anglia polytechnic universityftp.anglia.ac.uk/anet/academic/public/annual_monitoring... · web...

ANGLIA RUSKIN UNIVERSITY

The Senate

Summary Report of the Annual Monitoring of Taught Pathways Delivered in the Academic Year 2008/09

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 2008/09, conducted between September 2009 and March 2010.

1.2 The following reports are attached as Appendices 1-6 and were the main sources of information for the Summary Report:

Five Faculty Board overview reports: Faculty of Arts, Law & Social Sciences (ALSS); Ashcroft International Business School (AIBS); Faculty of Education (FoE); Faculty of Health & Social Care (FHSC); Faculty of Science & Technology (FST). All overview reports were approved by the relevant faculty boards at meetings held in February/March 2010;

Annual Institutional Review of Edexcel Licensed Centre BTEC Programmes (this report forms the annual reporting process for Edexcel and complements the monitoring of Edexcel higher nationals within the Programmes undertaken as part of the Anglia Ruskin standard process).

1.3 The Senate is invited to consider this report, agree appropriate action where necessary (see paras 4.4, 4.7, 4.10, 4.11, 4.17, 6.2, 7.1d) and conclude the annual monitoring process of delivery in 2008/09.

2. Progress on action points contained in the Summary Report for 2007/08

2.1 The following actions regarding our processes for annual monitoring were taken in response to suggestions contained in last year’s Faculty overview reports:

a) To commence the annual monitoring (AMR) template with the updated action plan from the previous year;This proposal was implemented and positively commented upon within the FHSC overview report (see Appendix 4, para 1a).

b) Including reference to Programme level responses to the NSS results and action plans within the AMR template;The following question was included within the AMR template: ‘What responses have been made at Programme level to the National Student Survey and Student Experience Survey?’

c) Earlier distribution of the AMR template and guidance in May/June 2009;This was achieved.

d) To hold Annual Monitoring subcommittees in December, rather than January, so the meeting coincides more closely with the completion of the Readers’ reports.All Faculties were asked if they wished to bring forward their subcommittee meetings to December; FST opted to do so and held their meeting on 17th December 2009. The remaining four took place in January 2010 (see also para 7.1 a).

Summary Report to the Senate, March 2009 1 Academic Office

2.2 In last year’s report, it was noted that some of the FoE external examiners had identified a lack of specificity in the generic assessment criteria in the ranges <40% and >70%. It was agreed to refer this matter to the Assistant Director (Quality Systems) of the Academic Office to consider when preparing the Procedural Document 2009/10 to accompany the Senate Code of Practice on Assessment. The Assistant Director (Quality Systems) has consulted senior academic colleagues across the Faculties and it was agreed to leave the criteria unchanged at this time. Colleagues were confident that the existing criteria were fit for purpose and in general, external examiner reports support this view.

3. Process

3.1 The main structure and organisation of the annual monitoring process was largely unchanged and operated as outlined in the Senate Code of Practice on Approval, Annual Monitoring and Periodic Review.

3.2 As for last year, the Academic Office arranged for the main statistical reports to be downloaded and stored on a public electronic area in October 2009. This permitted quick and easy access to the statistical reports for Programme Leaders, Readers and members of the Annual Monitoring subcommittees and none of the overview reports mentions any difficulty with access for Anglia Ruskin staff. Access for partner institutions continues to be problematic, although Quality Assurance Division staff have provided statistical reports for partner colleagues where requested.

3.3 The Quality Assurance Division organised two briefing events, held in early September 2009, for those colleagues involved in the process. A total of 38 staff attended these which included a detailed session on access to and use of Programme and Pathway statistical reports and the provision of exemplar annual monitoring reports.

3.4 The main sessions were complemented by four further sessions delivered jointly by the Assistant Director (Quality Systems), Academic Office and the Head of Student Records, dedicated to accessing and using the statistical data provided to support the annual monitoring process. Due to availability of the training rooms, it was only possible to hold these sessions at the Chelmsford Campus. The sessions were attended by 20 colleagues.

3.5 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.

4. Conclusions

4.1 All five Faculty Board overview reports confirm that the annual monitoring process of the delivery of pathways in 2008/09 was conducted effectively and undertaken in a sufficiently critical and reflective manner. The FST report notes that the Readers’ reports had been completed comprehensively and the FHSC report states that the Readers’ reports had continued to demonstrate year on year improvements.

Essential Requirements of the Annual Monitoring Process

4.2 All the faculties report that satisfactory AMRs and Readers’ Reports for each Programme have been received and considered by the Faculty sub-committees.

Previous Year’s Action Plans and Readers’ Reports (for implementation during 2008/09)

4.3 All the overview reports confirm that, following some minor interventions by the Faculty subcommittees, all actions identified in the previous year’s SMART Action Plans had either been completed or rolled forward for inclusion in the Action Plan for 2009/10, due to the medium-long term nature of the issue or where timescales had required revision.


4.4 The FHSC overview report notes that Programme Leaders should engage with AMR action plans at the Semester Two (or equivalent) Programme sub-committee meetings (as stated in the Senate Code of Practice on Approval, Annual Monitoring and Periodic Review, para 7.4.2). In order to facilitate this, and other programme sub-committee responsibilities, the Deputy Dean and Faculty Quality Assurance Officer are preparing a template agenda for use by all FHSC Programme subcommittees next academic year. It is recommended that the adoption of a template agenda for Programme subcommittees is implemented within all Faculties from the 2010/11 academic year.

Statistical Data

4.5 All five overview reports confirm that Programme Leaders have used and analysed statistics available via the Oracle Portal in the compilation of their reports. Whilst there continues to be some variability noted in the ability of colleagues to drill down into the statistics, there does appear to be a greater level of engagement with the data evidenced within all Faculties.

4.6 The AIBS overview report notes that due to the large number of pathways and delivery locations for the undergraduate Programme, detailed analysis proved challenging. To address this, and to facilitate the analysis of trends and the comparison of deliveries at different locations, it was proposed in last year’s report that the Pathway Leaders should take a more significant role in monitoring and reporting mechanisms within the Faculty.

4.7 Although this did occur, particularly at postgraduate level, the AIBS overview report still notes significant challenges for the undergraduate Programme Leader in completing detailed comparative analyses of the large number of deliveries of each of the pathways. It is therefore proposed by AIBS that separate AMRs should be produced for the UK and international deliveries (see section 10 of the AIBS overview report, Appendix 1). The Senate is recommended to endorse this proposal and permit the Head of Quality Assurance and Institutional Quality Assurance Officer to work with the Deputy Dean and Faculty Quality Assurance Officer to agree an annual monitoring process for AIBS which is not solely based at the level of the Programme.

4.8 The FST report notes a request for more than one year’s data set to be provided for annual monitoring. Colleagues are advised that this is available also through the Oracle Portal, by selecting the option for ‘Periodic Review’ statistics.

Key Issues and Themes

4.9 The items of note included under this heading within the overview reports are primarily Faculty-specific; there are no cross-university matters which need to be brought to the attention of the Senate.

Curriculum Efficiencies

4.10 Questions relating to the issue of curriculum efficiencies were introduced to the annual monitoring process for the first time in 2007/08 following a recommendation contained in the 2008 Senate report on Retention. Each of the overview reports details examples of actions undertaken to improve efficiency of the curriculum. It should, however, be noted that these reports were written prior to the implementation of the Curriculum Rationalisation Project which commenced in February 2010. This has already had a very significant impact on the curriculum offering to be delivered from September 2010, particularly within ALSS and FST. The Senate is recommended to agree the continued inclusion of a separate section within the AMR template, specifically focussing on curriculum efficiency and other streamlining activities.


Generic Assessment Criteria and Marking Standards

4.11 It was agreed that in the 2007/08 annual monitoring process, that Programme Leaders be asked to comment on the implementation and usefulness of Anglia Ruskin’s generic assessment criteria and marking standards following their introduction from September 2007. All five overview reports indicate that use of the generic assessment and more usually, specific assessment criteria is now commonplace and therefore the Senate is recommended to agree that a separate section in the AMR template focussing on these marking criteria is no longer required.

4.12 Last year’s FHSC overview report noted that the assessment criteria and marking standards had been well received by staff and students as a useful reference point but that there was some difficulty, particularly for students, in interpreting these in relation to their field of study. The Faculty response to this was to propose the development of an assessment criterion that utilised student-friendly language, and this had been successfully piloted with the pre-registration nursing programme. This was adopted by a number of other pathways and positive feedback was received from both staff and students.

External Examiners’ Reports

4.13 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 2009 meeting.

4.14 The Senate is advised that the current AMR template requires the attachment of External Examiner reports as an appendix and a narrative of the actions taken in response must be included within the text of the report. The Senate is recommended to agree that the Departmental letters sent in response to each External Examiner’s report are also required as part of this appendix.

4.15 Both the AIBS and FHSC report note some actions, arising from External Examiners’ reports, regarding our moderation processes. The FHSC report advises that there is a need to standardise the use of moderation within some Programmes; the AIBS report states that there is a need to review assessment and moderation processes and to consider whether alternative models are necessary, particularly for partner institutions’ assessments. The Senate is advised that our internal and external moderation processes are currently the focus of a Quality Enhancement Audit, the outcomes of which are due to be reported to the Academic Standards, Quality and Regulations Committee meeting of June 2010.

Future Action Plans (ie for implementation during 2009/10)

4.16 The 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. Both the FoE and FHSC reports note a year on year improvement in the compilation of the action plans.


Issues for Special Consideration during 2009/10

4.17 Following the commencement of the VLE Implementation Project which has involved the completion of closed and open pilots of the new Learning Management System (LMS) during the 2009/10 academic year, the Senate is recommended to agree that a separate section focussing on the implementation and use of the new LMS is included within the AMR template for next year’s process.

5. Issues of Institutional Significance

No new issues of institutional significance requiring further action emerged through the annual monitoring process on delivery in 2008/09.

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

6.1 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."

6.2 The Senate is invited to endorse the examples of good and innovative practice listed below listed below 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.

