1

The University of Edinburgh

Internal Review 2016/17

Teaching Programme Review (TPR) of Linguistics and English Language

Final report

Page A Introduction 1 B Report

1. Strategic approach to enhancing learning and teaching 4

2. Enhancing learning and teaching and the student experience 4

3. Academic standards 8

C Review conclusions 1. Confidence statement 10

2. Prioritised list of commendations and recommendations 10

3. Recommendations for enhancement/areas for further development 10

D Appendices 12

2

A Introduction

1. Scope of the review

Range of provision considered by the review:

Undergraduate Degree Programmes 2016/17

English Language (MA Hons) English Language and History (MA Hons)

English Language and Literature (MA Hons)

Linguistics (MA Hons)

Linguistics and English Language (MA Hons)

Linguistics and Social Anthropology (MA Hons)

The TPR of Linguistics and English Language consisted of:

The University’s standard remit for internal review: http://www.ed.ac.uk/files/atoms/files/universitystandardremit.pdf

The subject specific remit for the review, consisting of the following items:

a) School: The School asked externals to advise on the potential for the subject area to develop

online and distance learning (such as that operated in Philosophy currently, and being

explored by Psychology).

b) Subject area: Many of the subject area’s courses have both SCQF Level 10 and Level 11 versions,

typically with shared classroom hours and bespoke assessment. The subject area invited reflection from the review team on administrative procedures for these shared courses, specifically with regard to any imprecision and duplication that arose due to Level 10 and Level 11 courses being run by separate teaching offices (UG and PG respectively) within the School.

Is the undergraduate curriculum adequate in terms of vertical lines of progression in the core areas (phonology, phonetics, morphology, semantics and pragmatics, syntax, language acquisition, language variation and change)?

Should the undergraduate dissertation be compulsory for all honours students? Some students would arguably be better served by some other route through honours.

c) Students:

Items raised by students were covered by the University’s standard remit for internal review and referred to in the analytical report. Students had raised concerns about inconsistencies in relation to the way tutorials were taught, as some tutors provided additional materials and others did not.

The analytical report and additional material provided in advance of the review.

The visit by the review team held on 4/5 October 2016, including consideration of further material (listed in Appendix 1).

The final report produced by the review team.

Action by the subject area and others to whom recommendations were remitted following the review.

3

2. Membership of review team:

Role Member

Convener Dr Simon Coleman, Senior Lecturer, Sport, Physical Education and health Sciences, Moray House School of Education

Internal Dr Simon Daff, Lecturer in Bioinorganic Chemistry, School of Chemistry

External Professor Jennifer Smith, Professor of Sociolinguistics, University of Glasgow

External Professor Leah Roberts, Leader, Centre for Research in Language Learning and Use, University of York

Student Ms Bobi Archer, School of Mathematics (not present during the review, but contributed by correspondence)

Administrator Ms Ailsa Taylor, Academic Policy Officer, Academic Services

3. Situation of subject area within its College

Linguistics and English Language is part of the School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences within the College of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences.

4. Physical location and summary of facilities

Linguistics and English Language is housed in the Dugald Stewart Building, Charles Street, Edinburgh, with the Department of Psychology located at number 7, George Square, Edinburgh.

5. Date of previous review

26/27 October 2010.

6. Analytical report

The analytical report was prepared by Prof. Bettelou Los, Head of Subject Area (Linguistics and English Language), Dr. Josef Fruehwald, Quality Assurance Officer (Linguistics and English Language), and Prof. Heinz Giegerich, Convener of Board of Examiners (Linguistics and English Language). Students’ suggestions were solicited via the Staff Student Liaison Committee. Staff suggestions were solicited in staff meetings, and by consultation in order to draft the analytical report.

4

B Report

1 Strategic approach to enhancing learning and teaching 1.1 The subject area is very highly rated both nationally and internationally, and the teaching staff have an excellent reputation for research. In the Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2014, linguistics research was rated best in the UK. The University of Edinburgh has the largest concentration of university language scientists in the UK. Students are attracted to the review area by a range of factors, including awareness of world-class provision. The subject area maintains an impressive breadth of coverage in their field. Academic staff are enthusiastic and well-regarded by students. Support staff make a significant contribution to the student learning experience. 1.2 All students in the subject area take their degree on a full time basis. Around 30% of the students are currently Rest of the United Kingdom (RUK) students and another 24% are overseas fee paying students. Gender balance is skewed towards female students, although the subject area has a slightly better gender balance than average for the subject. The relatively small third and fourth year cohorts for English Language are the result of the transfer of students from English Language to a Linguistics and English Language degree upon entry to honours. 1.3 Since the previous review in 2010, the subject area have made changes to the structure of reporting and named positions, and an organisational chart has been developed which outlines reporting lines between school management, administration and committees. 1.4 The senior management team have recently committed to embedding a much longer-term approach to planning, and this aligns with University strategic plans. Regular management meetings are held with the heads of subject areas on a monthly basis. New business cases are considered via a newly established process, in accordance with specific agreed criteria, and again link in with strategic plans.

