebook site for students and alumni after stakeholder feedback. Issues raised by stakeholders/employers from the NHS centred on the need for further input within the pathways for clinical skills. Several stakeholders recorded their involvement with curriculum delivery, assessment and development of the all graduate nursing curriculum and via these mean their ability to influence course content. It was evident that some stakeholders are seeking further engagement in programme/pathway delivery and management and it would be beneficial to disseminate the best models of stakeholder engagement across all FHSC pathways.

The following staff enhancement activity was noted:

An increasing number of staff engaged in doctoral study-47 undertaking internal and external PhDs/Prof Docs with 7 completing this year.

Priority given to teaching qualifications for all newly appointed staff Increasing number of staff publications and conference presentations. All FHSC staff have undertaken staff development for VLE and its use, in

2010 Attendance at professional conferences.

5c. Issues requiring attention by Anglia Ruskin in 2010/2011 at institutional level.

External Examiners comments related to paper free DAPs Institutional actions that may help support faculty attempts to promote

online module evaluation Data cleansing, and mechanisms to provide accessible data that will

support more detailed analysis of AMR evidence with particular emphasise on the impact of programme enhancements and action plans.

Review of the AMR process to reduce time lag between pathway delivery and final review.


Strategies conforming to the Anglia Ruskin definition of good practice were:

The Education Champion and link team strategy offering support to practice learning for students and practice staff. This was identified as ‘outstanding’ in the NMC review in November 2010. This means that external reviewers consider the strategy worthy of national dissemination and that it could with adaptation provide a useful model for other faculties supporting work based learning

26


Work based learning for non traditional students based in full time employment-Allied Health

The adaptation/adoption of good practice highlighted in previous reviews was noted in the Child and Community Programme where mid semester reviews were utilised to consider module and pathway experience

Also adapted from last year is the Midwifery team’s fine grading of practice, supported by their own specifically developed assessment tool which is being applied to the graduate nursing programme.

Achievements to be highlighted to a wider audience include;

The introduction of induction for returning students The provision of a minimum standard of VLE material to support all

modules offered within FHSC External examiners commendations re the quality of assessment

feedback to students would appear to validate the provision of marking/feedback workshops across the faculty. The innovative assessment methods in Social Policy were also commended by External examiners

7 Future action plans

Readers indicated where action plans had omitted to address issues raised in the report and several identified that action plans should be quantifiable or more specific. Following recommended amendments, action plans address the issues raised in the AMR adequately.

8. Additional Comments

Readers indicated that AMR reporting was generally sound, meeting the criteria indicated in the AMR template. The strongest AMRs were those where a balance was achieved between reflective and analytical accounts supported by evidence. Readers indicated that a couple of the reports tended to generalise and would benefit from developing an analytical stance.

9. Outstanding Actions

No outstanding actions.

10. Effectiveness of the Annual Monitoring Process

27


The process has been conducted effectively and staff have fully engaged with it at programme and faculty level. Reports have been submitted within the required timeframe. The subcommittee meeting was attended by readers and the external panel member made a valuable contribution. The summary spreadsheet of the AMRs by the academic office and the administrative support offered by the Faculty Quality Officer support the process well.

The quality of the AMRs was on the whole good with some excellent examples submitted. However a number of reports would be enhanced by adopting a more analytical stance with reference to supporting evidence.

The statistical information provided was adequate for some programme analysis but local data was used in some reports where data in Oracle proved incomplete.

The reader’s reports reflected the key areas that comprise the faculty overview and supported the debate in the AMR subcommittee effectively

The smart action plans address the issues raised in the AMRs adequately. Several reports made explicit links, with the text supported by evidence, to generate their action plans but there was a tendency to generalise in some accounts. This combined with the number of actions carried forward into a second year suggests a need for actions to be realistic in terms of what is manageable within the year as well as SMART.

The process of annual monitoring is currently under review in our university. The FHSC AMR subcommittee agreed that the timeframe of the current process means that issues reflected in the reports have often moved on by the time our faculty and university overviews are reported. The time between initial reporting and completing the AMRs makes the link between the quality enhancement of pathways and programmes and the AMR process less explicit. In order to overcome this FHSC now require action plans from the AMR to be reviewed regularly as part of the programme subcommittee and progress on them reported via this mechanism. Programme and pathway leads are required to identify ongoing quality enhancement, supported by evidence, which will be recorded in a programme/pathway library in ‘My Workplace’. The aim of this strategy is to develop an ongoing engagement with quality monitoring and enhancement and steer away from an AMR which may be perceived as a once only activity undertaken in the autumn.