6.3 These examples have been distilled from the Faculty Overview reports; only those which appeared to meet the definition above have been included. It is proposed, however, 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.

ALSS Printing costs for students in the Cambridge School of Art have been slashed by 60% Wi-Fi has been installed in the Ruskin second floor studios serving Illustration The incorporation of PDP into the pathway by the Philosophy team The negotiation of titles for coursework and the engagement and benefit students gain

from this within Languages and Intercultural Communication Introduction of a mentoring system for Year 1 MA Music Therapy students by Year 2

students BA (Hons) Music pathway has continued to collaborate fruitfully by creating compositions

for student projects in other subject areas such as Media, Drama and Art Performing Arts staged the introduction and monitoring of seven sets of subject specific

assessment criteria Introduction of a benchmarking process between the Cambridge and King’s Lynn

programmes in Art, Design and Media The use of highly weighted modules in Art, Design and Media is indicative of good

practice in a process orientated discipline Use of a Learning & Teaching Fellowship project on ‘Evaluating English Language

assessment for international applicants to study at Anglia’ Ongoing offering of a Dissertation Support Group for students in Languages and

Intercultural Communication


AIBS BA (Hons) Entrepreneurship and Entrepreneurial Management is recognised as an

innovative degree with early involvement of entrepreneurs in delivery Wider adoption of explicit marking schemes and an improving speed of return of marked

scripts Changes and innovations have occurred to support the changing vision of the School to

become increasingly international in its appeal and become practice based.

FHSC Development has taken place to identify areas within clinical placements where support

and adjustments can be made for students with learning difficulties The PG Cert Disability Equality Practitioner Team has published a paper on using

positive discrimination to develop a new knowledge base The Radiography Team has developed an on-line virtual Freshers’ Week and a national

virtual poster presentation The Midwifery Team has introduced fine grading of practice supported by their own

specifically developed assessment tool

FST The Surveying Team make excellent use of a mid-semester review Forensic Science and Chemistry have introduced a novel weekly feedback method

designed to identify recurring themes and to address them before the next lecture

7. Further Enhancements and Amendments to the Future Process

7.1 A small number of suggestions have been returned via the overview reports about the annual monitoring process as follows:

a) to ensure that annual monitoring subcommittees do not take place in the same week as Departmental Assessment Panel and Student Review meetings;As noted in para 2.1 d) above, the Quality Assurance Division liaises with Faculties to set the dates of the meetings, and such clashes would be avoided if the meetings took place in mid-December.

b) to include reference to the Faculty Strategic plan in the advice to AMR authors on possible sources of evidence for the reports;

c) to consider earlier publication of the examples of good practice identified in AMRs;It has been customary to seek both the Faculty’s and the Senate’s endorsement of the examples of good practice; however, if all subcommittees were to take place in mid-December, it would be possible for this summary report to be submitted to the February meeting of the Senate.

d) The FoE report specifically requests consideration of the bringing together of its PSRB (TDA/Ofsted) monitoring reports for its initial teacher education provision (required to be submitted by mid-December each year) and our university annual monitoring processes in order to avoid unnecessary duplication. The Senate is recommended to endorse this proposal and to permit the Head of Quality Assurance and Institutional Quality Assurance Officer to work with the Dean and other Faculty colleagues to progress this.

7.2 Overall, the Senate can be confident that the annual monitoring of the delivery of pathways in 2008/09 has been conducted effectively.

CAROLINE WATTSHead of Quality Assurance, April 2010


Appendix One

Subcommittee Summary Report

Faculty of Arts, Law and Social Sciences

Faculty Board Annual Monitoring Overview Report for 2008-2009

CONTENTS:

1. Essential requirements2. Previous Year’s Action Plans and Readers’ Reports (i.e.: for 2008/09)3. Statistical data4. Key issues and themes5. Curriculum efficiencies6. Generic Assessment criteria and marking standards7. External examiners’ reports8. Future action plans (i.e.: for 2009/10)9. Examples of good and innovative practice10. Issues for consideration during 2009/1011. Outstanding actions12. Comments on the effectiveness of the annual monitoring process and the operation of the process itself

Appendix A – Summary of outstanding actions arising from Readers’ ReportsAppendix B – Examples of good and innovative practice

7

1. Essential Requirements

Annual Monitoring Reports (AMRs) for the following programmes were considered at the Faculty Board’s Annual Monitoring Subcommittee held on 27 January 2010: Art, Design and Media (author Paul Marris) Communication, Film and Media (Patricia Coyle) English as a Foreign Language (Nick Hillman) English and Writing (Dr John Gardner) Humanities (Dr Jonathan Davies) Languages and Intercultural Communication (Sarah Fitt) Law (Academic) (Kathy Quinlan) Law (Professional Courses) (Louise Mckeon) Music (Dr Gianna Bouchard) Performing Arts (Dr Gianna Bouchard) Social Sciences (Dr Liz Bradbury)

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 year’s associated Reader’s Report (with a formal response from the AMR author where

applicable) has been attached to each AMR.

*With the exception of the Communication, Film and Media AMR (see Appendix A, action 1.0).

2. Previous Year’s Action Plans and Readers’ Reports (i.e.: for 2008/09)

The AMRs described appropriate actions taken in response to Readers’ Reports on the previous year’s AMRs, and successfully implemented SMART actions plans, with only two exceptions, on in Art, Design and Media, and one in English and Writing (see Appendix A actions 2.1, 2.2).

3. Statistical Data

All of the AMRS used statistical data provided by Anglia Ruskin in their analysis of reports effectively, with very few exceptions; e.g. the Humanities AMR included information on the Cambridge Theological Federation which used its own locally generated statistics as these were more accessible and informative (see Appendix A actions 3.1, 3.2).

Additional matters of note to the Faculty Board are: The Art, Design and Media AMR noted the positive effect of the introduction of the Merit band for PGT

pathways. Communication, Film and Media: University Centre Peterborough (UCP) appears not to have access to

the Oracle statistics (see Appendix A action 3.3).

4. Key Issues and Themes

No common key issues or themes emerged from across the eleven AMRs this year. (Actions specific to an individual programme are listed in Appendix A actions 4.1, 4.2).

However, there are a number of actions for noting by the Faculty Board, including staffing: English as Foreign Language: The AMR refers to the need for a full-time Learning Centre Co-ordinator,

and the need to maximise the number of consistently available language laboratories (Appendix A action 4.3).

Music: The appointment of a Programme Leader for Music was identified for action by the Faculty/Department (Appendix A action 4.4).

Social Sciences: The AMR and Reader highlight the need for the appointment of a (Work) Placements Officer (Appendix A action 4.5).

8

and relations with UCP:The Performing Arts AMR highlights the need for “communication from UCP to Programme needs to improve, and staff at UCP need to be given time to attend meetings (at Cambridge or at Peterborough)” (Appendix A, action 4.6).

There is also a request for consideration of the following regulatory matter by Anglia Ruskin (see also Appendix A): The Performing Arts AMR and Reader state that: ‘Consideration needs to be given to introducing a

regulation that includes a penalty for non-attendance on modules that include group work’ (Appendix A action 4.7).

5. Curriculum Efficiencies

Curriculum efficiency measures are addressed in all eleven AMRs. For example: the Readers of four AMRs specifically state that modules have been archived or did not run where they recruited insufficient numbers; Art, Media and Design are examining issues issue regarding 60-credit core modules at Levels 1 and 2 and their negative effect on progression; English and Writing is looking to digitise certain teaching materials so students can download them as MP3 files; while issues of curriculum efficiency are being addressed by Music and Performing Arts as part of Periodic Review during 2009-10.

6. Generic Assessment Criteria and Marking Standards

With the exception of non-modular areas, Law (Professional) and English as a Foreign language, all the AMRs confirm that generic assessment criteria and marking standards are included in modules guides and are seen to be useful. In many programmes (e.g., Law (Academic); Art, Design and Media; Communication, Film and Media, English and Writing; Music; and Performing Arts) subject specific assessment criteria have been developed using generic criteria as a basis.

Note that two Readers raise the issue of a lack of detail in the marking criteria at the lower and upper ranges:

In some cases on the BA (Hons) Theology degree, Anglia Ruskin’s marking grid is not seen as particularly helpful, because of the amount of detail in it and that clearer guidelines on work in the 80% + bracket would be appreciated by members of the Department [Humanities AMR Reader].

The author also felt that further detail within the generic…marking criteria, particularly for marks above 70, but also for those below 40, would aid a refinement of the Programmes marking and feedback at both ends of the scale [Social Sciences AMR Reader].

(As part of the Faculty’s NSS Action Plan, the introduction of a generic assessment feedback is being examined, and would go some way towards clarifying the above concerns.)

7. External Examiners’ Reports

Readers note that External Examiner reports are generally extremely positive. As reported to the Senate in EE rpts distilled 3 Nov V6, pp 5-11, our external examiners for the 2008-09 academic year identified only ONE instance where our academic standards were at risk. Even this sole example—raised by Adam Piette for English and Writing re concerns that the administrative workload of academic staff may negatively impinge on their ability to maintain their excellent standards of teaching and research—does not reflect poorly on the current academic provision in the faculty (see Appendix A action 7.1). In contrast, the document lists 51 separate instances of “Good Practice/Commendable Achievements” across our learning, teaching and assessment practices.

Although readers do not note any concerns raised by externals that are not addressed in the SMART action plans for the programmes, there are some points raised by external examiners for the English and Writing and Languages and Intercultural Communication programmes, respectively, that do not appear to be addressed explicitly in some action plans (see Appendix A actions 7.2-7.6).

9

8. Future Action Plans (i.e.: for 2009/10)

The Readers are generally satisfied that the future action plans were adequate and address any issues or areas of concern, particularly those raised by external examiners. A few additional points were raised by Readers for inclusion in the future Action Plans for the programmes of Art, Design and Media, Communication, Film and Media, and English as a foreign language (see Appendix A actions 8.1-8.32).

9. Examples of Good and Innovative Practice

Good 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].

