1

University of Gloucestershire

QAA Higher Education Review: Self Evaluation Document

February 2015

2

The University of Gloucestershire Self Evaluation Document (SED) addresses the Quality Assurance Agency’s requirements for Higher Education Review, and comprises seven sections:

1. A brief description of the Institution

2. The University’s track record in the management of academic standards and quality

3. Setting and maintenance of academic standards

4. Assuring and enhancing academic quality of student learning opportunities

5. Information about higher education provision

6. Enhancement of student learning opportunities and experiences

7. An exploration of the theme of student employability

The sections make direct reference to the University’s alignment with the Expectations of the Quality Code (QAA 2013) and offer an explanation and evaluation of the University’s approach to meeting all Expectations with supporting evidence.

3

Glossary

AB Academic Board

ABE Award Boards of Examiners

ADQS Associate Dean of Quality and Standards

ADU Academic Development Unit

ALT Academic Link Tutor

AMR Annual Monitoring Report

AOBE Assessment Offences Board of Examiners

APC Academic Portfolio Committee

APL Accreditation of Prior Learning

AQPH Academic Quality and Partnerships Handbook

AQPO Academic Quality and Partnerships Office (formerly QST)

ARC Academic Regulations Committee

ART Academic Review Tutor (now Personal Tutor)

ARTP Academic Regulations for Taught Provision

ARRDP Academic Regulations for Research Degree Provision

AS Faculty of Applied Sciences

ASDF Academic Staff Development Framework

ASQC Academic Standards and Quality Committee

ASP Assessment Scrutiny Process

AU Audit Committee

AUA Association of University Administrators

BEPS Faculty of Business, Education and Professional Studies

BIS Business, Innovation and Skills

BoE Board of Examiners

BoS Board of Studies

BS Business School

BuSIC Business School International Centre

C University Council Committee

CATS Credit Accumulation and Transfer System

CBI Confederation of British Industries

CCRI Countryside and Community Research Institute

CDP Collaborative Delivery Plan

CeAL Centre for Active Learning

CEE Chief External Examiner

CETL Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning

CFR Curriculum Framework Review

CILIP Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals

CIM Continuous Improvement Monitoring

CIPD Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development

CL Course Leader

CLG Campus Life Group

CPC Collaborative Provision Committee

CPO Collaborative Provision Office (now AQPO)

CR Course Representative

CRM Customer Relationship Management

4

CVU Council of Validating Universities

DCP Director of Collaborative Partnerships

DLHE Destination of Leavers from Higher Education

DQS Dean of Quality and Standards

EE External Examiner

EGGS Employable Gloucestershire Graduate Scheme

EMA Electronic Management of Assessment

EPM External Panel Member

ESY Enhanced Student Year

EAUC Environmental Association for Universities and Colleges

FAM Faculty Administration Manager

FASQC Faculty Academic Standards and Quality Committee

FLTC Faculty Learning and Teaching Committee

FRC Faculty Research Committee

FRDC Faculty Research Degrees Committee

FREP Faculty Research Ethics Panel

FHEQ Framework for Higher Education Qualifications

FHQS Faculty Head of Quality and Standards

FT Full-time

FTE Full-time Equivalent

GITEP Gloucestershire Initial Teacher Education Partnership

GSS Gloucestershire Student Survey

HEA Higher Education Academy

HEAR Higher Education Achievement Report

HEDIIP Higher Education Data and Information Improvement Programme

HEFCE Higher Education Funding Council for England

HER Higher Education Review

HESA Higher Education Statistics Agency

HoS Head of School

HTS Highly Trusted Status

IAV Institutional Approval Visit

ICT Information Communications Technology

IDeC International Development Centre

IELTS International English Language Testing System

ILPP International Learning Partnerships Programme

IQA Internal Quality Audit

IRIS International Research Institute in Sustainability

ISB International Student Barometer

JAPR Joint Annual Progress Report

KIS Key Information Sets

KIT Keep in Touch meetings (of the SULG)

KPI Key Performance Indicators

KTP Knowledge Transfer Partnership

LEP Local Enterprise Partnership

LFSF Learning for Sustainable Futures

LIS Library and Information Services

LOD Location of Delivery Visit

5

LTC Learning and Teaching Committee

MAT Faculty of Media, Arts and Technology

MBE Module Boards of Examiners

MCRP Mitigating Circumstances Review Panel

NICATS Northern Ireland Credit Accumulation and Transfer System

NSS National Student Survey

NTF National Teaching Fellowship

NTFS National Teaching Fellowship Scheme

NUS National Union of Students

OIA Office of Independent Adjudicators

OPAC Online Public Access Catalogue

PAC Planning Approval Form (Collaborative)

PAD Partnership Audit Document

PAF Programme Approval Form

PC Partnership Coordinator

PCAP Programme Change Approval Panel

PDG Professional Development Group

PGCAP Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice

PGCHE Postgraduate Certificate in Higher Education

PGR Postgraduate Research

PGT Postgraduate Taught

PRES Postgraduate Research Experience Survey

PRR Periodic Review and Revalidation

PSRB Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Body

PT Part-time

PTES Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey

QC QAA Quality Code

QST Quality and Standards Team (Now AQPO)

RAC Recruitment and Admissions Committee

RAE Research Assessment Exercise

RAPP Reflection on Academic and Professional Practice

R&DC SU Representation and Democracy Coordinator

RCHE Review of College Higher Education

RD1 Research Degree Registration Form

RDF Researcher Development Framework

REO Review for Educational Oversight

RESC Research Ethics Sub-Committee

RPP Review of Professional Practice

SEDA Staff and Educational Development Association

SEG Strategic Enhancement Group

SGL Subject Group Leader

SITS Student Management System

SLC Student Life Committee

SNC Student Number Control

SPA Supporting Professionalism in Admissions

SR School Representative

SRD Staff Review and Development

6

SSKSG Student Survey and Key Information Sets Group

SU Students' Union

SU CEO Students' Union Chief Executive Officer

SU EO Students’ Union Education Officer

SULG Students’ Union Liaison Group

TNAF Training Needs Analysis Form

UEC University Executive Committee

UGT Undergraduate Taught

UKCISA UK Council for International Student Affairs

UKPSF UK Professional Standards Framework

UKVI UK Visas and Immigration (Home Office)

UMG University Management Group

URC University Research Committee

URDC University Research Degrees Committee

UTF University Teaching Fellowship

UUK Universities UK

WIS Wider Information Set

7

Contents

Section Heading Page

Glossary of terms 3

1 A brief description of the Institution 8

2 The University’s track record in the management of academic standards and quality

18

3 Setting and maintaining of academic standards 23

UK and European reference points for academic standards 25

Academic governance arrangements and Degree Awarding bodies’ academic frameworks and regulations

27

Definitive records of individual programmes and qualifications 27

Design and approval of modules, programmes and qualifications 28

Assessment of learning outcomes 29

Monitoring and review of alignment with UK threshold academic standards and degree awarding bodies’ own standards

30

Externality 30

4 Assuring and enhancing academic quality of student learning opportunities

33

Programme design and approval 33

Recruitment, selection and admission to higher education 38

Learning and teaching 42

Enabling student development and achievement 48

Student Engagement 54

Assessment of students and recognition of prior learning 65

External Examiners 71

Programme monitoring and review 76

Appeals and complaints 83

Managing provision through others 86

Research degrees 98

5 Information about higher education provision 109

6 Enhancement of student learning opportunities and experiences

117

7 An exploration of the theme of student employability 124

8

Section 1: Brief description of the Institution

Background 1. The University of Gloucestershire received its designation as a University from the Privy Council in 2001. But its origins can be traced back to the early 19th century, to the foundation of the Cheltenham Training College in 1847 and the formation of Mechanics’ Institutes in Gloucester and Cheltenham. The merger between the College of St Paul and St Mary and parts of the Gloucestershire College of Arts and Technology in 1990 created the Cheltenham and Gloucester College of Higher Education. The Institution received taught degree awarding powers in 1992 and research degree awarding powers in 1998, prior to becoming a University in 2001. 2. Following a review of governance in 2010/11, some significant changes were made to the University’s governance structure. Prior to that date, the Council’s membership was comprised of members nominated by the University’s Church Foundation, members nominated by the Local Authority, and some independent members. The new Articles of Association provided for 14 directly appointed external members and 4 internal members. Those Articles continue to reflect the Christian faith foundation of the Cheltenham Training College, in that they require the University’s curriculum to include Christian Theology and full-time teacher education. The University’s legal form is a company limited by guarantee with charitable status. Size and Organisation of the University 3. The University has grown in terms of student numbers since its previous QAA review but remains relatively small. The following table gives the current (2014/15) student numbers: Table 1: Student Numbers1

2014/15 Student Numbers (headcount)

UoG Full-time students (levels 4-8) 6427

UoG Part-time students (levels 4-8) 1022

Studying overseas via distance, flexible and distributed learning

191

Franchised to a UK partner 416

Franchised to an overseas partner 430

Validated to a UK partner 1376

Validated to an overseas partner 58

Total 9920

4. There is also a small number of students studying on “pathway” programmes for level 3 and 4 awards via the INTO Gloucestershire Centre at the University’s Park Campus in Cheltenham. The Centre is a Joint Venture partnership which the University established with INTO University Partnerships in 2012.

1 [0118] Student Numbers (Non-Collaborative) 2014/15

[0325] Student Numbers (Collaborative) 2014/15

9

5. The University employs some 350 FTE academic staff and 485 FTE professional staff.

6. The University operates across three main campuses in Gloucestershire, two in Cheltenham (Park and Francis Close Hall/Hardwick) and one in Gloucester (Oxstalls). The Pittville Campus no longer hosts teaching, and plans are underway to redevelop the campus as a student residential village2. The former campus in London (previously known as the Urban Learning Foundation) was closed in 2010. 7. Faculties are the principal means of organising academic activities. Until July 2014 there were three Faculties; however a partial restructuring is now underway3. The current Faculty structure is shown in the following chart: Chart 1: Faculty Structure

8. As explained in paragraph 7, the Faculty structure is in the process of being reconfigured4. A further update on these developments will be offered to the QAA review team for its visit in April 2015. The Institute of Education and Public Services is being discontinued as a management unit, and the School of Education and the School of Health and Social Care are being integrated into, respectively, the Faculty of Media, Arts and Technology (MAT) and the Faculty of Applied Sciences (AS).

2 [0001] Pittville Development webpage

3 [0002] University Structure as from 2014/15

4 [0003] Academic Governance Arrangements for the Institute and Business School 2014/15 (AB/26/14);

[0287] Future of the Institute of Education and Public Services (AB/45/14)

10

9. Both the MAT and AS Faculties are represented on more than one campus, but each School is located within a single campus. Administrative support for Faculty operations across all campuses is managed centrally from within the Academic Registry. 10. A range of professional departments provide support across the University. These are:

The Academic Development Unit (ADU), and the International Development Centre (IDeC), reporting to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor.

Academic Registry, reporting to the Academic Registrar and University Secretary.

Communications, Marketing and Student Recruitment; Estates; Information and Communication Technology (ICT); Library and Information Services (LIS); Student Services; and the Sustainability Team, all reporting to the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Operations).

Finance and Planning reporting to the Director of Finance and Planning.

Human Resources reporting to the Director of HR.

11. Student-facing professional services are provided on each campus so that students have easy access to core functions such as Student Helpzones, LIS, Students’ Union, employability support and placements support. Student Helpzones were introduced in 2008 on each teaching campus to integrate student advisory services in one place. The Student Helpzones were supplemented in September 2012 by the introduction of co-located Degreeplus offices on each campus, providing help for students on internships, volunteering and other employability support. The University’s Mission and Strategy 12. The University's mission statement was revised as part of the work to develop the current corporate strategy. The mission statement and strategy were approved by the University Council in 2012. 13. The mission statement is: ‘Founded on values, centred on students, focused on learning’. 14. The University Strategic Plan5 sets out the University’s vision, context and goals for the five-year period 2012-2017. The Plan was developed in consultation with staff, students and external stakeholders. The values of nurture, creativity, sustainability, service, respect and trust underpin the work of the University, and inform the People and Culture Strategy6. 15. One theme that came out strongly in discussion about the draft strategy was the importance of viewing students as full partners in the life, work and success of the University, and not merely as consumers. This was reflected in the identification of students as the first key ‘partnership’ for the University within the fourth strategic goal. It was also carried through into the summary on page 18 of the strategy which draws together all of the main ways in which the University aims to deliver its mission to be ‘centred on students’. 16. Within the frame of the strategic plan, the University has put effort into identifying and articulating what makes it distinctive, what it wants to be known for, and the areas in which it aspires to excellence. That work culminated in the endorsement by the University Council of a statement of three key ‘Things We Stand For at the University of Gloucestershire’. These are:

5 [0004] University Strategic Plan 2012-2017

6 [0005] People and Culture Strategy 2013-2017

11

Giving students outstanding support to learn in a community which values them as individuals;

A breadth and richness of experience which prepares students for rewarding lives and successful careers;

Making an outstanding contribution to the well-being of Gloucestershire.

17. These ‘Things We Stand For’ are used particularly to provide a thematic structure and consistency to the way we present the University. Within the Strategic Plan, the University identified five major goals, which deliberately overlap with the ‘Things We Stand For’, but which are used as a frame of reference for determining priorities and actions, both internal and external. These goals are:

to provide students with excellent learning experiences through outstanding learning and teaching support;

to promote enterprise, employability, and wider economic, cultural and social benefit for the community;

to embed research, scholarship, practice and consultancy in all of the University’s activities;

to build strong relationships with selected partners for mutual benefit;

to be a successful and sustainable organisation.

18. Each year, the University develops an annual Operating Plan, setting out how the five strategic goals will be taken forward during that academic year. The Council approves the Operating Plan in June each year, including priority actions and KPIs. Progress reports against the actions and KPIs are submitted to Council three times a year. Strategic Development of the University 19. The strategy summarised above has provided the framework within which the University has developed since the previous QAA review in 2010.

Teaching & Learning and Research

20. The University’s first and over-riding priority is to provide excellent teaching which best enables our students to learn. The University is teaching-led and research-informed. Its reputation and sustainability are wholly dependent on the quality of learning experience which students receive. To that end, it has evolved over the past four years a comprehensive Academic Strategy7. 21. Several major components have contributed to that Strategy. In 2011 a Learning and Teaching Strategy8 was developed, to establish common principles which should inform all taught programmes. Those principles are:

Independent and collaborative learning

Learning for life and employment

Learning for the future

Research/practice informed teaching and learning.

22. A Curriculum Framework Review (CFR) 9 was undertaken in 2012 for all undergraduate programmes and in 2013 for postgraduate programmes. One purpose was

7 [0006] Academic Strategy 2014-2017(Infonet)

8 [0007] Learning and Teaching Strategy 2011-2015

9 [0008] Curriculum Framework Review Information and Guidance (AB/77/11)

12

to ensure that all taught programmes incorporate the principles of the learning and teaching strategy. The second purpose was to rationalise the proliferation of modules within certain programmes. This was a step on a continuing journey (sometimes called “the course is king”) to rebalance programme structure to create better integration and coherence for students, and reduce the risk of fragmentation in their learning experience. 23. Also in 2013, the University undertook a broader Academic Portfolio Review (APR)10. Whereas the initial CFR was focussed at individual programme level, the purpose of the APR was to stand back and consider the strength and strategic direction of the subject portfolio. This is part of an ongoing goal to build strong, vibrant subject communities with which staff and students can associate and engage, and which forms the focus for teaching, research and the co-curriculum11. Proposals to open or close individual programmes can then be more securely grounded in an agreed strategic direction for the broader subject area. 24. In 2012/13, the University developed a new Research Strategy12, as approved by both Academic Board and University Council in March 2013. Having decided which Units of Assessment the University would enter for REF2014, the strategy identified six Research Priority Areas for future investment. They were chosen with a view to promoting excellent research in selected areas of strength, from which the University could start building towards REF2020. The strategy also addressed how the University would build a vibrant research culture. 25. Underpinning all of these elements, and as part of the People and Culture Strategy, the University has developed a comprehensive Academic Staff Development Framework (ASDF) (see section 4.3 for more detail). The purpose is to provide for all academic staff a menu of opportunities for training and development, including a mandatory programme of Reflection on Academic and Professional Practice13 for all academic staff and support to become Fellows of the HEA. Under the new Staff Review and Development programme14, all academic staff are expected to agree with their managers their priorities for training and development each year. The University’s goal is to create a distinctive sense of academic community through the quality of personal relationships that students experience. The text comments in the annual NSS results demonstrate that what students value above all is staff who are committed to both their subjects and to supporting their students to achieve. The University’s investment in the ASDF and the development of the Personal Tutor system15, building on our relatively small size and the limited number of students on each teaching campus, are designed to support this goal of building an academic community distinctive for the quality of its relationships. 26. Finally, in 2014 the University has drawn together all of the threads summarised above into a revised and updated Academic Strategy. This aims to build on what is already in place, and articulate some core “Ambitions” for the next phase, namely:

Building subject strength and course identity by means of a sharper alignment of activities (courses, research, enterprise) and the critical mass of expertise and

10

[0009] Undergraduate Academic Portfolio Review Update (including updates on the Postgraduate Curriculum Framework Review and the Research Review) (AB/03/13)

11 [0488] Academic Portfolio paper to University Council (C/03/15); [0510] Academic Portfolio Review (full

paper) February 2015 12

[0059] Research Strategy 13

[0010] Reflection of Academic & Professional Practice (RAPP) Guidelines (AB/14/13) 14

[0011] Staff Review and Development Programme(Infonet) 15

[0012] Personal Tutor Scheme

13

resources, capable of attracting and developing students and staff to reach their potential and develop their careers;

Promoting innovative, engaging, high quality teaching via the development, support and training of staff;

Delivering excellent research through Research Priority Areas as a learning-led, research informed institution;

Developing the co-curriculum building on good progress in recent years in extending the range of experience available to students, with support to broaden their understanding and gain a wider range of employability and life skills;

Achieving a consistent focus on enhancement via a need to appraise critically and reconsider its approach to quality, striking a balance between assurance and continual enhancement.

27. The University was pleased to achieve a four percentage point improvement in our NSS results in Summer 2014, rising to 84% overall satisfaction. That is at the University’s HEFCE benchmark, slightly ahead of the new University average, and is one of the largest percentage rises in the sector. But it leaves a lot of scope for further improvement, to get to, and then beyond, the sector average of 86%. The Academic Strategy is the vehicle for the University’s ambitions for improvement. Employability and Personal Development 28. The second core strand of the University’s strategic development since the previous QAA review has focussed on enabling students to gain wider personal and employability skills. Although excellent learning and teaching is core, it is no longer sufficient to meet the legitimate expectations of students in a context of higher fees. So the University has sought to create opportunities for a wider, deeper and richer experience for all students, over and above the formal curriculum, which prepares them well for life and employment after graduation. 29. The following major building blocks have contributed to this strategic goal. 30. In 2012, the University introduced the Degreeplus16 initiative. The purpose was to bring together into a more coherent and accessible offer the wide range of existing activity to support employability - including placements, internships, volunteering, and careers advice. A Degreeplus office is co-located on each teaching campus with the Student Helpzone. In 2014/15, over 3,300 students are expected to undertake placements. 31. From 2014/15 the University introduced the Enhanced Student Year (ESY). This aims to create designated space within the year for co-curricular and enhancement activities, so that they can be better integrated with the curriculum and create a stronger expectation of student engagement. Further exploration of the initiative and its anticipated impact on the student experience is found in sections 4.3 and 6. The year is now structured as follows:

Table 2: Enhanced Student Year

Induction 1 week

Teaching Period 1

12 weeks subject specific, 1 week employability, 1 week School/course

14 weeks

16

[0013] Degreeplus webpage

14

directed

University Week 1 week

Teaching Period 2

12 weeks subject specific, 1 week employability, 1 week School/course directed

14 weeks

Exams / preparation for Festivals 3 weeks

Festival Fortnight 2 weeks

32. Some pilot activity was undertaken in 2013/14, notably the Media School Festival Week17, which brought in a wide range of external contributors. The University will be evaluating patterns of student engagement during 2014/15, to assess how best to promote active participation by all students. 33. The University was one of the first in the sector to offer the Higher Education Achievement Record (HEAR)18 for all students, and is encouraging students to use Section 6 of the HEAR to register Degreeplus employability awards gained through co-curricular activity and any other certificated achievements that would help the student present a complete picture of their capability and achievements to employers. 34. From 2015/16, the University is introducing a programme called ‘Your Future Plan’19. That will support every student from Year 1 (Level 4) to draw up with their Personal Tutor an individualised plan for developing their wider skills and experience during their time at University so as to put them in the best position to achieve their ambitions when they leave. 35. Finally, the University introduced in 2014 a Growth Hub20 at the Oxstalls campus. This is a joint initiative with the Gloucestershire Local Enterprise Partnership (gFirst LEP) to form a shared, co-located base for business services and economic development in the county, bringing together staff of the LEP and the University’s Business Development Unit (BDU), and increasingly integrating with the teaching and research activities of the Business School. The Growth Hub initiative has been endorsed by, and allocated funding from, both HEFCE and the Government21. Its purpose is to increase the permeability of exchange between business and the University, so that all Schools (and the Business School in particular) can integrate business engagement within the development of our subject communities, and can work with businesses to offer placements, internships and other enhancement experience for students22. 36. The University and Students’ Union have selected this area of student employability as the Thematic Strand. This is addressed in more detail in section 7. Partnerships and Sustainability 37. Changes in Government policy over recent years have created challenges for the University and for the whole Higher Education sector. The combination of effects resulting from increased student fees, the removal of Student Number Controls, the expansion of new providers, and increased market orientation have required the University to become much 17

[0014] Media School Festival Week 18

[0015] Higher Education Achievement Report (HEAR) webpage 19

[0017] Your Future Plan: Personal Career Planning (UEC/153/14) 20

[0018] The Growth Hub webpage 21

[0019] Growth Hub Objectives - Extracts from the HEFCE Bid 22

[0412] Students receiving Institute of Directors membership through the Growth Hub

15

more focussed on creating a distinctive identity and positioning which allows us to compete successfully. 38. Central to that identity is the focus on the student experience summarised above, both in relation to core teaching and learning and in respect of students’ wider, co-curricular experience. That has brought many benefits and improvements. While the wider policy context has been, and remains, high risk, the University believes it has responded creatively and successfully to that challenge, sustaining levels of student recruitment, securing improvement in some key indicators such as the NSS and the DLHE, and introducing some major reforms to provide a better, richer experience for students. Looking ahead, the University will need to remain focused on its core mission, and agile and creative in responding to further change. Tight cost control, skilful performance management, and robust management of resources will remain essential. 39. A key part of the University’s positioning so that it can successfully deliver its mission within the current policy environment is investment in some key partnerships. The first area of partnership already noted above is partnership with the students. That is covered extensively later in this document. A second key partnership is with further education colleges that serve the county. Specifically, the University formed in 2012 a 10 year Strategic Alliance with Gloucestershire College and South Gloucestershire and Stroud College23. That commits the three organisations to work together to improve and expand the opportunities for progression to higher education, and the range and accessibility of higher education programmes, within Gloucestershire and the surrounding areas. 40. A third key partnership is with the gFirst LEP 24 , reflecting the University’s commitment to become central to economic development within the county, focused on business services which support high skill, innovative, knowledge-based growth. The formation of the Growth Hub as a partnership between the University and gFirst LEP is the major vehicle for achieving this goal. Both partnerships - with the FE colleges and with the LEP - are an expression of the University’s mission to promote the economic, social and cultural well-being of the communities of Gloucestershire. 41. The University continues its drive to seek sound international partnerships that bring the potential for growth and capacity building to the institution. The intention stated within the Strategic Plan was to develop a stronger and more strategic set of international partnerships. In pursuance of that aim, the University has introduced a more robust approach to the formation and review of partnerships, which is discussed in detail in later sections. Over the years since 2010, the University has worked hard to strengthen the quality of its international partnerships. This has meant that existing partnerships along with potential new ones are scrutinised on a regular basis to monitor their continuing validity in terms of adherence to the terms of contractual agreements and the University’s quality assurance processes, financial viability and potential development. The University is now working in partnership with INTO to provide pathways for incoming international students along with tailored English language courses. 42. The University enjoys an exceptional quality of estate overall at its Park, Francis Close Hall and Oxstalls campuses. This brings challenges in terms of maintenance costs and space utilisation. In recent years, the University has prioritised its capital budget to support the creation of suitable specialist learning spaces for new and expanding programmes (e.g. fashion, product design, film production), and in further strengthening our successful subject communities (e.g. sport and exercise, media, fine art, natural and social sciences). The next major investment in prospect is the redevelopment of the Pittville site to

23

[0020] Strategic Alliance 24

[0021] Gloucestershire Local Enterprise Partnership webpage

16

form an 800-bed student village, which would transform the University’s ability to offer a high quality of residential accommodation for first year and postgraduate students. 43. The University is proud of the reputation is has established in the field of sustainability. This work has been led by the Sustainability team, and the International Research Institute for Sustainability (IRIS)25. Under the sustainability programme for 2009 – 201526, sustainability has been embedded in all aspects of the University’s work, including teaching, research and its own operations and carbon footprint. This work has been recognised in many awards, with the University consistently achieving leading positions in the Green Gown and People and Planet annual awards. University Leadership, Decision Making and Development 44. Since the previous QAA Institutional Audit, the leadership of the University has changed significantly. 45. Professor Sir Peter Scott became the University’s Chair of Council 27 in 2011. Baroness Rennie Fritchie became the University’s Chancellor in 2012. Since the revision of the Articles of Association referred to in paragraph 2, 10 new external members of Council have been appointed, bringing a range of skills and expertise. 46. The University Council has ultimate responsibility for the educational direction and mission of the University, and the Vice-Chancellor reports directly to Council. The University Executive Committee 28 is responsible for the day-to-day operational running of the institution, and advises the Vice-Chancellor on general management and policy matters. 47. Stephen Marston was appointed Vice-Chancellor, Dr Richard O’Doherty as Deputy Vice-Chancellor, and Lucy Pow as Director of Human Resources, all in 2011. Maxine Melling was appointed as Pro Vice-Chancellor (Operations) in 2012. Dr Gwyn Jones was appointed Dean of Business in 2014. 48. The University Executive Committee (UEC) comprises the Vice-Chancellor, Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Pro Vice-Chancellor (Operations), Director of Finance and Planning, Director of Human Resources, Academic Registrar and University Secretary, and the three Deans of MAT, AS and Business. 49. University Executive Committee (UEC), along with the University Management Group (UMG), comprise all heads of central services and heads of schools. Meetings are held at least once a month between UEC and the UMG. These meetings are an important channel for communication and consultation on issues of strategic importance. 50. The report of the previous QAA Audit made a desirable recommendation to develop a clearer communication, evaluation and dissemination strategy in approaching change and developments (see also section 2 for further details on responses to the previous review). The senior team has put significant energy into a clearer approach for change and developments, ensuring clarity in consultation and decision-making, improved communications, and soliciting feedback to inform future plans. Major change projects are subject to widespread consultation and discussion across the University. The University makes effective use of its formal deliberative structures but has also learnt from its experience of the Change Academy approach.

25

[0022] International Research Institute for Sustainability webpage 26

[0023] Sustainability Strategy 2009-2015 27

[0024] Council Terms of Reference and Membership (Infonet) 28

[0025] University Executive Committee Terms of Reference and Membership 2014/15 (Infonet)

17

51. The communication channels include a monthly newsletter written by the Vice-Chancellor and distributed to all staff, briefings for all staff by the Vice-Chancellor held on each campus three times a year, and daily news updates on a revamped staff news section of the intranet. The University has sought to adopt an open and transparent approach to internal communications, making available to all University staff the results of, for example, staff surveys, Tribal financial benchmarking results, and survey results on staff satisfaction, and satisfaction with professional services. The results of the summer 2013 Staff Survey29 indicated 89% satisfaction with communications from the Vice-Chancellor, up 28% from the previous survey in 2011. Satisfaction with communication and information generally within the University was also up 19%, but only to 54% overall, indicating plenty of room for further improvement. This has been one component of the team and University level action planning to follow up the previous staff survey. 52. As part of the People and Culture Strategy, a significant investment in leadership development is ongoing. It includes senior team coaching, 360-degree feedback and coaching for all staff in leadership and structural management posts, and induction coaching for new senior staff. Overall, the staff satisfaction with these aspects of leadership (up 42% from the previous survey), and managing change and developments (up 24% from the previous survey), had improved markedly between 2011 and 2013, as evidenced in the Staff Satisfaction Survey.

29

[0026] Staff Survey Action Plan Progress Report (Infonet)

18

Section 2: The University’s track record in managing quality and standards QAA Institutional Audit 2010 53. The most recent QAA Institutional Audit of the University took place in February 2010. It resulted in judgments of broad confidence in the soundness of the institution’s current and likely future management of the quality of its academic courses and the academic standards of its awards. 54. The outcomes identified from this audit informed an initial action plan, monitored by Academic Standards and Quality Committee (ASQC)30. The Institutional Audit delivered two features of good practice, and three advisable and desirable recommendations which have been addressed as follows31: Features of good practice (a) The Admissions Policy, which brings together the principles and processes for considering applications, promotes a standardised approach across all faculties and comprehensively links to a number of sections of the UK Quality Code (QC) 55. The practices promoted by the Admissions Policy32 have been embedded across the University and enshrined in the Admissions guide. A central admissions provides a consistent service across the University, its operation was reviewed in 2013 to encompass postgraduate research applications via an online process. Further detail can be found in section 4.2. (b) the Helpzones, which provide an effective one-stop shop facility and enhance the access and level of support provided to students. 56. The Student Helpzones 33 continue to be an important aspect of providing a consistently high level of student support across the University’s three main campuses. Working closely with all relevant central professional services, the Students’ Union (SU) and the academic Schools, the Helpzones are a key aspect of the University’s provision to ensure a high quality student experience. In 2012, the University supplemented the Helpzones on each campus with a co-located Degreeplus office offering support on employability, internships and volunteering activities. Recommendations for action Advisable recommendations: (a) establish and formalise processes to ensure that the quality of learning opportunities for continuing students continues to be maintained once the proposed unified academic award incorporating new assessment regulations are introduced 57. This advisable recommendation was made in the immediate context of a transitional issue related to the major change the University was implementing in respect of the process of unifying its academic regulations for taught provision. In the roll out of the new unified

30

[0027] ASQC Terms of Reference and Membership 2014/15 (infonet) 31

[0028] Institutional Audit Action Plan July 2012 (AB/33/12) 32

[0029] Admissions Policy 33

[0030] Student Helpzones webpage

19

academic regulatory framework, the University was careful to ensure that continuing students were not disadvantaged by the impact of the new Academic Regulations for Taught Provision34 (ARTP) as from September 2010. A key aspect of the implementation of the new Regulations was to allow sufficient discretion to ensure that in the application of the new regulations no continuing students were disadvantaged. This action was completed in 2010/11 and is no longer an issue. (b) Implement and fully operate procedures for the rigorous monitoring of the success of postgraduate research programmes against internal and/or external indicators and targets 58. The introduction of an Annual Progress Board to formally review progress addressed this issue by enhancing monitoring at the level of the individual student. The annual outcomes, when aggregated, allow programme level monitoring and action where appropriate. Annual reports from the faculties are received at University Research Degrees Committee35 (URDC), and feed into the annual Action Plan. The Faculty Annual Reports include data on student admission, progression and awards for the provision within each Faculty. (c ) establish clearly defined mechanisms for formal progress reviews of postgraduate research students. 59. While face-to-face progress review with a Board is not required for students who make satisfactory progress, the introduction of the Annual Progress Report process in 2009/10 requires that all students whose progress is in question undergo a face-to-face review by the Board. Progress has to be signed off to the satisfaction of the Faculty Research Director as well as the relevant Research Supervisor. Since implementation of the new process in 2010, 78 students have been required to attend the Board, with outcomes as described in the table below. Table 3: Outcomes of Postgraduate Research Student Progression Boards

Progression Board Outcome 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Unconditional progression 1 6 2 0 0

Progression with conditions 5 27 14 1 12

Required to withdraw 6 0 1 1 1

Mitigating circumstances 0 1 0 0 0

Total 12 34 17 2 13

60. Further details of the University’s approach to the support of postgraduate research students’ learning experience is provided in section 4.11. Desirable recommendations: (d) introduce a systematic mechanism for monitoring minor changes on programmes between periodic reviews

34

[0031] Academic Regulations for Taught Provision (ARTP) 35

[0033] University Research Degrees Committee (URDC) Terms of Reference and Membership 2014/15 (Infonet)

20

61. The University has in place robust Programme Change Approval Panel36 (PCAP) procedures which were augmented to include regular monitoring of the extent to which courses have changed since the last validation or Periodic Review to maintain the currency of the programme specification. More detail on the University’s approach to course development, monitoring and review is addressed in sections 4.1 and 4.8. (e) clarify to students and staff the communication channels available to students to bring forward their views and be involved in quality management processes 62. Student views on their courses and the factors determining their experience are welcome and encouraged through both informal dialogue and formal arrangements for student representation. Informal dialogue is ongoing, and normally focuses on the module (Module Tutor) and course (Course Leader), but may involve a range of other academic and professional staff, and especially the Student Helpzones. Up until 2015 formal evaluation of every run of a module has taken place, resulting in evaluation and responses within the Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) for the Course. Recognising that changes were required to the traditional means of surveying in order to encourage a better response rate, from 2015 the University is moving to a model which uses a mid-term evaluation conducted at the level of the module coupled with formal evaluation at the end of the level for levels 4 and 5 students. Formal representation has included course representation for several years, but more recently the University has worked closely with the SU to ensure that students are more directly involved in (and from 2014 are leading) Campus Life Groups (CLGs) and Student Life Committee (SLC), to develop School level representation, and promote involvement in the design and development of new and revised courses, and their ongoing monitoring and review from a quality perspective. (f ) develop a clearer communication, evaluation and dissemination strategy in approaching change and developments. 63. In accordance with the new People and Culture 37 and Marketing and Communications38 strategies, the University has invested significantly in process and project management initiatives to ensure wider and more transparent communication and consultation about change. It has promoted a ‘You Said: We did’ approach to responding to issues raised by the student body. The recent consultation process, undertaken to develop and engage staff with the Academic Strategy39, is an example of the way in which the University approaches the communication and discussion of significant strategy developments. The Vice-Chancellor has adopted a clear communications approach via:

regular meetings between University Executive Committee (UEC) and University Management Group (UMG);

Keep in Touch (KIT) meetings of the Students’ Union Liaison Group (SULG)40;

regular road shows across the University three times a year to communicate messages on key changes and developments and to answer questions all staff, and regular use of the Vice-Chancellor’s Communications site within Infonet to communicate via a monthly newsletter issued to all staff41.

36

[0034] Academic Quality and Partnerships Handbook – Section 1; [0156] Programme Change Approval Panel Template

37 [0005] People and Culture Strategy 2013-2017

38 [0035] Marketing and Communications Strategy 2013-2017 (Infonet)

39 [0006] Academic Strategy 2014-2017 (Infonet)

40 [0036] Exemplar agendas and minutes of Students’ Union Liaison Group meetings

41 [0037] Vice-Chancellor Communications Page (Infonet)

21

OfSTED inspection of Initial Teacher Education (ITE) June 201042 64. In June 2010 the institution underwent an Ofsted inspection of the University’s Initial Teacher Education (ITE) leading to qualified teacher status (QTS) in the primary and secondary age ranges. The University delivered the primary programmes in a close partnership with schools and local authorities in the area and the secondary provision as part of the Gloucestershire Initial Teacher Education Partnership (GITEP). This is a partnership between the Gloucestershire Association of Secondary Head teachers and the University. The inspection resulted in an outstanding rating being awarded to primary provision and a ‘good with outstanding features’ rating being awarded to secondary provision. The report focused on a number of strengths of the partnership and its initial teacher training programmes. These strengths have continued to provide a basis for continuing improvement of the relationship and the provision:

the strength of the partnerships between the University and schools and the close involvement of head teachers;

the excellent relationships and communications between all trainers throughout the partnerships;

the key role of the University in using its expertise in initial teacher education to provide secure management and quality assurance;

frameworks that can be used flexibly to best suit different needs within these strong partnerships;

the effectiveness of the partnerships in identifying and meeting local and regional needs and the extremely high proportion of former trainees employed at all levels in partnership schools;

the close relationship between the different strands of provision and the beneficial impact of close collaboration on improvements across the provision;

the clear place of initial teacher education within a continuum of professional development within the partnerships and in schools;

the way in which head teachers understand and use initial teacher education as part of whole-school improvement and the impact this has had across the local authority.