2 Enhancing learning and teaching and the student experience

2.1 Supporting students in their learning 2.1.1 The review team noted the enthusiasm of academic staff for their subject. Students who met the review team referred to the high quality of teaching and individual support provided by staff. The review team commends the accessibility and approachability of staff. 2.1.2 National Student Survey results in relation to “the teaching on my course” have been excellent (92% in both 2015 and 2016). 2.1.3 The review team noted particularly the flexibility of teaching methods used in the subject area. Staff are dedicated to good teaching and this is reflected by the fact that any training in new methodologies offered centrally (like class voting or flipped classroom approaches) attract a high number of subject area staff. Staff have been very keen to try out these approaches in practice, and report positively about the enhancements to learning and teaching. 2.1.4 The review team met with administrative staff from the Teaching Office and Student Support staff over the course of the review. The review team were extremely impressed with the excellent support offered to students from the Teaching Office and Student Support staff.

5

2.1.5 The review team asked the externals to advise on the potential for the subject area to develop online and distance learning, such as is being done in Philosophy and explored by Psychology. The review team could find no evidence that students particularly welcomed any potential development of online and distance learning within the subject area. Indeed, the students who met the review team reported very clearly that they were particularly interested in more face-to-face learning opportunities, and would like more one-to-one meetings with staff. One student reported positively in relation to a Massive Online Open Course (MOOC) she had undertaken (Coursera). Students reported in general that they would be interested in further use of technology as an enhancement to the provision already provided within current courses.

2.2 Student engagement 2.2.1 Students who met the review team spoke highly of the genuine openness and transparency of academic staff, and their appreciation of the open door policy in the area. One of the most effective ways of getting feedback from students (in addition to Staff-Student Liaison Committee meetings) has been the informal staff-student feedback sessions organised by the Convener of the Board of Examiners, where students are free to bring in any concern and inform the department about it, even if it is felt to be trivial. This allows the subject area to take action quickly and efficiently and encourages frontline resolution of complaints. 2.2.2 Members of staff note that there is a sense of survey-exhaustion amongst the students. A recurrent concern for the subject area is that the student response rate is very low, which raises issues of representiveness. The School has made a concerted effort to raise National Student Survey response rates in 2016 by keeping score on huge church-fund style thermometers showing students how far they fell short of the target and this has proved successful.

2.3 Approach to promoting an accessible and inclusive learning environment for all students 2.3.1 The subject area publishes course outlines and reading lists at least four weeks before the start of the course, on Learn (Blackboard Learn – the primary Virtual Learning Environment at the University), Degree Regulations and Programmes of Study (DRPS) or the course handbooks, and for lecture outlines, on Powerpoint presentation slides to be available to students in advance. Students are permitted to audio record lectures, tutorials and supervision sessions using their own equipment for their own personal learning. The student support officers alert staff to any students who have adjustments, with a detailed outline of the student’s needs.

2.4 Learning and Teaching 2.4.1 The subject area has extremely flexible degree programmes which allows students to discover which subjects are best suited to them and enables them to tailor their degree. Students have the opportunity to take ‘outside’ courses in almost any other subject offered at the University, which allows students to develop interests or discover particular aptitudes. Undergraduate students have access to a huge range of courses, at both pre-honours and honours level. The review team commends the breadth of pre-honours and honours courses. 2.4.2 The review team heard from both students and staff interviewed as part of the review that there was a particular step change in complexity from non-honours to honours stages of the undergraduate curriculum. Undergraduate students interviewed suggested to the review team that they could have handled greater complexity and depth in the first year, particularly if there had been more of a gradual increase in complexity between semester 1 and semester 2 of the first year.