Date Completed: 24 March 2011

Anne Devlin Deputy Dean Teaching, Learning and Quality FHSC

28



FACULTY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY QUALITY AND STANDARDS SUBCOMMITTEE OVERVIEW REPORT

Prepared by: Leigh Stoeber, Director of Studies, FST-Cambridge, 28 February 2011

Based on discussions of the above meeting held on: Monday, 10th January, 2011

Present at the meeting: Jo Bowman, Nikki Dibb, Robin Jennings, Jacqui McCary, Vicky McCormick, Julia Ramsay, David Reid (Chair), Andy Stevens, Leigh Stoeber


An AMR has been received and considered for each programme area within the Faculty of Science and Technology. These programme areas include:

29


This report confirms that an AMR for each

Programme has been received and considered by a Reader* ;

the list of pathways within the scope of the AMR has been completed;

the external examiners’ reports have been attached as an appendix to each AMR**;

an action plan, following the SMART format, has been attached as an appendix to each AMR;

the previous year’s SMART action plan, with details of progress made against all the actions, has been attached to each AMR;

the previous years associated Reader’s Report (with a formal

response from the AMR author where applicable) has been attached to each AMR.

* The AMR for Optometry and Optical Management was received late due to staff illness and thus the AMR and associated Readers’ report were not considered at the meeting on 10 Jan 2011. However, the author has subsequently considered this Readers’ report for the purposes of constructing this AMR overview report.

** One external examiners’ report from both Construction and from Design and Engineering and from Architecture and Planning were not included; two external examiners’ reports for Surveying were not included as of the meeting on 10 Jan 2011. Since the meeting, external examiners’ reports from Construction and Design and Engineering have been received but those from Architecture and Planning and Surveying are still outstanding.

30

Programme Reader AuthorAnimal and Environmental Biology

Andy Stevens Julian Doberski

Architecture & Planning

Jo Bowman Gil Lewis

Biomedical & Molecular Science

David Reid Leigh Stoeber

Computing David Reid Antony Carter

Computer Science David Reid Ian Oxford

Construction Robin Jennings Phil Mellow

Design & Engineering

Leigh Stoeber Habtom Mebrahtu

Forensic Science & Chemistry

Andy Stevens Sarah Hall

Ophthalmic Dispensing

Ian Oxford Richard Calver

Optometry & Optical Management

David Reid Rupal Lovell-Patel

Psychology Richard Calver Rachel Cook

Sports & Exercise Sciences

Jacqui McCary Roy Luckhurst

Surveying Robin Jennings Stephen Fenton

Technology Robin Jennings Phil Mellow


2. Readers’ reportsThe AMRs described appropriate actions taken in response to Readers’ Reports on the previous year’s AMRs in all programme areas. In Design and Engineering, the reader indicated it would be desirable to comment in greater breadth and depth about how the previous year’s targets were actioned and what the outcomes were.

3. Last year’s action plans12 out of 14 AMRs were carrying forward action points from last year’s SMART action plan. In programme areas Construction and Technology, there were no outstanding actions to carry forward.

It was noted that in two programme areas (Optometry and Optical Management and Technology), the previous years’ SMART action plan (2008-2009) was attached but not updated.

4. Statistical analysisStatistical data from the University portal and within various programme areas had been accessed and analysed to highlight trends in student continuation, retention and award classification(s) in most programme areas but the following comments were made: Portal data for Construction was not accessed or analysed. This resulted in: (a) no information

on student retention offered, and, (b) a lack of analysis of the high mean mark in EB215041S. The Reader recommended that in future portal statistics be used to prepare the report as per recommended practice. The committee indicated that they would like to see a review of the assessment addressed in the action plan, as the high mean mark raises a concern as to whether internal moderation is working appropriately. The committee also indicated that they would like to see information on student retention provided. (Action Phil Mellow)

The Sports & Exercise Sciences AMR refers to additional data having to be locally gathered from Faculty and partner college SEEVIC as there were issues with centrally held data. (Action David Reid/Sheila Pankhurst)

5a. Academic Standards: Key issues, themes and trendsCurriculum delivery and achievement: The committee has considered that the AMRs could provide a more reflective evaluation of curriculum delivery/ achievement with the addition of a histogram of grades (produced centrally, if possible). A request will be sent to the strategic planning and policy unit for the provision of histograms for pathway grades. (Action Nikki Dibb)