65. The University was asked to consider the following recommendations to improve further the quality of the outcomes for trainees:

using the excellent tracking and trainee monitoring systems to ensure that all trainees are set challenging and progressive developmental targets;

using the data generated by this system to monitor rigorously the impact of any actions and developments on the achievement of specific groups of trainees.

66. These issues have been reflected in the further development of the provision and partnerships were addressed through the required action planning process. The University is currently preparing for an anticipated Ofsted inspection of ITE provision in summer 2015. QAA Cause for Concern 201243 67. In autumn 2012 the QAA carried out an investigation into the collaborative partnership arrangements between the University and Williams College under the auspices of the QAA’s Causes for Concern scheme. The report was published in December 2012 42

[0284] University of Gloucestershire Ofsted Reports 43

[0038] QAA Williams College Report

22

and identified a number of weaknesses in the management of the partnership. The University developed an action plan in response to the report. This built on work that the University had put in train from 2011 to strengthen its management of collaborative partnerships, and specifically to tackle issues in the partnership with Williams College. The development of the University’s approach in ensuring that all our partnerships are secure and well-managed is set out in section 4.10 of this report. In July 2014 the QAA Board approved the University’s progress44 in addressing the actions from the original report. 68. The University takes account of the institutional learning which may emerge from outcomes of QAA external reviews45 of partners via consideration at meetings of AQSC46. This approach enables the University to:

recognise and underline the strengths of its current range of partners;

identify any specified areas for development between itself and the partner; and

develop and strengthen its approach to the management of partnerships.

69. A number of professionally facing academic areas of the University’s provision are also subject to scrutiny by a range of professional and statutory bodies (see Appendix 1). Most recent accreditations/endorsements include the successful review of the Social Work award by the Health and Care Professions Council and the College of Social Work in September 201447. Six of the University’s media and arts courses have also achieved the Skillset kitemark.48

70. The University is recognized for its work in the area of sustainability. For example ISO 1400149 registration has been achieved in recognition of its sustainability performance across all departments and in the curriculum. The University was runner-up in the Times Higher Education Award for Outstanding Contribution to Sustainable Development in 201350. The University’s professional and academic departments have been recognised in the EAUC Green Gown Awards in areas such as ICT, Procurement, Catering, Transport, Enterprise and Courses. Staff from the Sustainability Team led the HEFCE LGM-funded Leading Curriculum Change for Sustainability project in partnership with QAA and helped to develop the June 2014 QAA publication Education for Sustainable Development: Guidance for UK providers51. Most recently, the University was ranked 6th in the 2015 People and Planet Green League52.

44

[0039] University Response to QAA Causes for Concern Recommendations (ASQC/167/13) 45

[0043] Review for Educational Oversight (REO): Central Film School ; School of Business and Law, Williams College, Markfield Institute of Higher Education, Redcliffe College and Review of College Higher Education (RCHE)/Higher Education Review (HER): South Gloucestershire and Stroud College, Moorlands College, Herefordshire and Ludlow College, City of Bristol College

46 [0437] Academic Standards and Quality Committee minutes 19 June 2014 (minute ASQC.14.51); [0382]

Academic Standards and Quality Committee 25 September 2014 (minute ASQC.14.89) 47

[0046] BSc Social Work - Health Care and Professions Council Approval Request 2014 48

For example Photojournalism & Documentary Photography and Film Production: [0484] Photojournalism and Documentary Photography course webpage and [0485] Film Production course webpage

49 [0048] University Environmental Management System ISO 4001

50 [0049] Times Higher Education Awards 2013 – Outstanding Contribution to Sustainable Development

Shortlist 51

[0050] QAA Education for Sustainable Development 52

[0486] People and Planet Green League website

23

Section 3: Setting and maintaining academic standards

The framework for Academic governance 71. The University recognises that academic standards are better established and sustained in a quality assurance environment, which is robust in its judgements, self-critical, open and receptive to external peer review, and supportive in its commitment to the continuous enhancement of quality. This approach is essential to the development and maintenance of learning and teaching and research. It provides a framework and supports an institutional culture of critical practice that challenges all members of the University’s community to: build on a solid base of knowledge and practice; draw on local best practice, external links and experience; extend knowledge, understanding and abilities; ensure the best quality learning, teaching and research standards. To this end the University has developed a rigorous and responsive system to ensure that (a) it is able to meet its corporate responsibility for the academic standards of its awards and (b) the ways in which those standards are established are maintained and measured nationally against the awards of other institutions. The vision for the academic direction and development of the University is encapsulated in the Academic Strategy 53 , incorporating learning and teaching and research. Full details of the framework used to manage, maintain and enhance academic standards and quality are found in the recently revised (February 2015) Academic Quality and Partnerships Handbook (AQPH)54 and in the Research Degrees Student Handbook55. 72. In the current shifting context of higher education the University has had to be responsive in developing its provision. Balancing the need to be flexible while ensuring the maintenance of standards, is fundamental to our academic governance arrangements. The framework for academic governance has been developed to ensure that it is responsive and robust. 73. The University’s Committee webpages provide the overview of the governance structure, the committees, and the Terms of Reference and membership. Academic Board56 (AB) is the deliberative body with responsibility for the oversight of setting and maintaining academic standards and the assurance and enhancement of the quality of learning opportunities. Day-to-day responsibility rests with Academic Standards and Quality Committee (ASQC)57 and Faculty Academic Standards and Quality Committees58 (FASQCs) for taught provision, University Research Degrees Committee 59 (URDC) for research degrees, and with Collaborative Provision Committee60 (CPC). Other key committees are Academic Regulations Committee61 (ARC) and Academic Portfolio Committee62 (APC).

53

[0006] Academic Strategy 2014-2017 (Infonet) 54

[0034] Academic Quality and Partnerships Handbook 55

[0051] Research Degrees Student Handbook 2014/15 56

[0052] Academic Board (AB) Terms of Reference and Membership 2014/15 (Infonet); [0053] Academic Board and its Committees - Structure (Infonet)

57 [0027] ASQC Terms of Reference and Membership 2014/15 (Infonet)

58 [0498] FASQC Business School and Institute of Education & Public Service Terms of Reference and

Membership 2014/15; [0499] FASQC Applied Sciences Terms of Reference and Membership 2014/15; [0500] FASQC Media, Arts and Technology Terms of Reference and Membership 2014/15

59 [0033] University Research Degrees Committee Terms of Reference and Membership 2014/15 (Infonet)

60 [0055] Collaborative Provision Committee (CPC) Terms of Reference and Membership 2014/15 (Infonet)

61 [0032] Academic Regulations Committee Terms of Reference and Membership 2014/15 (Infonet)

62 [0056] Academic Portfolio Committee (APC) Terms of Reference and Membership 2014/15 (Infonet)

24

74. ASQC delegates responsibility to FASQCs for quality, standards and enhancement at Faculty level. It maintains oversight by requiring submission of FASQCs minutes63. In turn, ASQC submits a comprehensive annual report 64 to Academic Board. This contains a summary of outcomes from the main quality assurance processes such as External Examiners’ (EE) reports, outcomes from validation, review and partnership approval events. An action plan is approved by Academic Board which informs the plan of work for ASQC and its subcommittees in the subsequent academic year. The Academic Board annual report is also submitted to the University Council. In this way, governance is assured at both Faculty and University level.

75. The University has a longstanding and well-established set of academic quality assurance principles incorporated into institutional practice and culture. These principles are the result of careful consideration and reflective development over the lifetime of the University and predecessor institutions. These principles are:

Evaluation of academic quality is owned and takes place at the closest point possible to the actual process of teaching and learning; as exemplified by the role of Boards of Studies (BoS) in taking responsibility for the overall health of the academic course;

Quality assurance operates as a continuous process, as exemplified through annual monitoring and recent developments to enhance this process;

Quality assurance is a dynamic and not a static process, and is closely linked with other internal processes as exemplified most recently by the work undertaken to understand the NSS outcomes in the context of our quality assurance framework;

Quality assurance is forward-looking rather than retrospective and reactive as exemplified by the Internal Quality Audits (IQAs) and the development of initiatives such as Assessment Feedback65 and Accreditation of Prior Learning (APL)66;

There are reciprocal links between quality assurance and quality enhancement so that all quality processes should generate enhancement as well as provide assurance as exemplified by IQA’s;

The University must be responsive to national developments, and in particular the way in which institutional practice is informed by the QAA’s UK Quality Code for Higher Education67. At the same time the University must remain rooted in its mission and values as exemplified by the mapping of policies and procedures against chapters of the Quality Code.

76. The University’s Academic Regulations for Taught Provision (ARTP) provide a clear and consistent basis for the structure and operations of all undergraduate and postgraduate taught programmes and the taught elements of research degrees. The Academic Regulations for Research Degree Provision (ARRDP) provide the governance framework for all other elements of research degrees (see section 4.11). The ARTP apply to standard on-campus delivery as well as to programmes franchised to and validated at collaborative

63

[0381] Academic Standards and Quality Committee minutes 21 November 2013 (minute ASQC.13.160.1.1); [0382] Academic Standards and Quality Committee minutes 25 September 2014 (minute ASQC.14.102.3)

64 [0058] ASQC Annual Reports for 2013, 2014 (AB/06/13) (AB/06/14)

65 [0328] IQA Assessment Feedback Audit Brief 2013/14 (ASQC/14/13b); [0327] IQA Assessment Feedback

Panel minutes of 31 May 2013 (ASQC/97/13); [0264] IQA Assessment Feedback Action Plan 2013/14 (ASQC/153/13)

66 [0329] IQA APL Audit Brief 2011/12; [0330] IQA APL Panel minutes of 6 June 2012 (ASQC/133/12); [0331]

IQA APL Action Plan 2012/13 (ASQC/160/12); [0332] IQA APL Policy and Procedures update (ASQC/14/13a) 67

[0298] QAA B5 Student Engagement Consultation Survey - Response from UoG; [0381] Academic Quality and Standards Committee minutes 21 November 2013 (minutes ASQC.13.151.1, 2); [0433] Academic Quality and Standards Committee minutes 19 June 2014 (minutes ASQC.13.51.2,3,4)

25

partners (see section 4.10). Variation to a small number of provisions in the regulations may be agreed by Academic Board to allow for Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies (PSRB) requirements68. 77. The academic regulations for both taught provision and research degrees are supported and applied through the University’s Assessment Principles69 These provide a comprehensive framework for the consistent application of the regulations throughout the University’s learning and teaching activities. 78. The AQPH70, ARTP and Assessment Principles apply to and provide the framework for the governance of academic standards of all of the University’s awards. They provide details of the University’s current approach to the establishment, maintenance, evaluation, and development of academic quality assurance and standards. This is a continuously evolving area and the University takes regular opportunities to refresh and reconsider the ARTP (on an annual basis) and to participate in relevant national consultations and discussions, as well as monitoring external developments to ensure that its policies and procedures remain informed by current sound practice.

UK and European reference points for academic standards Expectation A1: In order to secure threshold academic standards, Degree Awarding Bodies: a) Ensure that the requirements of the FHEQ are met by:

Positioning their qualifications at the appropriate level of the framework

Ensuring that programme learning outcomes align with the relevant qualification descriptor in the framework

Naming qualifications in accordance with the titling conventions in FHEQ

Awarding qualifications to mark the achievement of positively defined learning outcomes

b) consider and take account of QAA’s guidance on qualification characteristics71 c) if they award UK credit, assign credit values and design programmes that align with the national credit framework. d) consider and take account of relevant subject benchmark statements 79. In order to meet the QAA UK Quality Code for Higher Education Expectations the University aligns the level of its awards and qualifications with the FHEQ through course development, validation, annual monitoring, the course amendment process (PCAP), periodic review and the EE reporting processes. The University secures academic standards and ensures that the requirements of the FHEQ are met principally through the framework provided by the ARTP which contains a full set of the award titles offered at the University and which are aligned with the FHEQ. 80. The levels and titles of awards are shaped by the FHEQ with programme content and expectations driven by the relevant subject benchmarking statements 72 . The consideration of external reference points for postgraduate taught (PGT) and postgraduate

68

[0060] ARTP Appendix 1 - List of approved variations to Academic Regulations (Regulation 7.13,7.33) 69

[0061] Assessment Principles 70

[0034] Academic Quality and Partnerships Handbook 71

[0063] Professional Doctorate in Sport & Exercise validation 18 June 2014 (approved by ASQC 17 July 2014); [0064] MA/PGD Landscape Architecture revalidation 17 July 2012 (approved by ASQC 27 September 2014);

72 Exemplar validation documents (including benchmark statements): [0340] BEng Integrated Engineering

validation 26 June 2014 (approved by ASQC 17 July 2014); [0428] BSc (Hons) Community and Health Management (Level 6) validation 3 June 2014 (approved by ASQC on 19 June 2014); [0262] FdA Sports Coaching at UCY validation 3 June 2014 (approved by ASQC 19 June 2014)

26

research (PGR) courses is more complex. The University draws on a range of sources in this respect including industry or employment sector expectations, PSRB requirements, cognate benchmark statements where they exist and European indicators of expectations at Levels 7 and 8. The validation processes for all taught undergraduate and postgraduate awards confirm that the appropriate level of study and total credit value are in line with the national frameworks and the subject content and learning outcomes are appropriately benchmarked. External Panel Members (EPMs) as members of the validation panels are asked to confirm that academic standards are set at the appropriate level. Credit levels, award titles and learning outcomes are considered appropriately and confirmed at validation. This approval process includes verification that the level of the award is appropriate, courses are mapped against the FHEQ and extensive consultation is conducted with external academics via the initial development team and also through the appointment of an EPM to the validation panel. Where necessary, the course development stage and the validation event explore and verify alignment with the qualification characteristics, with external verification at each stage. 81. Awards are built on a credit accumulation system drawing on NICATS level descriptors. In addition to assessing compliance with national frameworks and standards for contents and outcomes, validation panels consider progression through programmes, that suitable external advice has been sought and considered, and that the external reference points are appropriate and incorporated into the programme. Further, although less formally structured, external referencing is provided by University staff being actively involved in a wide range of external institutions including external examining73, involvement in quality assurance debates nationally; work with PSRBs and other forms of external engagement. 82. In addition to these external reference points, the active role EEs play in course oversight and in providing advice on developments and course currency, as well as staff involvement in relevant PSRB, industry and scholarly networks, means that there is continual input to courses on both academic currency and standards. In addition, the regular cycle of Periodic Review and Revalidation (PRR) draws on similar sources of external advice and involvement as during initial validation. Furthermore, the expectations of the UK Quality Code are implicit in and have shaped the University’s approach to annual monitoring (see section 4.8) and the regular provision for course amendment (PCAP) (see section 4.1). External examiners are asked to confirm on an annual basis that the FHEQ and award level benchmark statements continue to be met. 83. The APC approves the proposed award title as proposed by the Programme Approval Form (PAF) or Planning Approval Form (Collaborative) (PAC). As the validation event confirms compliance with the ARTP which set out the award titles the University offers, it is effectively checked twice. In the rare instances where the development of the course post APC leads to changes in the title then APC is asked to reconsider the new title74 and approve before the course can be granted final approval via ASQC. 84. Programme outcomes are considered and approved at validation and thereafter may only be amended via the PRR or, for minor changes, the PCAP processes.75 Development teams will normally include experienced members of staff who are familiar with the theory and practice of assigning credit values that meet the criteria of the national credit framework. The views of the development team on these matters are strengthened by external academic consultation. They are tested by both the EPM and internal members of the validation panel. Course development teams are required to state that the development has

73

[0326] UoG Staff as External Examiners 74

[0385] Academic Portfolio Committee minutes 7 October 2014 (minute APC.14.53.1) 75

In cases where an immediate course amendment is required by the relevant PSRB, this is usually agreed by Chair’s Action and confirmed at the next PCAP.

27

been informed by the relevant subject benchmark statement where one is available. This is always considered during the validation process and it is an area that an EPM will be specifically directed to focus upon.

Academic governance arrangements and Degree Awarding bodies’ academic frameworks and regulations Expectation A2.1: In order to secure their academic standards, degree-awarding bodies establish transparent and comprehensive academic frameworks and regulations to govern how they award academic credit and qualifications. 85. The ARTP (and ARRDP) provide an effective and transparent framework to govern the award of academic credit, qualifications and naming protocols. The University is confident that the regulatory framework supported by published principles and procedures provides the basis for consistency in assessment. This is achieved through the adoption and routine employment of level descriptors, module descriptors, grade descriptors, and the use of learning outcomes and the assessment criteria which they generate. This ensures that the expectations against which students’ work will be assessed are transparent and consistently applied. Any changes to existing award titles are approved by APC and presented for consideration to Academic Board. 86. Taught courses follow a modular framework and use the principle of credit accumulation. ARTP governs all taught modules, courses and awards. Research Degrees are governed by the ARRDP76, with taught elements of research degrees under the ARTP. 87. The ARTP came into effect from September 2010 as indicated in paragraph 57. The ARC ensures the University’s Academic Regulations are reviewed annually and updated, and reports to ASQC on all proposed amendments, with recommendations submitted to Academic Board for final approval77. The Module and Award Boards of Examiners (MBEs and ABEs) are responsible for confirming that University regulations have been correctly applied in determining assessment outcomes, a student’s right to continue study or on completion of study the qualification and, where relevant, classification of awards. Definitive records of individual programmes and qualifications Expectation A2.2: Degree Awarding Bodies maintain a definitive record of each programme and qualification that they approve which constitutes the reference point for delivery and assessment of the programme, its monitoring and review, and for the provision of records of study to students and alumni. 88. The University maintains a record of the cycle of development of a course through approval to validation and then to setting up the module and course record on the University Student Management System (SITS). This system is able to provide a range of information and evidence to guide course oversight and management. The essential, day-to-day reference point for programme information is the courses database78. This database is one of the central operational tools used by FASQCs and CPC in their annual work cycles.

76

[0065] Research Degrees Regulations 77

[0066] Exemplar Academic Regulations Committee minutes showing amendments to ARTP (minute ARC.14.38) and approval by Academic Board (minute AB.14.53) June/July 2014; [0067] Exemplar Academic Regulations Committee minutes showing amendments to ARTP (minute ARC.13.48) and approval by Academic Board (minute AB.13.41) June/July 2013

78 [0309] Applied Sciences Courses Database as at September 2014 (APC/71/14); [0310] Business School and

Institute Courses Database as at September 2014 (APC/72/14); [0311] Media Arts and Technology Courses Database as at September 2014 (APC/73/14)

28

Module descriptors and course maps are held on SITS. Programme specifications are confirmed at the point of validation and subsequently are available in course handbooks. Course documentation pertaining to courses running before 2005/06 is archived electronically79 where available or in hard copy. 89. PCAP provides a mechanism to amend a course map, module learning outcomes or assessment patterns on the basis of course board reviews in preparation for the next academic year. Module and course amendments are managed though the PCAP processes in each Faculty. Once changes have been approved the amended SITS database then becomes the definitive record and where necessary the programme specification is amended and updated. As part of the PCAP, changes to courses since validation are noted, with evidence in the form of each year’s course map80. This allows the review panel in each case to assess the extent and impact of change. If the panel considers the extent of change to course design and programme learning outcomes has been significant 81 it can recommend that a Periodic Review of the course be brought forward82. Design and approval of modules, programmes and qualifications Expectation A3.1: Degree Awarding Bodies establish and consistently implement processes for the approval of taught programmes and research degrees that ensure that academic standards are set at a level which meets the UK threshold standard for the qualification and in accordance with their own academic frameworks and regulations 90. The procedure for approval of taught and research degrees is set at institutional level and is applied to all developments by the Faculty Heads of Quality and Standards (FHQS) in each Faculty. The Academic Quality and Partnership Office (AQPO) – formerly known as the Quality and Standards Team (QST) - ensures that all due processes (as outlined in the AQPH) governing approval, monitoring and review of modules and courses are followed and duly reported through ASQC to Academic Board in summary form83. 91. As explored more fully in section 4.1, the University is working towards a more systematic means of managing the development and maintenance of its academic portfolio and is introducing an annual strategic review of the portfolio from 2014/15. The role of APC in oversight of this development is crucial and builds on its role in considering new course developments. In addition to this new strategic approach, APC will continue to receive completed Programme Approval Forms (PAFs or for collaborative provision PACs) for consideration84 . Key internal stakeholders, including professional services departments such as Communications, Marketing and Student Recruitment, and Library and Information

79

[0068] Module Descriptor Archive 80

[0235] Exemplar BA Landscape Architecture Course Board minutes (minute MAT.LAA.14.25), PCAP form, and PCAP minutes June/July 2014 (minute PCAP.MAT.14.06); [0236] Exemplar PGT Sport & Leisure programmes Course Board minutes (minute AS/PG/14.22), PCAP form, and PCAP minutes (pages 29-31,36) June/July 2014; [0361] Exemplar LLB Course Board minutes (minute BEPS/LLB/BS/14.11), PCAP, and PCAP minutes (PCAP.BEPS.14.02) February 2014

81 [0034] Academic Quality and Partnerships Handbook – Section 1

82 Examples of significant course changes resulting in a PRR: [0338] PRR MA Journalism 24 June 2013

(approved by ASQC 15 July 2013); [0339] PRR BA Film Studies 6 March 2014 (approved by ASQC 1 May 2014)

83 [0069] Exemplar ASQC Summary Reports to Academic Board (17 July 2014 & 25 September 2014)

84 [0351] PAC Open Learning Centre (APC/38/14); [0352] PAC Swindon Schools Teaching Alliance (APC/30/14);

[0353] PAC Yeovil (APC/02/14a); [0354] PAC City of Bristol College (APC/78/13) [0387] PAF BEng Integrated Engineering 2014 (APC/63/13); [0388] PAF BA Hons Early Childhood Studies with Early Years Teaching Status (APC/31/14); [0390] PAF National Governing Bodies (example PGT Sports Coaching) (APC/22/14)

29

Services (LIS), are able to comment on the implications from the perspective of their respective service of the proposed curriculum development via the comment function on the SharePoint site. Final approval to proceed to validation is always granted by APC. 92. Course development is led by a small development team comprising senior staff members with development experience and, where appropriate, employer or other sector-specific advisors. Proposals are required to demonstrate engagement with and responses to external academic advisors. There is extensive external input to and evaluation of the academic content and design of courses at the development and validation stages85, which commence after APC approval. Course development is informed by, and takes account of, inter alia, relevant benchmarking statements where they exist, staff engagement with scholarly developments in their field, advice from industry (where appropriate) or others with knowledge of the sector. Assessment of learning outcomes Expectation A3.2: Degree Awarding Bodies ensure that qualifications and credit are awarded only where the achievement of relevant learning outcomes has been demonstrated through assessment both the UK threshold standards and the academic standards have been satisfied. 93. Programme learning outcomes are set out in each Programme Specification as approved during the validation of the course. Any amendments to those learning outcomes must be agreed by the relevant Course BoS and approved by PCAP on the basis of changes to or the addition of modules. Significant changes to programme learning outcomes can trigger a PRR. The Programme Specification identifies the alignment with the appropriate subject benchmark statement and any other external benchmarks. It also includes the course map which specifies which modules are compulsory and any other additional requirements for the named award. The Programme Specification also identifies where programme learning outcomes are assessed. Learning outcomes are assessed at course level in line with the growing emphasis on programme level information in student transcripts and through mechanisms such as the Diploma Supplement and Higher Education Achievement Report (HEAR) (see section 4.4). Learning outcomes are articulated for each module within the Module Descriptor. Learning outcomes for modules and courses are considered and approved through the validation process and amended via PCAP. 94. The University has rigorous procedures for marking and moderation as well as for the operation of Boards of Examiners (BoEs) (see section 4.6, and in terms of collaborative partners see section 4.10). An EE is appointed to review and report on student work and achievement in each module to confirm that threshold academic standards have been met and are aligned to the FHEQ and the relevant benchmark statements. EEs also confirm that assessments are appropriate to measure student achievement against the intended learning outcomes and that assessment processes are appropriate. Chief External Examiners (CEEs), as members of Award and Progression BoEs, consider and report on the extent to which awards have been made in line with the ARTP. As such, external examiners play a key role in ensuring the maintenance of UK threshold standards and academic standards (see section 4.7). Following rounds of Award and Progression Boards of Examiners, ‘wash-up’ meetings have been conducted informally to explore common themes for further consideration. These are in addition to individual courses formally reporting on student achievement through the Annual Monitoring process. These wash-up meetings are now an

85

[0340] BEng Integrated Engineering validation 26 June 2014 (approved by ASQC 17 July 2014); [0389] National Governing Bodies Postgraduate Awards (approved by ASQC 13 November 2014); [0341] BA Sports Journalism validation 6 March 2014 (approved by ASQC 1 May 2014); [0428] BSc (Hons) Community and Health Management (Level 6) validation 3 June 2014 (approved by ASQC on 19 June 2014)

30

area of our practice to formalise to ensure a systematic and deliberate approach to exploration of common themes and cross-cutting issues. Monitoring and review of alignment with UK threshold academic standards and degree awarding bodies’ own standards Expectation A3.3: Degree Awarding Bodies ensure that processes for the monitoring and review of programmes are implemented which explicitly address whether the UK threshold academic standards are achieved and whether the academic standards required by the individual Degree Awarding Body are being maintained. 95. The University currently operates a comprehensive end-of-year Annual Monitoring Review (AMR) which takes account of course governance and management, student performance and proposed amendments to ensure standards in terms of design, content, performance and currency. Changes in the context of higher education and the University’s intention to put greater focus on continuous, timely quality enhancement have led to a comprehensive revision of the University’s approach to annual monitoring. The University is introducing a Continuous Improvement Monitoring (CIM) process highlighting regular ‘academic health checks’ and the development of responses to information as it becomes available. This new process will be phased in from 2015 for a full implementation from 2015/16. This process will draw on available statistical data (e.g. NSS, DLHE, module evaluations, outcomes of examining boards) and outputs from other quality assurance processes. These sources of information include EEs’ reports and any PSRB or programme review outcomes. It is expected that this new approach will enable staff at varying levels to see where there are areas of emerging strength and good practice, as well as areas where attention or further work may be required, in a more timely fashion (see sections 4.8 and 4.10). CIM is supplemented by the well-established PRR process where every course is subjected to review and revalidation every five years or less. Through this process, data relating to the external environment and the performance of the course is reviewed, resulting in a revalidation that takes account of these data in bringing forward proposals for revalidation. As well as considering future students, the process requires the careful consideration of continuing students, and the arrangements for phasing out old provision and phasing in new provision. Student performance and student feedback is a key element of the PRR data, and students themselves are involved in this process. Externality Expectation A3.4: In order to be transparent and publicly accountable, degree-awarding bodies use external and independent expertise at key stages of setting and maintaining academic standards to advise on whether

UK threshold academic standards are set, delivered and achieved

the academic standards of the degree-awarding body are appropriately set and maintained.

96. Externality is a fundamental building block of the University’s approach to the setting and maintenance of academic standards. This is predicated on ensuring an independent view. In order to be transparent and publicly accountable, the University makes extensive and careful use of externals and independent expertise at the key stages of developing, approving, monitoring and reviewing and assuring the quality of its programmes (see sections 4.1, 4.6 and 4.7) and the academic standards of its awards. To this end, the University has aligned practice and processes with the relevant chapters of the UK Quality Code particularly those pertaining to external examining and programme design, approval, monitoring and review.

31

97. As well as ensuring that every subject area and module has suitable EEs and that Boards of Examiners have appropriate CEEs (for more details see Section 4.7) the University makes use of EPMs in the following quality assurance processes: Validation of programmes; PRR; IQAs86; Partnership Approval; Partnership Reviews.

98. The University welcomes the independent perspective on the efficacy with which it sets and maintains its academic standards. Further details of its approach to and criteria for appointment of external advisors can be found in the AQPH87. 99. EPMs must have sufficient experience and expertise 88 , not only in the subject discipline but also in developing, delivering and assessing courses in UK higher education providers to a level equivalent to the provision under review or examination. Where relevant, experience of teaching and assessing postgraduate research students, or experience of managing collaborative arrangements is also required. 100. Where courses benefit from PSRB recognition or accreditation, this may require additional oversight and external scrutiny from the PSRB to ensure compliance with professional criteria and/or competencies89. PSRB approved provision may also be subject to extensive additional external scrutiny to confirm compliance with professional criteria and/or competencies. Summary of effectiveness with which the University meets the Expectations of this judgement area: 101. The University meets the Expectations of the UK Quality Code in respect of the setting and maintenance of academic standards. In evaluating current processes and procedures, the University demonstrates a number of strengths:

A clear and easily accessible set of regulations and guiding assessment principles underpinning all provision;

Sound use of externality in all key processes for the monitoring and review of academic standards.

102. The University recognizes that at the conclusion of award and progression Boards of Examiners it is desirable to build on the concept of informal wash-up meetings; in particular, to evaluate the data relating to student achievement resulting from the faculty award and progression Boards of Examiners. This formalises the opportunity for Chairs to share good practice.

86

Utilisation of External Panel Members in Internal Quality Audits – e.g. Academic Review Tutor IQA: [0299] IQA ART Panel minutes of 3 June 2013 (ASQC/83/13); [0300] IQA ART Audit Brief April 2013 (ASQC/45/13); [0304] IQA ART Briefing Letter May 2013; [0301] IQA ART Progress against the Action Plan November 2013 (ASQC/163/13); [0303] IQA ART Consultation Summary and agreed response February 2014; [0305] IQA ART Schedule of Actions and Responsibilities March 2014

87 [0034] Academic Quality and Partnerships Handbook – Section 6

88 [0427] Certificate of Higher Education in Diabetic Retinopathy Screening validation 12 February 2014

(approved by ASQC on 1 May 2014); [0341] BA Sports Journalism validation 6 March 2014 (approved by ASQC 1 May 2014)

89 [0342] AMR MA PGD Landscape Architecture 10 October 2014 (pages 44 to 49); [0410] Landscape Institute

Accreditation for Landscape Architecture Courses 2014/15; [0411] British Psychological Society Accreditation for Psychology Courses 2014/15

32

Section 4: Assuring and enhancing academic quality 4.1 Programme design, development and approval Expectation B1: Higher education providers, in discharging their responsibilities for setting and maintaining academic standards and assuring and enhancing the quality of learning opportunities, operate effective processes for the design, development and approval of programmes. 103. The approach and processes for programme design, development and approval are longstanding and well developed. In line with the ambition of the Academic Strategy90 to develop attractive and competitive subject communities, the University is introducing an Annual Strategic review of its academic portfolio from 2014/1591. This process seeks to strengthen subjects by ensuring investment in the core underpinning courses and activities, and taking informed decisions to cease activities that no longer add the required value. The new process will carefully scrutinise the range of underpinning courses, and resulting decisions to close courses and develop new courses. The aim of the new process is to ensure the academic portfolio:

builds on subject strengths of the University, ensuring a critical mass of expertise and experience and a high degree of alignment of activities;

recognises buoyant subjects, reflecting the interests and career aspirations of prospective students;

recognises the local economic context, ensuring an increased alignment of the course offer and the economic landscape in Gloucestershire;

takes account of the requisite components of a high quality student experience beyond the course itself. This includes: progression pathways; related courses; co-curricular opportunities; and employment opportunities;

considers professional body recognition and potential for student accreditation & exemption and course endorsement;

takes account of a range of key information on recent subject performance. This includes: Enquiry, Application, Enrolment Ratios; Entry Tariffs; Recruitment Trends; Student Satisfaction; Student Retention; Degree Classifications; Graduate Employment; Financial Contribution levels; Research & Enterprise income.

104. Central to the new strategic approach is an intention to draw this important process into an annual cycle that allows it to articulate with the University’s business planning processes to ensure decisions about both new course proposals and existing courses are made by the appropriate colleagues, using clear criteria and that these decisions are informed by a range of relevant data that is drawn from an agreed evidence base. The aim is to move the consideration of all proposals for course development to one Academic Portfolio Review event to be held in May in each Faculty. This event will also review all current provision. 105. The strategic development of the academic portfolio is central to the role and remit of the Academic Portfolio Committee (APC). APC will have oversight of the Annual Strategic Review and will ensure that it aligns academic portfolio review with the faculty business planning cycle. This will enable the outcomes of both processes to inform strategic decisions about development and investment. The review will also utilise the outcomes of the individual course annual monitoring, now known as the Continuous Improvement Monitoring

90

[0318] Annual Strategy Review of the Academic Portfolio (AB/54/14) 91

[0488] Academic Portfolio paper to University Council (C/03/15); [0510] Academic Portfolio Review (full paper) February 2015

33

(CIM), and reflect the element of the University’s work with collaborative partners, including the Strategic Alliance. 106. As this is a transition phase for the University, it is important in terms of context to clarify how new course developments and approvals have operated up to this point. Formerly proposals for new home provision were generally initiated within a faculty. This was usually as a result of faculty business planning92 activity identifying the need for a development and most often involving both the Subject Group Leaders (SGLs) and Heads of School (HoSs). An initial proposal was developed within the relevant School at the closest point to delivery and then considered by the Dean of the relevant Faculty93. If approved the proposal proceeded to the next stage and an individual was nominated to complete a Programme Approval Form (PAF)94. As noted at the outset of this section, while continuing the longstanding approach to individual course development the University is moving towards a more rigorous and evidence-based approach to managing the portfolio as a whole. 107. Planning approval for the development of new University courses, or the substantial revision of existing courses, is obtained through a central University approval process which is set out in Academic Quality and Partnerships Handbook (APQH) 95 . This includes additional guidance for the development of off-campus programmes delivered through others. This approach ensures appropriate institutional oversight and operational delegation. 108. The PAF requires information, confirmed through consultation with a range of professional departments, in relation to marketing (market research for the positioning, competition, choice of award title); recruitment (new course details, fees, predicted student numbers); Finance (Pay and non-pay setup costs); Careers (employment market). In addition to a range of basic data including the proposed award title(s), level and location of delivery, the document requires outline consideration of teaching, learning and assessment methods. The PAF is submitted to Academic Portfolio Committee (APC)96 for consideration of both the academic and the resource implications of the programme. 109. Proposals for the development of new collaborative provision can be initiated through discussions between a School and Partner and will be agreed by the relevant Faculty Dean before a Planning Application Form (Collaborative) (PAC)97 is developed. A PA(C) differs from a PAF in that it does not currently require information about the business case. The initial business case for new collaborative provision is considered by University Executive Committee (UEC) 98 . APC may only give approval in principle for new collaborative proposals to proceed to validation once UEC has approved the initial business case. Prior to a PA(C) being considered by APC, UEC must consider and approve the business case for the development of a collaborative partnership or the extension of an existing collaborative partnership. This is explored in further detail in section 4.10. PAFs and PA(C)s are required to make a viable academic case for the development; to indicate the market for the

92

[0418] Institute of Education and Professional Services Business Plan 2014/15; [0419] Applied Sciences Business Plan 2014/15; [0420] Media Arts and Technology Business Plan 2014/15

93 Faculty Executive consists of the Faculty Dean, Heads of School and Faculty Administration Manager.

94 [0357] Planning Approval Form (PAF) (Infonet); Exemplar PAFs: [0387] PAF BEng Integrated Engineering

2014 (APC/63/13); [0388] PAF BA Hons Early Childhood Studies with Early Years Teaching Status (APC/31/14); [0390] PAF National Governing Bodies (example PGT Sports Coaching) (APC/22/14)

95 [0034] Academic Quality and Partnerships Handbook

96 [0056] Academic Portfolio Committee (APC) Terms of Reference and Membership 2014/2015 (Infonet)

97 [0356] Collaborative Provision Planning Approval Form (PAC); Exemplar PACs: [0351] PAC Open Learning

Centre (APC/38/14); [0352] PAC Swindon Schools Teaching Alliance (APC/30/14); [0353] PAC Yeovil (APC/02/14a); [0354] PAC City of Bristol College (APC/78/13)

98 [0025] University Executive Committee Terms of Reference and Membership 2014/2015 (Infonet)

34

proposed new course; and to address the likely resource needs from the University’s perspective. The relevant Faculty Dean’s sign off for submission to APC indicates that the proposal’s financial and academic viability has been considered by the Faculty. 110. The completed forms are submitted to APC. APC has used the University Strategic Plan and its supporting strategies (namely Ambition 1 in the Academic Strategy) and the Faculty Business Plans, as the chief measures for selecting those proposals for development. A list of specific criteria has now been provided within the Academic Strategy. APC can approve a proposal to proceed to the validation stage, refer a proposal back to the Faculty for further development, or turn it down if it has concerns about the academic case or the viability in market or resource terms. 111. The University exercises oversight of the publication of information associated with new awards by ensuring that no formal publicity for any development may be issued until approval has been obtained. When approval has been given for a development to proceed to validation, any associated publicity must initially include the note ‘subject to validation’. This note may be removed once the validation has been successfully completed. 112. When APC has approved the development of the proposal, it is the responsibility of the Faculty, led by the Dean and the relevant HoS, to ensure that a course development team is established and takes action to develop the course. Consideration will be given to the experience of a development team. It is customary for a more experienced member of staff to be added to a team to strengthen it where the development team leader has little previous experience of course development or quality processes. 113. Administrative support for course development is provided from within the Faculty. The team works together to produce the validation documentation including completing the relevant templates for Programme Specifications 99 , Module Descriptors 100 and Course Maps101 which are accessible from the Quality and Standards webpages. Further support, advice and guidance for developments are provided by the Faculty Academic Standards and Quality Committee (FASQC) which identifies a suitable member of the committee to provide advice and guidance on the process for development. This may be the Faculty Head of Quality and Standards (FHQS) or another member of FASQC. The development team also seeks the input of at least one appropriate external academic and, where relevant, appropriate external professionals can also be consulted. 114. Course teams are expected to raise developments and/or propose change to existing courses through a cognate Board of Studies (BoS) so that discussions can be shared with students102. A particular strength of the process is the expectation that development teams actively consult with the FHQS103, the Associate Dean of Quality and Standards (ADQS) (responsible for Academic Regulations for Taught Provision (ARTP)), Academic Development Unit (ADU), Library and Information Services (LIS) 104 and Information Communication Technology (ICT) Services, where appropriate.