As noted above, as reported to the Senate in EE rpts distilled 3 Nov V6, pp 5-11, our external examiners for the 2008-09 academic year identified 51 separate instances of “Good Practice/Commendable Achievements” across our learning, teaching and assessment practices.

For examples of good and innovative practice, as well as “examples of significant and/or commendable achievements and/or outcomes…[to] be highlighted to a wider audience”, see Appendix B.

10. Issues for Special Consideration during 2009/10

Two key documents in the 2009-10 academic year are the Faculty of Arts, Law and Social Sciences (ALSS) Retention Action Plan, 2009-10, and the Faculty of Arts, Law and Social Sciences (ALSS) response to the National Student Survey (NSS) 2008-09: Action Plan. The first describes the Faculty’s multi-varied approach to increasing rates of student retention via various measures including (i) addressing modules with poor retention, (ii) improving student induction, (iii) mitigating late changes to lectures, (iv) monitoring attendance, (v) monitoring student withdrawals, (vi) improving blended learning capabilities, (vii) improving overall service to students, and (viii) offering opportunities to progress onto higher qualifications within the faculty.

The second action plan details the faculty’s focus on two key questions of the NSS; that is, “9. Feedback on my work has helped me clarify things I did not understand” and “14. Any changes in the course or teaching have been communicated effectively” via a series of measures including (i) a review of formative and summative feedback, (ii) the possible adoption of standard feedback assessment sheets across all ALSS teaching provision, (iii) bringing together all Faculty administrators in one office enabling them to act as a “one-stop shop” for student enquiries, (iii) installing four Faculty “infoscreens”, (iv) revising procedures for informing students (and staff) of staff sickness, (v) participate in the Syllabus+ timetabling pilot in semester 2, (vi) participate in the SharePoint VLE “closed” and “open” pilots in semesters 1 and 2, and (vii) training staff to have ALL ALSS modules use the VLE by September 2010.

Most, if not all, of the above measures will have an effect on the learning, teaching and assessment experience of students, and may need to be considered in next year’s AMRs.

11. Outstanding Actions

See Appendix A.

12. Comments on the effectiveness of the annual monitoring process and the operation of the process itself

The Subcommittee and Readers were generally satisfied with the process and many congratulated Programme Leaders on the quality of their reports. The only issue on the day was the unfortunate absence of 3 members of the subcommittee which slightly hindered discussions.

10

Two issues were raised by the Subcommittee for future enhancements and/or further consideration: The timing of the Subcommittee meeting: it would be preferable if the meeting was not scheduled in the

same week as either Programme Reviews or DAPs, possibly in mid-January next year. The dissemination of examples of good practice: the Subcommittee felt it was difficult for Programmes to

adapt/adopt good practice identified in the Faculty Board overview report or Senate Summary report as these documents were 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.

Dr Apurba KunduDeputy Dean (Academic Development)ALSS

11

APPENDIX A: Summary of outstanding actions arising from Reader’s Reports (from the meeting of Faculty of Arts, Law and Social Sciences annual monitoring subcommittee, held on 27th January 2010)

Programme Action Required by 31 March 2010 (unless stated otherwise) Monitored by

1.0 Communication, Film and Media

The previous year’s SMART action plan had not been appended to the report (although a detailed written summary of action taken was included). Programme Leader to provide a copy of the previous year’s SMART plan with updates on the action taken.Patricia Coyle

RM

2.1 Art, Design and Media

Targets 6 and 9 of the previous year’s action plan are described in the summary in terms of their measurable outcomes of improved scores in the NSS, but no further information is provided in terms of the measurable outcome of the Student Experience Survey (SES). Programme Leader to provide an analysis of the SES outcomes.Paul Marris

RM

2.2 English and Writing

Reader noted that “it would appear that staffing expertise in respect of certain specialist modules may need careful ongoing monitoring”. Programme Leader to add an additional target to the Action Plan to monitor the availability of specialist staff to ensure that specialist modules are able to run.John Gardner

RM


The Reader noted a discrepancy between the continuation statistics provided for BA (Hons) Journalism at UCP in Section B1.3 of the main AMR which did not correspond with those given in Section B1.3 of the “pathway” report provided by UCP and appended to the main Annual Monitoring report. Programme Leader to provide an explanation for the discrepancy in the statistics included within the AMR.Patricia Coyle

RM

3.2 English as a Foreign Language

Reader noted that “retention is good except in relation to the attendance issue which is being addressed by the Programme team”. Programme Leader to add a target to the Action Plan to address the attendance issue.Nick Hillman

RM


University Centre Peterborough (UCP) appears not to have access to the Oracle statistics. The Subcommittee agreed that this should be noted and discussed at Faculty Board, and referred to the Academic Office if necessary.Apurba Kundu

RM


Full accreditation of BA (Hons) Journalism by the NCTJ at both Harlow and Peterborough is mentioned in the “pathway” action plans provided by the regional partners but does not feature in the Programme level SMART action plan. Programme Leader to amend action plan to include professional body accreditation of BA (Hons) Journalism at Harlow and Peterborough as a target.Patricia Coyle

RM

4.2 Languages and Intercultural Communication

Reader highlights the discussion of lower word count in assessment of the MA Applied Linguistics as recommended by the external examiner. This does not, however, feature explicitly in the SMART action plan. Programme Leader to amend Target 2 of the Action Plan to show that the volume of assessment for the MA Applied Linguistics will be reviewed as part of the re-validation and approval of the pathway for distance learning delivery.Sarah Fitt

RM

12


The AMR refers to the need for a full-time Learning Centre Co-ordinator and the need to maximise the number of consistently available language laboratories. This was highlighted by the Reader and requires consideration by the Faculty.Apurba Kundu

RM

4.4 Music The appointment of a Programme Leader for Music was identified for action by the Faculty/Department.Apurba Kundu

RM

4.5 Social Sciences The AMR and Reader highlight the following point for consideration by Anglia Ruskin; the need for the appointment of a (Work) Placements Officer.Apurba Kundu

RM

4.6 Performing Arts The AMR highlights the need for ‘communication from UCP to Programme needs to improve, and staff at UCP need to be given time to attend meetings (at Cambridge or at Peterborough). For consideration by Faculty Board.Apurba Kundu

RM

4.7 Performing Arts AMR and Reader highlight the following for Anglia Ruskin: ‘Consideration needs to be given to introducing a regulation that includes a penalty for non-attendance on modules that include group work’.Apurba Kundu

RM


External Examiner Adam Piette raises the issue of the administrative load for Programme staff. This is addressed in the action plan but only in terms of digitising teaching materials to cut down on administration. A separate action point relating to this issue needs to be included in the Action Plan.John Gardner

RM


External Examiner Joad Raymond describes four areas for improvement or enhancement: (i) more teaching in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; (ii) adjustment of dissertation grades by external examiners; (iii) potentially, clarifying and making more rigorous the double marking procedures for examinations; and (iv) more rigorous and visible implementation of existing policy concerning word-count for essays. Point (i) is addressed by Target 1 of the AMR Action Plan. Other points are addressed in formal response letter to external but do not feature in Action Plan. Programme Leader to include additional targets in Action Plan.John Gardner

RM


External Examiner John Coyle describes two areas for improvement or enhancement listed in report: (i) with the very best work I would still encourage that the full upper range of marks be considered; and (ii) that consideration be given to including additional assessment tasks for modules assessed by a single item of assessment. Both points are addressed in the formal response letter from the Programme Leader but do not feature in the action plan. Programme Leader to include additional targets in Action Plan.John Gardner

RM


External Examiner Adam Piette raises various points regarding the assessment process as areas for improvement or enhancement; e.g. “more room needs to be made a default for moderator and 2nd marker comments [on the assignment coversheet], drafts for all creative writing work need not be sent to externals in my view etc”. The formal response letter deals with these points in detail. The letter does state that the issue of external examiners arbitrating in difficult/borderline cases will be formally considered by the Academic Office but it is not included in the action plan to be referred to the Academic Office for a decision. Where the Programme Leader has agreed to take particular action in the letters to externals these should feature as targets in the Action Plan so they are formally recorded. Programme Leader to include additional targets in Action Plan.John Gardner

RM

13


External Examiner Tope Omoniyi describes three areas for improvement or enhancement listed in report: (i) reduction of assessment length; (ii) samples of assessed work should include complete grade sheets for the whole module; and (iii)that all scripts earning first class or fail marks are included in the samples. Point (i) is addressed, but not explicitly, in Target 2 of the action plan. Points (ii) and (iii) are addressed in the formal response letter to the external in which the pathway leaders agree to address the points. They do not, however, feature in the Programme Action Plan. Programme Leader to include additional targets in Action Plan.Sarah Fitt

RM


External Examiner Linda Taylor describes two areas for improvement or enhancement listed in report: (i) staff working towards typewritten feedback for all formally assessed work; and (ii) plagiarism is of ongoing concern in your institution, as elsewhere. Point (ii) is addressed by Target 7 of the action plan. Point (i) is addressed in the formal response letter but is not included in the Action Plan. Programme Leader to include additional targets in Action Plan.Sarah Fitt

RM

8.1 Cambridge School of Art

Four specific additional points raised by Reader as included in their report and summary grid.Paul Marris

RM


Reader specifically recommended that the Programme Action Plan incorporate action points for partner institutions.Patricia Coyle

RM


Reader suggests adding a target which states that the Action Plan following the British Council Inspection Visit will be fully implemented.Nick Hillman

RM

14

Appendix B: Examples of Good and Innovative Practice (to be reported to the Faculty Learning & Teaching Committee)

Examples of good and innovative practice Examples of “significant and/or commendable achievements and/or outcomes…[to] be highlighted to a wider audience”

Art, Design and Media

Printing costs for A4 and A3 [in the Cambridge School of Art] have been slashed by 60%.

Wi-Fi has been installed in the Ruskin second floor studios serving illustration.

Introduction of a benchmarking process between the Cambridge and Kings Lynn programmes.

The use of highly weighted modules is indicative of good practice in a process orientated discipline.