Curriculum Efficiency:Specific points raised include:

the reduction of pathways in some programme areas, without a concomitant reduction in modules delivered;

the effect curriculum rationalisation has had on the Annual Monitoring process and curriculum efficiency; it was discussed that the haste in which CR was implemented may have had an adverse impact on efficiency;

the lack of information on student retention and continuation within the Construction AMR. The Reader raised concern(s) that the facility for students to retake modules with attendance may mask a population of struggling students. (Action Phil Mellow)

the problems with the use of part time staff (in one module in particular) in the Animal & Environmental Biology programme area. The committee considered this may put academic standards at risk. There was no reference within the AEB action plan as to how this will be dealt with in future, and the committee request(s) the author provides an additional action point within the plan for 2010/11. (Action Julian Doberski)

31


External Examiners Reports:Feedback from External Examiners was generally positive and acknowledged that issues raised by them during the year have generally been satisfactorily resolved.

Points to be noted (or which required response) included (external examiners names in italics):

the six matters pertaining to academic standards at risk as reported to Senate, and the (corresponding) responses given by the Heads of Department. Specifically, the AMR committee discussed the problems relating to the quality of written English (Kathleen Thurman) and felt this is an institutional problem. It was suggested that an action point within the Architecture and Planning Action plan relating to this standard at risk be introduced. (Action Gil Lewis);

(Anthony Westbury) In Life Sciences, the committee discussed the improvement in dialogue with partner colleges and the appointment of a partnerships manager to help facilitate this. However, an additional action point on the Sports & Exercise Sciences 2010/11 relating to how consistency will be monitored at level 3 is desired (Action Roy Luckhurst);

The committee noted the comments from the Director of the Academic Office in response to the comments made by Anthony Ward (Psychology) in relation to the on line module evaluation. The committee felt the low response rate since the introduction of the electronic system is disappointing and likely to have an adverse affect on the NSS scores, and;

The committee noted the comment from the Surveying External examiner in relation to “generous marking” and request(s) that additional detail be included in (3) on the 2010/11 action plan in order to clarify how the internal moderators will actually effect cross module checking. (Action Steve Fenton)

5b. Quality of Education: Key issues, themes and trendsThe committee identified a number of emerging themes relating to the quality of education provided from within the Faculty of Science and Technology including:

i. the poor response to the Module evaluations since the introduction of the electronic questionnaire. Specifically, in some modules the student response is below 10-15% resulting in module tutors being unable to draw meaningful conclusions from this feedback;

ii. the varied use of the VLE and lack of adequate storage capacity for files containing video footage, and/or files of large size;

iii. the poor quality of written English from some proportion of students from within the Faculty;

iv. the problems with access to the Mumford learning zone computers at weekends and during peak times (eg, computer ‘blocking’);

v. the dissatisfaction with portable classrooms/ temporary buildings. (Specifically, with respect to Opthalmic Dispensing, the GOC have informed the department that it may withdraw accreditation if suitable permanent facilities are not guaranteed for the future.)

vi. the timing of the Annual Monitoring process and the availability of statistical information—the committee noted that due to the latter the AMRs cannot be completed until the second half of semester one in each academic year.

vii. the mentoring of PT/HP staff. It was noted by the committee that the Law School have recently introduced a mentoring scheme for PT/HP staff and the committee believed that this could be an element of good practice which could/should be incorporated in future, especially in light of PT/HP staff utilised to help support our ASNs in 2010-2011.

32


Student retention:Various actions to improve student retention figures have been implemented across the Faculty including: the early identification of non-attendees and providing an appropriate response to these

students; the provision of more structured tutorial time, and; the splitting of 30 credit module(s) (which had proved to be a particular barrier to progression)

into two 15 credit modules with positive results.

Employer/ Stakeholder feedback: It was noted that the Sports and Exercise Sciences report made no mention of

employer/stakeholder feedback and the committee have requested the author revisit this section and provide appropriate comments. (Action Roy Luckhurst.)

It was noted that the Forensic Science & Chemistry AMR discusses an action point relating to establishing a meeting each semester with various Forensic Science providers. However, this does not appear on the action plan. The committee request(s) it be included. (Action Sarah Hall.)

Enhancement activity by staff:The committee was very pleased to note that the majority of Departments are carrying out enhancement activity but are concerned that the department of Architecture and Planning are finding teaching pressures are having a negative impact on research and consultancy. The committee would like to see this addressed within the action plan for this programme area. (Action Gil Lewis)

5c. Issues requiring attention by Anglia Ruskin in 2010/11 at institutional levelWith respect to the institutional timing of the AMR process, a suggestion was made by the committee to include an additional section in future AMRs in which an update on what has happened between the end of the academic year and the writing of the report can be provided (Action Vicky McCormick/ Nikki Dibb) The committee also considers the lack of evidence of representation from Pathway Leaders within the AMR to be regrettable.