99

[0070] Programme Specification Template 100

[0071] Module Descriptor Template 101

[0072] Course Map Template 102

[0235] Exemplar BA Landscape Architecture Course Board minutes (minute MAT.LAA.14.25), PCAP form, and PCAP minutes June/July 2014 (minute PCAP.MAT.14.06); [0236] Exemplar PGT Sport & Leisure programmes Course Board minutes (minute AS/PG/14.22), PCAP form, and PCAP minutes (pages 29-31,36) June/July 2014; [0361] Exemplar LLB Course Board minutes (minute BEPS/LLB/BS/14.11), PCAP, and PCAP minutes (PCAP.BEPS.14.02) February 2014

103 [0470] Examples of Development Team consultations with FHQSs

104 A statement indicating that Library & Information Services (LIS) has been appropriately consulted in the course of the development is required in the validation document. A statement LIS confirming that learning

35

115. Courses are developed and considered in line with the validation criteria as set out in the AQPH105. Among these are requirements that the academic level and demands of the course are appropriate for the awards to which it will lead, in accordance with the FHEQ, Strategic Plan and the ARTP and, for developments from 2015 onwards, the Academic Strategy. 116. Programme specifications106 must demonstrate that the aims and learning outcomes established for the course are appropriately met in its structure and teaching, learning and assessment strategies, and staff are provided with guidance in this respect107. One of the strengths of the process is the way in which it ensures that there is clarity about how students are provided with the opportunity to demonstrate achievement of programme outcomes. This is managed through the expectation that the validation documentation must demonstrably map the way in which modules, through their assessment, contribute to students’ achievement of the programme outcomes. 117. The approach to validation of new provision is event-based and is managed centrally by the University, or locally via the relevant FASQC, depending on the nature and scale of the development. The decision as to whether a validation should be a FASQC or a University process will be taken by the Chair of Academic Standards and Quality Committee (ASQC) in consultation with FHQS. For example where the changes required to current provision go beyond the remit of Programme Change Approval Panel (PCAP) but are insufficient to warrant a full re-validation or where a course is small in terms of credit size108. FASQC validation panels are chaired by the FHQS, though where there is a potential conflict of interest the FHQS may identify another FASQC member as Advisor to the development or arrange for the FHQS from another faculty to chair the panel. Event dates are arranged as soon as APC approval is granted and course teams are required to provide details within the PAF of an appropriate External Panel Member (EPM) according to the selection criteria109. 118. The process seeks to be responsive to the requirements of PSRBs in addition to the requirements of the University in programme approval. For example, it may be necessary to apply a variation to the ARTP for a proposed course to accommodate the requirements of both the University for its award and the PSRB for its professional requirements110. There are a number of examples provided later in the SED at section 7 (paragraphs 524-550) of the importance of current industry practice and employer comment on the development of the curriculum. A high proportion of taught provision is explicitly professional in its orientation. To this end feedback on curriculum developments is sought both through formal accreditation but also through explicit reference to industry and employer needs. This enables course teams to remain abreast of issues impacting on the currency of the curriculum to ensure it remains responsive to employer and industry requirements and provides confidence in its relevance for both students and employers.

resource requirements are being met, and/or highlighting any areas of deficiency is required in Periodic Review and Revalidation documentation.

105 [0034] Academic Quality and Partnerships Handbook – Section 1

106 Exemplar programme specifications:[0386] Programme Specification LLB Hons Law; [0392] Programme Specification BSc Hons Sports Coaching; [0393] Programme Specification BA Hons Media Production

107 [0034] Academic Quality and Partnerships Handbook – Section 1

108 [0073] Academic Standards and Quality Committee minutes 13 November 2014 (minute ASQC.14.115.9); Exemplar FASQC-led validation: [0074] BA Hons Marketing 5 June 2014; [0075] BA Hons Early Childhood Studies with Early Years Teaching Status and Postgraduate Certificate Early Years with Early Years Teaching Status

109 [0034] Academic Quality and Partnerships Handbook

110 [0058] ARTP Appendix 1 - List of approved variations to Academic Regulations (Regulation 6.14,7.13,7.33)

36

119. Validation events identify recommendations for course teams, schools and the University to act upon and will indicate conditions to be met before courses can run. The process also seeks to identify and bring to the attention of the University (via ASQC minutes111 and ASQC reports112) areas worthy of commendation as illustrative of good practice in course design and development. Deadlines for conditions to be met are set at validation events. Courses are not signed off as approved until these are met. To strengthen oversight, ASQC has taken a more systematic and transparent approach to noting the tracking and recording of the sign off of conditions113. 120. The Academic Staff Development Framework114 (ASDF) provides information about the sessions run by the Academic Quality and Partnerships Office (AQPO) throughout the year. The September Staff Conferences, run in every Faculty at the outset of each academic year, cover a range of regulatory and quality assurance/enhancement processes. In addition Faculty-based annual conferences are held for SGLs, Course Leaders (CLs) and Senior Tutors in June. In relation to programme design and approval the FHQS provide support for development teams and the ADQS provides support for new chairs of validation panels. Further training sessions, advice and guidance are also made available to collaborative partner institutions via the Collaborative Partnership Forum on a biannual basis (see also bespoke session for Strategic Alliance) but also supplemented by the ongoing support provided by Academic Link Tutors (ALTs) and Partnership Coordinators (PCs).

121. The new Annual Portfolio Review will ensure proposals for most new course developments are considered in May, allowing developments to progress towards validation in the autumn term ready for inclusion in prospectuses. This new annual timeline should promote the timely development of materials for scheduled validation events115. This new approach should alleviate the ‘bunching’ of events in the spring and summer terms. The University is also currently considering adopting a more flexible and responsive approach to validation using virtual events supported by the greater use of SharePoint116. 122. There is a risk-based approach to course development which allows for developments which are largely minor adjustments to existing courses to be considered via PCAP. As noted in early paragraphs, PCAP117 is a panel process that enables course teams to make amendments to existing courses including: additions of new modules; deletions of modules; adoptions of existing modules from another course map; dropping of modules from a course map (but not deletion from all maps); changes of status of modules (Core, Compulsory, Option); changes to module code, module title, pre/co-requisites, learning outcomes, or assessment weighting; significant changes to description, content or delivery (including a marked shift to distance learning) and significant changes to learning and teaching resources118. Normally course teams flag the proposed changes within their Annual Monitoring Reports (AMRs) and present the agreed documentation to the FASQC-led PCAP round in January or July. 111

[0433] Academic Standards and Quality Committee minutes 19 June 2014 (e.g. minute ASQC.14.53.8); [0382] Academic Standards and Quality Committee minutes 25 September 2014 (e.g. minute ASQC.14.98.3)

112 [0058] ASQC Annual Reports for 2013, 2014 (AB/06/13) (AB/06/14)

113 Exemplar FASQC-led validations: [0074] BA Hons Marketing 5 June 2014 (approved by ASQC 19 June 2014); [0075] BA Hons Early Childhood Studies with Early Years Teaching Status and Postgraduate Certificate Early Years with Early Years Teaching Status validation 14 July 2014 (approved by ASQC 25 September 2014); Exemplar ASQC validations: [0261] BA/BSc Product Design 16 May 2014 (approved by ASQC 19 June 2014); [0262] FdA Sports Coaching at University Centre Yeovil 3 June 2014 (approved by ASQC 19 June 2014)

114 [0076] Academic Staff Development Framework (Infonet)

115 [0077] Validation and Review Schedule 2012/13; [0078] Validation and Review Schedule 2013/14

116 [0079] Revised Annual Monitoring Review Process Report to Academic Board October 2014 (AB/47/14)

117 [0034] Academic Quality and Partnerships Handbook – Section 1

118 [0080] Exemplar PCAP minutes from each faculty January/July 2014

37

Summary of effectiveness with which the University meets the Expectation 123. The University meets this Expectation by discharging its responsibilities for the setting and maintenance of academic standards appropriately and assuring the enhancement of the quality of learning opportunities. The University operates effective and comprehensive processes for the design, development and approval of courses119. In so doing, it demonstrates strengths within the current system including, institutional oversight, clear guidance to course developers and panel members and flexibility depending on the scale of the changes proposed to courses. 124. There are some areas where the need for further enhancement has been identified; such as the need for a more strategic approach to the development and maintenance of the portfolio as a whole. As the University develops closer links with industry and employers, and benefits from initiatives such as the new Growth Hub, employers will be more systematically involved with portfolio development in the future. 4.2 Recruitment, selection and admission to higher education Expectation B2: Recruitment, selection and admission policies and procedures adhere to the principles of fair admission. They are transparent, reliable, valid, inclusive and underpinned by appropriate organisational structures and processes. They support higher education providers in the selection of students who are able to complete their programme. 125. The University’s Recruitment and Admissions Committee (RAC) 120 has institutional oversight of the University’s Admissions Policy and Procedures. RAC regularly monitors and reviews the appropriateness of policies and procedures against the University’s mission and strategic objectives to ensure their currency and validity. The University Admissions Policy and corresponding Procedures for students121 and staff122 were reviewed in October 2013 and again in October 2014123. The University’s Admissions Policy and Procedures comply with all applicable legislation and are informed by the principles outlined in the QAA ‘UK Quality Code for Higher Education: Chapter B2’, the Supporting Professionalism in Admissions Good Practice Statement on Admissions Policies’124, the Home Office ‘Policy Guidance for Tier 4 sponsors125 and the University Strategic Plan. A full exploration of the University’s alignment with chapter B2 was undertaken in 2013 and considered by ASQC in 2013 126. 126. The University’s Fair Access Review Panel 127 meets every term to discuss its approach to promoting inclusivity to prospective students128. This approach has resulted in activities such as school and college focused workshops and outreach that emphasise non-

119

[0034] Academic Quality and Partnerships Handbook 120

[0083] Recruitment and Admissions Committee Terms of Reference and Membership 2014/15(Infonet) 121

[0029] Admissions Policy 122

[0081] Admissions Procedure for Staff 123

[0082] Recruitment and Admissions Committee 15 October 2014 minutes (minute RAC.14.49) (and RAC/23/14)

124 [0084] Good Practice Statement on Admissions Policies

125 [0085] Policy Guidance for Tier 4 sponsors

126 [0086] Admissions Policy and QAA Code Alignment (ASQC/160/13)

127 [0087] Fair Access Review Panel Terms of Reference and Membership 2014/15

128 [0100] Exemplar notes of Fair Access Review Panel meetings

38

traditional students e.g. the 6th Form Conference, Law Day and Design Academy and the use of APEL to bring students from practice into professional courses, such as PGT Landscape Architecture 129 . The Fair Access Review Panel reports to the Equality and Diversity Committee, chaired by the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Operations). The group also aims to increase University-wide awareness of the work undertaken by the Outreach/Widening Participation team with under-represented groups. The Fair Access Review Panel recently recommended the appointment of six new graduate advocates to work in local schools and colleges to raise aspirations to enter Higher Education and to work with students to prepare effective personal statements and increase awareness of student finance. The University also has a set of Compact agreements with schools and colleges in the region and a dedicated programme of outreach with its Strategic Alliance colleges to promote progression to Higher Education. These initiatives are reflected in our OFFA agreement 130 . The University is on track to meet its key milestones for 2014/15131 and has already exceed them in areas such as the recruitment of students from state schools and colleges (at 97.3% against benchmark of 93.3%) and the recruitment of young full-time undergraduate entrants from low participation neighbourhoods (at 14% against benchmark of 12.2%).

127. The University’s principles of admission are transparent, reliable, valid, and inclusive and are underpinned by appropriate and effective structures and process, which support us in the selection of students. The University’s commitment to creating an inclusive, student-centred, academic community in which students thrive, actively engage and are glad to belong is exemplified in its approach to welcoming applications from potential students of all social and ethnic backgrounds. The University’s aim is to promote equal opportunities while simultaneously admitting students who have the ability and motivation to benefit from the programmes of study offered. An indicator of the effectiveness of our Admissions Policy is an overall retention rate of 95.1%, 3% above the benchmark. 128. The University’s Communications, Marketing and Student Recruitment department and its centralised Admissions and Enrolment team within Academic Registry communicate clearly with applicants and provide clear and explicit information concerning enquiries, admission to and enrolment on its courses at all levels. Opportunities to obtain information are available to applicants via the website and through a programme of Open and Applicant Days run throughout the annual cycle. There are also three centrally organised postgraduate open evenings each year running on each campus. These may be supplemented by separate School and/or course based events. The University operates an online application process providing access to the Applicant Portal132, which allows them to view their offer or application status, upload documents to meet conditions and view information concerning their admission to the University. Applicants are sent initial offers by the Admissions and Enrolment Team and then receive reminders on how they can meet conditions of offer. ‘Welcome’ letters with instructions on how to enrol and attend induction events are sent to those holding unconditional offers. For postgraduate taught applicants, admissions are also processed centrally via the standard University procedures. At this stage decisions in relation to the admission of postgraduate taught are sometimes made after course leaders have considered all applications and in other cases, where appropriate, guidelines are provided to the Admissions team who are enabled to make offers directly, only referring queries to course leaders.

129

[0333] Outreach and Widening Participation Activities and Events [0334] Outreach Year 10 Summer School July 2015; [0335] Outreach Media Visit December 2014; [0336] Outreach Plan 2014/15 School of Sport; [0337] Outreach Geography Yr12 July 2014; [0408] Outreach Law Conference April 2014

130 [0358] OFFA Agreement

131 [0509] OFFA Milestones

132 [0088] Applicant Portal

39

129. The University conducts a range of market research with applicants and students to continuously enhance the quality of course information. The University aims to make this information available in a number of ways, including the printed prospectus, social media channels and video content. 130. The University is also investing in improving its website and the way it presents its course information is central to this project. New website information will be driven by a course database which will ensure that all information, including course fees and bursary information, is consistently presented across all courses and is accurate at all times. Decisions about recruitment, selection, admission and progression to University programmes at all levels are based on criteria that are available to applicants prior to application. Course entry requirements are reviewed annually and published in the University prospectus and through other sources such the UCAS website. Given that not all applicants have had an equality of educational opportunity, the University considers applicants in the light of the opportunities available to them and welcomes applications from individuals who have followed non-standard educational routes or those who meet entry criteria through experience rather than academic qualification. 131. In the last year the University introduced a centralised enquiries function to ensure a consistent level of advice and guidance for prospective students interested in pursuing a Higher Education course. All undergraduate and postgraduate enquiries are now channelled to a generic email address and a dedicated enquiries line. Students are offered personal tours by Student Ambassadors to help them gain a real perspective of student life. 132. The University has invested in a Customer Relationship Management system (CRM) so that it can communicate with prospective students on a more individual level. This ensures that communications are fully aligned with the application cycle and that students receive timely information and advice. We monitor closely the ‘open’ and ‘click through’ rates from e-communications to ensure we improve the content of the University’s email and website information throughout the cycle. 133. All staff involved in the admission process, including collaborative partners, external advisers and agents, have a clear understanding of the criteria for admission to the University and are aware of the issues affecting fair treatment of potential students and applicants. In particular the admission of international students is conducted with strict adherence to the Home Office Immigration Rules and Tier 4 Policy Guidance in order to protect the University’s Highly Trusted Sponsor status and Tier 4 Sponsor Licence. 134. While the University aims to run courses as advertised it does reserve the right to vary the content and delivery of advertised courses, to discontinue, merge or combine courses where required. Should any changes be necessary, it is University practice to inform and consult with prospective students at the earliest opportunity of any significant changes to a course. 135. The Academic Registry 133 underwent a restructure in 2012/13 to incorporate a consolidated Admissions and Enrolment function and at the end of 2013 incorporated a Research Administration Office. Co-location and knowledge sharing by student administration teams and those managing the immigration compliance function enables staff to contribute to an enhanced student experience as well as to identify process efficiency. A number of administrative staff as well as academic staff have been involved in a process improvement project to review and amend the admissions procedure for Postgraduate Research applicants 134 . This includes the creation of an enhanced online application

133

[0089] Academic Registry Structure 2014 134

[0090] Review of Postgraduate Research Application Process (URC/21/14)

40

process135; an internal online decision form providing greater consistency and timeliness of application processing and clarity of roles and responsibilities within administrative and academic areas. Feedback will be sought from applicants using the new process and staff who contribute to the decision making process throughout 2014/15. 136. The admissions procedures detail the grounds on which an applicant can request a review of a decision and the process for making complaints.136 Complaints and requests to review a decision are handled by Academic Registry. 137. Since its formation the Admissions and Enrolment team has engaged and worked closely with external bodies in order to ensure its practices and processes are transparent and accessible. For example, and of interest to UCAS, the University has developed a paperless admissions process and an Applicant Portal to allow applicants to upload and to view documents to meet the conditions of their offer. The University has worked with HESA in the development of its enrolment function. 138. Colleagues in the Admissions and Recruitment Team are actively engaged with the external environment. There has been a concerted effort to engage with UCAS given the University’s geographical proximity and the Admissions and Enrolment Coordinator sits on the Postgraduate Advisory Board and also attends the South-West Regional Forum. This is an initiative recently reinstated that attempts to bring Universities together in order to share best practice and issues within the sector. The University invited Supporting Professionalism in Admissions (SPA) to the University to observe its Clearing Call Centre in August 2014 and has shared its Policy and Procedures for feedback in relation to the best practice guides that SPA produce. SPA also attended RAC on 10 December 2014 to present an item on the applicant experience137. 139. In the context of current significant reform of qualifications in the UK, staff have directly engaged with UCAS around the development of their new tariff system which aims to accommodate the expansion and prevalence of these qualifications. Members of the Academic Registry Admissions staff are regularly involved in sector wide discussions on developments to improve recruitment and admissions procedures and have recently taken part in a UCAS forum/workshop looking at the overhaul of the Clearing process. Universities are increasingly active in overseas markets both in the EU and beyond. This presents a continuing challenge to the Admissions and Enrolment team who need to continually augment their knowledge of a wide range of qualifications so that applicants (and colleges and schools) can be supported with advice on admissions. The University has membership with UK NARIC and attends its training events in order to ensure Admissions staff are equipped to meet the challenges of assessing overseas qualifications as well as publishing its assessment of these qualifications on its webpages. Summary of effectiveness with which the University meets the Expectation 140. The University’s recruitment, selection and admission policies and procedures meet the Expectation by adhering to the principles of fair admission. The strengths of the approach lie in clear published processes, the Admissions Policy, and the oversight afforded by having a centralised admissions team for students at all levels, home and overseas. Postgraduate research admissions procedures have recently been revised to bring them into line with the general approach and the benefits ensuing from the online applications and decision making process.

135

[0091] Applying for Postgraduate Research 136

[0092] Admissions Procedures for Students 137

[0237] SPA Applicant Experience Presentation to RAC on 10 December 2014

41

141. The University continues to consider how to enhance the admission process and procedures. For example current work is ongoing to ensure all relevant staff are fully cognisant of the interview process by means of a process improvement project and the greater and earlier inclusion of Heads of School and line managers. The University is improving the recording of information in respect of applicants who are accepted for study on validated programmes offered by its collaborative partners. 4.3 Learning and teaching Expectation B3: Higher education providers, working with their staff, students and other stakeholders, articulate and systematically review and enhance the provision of learning opportunities and teaching practices, so that every student is enabled to develop as an independent learner, study their chosen subject(s) in depth and enhance their capacity for analytical, critical and creative thinking. The basis for effective learning and teaching 142. The University’s Strategic Plan, Academic Strategy and Learning and Teaching Strategy138 articulate the priorities that underpin the University’s approach to learning and teaching. This approach is based upon four priorities, which were developed following an extensive consultation process with staff and students:

Independent and collaborative learning: students have to be able to manage their own learning, both independently and as part of a wider community of scholars. In order to do this, students need the necessary skills 139(e.g. digital literacy, information literacy, research, and study skills) to be able to learn effectively through discipline-based or generic activities.

Learning for life and employment: the University recognises that employability skills can be enhanced by a range of work-focused learning opportunities, which include work-related learning (i.e. activities that engage students in real-world activities, problems, simulations and scenarios); work-based learning (i.e. where a student is in employment and is also participating in study); and placements (i.e. where part of our students’ study involves working within an organisation). All these work-related activities provide students with opportunities to develop active citizenship skills, in addition to the broader skills required for public, business and community engagement.

Learning for the future: students will have opportunities to develop and demonstrate their creativity skills throughout the curriculum. In the future, students will be working with technologies that have yet to be invented and will be solving problems that have not been identified. Students will therefore have to be adaptable as well as flexible (i.e. able to predict and adapt to change as well as being able to react to it).

Research/practice-informed learning and teaching: Research-informed and practice-informed learning and teaching can be considered as a way in which the University can develop students’ understanding of research and practice-based approaches, as applicable within the discipline. This does not imply that teaching at

138

[0007] Learning and Teaching Strategy 2011-2015 139

Grids have been developed (as part of the Enhanced Student Year (ESY) to offer a menu of literacy sessions from which academic staff can choose for the additional ESY weeks [0094] Professional Department Grids. (Infonet)

42

the University is simply informed by existing or on-going research (either by members of staff or others), but that the curriculum will provide opportunities for students to explore for themselves the links between research, practice, enterprise and consultancy as appropriate. This may be through explicit assessment tasks or through activities introduced within the curriculum, such as consultancy briefs and investigations, or the development and analysis of research findings with members of academic staff.

143. The principles of the Learning and Teaching Strategy were a key feature of the Curriculum Framework Review (CFR), ensuring that all courses thoroughly considered the principles in the design and validation of the new courses. A review of the Learning and Teaching Strategy is being conducted during 2014/15 following the finalisation of the over-arching Academic Strategy. Initial consultation with members of staff suggests that the four existing Priorities, as enshrined in the new Academic Strategy, remain valid and appropriate, but that more work is required to identify specific goals and aspirations within the Learning and Teaching Strategy to enable the development and achievement of the Priorities. 144. The University has previously been successful in several national initiatives relating to learning and teaching. Building on the impetus created by the 2005 award of a Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETL), recent key achievements include: the award of 14 National Teaching Fellowships (NTF)140; Higher Education Academy (HEA) projects (e.g. Flexible Pedagogies; Rethinking Dissertations; LeAPSE; FOR REAL; Personal Career Planning); and JISC projects (e.g. Digital Storytelling; Co-generative Toolkit; Changing the Learning Landscape). 145. Information about learning and teaching is provided in Course Handbooks141, Module Guides, Programme Specifications and Placement Handbooks. Course Handbooks provide sections that articulate: the context of the Subject Group; the history and structure of the course; the relationship between different levels of study; and how learning and teaching aligns with the Priorities of the Learning and Teaching Strategy. The expectations of the University, the SU and students in relation to academic studies are outlined in the University’s Student Charter142, which also provides a commitment to provide an induction programme for all students. 146. All students studying University of Gloucestershire awards have access to the Personal Tutor Scheme143 (formerly known as the Academic Review Tutor (ART) Scheme). The Personal Tutor provides academic support and guidance to students and assists in explaining the responsibilities of students and the University. This is explored in more detail in section 4.4. 147. As noted in the opening section of this document, and earlier in this section, in 2011/12 the University undertook an institution-wide CFR 144 process to review the undergraduate curriculum. One of the Precepts of the CFR was that ‘Every Honours Degree should be designed to include a compulsory element of work-focused or community-focused learning’, thereby supporting the Learning and Teaching Priority: Learning for life and

140

[0095] List of UoG National Teaching Fellows (2000-2013) 141

Example Course Handbooks: [0413] BA Hons Media Production Course Handbook; [0455] LLB Hons Law Course Handbook

142 [0096] Student Charter 2014/15

143 [0012] Personal Tutor Scheme

144 [0008] Curriculum Framework Review Information and Guidance (AB/77/11)

43

employment145. As a result of this, courses have engaged with stakeholders in the wider community to prepare students for employment, working with the community or further study. 148. Since CFR, all individual programmes have been required to demonstrate within their validation documents and/or Programme Specifications how the programme meets the priorities of the Learning and Teaching Strategy. The CFR process also required all courses to rationalise the number of learning outcomes for each module, and to demonstrate how these module learning outcomes contribute to the overarching Programme Outcomes and how the assessment activities address the relevant programme learning outcomes. 149. All members of staff are supported to develop their academic practice through the Academic Staff Development Framework (ASDF)146, which was established in January 2013 and was developed during the 2013/14 academic year to align with University schemes such as the revised Staff Review and Development process. By aligning the ASDF with the Staff Review and Development (SRD) scheme and other processes, the University ensures a more deliberate and systematic approach to the University’s staff development activities. 150. As part of the ASDF, all members of academic staff on ‘Teaching and Scholarship’ and ‘Teaching and Research’ role profiles are required to participate in the University’s Reflection on Academic and Professional Practice (RAPP)147 scheme, which comprises a peer observation of teaching and a professional discussion. 151. Academic practice activities within the ASDF are aligned with the UK Professional Standards Framework (UKPSF) and the Researcher Development Framework (RDF), to ensure relevance for all members of academic staff and to raise awareness of national frameworks. The peer observation process, which was reintroduced as part of the RAPP Scheme in 2013/14, aligns feedback on an observation against the Areas of Activity within the UKPSF. 152. The ASDF includes activities relating to: Learning and Teaching Enhancement; Quality Assurance; Research; Business Development / Enterprise; Leadership and Personal Development. ASDF activities are also indicated for particular roles and responsibilities, to enable members of staff aspiring towards these roles to undertake relevant development activities to enhance and support their career progression. 153. During the 2014/15 academic year, the ASDF will be submitted to the HEA for accreditation against Descriptors D1, D2 and D3. The RAPP will form the basis of the process to ensure that all members of staff who are recognised as Fellows of the HEA can remain in good standing. 154. Since the previous QAA Review, Faculty Learning and Teaching Committees (FLTCs) were reconstituted in 2012/13 to strengthen the role of subjects in the implementation of the Learning and Teaching Strategy within the faculty. The inclusion of Subject Group Leaders (SGL) on the membership of FLTCs148 is important for ensuring that

145

[0396] CFR Law 2011/12 (p3 - rationale 2, p6 - section 6, p9 - precept 9); [0397] CFR Psychological Sciences 2011/12 (p14-15, p22/23 - 1.2.6); [0398] CFR Literary and Historical Studies 2011/12 (p7/8, p20 - precept 21)

146 [0076] Academic Staff Development Framework (Infonet)

147 [0010] Reflection on Academic and Professional Practice (RAPP) Guidelines (AB/14/13); [0345] Exemplar RAPP

148 Membership of the FLTCs comprises: Faculty Lead for Learning and Teaching; Subject Group Leaders; Learning and Teaching Nominees; Faculty Head of Quality and Standards; LIS Representative; and Student Representatives.

44

relevant learning and teaching issues within the Subject Groups are brought to the attention of the University Learning and Teaching Committee (LTC), and that information about University-wide learning and teaching initiatives can be cascaded to members of staff within the Subject Groups. In conjunction with the FLTCs, the Faculty Leads for Learning and Teaching are responsible for organising the annual Faculty Learning and Teaching Symposia, supported financially by the Academic Development Unit (ADU), and for monitoring the progress of the RAPP Scheme. 155. The University’s Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice (PGCAP), which has run since January 2013, forms a key element of the ASDF, and replaced the Postgraduate Certificate in Higher Education (PGCHE) that had been run by the University since 1996. In order to strengthen the academic core delivery of teaching, the University has an expectation149 that members of academic staff with fewer than three years’ experience of teaching in higher education participate in the PGCAP, normally within the first three years of employment at the University. The PGCAP is also available to members of staff from collaborative partner organisations and from other higher education institutions (see Table 4), and is available to members of staff from professional departments who support student learning (e.g. Librarians, Learning Technologists). Table 4: Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice (PGCAP)

Year UoG Staff

Collaborative partner

Other HEIs

Academic Professional

2013 17 1 4 20 2

2014 15 1 5 21

156. The data for the 2013/14 academic year demonstrate that a total of 60% of University staff with Fellowship of the HEA had gained their Fellowship through completion of the PGCHE or the PGCAP. The ADU provides support and workshops for experienced members of staff who wish to apply for the different categories of HEA Fellowship. The ADU has also supported applications for Associate Fellowship and Fellowship of the HEA from members of staff from Collaborative Partner organisations. 157. A non-credit-bearing Postgraduate Research Development Programme has been established to support postgraduate research (PGR) students who would like to gain teaching and learning support experience. This development is in response to feedback from PGR students about teaching opportunities and the support for their professional development. One aim of the programme is to support students who wish to submit an individual application for recognition as an Associate Fellow of the HEA. 158. The ADU works closely with the subject groups to enable the identification and dissemination of innovative practice150 as well as identifying staff development needs. This complements the highlighting of good practice through the Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) process as identified by the Faculty Leads for Learning and Teaching and reported to the FLTCs151 (see paragraph 291).

149

[0097] Staff Participation in the PGCAP Policy 150

[0487] Academic Development Unit Good Practice Case Studies 151

[0391] Faculty Teaching & Learning Committee AS minutes 13 February 2014 (minute FLTC.AS.14.08); [0394] Faculty Teaching & Learning Committee BEPS minutes 17 June 2014 (minute FLTC.BEPS.14.16.04-08); [0395] Faculty Teaching & Learning Committee MAT minutes 16 October 2014 (minute FLTC.MAT.14.20)

45

159. The Learning for Sustainable Futures (LFSF)152 initiative was launched in 2012 and is co-led and co-sponsored by the Sustainability Team and the ADU. LFSF provides grants for staff to take forward the University’s support for embedding Education for Sustainability in the curriculum and student learning. It provides professional development outcomes and curriculum development legacies as well as innovation in the co-curriculum by working with professional departments such as Chaplaincy and Library and Information Services (LIS). The LFSF scheme gained the Highly Commended EAUC Green Gown Award for Learning and Skills in 2013 and has been replicated by the University of Worcester. 160. The annual Staff Awards event is an opportunity to recognise and reward members of staff who have demonstrated excellence in academic practice. These awards include the Student-led teaching Awards, Staff Excellence Awards; University Teaching Fellowships and the recognition of National Teaching Fellowships153. 161. The University Teaching Fellowship (UTF) process, which has been running since the 2000/01 academic year, currently awards up to three Fellowships annually, and is based upon the NTFS criteria. Potential National Teaching Fellowship (NTF) applicants are encouraged to apply for a UTF prior to submitting a NTF application. The University holds an open application process to allow members of staff to submit an initial application for consideration to be nominated as one of the University's three annual NTF submissions. Members of staff can be encouraged to submit an initial application by colleagues, their Line Manager and/or Head of School, but the final panel – comprising current NTFs – makes the decision as to which three nominations will be taken forward. The University’s existing NTFs act as mentors for the University’s applicants to the Scheme. 162. The University’s UTFs and NTFs are represented on the LTC and are used on an informal basis to provide feedback on issues relating to learning, teaching and assessment For example, the NTFs were involved in formulating the teaching and learning section of the University Strategic Plan and in April 2014 the UTFs and NTFs participated in a discussion and dinner focused on the development of the Academic Strategy and the concept of student centred learning. A similar event was also held with SGLs and HoSs.154 The University is now moving to strengthen the role of SGL in taking forward the ambitions in the Academic Strategy, and in particular increase focus on the subject community, the student experience, and innovation in teaching. A revised SGL role description155 (and Course Leader role description156) is being finalised, for implementation in 2015. 163. Ongoing review of the effectiveness of learning opportunities and the enhancement of students’ learning opportunities is the responsibility of Academic Board and its sub-committees such as Academic Standards and Quality Committee (ASQC), LTC and the University Research Degrees Committee (URDC). These committees review and discuss relevant information arising from data collection processes 157 such as the NSS, Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey (PTES), Postgraduate Research Experience Survey (PRES), the International Student Barometer (ISB) and the AMRs, which address student feedback on modules, comments made by External Examiners (EEs) and include a narrative on course statistics such as retention and mark profiles.

152

[0098] Learning for Sustainable Futures 153

[0099] Staff Awards webpage 154

[0399] Improving Teaching and Learning Seminar 3 April 2014 Programme 155

[0463] Draft Subject Group Leader Role Descriptor (to be implemented 2015) 156

[0464] Draft Course Leader Role Descriptor (to be implemented 2015) 157

[0478] Academic Board minutes 19 March 2014 (minutes AB.14.07,10,12,15); [0479] Academic Board minutes 22 October 2014 (minutes AB.14.68,69,76); [0480] Academic Board minutes 11 December 2014 (minutes AB.14.86,88,93)

46

The Learning Environment and Student Engagement in Learning 164. Building on recent developments of the estate in support of subject developments, different forms of formal and informal learning spaces are being explored. The evaluation of these spaces has informed other initiatives, such as the ‘Classroom of the Now’ project, that has been initiated to establish a baseline requirement for all teaching rooms. Pilot rooms are being used to evaluate the effectiveness of changing furniture, layout and audio-visual equipment, and the outcomes from the pilot will be used to inform the development of teaching rooms across the institution. Students welcome the close working with LIS, in the form of monthly meetings with the SU, to ensure improvements in resource provision continue. 165. The University is continually investing in the physical learning environment, and recognises that different subjects and learning styles require different spaces (e.g. studios, laboratories, informal learning spaces, flexible learning spaces). This ensures that across a diverse range of courses (professional, practice, or academic), students have opportunities to learn in an appropriate environment. Recent developments include: the Strength and Conditioning suite (Oxstalls); the location of the Growth Hub at Oxstalls; Performing Arts (Oxstalls); Fashion (Hardwick); Media (Park) and Product Design (Park). The University welcomes the comments made within the Student Submission which indicate an understanding among the student body that the University is making a priority the further development and improvement of learning resources. 166. Students have access to a range of individual and group social learning spaces on each campus, particularly within the Libraries and refectories. The University recognises the need for more, and enhanced, social learning spaces for students. Projects such as the redesign of the University’s Archive room at Francis Close Hall are being used to evaluate the effectiveness of different forms of social learning environments. The University works in partnership with the SU in the discussion of planned improvements to the learning environment, for example via monthly meetings with Library & Information Services to discuss inter alia issues raised at Campus Life Group. 167. Students have access to virtual learning environments to support their studies and their learning. Moodle is used as the University’s virtual learning environment and all modules have a presence in Moodle. The Moodle sites provide links to other resources, particularly those provided by the Library and Information Service (LIS) such as e-books. The Student Infonet pages provide information on specific courses, modules and timetables. Student Records Online allows students to view module-specific information and from 2014/15 has been used as the submission process for electronic assignments. Feedback and results on all assignments – regardless of whether the assignment was submitted electronically – will be available within this system. This will provide students with the opportunity to review and revisit all feedback on their assignments throughout their period of study. Summary of effectiveness with which the University meets the Expectation 168. The development and implementation of the University’s Academic Strategy and Learning and Teaching Strategy underpin and exemplify the way in which the University meets the Expectation for Learning and Teaching by providing a foundation for enhancing students’ learning opportunities and for developing teaching practices. The University’s approach enables students to develop as independent learners and enhance their capacity for analytical and critical learning. Students are provided with a comprehensive induction into the University, to their course and to studying in higher education upon arrival and

47

further induction sessions take place at the beginning of each new academic year 158 . Information about relevant learning opportunities is provided to students through different communication mechanisms, primarily at a course level through course handbooks, module guides, course teams, Personal Tutors and the virtual learning environment. Students thrive within this environment, and our excellent retention data (see paragraph 127) suggest our learning environment is appropriate for the students we admit to our courses. 169. As previously noted, the CFR was an institution-wide initiative that provided courses with an opportunity to: review the key learning outcomes for each course and evaluate how these outcomes were contributing to the overall Programme Specification; review how the four Priorities in the Learning and Teaching Strategy were being addressed; embed appropriate work-related activities for all students within the curriculum; and rationalise the proliferation of modules. 170. The University has developed a more consistent, deliberate and systematic approach to providing development opportunities for members of academic staff. This has resulted in the formation of the ASDF, which explicitly aligns to the SRD Scheme and builds upon previous staff development schemes. Physical, virtual and social environments are being developed and enhanced to support students’ learning, drawing on sector innovation and best practice, knowledge gained from nationally-funded projects, and from current University initiatives such as the ‘Classroom of the Now’. 4.4: Enabling student development and achievement Expectation B4: Higher education providers have in place, monitor and evaluate arrangements and resources, which enable students to develop their academic, personal and professional potential.