6

2.4.3 In advance of the review, the review team were asked to comment on whether the undergraduate curriculum was adequate in terms of vertical lines of progression in the core areas (phonology, phonetics, morphology, semantics and pragmatics, syntax, language acquisition, language variation and change). Some students reported to the review team that they had struggled upon entry to honours with aspects of the honours undergraduate curriculum that required more theoretical knowledge e.g. syntax. The review team recommends that the subject area examine issues of development and progression through the first three years, particularly in areas where students have little prior experience. 2.4.4 The review team have been asked by the subject area to comment on whether the dissertation in Year 4 should be compulsory for all honours students. Staff have commented that some students would arguably be better served by some other route through honours. The University’s Models for Degree Types require that at least 40 credits at Level 10/11 in single honours programmes are devoted to a dissertation or project that can demonstrate proficiency in research and/or analytical skills relevant to the discipline. The review team recommends that the dissertation (or project) should be compulsory and with flexibility in the type of assessment. 2.4.5 The dissertation conference is highly rated by students. It is chaired and organised by the fourth year students themselves, who present the findings of their dissertations to the third years who are about to embark on their dissertation year. This allows students to get some idea of what is expected of them, and there is also a topic information session immediately afterwards which provides soapbox style presentations by all the staff, to inform the third years about the topics they generally supervise. The review team commends the subject area’s approach to the dissertation - in particular the dissertation conference, topic information session and induction. 2.4.6 During the review, the review team met with undergraduate honours students who had studied abroad in a formal exchange in their third year of study. The review team heard that those students who had participated in study abroad would have appreciated closer contact with the subject area during their study abroad year. For study abroad students, the review team recommends structured communication between the student and subject area throughout the study abroad year. This could include a short ‘diary’ of events for the year which might include scheduled Skype contact with Personal Tutors, deadlines for submission of dissertation topic and video capture of the dissertation conference. 2.4.7 Visiting students commented on difficulties they had faced upon arrival in relation to understanding some of the theoretical concepts. For visiting students, the review team recommends the provision of more information, and access to previous teaching materials pre-arrival. 2.4.8 In advance of the review, the subject area have invited reflection from the review team on administrative procedures for shared courses, specifically with regard to any imprecision and duplication that arises due to Level 10 and Level 11 courses being run by separate teaching offices. The subject area notes that sharing these courses does not particularly benefit the students pedagogically, but it is necessary due to resource constraints. The undergraduate and postgraduate teaching offices are working very closely together to ensure that there is joined up thinking in relation to these shared courses. This will alleviate the problems experienced in the past where, for example, postgraduate variants have not been taken into account for planning and timetabling purposes. However, there is still an issue for the subject area to address in relation to securing suitable flexible teaching space. 2.4.9 The review team heard that administrative staff have faced considerable challenges recently in relation to securing suitable flexible teaching space. Reference was made throughout the review to a disastrous room booking season within the first

7

semester of 2015/16. This issue is exacerbated by the unpredictability in postgraduate student numbers, whereby final numbers are generally not confirmed until just before students arrive. Student numbers for MSc programmes in particular within the subject area can change dramatically year on year. At this late stage, the timetabling unit are sometimes unable to offer the subject area suitable flexible teaching spaces, due to lack of provision across the estate. This is understood to impact negatively upon the student experience. The review team recommends that the subject area works closely with the timetabling unit in an attempt to alleviate the impact of timetabling problems, and ensure the provision of suitable flexible teaching spaces to positively impact student experience.

2.5 Assessment and Feedback

2.5.1 External examiners had commented favourably on the variety and effectiveness of assessment methods within the subject area.

2.5.2 The analytical report prepared by the subject area suggests that there are staff members who prefer to continue to do their marking manually. Students reported to the review team that they would much prefer to receive electronic feedback on coursework. However, they had generally only received feedback in this way when taking outside courses and therefore received no electronic feedback for coursework in many of their courses. In addition, students reported that they had to view their assignment feedback in the Teaching Organisation office because they were told that they were unable to take scripts away. These students had been permitted to take photographs of the comments on their scripts, if they wished to retain the information for future reference, but had found this process to be cumbersome. This also applied to examination scripts. Therefore students were not able to retain detailed comments from staff and this was seen as a major hindrance in being able to use feedback effectively.