6. Good and innovative practiceGood practice is defined as "a method, strategy, system, procedure or process, which has, over an appropriate period of time, resulted in improved academic standards, an enhanced quality of education and/or an improved level of service to stakeholders (e.g. students, staff, external examiners, collaborative partners, employers etc.) and which can, when appropriately adapted, be implemented in other areas of the institution [Faculty Overview report Guidance Notes].

Within the Faculty, the following were considered elements of good or innovative practice:

the introduction of the Ruskin week (in Department of the Built Environment) to specifically focus on giving individual students formative feedback;

the use of a mid semester review process (closely aligned to NSS satisfaction indicators) in Construction;

the use of “Dragons Den”-style exercises to assist in the development of entrepreneurial skills (Computer Science)

the introduction of generic feedback sheets in Computer Science so as to provide more timely feedback to students;

the introduction of a project supervision contract which describes the responsibilities of project students and their supervisors (Psychology).

the provision of a compulsory module entitled Learning and Skills Development in Higher

33


Education within the programme area Design and Engineering. This module overviews writing skills, good academic practice and styles of referencing etc;

the introduction of a standardised formatting system to help assignment marking across partner colleges within Sports and Exercise Sciences. (The latter was inspired by the example from the ALSS benchmarking process between the Cambridge & Kings Lynn programmes.)

the introduction of the provision of audio feedback on student assessment(s) within Sports and Exercise Sciences which has been very well-received by students within the programme area..

Significant Achievements for 2009-2010:The achievements of the Sports and Exercise Sciences programme area were commended by the committee. Specifically, these achievements included: (a) three validation events; (b) curriculum review (rationalisation); (c) one pathway revision; (d) the organisation and preparation for the first two week residential block of the Judo degree, with corresponding mention of the Judo degree in The Times and a schools 6th Form conference, and; (e) outstanding research and scholarly activity as evidenced by seven conference papers and abstracts, ten conference presentations, numerous scholarly activities including commencement of a PhD, appointment as a reviewer for a The International Journal of Sports Medicine, membership of several external committees as well as coaching and development activity related to Judo. (Recently, one of their first class honours graduates has been appointed to the UKA Apprentice Coach-Paralympic for sprints and wheelchair racing and as such will be preparing United Kingdom Paralympic athletes for the 2012 Paralympics.)

Psychology should be commended as they underwent a successful Periodic Review in 2009/2010.

In Optometry and Optical Management, the excellent NSS scores achieved in 2009-2010 placed the department in the top 4 institutions in the country.

7. Future action plansThe Readers were generally satisfied that the future action plans are adequate in addressing specific areas of concern. However, the committee noted that not all issues raised in External Examiners’ reports have been developed into specific action points on the 2010/2011 Action plans, although all have been responded to in the response grid.

It was felt that additional points should be incorporated within the action plans for the programme areas of Construction, Animal and Environmental Biology, Technology and Architecture and Planning. Specifically, it was felt that the External Examiners’ comments about weaker students in Surveying should be embodied within the Action plan (Action Gil Lewis).

8. Additional commentsN/A9. Outstanding actions

Please see Action Grid at the end of this document (Appendix 1).

10. Effectiveness of the annual monitoring process and its operation With the exception of two AMRs all reports were received before or by the deadline. Where there were delays these were due to staff absence or illness and as a result of these late submissions the corresponding Readers reports were also delayed.

34


Some specific points were raised by the committee:

The committee raised some concern that there is no evidence of staff from partner colleges engaging with the process and consider this would be beneficial.

The subcommittee found the grid provided by the Academic Office to be very useful and commended it.

The committee considered the ease of access to the statistical data has improved again this year.

The committee was satisfied overall with the quality of the Readers reports. The committee considered that the action plans are not always SMART (Specific

Measurable Agreed Relevant and Realistic and Time bound) and suggests that Authors are reminded of the requirements.

As mentioned previously, the committee raised the issue that courses starting in February fall outside of the present review period and the committee requests that any new process adequately addresses this anomaly.

A query was raised in relation to comments made by External Examiners on student exam papers or other assessments. Currently, it is understood that these comments go back to the department—as such, the current annual monitoring process does not include any reference to these comments. The committee considers that for the purposes of a satisfactory audit trail the comments should also be included within the AMRs.