Strategic resources to facilitate development and achievement

171. The University’s commitment to enabling student development and achievement is outlined in the Student Charter and in key strategic documents such as the University’s Strategic Plan, the Academic Strategy and the Learning and Teaching Strategy. To support this commitment the University has undertaken a number of institution-wide projects and initiatives to support students’ development of their academic, personal and professional potential, such as: Helpzones; Degreeplus; Higher Education Achievement Report (HEAR); Employability / Degreeplus Awards; Academic Review Tutors (ARTs) / Personal Tutors; Electronic Management of Assessment (EMA) and the Enhanced Student Year (ESY). 172. The University has built upon its student development and achievement activities, by coordinating these activities in a strategic manner, consistent with the core themes of ‘what the University stands for’ (see paragraph 16). The University has raised awareness of the opportunities available to students and provided an enhanced and consistent service that is available and accessible to all students. 173. Students are introduced to the methods that the University uses to support development and achievement from initial Open Days (including workshops on ‘Writing Your Personal Statement’), Interview Days, and Applicant Days. This information is reinforced through induction at each academic Level.

158

[0263] Induction Week Activities 2014/15

48

Developing resources 174. The University’s Helpzones159, which were established in September 2008 following a Change Academy project, have a physical location on every campus and provide a ‘one-stop-shop’ providing confidential advice, support and guidance to students on a wide range of topics, including academic progress, personal welfare, health and wellbeing, accommodation, childcare, and money advice. 175. The formal establishment of ARTs in 2008 was as a result of the 2007 Change Academy project that led to the formation of the Helpzones. An Internal Quality Audit (IQA) review of the ART Scheme was undertaken in 2013/14, involving students and staff, which resulted in the implementation of the Personal Tutor Scheme160 in 2014/15. The Academic Board agreed the change in title of the Scheme in March 2014 as a direct response to a proposal from the Students’ Union. 176. The Degreeplus161 initiative also resulted from a Change Academy project, and was implemented in 2012/13. Its goal is to promote student awareness and uptake of the wide range of opportunities available to students to boost their employability and personal development. It was recognised that there was a lot of effective activity being undertaken across the institution to support student development (e.g. volunteering, skills development, learning enhancement) but that these activities were not coordinated and were not always known to all members of staff, particularly to all the ARTs (now Personal Tutors) who were responsible for supporting and enhancing the development of students within an ART group. Degreeplus provides a coordination service for staff and students, which highlights opportunities that are available within the University as well as initiating a new Degreeplus internship programme. Degreeplus currently offers over 1,500 opportunities for volunteering, placements and internships. In order to ensure maximum visibility and access to all students, Degreeplus offices are co-located with the Helpzones on each campus. Degreeplus Advisors are 12 month paid placements undertaken by students. The Degreeplus Advisors are involved in a series of ‘ten minute shout-outs’ where they promote the Degreeplus services on a student-student basis during teaching sessions (further information about the Degreeplus initiative is provided in Section 7). In April 2014, the University's Student Services Team was shortlisted for the Outstanding Student Services Team in the Times Higher Education Leadership and Management Awards162, primarily on the basis of the work undertaken within the Helpzones and Degreeplus. 177. The University was one of the original 18 pilot institutions in Wave one of the national HEAR project in 2008. Key principles from the pilot group included the recognition that the HEAR should record achievement and not simply activity; that the method of verification should be inclusive and should provide an opportunity for all students to demonstrate achievement; and furthermore that students should be able to access the HEAR at any point during their period of study. 178. In order to address these principles, the University worked with Gradintel to develop an electronic HEAR transcript and also established the Employable Gloucestershire Graduate Scheme (EGGS) to recognise and verify students’ co-curricular activities. The aim of EGGS was to support students to articulate the achievement obtained from undertaking an activity or set of activities through a set of Personal Statements of Achievement. Verification of achievement resulting from activities that were initiated or organised by the

159

[0101] Student Helpzones webpage 160

[0012] Personal Tutor Scheme webpage 161

[0013] Degreeplus webpage 162

[0102] Times Higher Leadership and Management Awards 2014 – Outstanding Student Services Team Shortlist

49

University or SU can be included in Section 6.1 of the HEAR. The original EGGS allowed students to articulate achievement against a set of skills and topic-based domains. This process was later simplified and the scheme was renamed as the Employability Awards. From 2014/15 these will be called Degreeplus Awards163, so that it aligns more strongly with the Degreeplus initiative, and will be developed to include bronze, silver and gold levels. In order to support inclusion, and to promote applications from the whole student body, the verification process for the Degreeplus Awards is free of charge for students and the evidence of achievement provided through the Personal Statements of Achievement can be submitted in a range of formats. 179. All undergraduate students and postgraduate taught students have had access to electronic HEARs from September 2013164 . As a result of the Curriculum Framework Review (CFR) in 2011/12 the Programme Specifications for all courses have been added to the HEAR database so that all undergraduate students who started their studies in the 2012/13 academic year will graduate with a full HEAR transcript. The University is working to raise awareness amongst all students of the value of gaining employability awards and other achievements that can be formally recognised in section 6 of the HEAR. Initiatives to further enhance student learning opportunities 180. In response to feedback from students, and awareness of sectoral developments more widely, the Electronic Management of Assessments (EMA) project has been implemented in 2014/15 to allow for University-wide electronic submission of all appropriate assignments at undergraduate and postgraduate level. The EMA project has used the Student Records Online system for the submission of assignments. This system is familiar to continuing students. Students used this system previously to print out individual barcoded cover sheets. 181. In the development of the project the EMA project team took note of feedback from students and also from other institutions that have introduced electronic submission. As a result of this, the team has worked to ensure that duplication of processes for members of staff, such as mark entry, is not required and that the system does not dictate how the work is marked (i.e., members of staff are not required to mark electronically using a specific software package). One of the primary benefits of the system for the development of students’ academic skills is the requirement that feedback on all assignments is uploaded to Student Records Online. This not only ensures that students will be able to locate feedback for any assignment at any level of study, but also ensures that Personal Tutors are able to view the feedback for their Tutees. This allows for a course-wide evaluation of students’ academic achievement and facilitating appropriate discussions to enhance and develop academic skills. 182. Good practice in providing feedback to students165 was identified as part of an IQA on the University’s management of Assessment Feedback166, which was undertaken in May 2013. Some of the issues that led to the IQA – such as a reliance on handwritten and sometimes illegible comments, and the inconsistency of formats for the provision of feedback – have been addressed by the EMA project. EEs frequently comment on the high quality and constructive feedback in specific courses (see also paragraph 279) 167, and this

163

[0103] Degreeplus Awards webpage 164

[0015] Higher Education Achievement Award (HEAR) webpage 165

[0104] Guidelines on Assessment Feedback 166

[0264] IQA Management of Assessment Feedback Action Plan 2013/14 (ASQC/153/13) 167

Exemplar External Examiner Reports: [0518] FdA Youth Practice BA (Hons) Youth Work BA (Hons) Youth Studies; [0519] BA (Hons) Early Childhood Studies; [0520] BA Hons Counselling Warwickshire College; [0521] Certificate of Higher Education Art, Design and Media

50

can be followed-up through staff development activities that access examples of effective feedback from these courses within the electronic submission system. 183. The Enhanced Student Year (ESY) initiative arose from a review 168 that was prompted initially by student feedback regarding the value for money of the existing academic year, particularly in relation to accommodation costs. The review provided an opportunity to consider how the structure of the academic year could be adapted to create more deliberate space for enhancement activities , to induct students into the following academic level, further promote and support the holistic development of all students through the development of essential graduate skills (e.g. employability, digital literacy, and information literacy) and provide opportunities for, and raise awareness of, the development of co-curricular activity that can be included on a student's HEAR. A key underpinning principle is that the development of these skills should be integrated into the curriculum as far as possible, to avoid these developments appearing as optional or 'add-ons' to the formal curriculum. 184. The ESY project is being implemented in 2014/15, and is an overarching University-wide project that pulls together and integrates the outcomes of the previous work in this area across academic and professional departments. The principal aim is to improve the structure of the year as it is experienced by students with better integration of co-curricular activity. Overall students should enjoy a richer, broader, more coherent experience of higher education, representing better value for money. In order to accommodate the development of skills and awareness-raising of the HEAR, the former 12 week teaching periods have been extended to 14 weeks. The delivery of additional sessions on student development has been undertaken by members of staff in Professional Departments such as the Academic Development Unit (ADU), Library and Information Services (LIS) and Student Services, working with Course Leaders (CLs) and Subject Group Leaders (SGLs) to ensure integration into the curriculum. A series of Professional Department Grids169 have been created to support SGLs and CLs in determining what activities would be appropriate at each Level that can then be supported by members of staff within the Professional Departments. 185. In addition to face-to-face development sessions embedded within the curriculum, some academic Schools have used the opportunities provided by the ESY to establish School-wide activities during specific weeks. For example, the School of Media, piloting some of the additional ESY activities with the Media School Festival during 2013/14, ran a week of activity which included workshops, seminars, and guest lecturers from industry experts (see also how this interacts with the exploration of the theme of student employability in section 7). The School undertook a second media festival in November 2014. Other courses are utilising the additional time to enable students to focus on preparation for the end-of-year shows, which are being coordinated – where possible – into a 'Festival Fortnight' in June 2015. These end-of-year shows are a key component for supporting employability in these courses. £50,000 has been provided by the University to support additional activities that have been introduced as part of the ESY project. 186. It is recognised that, as part of the ESY project, Personal Tutors will play an increasingly important role in supporting students to undertake relevant Degreeplus activities or to evaluate existing co-curricular and extra-curricular activities in order to be submitted for verification and for potential inclusion on the HEAR. These activities have been included explicitly within the revised Personal Tutor Policy170, which has been introduced in 2014/15.

168

[0400] Change Programme Scoping Paper (AB/49/12); [0401] Enhanced Student Year Away Day notes 5 October 2012; [0113] Enhanced Student Year Briefing Paper July 2014

169 [0094] Professional Department Grids (Infonet)

170 [0105] Personal Tutor Policy

51

187. As part of the ESY project, the University is reviewing the information that can be included in Section 6.1 of the HEAR (i.e. ‘Additional Information’) and is working to raise the profile of the HEAR more generally. Awareness of the HEAR and its potential needs to be improved for all students and members of staff. This awareness-raising will be the focus of activities during the ESY in 2014/15, specifically through activities during the ‘Degreeplus Week’ in 2015. The introduction of the ‘My Degreeplus’ portal in 2015/16 (piloted from autumn 2014), and the development of students’ ‘Personal Career Plan’, will reinforce the importance of the HEAR and the recognition of students’ achievement obtained from co- and extra-curricular activities. The approach to the development of co and extra-curricular activities will be carefully evaluated (see paragraph 190). 188. In addition to the ESY project, Professional Departments support the enhancement of students’ skills by providing generic workshops and resources. For example, LIS provide well-received workshops and resources aimed at supporting the enhancement of students’ information literacy skills. In the 2013/14 the face-to-face sessions were attended by 59% of students171 . Enhanced awareness of the Student Achievement Team by students and members of staff resulted in a 62% increase in the number of students accessing, and being referred to, the service in 2013/14172. 189. As mentioned in Section 4.3, the University views the Personal Tutor Scheme as a key quality enhancement mechanism for the provision of academic support, advice and guidance to students. Supporting policy, operational guidance and a dedicated portal are located on the University’s web pages173. The Scheme is indicative of the University’s commitment to the provision to all students of sound support for engagement with course content and co-curricular activity. It seeks to add value to the student learning experience through the provision of support for learning and engagement with subject content. Students studying for University awards delivered at collaborative partners either access the Personal Tutor Scheme or a scheme that demonstrates parity as formally agreed during the initial partnership approval or review process. More detail can be found about the operation of the Scheme via the weblink but in essence it seeks to provide (a) an active support for student engagement with academic study, co-curricular activity and the wider university community; (b) a focused, systematic, individually tailored academic support for learning and (c) timely academic advice around university regulatory and administrative processes.

Evaluation 190. In order to ensure the effectiveness of University-wide projects, an evaluation framework is being developed within the ADU174. This framework will be applied to the EMA and ESY projects, with the aim that further student feedback on the effectiveness of these initiatives and lessons learned can be fed into future initiatives and relevant changes can be made to organisational processes and procedures175. 191. Evaluative feedback from students relating to academic activities is obtained through a variety of means including: Module evaluations (and from 2015 the Annual Course Evaluations (ACE); Student representatives; National Student Survey (NSS); Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey (PTES); Postgraduate Research Experience Survey (PRES)176 and the International Student Barometer (ISB).

171

[0106] LIS Business Plan 2014/15 (Infonet) 172

[0107] Student Services Business Plan 2014/15 (Infonet) 173

[0012] Personal Tutor Scheme 174

[0006] Academic Strategy 2014-2017 (Infonet) (para 46); [0402] Academic Development Unit Business Plan 175

[0483] Student ICT Survey 2014 - Electronic Management of Assessment Responses 176

[0108] Student Experience pages, with summaries of NSS, PTES and PRES results

52

192. An IQA examining practice across the University in relation to module evaluations was conducted in December 2010. Following this audit, a pilot process was undertaken to use anonymous online end-of-module evaluations in two academic Schools (Natural & Social Sciences and Humanities) for semester 1 2011/12, and this was extended to all academic Schools for the end of semester 2 2011/12, using the Moodle virtual learning environment to host the evaluations. Following ongoing comments in Annual Monitoring Reports (AMRs) regarding the low response rate for the online end-of-module evaluations, the University has reviewed the way in which module evaluation data are collected. As a result of this review, ACE will be introduced in 2014/15177. The ACE will provide students with an opportunity to comment on specific modules at the end of the year as well as on overarching initiatives such as electronic submission of assessments, the personal tutor scheme and the ESY. Students will also be able to comment on module-specific issues through the ongoing within-module evaluations that are designed to identify issues while a module is running. Learning from surveys and feedback 193. National surveys are important sources of data for evaluating practice, and these data inform the action plans developed by Course teams as part of the AMR process and for reflection in PRR events. Analysis and discussion of national surveys is undertaken by the Student Survey and KIS Steering Group (SSKSG) and the relevant University committees (i.e., University Research Degrees Committee (URDC), Learning and Teaching Committee (LTC)) and action plans are developed as required. The Communications, Marketing and Student Recruitment team provides summaries of the national surveys and presentations relating to the results to relevant members of staff from academic Schools and Professional Departments. The team is also responsible for providing information to students regarding the changes that have been made as a result of student feedback (e.g. ‘You Said, We Did’ campaign178).Since 2013/14, a process which promotes the proactive discussion at course-level of NSS outcomes has been instigated. These discussions are developmental in nature, and are undertaken with Course teams that have achieved average scores of 90% or higher in the NSS, in order to identify effective practice. They are also undertaken within those Course teams that have not achieved such good results (i.e. 75% or below), in order to identify whether there were particular issues that could be identified as contributing to the lower scores, and considering actions that should be taken in order to improve or resolve these issues. 194. While opportunities for postgraduate taught and research students mirror those for the undergraduate students, there are some slight variations to take account of the different nature of postgraduate studies. For example, all postgraduate taught students are provided with a Personal Tutor, but for postgraduate research students the supervisor will undertake the role of Personal Tutor, with Postgraduate Research Directors providing an alternative source of support where required. In addition, Postgraduate Research students use the Skills Forge software to identify development requirements through the Training Needs Analysis and the Joint Annual Progress Report (JAPR). Further details for PGR students are provided in section 4.11. Support for and development of staff 195. As noted in Section 4.3, the development of members of staff that support students’ learning is facilitated through the Academic Staff Development Framework (ASDF). The

177

[0403] Student Module Evaluation (ASQC/147/14); [0404] Learning and Teaching Committee minutes 1 July 2014 (minute LTC.14.28)

178 [0109] You Said We Did Park; [0110] You Said We Did Oxstalls; [0111] You Said We Did Francis Close Hall

53

ASDF has been designed for use with the Staff Review and Development Scheme, so that a member of staff, and/or the Reviewer, can evaluate appropriate opportunities for development within the University. In addition to the ASDF, all members of staff are able to claim up to £100 per annum towards membership costs of relevant organisations (e.g. PSRBs, SEDA, AUA, CIPD, CILIP). In 2012/13 the University established a Postgraduate Certificate in Higher Education Leadership and Management to support and encourage members of staff from Academic Schools and Professional Departments to develop and enhance their leadership and management skills. 196. Given that Personal Tutors need to be well informed about a range of academic and administrative information, processes and resources a Personal Tutor Portal (PTP) has been developed to provide easy access to a range of information about students; their courses; opportunities, support and resources available to students; and also a means of creating individual records of meetings. Summary of effectiveness with which the University meets the Expectation 197. The University meets this Expectation by monitoring and evaluating the arrangements and resources put in place to enable students to achieve their potential across academic, personal and professional spheres. Institutional level projects have been initiated to enable students to develop their academic, personal and professional potential. The aim of these projects has been to raise the profile of relevant opportunities for both students and members of staff, and to provide clear signposting for any student who wishes to engage with these opportunities. 198. Project activities are evaluated through an evaluation framework (see paragraph 190), involving students and members of staff from academic Schools and Professional Departments. Feedback on academic practice and development is provided by students through anonymous online evaluation mechanisms and through national surveys. The analyses of the results from these evaluations are presented to relevant Boards of Studies or University committees for discussion and identification and dissemination of effective practice, and are presented in all AMRs as a basis for informing the action plan for a particular course. The ongoing support, advice and guidance provided by the Personal Tutor Scheme is also a fundamental building block of the University’s ethos to enable students to achieve their potential. 199. Membership of BoS includes student representation as well as representation from Professional Departments such as LIS. This representation ensures that academic issues affecting students are raised at the appropriate level for action and that relevant resources to support students’ learning are identified and made available to students. 4.5 Student Engagement Expectation B5: HE providers take deliberate steps to engage all students, individually and collectively, as partners in the assurance and enhancement of their educational experience. Defining Student Engagement 200. The University takes seriously its responsibility to engage all students, individually and collectively as partners in the assurance and enhancement of their educational experience. The University’s Strategic Plan, Priority 4 is focused upon the building of strong partnerships in three areas. The first of these areas is the partnership with students and the

54

SU, who are identified ‘as critical partners in the success of the University’. The University recognises that an excellent experience for students must be built on ‘a genuine sense of shared purpose’ and that:

‘Students need to be actively engaged with teaching and support staff in evaluating the effectiveness of learning and teaching so that they play an active role in securing constant improvement’. [P14]

201. The Strategic Plan continues:

We are committed to supporting the development of the Students’ Union, helping them wherever possible to enhance the services they provide to students…The Senior Management of the University will continue to work closely with the Students’ Union, involving them in key discussions about the development of the University and its priorities. [P14]

202. The Student Charter 179 sets out the commitment made to all students by the University and the SU in relation to student involvement in the evaluation and development of their course and wider student experience at the University. The University works closely with the SU to provide a range of formal systems and informal opportunities to enable student engagement with quality assurance and enhancement activities. A number of these operate at the level of the course, while others operate at the level of the School, Faculty, Campus or Institution. 203. A timeline follows which sets out a number of key changes in relation to student engagement that have taken place since the last QAA [Institutional] Review: Table 5: Activity Timeline

Key date Activity

February 2010 QAA Institutional Review

July 2010 Publication of the QAA Institutional Review Report

July 2011 Publication of the Learning and Teaching Strategy 2011-15

August/October 2011 Arrival of new Vice-Chancellor and Deputy Vice-Chancellor

January 2012 Introduction of monthly SULG /KIT meetings with VC and members of the UEC

February 2012 Strategic Plan 2012-17

September 2012 Student Charter 2012/13 with supporting promises published

September 2012 Introduction of Campus Life Groups (to replace Staff/Student Liaison Committees)

September 2012 Establishment of Student Life Committee (receives reports from CLGs and reports to UEC)

June 2013 Internal Quality Audit: Academic Review Tutors (to become Personal Tutors)

August 2013 Introduction of specific process to analyse and discuss NSS outcomes and action

179

[0096] Student Charter 2014/15

55

September 2013 Introduction of Head Representative Role

June 2014 Election of new SU Sabbatical Officers (President and Education Officer re-elected)

August 2014 NSS outcomes improved

September 2014 School Representative role replaces Head Representative role

September 2014 Re-launch of Personal Tutor Scheme

September 2014 Enhanced Student Year commences in 2014/15

September 2015 (full implementation)

My Future Plan

204. The University works in partnership with the SU to enable students, both directly and via student representatives, to be actively engaged with quality assurance and enhancement activity; thus empowering them to influence teaching, learning and assessment on their courses and more generally to improve the student experience across the University. A number of quality assurance and enhancement processes operate at the level of the course, while others operate at the level of the School, Faculty, Campus or Institution. 205. As will be further explored in section 4.10, the opportunities offered to students studying with collaborative partners of the University for engagement with quality assurance activities are explored and agreed when the partnership is approved. There should be parity with arrangements provided by the partner and those provided by the University and any variations to this should be identified and agreed prior to the approval of the partner to franchise the course. Collaborative partners are responsible for ensuring that partner students have opportunities for engagement with quality assurance opportunities that are in line with those offered by the University. Those opportunities should be identified and agreed prior to the commencement of the course. While ensuring that students on University courses do have opportunities for engagement, the University will take into consideration the size and type of the partner organisation and the local context. While the SU is not formally required to provide access to its facilities and resources to all students studying at partner organisations, it has responded positively to requests for advice and guidance from partner students.

206. All students have the opportunity to evaluate their modules180. Module Tutors are required to provide an opportunity for students to evaluate the module around the mid-point of the taught sessions. The format for mid-module module evaluation is agreed by the Module Tutor usually in discussion with the student group181. This more qualitative approach is augmented by an end of module or from 2014/15, an end of level evaluation (Annual Course Evaluation (ACE). Mid-module evaluation provides an opportunity for the module tutor to respond to student feedback prior to the completion of the module, ensuring the feedback loop is closed and students are able to benefit from any changes made in response to their feedback. The agreed outcomes of mid-module evaluation are presented to the BoS and any actions required are recorded within the course action plan. The University is aware from its ongoing work with the SU and comments raised in the Student Submission that students would welcome further improvements to its communication of the outcomes of the course team’s consideration of feedback from students.

180

[0034] Academic Quality and Partnerships Handbook – Section 3 181

[0497] Mid Module Evaluation Examples

56

207. As noted in sections 4.3 and 4.4, in 2014/15 the University is moving to an online system of student evaluation by level 182 with the support of the SU for this change to procedure. During 2012/13 and 2013/14 an online student evaluation of modules process was run at the end of each module. However, the University’s monitoring of the response rate indicated a continued low level of student engagement with the process during the first year. Despite action taken to address this, by clarifying the role of module tutors and encouraging completion of the surveys within sessions using portable devices183, overall student participation rates only increased marginally in 2013/14. After discussion in a number of fora and in the light of the SU’s view that students might respond better if there were fewer surveys to complete, it was agreed there should be a change of approach from within module and end of module evaluation to within module and end of level evaluation184. Therefore students will only be asked to complete one level evaluation survey per year. Tutors will be encouraged to use data collection tools other than surveys for the within module evaluation activity. It is therefore anticipated that the potential for survey fatigue having a negative impact on response rates should be significantly reduced. Within the ACE students will have the opportunity to comment on their experience of the course but also on other aspects of their experience offered as part of the Enhanced Student Year (ESY)185. It is proposed that the ACE survey will run towards the end of April 2015 enabling the outcomes to be presented to the next Board of Studies (BoS), and it is anticipated that by the final BoS meeting of the year this will inform the development of the Course Action Log. Some outcomes of ACE may need to be drawn out and forwarded to other fora e.g. Campus Life Group (CLG) for consideration. 208. The University recognises the importance of closing feedback loops to students. Course Representatives (CRs) are members of BoS and provide feedback on the course on behalf of their peers186.They also provide feedback on the outcomes of the discussion at the BoS to the students they represent. Mid module evaluation works well because students see processes working effectively and agreed changes taking place in a timely manner. Students experience first-hand the benefits of providing feedback and so are more likely to give feedback again in the future. Guidance on the production of Module Guides includes a recommendation that they should include a summary of both the outcomes of module evaluation from the previous run of the module and also the action taken in response to the outcomes. The Environment 209. The University and the SU187 work very closely together. The University recognising the SU as the official voice of the students in line with best practice as recommended by NUS, Committee of University Chairs, Guild HE and Universities UK188: The University and the SU have made commitments to students about working in partnership to enhance

182

[0405] Student Evaluation Presentation: Evaluation by Level 183

[0034] Academic Quality and Partnerships Handbook – Section 3 184

[0112] Student Evaluation 2014/15 (ASQC/147/14) 185

[0113] Enhanced Student Year Briefing Paper July 2014 186

Exemplar Board of Studies minutes: [0312] Journalism Board of Studies minutes 21 May 2014 (minute MAT/JOU/14.17, 23, p5-11); [0313] Music Media Mgt Popular Music Board of Studies minutes 4 November 2014 (minute MAT.MMMPOP.BS.14.05, p7-14) [0414] Sports Education and Coaching Board of Studies minutes 5 November 2014 (minute AS/SE/EC/BS.14.40, 41, 49.1, 49.2, 51.3); [0415] Performance Arts Board of Studies minutes 6 November 2013 (minute AS/PFA/13.28, 30, 33(1); [0416] Master of Business Administration Board of Studies minutes 18 June 2014 (minute BEPS/MBA/BOS/14.21, 22); [0417] LLB Board of Studies minutes 12 February 2014 (minute BEPS/LLB/BS.14.04, 05, 06, 08)

187 [0114] Students’ Union 3-Year Strategy 2013-2016

188 [0115] NUS Guidance for University Governing Bodies

57

student learning opportunities. These are published within the Student Charter, alongside what is expected of students in terms of their engagement with the University. 210. The University engages students in the quality enhancement of their learning opportunities at an individual level. This engagement is achieved via the Personal Tutor Scheme189 which provides tailored academic advice and guidance in relation to engagement with the range of opportunities open to students. The ESY also provides course specific opportunities for students to engage with their course, subject, co-curricular activity and employability opportunities. Formal processes also exist at the individual level in relation to quality assurance activities, including opportunities to evaluate individual modules and the course per level. Individual opportunities to provide feedback in relation to non-academic issues are also provided and this feedback will be considered by CLG190, which is open to all students. CRs (one per level per course) represent students at BoS providing a conduit for information between students and the course team. From 2014/15 School Representatives (SRs) are members of Faculty Learning and Teaching Committees (FLTCs). The University has three groups of committees (Academic, Management and Council). A significant number of these committees have terms of reference that require representation from the SU or student representatives on the membership. 191 . Care is taken to ensure these colleagues receive an induction into the work of the Committee and their particular role as a member prior to attending their first meeting. For example, the Vice-Chancellor meets the President of the SU in advance of every meeting of Council and of Academic Board to discuss relevant issues that may arise. Currently there is SU representation on the following Academic Committees: Academic Board (AB), Academic Standards and Quality Committee (ASQC), Academic Portfolio Committee (APC), Learning and Teaching Committee (LTC), Student Life Committee and student representation on FLTC, University Research Degrees Committee (URDC), and BoSs. 211. Alongside formal feedback mechanisms there is a culture of informal discussion about teaching, learning, assessment, research and co-curricular activity between staff and students that also leads to the enhancement of student learning opportunities. As noted in section 4.4, support for learning, advice and guidance is available to students from Personal Tutors but a Student Helpzone192 situated on every campus is an alternative source of support and guidance that is valued by staff and students. In addition Personal Tutors and Helpzones can encourage students to seek additional support from the University’s Student Services193team and the SU if this is required. 212. The Academic Strategy identifies subject communities as the means through which students are inducted into their subject and become engaged with their course and the wider University community194 . Currently across the University there are many examples of student representatives working in partnership with staff / course teams to develop their subject community and enhance the learning opportunities available to students on their course 195 . The challenge for the University is to ensure that in the future explicit engagement with a strong subject community is the experience of all students studying at

189

[0105] Personal Tutor Policy 190

Exemplar CLG minutes: [0422] Park Campus Life Group minutes 18 November 2014; [0423] Francis Close Hall Campus Life Group minutes 18 November 2014; [0424] Oxstalls Campus Life Group minutes 18 November 2014

191 [0116] Academic/Mgnt/Council Committee Structures showing SU and Student Representation 2014/15

192 [0101] Student Helpzones webpage

193 [0117] Student Services webpage

194 [0488] Academic Portfolio paper to University Council (C/03/15); [0510] Academic Portfolio Review (full paper) February 2015

195 [0288] Key Performance Indicators for School Representatives 2014/15; [0289] NSS 2014 Outcomes Relating to Enhancement

58

the University. The introduction of SRs is a systematic and deliberate step towards achieving this. One of the key purposes of this role is the enhancement of learning opportunities through bringing in more direct student input into the development of subject communities. 213. The Academic Strategy will drive the further development of thriving subject communities to provide fertile environments for the engagement of students in the development of Research / Project activity. This type of learning activity already exists in some areas of the University and exemplifies high quality staff / student engagement. Students are drawn in to live projects and learn both about the substantive issue but also the process of conducting research or managing a project196. Representational Structures 214. The SU and the University are separate organisations but the University provides approximately one third of the SU’s funding. The SU undertakes a wide range of activities197 all of which support its two main aims (A) to represent students; and (B) to provide services that make life easier and more fulfilling and enjoyable for every single student at the University.

215. The SU participates in a number of regular meetings with senior staff in the University, including monthly ‘Keep in Touch’ (KIT) meetings of the Students’ Union Liaison Group (SULG) between the SU Chief Executive Officer (SU CEO), the SU sabbatical officers and the Vice-Chancellor and other senior staff. These meetings are used to discuss strategic matters and to consider other issues of interest or concern to either party. 216. The SU oversees the Student Representation Scheme and is actively supported by the University. An Action Plan and Timeline198 are agreed each year and these documents guide the implementation of the student representation scheme on an annual basis. The Representation and Democracy Coordinator works closely with the SU Education Officer and the Associate Dean of Quality & Standards (ADQS) to plan and implement the arrangements for the Student Representation Scheme as approved on an annual basis by ASQC. 217. The SU undertakes a range of activities each year to promote the Student Representation scheme and raise awareness of the importance of the role played by student representatives in ensuring the student voice is heard. The SU promotes the scheme via their website and through a poster, plasma screen and leaflet campaign Be a Course Rep – Make a difference – Make a change199. 218. The University has benefitted from student representation on committees through CRs for several years. In 2013/14 the University listened to the SU and as a result a new level of student representation was added: Head Representatives. The purpose and remit of the Head Representatives was reviewed at the end of 2013/14, and for the 2014/15 academic year the role of SRs was developed and established. The current University

196

[0409] AC7106 Contemporary Issues in Accounting (p7); [0465] LW6007 Information Technology Law (p2); [0466] Exemplar Joint Staff and Student Publication from the School of Accounting and Law; [0467] Exemplar Joint Staff and Student Publication from the School of Sport and Exercise; [0468] List of Joint Staff and Student Publications from the Schools of Business & Management and Accounting & Law; [0469] List of Joint Staff and Student Publications from the School of Natural and Social Sciences

197 [0119] SU Presentation 2014

198 [0290] Live Action Plan for Student Representation (ASQC/40/14); [0291] Student Representation Timeline and Action Plan for 2014/15

199 [0120] SU Leaflet – Be a Course Rep – Make a difference – Make a change

59

Student Representation Scheme, which is run by the SU, therefore has two layers of representation for 2014/15: CRs and SRs. CRs are responsible for gathering feedback from the students on their course and bringing this to the attention of the Board of Studies (BoS) meetings. The role of the SR is to improve the quality of the student experience at the University by engaging effectively with the CRs, students and members of staff and in particular the relevant Head of School (HoS). 219. The SU represents students by sitting on University committees as well as local resident and council meetings. The SU organises the CLGs and Student Life Committee (SLC) meetings with the University to provide student feedback to inform the ongoing development of the student experience at the University. 220. In addition to CRs, BoS membership also includes a member of LIS staff in order to ensure that due consideration is undertaken of the availability and accessibility of appropriate learning resources for students. Members of LIS staff are also present on LTC and FLTCs and Research Degree Committees (FRDCs). All validation, and Periodic Review and Revalidation (PRR), events require a statement from LIS to confirm that appropriate resources are/will be available. 221. In 2012/13 CLGs were introduced to replace Staff / Student Liaison Committees where monitoring of student engagement at those fora had revealed that this was variable. The key purpose of CLGs is to represent the views of students on their non-academic Campus based experiences and for service providers to update students on developments, policies and procedures in key services. Three CLGs were established, one per campus, each chaired by a Faculty Dean with an SU Sabbatical officer as Vice-Chair. Student feedback is used to guide the development of services and to enable a two-way dialogue between students and service providers. Meetings are clearly publicised in advance. Despite these proactive measures, student engagement with these meetings remained varied. For 2014/15 changes to the format and chairing of the CLG meetings are being piloted so that they become more of a discussion rather than a formal committee meeting to see if this has a positive impact on student engagement200. SRs will be members of the CLG on the home campus for their school and will have a remit to actively elicit feedback from students for consideration at these meetings and to ensure the outcomes of the meetings are fed back to students. There will be a greater emphasis on closing the feedback loop to ensure students are aware of the response provided. CLGs report to the KIT meetings of the SULG with the Vice-Chancellor as well as to SLC. Examples of issues raised by students at CLG that resulted in change include the extension of library opening hours and an increase in University laptops available for use by students. 222. Also established in 2012/13, the SLC provided a reporting line for CLGs. The main purpose of SLC is to represent the views of students on their non-academic experiences in the University; to update students on developments or changes to policies and procedures in key services; and to monitor and set standards for the quality of core University services. SLC was originally chaired by the Dean of Media, Arts and Technology who holds a cross-institutional brief for Student Experience. In 2013/14 the chairing of this committee passed to the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Operations). The Committee meets three times a year and reports directly to the University Executive Committee (UEC).