2.5.3 It is recommended that the subject area make a commitment to electronic marking and the provision of electronic feedback for coursework, and to return degree examination scripts (with comments) to students on Year 1 and 2 pre-honours courses. Students are entitled to see their examination scripts to assist with the provision of feedback and their self-reflective learning. The University’s Taught Assessment Regulations have been amended for 2016/17 to allow for degree examination scripts, or copies of such scripts to be returned to students on Year 1 and 2 pre-honours courses after any retention period is over. Degree examination scripts are not to be returned to students on honours or taught postgraduate courses, but Course Organisers or their delegates may show and discuss students’ examination scripts with them for feedback purposes.

2.5.4 The scores in student surveys show that the baseline of 80% for the effectiveness of academic support is either achieved, or very close to being achieved. ESES scores for “I found my Personal Tutor approachable and willing to help” is 79% for English Language and Linguistics (response:19 students out of 42), and 82% for Linguistics (response: 28 students out of 79). The average score for the three questions on academic support in the National Student Survey is as follows: English Language and Linguistics (UNISTATS) 79%, Linguistics (UNISTATS figures averaged over two years to make up for low response rate) 81%. 2.5.5 Formal survey results in relation to enhancement of the provision of personal tutoring show a decline in satisfaction from 2015 to 2016. In the Edinburgh Student Experience Survey (ESES) Linguistics dropped from 86% in 2015 to 82% in 2016 and Linguistics and English Language scores decreased from 100% in 2015 to 79% in 2016. There was a decline in satisfaction from 2015 to 2016 (-26%) in relation to the extent to which interactions with the Personal Tutor were felt to have helped students to reflect on academic performance, and a decline in satisfaction (-14%) in relation to the amount of time that students had had with their Personal Tutor. The subject area keeps the

8

discussion about how to deliver personal tutoring most effectively on the staff meeting agenda. 2.5.6 Students reported to the review team that there was inconsistency in the support provided by Personal Tutors. Although all students interviewed by the review team reported good experiences with their own Personal Tutors, they were aware that other students within the cohort had experienced difficulties in accessing support from Personal Tutors. Students had also reported that they did not understand how the Personal Tutor system was organised, and some did not know how many Personal Tutor meetings they would be expected to have, or what the format/structure of each meeting was likely to be. 2.5.7 It is recommended that the subject area to aim for more consistency, structure and information to be provided to students in relation to the Personal Tutor system.

2.6 Supporting and developing staff

2.6.1 The review team commends the development of online tutor support tutorials. 2.6.2 During the previous review in 2010, the review team had recommended speedy clarification of the management, renumeration and duties of postgraduate tutors, and compulsory attendance at School training courses for postgraduate tutors. The review team found that this has mostly been accomplished. Postgraduate tutors and demonstrators now have a one-day induction in September and are briefed and trained for their specific tasks by the course organisers. Postgraduate tutors are no longer on zero-hours contracts. Tutors are paid separately for contact hours and for marking, and the School have recently (July 2016) re-calibrated marking pay rates. However, the review team heard that there is still some inconsistency in levels of on-going training undertaken by postgraduate tutors. The review team recommends that the subject area pay postgraduate tutors to attend courses (e.g. Institute for Academic Development courses), to ensure baseline pedagogical consistency. 2.6.3 The review team met with two postgraduate tutors during the review, and were impressed with their commitment to the provision of high quality teaching and support. The review team commends the commitment and enthusiasm demonstrated by Postgraduate Tutors. 2.6.4 The postgraduate tutors meet lecturers frequently for tutor-lecturer briefing sessions. The review team commends the regular tutor-lecturer briefing sessions. 2.6.5 The review team noted that there is an annual training session for all PhD supervisors in the School, organised by the Postgraduate Director, which sets out changes in guidelines and discussed standards. External/associate (teaching) staff are briefed by the course organisers, and research assistants taking on some teaching are also well briefed.

3 Academic standards 3.1 Linguistics and English Language follow the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA)

subject benchmark statements for linguistics.

3.2 Currently Year 1 and 2 courses are set at Scottish Credit and Qualifications

Framework (SCQF) level 8, and Year 3 and 4 courses are set at SCQF level 10. The

subject area understands that level 10 is appropriate for honours-course levels because

of the high level research content in these courses.

3.3 Course approval is subject to appropriate levels of School-level scrutiny.

9

3.4 Examination arrangements are overseen appropriately by the subject area, with

collation of examination questions, and examination papers produced following

collaboration between the Convener of the Board of Examiners and Teaching Office.