Securing a regular formal display area for the display of the Major Project.Communication, Film and Media

The use of a script archive as well as archives for video, radio and print. The professional and practical nature of modules in both taught and placement modules.

English as a Foreign Language

Integration of EFL students into Anglia Ruskin University, and the wider UKHEI environment.

Use of Nick Hillman’s L&T Fellowship project ‘Evaluating English language assessment for international applicants to study at Anglia”.

Excellent working through of issues in the first year of partnership with CRIC.English and Writing

The enhancement of E-learning initiatives generally. “Curriculum design is forward-thinking and inspired by the latest research: the

department’s strong research profile impacts favourably on its teaching performance...It is clear that the fine performance of the department in research terms feeds directly into excellent and innovative teaching provision” [External Examiner]

Humanities The external for Philosophy offers particular praise for the ways in which the Philosophy team have incorporated PDP into the Pathway. He feels that this remains a very impressive aspect of the assessment processes and that continues to merit praise. Importantly, he says that this remains “the best examples of this form of assessment practice I have encountered”.

History did extremely well in the RAE, with 85% of their research being rated as “international standard” and 60% rated as “world leading” or “internationally excellent”.

On the MA Jewish-Christian Relations, Lucia Faltin ran a major staff development training day for the CTF and got involved in the e-resources group that has developed an e-learning strategy for CTF.

The MA Pastoral Theology has encouraged creativity in assessment and this has resulted inter alia in a Major Project in the form of a photographic exhibition in Michaelhouse, Cambridge, and in two collaborations for interdisciplinary Major Projects (using an assessor from Music as well as Theology). Major Project work has also issued in a conference paper, and in another case in consultancy work.

15

Languages and Intercultural Communication

The negotiation of titles for coursework and the engagement and benefit students gain from this.

The ongoing offering of a Dissertation Support Group and the encouragement of students to attend this shows a commitment to maintain innovative good practice already adopted.

Law (Academic) “In my opinion, the successful use of oral presentations could be shared with other Law Schools” [External Examiner].

Focused concentration on feedback and students’ use and understanding of feedback (and feed-forward).

Law (Professional Courses)

National Kite Mark accreditation (Skillsmark) Adoption of “root and branch” system of document coding for transactional learning

(development of interactive VLE) Success (again) in national interviewing competition

Music MA Music Therapy has benefited from the successful introduction of a mentoring system, using the experiences of year 2 students to support those in year 1.

The BA (Hons) Music pathway has continued to collaborate fruitfully by creating compositions for student projects in other subject areas such as Media, Drama and Art.

The BA (Hons) Creative Music Technology is commended by the external for its increasing use of digital culture as part of its delivery mechanisms.

In the year under review, Julio d’Escrivan received a VC’s Award for contribution to the student experience.

16

Performing Arts The ‘practical’ essay assessment component is flagged up again by the external as example of innovative practice.

The development of opportunities to engage with professional practice and environments through use of guest speakers/visiting artists; through events at venues such as the Junction, the Key Theatre (Peterborough) and Mumford Theatre; and through workshops with a range of theatre groups is part of an ongoing plan to get students thinking about their work beyond the university environment.

The staged introduction and monitoring of the seven sets of subject specific assessment criteria.

In the year under review, Programme Leader Dr Gianna Bouchard received a VC’s Award for contribution to the student experience.

Staff at UCP received funding for an innovative project with Key Theatre aimed at encouraging secondary school students to consider a career in performing arts.

Staff at UCP led a highly successful production if 12th Night that has since been invited to festivals throughout the region and was performed as part of the launch of Key Theatre’s Studio space.

Social Sciences Externals recommend the practice by which marks are broken down and allocated against set criteria as a practice by which positive marking can be achieved without inflating marks.

The FdA Public Service staff’s integration of experiential learning into assessments.

The External cites the Sociology staff’s dealing with students with great parity and providing a very interesting curriculum as good practice.

The External cites “the extent to which students are engaging with contemporary theory and applying it to topical and personal issues is excellent”.

The External cites the feedback given to those taking the Disaster planning module within the Public Service Pathway as a commendable achievement.

The External cites the integration of experiential learning into academic work.

17

Appendix Two

Ashcroft International Business School

Annual Monitoring of delivery of Pathways in 2008/09

Faculty Overview Report for consideration at AIBS Faculty Board in February 2009

1. Introduction

The purpose of this report is to provide the Senate with a comprehensive account of the operations of the AIBS Faculty annual monitoring process for pathways delivered in the academic year 2008/09 and the conclusions deriving from this process. The report highlights key issues and themes and, where necessary, recommends further action. Three programmes within the School have been reported on: the undergraduate programme, the postgraduate programme and the professional programme. All three programmes operate within both the Cambridge Department and the Chelmsford Department and within some partner institutions.

2. Essential requirements

All essential requirements within programme annual monitoring reports have been included.

3. Previous Year’s Action Plans and Readers’ Reports

Of the thirteen action points in the previous year’s action plan three have been completed and achieved, one is no longer relevant due to the removal of a pathway and the remainder are all ongoing. In these remaining cases there has been progress but there is further work to undertake. A number of the actions relate to partner institutions and the need for further work reflects the increase in the number of partners and the number of pathways and students. In reflecting upon this action plan discussion focussed on the potential benefits that the new VLE can offer in sharing materials with partners and the difficulties associated with moderation of assessed work. Increasing volumes of marking and moderation have raised the workload for staff and increased the problems associated with coordinating the use of External Examiners.

4. Use of statistical data

Statistical data are not easily acquired for the professional programme as in a number of cases marks are held by the professional body, not on SITS, and are not made available to us. Statistics were available and were used well for postgraduate pathways and retention on postgraduate awards is good. Due to the large number of pathways and delivery centres for the undergraduate programme detailed analysis is a challenge. It is difficult to track students who change pathway and while they may appear lost to the Faculty they are often in fact retained. New data has been made available on a pilot basis during the early part of academic year 09/10 that provides a more accurate analysis. Retention is poor on the undergraduate pathways with the largest number of students being lost during the first year. Many of these students are not discontinued and do not withdraw formally, they simply stop attending. The taking of registers and tracking of non-attending students should help to address this problem.

5. Key themes, issues and trends

A number of issues are raised in the reports. These include problems identified with some modules that will be addressed during the curriculum review; increasing number of work-based pathways and two year degrees and increasing engagement with Professors of Management Practice and Visiting Professors. The changes to delivery and the introduction of new pathways in line with the School’s strategic direction were noted. There was concern at the lack of discussion within the AMRs about academic standards at the School of Administration and Management in Trinidad and the London College of Accountancy (LCA). The statistics for both institutions indicate performance issues. The suggestion in section 9 should address this issue.

Accommodation remains an issue on both campuses, with reference to suitability of rooms, particularly on professional courses. There were improvements in timetabling and fewer cancelled classes than in previous years. Reports raise the issue of adequate staffing and the matching of suitable staff to demands. This was particularly apparent with the professional courses. Assessment was discussed again with on-going work to improve consistency in the use of detailed marking criteria and ensure more consistency of feedback. The need for early identification of Module Leaders and the production of Module Guides by a much earlier date to allow for distribution to partners was flagged.

18

On campus the NSS responses were raised as an issue for concern. Off campus the growing number of partners and the effectiveness of the current administrative structure and moderation system were debated. The lack of consistency of various forms of documentation such as module guides was noted. The need for staff development and more formal monitoring were seen as necessary actions.

6. External Examiners’ reports

External Examiners (EEs) have been generally positive and Readers report that there have been actions in response to any concerns. External Examiners have noted an improvement in the application of marking criteria though there is still concern from some about consistency across modules in some disciplines. There have been commendations about the nature of the curriculum and assessment in areas such as Entrepreneurship. In Tourism there are innovative assessments and great improvements in marking criteria, consistency and feedback. The difficulty of managing resit DAPs to tight timescales resulted in a number of EEs questioning the need for External Examiner scrutiny for resit assessments.

External Examiners moderate many modules that are delivered on both campuses and note that there is effective moderation to ensure consistency. However, on one module different assessments were used inadvertently and this led to the External Examiner raising concern about standards being at risk. However, this problem was picked up and dealt with effectively with the External Examiner’s support so demonstrates that such issues are identified and handled on the few occasions that they occur. There are a number of occasions when marks allocated by partner institutions are moderated, usually by lowering them and External Examiners confirm these changes. As each partnership matures this difference in marking levels reduces.

One EE encourages AIBS to review the balance between application of accounting regulation and discussing underpinning rationale and theories, he believes that assessments focus too heavily on application of technical rules and this results in bunched marks rather than a broad spread. This issue will be addressed as part of the 2009/10 Curriculum Review. Some EEs have commended the move to international practice based learning. The Malaysian Quality Agency reported favourably on delivery of programmes in some partners in Malaysia and FIBAA has ranked the Cambridge /Berlin dual award as excellent. Practical problems in delivering marks and scripts to deadlines remains a problem. This leads to many Chair’s actions, late marks, late feedback to students and work being posted in small batches to EEs. This is an issue mainly with Cambridge modules and relates particularly to the very large volume of post graduate work. It is imperative that this is addressed for future assessment rounds.

One EE was worried that the increasing volume of moderation from partner institutions was putting pressure on staff during teaching and that while this was not at present a threat to academic standards it might well become so. The need to review assessment and moderation processes and consider whether alternative models are necessary, particularly for partner institutions’ work was flagged as a necessary action. This is linked with the need to plan the allocation of work to EEs in a different manner. A shortfall in EEs during retirement and replacement has exacerbated the problem and led to the suggestion that we appoint several more EEs and not just replace those coming to the end of their contract.

7. Future Action Plans

The Readers report that the future action plans were comprehensive and included all actions identified by External Examiners.

8. Examples of good practice

BA (Hons) Entrepreneurship and Entrepreneurial Management is recognised as an innovative degree with early involvement of entrepreneurs in delivery.

The use of guest speakers, cultural and company visits and multimedia delivery enhances the student experience and supports the practice-based curriculum.

There has been wider adoption of explicit marking schemes and improving speed of return of marked scripts.