200

Student representation at November 2014 meetings of Campus Life Groups showed an average of 4 student representatives/SU sabbatical officers in attendance – although these were the first meetings of 2014/15 and it is hoped that these numbers increase during the year. [0422] Park Campus Life Group minutes 18 November 2014; [0423] Francis Close Hall Campus Life Group minutes 18 November 2014; [0424] Oxstalls Campus Life Group minutes 18 November 2014

60

223. SU Representatives have been involved as panel members on IQAs201 which have been used to address key enhancement themes emerging from the ASQC Annual Report and students are also invited to participate in these events. It has been proposed that from 2014/15 School Representatives will be invited and supported to join the panel for PRR202. To date the involvement of former and / or current students in PRR events has been via meetings with the PRR panel. 224. As noted above, CRs are a well-established role at the University. 331 CRs were in place during 2013/14 and 119 CRs attended training events. New CRs are elected at Level 4 and Level 7 on an annual basis and if there are vacancies at Level 5 or Level 6 these too will be addressed via elections at the beginning of the academic year. More than one CR may be elected per course per level but only one CR per level will be a full member of the BoS. 225. During 2013/14 an additional supporting layer to student representation structure was introduced when the paid role of Head Representative203 was initiated by the SU. The potential benefit of having this additional role in each school or equivalent unit was very clear but during the course of the year further discussions took place about how to focus the role. The role title implied a managerial relationship with the CR. While working with CRs was important, it was felt that the Head Representative role should focus on improving student learning opportunities more directly. As a result the role has been refined and re-launched as School Representative 204 . SRs are drawn from the existing pool of CRs. Key responsibilities of SRs include:

working with staff to enhance and develop the student experience in both academic and non-academic areas;

gathering feedback from CRs on teaching methods and learning resources and assisting relevant staff in responding to this feedback;

assisting in the development and implementation of new approaches to student engagement;

promoting the Student Voice in appropriate forums; communicating key information to CRs and liaising with SU and School Staff, particularly HoSs.

226. The University agreed to fund the SR scheme, enabling an honorarium to be paid to each SR in recognition of the important responsibilities of the role and the implied time commitment.

227. The BoS205 is the primary unit of academic quality assurance at course level and has a clear responsibility for continuous evaluation of the course and the actions which result from it. The outcomes of student evaluation inform the annual monitoring process and the development of the action plan which are then monitored at the BoS. The BoS not only takes remedial action when deficiencies in provision have been identified206, but is also proactive in planning and executing enhancements to the provision. The BoS provides students with a forum for academic feedback and representation. The role of the CRs is pivotal to

201

[0034] Academic Quality and Partnerships Handbook – Section 8 202

[0034] Academic Quality and Partnerships Handbook – Section 5 203

[0121] Head Representative Role Description 204

[0122] School Representative Role Description 205

[0034] Academic Quality and Partnerships Handbook – Section 3 206

[0312] Journalism Board of Studies minutes 21 May 2014 (minute MAT/JOU/14.19, p5-11); [0414] Sports Education and Coaching Board of Studies minutes 5 November 2014 (minute AS/SE/EC/BS.14.49.1, 49.2, 51.3); [0416] Master of Business Administration Board of Studies minutes 18 June 2014 (minute BEPS/MBA/BOS/14.22.6, 28.2, 28.4)

61

facilitating closure of the feedback loop by ensuring the students they represent are kept informed of any particular issues and actions discussed and agreed at the BoS. It is envisaged that student engagement in annual course monitoring will be strengthened by the more direct and active role of the School Representatives in the new CIM process. SRs will participate in the regular academic health check meetings to be held in each School with Heads of School, FHQSs, SGLs and CLs from 2015. In preparation for Academic Health Check (AHC) meetings SRs will seek feedback from CRs in relation to the alignment of the BoS minute, course action log and the data sources considered. They will attend the School AHC meetings ready to represent the views of course representatives and engage fully in the professional, evidence-based discussion of the courses in the School. They will be fully engaged in the discussion around the prioritisation of enhancement themes and the planning for enhancement activity. 228. The University ensures that all staff who teach and / or support learning are introduced to / reminded about the student representation scheme in a variety ways which includes promotion during the September Staff Conference. The arrangements for the implementation of the scheme are published in the form of a letter co-signed by the relevant SU and University representatives207 on the Quality and Standards webpages and this is also placed on ‘Staff News’ on the staff home page of the website in the weeks leading up to the beginning of a new academic year. This provides clear information about the activity required to ensure the successful implementation of the Scheme. Training and Ongoing Support 229. When CRs are elected, course administrators record this information on the student’s SITS record. A SITS report is provided for the SU Representation and Democracy Coordinator (R&DC) so that all new CRs can be contacted and invited to join one of the SU training events that take place on every campus in week 6 (with a later event to be held in November for any CRs who missed the events in October). CR training is a half-day event208. For the first time in 2014/15 Student Representatives were involved in the training of CRs and although the CR role is unpaid small incentives are provided to encourage attendance at the training event. Training includes sessions on areas of interest such as roles and responsibilities; the role of the SU; meetings skills’; the NSS and QAA. 230. In 2013 a number of University Staff submitted contributions to the training in the form of short video clips on a range of pertinent subjects e.g. module evaluation and the NSS. The events themselves were run by the R&DC with support from the SU Sabbatical officers and included input on the course representative role and responsibilities. The events were evaluated and a summary evaluation209 was produced. Attendance at the training events is monitored and reported to ASQC210. 231. As this is a newly created role for 2014/15, the training and induction of SRs211 took place for the first time on 15 September 2014. It was led by the SU in the form of the R&DC but included contributions on the work of the SU, the ESY, the upcoming QAA Higher Education Review, Committees and the development of Subject Societies from the SU Sabbatical Officers, the SU CEO, the Director of Academic Practice, the Dean of Quality and Standards (DQS) and ADQS.

207

[0123] Student Representation: Plans for 2014/15 208

[0124] Student Representatives Training Programme 209

[0292] Student Representative Training Feedback 2012/13 and 2013/14 210

[0125] Student Representation 2013/14 Update to ASQC (ASQC/20/14) 211

[0126] School Representative Training Programme

62

232. The Inaugural Student Representatives Conference ran in 2012212 and was opened by the Vice-Chancellor. Workshops around different student representation activities were provided by SU staff and members of university staff. The NUS provided an external speaker who joined members of SU and University staff in an ‘Any Questions’ session at the end of the conference. A second conference followed in December 2013213 where the theme was ‘The Student Voice’. Again this conference was opened by the Vice-Chancellor and the day provided an opportunity to review the formal and informal processes for eliciting the student voice within the University. The importance of closing the feedback loop and the challenges involved in ensuring students are made aware of the consideration and response their feedback has received were explored. Scenarios were discussed, involving different types of feedback and the role played by student representatives in ensuring the student voice is heard and responded to. 233. SRs attended a one-day initial training event (15 September 2014). A particular focus of this day was the consideration of their role and the type of activity they may undertake. It was recognised that each SR was likely to develop their role slightly differently but within the agreed parameters. SRs will have further training in the coming months including a session on the NSS planned for spring term 2015. SRs have been asked to flag any additional professional development needs and fortnightly meetings with the R&DC and the SU Education Officer (SU EO) will provide a regular opportunity to discuss additional development requirements. SRs will also meet every two weeks with the HoS within which they are based. SRs are required to produce work-logs214 in which they record their activity and these will form the basis of their meetings with SU colleagues and their HoS. 234. Having received initial training in September SRs attend termly CLG meetings which are followed by both a KIT meeting of the SULG. Both events will be organized by the SU (R&DC and the SU EO). In addition, Refresher training was provided for SRs in January215. SRs will also meet termly with the CRs in their School. As indicated in earlier paragraphs, gathering feedback from CRs and ensuring the student voice is heard in the School and that any response is communicated to the CRs / students being represented are key elements of the role of the SR. 235. In relation to the training and preparation of staff in 2012/13 separate staff development sessions on student engagement with quality assurance processes were run jointly by the ADQS and the SU R&DC. The sessions ran on every campus and were open to University staff and colleagues at partner institutions but generally the events were not well attended. From 2013/14 onwards staff development sessions on the Student Representation Scheme and Student Evaluation have been included in the June and September Staff Conferences216. Attendance at these events is monitored and has been consistently good. This was reflected in positive feedback on the conduct and content of such events.217 Staff conferences are videoed218and uploaded online so that they can be accessed by those, including staff at collaborative partnerships, unable to attend an event. Other resources such as PowerPoints are also placed online and / or circulated.

212

[0127] Inaugural Student Representatives Conference Programme 2012 213

[0128] Second Student Representatives Conference Programme 2013 214

[0129] Exemplar School Rep work-log 215

[0508] School Representative Refresher Training 216

[0293] June 2014 Staff Conference Programmes 217

[0294] September 2014 Staff Conference Programmes and attendance lists 218

[0297] Staff Conference: Preparation for the New Academic Year (10 online videos) (Infonet)

63

Informed Conversations 236. The University has an active approach to student and staff engagement in evidenced-based discussions, which are based on a mutual and open sharing of information. For example, discussion of the outcomes of external surveys (i.e.NSS, PTES, PRES, ISB and the DLHE) are of paramount importance to the success of the University in benchmarking performance and identifying areas for improvement. In relation to the NSS the University implemented a robust and comprehensive management intervention 219 in response to two sets of declining student satisfaction scores in 2012 and 2013. In August 2014 as a result of the hard work of colleagues across the institution the University’s overall satisfaction rates increased by 4% to 84%220(based on a response rate of 71%). The concerted effort across the University in 2013/14 included:

meetings between senior managers and all Course Leaders (CLs), with the Deputy Vice-Chancellor leading meetings where courses had achieved less than 75% or more than 90% student satisfaction scores;

detailed analysis of the outcomes, the identification of action required and the development of action plans which were carefully monitored;

commitment to a set of 14 actions for different role holders across the institution all designed to enhance the student experience;

visits to other institutions with experience of driving up NSS scores.

237. The University will continue its focus on enhancement in response to NSS outcomes, from 2015 onwards consideration of NSS outcomes will also become a prominent feature of the evidence-base in the revised approach to annual monitoring (the continuous improvement monitoring process). 238. The Student Survey and KIS Steering Group (SSKSG) oversees the planning for centrally run student and external student surveys and provides an important forum for the discussion of the responses. The SU EO and SU President are members of the SSKSG and are closely involved in the planning for surveys and the discussion and analysis of the outcomes of the data resulting from a number of surveys including: NSS, PTES, PRES, IBS and the Gloucestershire Student Survey (GSS). The SU have access to all the data and are closely involved in discussions around institutional action required, including how to increase student engagement with surveys and how feedback loops should be closed. The You said / We did campaign221 is a key means of ensuring all students are informed about actions taken as a result of the feedback they provided. The University is aware that the SU would like SRs to be more closely involved in the analysis of survey data in order that they may identify and seek to address weaker areas. This is an area for further discussion and development over spring term 2015. 239. The recent outcomes of the ISB222 2014 are another strong example of the University interrogating the data to gain a full understanding of strengths and areas for development and then focusing action on the basis on this analysis. The latest results are outstanding and a testament to the strong relationships that exist between the University and the international student community.

219

[0295] National Student Survey 2012/13 Outcomes and Next Steps (ASQC/161/13); [0296] National Student Survey 2013/14 Outcomes and Next Steps (ASQC/147/14)

220 [0130] National Student Survey Presentation to Academic Board October 2014

221 [0109] You Said We Did Park; [0110] You Said We Did Oxstalls; [0111] You Said We Did Francis Close Hall

222 [0131] International Student Barometer 2014 Report

64

Valuing the Student Contribution 240. The University demonstrates the value it places on the student contribution to quality assurance and to the enhancement of learning opportunities by providing opportunities for students to provide feedback, both individually and via student representatives, on academic and non-academic issues. It listens and responds to issues raised by students. Information about the student representation scheme is introduced during induction week and an opportunity is provided by course leaders early in the academic year to elect course representatives. All course representatives are offered training by the SU and the Chair of the Board of Studies briefs CRs prior to their first BoS meeting. Examples of course teams responding to student evaluation can be found in course handbooks and module guides. Other examples of the University taking action in response to student feedback can be found in the ‘You Said We Did’ campaigns that ran on each campus. Student representatives have a particular role in relation to the enhancement of learning opportunities and in recognition of this have received training and ongoing support from the SU, Q&S and Heads of School. In addition the SR role is remunerated. The University is committed to working with the SU to ensure that the representative system remains effective, fit for purpose and responsive to students’ needs. 241. One of the most successful examples of the University actively listening to the student voice is exemplified in the Student-Led Teaching Awards. Students are asked to nominate staff (individuals and teams) for a range of categories, full details of which can be found on the Students’ Union staff awards webpage.223

Monitoring, Review and Continuous Improvement 242. CR attendance at BoS is monitored by course administrators who record all attendance at meetings in the minutes. An annual report on student representative attendance at BoS and CLG is received by ASQC224. Course representatives are given the opportunity to evaluate the training they receive, to identify ways in which it might be improved in the future. SR engagement will be monitored through their meeting with the HoS they are based in and the SU. As this is a new role it needs to be carefully monitored during 2014/15 to ensure that the scope and workload is appropriate and manageable for the current students who have been appointed to these posts. Summary of effectiveness with which the University meets the Expectation 243. The University meets the Expectation in the way in which it has taken deliberate steps to engage its student body both individually and collectively as partners in the assurance and enhancement of their educational experience. The SU works in partnership with the University to engage all students in the quality assurance and enhancement of their learning opportunities through the provision of a wide range of opportunities, both formal and informal. The student voice is embedded within the University’s deliberative and appropriate executive Committee structures and the regular KIT meetings of the SULG with the Vice-Chancellor. The system of CRs has been strengthened by the introduction of SRs who have added a new dimension to the structural relationship between the student representation scheme and the University at School level. Opportunities to provide feedback on their academic and wider university experience are available to students directly via student evaluation processes and indirectly via their student representatives. Informal opportunities to give feedback are available via discussions with module or personal tutors, the SU website or through the variety of other feedback opportunities the SU provides. The

223

[0285] SU Student Led Teaching Awards webpage 224

[0132] Student Engagement with Boards of Studies - Report to ASQC (ASQC/148/14); [0133] ASQC Minutes of 17 July 2014 (minute ASQC.14.75.4)

65

University has demonstrated a commitment to listening to the student voice and using this to inform the enhancement of learning opportunities and, in line with issues raised in the Student Submission, the move to the new CIM process should provide better opportunities to communicate with students the impact of their suggestions for improvements to modules and courses. 4.6 Assessment of students and recognition of prior learning Expectation B6: Higher education providers operate equitable, valid and reliable processes of assessment, including for the recognition of prior learning, which enable every student to demonstrate the extent to which they have achieved the intended learning outcomes for the credit or qualification being sought. 244. The University operates clear, equitable, valid and reliable processes of assessment. These are intended primarily to enable our students to demonstrate achievement of the intended learning outcomes for the credit being sought. All assessment activity is governed through the regulatory framework of the Academic Regulations for Taught Provision (ARTP) and, more directly, the Assessment Principles. As mentioned in section 3, these were developed to provide a common framework and set of reference points in the wake of the development of the ARTP which in itself replaced separate regulations and procedures in undergraduate taught, postgraduate taught and professional courses and in the light of growing provision in partner institutions. As noted in section 3, the Academic Regulations are reviewed on an annual basis 225 for their continued effectiveness and presented to Academic Board for approval. The Assessment Principles are published and available via the University website226 and also evident in Course Handbooks and Module Guides 227. Assessment procedures, including detailed guidance for staff, are available on the website

228, including guidance on developing assessments, marking and moderation. 245. Assessment policies and regulations are systematically evaluated and enhanced through the Academic Regulations Committee (ARC) and Faculty Academic Standards and Quality Committee (FASQC)/Academic Standards and Quality Committee (ASQC), taking account of feedback from External Examiners (EEs), course evaluation and operation, external and legislative factors, sector developments and evaluation of regulatory effectiveness by ARC, ASQC and FASQCs. 246. Comprehensive academic guidance has been developed to provide clear and authoritative information to ensure that assessment processes can be managed confidently and consistently by colleagues in the University and, where appropriate, colleagues within collaborative partnerships. Detailed and explicit advice and guidance is provided for all assessment activities including setting and running assessments229, marking, moderation and examination230 as well as management of mitigating circumstances231, assessment of disabled students232, accreditation of prior learning233, and assessment offences234. The

225

[0359] Academic Regulations Committee minutes (minute ARC.13.38) 20 June 2013; [0360] Academic Regulations Committee minutes (minute ARC.14.38) 11 June 2014

226 [0061] Assessment Principles

227 [0413] BA Hons Media Production Course Handbook; [0455] LLB Hons Law Course Handbook

228 [0034] Academic Quality and Partnerships Handbook – Section 9

229 [0134] Assessment Procedures for Staff

230 [0135] Assessment Procedures: Marking and Boards of Examiners

231 [0136] Assessment Procedures: Mitigating Circumstances

232 [0137] Assessment Procedures: Assessment of Disabled Students

233 [0093] Accreditation of Prior Learning

66

development and maintenance of integrity in assessment is central to these principles. The procedures outlined in those publications must be followed in all on-campus, off-campus and franchised courses while validated programmes delivered by other institutions are expected to follow the ARTP and have procedures consistent with the University’s principles for assessment. Setting and Running Assessments 247. Assessment tasks are set by module teams under the leadership of the Module Tutor, taking account of the module level in the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications (FHEQ) (levels 3-8), validated learning outcomes for the module and the course, subject and discipline expectations and relevant PSRB requirements. A further consideration for franchised provision is the suitability of the assessment task for students in other settings, taking account of circumstances in countries other than the UK. Assessment tasks must be appropriate to the level and learning outcomes, while also being consistent with the University Principles for Setting and Running Assessment. The format (including duration or ‘size’) of the assessment is determined during module or course validation process, and may only be changed as part of the University’s PCAP process where, alongside these issues, account is also be taken of the diversity of assessment format in the course. 248. A degree of externality is built into the process through the University’s Assessment Scrutiny Process 235 (ASP) that is responsible for the approval and coordination of assessment activity236. Subject Group Leaders (SGLs) and Course Leaders (CLs) are jointly responsible for the effective operation of this peer review process which can operate at subject group or course level. Each module’s assessment and reassessment briefs are reviewed before the module commences by a team which balances subject or discipline knowledge with oversight from outside the course team. This is designed to ensure new colleagues are brought into the review and oversight process giving the ASP a development and an enhancement aspect. The ASP builds consistency, strength and confidence in our approach to assessment. Among the issues scrutiny teams consider are the range and differentiation of assessments within a course; alignment with the relevant level descriptors and grade descriptors; the accessibility of the assessment for a diverse student body and the approach taken in previous assessments for the same module. This peer review process has recently been implemented to enhance staff awareness of issues, approaches and methods elsewhere in their School, disseminate good practice and help improve the academic and assessment literacy of the University’s academic staff overall. ASPs take responsibility for approving the assessment activity for all course provision (whether on campus, off campus, or franchised to a collaborative partner). In order to achieve consistency of approach and adherence to the overarching assessment principles, all examination papers and assessment briefs and reassessment briefs must be approved and any amendments incorporated prior to the commencement of the module. 249. The ASP provides an opportunity for the course team to ensure an appropriate range of module assessment is provided within and across the modules at each level of the course. They also provide an opportunity to consider how the workload will be managed within the course team and as much as possible take steps to minimise assessment bunching. Panels meet physically or virtually (via electronic communication).

234

[0138] Assessment Procedures: Assessment Offences 235

[0139] Assessment Procedures: ASP Role and Terms of Reference ; [0140] Assessment Scrutiny Panel Membership and Operation

236 [0317] Assessment Scrutiny Panel Form; [0355] Exemplar completed ASP forms

67

250. If the ASP requests changes to be made to draft examination papers or assessment briefs, these can normally be made by the Module Tutor in discussion with the CL. In certain cases, particularly where alternative arrangements may be required for assessments for disabled students, Chair’s Action may have to be taken to approve an Assessment Brief after the panel has convened. 251. An electronic copy of draft and final (approved) versions of examination papers and assessment briefs are lodged with the Faculty Administration Manager (FAM). It is the Module Tutor’s responsibility to ensure that the approved version of assessment briefs is published to students. It is the FAM’s responsibility to liaise with Academic Registry (Examinations and Ceremonies) in respect of the approved version of all examination papers. External Examiners have reported favourably on their involvement in the whole assessment process, and the appropriateness of assessment as a result of this thorough process. EEs have commented on the clarity and structure of assessment briefs and their intellectual and practical rigour. Marking and Moderation 252. Assessment of work is carried out securely within the academic regulatory framework. The academic regulations 237 and examination guidelines 238 provide the parameters within which security is assured. All work is marked and initially moderated within module or course teams239, with a second tier of oversight between modules built into Module Boards of Examiners (MBEs). Recent revisions of assessment procedures, taking account of comments by EEs concerning the former second marking process, resulted in the development an approach to moderation that focuses on the consistency of the application of assessment criteria across the module and by all members of the module team. 253. The University’s awards are regulated through Boards of Examiners. The University runs a two-tier system of Boards of Examiners. The first tier, MBE, considers results at a module level. Boards run at a course, subject group or school level depending on the extent of module sharing and other local arrangements and conditions. EEs are fully involved in MBEs (see section 4.7). The second level, Award and Progression Boards of Examiners (ABE), consider student profiles to make award and progression decisions in line with the provisions of the ARTP. These run at a faculty level with separate Boards for undergraduate taught and postgraduate taught programmes, along with a small number of special boards run for specific courses, such as professional courses in education or health. The primary cycle of MBE and ABE meetings for undergraduate taught programmes is centred on Boards in June, with provision for Boards in December, March and September to accommodate the needs of partner institutions, professional and vocational courses and allow reassessment decisions. For postgraduate taught programmes, there are three MBE and ABE meetings per year. Chief External Examiners (CEEs) are appointed for each faculty for postgraduate taught and undergraduate taught courses, and play a full role in ABEs (see section 4.7) and have played a vital role in advice on elements of the ARTP, including a revision of several provisions in 2011/12240.

237

[0031] Academic Regulations for Taught Provision 238

[0141] Examination Guidelines for Students webpage 239

[0456] Moderation Example: ACC330; [0457] Moderation Example: Central Film School; [0458] Moderation Example: Hong Kong Institute of Continuing Higher Education; [0459] Moderation Example: Norland College

240 [0491] Chief External Examiners Report 2010/11 - Melinda Drowley (ARC/17/12); [0492] Academic Regulations Committee minutes 21 June 2012 (minutes ARC.12.23 & ARC.12.27) ; [0493] Academic Regulations for Taught Provision Amendments Paper (ARC/13/12); [0494] Academic Regulations for Taught Provision Amendments Paper (ASQC/98/12); [0495] Academic Standards and Quality Committee minutes

68

254. The Faculty Administration teams in Academic Registry administer all Exam Board activity and, as indicated in section 4.7, EEs participate in each tier of the Exam Board process. SITS software ensures that all assessment is subject to consistently applied parameters that are checked to ensure accuracy and compliance. The Academic Registry/Faculty Administration Teams manage all communication of Exam Board outcomes to students through the student portal. 255. As already noted in section 4.3, 2014/15 also heralds the roll out of the Electronic Management of Assessment (EMA) project across the University. The e-Assessment facility via Student Records Online has been introduced as an institutional system for all appropriate assessments from the start of the 2014/15 Academic Year. A pilot of the e-Assessment facility was successfully conducted in Semester 2 of the 2013/14 Academic Year. The EMA system is a response to student led demand and provides staff and students with a flexible electronic service for the submission of assessments across the institution. The benefits of this system to enhancing the student and the staff experiences include increased flexibility of the service in making submission possible from any location and at any time; a more secure facility for the submission, marking, moderating and the provision of feedback to students; tackling previous concerns raised by students about the legibility of feedback; and a demonstrable commitment to the education for sustainability agenda by removing the need to print en masse. This will result in significant cost savings for both students and the University. The system utilises a simple and familiar interface for students to submit and receive feedback on their assignments. The facility also includes an automated process to manage mitigating circumstances. Academic staff can access assessments, return feedback and enter grades via an integrated process within the single student records system. 256. Following the pilot in 2013/14, this system has been available for submission of all appropriate assignments from 2014/15. A set of resources have been developed on the ADU pages to support staff in the implementation of the new system. There is detailed guidance, advice and accompanying training on issues such as what to consider when e marking and providing e-feedback, support for annotation of student’s work and tips to facilitate reading on screen241. Student feedback has been positive, although some final year students have reflected that this change has been significant for them in the final stages of their studies. Assessment of Disabled Students 257. The University’s procedures for providing support for disabled students and to making necessary adjustments to assessment provisions, highlight a key principle of inclusivity shaping our overall approach242. In each case, notification in advance is required and relevant adjustments made. A review of procedures for support for disabled students took place as part of a wider revision of assessment procedures in 2012/13, resulting in only minor adjustments. The procedures have recently been used as the basis of new provisions to allow adjustments to assessment arrangements to accommodate faith requirements243 in line with the University’s obligations under terms of the Equalities Act (2010).

27 June 2012 (minute ASQC.12.99); [0490] Academic Regulations for Taught Provision Amendments Paper (AB/35/12); [0489] Academic Board minutes 11 July 2012 (minute AB.12.49)

241 [0142] Electronic Management of Assessment: Staff Resources (Infonet)

242 [0137] Assessment of Disabled Students webpage

243 [0136] Assessment Procedures: Mitigating Circumstances

69

Mitigating Circumstances 258. The University’s approach to Mitigating Circumstances means that they are taken into account as part of assessment due date setting and are not treated as an issue in ABE discussions regarding student progression or awards. Requests for mitigating circumstances to be taken into account are managed through Student Helpzones except for the more serious cases, where an extension of a due date by over three weeks may be required. These cases are managed by Senior Tutors (one per School). The most serious cases, for example those where an extension may be required into the next academic year or where the extent of credit failed as a result of these circumstances affects a student’s ability to achieve their intended award, are dealt with by the Mitigating Circumstances Review Panel 244(MCRP). This is based within Academic Registry with membership from Student Services and Faculty representatives. The MCRP advises ABEs of cases where a student’s circumstances are so severe that their ability to achieve their intended award is at risk. In such cases, the ABE receives a proposed plan to allow the student to continue to study as their circumstances allow. In a system where Boards of Examiners operate at a Faculty level, it ensures that complex student circumstances are managed discreetly and students dealt with in an equitable manner. Students for whom adjustments to assessment activities are made for reasons of disability have full and equal access to all Mitigating Circumstances provisions. Both these procedures are well established and mature, and EEs have regularly noted the effectiveness with which they operate. 259. In a small number of cases a student’s circumstances may be so severe that they place limits on that student’s ability to study effectively. In these cases, the University can implement its Supported Study Procedures. 245 These procedures permit students with extremely complex personal circumstances to access the enhanced student support services managed by Student Services. Assessment Offences 260. There is a systematic and institution-wide approach to the consideration of unacceptable academic practice where there are defined forms of academic offence including plagiarism. Students undertaking assessment are provided with a framework of support to encourage appropriate conduct. The University’s approach to assessment offences prioritises development, pedagogy and enhancement over punishment by setting aside intention as a factor in consideration of whether a student has committed an assessment offence. Assessment offices include plagiarism, unauthorised collusion, fabrication, resubmission, impersonation and cheating in an exam. Prevention of breaches to acceptable conduct centres on assessment design, provision of clear guidance to students (including online referencing guides), information on how to avoid plagiarism 246 and in some areas, including but not only postgraduate research programmes, systematic use of plagiarism detection software. The guidance is continually under review. For instance, guidance was reviewed following the identification in 2013/14 of issues relating to secondary referencing as identified by the Assessment Offences Board of Examiners (AOBE) in Applied Sciences. These issues were considered through the relevant FASQC and this led to a revision of the online referencing advice and a new section on secondary referencing. The University’s policies and procedures are available on the website for both investigation and response to breaches of acceptable academic practice 247 . As part of a wider redevelopment of the web site, and in response to student feedback, the accessibility and prominence of details on assessment offices will be further improved.

244

[0143] Mitigating Circumstances Review Panel Terms of Reference and Membership 2014.15 245

[0144] Supported Study Procedures webpage 246

[0145] Referencing and Plagiarism webpage 247

[0138] Assessment Procedures: Assessment Offences

70

261. Suspected cases of a breach of assessment regulations are investigated as if they were any other form of assessment decision. The first time a student is found to have committed an assessment offence the penalty is a warning and referral to study support services. Thorough investigation is undertaken to ensure that academic credit is only awarded to those whose assessment conduct and performance merit it. The incline of penalties is steep following a first office, but the data on assessment offences suggests that fewer than 10% of students committing an assessment offence in any given year are on a second or third offence. As with many of the University’s assessment procedures, the system’s strength is its simplicity and therefore its easy comprehension as well as ease of consistent application. Accreditation of Prior Learning (APL) 262. The University undertook a review of its APL Policy in 2012/13 resulting in a revised and enhanced process for the assessment of claims and for decision making on requests for consideration of advanced standing on either experiential or accredited previous study grounds. The Admissions and Enrolment Team issues guidance on APL to all applicants and there is a dedicated webpage with general information for students248 (including how to apply249 and Frequently Asked Questions250). The team works directly with the relevant CL in the decision-making process and communication of decisions. Training is provided for all those involved with the process and decisions are made in accordance with the guidance and ARTP. Consistency in the application of process and decision-making is facilitated by the use of an application template and a clearly outlined submission and approval process which ensures decision-making is evidence based. 263. The University has produced comprehensive guidance notes for staff251 and students in response to a variety of issues that have arisen since the introduction of formal procedures for the management of APL. These are intended to guide those involved in any stages of the assessment and approval process and must be read in conjunction with ARTP section 2.1.7, outlining APL limits for each award. 264. There is clear and accessible guidance for applicants on the APL process on the website. Applicants are invited to indicate a potential claim for APL via their course application form within 2 weeks of enrolment. Fitness to Practice 265. Students achieving an award that includes or comprises a professional qualification constituting a license to practise as a result of meeting the learning outcomes of their programme, must satisfy the University that, in respect of their health and conduct, they do not constitute a risk to patients or professional clients and that they meet the requirements of professional bodies. In cases where concerns are raised about students in this regard, the University’s Fitness to Practise procedures252 provide a minimum standard for any inquiry into the suitability for a student to receive a professional qualification. These procedures are within the remit of ARC. They are evaluated as and when required in conjunction with professional courses in the light of any changes in expectation or procedures of PSRBs.

248

[0093] Accreditation of Prior Learning 249

[0146] Accreditation of Prior Learning: How to Apply webpage 250

[0147] Accreditation of Prior Learning: FAQs webpage 251

[0148] Accreditation of Prior Learning: Staff Guidance webpage 252

[0149] Fitness to Practise Procedures

71

Summary of effectiveness with which the University meets the Expectation 266. The University meets this Expectation by developing and operating assessment processes which are equitable, valid, reliable and responsive to students' needs. The clarity, flexibility and simplicity of the University’s Assessment Principles, the work of the ASPs in ensuring assessment briefs are developed consistently, and the clarity of the APL processes are particular strengths of the University’s approach to assessment. The University’s commitment to further enhancement in assessment is evident through the piloting and implementation of EMA, which is a significant cross-University initiative aiming to improve assessment practice. 4.7 External Examiners (EEs) Expectation B7: HE providers make scrupulous use of external examiners. Role of the external examiner 267. The role of External Examiners (EEs) is central to the maintenance of academic standards but also to the security and enhancement of student learning opportunities. The University operates a two-tier system of formal meetings to agree assessment outcomes at module and awards levels. There are two distinct roles for EEs, one to support the responsibilities and operation of Module Boards of Examiners (MBEs); the other, as a Chief External Examiner (CEE) to support the responsibilities and operation of Award Boards of Examiners (ABEs). Nomination and Appointment of external examiners 268. Normally EEs are appointed to courses. However, a single EE may be appointed to cover a group of cognate courses, or to cover a set of modules which are delivered across more than one course. Where EEs are appointed to courses and modules franchised to one of the University’s collaborative partners, they will have a responsibility for, and to report on, each location of delivery. In considering appointments both Faculty Academic Standards and Quality Committee (FASQC) and Academic Standards and Quality Committee (ASQC) take account of the total volume of work required and the expertise of the particular examiner involved. CEEs are appointed to a faculty and will normally have responsibility for either all its undergraduate awards or all its taught postgraduate awards. 269. The Academic Quality and Partnerships Office (AQPO) maintains a database of the University’s EEs, by course and institution, and will notify the appropriate Chair of a FASQC or the Director of Collaborative Partnerships (DCP) when nomination of a new, or replacement, EE is required. Courses are encouraged to seek nominations for replacement examiners well in advance of the end of tenure of the current EE. The Dean of Quality and Standards (DQS) is responsible for the nomination of CEEs. 270. Appointments are made subject to the criteria determined in the Academic Quality and Partnerships Handbook 253 (AQPH) regarding academic and/or professional qualifications; expertise and experience, recent external examining, or comparable related experience. Proposed examiners without experience will normally join an experienced team of EEs operating in a cognate group of courses. While the University is committed to providing the induction and mentoring necessary to increase the national pool of suitable EEs, an appointment of an external with no previous external examining experience to an

253

[0034] Academic Quality and Partnerships Handbook – Section 6

72

area where there is only a single examiner would only be undertaken with appropriate mentoring arrangements in place. Subject Group Leaders (SGLs) are responsible for facilitating initial contact between the mentee and the named mentor as it is expected that the mentor and the mentee should initially liaise before the assessment round. 271. The University draws EEs from a variety of institutional or professional contexts in order that the course benefits from wide-ranging external scrutiny. In making appointments the University avoids over-use of the same institution in relation to courses, existing examiners from the same institutions in the same examining team and reciprocal examining arrangements. The University is also mindful of the overarching workload on externals and would not appoint where the examiner would thus hold more than the equivalent of two substantial EE appointments. Objectivity is also fundamental to the effectiveness of the appointment so procedures allow for consideration of previous close involvement with the University which might be perceived as compromising their objectivity. In respect of CEEs, nominees should have recent and relevant experience of managing academic regulations and procedures, or quality assurance procedures, at a national (e.g., QAA), institutional or faculty level. The University exercises the appropriate vigilance in meeting Home Office requirements on preventing illegal working by requiring proof all employees have the right to work in the UK. 272. The normal appointment period is for four academic sessions. In instances where the application for appointment of an EE is not approved at any stage during the process described above, the decision is referred back to the appropriate Faculty Head of Quality and Standards (FHQS) or the Director of Collaborative Partnerships (DCP) who will inform the nominee, indicating the reasons for rejection. Where the application for appointment of a CEE is not approved, the DQS informs the nominee. Carrying out the role 273. The University has clear guidelines for the appointment of EEs, and all applications254 are processed via FASQC (or, in the case of collaborative provision, via Collaborative Provision Committee (CPC) and ASQC, before being signed off by the DQS. Newly appointed externals are invited to one of two Induction Days, held biennially in November and April 255 . These serve to provide a general introduction to the University and its structures, followed by an opportunity to meet relevant members of teaching staff. While not mandatory, these days are well attended, and feedback from externals attending has been positive. Where a newly appointed external is unable to attend one of these events, alternative arrangements are made via the Department in question to provide the necessary induction. The induction event is comprehensive and includes an introduction to the University’s quality assurance processes, academic regulations and related policies and procedures, as well as an introduction to the specific course which is organised by the relevant FHQS or DCP, and Course Leaders (CLs). CEEs will be additionally briefed by the DQS and the relevant FHQS. 274. Once an appointment is approved, the AQPO sends out a comprehensive briefing pack which includes 256 :links to the AQPH; Academic Regulations for Taught Provision (ARTP); a template for reporting and a copy of an exemplar report; details of fees, expenses and how to claim; web links to key University strategies. The CL contacts subject externals to offer a more detailed briefing regarding dates of exam board meetings, information about

254

[0150] External Examiner Application Form (EE1) 255

[0306] External Examiner Induction Programme and Presentations November 2014; [0307] External Examiner Induction Programme and Presentations April 2014; [0308] External Examiner Induction Programme and Presentations November 2013

256 [0151] External Examiner Resources webpage

73

the course content and assessment methods and the report from the previous outgoing EE. In respect of collaborative arrangements they also provide details of the specific organisation of the partnership. 275. EEs are responsible for ensuring that standards and comparability are maintained and for commenting on whether students have fulfilled the objectives of the module and reached the required standard. They scrutinise assessment requirements, coursework assignments and examination papers, and are members of MBEs where marks are agreed. Examiners are expected to monitor the form and content of coursework assignments and examination papers in respect of modules within their appointment remit, and scrutinise an agreed representative sample of students’ work arising from those assignments and examinations. This approach ensures that all students are assessed fairly in relation to each module syllabus, objectives or learning outcomes, that marking standards are consistent and appropriate, and that students have reached the required standard for the module. Externals provide a comment on their satisfaction that assessments have been conducted in accordance with the ARTP. They also attend the MBE where marks are confirmed and help to ensure and confirm that marks have been achieved by fair means according to the University's requirements and normal practice in higher education. In instances where externals are unable to discharge this duty, the University provides for them to communicate their views in writing to the Chair of the MBE in advance of the meeting. Examiners see the work of all students being assessed, or more commonly an agreed sample, and comment on the standards of marking. They are not permitted to alter individual marks awarded by internal markers. Although the University does not use them as a ‘third marker’ in the case of disagreement between first and second internal markers, they can recommend adjustments of the marks for the cohort on the basis of the sample. CEEs are required to ensure that standards and comparability are maintained across the University’s awards. They should attend meetings of the ABE where decisions on awards and progression are made, and ensure that those decisions have been reached by fair means according to the University’s academic regulations and procedures. 276. Currently there is no expectation or provision for students to automatically meet with EEs except where meetings with students are required by an external validating or professional accrediting body or where the nature of the external examining process – for example, with respect to performances – makes it inevitable that EEs should meet with students. The University informs students of the name, position and institution of subject EEs via module descriptors, programme specifications, and Course Handbooks. EE reports and responses to them are made available to student representatives via committee business of the Boards of Studies. Subject Groups share the reports more widely in other ways, for example via Moodle. The University is currently working on a more systematic and inclusive approach to making EE reports available electronically to all students from 2015 onwards via the CIM SharePoint sites Recognition of the role 277. Faculties currently maintain a database of the external examining engagements of their academic staff. These are most frequently referred to when considering issues of reciprocity in making appointments to the University. ASQC has plans during 2015 to build upon the expertise and experiences of its academic staff and gather feedback from academic staff members who are active EEs to identify areas of good practice found elsewhere and to consider how and where such enhancements might be developed and implemented in our systems, processes and academic practice.