Date completed: 28 February 2011

Appendix A: Faculty of Science & Technology Quality Standard Subcommittee: Annual Monitoring Action Grid

Note/Programme Action Required by 31st March (unless otherwise stated)

Action by Monitored By

3.4 Academic Office

A discussion took place regarding the timing of the AMR process and a suggestion was put forward for an additional section to be included relating to an update on what has happened between the end of academic year and the writing of the report. This is to be fed back to the Academic Office.

Vicky McCormick/Nikki Dibb

Deputy Dean/FQAO

3.5 Academic Office

A request will be sent to the strategic planning and policy unit for the provision

Nikki Dibb Deputy Dean/FQAO

35


of histograms for pathway grades.

5.6 A query was raised in relation to External Examiner comments on exam papers and assignment tasks which are sent to them for comment. It is understood that these comments go back to the department but the current annual monitoring process does not include any reference to these comments. The committee consider that for the purposes of a satisfactory audit trail the comments should also included in the AMR’s and suggest this is referred to the Academic Office.

Nikki Dibb/Caroline Watts

Deputy Dean/FQAO

3.5 Animal & Environmental Biology

Problems with the use of part time staff are noted in the Animal & Environmental Biology programme area, and the committee considered this may put academic standards at risk. There was no reference within the AEB action plan as to how this will be dealt with in future, and the committee request the author provides an additional action point within the plan for 2010/11

Julian Doberski Deputy Dean/FQAO

3.5 Architecture and Planning

The committee discussed the problem raised by External Examiner ( Kathleen Thurman) relating to the quality of written English. There is no action point within the Architecture and Planning Action plan relating to this standard at risk. The committee requests the Author includes an action point detailing the measures the department will take to attempt to

Gil Lewis Deputy Dean/FQAO

36


improve this

3.6 Architecture & Planning

The report states that teaching pressures are having a negative impact on research and consultancy. The committee would like to see what steps the department is taking to address this within the action plan.

Gil Lewis Deputy Dean/FQAO

3.4 Construction Portal data for was not accessed or analysed, and information regarding the high mean mark in EB215041S was not adequately addressed. The committee would like to see a review of the assessment addressed in the action plan, as the high mean mark raises a concern as to whether internal moderation is working appropriately. The author is to examine the portal data and provide an update to the report.

Phil Mellow Deputy Dean/FQAO

3.4 Construction No information on student retention given in relation to the Portal data. This is a specific requirement within AMR. The author is asked to provide additional information.

Phil Mellow Deputy Dean/FQAO

3.6 Forensic Science & Chemistry

The AMR mentions establishing once a semester meeting with various Forensic Science providers but this does not appear on the action plan. The committee request it be included.

Sarah Hall. Deputy Dean/FQAO

3.5 Optometry & Optical Management

The committee noted the comments from External Examiner (David Gartry) but as this Annual Monitoring Report was not available were unable to comment on whether his comments had been

David Reid or nominee

Deputy Dean/FQAO

37


adequately addressed in the Action Plan. The Chair will review the report and comment accordingly 31st January 2011

3.4 Sports & Exercise Sciences

The Sports & Exercise Sciences AMR refers to additional data having to be used which was supplied by the faculty and SEEVIC as there were issues with centrally held data. It was agreed that the Chair would refer this to the Head of Department. By 31st January 2011

David Reid or nominee

Deputy Dean/FQAO

3.5 Sports & Exercise Sciences

The committee noted External Examiner (Anthony Westbury’s) comment relating to monitoring level 3 at SEEVIC and recommend an additional action point on the Sports & Exercise Sciences 2010/11 Action plan relating to how they will monitor consistency at level 3

Roy Luckhurst Deputy Dean/FQAO

3.6 Sports and Exercise Sciences

It was noted that the Sports and Exercise Sciences report made no mentioned of employer/stakeholder feedback and the committee have requested the author revisit this section and provide appropriate comments.

Roy Luckhurst. Deputy Dean/FQAO

3.5 Surveying The committee noted the comment from the Surveying External examiner in relation to “generous marking” and request that additional detail be included in action point 3 on the 2010/11 action plan in order to clarify how the internal moderators will actually effect cross module checking.

Steve Fenton Deputy Dean/FQAO

3.10 Surveying Furthermore the Reader recommends the External

Steve Fenton. Deputy Dean/FQAO

38


examiners comment (Surveying) relating to weaker students (item 2 p 25) is embodied within the plan

3.6 VLE Issues relating to the VLE were discussed as this was a theme across several departments. The committee are concerned about limited storage capacity particularly where files include video skills. The committee would like to pass this comment on to the VLE project board. By 31st January 2011

Jacqui McCary/Jo Bowman

Deputy Dean/FQAO

39