Changes and innovations have occurred to support the changing vision of the School to become increasingly international in its appeal and become practice based.

19

9. Commendable achievements

AIBS student team won their second IBM competition

Three members of staff awarded doctorates

Natalie Kite elected Vice-Chair of CIPFA course leader panel.

AIBS is a leading UK Business School in terms of textbook production with texts in English and in translation to other languages

Rapid growth of number of partner institutions

10. Curriculum efficiencies

During the course of 2008/9 the curriculum review of the main shared undergraduate pathways began. The redesign on these pathways should be approved shortly, in early March 2010 to commence in September 2010. The review is driven by a need to update the curriculum, to address the practice based curriculum model and to reduce the number of modules. The efficiencies gained from this review should be significant. The undergraduate pathways not included in the review comprise those recently approved pathways specifically designed to be innovative and attract new markets. As they are marketed and embedded in our portfolio and we recruit further cohorts decisions will be made on their long term viability. In the postgraduate programme there are low recruiting pathways and these will be reviewed in the next year.

11. Issues for special consideration during 2009/10

The undergraduate and postgraduate Annual Monitoring Reports, as they are currently structured, are very time consuming to produce and unwieldy. Further thought should be given to producing separate AMRs for UK and International deliveries. These would fall neatly under the responsibility of Programme Leaders and also Directors of International and UK collaboration. This would allow writers and readers to take a far more detailed study of each delivery point for each pathway. A companion volume presenting and comparing statistics across module and pathway delivery points could allow thorough, critical comparison of centres.

There was extensive discussion of the value of the creation of a Faculty Quality Review and Enhancement Committee. It was felt that this would be an appropriate forum to consider statistics and module evaluation feedback to compare delivery points. The data discussed could feed directly into the AMRs reducing the need for a major analysis after the end of an academic year. It would also allow monitoring of action points from AMRs on a regular basis and lead to enhanced delivery and improved student perceptions.

12. Conclusion

Readers were confident about the quality of the AMRs though the lack of comment about SAM and LCA is problematic and reinforces the need for AMRs that address partners independently. AMR writers, once again found the task onerous and had to seek extensions. There was a high level of debate at the AMR sub-committee. The remit and constitution of the Faculty Quality Review and Enhancement Committee is attached to this report for approval by Faculty Board and for information to Senate.

There is evidence of considerable effort and success in moving further towards our aim to be an International practice based business school. Increasing numbers of international students on campus and a continuing increase in new partners are other examples of success. This expansion inevitably brings with it problems in adapting systems and managing resources to handle the additional workload. Alternative approaches and improved planning are necessary to deal with the issues highlighted in this report.

Dr Jenny GilbertDeputy Dean, AIBS, 20th February 2010

Appendix

AIBS Faculty Quality Review and Enhancement Committee

20

Membership

Deputy Dean (Chair)Faculty Quality Assurance Officer Heads of Department 2Faculty Business and Administration ManagerDirector of ResearchProgramme Leaders 2Directors of Studies 2Directors of International Partnerships 2Director of UK and Corporate Partnerships Director for Joint Venture and Regional College PartnershipsStudent Experience Coordinators 2

Remit

To drive enhancement of the student experience through regular reviews of the quality of delivery to undergraduate, postgraduate and research students on campus and in partners

Detailed actions will included those below

To monitor production of AMRs and complete the work of the AMR sub-committee

To collate and consider External Examiners’ reports, summarise the actions needed and ensure that we are responsive.

To study module statistics and discuss DAP module reports making suggestions for actions to improve retention

To analyse overall student feedback from Module Evaluation Questionnaires, identifying examples of good practice and forward areas for action to the HoD

To monitor assessment feedback, moderation and hand back processes and to explore more innovative and effective ways to provide such feedback.

To monitor the quality of faculty documents, note and share good practice, make recommendations for enhancement and ensure a necessary level of consistency. Documents will include Module Guides, Pathway Handbooks.

To identify areas of risk and to note and share good practice through regular checking of a variety of feedback mechanisms

21

Faculty Quality Review and Enhancement Committee

Date Discussion items Attendance1 Papers move to October External Examiners’ reports

Sample Student HandbooksReview of progress on AMRs

DD, HoDs or devolved, DoSs, Prog Leaders, Directors of Collaborative, FQAO

December Remaining External Examiners’ reportsModule guides Sem 2 sample checkedMonitor retention stats

DD, HoDs or devolved, DoSs, Prog Leaders, Directors of CollaborativeFQAO

February Annual Monitoring Reports DD, Prog Leaders, designated ReadersFQAO, others as designated in Senate Code of Practice

AMR overview report to Faculty Board Feb 24th

March Module Evaluation Questionnaire sem 1Module Reports from DAP sem 1Monitor assessment feedback, moderation and hand back processes

DD, HoDs or devolved, DoSs, Prog Leaders, Directors of Collaborative Partnerships, FQAO

Summaries to Faculty Board May

June Approval Student Handbook templateNomination of replacement External ExaminersProgress on AMR action plan

DD, Prog Leaders, FQAO

July Module Evaluation Questionnaire sem 2Module Reports from DAP sem 2Monitor assessment feedback, moderation and hand back processesModule guides Sem 1 sample checked

DD, HoDs or devolved, DoSs, Prog Leaders, Directors of Collaborative Partnerships, FQAO

Action Plans to Faculty Board October

Faculty Quality Evaluation Meeting dates 2009/10Twice a yearJanuary 28th and June

Faculty Board dates October 7th 2009February 24th 2010May 27th 2010

1 All members of the committee are entitled to attend all meetings, with the exception of the February Annual Monitoring Reports meeting where membership is designated by Senate. The list of attendees notes those required at each meeting.

22

Appendix Three

ANGLIA RUSKIN UNIVERSITY

Faculty of Education

Confirmed 2010 Faculty Overview report of Annual Monitoring of delivery in 2008/2009

Areas covered by the report, as listed in the guidance notes:


2. Previous Year’s Action Plans and Reader’ Reports

3. Statistical Data

4. Key issues and themes

5. Curriculum Efficiencies

6. Generic Assessment Criteria and Marking Standards

7. External Examiner’s Reports

8. Future Action Plans for 09/10

9. Examples of Good and Innovative Practice

10. Issues for Special Consideration during 2009/2010

11. Outstanding Actions

12. Comment on the effectiveness of the Annual Monitoring process and the operation of the process itself. This may also include any recommendations for the future enhancement of the process.

23


Annual Monitoring Reports (AMRs) for the following programmes were considered by a Reader and these Reports were discussed by the Faculty Board’s Annual Monitoring Subcommittee held on 21st January 2010:

BA (Hons) Learning through Technology and Fd Cultural Services (Ultraversity) Combined Honours and Early Years including FdA Early Years Childcare Continuing Professional Development/Post Compulsory Education (CPD/PCE) Teaching Assistants Postgraduate (Primary and Secondary) Initial Teacher Training (PG ITT)* Undergraduate Initial Teacher Training (UG ITT)

*After consideration of all Readers Report, the Subcommittee considered that the AMR for Postgraduate ITT required further work in order to meet the essential requirements.

The Sub-committee therefore agreed that the recommendations and conclusions of this meeting, summarised in the Overview Report, be revised through Chair’s Action following the resubmission and consideration of the revised Postgraduate ITT AMR.

Secretary’s note: the Postgraduate ITT AMR has since been revised to the required standard by the Head of Teacher Education in the author’s absence on long term sick leave.

The Sub-committee noted the need to monitor the progress of Action Plans in particular for programmes which have been affected by the Faculty restructure and may now be split between different departments.

2. Previous Year’s Action Plans and Readers Reports

With the exception of the Postgraduate ITT AMR as noted above, the Sub-committee confirmed that Action Plans for the academic year 2008/09 and responses to Readers’ comments had been implemented and actions completed and/or rolled forward as necessary.

3. Statistical Data

The Sub-committee noted that centrally produced data had been used, with a variable degree of sophistication. In some instances where data could have been used insufficient drilling down resulted in superficial analysis and in some cases the selective use of data skewed the overall picture of progression and quality.

Recoding of programme areas was applied historically which made it necessary to analyse the data at pathway level, thereby solving previous years issues which were caused by relying on programme codes (which contained very different base data). While the Sub-committee considered the use of additional data sources to be improved, it noted the need to make more coherent use of data to inform critical analysis. It was noted, however, that the work accomplished by the Faculty Data Analyst has begun to aid programme leaders develop a common approach to data analysis, however further systematic engagement with emerging data is required by the Programme Leader in order to identify trends across pathways. Where, differences in achievement are noted in pathways which are delivered in different locations these differences need to be investigated and analysed.

It is evident that Programme Leaders have benefited from the centrally provided Annual Monitoring training, and the Sub-Committee felt that in order for others to engage more proactively with the data further training at pathway level would be beneficial.

24

4. Key issues and themes

There were no common themes emerging from all AMRs, although two AMRs referred to staffing capability in particular in relation to partner colleges.


All programmes are engaged with the efficiency agenda and had either reviewed or proposed to review curriculum or operational delivery. Curriculum efficiency is noted as one of the key objectives of the Initial Teacher Training review proposed for September 2010 delivery.

6. Generic Assessment

The Sub-committee noted that adherence to the generic assessment criteria was standard practice within the Faculty and that every module has its own tailored assessment criteria within this framework.

7. External Examiner Reports

The Sub-committee was pleased to note that the positive feedback received by the External Examiners and the use of these reports was seen to be generally good; comments and recommendations were taken seriously. In particular, the publishable quality of PGCE Art & Design and Masters level work was commended and the cross-institution standardisation process in CPE/PCE was again identified as good practice.

8. Future Action Plans

Action Plans were submitted by all AM authors. While the standard of those submitted varied, the Sub-committee agreed that the Action Plans reflected themes or issues identified within the AMRs. The Sub-committee noted that there was an improvement in the appropriateness of the action plans; all were ‘SMART’, however two would benefit from revision following the Reader’s and Sub-committee’s recommendations (see Outstanding Actions below). The Sub-committee noted that the action plans would need to be monitored on a pathway – cross department level following the reorganisation of the Faculty.