74

External Examiners’ reports 278. EEs are required to report annually in writing 257 on the effectiveness of the assessment process and any lessons to be drawn from it. From 2013/14 the reports are submitted electronically to a central repository maintained by AQPO. Where an EE's duties encompass more than one course, the report is expected to include specific reference to any issues relating to individual courses. Where the same module or course is delivered in more than one location, for example, via franchised collaborative arrangements, the report should include reference to, and comparison of, each site of delivery. Reports should include, where applicable, any matters of serious concern arising from the assessment process which put at risk the standards of the University. In respect of reports from CEEs258, they can expect that any asterisked comments made in their report will be addressed by the University in the next year and that they will receive feedback. The DQS responds to the reports and both the report and the response are considered by Academic Regulations Committee (ARC)259. 279. EEs reports 260 provide an objective and impartial perspective on the academic standards of awards. They enable Academic Board to ascertain whether a course is meeting its stated objectives and to identify necessary enhancement initiatives. Reports are submitted annually at the end of the academic session. Examiners at course level are invited to comment on the key areas of interest using the standard template. EE comments are a rich source of information (see also reference in paragraph 182) indicating for example:

where assessment design and strategy build key employability skills and bear a

direct relevance to employer/industry needs;

where feedback to students is comprehensive, in-depth and enables students to

improve performance as well as where it needs to be clearer and more targeted.

CEE reports cover the overarching operation of the ABE in respect of adherence to University regulations as well as fitness for purpose of regulations and procedures for assessing students, including with regard to alignment with the QAA Quality Code.

280. The processes ensure that communication loops from previous reports have been closed by asking EEs to confirm that comments made in their previous report(s) have been considered and, where appropriate, acted upon. New EEs are asked to confirm that they have received a copy of the previous year’s report. Where EEs are coming to the end of their tenure, they are asked to provide an overview statement on progress over the years of their appointment. 281. An overview report is then prepared for consideration by ASQC and Academic Board261 . Examples of issues raised for the University’s further consideration in recent reports include the perceived benefits to students of e-assessment and e-feedback and the 257

[0152] External Examiners Report Template 258

[0153] Chief External Examiners Report Template; Exemplar Chief External Examiner Reports: [0542] Dorothy Haslehurst AS Undergraduate; [0062] Bradshaw Gwendolen BEPS Postgraduate; [0154] Phil Cardew MAT Postgraduate

259 [0044] Academic Regulations Committee minutes 30 October 2014 (minute ARC.14.56); [0045] Response to Chief External Examiner Reports 2013/14 (ARC/28/14); [0040] Academic Regulations Committee minutes 26 November 2013 (minute ARC.13.64); [0454] Responses to Chief External Examiner Reports 2012/13 (ARC/25/13)

260 Exemplar External Examiner Reports: Faculty of Applied Sciences [0522–0527]; Business School and Institute of Education & Public Services [0529-0533]; Faculty of Media, Arts & Technology [0536-0541]; Academic Development Unit [0528]

261 [0058] ASQC Annual Reports for 2013, 2014 (AB/06/13) (AB/06/14)

75

need to continue efforts to prompt location specific comments for each delivery location to enable comparability of standards across sites. Any exceptional issues, which require action outside the normal review cycle, are addressed at this point. Reports are also distributed to and read by Faculty Deans, Heads of Schools (HoSs), CLs, SGLs,the FHQS, course administrators and where relevant, the Partnership Coordinators (PCs) and collaborative partners. Responses are dealt with through the Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) process for the Subject Group (via the FASQC AMR Readers Panel). FASQCs ensure that issues arising from the reports are thoroughly considered by SGLs (or relevant officer at a collaborative partner) and they are responsible for ensuring that EEs receive a copy of the AMR. Reports from CEEs are dealt with in a similar fashion before being distributed to the Associate Dean of Quality & Standards (ADQS) and the FHQS. CEE reports and responses addressing issues raised are received and monitored by ARC on behalf of ASQC. Any significant issues arising from the reports will be incorporated into the summary report and actions identified in the summary are monitored on a regular basis by ASQC. Reports received for 2013/14 indicate some particular strength in the University’s approach to assessment practice which is found to be appropriate and challenging, the rigour of marking and moderation processes, the quality of feedback given to students, the commitment of staff and the quality of teaching and learning, the conduct and administration of exam boards. Serious Concerns 282. In exceptional circumstances examiners may submit a report in confidence, directly to the Vice-Chancellor, as Chair of Academic Board if they have significant concerns about matters relating to assessment, standards or procedures and are not willing to endorse the mark sheet262. In such cases, the procedure would permit the Vice-Chancellor to nominate a senior member of Academic Board to investigate the EE’s concerns, and report accordingly. The University also has procedures to terminate the contract with an EE where it is found that they are not fulfilling the agreed responsibilities such as failing to deliver an annual report or not attending exam boards (full details can be found in the AQPH). Such decisions are taken by ASQC on behalf of Academic Board. Where a contract has been terminated the EE has a right to appeal in writing against the decision. The appeal will be considered by a panel consisting of the DQS (Chair), a FHQS from a faculty other than that of the external in question, and one other EE not known to the appellant. Where an EE wishes to resign before the end of their term, this may be submitted in writing to the AQPO who will send a letter confirming termination of employment. Summary of effectiveness with which the University meets the Expectation 283. The University meets the Expectation by making scrupulous use of its EEs. Processes for appointment, induction and reporting are strong and effective and allow the University to follow up quickly on significant issues and to ensure that EEs are sufficiently inducted into working within the University’s regulations and procedures. Integrating reporting into AMR processes ensures that EE comments are considered in a wider context and permit a more finely tuned approach to action planning. The University is seeking to enhance practice further by providing greater access to module data for EEs at Boards; exploring ways in which we can learn from the external examining experiences of our own academic staff, and exploring more systematic access to EEs' reports for all students. The development of the AMR process will allow for more timely consideration of overarching issues arising from EE reports. There are further refinements which can be undertaken to ensure more targeted collaborative partnership information. With the recent introduction of EMA, the University is taking the opportunity to explore how this might enhance the role of the EE so that they can access students' work on-line. A programme of work is currently

262

[0034] Academic Quality and Partnerships Handbook – Section 6

76

underway to load the details of existing EE onto SITS and align them with their allocated modules. This will allow for a pilot of the new approach for the Module Boards of Examiners in June 2015, with a view to rolling this out to all EEs in 2015-16. Part of the development will involve the creation of an e-Portal for EEs to access students' work and a number of other key documents such as ARTP, EE Handbook, module guides, assessment briefs, performance statistics etc. It is anticipated that further efficiencies will be gained through the automatic generation of appointment letters and, the electronic receipt of EE Reports and in the longer term, payment of EE fees. 4.8 Programme Monitoring and Review Expectation B8: HE providers have in place effective processes for the routine monitoring and periodic review of programmes. Introduction 284. The University has in place effective processes for the routine monitoring and periodic review of courses. Details of the University’s processes for the monitoring and review of programmes can be found in the Academic Quality and Partnerships Handbook (AQPH) 263. As set out in paragraph 22, a Curriculum Framework Review (CFR)264 was undertaken in 2012 for all undergraduate programmes and in 2013 for postgraduate programmes. One purpose was to ensure that all taught programmes incorporate the principles of the learning and teaching strategy. The second purpose was to rationalise the proliferation of modules within certain programmes. This was a step on a continuing journey (sometimes called “the course is king”) to rebalance programme structure to create better integration and coherence for students, and reduce the risk of fragmentation in their learning experience. As a consequence most internal programmes are not scheduled for further periodic review until 2016/17 or beyond. It is, however, intended to stagger the process by bringing some forward. Some areas of provision have already indicated an intention to undergo a further portfolio review during 2014/15. 285. Courses have continued to be monitored annually in accordance with the APQH. In reflecting on our procedures for annual monitoring, influenced by the outcomes of the 2013 NSS and other satisfaction surveys and feedback from staff, a continuous process is being developed for implementation from 2015. Continuous Improvement Monitoring is a deliberate step to provide a core focus on enhancement at the level of the course and to ensure a more timely response to feedback and data as it emerges. Purpose and nature of, processes for programme monitoring and programme review 286. Boards of Studies (BoS) are the primary unit of academic quality assurance. They may operate at the level of an individual course or where more appropriate a cognate group of courses responsible to the relevant School for the operation, development and quality of course. The membership265 includes the Subject Group Leader (SGL), Course Leader (CL), and academic staff responsible for each module within the course, a representative from Library and Information Services (LIS), and student representatives. In order to support a consistency of approach to the conduct of BoS meetings , standard agenda templates have

263

[0034] Academic Quality and Partnerships Handbook – Section 4 264

[0008] Curriculum Framework Review Information and Guidance (AB/77/11) 265

[0034] Academic Quality and Partnerships Handbook –Section 3

77

been developed for each of the three main meetings that take place during the year266. Reporting of franchised provision takes place at the relevant BoS. BoS have a clear responsibility for the continuous evaluation of the course and the actions which result from it. Such evaluation involves every member of the Board, including student representatives, with matters regularly reported and discussed by the Board resulting in an Action Plan. In particular, the Action Plan developed as part of the Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) serves as a mechanism for tracking and evaluating actions taken as a consequence of evaluation. It is therefore considered and updated at each meeting. BoS not only take remedial action when deficiencies in provision have been identified, but also are proactive in planning and implementing enhancements to the provision267. The BoS has oversight of the academic development of the course. Where significant changes are planned to an existing course they may request an early periodic review of provision.

Annual monitoring: internal provision (including franchised programmes) 287. The process of annual monitoring has increasingly sought to promote quality enhancement as much as quality assurance through the development of action planning. Courses produce action plans for each academic year with matters to be addressed drawn from various sources of evidence. The plans are then updated termly at BoS meetings and reviewed at the end of the year for inclusion in the AMR submitted on a standard template268 early in the autumn term for consideration by Faculty Academic Quality & Standards Committee (FASQC). The AMR includes a review of the completed action plan from the previous academic year and the initial action plan for the coming academic year together with the evidence used to identify matters requiring action to be taken, including: EEs’ reports; statistical data on recruitment, progression and achievement; module evaluation outcomes; BoS minutes; and NSS/PTES results and any attendant PSRB requirements269. 288. Since 2013 greater analysis and consideration of the NSS outcomes across the institution has informed the AMR process. A systematic programme of professional discussions was undertaken with a focus on enhancement at course level. The resulting outcomes significantly informed key institutional enhancement initiatives as well as course action plans270. These action plans have fed directly into the course action plans included in the AMRs, as well as informing actions at school, faculty and institutional level, for consideration and monitoring by Academic Standards & Quality Committee (ASQC) and Academic Board. This provides a means of addressing issues, promulgating good practice and thereby bringing about improvement. 289. Action plans are signed off by the relevant HoS before they are submitted in the AMR. Both through feedback to programmes and the yearly refinement of the action plan template improvements in action planning have been noted year on year by FASQCs in the annual reports on programme monitoring 271 produced for ASQC. This allows for the 266

[0057] Boards of Studies Agenda Template (Spring 2015 Boards); [0406] Boards of Studies Agenda Template (October 2014 Boards); [0407] Boards of Studies Module Evaluation Summary Table Template

267 [0312] Journalism Board of Studies minutes 21 May 2014 (minute MAT/JOU/14.17.1, 17.6, 24, 25, p5-11); [0414] Sports Education and Coaching Board of Studies minutes 5 November 2014 (minute AS/SE/EC/BS.14.46, 49.1, 49.2); [0417] LLB Board of Studies minutes 12 February 2014 (minute BEPS/LLB/BS.14.05, 06, 07.4, 07.6)

268 [0155] Annual Monitoring Report Template (includes an action plan template)

269 [0342] AMR 2013/14 MA PGD Landscape Architecture; [0343] AMR 2013/14 Gloucestershire Framework; [0383] AMR 2013/14 Environmental and Social Sciences; [0384] AMR 2013/14 MSc Psychological Sciences; [0425] AMR 2012/13 CIPD; [0426] AMR 2013/14 PGCE Primary

270 [0295] National Student Survey 2012.13 Outcomes and Next Steps (ASQC/161/13); [0296] National Student Survey 2013.14 Outcomes and Next Steps (ASQC/147/14)

271 [0265] FASQC Annual Report 2012/13 AS (ASQC/08/14); [0266] FASQC Annual Report 2012/13 BEPS (ASQC/09/14); [0267] FASQC Annual Report 2012/13 MAT (ASQC/10/14)

78

consideration of appropriate aggregation of issues at course, School, Faculty and institutional levels to take place. 290. AMRs are considered and approved by the BoS, or a sub-group thereof, prior to submission to the Academic Registry. Student representatives have the opportunity to comment at this stage. Once submitted, AMRs are read by members of a FASQC Panel, with comments recorded using a standard template272 as a basis for the Panel to make comments on the academic health of programmes and to agree feedback. Faculty Heads of Quality & Standards (FHQSs) initially communicate this to CLs and SGLs promptly but informally. It is received formally at the BoS meetings in the Spring term. 291. AMRs also report on instances of good or innovative practice, which are forwarded to the Faculty Learning and Teaching Committee (FLTC) 273 for consideration and dissemination, for example by inclusion in faculty staff development conferences. The outcomes of annual monitoring, together with suggestions for improvements to the process, are reported in each FASQC’s annual report on annual monitoring to ASQC for inclusion in summary form in the ASQC annual report on programme monitoring received by Academic Board. 292. Courses are also expected to identify in AMRs any changes which they wish to bring forward for approval by the relevant FASQC’s Programme Change Approval Panel (PCAP). The PCAP meets twice yearly to consider proposals for changes to courses, such as the addition and/or deletion of modules and the amendment to individual module learning outcomes or assessment patterns. Courses are required to submit proposals using a standard template 274 . This requires an explanation of, and rationale for, the proposed changes but also evidence of consultation with both student representatives, normally via the BoS, and the External Examiner (EE). It requires confirmation from the HoS, on behalf of the Dean, that any necessary resources are available. In considering the proposals for approval, the Panel monitors the extent to which the proposed changes, together with any others introduced since the original validation or last revalidation, would constitute a significant change to the programme specification. Where this would be the case, courses are advised to bring forward proposals instead for a full Periodic Review and Revalidation (PRR) (see below). 293. Membership of FASQC Panels for the consideration of AMRs includes faculty academic staff, a cross-Faculty member and the Faculty Administration Manager (FAM). Panels include academic staff with different levels of experience so as to provide learning opportunities for relatively inexperienced staff while drawing upon those with greater expertise to maintain a consistency of approach. FHQSs have also sought to include students on the Panels considering AMRs, usually drawn from memberships of BoS, but with limited success. More normally student involvement takes place at two points, firstly in consultation with the development team, and secondly at consideration of FASQC annual reports at ASQC and the ASQC annual report at Academic Board275. Training and support for annual monitoring are provided both centrally and formally through events organised by the ADQS with responsibility for staff development, and more informally and locally by the FHQS, who offer briefing for both AMR authors and readers.

272

[0034] Academic Quality and Partnerships Handbook – Section 4 273

[0391] Faculty Teaching & Learning Committee AS minutes 13 February 2014 (minute FLTC.AS.14.08); [0394] Faculty Teaching & Learning Committee BEPS minutes 17 June 2014 (minute FLTC.BEPS.14.16.04-08); [0395] Faculty Teaching & Learning Committee MAT minutes 16 October 2014 (minute FLTC.MAT.14.20)

274 [0156] Programme Change Approval Panel Template

275 [0268] Academic Standards and Quality Committee minutes 23 January 2014 (minute ASQC.14.06); [0269] Academic Board minutes 19 March 2014 (minute AB.14.10) and ASQC Annual Report (AB/06/14)

79

294. Although there have been some noticeable improvements in action planning across the institution, the annual monitoring process itself and the production of the AMR reports have been seen as a burdensome activity. Furthermore the reporting at institutional level has not been sufficiently timely in the early identification of and response to issues. Consequently, having taken account of sector developments in this area, the University has decided to replace the current process with a continuous improvement monitoring (CIM) model276 of course monitoring. This involves more regular ‘academic health check’ points conducted by the FHQS and relevant HoS spread at termly intervals across the academic year. The new process moves from a retrospective emphasis on quality assurance of the previous academic year to one which is more forward looking and enhancement-focused. Furthermore, the new approach will move away from an essentially paper-based process to an online operation via SharePoint. This will provide a more transparent and accessible repository for the documentation required for programme monitoring, including the development of the course Action Plan, summary of good practice, BoS minutes, EE reports, module evaluations and course performance data as and when produced. The activities and procedures that draw upon these data sets and that are employed in the current process will, therefore, continue but take place on a more continuous basis and with the monitoring itself being more frequent, responsive and dynamic. As well as online monitoring via SharePoint, there will be a rolling programme of meetings with course teams during the year to review progress and identify good practice. This will lead to a summative annual report on the academic health of courses as well as a wider set of enhancement events and activities to be organised across the University on an annual basis. The new model is being introduced on a pilot basis in a number of courses drawn from across the University during the current academic year (2014/15) for internal and franchised provision. Once evaluated and refined, the intention is to roll it out to validated partnership provision as well277. Annual monitoring: validated partnership provision 295. The annual programme monitoring of validated partnership provision has been conducted in the same way as for internal provision. Partners submit in the autumn term an AMR278 for each programme on a standard template similar to that used internally. AMRs similarly include action plans for the previous and coming academic years, together with a similar range of evidence, including EEs’ reports, statistical data, summaries of module evaluations, and course board minutes. In producing AMRs, partners are supported by Partnership Coordinators (PCs) who can provide additional guidance and read drafts. PCs also produce a report themselves based on their experience of the partnership over the course of the year279. In so doing they draw upon evidence provided by the Academic Link Tutor (ALT) for each of the programmes involved. 296. The Collaborative Provision Committee (CPC) establishes a Panel, headed by the Director of Collaborative Partnerships (DCP), to consider the AMRs280, with readers drawn primarily from its membership, including the Associate Deans of Quality and Standards

276

[0157] Revised Annual Monitoring Process (AB/47/14) 277

[0270] Continuous Improvement Monitoring User Guide 278

Exemplar Annual Monitoring Reports for validated provision: [0238] AMR 2013/14 Foundation Degree in Early Years Studies Gloucestershire College; [0239] AMR 2013/14 BA Hons Counselling Top Up Warwickshire College

279 Exemplar Partnership Coordinators Reports: [0245] Partnership Coordinators Report 2013.14 Central Film School; [0246] Partnership Coordinators Report 2013.14 Gloucestershire College; [0247] Partnership Coordinators Report 2013.14 Warwickshire College

280 Exemplar Collaborative Provision Annual Monitoring Reports: [0281] AS Collaborative Provision AMR Minutes 12 November 2014; [0282] BEPS Collaborative Provision AMR Minutes 10 November 2014; [0283] MAT Collaborative Provision AMR Minutes 10 November 2014

80

(ADQSs) and the FHQSs. The aim is to ensure a consistency of approach in the treatment of reports. In seeking to improve the process, PCs may be invited to attend the Panel meeting to provide additional information by responding to questions and discussing issues. The Panel makes recommendations on the academic health of the programmes and provides feedback to partners. The DCP produces an annual report for ASQC, which includes a summary of the monitoring outcomes281. 297. In addition to annual programme monitoring, all partners, for franchised as well as validated provision, are required to submit an Institutional Monitoring Report 282 on the partnership. This covers all the programmes undertaken by the partner in collaboration with the University. It includes an action plan together with an evaluation of the operation of the programmes and commentary on the nature of the partnership liaison as regards processes of administration and communication. It also includes the contribution of relevant personnel (e.g. PC, ALTs, DCP, FHQS, etc.) 298. As will be explained more fully in section 4.10 the University implemented a strategic change to the organisation and management of collaborative provision. The Collaborative Provision Office (CPO) in 2012 centralised the organisation and oversight of collaborative provision. This has clarified the responsibilities of our partners in respect of implementing and adhering to university processes, and provided the University with much stronger oversight of partner engagement with these processes. Periodic Review and Revalidation 299. Though the process of PRR has similarities with that of initial validation, its purpose differs in that it reviews the past operation of the provision and prepares for its future delivery. It provides an opportunity to reflect on the operation of the provision over the period since the initial validation or previous PRR, and to plan for the future on the basis of that reflection. In particular, it allows the University to satisfy itself that its provision adheres to the UK Quality Code including the most recent versions of subject benchmarks, and other relevant external reference points. We ensure that it remains current, relevant and in line with good practice elsewhere in the sector. Furthermore, it enables the University to be made aware of any matters affecting the successful operation of the provision, relating for example to resources, which need to be addressed centrally. 300. For the course team, it provides an opportunity both to evaluate the provision through the analysis of data relating to student recruitment, progression, performance and achievement, and to review the development of the curriculum since the previous (re)validation. That includes the cumulative effect of the changes approved through the PCAP process. It enables the team to refresh the curriculum by considering external factors such as the views of employers, developments in the relevant industry and higher education. They can then bring forward further changes to modules and the course requirements as reflected in the course map. Increasingly PRRs have had to consider proposals for substantial changes to the provision, sometimes involving a change of award title approved by the APC. Several have been brought forward within the standard five year validation period specifically to seek approval of such changes283. 301. Courses that are due to undergo PRR are included on the validation and review schedule managed by the Academic Registry, which oversees the arrangements for the

281

[0158] Collaborative Provision Committee Annual Report 2012/13 to ASQC (ASQC/11/14) 282

Exemplar Institutional Monitoring Report: [0471] Institutional Monitoring Report 2013/14 Central Film School; [0283] MAT Collaborative Provision AMR Minutes 10 November 2014 (section 3.1); [0472] Collaborative Provision Committee minutes 15 January 2015 (minute CPC.15.10.3)

283 Exemplar PRR: [0339] PRR BA Film Studies 6 March 2014 (approved by ASQC 1 May 2014)

81

process. The relevant FASQC and ASQC monitor the preparation for the PRR by the programme team, the FHQS (or nominee) provide specific guidance and support as required. In the case of validated partnership provision the CPC monitors the preparation and the PC provides the guidance and support284. Where the provision is overseen by a PSRB, due consideration is given to the form of review to avoid unnecessary duplication of material. Where appropriate, the review may be a joint process to facilitate both the PSRBs and the University’s requirements. 302. As for initial validations, the PRR process requires the submission of a PRR document. This comprises two main elements. The first is an evaluative review of the operation of the provision, with evidence drawn from AMRs and the data sources used for annual monitoring, as well other relevant information. There is also a review of the assessment strategy and outcomes, internal survey data and, where appropriate, outcomes of professional accreditations. Where the provision is franchised, the review addresses issues relating to delivery at the partner locations and draws upon evidence from the partners concerned. 303. The second element is the documentation required for the revalidation of the provision. This includes:

the programme specification;

course map;

module descriptors;

clarification of the assessment strategy;

demonstration of the alignment with the University’s Learning and Teaching Strategy;

information on research and scholarly activity underpinning the provision, and

confirmation of the staffing and learning resources to support programme delivery in

relation to the Faculty’s (or partners) strategic or business plan.

304. Any proposed changes to the provision require an academic rationale supported by the current EE and, where appropriate, other external expertise. This may take the form of practitioners and service users, PSRB consultations and appropriate consultation with the student body. 305. The process leading up to and covering the consideration of PRR documents by the University Panel is described in detail in the AQPH. Comments from student representatives are gathered at the BoS. The panel itself is established by the Academic Registry and approved by ASQC, normally three weeks before the date of the event. Panels are chaired by a senior member of the academic staff and include an External Panel Member (EPM) approved by the DQS, the relevant FHQS or an appropriate member of the CPC for validated partnership provision. General considerations relating to externality285, including the general requirements for expertise, experience and independence, apply to the appointments of EPMs. A further degree of objectivity (commonly known as ‘internal externality’) is secured by drawing another internal member of the University’s staff from a different School to that of the provision being reviewed. More recently, a student representative nominated by the SU has been included. Chairs and internal members of PRR panels are drawn from a list of appropriately experienced staff, maintained by the Academic Registry. 306. The pre-meeting of the internal panel members, including the Chair, is convened approximately a week before the event by the nominated Registry officer. This provides a 284

[0034] Academic Quality and Partnerships Handbook – Section 4b 285

[0034] Academic Quality and Partnerships Handbook – Section 6

82

useful basis for discussion of comments received from the panel members, including the EPM and the formulation of an agreed draft agenda for the event. This informs the final programme for the event, which is decided by the Chair in consultation with Academic Registry (Quality and Standards). 307. PRR events typically involve meetings with a representative group of students, representatives of the managerial and administrative staff, and with the CL and other members of the course team. The SGL and a representative of LIS attend either or both of the latter two meetings. For programmes which are franchised or whose delivery involves the use of external participants (for example, health professional courses, representatives from the institutions and organisations concerned attend one or both of these meetings. For validated collaborative provision, the PRR event takes place on the partner’s premises. It also requires re-approval of the delivery of the course, which, for example, may involve a tour of the facilities and learning resources available. 308. The outcome of a PRR event is an overall judgment by the panel on the quality and standards of the provision, informed by consideration of the documentation and discussions of issues at the various panel meetings. As for initial validations, the judgment forms a recommendation to Academic Board, via the endorsement of ASQC, of revalidation. This is, normally granted for a period of five years for both home and validated provision, with or without conditions and/or recommendations. The panel may decide to defer its decision, pending the submission of further clarification and/or additional evidence. Though such outcomes are rare, a recent instance was the PRR of the Gloucestershire Framework in 2013, in which the PRR process proved particularly valuable in redefining the scope and nature of the Framework and the quality assurance arrangements supporting it. Following a PRR event, an outcomes report, specifically indicating any conditions and recommendations set by the panel, which is confirmed by the panel Chair, is forwarded to those responsible for management of the programme within three working days. The outcomes report is subsequently included in a full report, circulated later to both the course management team and the PRR panel. This details the issues addressed in consideration of the documentation and in discussion at the event286. 309. Conditions made at a PRR event concern matters which put the academic quality and/or standards of the provision at risk if they are not addressed prior to the enrolment of the next cohort. Corrective or preventive action is therefore required. They must be met within a specified time limit set by the panel. Until they have been signed off by the panel Chair, further enrolment cannot commence. Recommendations refer to matters which, while not materially affecting the quality or standards of the provision, have the potential to improve the quality and/or further secure the standards of the provision. Recommendations are usually directed more to the course, which is required to make a response in the next AMR following revalidation. However, an earlier response may be requested. Recommendations may also be directed to the School, Faculty or University; in the case of the latter, these are noted by ASQC which then monitors progress against the actions taken in response. In addition, panels may identify commendations of good practice. These relate to features that have the capacity to make a particularly positive contribution to the course management of academic standards and/or quality of its educational provision, and are worthy of wider dissemination across other areas of the University’s provision.

286

Exemplar PRR outcome reports: [0338] PRR MA Journalism 24 June 2013 (approved by ASQC 15 July 2013); [0339] PRR BA Film Studies 6 March 2014 (approved by ASQC 1 May 2014); [0429] PRR Doctorate in Business Administration (approved by ASQC Sub-Committee 31 July 2013); [0430] PRR Certificate/Diploma in Management Studies (approved by ASQC 19 June 2014)

83

310. The full report of a PRR event is received by ASQC, which formally on behalf of Academic Board confirms approval of revalidation287. The report is subsequently received by the relevant FASQC or CPC, which is responsible for overseeing the responses made to any recommendations via the annual programme monitoring. 311. Where conditions are not met and future enrolment cannot proceed, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor in consultation with the DQS and the Dean of the relevant Faculty would formulate a recommendation, which may invoke a process to terminate the provision. In such cases, following Academic Board approval, processes for oversight of provision that is phasing out come into effect. Summary of effectiveness with which the University meets the Expectation 312. The University meets this Expectation by having effective processes for the routine monitoring and periodic review of courses. The University is satisfied with the outputs of these processes in terms of their fullness and attention to areas which require further attention and identify potential features of good practice; however, it is seeking to develop and enhance the processes themselves. The University’s planned re-engineering of its annual monitoring process will seek to make both inputs and outputs more transparent, accessible and forward-facing so that the process assures the standards and academic health of the provision; identifies and more actively disseminates features of good practice and reports in a more timely manner across the levels of the University’s deliberative structure. The impact of the new approach to monitoring will also be considered in terms of revisiting the periodic review process in due course and will seek to formalise and embed the role of students as active participants in these key processes. 4.9 Academic appeals and student complaints

Expectation B9: HE providers have procedures for handling academic appeals and student complaints about the quality of learning opportunities; these procedures are fair, accessible and timely, and enable enhancement. 313. The University has effective procedures for handling academic appeals and student complaints. These procedures are fair, accessible, and timely in operation. They provide opportunities for institutional learning which enables enhancement to student learning opportunities. Full details on appeals and complaints can be found on our website288. This clear and simple guidance is given to all student-focused departments to ensure that staff give correct advice to students in terms of appeals and complaints. Clear and easily accessible appeals and complaints webpages provide students with the procedures, forms and flowcharts to help clarify the various steps in the process. Information, advice and guidance 314. The Secretariat and Information Team in Registry Services (within Academic Registry) is responsible for managing all aspects of student casework relating to complaints and academic appeals. The University's procedures follow a set of formal guidelines to which students and staff of the University must adhere. The website contains all details of

287

[0344] ASQC Minutes 1 May 2014 (PRR BA Film Studies - ASQC.14.43.9); [0431] ASQC Minutes 15 July 2013 (PRR MA Journalism - minute ASQC.13.106.2); [0432] ASQC Minutes 31 July 2013 (PRR Doctorate in Business Administration - minute ASQC.13.132.1); [0433] ASQC Minutes 19 June 2014 (PRR Certificate/Diploma in Management Studies - minute ASQC.14.53.19)

288 [0159] Academic Appeals and Student Complaints webpage

84

both processes with clear flowcharts for the information of students and the production of a quick access guide 289 315. Formal training sessions on investigating complaints effectively are delivered for staff with responsibility for conducting complaint investigations to ensure effective implementation of published procedures, good practice and to encourage early resolution of cases wherever possible. Further work has been undertaken to assist staff responsible for advising students and to improve awareness and understanding of valid grounds for appeal, and to develop more formalised training for complaint investigating officers, Chairs and members of Academic Appeals and Student Complaints Panels. 316. The strengths of the University’s approach include the close working relationship between the University and the SU in support of the process. There is SU involvement on panels as a demonstrable commitment to ensuring accessibility, transparency and fairness in our processes. 317. As part of the Annual ASQC Report290 to Academic Board an analysis of complaints and appeals is included in the overarching summary to ensure that issues which may be of significance for the institution are noted and acted upon. Internal procedures: design and implementation 318. In the course of managing increasing numbers of academic appeals in recent years, Academic Registry has been alerted to a number of issues which suggested amendments to the procedures were required in order to enable the University to manage the volume and resource-intensity of appeals within appropriate timeframes. Consequently, the Academic Appeals Procedures were comprehensively reviewed and amended in 2012291. The new procedures established an Academic Appeals Group with an enhanced remit to make decisions within a short timescale to uphold, or reject if invalid, a student’s appeal where there is sufficient evidence. This reduces the need for full Academic Appeals Committees and shortens the time taken to resolve issues for many students. Only a small number of appeals submitted in the academic year 2012/13 had valid grounds that could be formally considered under the University’s procedures. Improvements to communications of what constitutes a legitimate basis for appeal have been undertaken to clarify process and outcomes. In 2012/13, the revised procedure resulted in 83% of the appeals considered by the Academic Appeals Group being rejected (11) or upheld (4)292. Evidence showed that the revisions had eliminated the need to convene Panels of the Academic Appeals Committee to consider those cases and facilitated speedy resolution of appeals for students. 319. 23 academic appeals had been received for the academic year 2013/14. In 2012/13, 23 formally documented appeals were received compared with 33 in 2011/12 and 19 in 2010/11293.

289

[0160] Academic Appeals and Student Complaints Quick User Guide 290

[0058] ASQC Annual Reports for 2013, 2014 (AB/06/13) (AB/06/14) 291

[0161] Review of the Academic Appeals Procedure (AB/22/12) 292

Three appeals (the remaining 17%) were non prima facie cases. Two of those cases progressed to Academic Appeal Committee hearings but were dismissed, the other did not proceed.

293 The number of academic appeals from the Faculty of Business, Education and Professional Studies has been broadly consistent over the three-year reporting period. There was a small increase in the number of appeals from the Faculty of Media, Arts and Technology in 2012/13, and a significant reduction in appeals submitted by students from the Faculty of Applied Sciences. In the processing of academic appeals in 2012/13, 17 Completion of Procedures letters were issued indicating that the University’s internal procedures for handling the appeal had been exhausted. Two students submitted an application for

85

Action, monitoring and enhancement 320. The Student Complaints Procedure has also recently been updated294 to enhance procedural alignment with the Expectation and Indicators detailed in the QAA’s UK Quality Code for Higher Education Chapter B9: Academic Appeals and Students Complaints (2013). The review took into account a number of other national reports including the OIA’s Pathway 3 Consultation - Towards Early Resolution and More Effective Complaints Handling (2012) the Review of Institutional Complaints and Appeals Procedures in England and Wales (2009) produced by the National Union of Students and the OIA Good Practice Framework for Handling Complaints which took effect from September 2014. Although principles and processes remain inherently the same, presentational changes have been made to make the material more accessible (flowcharts etc.). Following extensive consultation with Faculty staff, students and the SU, the revised procedure now specifies a time period within which a student complaint must be made (unless special circumstances can be claimed). This change has been implemented in the light of a number of recent complaints which were submitted long after the last incident relating to the problem occurred, or some six months or more after a student had left the University. 321. Some of the revisions have come about as a result of institutional learning from the operation of previous procedures. For example, on occasion time scales were not always met, thus resulting in follow-up complaints. The University has now introduced central logging of complaints which are allocated for local investigation and subsequently tracked. 322. There is further work to do in respect of working with the University’s collaborative partners to ensure that they follow the University’s regulations on appeal. There is also further work to be undertaken on campus to ensure that, in the case of postgraduate research appeals and complaints, the host School is fully involved in the process. 323. Three formal complaints were considered at the final stage of the Student Complaints Procedure in 2013/14, 2012/13 and 2011/12, a small decrease in comparison to four received in 2010/11. 324. The number of complaints submitted both internally at the final stage and to the OIA by the University’s students has remained very small. The most recent correspondence from the OIA295 documenting the institution’s record in handling complaints and appeals for the calendar year 2013 indicated that 13.6% of students who had exhausted the formal internal appeals or complaints procedures at the University of Gloucestershire submitted an application for independent review to the OIA. All of them were deemed as ‘not justified’ by the OIA. By way of comparison complaints submitted to the OIA from universities in the same subscription band was 22.4%. This is indicative of the robustness and effectiveness of the University’s procedures and the productive work undertaken at Faculty and Departmental levels to deal with complaints and seek to resolve them at an early stage. The University is conscious this is against a well-established national trend of increasing numbers of student complaints for seven consecutive years, with a year on year increase of 25%. 325. The University remains vigilant, working to improve the flow of information on appeals and complaints and seeking to learn as an institution from the sources and outcomes of these processes.

independent review to the Office of Independent Adjudicators (OIA) both of which resulted in a decision of ‘not justified’.