3.5 External examiner reports over the last four years praise the breadth of courses that are offered and the standards that are reached by the students. 3.6 Although the external examiners commend the quality and quantity of feedback on

students’ work, recurring themes over the years include some staff’s reticence to use the

full range of the marking scale i.e. the 80-100 range. Students who met with the review

team over the course of the review also referred to a reluctance to use the full range of

the marking scale at the high end. Students remarked that they did not understand why

the full range was not being used for particularly outstanding work. It is noted by the

review team that there are plans in place to discuss the use of the higher end of the

marking scale further at subject area staff meetings, and this is particularly encouraged

by the review team.

3.7 The review team notes that there has been a steady rise in first class degrees

awarded which has occurred over the past few years within the subject area. It is

suggested that the subject area keeps an eye on this data in case it becomes a trend

that requires some careful consideration in future. The review team notes that the

subject area makes reference to a particularly strong cohort of students in the previous

year.

3.8 The subject area fosters a climate of openness in relation to the airing of student

concerns, and dialogue with external examiners. Staff take extra effort to moderate work

of colleagues whose work they have never moderated before, and act as external

examiners in other institutions. This activity helps the subject area to be confident that

their arrangements for ensuring academic standards are robust.

10

C Review conclusions

1. Confidence statement

The review team found that Linguistics and English Language has effective management of the quality of the student learning experience, academic standards, and enhancement and good practice. 2. Prioritised list of commendations and recommendations Key strengths and areas of positive practice for sharing more widely across the institution

No Commendation Section in report

1 The review team commends the accessibility and approachability of staff.

2.1.1

2 The review team commends the commitment and enthusiasm demonstrated by Postgraduate Tutors.

2.6.3

3 The review team commends the development of online tutor support tutorials.

2.6.1

4 The review team commends the regular tutor-lecturer briefing sessions. 2.6.4

5 The review team commends the breadth of pre-honours and honours courses.

2.4.1

6 The review team commends the subject area’s approach to the dissertation - in particular the dissertation conference, topic information session and induction.

2.4.5

3. Recommendations for enhancement/areas for further development

Priority Recommendation Section in report

Responsibility of

1 It is recommended that the subject area make a commitment to electronic marking and the provision of electronic feedback for coursework, and to return degree examination scripts (with comments) to students on Year 1 and 2 pre-honours courses.

2.5.3 Subject area

2 It is recommended that the subject area to aim for more consistency, structure and information to be provided to students in relation to the Personal Tutor system.

2.5.7 Subject area

3 The review team recommends that the subject area examine issues of development and progression through the first three years, particularly in areas where students have little prior experience.

2.4.3 Subject area

4 For study abroad students, the review team recommends structured communication between the student and subject area throughout the study abroad year.

2.4.6 Subject area

5 The review team recommends that the dissertation (or project) should be compulsory and with flexibility in the type of assessment.

2.4.4 Subject area

6 The review team recommends that the subject area pay postgraduate tutors to attend courses (e.g. Institute for Academic Development

2.6.2 Subject area

11

courses), to ensure baseline pedagogical consistency.

7 For visiting students, the review team recommends the provision of more information, and access to previous teaching materials pre-arrival.

2.4.7 Subject area

8 The review team recommends that the subject area works closely with the timetabling unit in an attempt to alleviate the impact of timetabling problems and ensure the provision of suitable flexible teaching spaces to positively impact student experience.

2.4.9 Subject area (in consultation with Timetabling Unit)

12

D Appendices Appendix 1 Additional information considered by review team Prior to the review visit

A note of clarification was requested by the review team relating to where postgraduate administration was situated within the staff organisational chart within the School. A response by the subject area was provided.

During the review visit

Documentation considered during the review visit

Analytical Report

School Quality Assurance Reports (reports from previous three completed academic years)

External Examiners reports and responses to their comments (reports from previous three completed sessions)

Subject area organisation chart

Current subject area information

Programme Handbooks and programme specification information

Statistical information (reports from previous three academic years)

National Student Survey (NSS) results and reflection 2015-16

Edinburgh Student Experience Survey (ESES) results and reflection 2015-16

University of Edinburgh standard remit 2016/17

Subject specific remit

PPLS Welcome week information

School Personal tutor statement

List of programmes and courses

Response from Head of Social Anthropology in relation to joint degree

Previous TPR report & response to recommendations

Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) subject benchmark statement

Background Data for First Destination information

Undergraduate Degree classification report

Glossary of Terms

Student Staff Liaison Committee (SSLC) meeting minutes from the previous academic year were available to the review team to consider on request.

13

Appendix 2 Number of students