9. Examples of good and innovative practice

The Sub-committee identified the following as examples of good practice:

Improved engagement with recommendations from University Sub-committees.

All programmes are now seeking to adopt common modules across their pathways within and across programmes to address the efficiency agenda. The Sub-committee commended these as good practice.

25

10. Outstanding Actions in relation to the AMRs

Programme Report

Action Required

(by 29th January 2010 unless otherwise stated)

Action monitored by:

CPE The Authors should review the Action Plan to consider further issues/points raised by the Reader.

AD

completedPG ITT The Author is required to resubmit the Annual

Monitoring Report direct to the Reader. The amended report will take into consideration the comments contained in the Reader Report.

AF/AS

completedTeaching Assistants

The Author should review the Action Plan to consider further issues/points raised by the Reader.

AD

completedUG ITT The Author should review the Action Plan to

consider further issues/points raised by the Reader.

AD

completedKey: AD= Alyson Dawes; AF= Alison Feist; AS= Alison Shilela; CC= Chris Curran

11. Conclusions:

The Subcommittee noted that although the quality of AMRs has improved overall, there remains inconsistency within the Faculty to interrogating data. The Sub-committee recommended the following actions for the Faculty:

Action plans should relate to the Faculty Strategic Plan, and this could also be made more explicit on the template

The instigation of a post-DAP procedure to capture essential time-related data to start the AMR process earlier and ensure it becomes an on-going mechanism for improvement

The linking of module evaluation results to module success/failure rates More detail paid to recruitment and retention issues (Authors and HoDs) The inclusion of an analysis of mitigation and appeals received in relation to cohort size,

would also enable Programme Leaders to report on this aspect of their provision in terms of retention

Half day training for Pathway Leaders led by Programme Leaders and Heads of Department with Deputy Dean, to address the AMR in view of the recent departmental restructure and the need to monitor Action Plans at pathway rather than programme level

Continued meetings of Programme Leaders chaired by the Director of Studies or Deputy Dean to share common issues and good practice

University Action

The Sub-committee recommended the following actions for our University:

To consider bringing its various PSRB and University reporting systems together to avoid unnecessary duplication and fragmentation.

To explore a consistent approach to meeting and monitoring recruitment and enrolment targets in partner colleges especially in relation to curriculum efficiency and modules with high failure rates.

To share examples of good recent AMR submissions.

26

Appendix Four

Faculty of Health & Social CareOverview Report of

Annual Monitoring of Delivery in 2008/09for Discussion at Faculty Board Meeting of 25 February 2010


Annual Monitoring Reports meeting the essential requirements, including requisite attachments, have been received and considered from the following Programmes:-

Acute Care Pre-RegistrationAcute Continuing DevelopmentAllied HealthInterprofessional LearningRadiography and Healthcare ScientistsChild & Family HealthContinuing Care PracticeCommon Foundation ProgrammePrimary CareMental Health & Learning DisabilitiesSocial Policy & RegulationSocial Work & Counselling

1a Previous Year’s Action Plans and Readers’ Reports

The revisions to the Annual Monitoring template, which included feedback on the previous year at the beginning of the current AMR was a helpful modification and was welcomed by the Sub Committee.

One reader indicated that the AMR author’s response to the previous year’s actions plans could have been more detailed and one reader sought an additional response. Ten readers indicated that the AMRs addressed this section well.

6 out of 12 AMRs were carrying forward action points from last year’s SMART action plan. The Committee emphasised the need for all Programme Sub Committees to revisit the action plans at each meeting and to ensure that all points are addressed within a reasonable period. It is not acceptable for issues to be returned to over three years without a clear target date for completion.

Faculty Programme Leaders should engage with AMR action plans between AMR review periods, eg at the summer Programme Sub-committee meeting and a mid-year follow-up.

2. Statistical Data

The majority of reports did not identify a problem with the statistical information provided by the University; however, in line with previous years’ reports, this information was often being supported by locally produced data.

There were still issues relating to inaccuracy, late availability, inaccurate registrations and access from sites other than the main campuses at Chelmsford and Cambridge, East Road. In order to provide a meaningful analysis of the whole year a number of pathways with multiple annual cohorts, e.g. pre-registration nursing, had to obtain their statistical information from other sources. The increasing number of associate students on stand-alone modules rather than pathways also skewed the data for some of the Programmes.

Cambridge, Peterborough & Chelmsford

27

The new standard presentation / grid for statistical information, developed within our Faculty and used by all authors, enabled comparisons between Programmes and standardised the data used within the AMRs.

The major issue being evidenced by the statistical information was the high attrition rate within the Faculty and a detailed Faculty action plan exists, collating strategies aimed at reducing this. Modules achieving a mean mark of below 50%, and low recruiting modules and pathways with action plans were addressed in most reports. Fewer reports commented upon achievement, progression and completion.

All reports will be required to comment on all of the above with action plans/evaluation of this year’s action plans as standard within the AMRs for 2009/10.

3. Key Issues and Themes

The issues raised by the reports included a number of themes that were not general to all Programmes.

Under curriculum delivery, five reports commented on the shortage of placements, poorly evaluated placements and lack of information on placements. It was reported in the AMRs that action has been taken to address these issues through the Champions and Link Teams. This system is better established than it was last year with a key aim for the coming academic year being the strategic use of student and mentor evaluation from practice. It is intended to theme and action plan around recurring issues. The appointment of a Director of Professional Practice Learning in November 2009 should enable efficient coordination of these actions.

Positive features within the reports included: good student support, currency of the curriculum (5 reports), good evidence base of the curriculum (3 reports), and evidence of good employment figures. UK stats identify 97% employability for nursing within our Faculty.

Only one report highlighted plagiarism, a key AMR theme from last year. This would indicate that recent work, led within our Faculty by the Director of Teaching and Learning, appears to be having the desired effect of raising student awareness proactively about good academic practice.

Work load allocation and concerns about some administrative support were discussed in some reports and our Faculty WLBM, which is currently being implemented, should provide useful metrics for a detailed analysis of this.

Problems for students on the Peterborough site were noted in 2 reports and plans for relocation of these students are now moving forward quickly.

Students failing to submit assignments and inconsistent student engagement through poor attendance and lack of communication were also seen as possible compromises to academic standards. The former is an issue we have agreed with NHS and other stakeholders will not continue to be permitted. Various plans have been implemented to address communication with students:- see the Faculty NSS Action Plan. Problems with timetabling and organisational issues were also raised and the implementation of ‘Syllabus Plus’ for all timetabling from September 2010 should improve this situation.

The Sub-Committee noted that it was important to find other ways to engage with students and stakeholder representatives as their attendance at Programme Sub-Committees was often poor. This particularly related to CPD students in full employment with difficulties in getting time off from work or to clinical/practice partners needing to travel long distances for Programme Sub Committee meetings.

Action: Programme Leaders to look at different ways of engaging students/stakeholders in this process – to feedback to Deputy Dean: Teaching, Learning & Quality following next programme sub committee round June 2010.

3a Curriculum Efficiencies

The AMRs have responded appropriately to this, confirming that efficiencies were being sought through extensive archiving or merging of modules to reduce the overall number of modules in the Faculty and increase the student numbers attached to each module.

The Faculty is identified as one of the leaders in our University in terms of curriculum efficiencies via the archiving of low recruiting modules and pathways.

28

3b Generic Assessment Criteria and Marking Standards

Both the generic assessment criteria used within most programmes and the new ‘user friendly’ tool that had been piloted within the RN Programme have received positive support from staff, including the External Examiners. The modified assessment tool was also positively evaluated by Externals.

3c External Examiners’ Reports

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

Points on which they required a response included the need to standardise the use of moderation within some programmes. Some External Examiners commented that there is a minimum amount of information provided to them regarding the moderation process. There was also some concern expressed by some External Examiners regarding their workload and the timeliness of information provided for them regarding the scripts they would receive, deadlines etc.

Action: Deputy Dean for Teaching, Learning & Quality to lead a review of External Examiner workloads and a review of moderation within the Faculty. HoDs implementing mechanism to ensure External Examiners informed of their annual schedules and receive all programme/pathway material and AMRs. Deadline April 2010.

External Examiners commented upon attendance and the operationalisation of some DAPs.

Action: Deputy Dean, Business Manager and HoDs - Pre DAPs meeting to be established within the Faculty for Semester 2, 2010.

3d Future Action Plans

It was observed by the Sub-Committee that the action plans were generally well prepared and improving year on year. Some of the action plans were excellent, effectively linking the issues raised in the report with the action plan itself, while others were less well developed.

To make it explicit within our Faculty how annual monitoring is enhancing programme delivery, the Deputy Dean: Teaching, Learning & Quality should receive an updated action plan after each Programme Sub-committee meeting throughout the year, identifying progress on the actions and enhancements identified as part of this process.

Action: Programme Leaders to forward update to Brenda Hobart following Programme Sub-Committee, cc to Libby Martin.Deputy Dean to lead staff development for Programme and Pathway Leaders re developing quality enhancement via AMR process - September 2010

3e Examples of Good and Innovative PracticeAcute Care Pre-RegistrationDevelopment has taken place in conjunction with the SHA to identify areas within clinical placements where support and adjustments can be made for students with learning difficulties.

Allied HealthThe introduction of ODP ‘taster days’ which have enhanced the information and insights for potential applicants and so have aided and increased applications and meeting recruitment targets.

Interprofessional LearningThe PG Cert Disability Equality Practitioner Team has published a paper on using positive discrimination to develop a new knowledge base.

Radiography and Healthcare Scientists

29

The Team has developed and delivered an on-line virtual Freshers’ Week

The Team has delivered a national virtual poster presentation.

Child and Family HealthThe Midwifery team has introduced fine grading of practice supported by their own specifically developed assessment tool that has been successfully evaluated. Anglia Ruskin is the first HEI to do so.