294 [0162] Review and Amendments to the Student Complaints Procedure (AB/30/14)

295 [0163] OIA Annual Letter 2013

86

Summary of effectiveness with which the University meets the Expectation 326. The University meets this Expectation by having fair, accessible and timely and up to date procedures for handling academic appeals and student complaints. It makes effective use of the outcomes of these processes, monitored through its quality assurance systems, to look for ways to enhance the student learning opportunities and the processes themselves. Particular strengths include a close and transparent working relationship with the SU in dealing with complaints, clear and easily accessible guidance and information about both academic appeals and complaints on our website and a reassuring position in terms of the low number of complaints submitted to the OIA. The University is looking to enhance its procedures further following the roll out of the new complaints procedure from September 2014 in a number of ways. An example of which is the more systematic logging of Stage One complaints through the Secretariat and Information Team. There are also plans to review the Fitness to Practice policy with respect to professional requirements. Although the numbers of appeals and complaints emanating from postgraduate research students is very low, the University Research Degrees Committee (URDC) annual report will include reporting of numbers of appeals and complaints from 2014/15 and ensure lessons learnt are put into practice. 4.10 Managing HE provision with others Expectation B10: Degree-awarding bodies take ultimate responsibility for academic standards and the quality of learning opportunities, irrespective of where these are delivered or who provides them. Arrangements for delivering learning opportunities with organisations other than the degree-awarding body are implemented securely and managed effectively. Strategy and governance 327. One of the aims in the University’s Strategic Plan is ‘to build strong relationships with selected partners for mutual benefit’. It makes particular reference to ’partnership with further education colleges in Gloucestershire; and ‘partnership with selected international organisations’. The University has a long established history of working with others initially through activities such as Initial Teacher Training, student placements and academic exchanges. 328. The University has recently entered into a Joint Venture arrangement with INTO296. INTO University of Gloucestershire is based on the Park campus and its main business is delivering pathway programmes to International students. Although a Joint Venture, it is recognised that the University’s requirements for academic quality and standards are fundamental to the success of the Joint Venture. The University has oversight of this arrangement by implementing the standard partnership quality assurance and enhancement processes where possible, while acknowledging the benefits of the closeness of the arrangement. There has been an organic development of a specific quality assurance framework which is an appropriate and tailored hybrid of standard University processes and specific partnership processes297.

296

[0438] INTO Joint Venture Contract 297

[0439] INTO Joint Venture Quality Assurance Framework

87

Recent Development of the University’s approach 329. Over the past four years, the University has substantially strengthened its approach to the management of collaborative partnerships, and in particular those overseas and those that recruit international students. The University’s goal has been to ensure rigorous and consistent management of all partnerships to ensure high quality and standards at each stage from the initial formation of a partnership through to their termination. 330. In May 2012 the University decided to enhance its approach to partnerships, including a restructure to improve central oversight and support. Prior to that point there had been a significant increase in partnership activity, particularly with international partners. Much of it was managed through a unit located within the Business School, known as the Business School International Centre (BuSIC). Following an internal review in May 2012298 the University decided to move to a centralised oversight of collaborative arrangements, to be located within a central collaborative provision office which was formally launched in September 2012299. The objective was to bring together different aspects of the University’s management of collaborative partnerships which at that stage were spread over several areas of the University, in order to achieve a better integrated, consistent and secure management of partnerships across the University. Staff in Academic Registry had previously held responsibility for quality assurance of collaborative provision. AR staff provided advice on, and implemented, University processes from initial proposals through to approval of partnerships and (where relevant) courses, and on to monitoring, review and continuous liaison. BuSIC had previously undertaken a variety of tasks around international partnerships including admissions, organisation of Award Boards, enrolment, induction and student advice. BuSIC was disestablished as a consequence of the formation of the central Collaborative Provision Office (CPO) within the Academic Registry. 331. The University had recognised that a centralised approach would be preferable and better equipped to manage any associated risks with collaborative activity. In the context of discussions around the developing International Strategy, and of partnerships more generally, and taking account of the ways in which other HEIs successfully manage partnerships, the University co-located oversight and co-ordination of collaborative partnerships through the co-location in one office (CPO). This restructure was undertaken to capitalise on a number of benefits, bringing expertise and examples of good practice from across the University; developing a consistent, and therefore more secure approach to the management of quality and standards to all University partnerships; providing a single source of guidance and oversight for all collaborative partnerships, whether international, UK or employer based. This allows for one focal point for every stage of partnership management, including initiation, costing and pricing, approval, admissions, enrolment, monitoring and review, oversight of assessment, graduation, and indeed termination. The CPO was located in Academic Registry and the Director of Collaborative Partnerships (DCP) was appointed in January 2013. These structural and operational realignments were echoed in the more strategic approach to the development of ‘partnerships’ as outlined in the University’s Strategic Plan, and the International Strategy300. With the new CPO in place, the University has moved progressively to review contracts, guidance, operating systems and monitoring, so as to make the whole approach more consistent and robust.

298

[0286] Revisions to Arrangement for Collaborative Partnerships (ASQC/57/12) 299

[0367] Collaborative Provision Office Launch - Letter to Partners (August 2012); [0368] Collaborative Provision Office Launch - Update Letter to Partners (September 2012)

300 [0164] International Strategy 2014-2017

88

332. Early discussions involving Executive members and the undertaking of a broader, more rigorous due diligence301 now helps to ensure that new partnerships are consistent with the University’s strategic aims and are securely grounded from the start. The International Strategy considers the wider aspects of development of international partnerships in specific targeted countries. 333. The formal categorisation of collaborative provision is detailed in the new Academic Quality and Partnerships Handbook (AQPH)302 which brings together the previous separate handbooks for Collaborative Provision and Quality Assurance. The categorisation reflects a risk-based approach to approval, monitoring and review and takes account of the different types and levels of partnership. Although a more detailed taxonomy of partnership arrangements can be found in the Handbook, in essence the University’s approach to the development of partnerships falls broadly into three main areas:

Partnerships with publicly funded Further Education colleges to respond to the Widening Participation agendas and ensure access for ‘local’ students wishing to complete their education within the County. In particular, the University initiated in 2012 the formation of a long-term Strategic Alliance with Gloucestershire College and South Gloucestershire and Stroud College designed to provide access to all levels of further and higher education for students who wish to be educated within Gloucestershire. Over the last few years this approach has enabled students to gain access to a range of new opportunities for higher education based on shared resources and expertise across the three institutions.

Partnerships with non-publicly funded UK based organisations. For example partnerships with faith-based organisations in line with the University’s articles of association and alternative providers where there is a clear match between the University’s portfolio and their curriculum offer.

Partnerships with selected International organisations. In line with the strategic approach, the University is developing overseas partnerships with organisations that can augment International student recruitment and contribute to the wider internationalisation of the University. In the due diligence process consideration is given to the wider benefits of the partnership and how this development can provide opportunities for curriculum development, student and staff exchanges, scholarly opportunities and raising the University’s global profile.

334. The Annual Business Review303 process provides the University with an opportunity to reconsider its current partnership arrangements. Every partnership is assessed at a single meeting each year of the University Executive with the CPO staff, in the light of performance information supplied on a standard template form. A mid-year progress check is also undertaken, focussing on partnerships showing a higher level of risk in one or more dimensions. Through this process the University reviews its level of confidence in the quality and standards, viability and sustainability of each partnership, appraises its opportunities to strengthen and develop its partnership base and also, where appropriate, close down relationships in which the University no longer has confidence or that no longer fit with

301

[0240] UoG UK Due Diligence Questionnaire; [0241] UoG International Due Diligence Questionnaire; [0242] Due Diligence Open Learning Centre 15 January 2014; [0243] Due Diligence Warwickshire College 28 February 2014; [0244] Due Diligence Reply City of Bristol College December 2014

302 [0034] Academic Quality and Partnerships Handbook

303 The ABR is an additional annual monitoring process at a Strategic level for CP which provides an opportunity to take a holistic review of each partnership based on evidence collected from internal and external information sources. University Executive Committee considers the evidence and makes decisions on the future of the partnerships.

89

strategy304. Closure is often an extended process due to the University’s obligation to ensure students can complete their awards.305 As a consequence of this stronger and more rigorous approach, the University has decided to terminate 16 partnerships, reducing our total number of partnerships from 36 to 20, of which just four are now overseas partnerships. 335. As a result of the structural changes initiated by the University in 2012/13 and its internal review of the partnership arrangements306, the University was already acting to address weaknesses in the partnership with Williams College prior to the QAA Cause for Concern enquiry. The University provided the report of its own internal inquiry as an input to the QAA’s review, and the review report endorsed its findings and recommendations. The action plan to follow up the QAA’s own report incorporated the range of actions the University had identified as well as those specifically arising from the Williams case and the QAA review. In July 2014 the QAA Board approved the University’s progress307in addressing the actions from the original report. Current Approach to Partnership Management 336. The University currently franchises 47 courses and validates 71308. The University also delivers courses through the ‘Off Campus Delivery’ model (Category B). The categorisation of partnership models identifies seven distinct types of arrangements, although there are some partnerships that cut across a number of categories. The categorisation acts as a guide for colleagues when developing and managing partnerships and identifies the level of investigations and oversight required at the beginning and during the partnership. The University also runs a large DBA course which is delivered both at the University and at various overseas locations through the ‘Off Campus Delivery’ mode. Wherever the course is delivered, students are taught, supervised and supported by University staff. 337. Prior to the formal proposal stage, discussions are ongoing with the partner to ascertain their capacity to deliver the specific courses and the University’s ability to have oversight of this particular area. This approach and the categorisation of collaborative partnerships were formally approved by the Academic Board in December 2013309. The subsequent changes to processes were implemented with effect from the start of 2014. 338. The processes for the approval and extension of partnerships are dependent on the category of risk (as defined in the AQPH). Approval and/or extensions of higher risk collaborative arrangements i.e. categories F and G are presented to University Executive Committee (UEC) in the first instance for initial approval to proceed. UEC initially considers the business case separately from the academic delivery and oversight of the arrangement 310 . UEC’s agreement in principle to proceed and its authorisation of the business case triggers the commencement of legal and financial, process, and academic

304

[0041] Annual Business Review - Collaborative Partnerships June 2014 (AU/12/14); [0441] Interim Annual Business Review - Collaborative Partnerships October 2014

305 [0323] University of Gloucestershire Collaboration Agreement template (pages 14-16); [0273] Reliance College Termination Meeting notes 21 November 2014; [0274] New Era Termination Meeting notes 21 November 2014; [0346] Termination Plan New Era College; [0347] Termination Plan Reliance College

306 [0230] Extraordinary Review of partnership with Williams College May 2012 (ASQC/138/12a); [0366] Extraordinary Review of partnership with Williams College Report September 2012 (ASQC/165/12)

307 [0039] University Response to QAA Causes for Concern Recommendations (ASQC/167/13)

308 [0325] Collaborative Provision course and student numbers extracted from the CP Central database

309 [0442] Changes to UoG Policy on Collaborative Provision (AB/45/13)

310 [0443] University Executive Committee minutes 13 October 2014 (Stamford Raffles, minute UEC.14.350); [0444] Academic Portfolio Committee minutes 11 October 2014 (Stamford Raffles, minute APC.14.75.2, 76.2.1)

90

due diligence culminating in a Partnership Approval and/or validation event. The resulting report is approved by Academic Standards and Quality Committee (ASQC) on behalf of Academic Board311. In-principle approval of collaborative courses is given by Academic Portfolio Committee (APC)312. This triggers the routine course validation process overseen by ASQC. Additional locations of delivery for both collaborative partners and off campus faculty delivery are also overseen by ASQC. Annual monitoring and review fall within the University’s standard procedures but include an additional layer of annual and periodic partnership review. 339. The processes for academic approval of franchises, validations, accreditations (of employer-based training) and articulation arrangements are managed centrally by dedicated staff working in the Academic Quality and Partnerships Office (AQPO) based within Academic Registry. All formal collaborative Agreements313 are issued by the DCP with input from UEC where appropriate, Finance and Planning and the Faculty Deans. There are now standard collaborative agreements314 that are issued for new and renewing collaborative partnerships. These Agreements identify roles, responsibilities, and entitlements for each partner at an Institutional level315. 340. Relationship management and liaison with partners is the primary responsibility of Partnership Coordinators (PCs) who are predominantly based in faculties. Academic delivery is supported at School level by Academic Link Tutors (ALTs). Student admission and enrolment, and the operation of Boards of Examiners are managed via the relevant University central services in collaboration with the Faculties and AQPO. Strategic development of standardized processes for the approval, management and monitoring of collaborative provision is led by staff within the AQPO. 341. The University’s centralised approach to development of collaborative arrangements requires partnership ‘developers/negotiators’ to have a good understanding of University (and QAA) expectations. Proposed partners work with the DCP (or their nominee from the AQPO) to complete a Partnership Audit Document (PAD)316 outlining their teaching, support and quality management systems. For franchises and validations, a Collaborative Delivery Plan317 (CDP) – agreed jointly by the University and the partner – forms a key part of the documentation for programme approval and sets out those roles and responsibilities that are retained by the University, devolved to the partner or shared between both. The CDP318 is annexed to the contract which also sets out responsibilities and expectations of both parties at the partnership level. Schedules to Contracts are reviewed annually by the

311

[0445] Academic Standards and Quality Committee minutes 15 July 2013 (INTO London, minute ASQC.13.107.1); [0446] INTO London Partnership Approval 10 June 2013 (ASQC/101a/13); [0447] Academic Standards and Quality Committee minutes 1 May 2014 (Glos Hosp NHS Fndtn Trust, minute ASQC.14.43.4); [0448] Gloucestershire Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Partnership Approval 12 February 2014 (ASQC/70/14)

312 [0449] Academic Portfolio Committee minutes 15 April 2014 (minute APC.14.24-29); [0450] Academic Portfolio Committee minutes 20 May 2014 (minute APC.14.48)

313 With the exception of Joint Venture arrangements which is done at Executive level. School based ITT, Placements and Student Exchange Agreements (including Erasmus) are devolved to the appropriate Faculty or Service.

314 [0323] University of Gloucestershire Collaboration Agreement template

315 [0324] Exemplar UoG Collaborative Agreement - Central Film School London

316 [0165] Partnership Audit Document

317 [0166 & 0167] Collaborative Delivery Plan: Franchised and Collaborative Delivery Plan: Validated

318 Exemplar Collaborative Delivery Plans (CDPs): [0248] Collaborative Delivery Plan 2014/15 Redcliffe College validated; [0249] Collaborative Delivery Plan 2014/15 Yeovil College validated and franchised; [0250] Collaborative Delivery Plan 2014/15 TMC franchised; [0461] Collaborative Delivery Plan 2014/15 Norland College validated; [0462] Collaborative Delivery Plan 2014/15 Heart of Worcestershire College validated

91

DCP, and CDPs via the PCs. Partners receive ongoing support from the University at the appropriate level - e.g. AQPO (central), PC (Faculty) and ALT (programme). 342. The enhanced due diligence process for new partners and at partnership review, provides the University and the partner with an opportunity to develop the relationship and understanding across both organisations in a rigorous and standardised way. It enables both parties to understand what the challenges may be in the relationship and to consider ways of mitigating any risks. The PAD319 provides an opportunity for considering every aspect of the student lifecycle and identifies policy and process at each organisation for managing specific functions. The subsequent discussions enable colleagues to identify where further clarification is required and how the organisations will work together on a range of levels to assure the standards of the awards and the quality of the student experience. 343. One of the main challenges facing partnership development and approval is around the time required to complete the due diligence effectively within the timeframes specified by the University and the partner to formalise the relationship and begin promotion and delivery of the programmes in a timely manner. The University is also currently reviewing the role of the PCs and ALTs320. Although the partners have advised that they value having one main point of contact at the University, much of the contact relates predominantly to questions about administrative processes. The University is therefore currently trialling a situation where the PCs are based in the AQPO. 344. Placements are defined as Category A in the University’s classification of Collaborative Partnerships, which is the lowest risk category. There is a central Placement Team reporting to the Head of Placements and liaising with relevant course leaders and placement module tutors. The Placement Team is made up of three Placement offices, one for each campus, and manages the majority of UK based placement activity. 345. Overarching guidelines for placement providers are provided321 but in practice due to the variety of placement module types and requirements there are differences between the placement offices. In the areas where placement is regarded as Professional Practice alignment to the professional body requirements is a key aspect. Faculties are empowered to produce their own Agreements with placement providers, e.g. Partnership Agreement322, Memorandum of Understanding323. 346. Placement management information systems are used to record placement information. For example, placement modules at Park and Oxstalls have well developed systems for advertisements of appropriate placement opportunities 324 and Placement Information Forms (PIF’s) 325 . These include placement provider details, confirmation of Health & Safety verification, confirmation of student DBS status, Tier 4 visa considerations and the student’s placement details. A separate Health & Safety questionnaire may be used where necessary. For example, the Social Work placement module SW5001 provides an example of the information collected; record of activities326, Placement Request Form327,

319

Exemplar Partnership Audit Documents (PAD): [0251] PAD October 2013 North East Worcestershire College; [0252] PAD 2014 City of Bristol College; [0253] PAD 2014 Norland College; [0254] PAD TMC

320 Partnership Coordinator (PC) and Academic Link Tutor (ALT) Role Descriptors: Collaborative Provision Handbook(Section 3 - 3.0 and 4.0)

321 [0371] Guidelines and Information for Placement Providers

322 [0369] Exemplar Partnership Agreement 2012 (Primary Schools)

323 [0370] Exemplar Memorandum of Understanding 2013 (Social Work)

324 [0372] Exemplar Placement Advertisements

325 [0373] Exemplar Placement Information Forms

326 [0378] Exemplar Record of Activities (Social Work)

92

student’s Health Declaration328, Student H&S self-declaration329, and placement provider H&S questionnaire330. This information and the placement role and responsibilities are the basis of validating and approving a placement. This is completed collaboratively between experienced Placement Co-ordinators, Module Tutors, Placement Team Leaders and where necessary referral to Course Leaders or the Head of Placements. The monitoring of placement activity is supported by link tutors or visiting tutors, Placement Co-ordinators and Module Tutors. Student placement feedback is carried out like other academic modules and comes through the CIM (formerly Annual Monitoring Report) process. Feedback received from NSS outcomes and the comments within the Student submission confirm that students feel well supported by the placement guidance and support given by the University, and find the placement opportunities provided by the University to be one of the most valuable experiences during their period of study. Developing, agreeing and managing an arrangement to deliver learning opportunities with others 347. Approval for collaborative provision in Category F is subject to consideration of a business case developed by faculties and received by UEC. Following consideration of the business case and University resources and core competencies to support the development, UEC provides approval in principle to investigate the proposal further. These investigations are carried out on two levels – Partnership Approval 331 and Programme validation and programme delivery approval332. 348. Academic approval of partnerships leading to franchises, validations, and accreditation or articulation arrangements is overseen by ASQC. The DCP and Collaborative Provision Committee (CPC) 333 advise on new partnerships in the early stages of the development. The University’s approach to the Institutional Approval procedures has been tightened following its own internal review of processes. These processes were implemented with effect from the beginning of the 2013 academic year. The Due Diligence process now requires ‘sign off’ at a number of levels and ensures that the legal and financial aspects of a partnership are considered separately from the academic and operational programme delivery. APC considers the academic proposal and whether or not to give approval to develop the programme to proceed to validation. 349. The approach to approval, monitoring and review is dependent on the identified risk inherent in the specific proposal as expressed through the category assigned. A number of University offices are involved including AQPO and Finance & Planning who provide academic, financial and legal expertise. Guidance is available from the Academic Registrar and University Secretary who provides access to the University’s legal advisors. The University makes use of external expertise via external networks such as Council for Validating Universities (CVU), UKCISA and QAA as well as other sources such as UK NARIC. Expertise in UKVI compliance (Tier 4) is located within Academic Registry. Raising awareness of risk inherent in these activities across the institution is a core part of the work of the AQPO334.

327

[0374] Exemplar Placement Request Form (Social Work) 328

[0377] Exemplar Student Health Declaration (Social Work) 329

[0375] Exemplar Student Health and Safety Declaration (Social Work) 330

[0376] Exemplar Placement Provider Questionnaire 331

[0255] Briefing note for Partnership Approval; Exemplar Partnership Approval: [0448] Gloucestershire Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Partnership Approval 12 February 2014 (ASQC/70/14)

332 [0256] Briefing note for Delivery Approval; Exemplar Briefing note: [0451] New Era Partnership Review 12 May 2014 (including Delivery Approval)

333 [0055] Collaborative Provision Committee Terms of Reference and Membership 2014/15 (Infonet)

334 [0257] Interim Annual Business Review October 2014

93

350. During 2011/12, the University developed a revised contract template335 for franchise and validation arrangements to ensure that the University offer is clear and consistent. Following advice from the University Solicitors the template was further refined in the academic year 2013/14 to allow for a clearer definition of the rights and responsibilities of the University and its partners. Formal contracts and agreements covering partnerships for outreach supported learning and other forms of relationships which differ from standard franchise/validated provision are developed on a case-by-case basis using the standard template contract and adapting where necessary for the specific arrangement. 351. Articulation agreements336 are developed and managed through the AQPO following a similar process to that applied to Accreditation of Prior Learning (APL). Where these agreements are with current franchise or validated partners, any articulation agreements are appended to the main contract. 352. Collaborative Agreements are produced and annually monitored at the institutional level. All contracts and associated schedules including CDPs are available on a central SharePoint site. CDPs are reviewed annually and signed off by the partner and the University at the beginning of each academic year. 353. Initial discussions make clear to prospective partners the nature of the relationship which prohibits serial arrangements. Where more than one partner is involved in the delivery of a programme, separate agreements and approvals are required for each. Monitoring of franchise/ validation arrangements by PCs and the AQPO ensures that programme delivery arrangements remain consistent with the agreed contract and CDP. Established contracts with existing partners are being reviewed and reissued at appropriate junctures after consideration via the Partnership Review process. The process for the consideration of new collaborative agreements ensure that the University is confident of its capacity to assure the delivery of its responsibilities to students while they are studying for University awards, including where a decision has been made to terminate a partnership. The University expects that the appropriate protocols applicable to 'home' provision for discontinuation of the course are followed in a manner which safeguards the interests of students registered for or accepted for admission to any relevant programme337. A number of the University’s partnerships are currently in a termination phase and there is clear attention to students being able to complete their course 338 . Exit strategies are considered at Partnership Development/Approval stage to ensure that the University can support their obligations to students should the contract be terminated.339

354. The AQPO maintains a central Register of Collaborative Provision 340 which is published on the University webpages. The published information outlines the type of partnership, list of programmes offered and Agreement end date. This list has recently been extended to include the full range of partnerships identified in the categorisation of collaborative provision with the exception of Placements and Student Exchange Agreements which are held locally. 355. Placement approval is managed via validation, monitoring and review and is recorded in programme specifications.

335

[0323] University of Gloucestershire Collaboration Agreement template 336

Exemplar Articulation Agreement: [0258] Articulation Agreement TMC 337

[0034] Academic Quality and Partnerships Handbook – Section 1 338

[0325] Collaborative Provision course and student numbers extracted from the CP Central database 339

[0323] University of Gloucestershire Collaboration Agreement template (pages 14-16) 340

[0168] Register of Collaborative Provision

94

356. The categorisation of partnership within a risk based framework has strengthened the University’s approach to partnership development, by providing clear criteria and processes for completion of full legal, financial, process and academic due diligence at the initial approval and at Partnership Review. There are challenges with regard to changing perceptions and broadening understanding for both University staff and colleagues at partner institutions about the necessity for and benefits of these processes. 357. The centralisation of operational processes through the CDPs has had a positive effect on the day-to-day oversight of partnership activity as colleagues are clear about roles and responsibilities relating to the partnership, and have supporting documentation to guide and support should any questions arise. The AQPO has provided a variety of training sessions, forums and staff development opportunities to support partners in their understanding of the changing environment and the implications this has for the everyday operation of the partnership.341 358. The most significant challenge has been for the University to resource fully the newly defined roles required to support the partnership arrangements and ensure that all relevant staff in both partners and the University understand and implement those roles. Academic staff undertaking the PC and ALT roles are allocated time within the workload allocation model to carry out these partnership duties. The tariff is under review so that it may better reflect the differing levels of complexity of partnerships that require varying amounts of resource to ensure efficient management. Staff turnover (i.e. when the PC or ALT leave the University or change role) requires careful handling to continue the established relationship with the partner. Responsibility for, and equivalence of, academic standards 359. Academic validation of home and collaborative provision follow the same process342. The process tests alignment with the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications (FHEQ) and engagement with the relevant subject benchmarks. An additional process for the approval of delivery by partner organisations involves ensuring that the partner has the required resources and facilities to deliver the programme. For partners who want to deliver in additional locations, the University will check and approve the proposed premises prior to commencement of delivery. The processes of annual monitoring, scrutiny of assessment, moderation of marking and external examination confirm that standards continue to be met. Procedures are in place to ensure enhanced oversight of assessment approval, and marking and moderation for validated collaborative arrangements. 360. Moderation of assessment by University staff for franchised partners is a standard requirement. Initially this process was not applied to validated provision but has now been rolled out with the application of the moderation process to partners offering validated programmes. The revised approach to the moderation of validated provision began with the requirement for moderation to take place on all validated programmes in the first instance. Once a partner has completed a full academic cycle and there is assurance that there are no major issues raised of concern in respect of the standards achieved or of the processes applied, then a more risk based approach to oversight can be applied through spot checks and sampling of marking, in line with University processes for moderation and marking for home provision. For partners where there are inconsistencies with the marking, then full moderation continues until greater consistency is achieved. This also provides for staff

341

[0259] Collaborative Partners Forum Programme 14 November 2014 342

Exemplar collaborative partner validations: [0262] FdA Sports Coaching validation (University Centre Yeovil) 3 June 2014 (approved by ASQC 19 June 2014); [0427] Certificate of Higher Education in Diabetic Retinopathy Screening validation (Glos Hosp NHS Foundation Trust) 12 February 2014 (approved by ASQC on 1 May 2014)

95

development on the sound application of moderation processes and marking practices where required. 361. In some cases for large partnerships there have been challenges for the University to provide appropriate staff to moderate the work within the required timescales. This has on occasion been exacerbated by partners sending in work later than the set deadline thus placing University staff under greater pressure to undertake their moderation duties to best effect. The University continues to work with its partners to ensure that all are meeting the required deadlines and following processes accurately. 362. Up to 2013 all validated programmes delivered by collaborative partners were required to undergo Periodic Review and Revalidation (PRR)343on a three yearly basis. From 2013, following the enhancement of approval and monitoring processes, the timing of programme review and revalidation has been brought into line with ‘home’ provision and this process is now carried out every five years. Continuing liaison and annual and periodic review of partner provision ensure the maintenance of the standards set at validation. Programme review and revalidation with partner organisations follow the same procedures as for ‘home’ courses. In addition for each course the partner is expected to demonstrate that it has the resources and facilities to deliver the specific course under review i.e. delivery approval. 363. The University has a small number of partnerships which involve the delivery of programmes which also fulfil the formal requirements of a PSRB (see Appendix 1). This status is addressed within contracts and is considered within routine quality assurance requirements. Quality Assurance 364. For franchise and validation arrangements, the University applies its routine procedures for validation, monitoring and review, and these are augmented by partnership approval and review processes which focus on the partner’s capacity to deliver the course and modules and how they will support students. Oversight of the suitability of staff and learning resources at the partner is underpinned by the effective use of PADs and CDPs in the establishment and management of partnerships. PCs and/or ALTs are responsible for the continuing approval of CVs of teaching staff and (where applicable) an inventory of course-specific resources to support programme delivery approval344. Partners are required to obtain approval from the University for any changes to teaching teams. 365. Programme specifications for validated provision are held electronically at the point of course approval and review. Additionally, if any changes are made to the courses following University agreed processes, the programme specifications are updated and retained with the original documentation. 366. The partnership approval/review process for any partner organisations delivering research degrees takes explicit account of Chapter B11 of the UK Quality Code and ensures that partners meet any additional / differential requirements. 367. The University has a policy and operational procedures for the management of relationships where students take up study abroad opportunities outside of Erasmus Plus. Oversight of the student exchange process is the responsibility of the Director of

343

Exemplar collaborative PRRs: [0452] PRR MA Global Leadership in Intercultural Contexts 4 February 2014 (Redcliffe College) (approved by ASQC 19 June 2014); [0453] PRR FdSc Counselling 15 December 2014 (City of Bristol College)

344 [0034] Academic Quality and Partnerships Handbook

96

International Development and formal agreements are established with a small number of overseas partners with whom the University exchanges students. The approval and oversight of out-going students is managed at an operational level by the relevant Faculty according to the approved procedures for out-going students. Incoming students are managed via the International Development Centre in liaison with relevant Faculty Coordinator. Induction and welfare support are provided by the International Student Advisor and, for BCA students, by the Resident Director of BCA. 368. The University has strengthened its approach to admissions at partner organisations, in part by focusing all admission processes in a central team located within Academic Registry. Responsibility for managing admissions is now discussed and negotiated with partners as part of the PAD and confirmed at partnership approval. Agreed responsibilities are set out in the partnership contract and responsibilities and processes for receiving applications and making offers are summarised in CDPs. Students on both franchise and validated arrangements are required to enrol with the University. This involves acceptance of the University’s Terms and Conditions and the University then has a record of the student on SITS. 369. The changes to University admission requirements have sometimes presented challenges for some of the University’s established partners and in some instances this has significantly affected their recruitment to University courses. The University is confident that this is a positive move in terms of safeguarding academic standards. The University is implementing an Admissions Process for Collaborative Partners which involves electronic submission of information and a clear audit process for data and validation of original documentation. 370. Collaborative partners under franchise and validation arrangements are required to apply the University’s Academic Regulations for Taught Provision (ARTP) and to follow the University’s assessment principles and procedures. Under existing arrangements, any variation to specific procedures will be discussed via the PAD which outlines the requirements and expectations of assessment and where any staff development is required. PCs and ALTs work with partners to ensure that appropriate training and support are provided. Once the partnership has commenced, the relevant academic staff oversee approval of assessments and marking and moderation and this is outlined in the CDP. 371. Assessment on placement activity is approved and monitored via standard University procedures, through programme approval, monitoring and review. 372. The University does not delegate responsibility for appointment, briefing and functions of External Examiners (EEs) as this is managed through the AQPO. All collaborative partners are expected to follow University policy with regard to EEs.

373. Monitoring and review at collaborative partners are expected to follow standard University quality assurance procedures. The timescales for PRR of programmes have recently been brought into line with ‘home’ provision and are undertaken every five years. Monitoring and review arrangements are addressed initially via PADs and regularly updated via CDPs. PCs and ALTs are responsible for confirming that delegated quality responsibilities for module and course evaluation, annual monitoring, Boards of Studies (BoS), and student representation and feedback are fully understood and are being discharged properly by partners. 374. The principle of applying standard University processes to provision delivered through partners appears to work effectively. It ensures that both academic and administrative staff involved in the management of collaborative provision have a broad understanding of the University quality assurance procedures. When academic staff new to

97

the University are appointed as PCs and/or ALTs they require initial training and support on standard University processes in order to have confidence in implementing these processes with collaborative partners. The University provides comprehensive guidance and staff development on University processes in addition to staff development on developing and managing collaborative partner relationships345. Currently, more staff time is allocated for managing partnerships based on the complexity of the arrangements but the University is considering allowing additional staff time based on the experience of the PC or ALT. Information for students and delivery organisations, support providers or partners 375. Partner information about University courses must be pre-approved by the University’s Communications, Marketing and Student Recruitment department 346 . Requirements are stipulated in contracts and operationalised within CDPs. PCs and the AQPO carry out regular checks on websites and other publicity materials. 376. Maintaining oversight of all information can present challenges. By ensuring partners are aware of the requirements to comply with University guidelines and to preapprove publicity materials, the University is able to mitigate the risk of incorrect information being provided for students. Two central departments – Marketing and AQPO, together with PCs and ALTs all have responsibility for the regular checking of information provided to students from the University's partner organisations. Oversight of academic information is managed through the PC and ALT through their approval of course handbooks and module guides. 377. At Partnership Approval and Review, all aspects of ‘information to students’ are fully discussed with the partner using the PAD. If partner organisations use Agents for recruitment to the programmes, the University asks the partner to verify that a suitable training programme is in place for the Agents and that the partner has processes for checking the quality and accuracy of information given to students. Certificates and records of study 378. The University issues all award certificates for students studying for University awards through partner organisations. Certificates are printed on embossed watermarked paper with various security features347. Access to sample certificates is managed through the AQPO. 379. Currently, the University operates a different approach to franchise and validated provision. For franchise provision, the University holds complete student records and therefore produces transcripts348 and certificates for these students. For validated provision, the partner organisation is responsible for keeping complete student records and marks and therefore holds responsibility for producing the transcripts. The University approves the partner’s transcript templates at the initial approval of the partnership.349

345

The Collaborative Provision Office input into all Quality and Standards staff development activities and also provide separate one-to-one training for Partnership Coordinators and Academic Link Tutors. In addition to this is the Collaborative Provision Handbook and a Collaborative Partner Forum. [0034] Academic Quality and Partnerships Handbook; [0259] Collaborative Partner Forum Programme 14 November 2014

346 [0275] Approval of publicity information for collaborative partners - email evidence; [0166] Collaborative Delivery Plan: Franchised; [0167] Collaborative Delivery Plan: Validated; [0323] University of Gloucestershire Collaboration Agreement template

347 [0363] Exemplar UoG collaborative provision award certificate

348 [0362] Exemplar UoG collaborative provision transcript

349 [0260] Exemplar validated provision transcript Open Learning Centre

98

380. The University ensures that the location of delivery and the name of the partner is on either the transcript or the certificate, and works closely with overseas partners to ensure that their local compliance/regulation is adhered to. All University provision is delivered in English and therefore there is no specific reference to the language of instruction on the transcripts and certificates. Summary of effectiveness with which the University meets the Expectation 381. The University meets the Expectation by making effective use of its quality assurance processes to ensure oversight of the academic standards and the quality of learning opportunities of its provision across formal partnership arrangements. In recent years, the University has substantially strengthened its policies and procedures to secure, support and monitor the arrangements for delivering learning opportunities with its partners, while recognising the risks and challenges that are inherent in such partnerships, particularly with overseas and international partners. The policies and procedures are now consistent and robust across the University, with clear expectations and requirements to be met by all partners. These developments incorporate the learning from both internal and external reviews. Particular strengths include the detailed approach to due diligence and risk analysis of partners and the Annual Business Review process. This reflects upon the operation and performance of partnerships from both financial and academic quality perspectives allowing the University to identify areas of potential growth and also consider the carefully planned phasing out of courses or partnerships where there are risks identified. The University continues to address challenges, which have centred largely on addressing operational issues remaining from the previous approach to partnership development. The University is also working to ensure that key roles in the support and development of partnerships are fully and consistently resourced. Other challenges remain in terms of the current limitations of SITS to fully record information in respect of students studying at partner institutions. The University is piloting a centralisation of the Partnership Coordinator role in order to address some recognised constraints on faculty-based resource. 4.11 Research degrees Expectation B11: Research degrees are awarded in a research environment that provides secure academic standards for doing research and learning about research approaches, methods, procedures and protocols. The environment offers students quality of opportunities and the support they need to achieve successful academic, personal and professional outcomes from their research degrees. The Research Environment 382. The University has a long established and well-respected tradition of research, and it has entered quality-related national assessment exercises since the second Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) in 1996. Forming a key integrated aspect of this research tradition is the provision for postgraduate research students and their supervisors. Here the University has invested in research student supervision teams allowing mentoring and development of supervisors, and the supervision of students in multi- and interdisciplinary topics aligning with subject strengths and interests. This context provides a rich environment for postgraduate research. The University has developed clear plans for research, as articulated in the new Academic Strategy to develop six Research Priority Areas. 383. In order to develop the research environment, alongside the environment for learning and teaching, the Academic Development Unit (ADU) has been created, following the review

99

and restructuring of the Teaching and Learning Innovation Unit and the Research Office. The development of research, postgraduate research, and learning and teaching, as articulated in the new Academic Strategy, is now coordinated through the ADU, working closely with the Research Administration Office within Academic Registry. Support for research funding is provided through the Business Development Unit (BDU). 384. The environment for research degree students is shaped by the Research Strategy350 and implemented through University Research Committee (URC)351 and Faculty Research Committees 352 (FRCs). The University Strategic Plan identifies embedding research in all our activities as a strategic priority, and forms a pivotal aspect of the new Academic Strategy. Academic Schools create the environment that research students join, providing supervision, subject facilities, equipment and development opportunities. The University also encourages students to work on interdisciplinary topics, and benefit from expertise, supervision and facilities from more than one School. 385. The Academic Strategy and its underpinning Research Strategy identify that the University will invest in selected Research Priority Areas in the future, comprising six areas of research strength and research potential. These areas are cross-University themes, hosted by a Faculty, but underpinned by subject and disciplinary expertise and a selection of research centres. The University submitted to REF2014 in six Units of Assessment that aligned with current research strengths 353 .The University anticipates that selective investment in the research priority areas will further strengthen the research environment, attracting staff and students to collaborate in applied and contemporary topics, drawing from a range of disciplines and subjects. 386. Research programmes are either in receipt of external funding, or supported internally through investment of Quality Related research funds following RAE2008. The University submitted to 12 Units of Assessment in RAE2008, having worked in all Units rated as internationally excellent and rated as world leading in five Units. This funding is expected to continue following the excellent results in REF2014, where all Units had work rated as world leading, and a significant proportion rated as internationally excellent. Given the applied focus of much of the University’s research, it was particularly pleasing that the impact was recognised as internationally excellent and world leading. All academic staff are allocated five weeks of Research and Scholarly Activity time (pro rata) that forms a component of the workload allocation for the year. 387. A range of colleagues have formal research management roles (i.e., Faculty Leads for Research), but many other senior researchers (e.g., Professors) have research leadership responsibilities, taking roles leading Research Priority Areas and Research Centres. Senior structural managers (Deans, Heads of Schools (HoSs), Subject Group Leaders (SGLs)) work alongside these research leaders to ensure that a supportive and comprehensive research environment is created within each subject area and between subjects. The development of high quality subject communities354, as articulated through the new Academic Strategy, focuses on the alignment of the curriculum and enterprise activity with research activity to ensure the creation of an environment that is attractive to students and staff, and the multiple benefits that accrue.