Mental Health and Learning DisabilitiesA major bid was submitted to Essex County Council with our partner: ARW Mental Health Training & Consultancy. The Department has been awarded a 3-year contract to deliver a service user and carer involvement service to Health and Social Care Mental Health Commissioners across Essex. This project, which commenced on 1st April 2009, has been designed to promote involvement in the important commissioning process, will stimulate a variety of discreet projects and an increase in the numbers of trained user and carer researchers throughout Essex.

3f Issues for Special Consideration during 2009/10See section 2. Statistical data:

That all Pathway and Programme Leaders report to Heads of Department on retention data, including high failing and low recruiting modules. That action plans to address these issues are presented, and evaluation of their efficacy is reported on also.

Action: Interim Report April 2010That the AM Sub-Committee members were aware that some programmes frequently report on good and innovative practice but this was not being highlighted in all AMR reports. It was recommended that in the future this is included as an agenda item at all Programme Sub-Committee meetings to ensure this information is captured and disseminated across the Faculty and the wider University more consistently

Action: Programme Leaders to include good / innovative practice as agenda item on future Programme Sub-Committee agendas.

3g Outstanding Actions

No formal responses to the Readers’ Reports are required as confirmed by all Readers.

Action has now been taken by a Programme Leader in respect of one late External Examiner report and an addendum to the Programme AMR provided and approved by the Reader.

4. Effectiveness and Operation of Annual Monitoring Process

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 quality of the AMRs was on the whole good with some excellent examples submitted, however most would benefit from a greater depth of analysis and less description. It was acknowledged that staff development was still required, particularly for those who will be new to the process next year. This is required for Pathway Leaders also to ensure the correct information is submitted in a timely manner to the Programme Leaders.

The statistical information would benefit from early scrutiny by the Pathway/Programme Leaders to ensure anomalies are dealt with and amended prior to the process recommencing in September 2010. It is still not possible to entirely rely on the statistical information provided centrally.

Action: Programme Leaders continue training to use Qlickview (complete by March 2010).All staff to feedback data anomalies to Faculty Business Team (ongoing)

30

The Faculty currently uses its own ‘Pathway Report’ template to obtain feedback from pathways delivered internally and at partner institutions. Revisions to this template will be considered for next year.

Action: Anne Devlin (June 2010)Adjusting the deadlines and e-submission of the AMRs had enabled readers to analyse and respond to the reports in a more timely way and the Readers’ Reports were proving to be very helpful to the process. The quality of these has noticeably improved.

The smart action plans still need to be more overt in cross referencing issues raised in the reports with the action plan. However there was a general improvement with the actions being more explicit and measurable.

Action: Programme Leaders to forward interim reporting of quality enhancement of programmes following Programme Sub Committee meetings to HoDs /Deputy Dean: Teaching Learning and Quality

5. Submission of AMRs to External ExaminersAll Programme Leaders have now been reminded that the final version of the AMRs, including the additional addenda as submitted, should now be forwarded to the relevant external examiners.

Action: Programme Leaders / Secretary

31

APPENDIX A

Action List following Meeting held on 21 January 2010

Section Action Lead(s) Deadline for Completion

3 Programme Leaders to look at different ways of engaging students/stakeholders in this process-to feedback to Faculty following next Programme Sub- Committee.

All Programme Leaders

June 2010

3c Deputy Dean for Teaching, Learning & Quality to lead review of EE workload and implementation of moderation within the faculty.

HoDs implementing mechanism to ensure External Examiners informed of their annual schedule and receive programme/pathway material and AMRs.

Pre DAPs meeting to be established within the Faculty for Semester 2, 2010.

Deputy Dean

HoDs

DD/Business Manager/HoDs

April 2010

April 2010

By Semester 2, 2010

3d DD to receive an updated action plan after each Programme Sub-Committee meeting, identifying progress on actions and enhancements identified as part of the annual monitoring process.

Deputy Dean to lead staff development for Programme and Pathway Leaders re developing quality enhancement via AMR process.

PLs to forward to Brenda Hobart following sub committee, cc L Martin

Deputy Dean

After each Programme Sub-Committee meeting

September 2010

3f All Pathway and Programme Leaders report to HoDs on retention data, including high failing and low recruiting modules, and present action plans to address issues and evaluate efficacy.

Programme Leaders include good/innovative practice as agenda item on future programme sub committee agendas

Pathway LeadersProgramme Leaders

Programme Leaders

Interim report April 2010

For AMR 2009/10 Ongoing

4 Programme Leaders continue training to use Qlikview All Programme Leaders to feed back data anomalies to Faculty Business Team

Consider revisions to pathway report template

Programme Leaders to forward interim reporting of quality enhancement of programmes following programme sub committee meetings to HoDs/DD

Programme Leaders

All

Deputy Dean

Programme Leaders

Complete by March 2010Ongoing

June 2010

Following Programme sub committee meetings

5 Programme Leaders to forward copy of final and approved AMR to relevant External Examiner.

Programme Leaders/ Secretary

When report complete

32

The SenateCommittee Summary Report

Faculty of Science and Technology

Faculty Board Annual Monitoring Overview Report for 2008 2009

Committee Title: Faculty Board Annual Monitoring Subcommittee (Faculty of Science and Technology)

Parent Committee: Faculty Board/Senate

Date of Meeting 17th December 2009

CONTENTS:

1. Essential requirements

2. Previous year’s action plans and reader’s reports

3. Statistical data

4. Key issues, themes and trends


6. Generic Assessments and Marking Standards

7. External examiners’ reports

8. Future action plans



11. Outstanding actions

12. Concluding remarks

33

1. Essential requirementsThe key documents informing this report are the Reader’s Reports for the 2008/9 annual monitoring round.The Annual Monitoring Reports (AMRs) were received from all the Programmes in the Faculty. These were:

Animal & Environmental Biology Architecture and PlanningBiomedical, Molecular Science Computing Computer ScienceConstructionDesign & TechnologyForensic Science & Chemistry Ophthalmic Dispensing

PsychologySports ScienceSurveyingTechnology**Optometry & Optical Management (received late and considered after the Meeting)

At the Faculty Annual Monitoring Subcommittee Meeting the individual reports were first checked to determine that all essential requirements had been met. This was the case except for the following.

Biomedical Molecular Science External Examiner Reports were not attached Areas of concern raised in Readers report from 2007/08 required clarifying and including in SMART

plan.

Surveying External Examiner Reports were not attached

Design & Technology Action plan needed to be revised to include reference to monitoring the effectiveness of the revised

marking scheme

The required actions have subsequently been completed.

2. Previous year’s action plans and reader’s reports

With the exception of Construction, the committee was satisfied that there were no outstanding issues to be raised from the previous year’s action plans.

ConstructionOutstanding actions relating to COWA and CRC required to be completed

3. Statistical data

All reports included, and used as their main point of reference, centrally produced statistical data. The majority of programmes had no problems with accessing or analysing the statistics. The following general points were raised by individual Report Readers:

Surveying The Reader commented that there was no explicit presentation of historical data to support comments

on the maintenance of retention rates. The Subcommittee felt it would be helpful to have more than one years’ statistics availableand Nicky Dibb undertook to pass this suggestion on to the Academic Office.

Construction The completion rates for BSc Construction Management and HND Construction Management need

further expansion.

34

Forensic Science & Chemistry Statistics continued to show a “rogue student”. The department need to resolve this matter with

ISMS/SITS.

Biomedical Molecular Science Clarification was required with regard to registered students on pathways which should have been

discontinued as a condition of accreditation.Sports Science The report highlighted several inaccuracies and inconsistencies with the data and the committee

requested this be fed back to Faculty Board and the Academic Office. The Reader identified issues arising from the statistics which could have been included in the Action

Plan and the Author was requested to address these.

4. Key issues, themes and trends

No common concerns emerged from the 14 AMR’s this year. Several issues were discussed by the subcommittee and it was noted that most of these have already been dealt with at Departmental or Faculty level. Where further actions or reflections are required at Faculty or Institutional level these were noted and reported below.

Additional learning and teaching support is required in light of new incoming VLE ( Surveying) Recruitment and level one performance at HRC needs to be improved (Computer science) The issue of poor written English (Forensic Science, Animal and Environmental Biology). The student registration issue in Biomedical Molecular & Sports Science needs to be resolved. This was

a condition set at a Validation event.


It was noted that modifications have been carried out to several pathways to improve curriculum efficiencies including sharing modules between pathways, splitting 30 credit modules and articulating links between modules at different levels. It was noted that cohorts at some partner colleges are very small. Where further actions are required these are noted below;

Forensic Science & Chemistry Amend Action plan to include “improve efficiency of delivery” as indicated in report.

6. Generic assessments and marking standards

The mixed views on assessments and marking standards across departments are noted. Some departments make use of the generic marking criteria particularly in their module guides and there is some evidence that students find this helpful Several departments use the PSRB marking requirements. The committee noted the comment in the Animal & Environmental Biology report that they are “too unwieldy and wordy to be really useful”

7. External examiners’ reports

The subcommittee were pleased to note the positive comments from the Faculty’s External Examiners. The subcommittee was generally satisfied that points raised in the External Examiners reports had received an appropriate response in the SMART action plans.

35

8. Future action plans

Almost all issues raised in AMR’s or External Examiners’ reports for 2008/09 were carried forward into the SMART action plans. Where this was not the case programme action plans were referred back to the author for further consideration. Those affected were : Surveying Construction Forensic Science & Chemistry Biomedical, Molecular & Sports Science Sports Science


A number of areas of good practice and achievement were highlighted and the subcommittee felt the following are worthy of particular note; Surveying – Excellent use of mid semester review Architecture and Planning –International Study Visits Forensic Science and Chemistry – Novel weekly feedback method designed to identify recurring themes

and to address them before the next lecture Ophthalmic Dispensing – The use of WebCT as a discussion area


No specific areas were discussed.

11. Outstanding actions

Outstanding actions arising from the 2008-09 AMR’s have been identified and are to be addressed.

12. Concluding remarks

The subcommittee are pleased to report that the overall quality of the AMRs was to a high standard as evidenced by the engagement of the authors and the level of detail in the responses given to the set questions. In the vast majority of cases the reports were completed and available to the subcommittee readers in good time.

A marked improvement over previous years in the statistical data provided and the comments made on the emerging issues was noted. Also particularly worthy of mention is the appropriate and helpful use that is being made of the SMART action plans by the AMR authors.

This year’s readers reports were comprehensive and provided the subcommittee with a full account of the contents and any deficiencies in the individual AMRs making the process of constructing a “matters arising grid” and following the issues through, relatively straight forward.

36

Matters Arising Grid

Programme Action Required by 31st March (unless otherwise stated) Action bySurveying Programme leader to send copies of External Examiner

reports to ReaderStephen Fenton

Construction Outstanding actions relating to COWA and CRC require to be completedCompletion rates for BSc Construction Management and HND construction Management need further expansion

Phil Mellow

Phil Mellow

Biomedical Molecular & Sports Science

External Examiner Reports not attached and copies to be sent to the Reader.

Areas of concern raised in Readers report from 2007/08 require clarifying and including in SMART plan.

The Reader commented that no explicit presentation of historical data available to support maintenance of retention rates. The Subcommittee felt it would be helpful to have more than one years stats available. Nicky Dibb would pass this on to the Academic Office.

Clarification of the situation with regard to registered students on pathways which should have been discontinued as a condition of accreditation.

Nicky Milner

Nicky Milner

Nikki Dibb

Nicky Milner

Sports Science The report highlights several inaccuracies and inconsistencies with the data and the committee request this be fed back to Faculty Board and the Academic Office.

The Subcommittee notes the Reader identified issues arising from the stats which could have been included in the Action Plan and the Author is requested to address these

David Reid/Vicky McCormick

Don Keiller

Design & Technology

Action plan to be revised to include reference to monitoring the effectiveness of the revised marking scheme

Rob Walker

Forensic Science & Chemistry

Stats continue to show a “rogue student” . The department are requested to take up the matter with ISMS/SITS to resolve.

Amend Action plan to include “improve efficiency of delivery” as indicated in report

Sarah Hall

Sarah Hall

Optometry & Optical Management

This report was submitted after the meeting. The reader’s report to be sent to the Academic Office

David Reid

37

2008/9 Annual Institutional Review Report of Edexcel Licensed Centre BTEC programmes

This annual Institutional Review Report (IRR) should relate to all BTEC programmes run as institutional awards under the Licence Agreement (in most cases this will mean Higher National programmes, but may also include BTEC level 4-7 Short Courses).

Please submit your IRR to Professor G N Roberts, the Edexcel University Chief Examiner ([email protected]), to arrive before the end of March 2010

Note that any of the following tables may be scrolled if necessary.

ADMINISTRATIVE AND PROGRAMME DETAILSCentre:Anglia Ruskin University

Centre number:16311

Review sent by: Sharon Simpson Date of submitting IRR: 3rd march 2010

Position in institution: Institutional Quality Assurance Officer E mail address: [email protected]

Name of Committee/Board approving submission of the IRR: Academic Standards Quality & Regulations Committee (ASQRC)

FOR EACH BTEC PROGRAMME RUN AT YOUR CENTRE, PLEASE GIVE:

Title of programme: Notes: 1. Indicate with a * programmes that are also run at partner

institutions. Please do not include awards data in this section for programmes run at partner institutions

2. For integrated HNC/D programmes please indicate HNC and HND awards separately eg. 12/21 for 12 HNC and 21 HND awards).

Number of students receiving award in IRR period

Comments:Please add comments as necessary. In particular: If no awards are made for any

programmes This is the first cohort of a new

programme The number of awards this session is

significantly different from previous years.

HNC Applied BiologyHND Architectural TechnologyHND Audio and Music TechnologyHND Building SurveyingHND Business Information Technology HNC Business Management*HND Business Management*HNC Civil Engineering*HND Civil EngineeringHNC ComputingHND Computing*HNC Construction*HND Construction and DesignHND Construction ManagementHNC ElectronicsHND ElectronicsHNC Engineering*HND Engineering*HND Internet Management & Web DesignHND MultimediaHND Property SurveyingHND Quantity SurveyingHND Real Estate Management

1163135451014141811643827447323

Licensed Institution Institutional Review Report proforma Version 5. Issued September 2009 38

FOR EACH BTEC PROGRAMME DELIVERED BY A COLLABORATIVE PARTNER CENTRE, PLEASE GIVE:

Partner institution Title(s) of programme(s) run at institution

Number of students receiving award in IRR period

Comments:

Cambridge Regional CollegeHNC Construction

Chelmsford CollegeHNC Civil EngineeringHNC Construction

College of West Anglia (COWA), (University Centre King’s Lynn)HNC Business ManagementHND ComputingHNC Engineering

Huntingdonshire Regional CollegeHNC EngineeringHND Engineering

Peterborough Regional College (University Centre, Peterborough)HNC Business ManagementHND Business ManagementHNC Engineering

Thurrock and Basildon CollegeHND Engineering

18

15

1525

25

1118

0

ANNUAL REVIEW OF BTEC PROGRAMMES1 ACADEMIC STANDARDS AND ASSESSMENT Do the External Examiners for each programme covered by the Licence Agreement confirm that the standards set are appropriate for the level of the qualifications?

yes

If this is not the case for any programme give details here and refer to Section 5 if appropriate.

N/A

2 ACADEMIC STANDARDS AND STUDENT PERFORMANCEDo the External Examiners for each programme covered by the Licence Agreement confirm that the standard of student performance is at a level appropriate for the programme they have studied?

YESIf this is not the case for any programme give details here and refer to Section 5 if appropriate.

N/A


3 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCESS FOR BTEC PROGRAMMESDescribe briefly how the institutional quality assurance processes used for producing this report provide an effective focus on the programmes covered by this review and ensure consistency of practice across all programmes. (Include the procedures in place for franchise programmes, where relevant). If this focus is apparent from your published quality assurance review and monitoring procedures, simply attach these procedures to the Review (or provide an electronic link to them).

The procedure in place follows the well-established process as outlined in preceding Annual Institutional Review Reports. Please see the attached extract (pages 27 to 30) from the Anglia Ruskin University Senate Code of Practice on the Approval, Annual Monitoring and Periodic Review of Taught Pathways, Procedural Document for 2009/10.The standard template for the Annual Monitoring Report, which is completed at ‘Programme’ (Anglia Ruskin definition relating to our University’s curriculum management structure) level, lists the pathways covered within the report and contains a section where report authors are asked to comment on any issues relating specifically to Edexcel awards.

4 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES AND ENHANCEMENTSProvide information on any significant changes in provision this session, such as newly validated Higher National programmes, BTEC level 4-7 Short Courses, changes in franchise position, cessation of programmes, etc. Also, any enhancements to individual programmes you wish to report. As reported in the previous Annual Institutional Review Report, Anglia Ruskin re-aligned its HND provision from 180 to 240 credits during 2007/08 following the revision of the Licence Agreement, for delivery from 2008/09. Transitional arrangements for completion by September 2011 were put in place for those students who had yet to complete the 180-credit awards on which they were already registered.

5 TRENDS, FUTURE PLANS AND LOCAL INITIATIVESOutline any trends (what’s increasing, what’s declining), future plans (short-term/long-term) and local initiatives for HIgher National programmes and BTEC level 4-7 Short Courses

In accordance with our Corporate Plan (2009-2011) objective: ‘We are champions of employer and community engagement’, Anglia Ruskin continues to develop new Foundation degrees to contribute to the achievement of its target recruitment of an additional 1000 students studying in the workplace by 2011. Anglia Ruskin views the provision of Foundation degrees, which will replace existing HN awards, as being more attractive to employers and capable of delivering the flexibility required to meet their needs.

6 MAJOR ISSUESSummarise the situation over any major issues with regard to the BTEC programmes, including issues that have arisen from External Examiners’ reports and with respect to student experience (including teaching and learning resources and issues from programme committees): unresolved issues raised in previous session(s): action taken new issues and action planned to resolve them: where possible, state where the responsibility lies for action and give a

time scale.

Note: Only major issues which result in significant action(s) need to be included here

There were no issues identified to be resolved in previous session(s).There are no major issues to be reported for 2008/09 delivery.

7 GOOD PRACTICEGive any examples of good practice at institutional level in relation to BTEC programmes that you wish to draw to the attention of Edexcel, including examples of good practice raised by External Examiners, and Internal and External Reviews of BTEC programmes.

As outlined in previous IRRs, the Anglia Ruskin Annual Monitoring process provides an opportunity for examples of good practice and commendable and/or significant achievement to be identified for dissemination throughout Anglia Ruskin and its UK and international collaborative partners. Due to the modular scheme, good practice may be a feature of a module relating to more than one pathway and examples highlighted do not therefore identify individual pathways. As referred to at ‘3. Quality Assurance Processes for BTEC Programmes’ above, the Annual Monitoring report template contains a section for comments relating specifically to Edexcel awards.

Examples and issues identified have not been attributed to Edexcel awards specifically, but it is


worthy of note that students who perhaps do not have the required entry qualifications for direct entry to a degree have used Edexcel awards as a stepping stone to completing a degree which results in widening participation.

8 OTHER COMMENTS Mention any points you may wish to make that would not otherwise be covered in the report. If you have received any relevant (non-confidential) reports during the year from bodies external to your institution (eg. QAA Academic Review, IQER (English Licensed Institutions), Development Review (Welsh Licensed Institutions) or Professional Accreditation reports, etc.). Use this Section to make any comments, or to provide a reference to such reports.

The 2007/08 IRR referred to IQER engagements for which the confirmed reports had not been published. The College of West Anglia (COWA, University Centre King’s Lynn), Cambridge Regional College and Huntingdonshire Regional College were all the subject of IQER engagements in 2007/08. The confirmed reports were received during 2008/09 and there were no issues relating to Edexcel provision.

During 2008/09 Chelmsford College was subject to an IQER engagement. The public report was published on 1st March 2010 and it can be confirmed that no issues were raised relating to Edexcel provision.