350

[0059] Research Strategy 351

[0054] University Research Committee Terms of Reference and Membership 2014/15 (Infonet) 352

[0169] Faculty Research Degree Committees Terms of Reference and Membership 2014/15 353

[0170] Research Excellence Framework Submission Update (AB/44/13) 354

[0488] Academic Portfolio paper to University Council (C/03/15); [0510] Academic Portfolio Review (full paper) February 2015

100

388. There are University wide opportunities for the promotion and discussion of research, including research celebration events, the development of an Open Access Research Repository, and a well-established annual Inaugural Lecture Series. Individual subject areas are expected to build their own research culture, ensuring new and established staff and students are engaged in contemporary topics of interest to the subject community. Research budgets are available to assist with these activities, with funding devolved to Faculties and Schools for distribution. Examples include subject research seminar programmes, invited speakers, research interest group meetings, postgraduate student conferences and presentations, and the promotion of research outputs. Many staff choose to use their allocated staff development funds to attend conferences and workshops in their subjects and training related to research methods, often bringing back information to share with their colleagues. Many researchers are invited to present as part of other University research seminar series and at major international conferences. Students also have an annual allowance that can, for example, also be used to access conferences and research training. 389. A key part of the research environment is the governance and oversight of Research Ethics, where policy and procedures are developed and disseminated by a University Research Ethics Sub-Committee 355 (RESC). The RESC is supported by Faculty Research Ethics Panels 356 (FREP). The policy and approach to oversight and governance of Research Ethics is clearly articulated in Research Ethics: A Handbook of Principles and Procedures357. For postgraduate research (PGR) students, the supervisor is a source of advice, and applications are considered by the RESC where appropriate. Research Ethics training is part of the supervisor and student development programmes. 390. Reporting to University Research Committee, which in turn reports to Academic Board, the University Research Degrees Committee (URDC) 358 has overarching responsibility for research degree provision. Faculty Research Degrees Committees 359 (FRDC) report to URDC360, and have oversight of all Faculty Research Degree students, ensuring local responsibility for the quality of provision. For collaborative partners, their FRDC, or equivalent, reports to the URDC. URDC is chaired by the Head of Postgraduate Research361 and FRDCs are chaired by Faculty Postgraduate Research Leads362.The work of those supporting research students and those providing postgraduate research education is assisted by a central Research Administration Office within Academic Registry, and the Faculty Registry administrative teams363. The Head of Postgraduate Research is a member of the central ADU, and works closely with the administrative teams and Faculty leads to ensure the oversight and coordination of postgraduate research across the University. 391. Research Degree Regulations are provided for students in a single document – Academic Regulations for Research Degree Provision364 (ARRDP) and further guidance is

355

[0171] Research Ethics Sub-Committee Terms of Reference and Membership 2014/15(Infonet); [0348] Exemplar Research Ethics Sub Committee minutes Oct/Nov 2014

356 [0172] Faculty Research Ethics Panel’s Terms of Reference and Membership (Page9 of Research Ethics: A

Handbook of Principles and Procedures) 357

[0172] Research Ethics: A Handbook of Principles and Procedures 358

[0033] University Research Degrees Committee Terms of Reference and Membership 2014/15(Infonet) 359

[0169] Faculty Research Degrees Committees Terms of Reference and Membership 2014/15; [0315] Exemplar Faculty Research Degrees Committee minutes September/October 2014

360 [0316] Exemplar University Research Degrees Committee minutes 12 November 2014

361 [0173] Head of Postgraduate Research Role Descriptor

362 [0174] Postgraduate Research Leads Role Descriptor

363 [0089] Academic Registry Structure 2014

364 [0175] Academic Regulations for Research Degree Provision

101

provided annually through the Research Degree Student Handbook365. The ARRDP are regularly reviewed and amended, and readily accessible to students, supervisors, examiners, and all those involved in postgraduate research education. The Research Degree Student Handbook is an accessible and extensive source of advice for students, supervisors, examiners and all staff who support our students. The Handbook is reviewed and issued annually to ensure that codes of practice are communicated clearly, and reflect developments internally and externally. In addition to principles, regulations and procedures, we provide details of postgraduate research student entitlements and responsibilities. These are informed by the broader Student Charter, and form an aspect of the Research Student Development opportunities. In addition, we provide details of supervisor responsibilities366. These make clear the particular responsibilities of the first and second supervisors, and form an aspect of the Supervisor Development Programme367. The Research Administration Office and Faculty Research Administrators are available to provide further information and interpretation of written guidance. As with all students, PGR students can also access advice and support via the Student Helpzones at any time. 392. A key development since the last QAA Institutional Audit, and related to one of the outcomes, is the use of the standard SITS for postgraduate research student data, and the full integration of these data with Skills Forge368. This is the University postgraduate research student and supervisor portal, allowing oversight, monitoring and development of supervisor and student development and student progression and training needs. The development and implementation of the Skills Forge system, and related SITS data has underpinned a consistent and deliberate enhancement of the University approach to oversight and monitoring of student progression. The ongoing improvement of underpinning data, the optimal use of those data, and the subsequent revision of research degree forms and questionnaires, is a core aspect of the work of the new Research Administration Office, working under guidance of URDC, FRDCs, and the Head of Postgraduate Research. The University has made significant progress in this area since the last Institutional Audit, resulting in much greater oversight and potential for early intervention in the event of progression issues. Selection, Admission and Induction of students 393. The selection of students and their projects is a process starting with the first point of contact between the applicant and the University following an enquiry, and culminating in the approval of the student’s Research Degree Registration (RD1). During this process, which may take up to a year for a full time student and up to eighteen months for a part time student, students are able to access advice and guidance from a range of colleagues, including formally allocated advisors, ensuring support for their successful progression through this process. The oversight of the admissions process has been a focus of a recent process improvement project369 , sponsored by the Head of Registry Services, and has resulted in the recent launch of a new postgraduate admissions process. 394. The criteria for the selection of students has three components: the qualifications of the student; the feasibility of the proposed projects; and the expertise for supervision. Research students are required to have a first degree (normally a first or upper second) and research methods training at postgraduate level. Research methods training is available as a condition of entry for students who don’t meet this requirement, and forms a subset of the modules for the MRes award. Following interview, students are admitted if they meet the

365

[0176] Research Degree Student Handbook 2014/15 366

[0176] Supervisors responsibilities (Research Degrees Student Handbook 2014/15 pages 21-23) 367

[0177] Supervisor Development Programme webpage 368

[0178] Skills Forge Student Guidance 369

[0179] Process Improvement Project Brief: Research Student Admissions Process

102

entry criteria, where their subject area of interest aligns with the subject expertise within the Schools, and where supervisory capacity exists. The University encourages students wanting to undertake multi- and inter-disciplinary projects, drawing on expertise across Schools, and sometimes requiring an external advisor or supervisor. The new admissions process will result in the Institution having better oversight of the admissions process and the duration of the various stages from 2014/15. 395. Induction is an continuous process overseen by potential supervisors (advisors), and is initiated by the invitation to a centrally organised event that is video recorded, followed by Faculty induction events which take place at two points in the academic year (October and February). This approach ensures a high quality experience for students, allowing them to meet peers and key staff within a supportive and local environment. Key features of the central induction event are a focus on expectations and professional development, delivered in an interactive environment. A typical induction programme is provided370. Although supervisors are formally allocated at a later stage in the student journey (RD1 acceptance by FRDC), advisors are allocated to oversee the induction process and work with the student on the enhancement of their Research Degree project via the RD1 and provide support for the initial Training Needs Analysis. In most cases, the advisor(s) form the supervision team. Although students must specify a potential project as part of their application, the formalisation of the project is a process involving advisors and takes account of student interests, the expertise and facilities available, and the feasibility of the project. Most students are advised on an individual basis, but in some cases students are grouped for advice at this stage of the process, allowing advisors to work with students on a group basis until the RD1 is submitted to FRDC. 396. The University’s strategy is to grow postgraduate research student numbers in a sustainable way, drawing on the expertise and experience internally, and drawing on external advice and supervision when required. The University encourages students to undertake innovative projects, working across subjects, and the small size of the University encourages such working. An increasing proportion of research students are self-funded and study part-time, although the University still recruits a sizable number of international full-time students across the range of postgraduate research awards. The University funds a small number of Research Studentships, where the strategy is to align these with the development of the Research Priority areas, and develop them in partnership with external agencies. Supervision 397. The University is proud of its longstanding and comprehensive approach to supervision, drawing on a supervision team of two or more, and often crossing School and Faculty boundaries, and occasionally drawing on external team members371. This approach is recognised as good practice, with benefits for the student and the supervisors. Students benefit from a mix of expertise and advice, and the supervisory model allows more and less experienced supervisors to work together, facilitating mentoring of the less experienced supervisor(s). The regulations require a total of two instances of supervision of research degrees to successful completion across the team, with one of those completions to be at the level of the award the student is intending to achieve. Supervisors are formally approved at the point the RD1 is approved, but in practice they have normally provided advice and support between the point of enrolment and the point the RD1 is submitted for consideration at FRDC. The responsibilities of the first and second supervisors are clearly outlined in the Responsibilities of Supervisors document.

370

[0180] Research Student Induction Programme 371

[0379] Exemplar PGR Supervision Application and Approval Form; [0380] Exemplar PGR Supervisor Request

103

398. Supervisors are required to partake in compulsory aspects of the Supervisor Development Programme, covering regulations and procedures and establishing good relationships with their students. In addition, supervisors are encouraged to partake in a range of optional development, where sharing of experience and establishing good practice are key elements of the available supervisor development programme. Skills Forge now allows oversight of all centrally organised supervisor training and development, and supervisor training is to be included as a feature of the new Academic Staff Development Framework (ASDF). External and internal supervisors may struggle to attend scheduled development events, so increasingly the development sessions draw on video resources, other print-based resources and webinars, which are used to facilitate a range of opportunities to participate. One of the advantages of the composition of the new ADU is the cohesive expertise on research degree development and learning technology, allowing innovative approaches to the provision of supervisor development. Progress and Review Arrangements 399. The University is confident that its developments over the past four years have ensured stronger oversight and monitoring of progress, and allowed for early intervention and discussions at key monitoring points. Student progress is formally reviewed annually via the Joint Annual Progress Report (JAPR) 372 , but supervisors are encouraged to continually review progress and discuss any issues with the Faculty Postgraduate Research Lead. Where issues arise through the JAPR, students are required to attend a progression board to explore issues and the required outcomes (see table below for outcomes). The systematic monitoring of progress is an improvement since the last QAA Institutional Audit, and has resulted in a more proactive and deliberate approach to progress monitoring beyond students reaching key milestones such as the RD1 and timely submission of the thesis. JAPR enables student engagement with their supervisors, oversight of progress, and regular structured supervision with evidence of preparation, reflection on previous actions, and agreement of new actions. The outcomes of the Joint Annual Progress rounds inform the student and supervisor development programmes, ensuring a continual evaluation and improvement cycle. Table 6: Outcomes of Postgraduate Research Student Progression Boards

Progression Board Outcome 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Unconditional progression 1 6 2 0 0

Progression with conditions 5 27 14 1 12

Required to withdraw 6 0 1 1 1

Mitigating circumstances 0 1 0 0 0

Total 12 34 17 2 13

400. Under Reserved (Part Two) business of the committee, where Student Representatives are not present, FRDC also monitors student progress against key milestones, and discusses concerns and retains oversight of the total student journey and supervision and support arrangements. Overall, these strengthened arrangements, in line with advisory recommendation from the last Institutional Audit, have improved the success of our programmes. The current completion time data is presented in the table below.

372

[0319] Joint Annual Progress Report process

104

Table 7: Average Duration of Study for Completing Postgraduate Research Students (2010/11 to 2013/14)

Award Mode Years: Months

Number

PhD FT 4:1 73

PhD PT 5:3 24

MPhil FT 5:10 1

MScR FT 1:6 9

MScR PT 1:11 3

MAR FT 2:2 4

MAR PT 3:2 3

MRes FT 1:9 4

MRes PT 4:0 1

DBA FT 4:9 1

DBA PT 3:8 10

EdD PT 7:2 2

Total 135

Development of Research and other Skills 401. The development of students is at the heart of the University’s approach to induction and ongoing advice and supervision, and begins with the completion of a Training Needs Analysis Form (TNAF) 373 drawing on the Researcher Development Framework and the Concordat for the Career Development of Researchers. Advisors and supervisors support the student to review their training needs annually, ensuring a rounded approach to their development, extending beyond the specific requirements for their higher degree. Skills Forge allows oversight of the Training Needs across the student community, and assists with ensuring that all registered students have completed the needs analysis and have an agreed plan for their development. All students have an entitlement to funds, up to a maximum, to draw upon for their development. This allows them to participate in externally available courses and events where appropriate. These Research Student Allowances have recently been reviewed, and increased for the 2014/15 Academic Year. 402. Some research students need to undertake research methods training that is not part of their intended award. Where this is identified as a condition at the point of admission, the students are normally registered on two modules from the MRes provision. These two modules are Philosophy and Approaches to Research and Methodologies and Methods, and amount to 60CATS of research methods training at level VII. Some students also opt to take the modules even though they are not a requirement. The modules have had excellent feedback from the External Examiner (EE)374. 403. Students also benefit from additional centrally organised training and development, including a programme of Research Student Development opportunities 375 , an Annual Research Student Conference 376 , a Winter School, and PGR sessions within Faculty

373

[0181] Training Needs Analysis Form 374

[0182] Exemplar External Examiner Feedback: Research 375

[0183] Research Student-Led Training Events 376

[0184] Annual Research Student Conference 2014

105

Symposia. Locally, students benefit from topic specific research seminar programmes, PGR training events organised at a Faculty level, and significant input from LIS colleagues. 404. Many students are keen to develop their teaching while studying, and we have recently formalized opportunities for students to prepare for teaching through specific modules of the Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice (PGCAP) geared towards postgraduate research students. Through these modules, students are able to cover key areas for development in line with the requirements for Associate Fellowship of the HEA, and some students have now been supported in their successful applications for Fellowship. In addition, and in conjunction with HoSs, the University is moving towards the better promotion and facilitation of teaching opportunities for postgraduate research students, ranging from guest lectures and demonstrating, to tutorial support for student projects. Some staff are also registered for research degrees, and often join other students on aspects of the PGCAP course. Evaluation Mechanisms 405. The University takes part in the Postgraduate Research Experience Survey (PRES)377 and the International Student Barometer (ISB)378, both of which provide excellent sources of feedback on the totality of the student experience, and a form of benchmarking against other providers. The University has also recently developed an Internal Research Degrees with Taught Elements Survey to capture those students following our MRes and Professional Doctorate programmes. Although this is an internal survey, the questions are similar to those of the external surveys (PRES/PTES), allowing comparisons and benchmarking. The continuing high satisfaction levels are a source of pride, but the University is continually striving to further improve the experience, ensuring all forms of feedback are collected, analysed and result in well understood, coordinated, and closely monitored responses via the URDC Action Plan379. This Plan is also informed by a range of other data and inputs, including the Annual Faculty reports380. 406. The JAPR provides an opportunity for individual students to comment on the support from their supervisors. Students are also encouraged to pass feedback through their Faculty Postgraduate Research Student Representatives who sit on FRDC. Through a standing item on the Agenda, representatives are able to raise issues on behalf of the Faculty postgraduate research community within the formal committee environment. However, many issues are raised informally with the Faculty Postgraduate Research Lead outside FRDC, and resolved quickly between meetings. The representation on FRDC ensures that student issues can be effectively dealt with normally via the actions for those present. Occasionally issues are University-wide, and require a central response. These are brought to the attention of the Head of Postgraduate Research to initiate further discussion and resolution. PGR student representatives have also been a key part of the work of Schools and Campuses, to develop an enhanced research community and a better experience for students. The Student Charter was revised and updated in July 2014 to account for postgraduate research student feedback. Postgraduate research matters are a feature of the partnership between the Students Union and the University. All students are asked to complete an Exit Questionnaire at the conclusion of their studies, and this

377

[0501] Postgraduate Research Experience Survey 2013 (AB/41/13) 378

[0314] International Student Barometer paper and Action Plan to Academic Board December 2014 (AB/55/14)

379 [0349] URDC Action Plan and minutes (minute URDC.14.77/URDC.14.79) June 2014 (URDC/82/14) (URDC/84/14); [0350] URDC Action Plan and minutes (minute URDC.14.156) November 2014 (URDC/133/14)

380 [0185] Exemplar Annual Faculty Research Reports (Queens Foundation URDC/87/14, MAT Report URDC/32/13, BEPS Report URDC/103/14)

106

questionnaire has recently been revised to account for duplication and overlap with the other national student satisfaction questionnaires. The responses are used by the Head of Postgraduate Research, and inform the Annual URDC Action Plan. 407. Faculty postgraduate research provision is evaluated annually through an Annual Report to URDC. Faculties are encouraged to consider student issues as well as oversight of student admission, progress and outcomes. The Faculty Annual Reports are informed by student data provided by Finance and Planning, and also draw on JAPRs. The Annual Reports inform the development of the URDC Action Plan for the following year. 408. Increasingly students are keen to have informal opportunities to discuss matters and provide feedback. Regular postgraduate research student gatherings have been supported to allow students to network and also discuss their provision and any concerns. These opportunities seem to be well received, and we will explore further innovations in this area, including greater use of a virtual learning environment and social media to increase participation. The Faculty Administration teams and the central Research Administration Office are regularly in contact with students, and assist in identification of issues worthy further discussion and of inclusion in Action Plans. 409. Another important aspect of evaluation is the external perspective through attendance at external events and examining work conducted at other Institutions. Areas of good practice and innovations are identified, and feed into outcomes following evaluation exercises. A broad range of supervisors are involved in external examining across a range of Universities in the UK and beyond. The Head of Postgraduate Research and Faculty Postgraduate Research leads are regularly in attendance at regional and national events and meetings discussing postgraduate research education and development. Assessment 410. The Regulations for all aspects of assessment of research degrees are an integral part of the overall ARRDP. Students are carefully guided on the development of the work for submission for assessment and involved in the discussions about the appointment of examiners. One EE is required for all students, where the other examiner is internal, except in cases where the student is also a member of staff where two EEs are required. The experience of the examining team is carefully scrutinised, and the examiners must not have assisted the candidate with the development of their research or been used recently for examining within the University. The appointment of examiners, communications with examiners, and all decisions about outcomes from examinations, are within the remit of URDC, and operated via the Research Administration Office. The submission of the RD8 seeks approval for the examining team, and the RD8 must be approved by URDC. The specific arrangements for the examination are handled at Faculty level by the Faculty Postgraduate Research Lead or nominee, working with the supervisor, but preliminary independent reports on the thesis are received centrally. Following the examination of the thesis, and the receipt of the examiners’ report, the student is formally notified of the outcome by the Research Administration Office. 411. The University requires all examinations to have a Chair, drawn from senior experienced staff who have received training in chairing the Viva Voce examination. The Chair works to ensure the candidate is well prepared, and supports the Examiners, and the development of their report following the exam. This initiative has resulted in very timely reports, allowing early notification of preliminary outcomes to the candidate, and timely consideration of the proposed outcomes by URDC. 412. Although small in number, assessment offences have been a feature of postgraduate research student work. The University has embarked on a much more systematic formative

107

approach to the education of and feedback for postgraduate research students about this issue. All students, from 2014/15, as part of their JAPRs, will be required to confirm that their written work has been taken through Turnitin to provide feedback in terms of attribution and ultimately potential claims of plagiarism. In addition, students are made aware of the scope of assessment offences at induction. The Assessment Principles and Procedures, of which assessment offences are a component, apply to all students. The University has standard procedures for the consideration of assessment offences, and these procedures are followed for PGR students. Research Student Complaints and Appeals 413. The University’s approach to managing and reviewing its processes for handling student complaints and academic appeals is discussed fully in the above Section 4.9 Academic Appeals and Student Complaints. The University’s student complaints and academic appeals principles and procedures are accessible via the website and procedures are also clearly referred to in the Research Student Handbook and in the ARRDP. The standard Academic Regulations for Taught Provision (ARTP) are referenced since there is much commonality in the approach taken to the consideration of Appeals. 414. Although the number of appeals and complaints emanating from postgraduate research students is very low381, the URDC annual report includes reporting of numbers of appeals and complaints from 2014/15 and will also ensure lessons learnt are put into practice. 415. The University has an established Research Student Advocate role382 , currently shared by two research-active members of staff. The purpose of the role is to represent the views and concerns of postgraduate research students on academic and related matters in a number of fora. Occasionally, research students are represented by the Research Student Advocate when informal attempts to resolve their concerns have failed. Since its inception this role is recognised as good practice, and has been a core part of the postgraduate environment. The Research Student Advocates make an annual report to the URDC, and the elements of this report feed into the annual URDC Action Plan for the following year. Summary of effectiveness with which the University meets the Expectation 416. The University meets the Expectation by ensuring that its research degrees are awarded in a research environment that provides secure academic standards for undertaking research and learning about research approaches, methods, procedures and protocols. The University has a long-established track record of research, with research students as a fully integrated component. Furthermore, the University environment offers students opportunities and the support they need to achieve successful academic, personal and professional outcomes from their research degrees. Students join established research teams, based within Schools, supported through Faculty arrangements, but encouraged to undertake innovative and contemporary topics drawing on expertise and experience beyond individual subjects and disciplines. Supervision teams are built around the students' interests, but also offer opportunities for supervisor mentoring and development beyond formal development programmes. Data on research students and supervisors is now

381 In 2011/12 there were two academic appeals from PGR students, one was upheld and the other was

rejected as invalid. There was one student complaint that year which was upheld. No appeals or complaints were received from PGR students in 2012/13. In 2013/14 there was one PGR academic appeal which was rejected as invalid and two PGR student complaints, the first was upheld and the other is pending.

382 [0176] Research Student Advocate Role (Research Degrees Student Handbook 2014/15 page 14)

108

stronger, drawing on the single student records system, and informing the postgraduate research system (Skills Forge). This development has allowed the University to significantly strengthen its approach to student progression beyond the attainment of key landmarks (e.g., RD1 submission), ensuring a more rigorous and proactive approach. For students whose progress is inadequate, conditions may be applied, along with support and guidance. As the University implements the third Strategic Priority, and the components of the over-arching new Academic Strategy and Research Strategy, it will increasingly expect to see groupings of students aligning their work with the six new Research Priority Areas, benefitting from investment and the critical mass of expertise. While students will always be located within a School, they will be encouraged to work on multi- and interdisciplinary topics, drawing on expertise across the University.

109

SECTION 5: THE QUALITY OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE HIGHER EDUCATION PROVISION OFFERED Expectation C: Higher education providers produce information for their intended audiences about the learning opportunities they offer that is fit for purpose, accessible and trustworthy. Information for the public about the higher education provider 417. The University is committed to openness and transparency and publishes a range of information available to the public. The University’s published information is diverse in format and is intended to communicate with a variety of audiences including staff, prospective and current students and other stakeholders. The principal mechanism for this is through the website. However, we also direct students to information that is relevant to them through Personal Tutors, through academic and course teams and Helpzones and other front line services where staff are on hand to advise and guide face-to-face. 418. The University’s Strategic Plan383outlines the mission values and overall strategy for the University. The Plan along with its Sub-strategies and other key reports including reports to the Council are published through the website providing an open and transparent link for staff, students and interested members of the public. 419. As required by HEFCE, the University provides the information, which forms part of the Wider Information Set (WIS) on its web pages and includes information of interest to the general public. This includes links to information about: the University as an institution, the Strategic Plan; the University’s approach to quality assurance; courses and awards, including fees; finance and how to apply; results of student surveys; the way in which the University assures the quality and standards of its courses; the Collaborative Partnerships Register; the Strategic Alliance and policies for student complaints and appeals. 420. The University website also offers a range of general information including: leadership and management/committee structures; governance; partnerships and collaborations; academic regulations and assessment principles. There are also links to our financial statements and term dates as approved by Academic Board. The website is managed by the Communications, Marketing and Student Recruitment department with the content of specific pages subject to approval and update by designated officers across the University. The website is currently being fully redeveloped to ensure that it focuses on providing accessible information of real value to the University’s stakeholders which is easier to search. 421. The Secretariat and Information Team in Registry Services manages the University’s legal obligations under Data Protection384and Freedom of Information385legislation. Information for prospective students 422. In addition to the general information outlined above, the primary source of information for prospective students is the corporate website386 . This is currently being revised through a project overseen by the Head of Communications, Marketing and Student

383

[0004] University Strategic Plan 2012-2017 384

[0187] Data Protection webpage 385

[0188] Freedom of Information webpage 386

[0189] University of Gloucestershire Homepage

110

Recruitment. This project is focusing principally on the public website and on potential students. Analytical data and feedback from the University’s stakeholder user group has demonstrated that the current website is perceived as inefficient, including duplicate information, information that is out date and that there are currently too many pages (c10,000 pages). A key aim of the website project387 is to simplify and streamline the quantity of information, create a tighter span of control around the editorial and authorship aspects of webpages and improve its quality for a better user experience. This is in line with sector initiatives, such as the HEDIIP project that is looking at the information landscape in Higher Education, including reducing the burden of data and information in the sector and increasing quality. The project was put out to tender and has been won by a company that is a sector specialist. The new website is due to go live for applicants in 2015 ahead of the 2016 recruitment cycle. 423. The admissions process is detailed in the ‘Study With Us’ Section of the Website. This section is distinguished by course type: undergraduate taught, postgraduate taught, postgraduate research, short course etc. The page provides relevant links and contact details – both email and phone. For undergraduate taught courses advice and guidance is provided about the UCAS application system, and for students looking to enter into Level 5 or 6, advice on Accreditation of Prior Learning (APL) is made available. There is an extensive, downloadable, ‘Guide to Applicants ‘which takes students through the lifecycle of an application, including key deadlines, and includes guidance for courses where an interview is required. When searching course pages, all pages link to the advice and guidance for undergraduate study. All course pages include details on Entry Requirements, including UCAS tariff, GCSE requirements and IELTS for International Students They also detail where admission is based on interview with portfolio. For International Students there are dedicated pages detailing How to Apply. These pages also include details on fees and scholarships. Further details are also available in the extensive guide for International Students. 424. The University runs a number of Open and Applicant days throughout the year, specific to undergraduate and postgraduate studies. Information on dates and venues is provided through the ‘Open Days’ section of the University website, which also includes online bookings. All applicants who receive an offer are invited to attend an Applicant Day. Applicants are sent hard copy information specific to the intended course of study and are asked for feedback at the end of each event, which is used to review the events. Outside of the published information, the events themselves include an interactive workshop with staff, subject specific talks, Q&As for support services, campus and accommodation tours, and information for parents. In interviewing courses, there may also be one-to-one interviews, portfolio reviews and auditions. The combination of published information, social media coverage and intensive face-to-face interaction gives applicants a number of ways of making an informed choice about their study options. 425. The University makes information available to prospective students to enable them select their courses with an understanding of the academic environment in which they will be studying and the support that will be made available to them. The principal means of doing this is through the Course Pages on the website.

426. A range of support services are publicised through the website. These are mainly available through the ‘About Us’ section, which includes full links to all the University’s professional services, which includes Student Services 388 – including accommodation, chaplaincy, childcare advice, careers, disability support, medical services, money advice, welfare, student achievement engagement and employability.

387

[0272] Precedent Web Development Presentation July 2014 388

[0117] Student Services webpage

111

427. The University provides hardcopy prospectuses for undergraduate and postgraduate study opportunities. These are available at UCAS Fairs, Open Days, and on request via telephone or email. The prospectuses integrate information specific to international applicants. 428. The Communications, Marketing and Student Recruitment department coordinates prospectus production using a methodology which requires high-level sign-off of content by Deans and Directors of Professional departments as appropriate. All Course Leaders (CLs) brief marketing staff on the content of prospectus and web copy, including key features of the course and its approach. The marketing team has a Content Group that drafts copy which is circulated back to academic courses for approval and sign off. Prospectus copy is then transferred directly to the web to ensure consistency. 429. At undergraduate level, home students receive pre-arrival information that includes a Welcome Pack. This includes information about their timetable, registration and the pattern of their induction week. The Corporate website includes a section for ‘New Students’ that includes a welcome, details of induction, enrolment, timetables, accommodation and moving into halls. Production of this information is overseen by an Induction Group chaired by the director of Student Services. All pre-arrival information is subject to standard approval processes through the Marketing team. The Induction Group evaluates the pre-arrival and induction processes through a survey for new students run in Semester 1, and information from that informs improvements for the following year 389 . The most recent survey was undertaken in October 2014390. Currently pre arrival information for postgraduate taught students is produced at the level of the course and induction organised at departmental level. 430. For International Students pre-arrival information is web-based and accessible through the corporate website. The induction and arrival experience is evaluated through the International Student Barometer (ISB) which is run twice a year. This has yielded some positive feedback for the University on the international student experience. The most recent survey results, considered by Academic Board on 11 December 2014, showed a 90.7% overall satisfaction rate, placing the University 5thin the UK for international student satisfaction.391

431. Increasingly, the University is utilising social media including Facebook, Twitter and Blogs to communicate and engage with its students. Social Media content is monitored through Hootsuite, a software programme that monitors all traffic through these sites. This is monitored by the University Web and Social Media Officer, within the Communications team. Training and guidance is provided for academic staff and central services who wish to engage with social media both for prospective and current students. Recognising the growth in social media usage the University is currently drafting a Social Media Strategy392 which is being overseen by the Communications team. 432. Communication with potential international applicants takes a variety of forms. Up-to-date information is accessible via the University’s corporate web site which has a number of pages dedicated to information relevant to international students, including details of entry requirements, international fees, application processes and the contact details of authorised agents who represent the University in overseas markets.

389

[0364] Induction Planning Group agendas and action notes 2014 390

[0365] Induction Survey Findings October 2014 391

[0131] International Student Barometer 2014 Report; [0314] International Student Barometer paper and Action Plan to Academic Board December 2014 (AB/55/14)

392 [0421] Social Media Policy and Guidelines

112

433. University International recruitment staff regularly travel overseas and meet students, parents and teachers on a face-to-face basis so that they can make an informed decision about applying to Gloucestershire. The main source of information is the University prospectus. The International Development Centre (IDeC) works closely with staff in Marketing in the production of this material and to ensure that any subsequent changes to provision are well understood by recruitment staff and are communicated to potential applicants and agents as soon as possible. Dedicated web pages exist for schools and agents to host updated information. These are updated by IDeC on a monthly basis. Individual enquiries are processed via a dedicated enquiries email for international students. All such enquiries are handled by IDeC to ensure the accuracy and consistency of information provided. 434. Once an application is received, a standard offer letter is issued by the Admission Office. The IDeC schedules a series of regular updates for applicants via the University’s Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system. This system draws on the applicant information held in the SITS student records system. Close liaison between IDeC staff and Marketing colleagues ensures that information circulated via the CRM is corporate in design and consistent in its messages. It is tailored to the interests of that particular applicant.

435. The University works with a relatively small number of international agents, all of whom are issued with a legal contract to represent the University in a given territory. The University takes great care to assess potential agents prior to appointment, visiting their premises in person and seeking references from other institutions with whom they are working. . Training for agency staff is delivered in person by IDeC staff at such time as an agency is appointed and then on a regular basis whenever they are visiting that region393. Agents are also given access to copies of the University Prospectus and any other corporate literature that may be available at the time. These materials are circulated to agents on an annual basis. Agents are required to use the material provided by the University. There is also a dedicated website for agents which is updated monthly394. 436. University corporate materials such as training presentations, promotional video clips and electronic copies of promotional flyers are made available to all agents via a dedicated Drop Box facility. Contracts stipulate that any marketing material produced by the agent which carries the University name and / or Logo must be approved centrally prior to production. Students recruited via contracted agents are surveyed on arrival at the University to assess their satisfaction with the agent services provided, including the accuracy of advice and information received.395 For example, the production of promotional materials for the INTO JV programmes involve team working co-ordinated by the Director of International Development and involving staff from INTO JV, the Director of Collaborative Provision, the Compliance team and the AD Quality and Standards. 437. The development of the emerging University Information Strategy is overseen by the Information Communications Technology (ICT) Director, working with ICT, Library and Information Services (LIS), Academic Development Unit (ADU) and Faculty technical

393

[0320] Training for Agency Staff 394

[0321] Agents webpage 395

Survey results are discussed internally and used in-house by IDeC to review performance and any associated issues would be addressed by relevant Regional Managers as part of their general performance management of their agents. There are currently two forms of feedback received: Feedback from students attending the International Welcome Week, and the International Student Barometer (ISB) (see [0314]). Survey results for September 2014 entrants will not be known until February 2015.

113

services. Following the appointment of a new ICT Director in 2014, the strategy and governance arrangements are currently under review with detailed and interrelated operational plans for all these services being developed under revised auspices of the existing ICT Governance Group. Currently, a Records Management Policy396 combined with a records retention schedule forms part of an overarching Information Management Framework. A list of all the information related policies across the university with 'owners' is available online and an updated retention schedule for academic information will be published online on Academic Standards & Quality Committee (ASQC) approval. 438. The University is committed to openness and accountability. The University's publication scheme397 is a guide to the information that the University publishes or intends to publish as a matter of routine to support public access to information held. Requests for Information are managed by the Academic Registry and overseen by Academic Registrar. 439. As noted in section 4.10, collaborative partners are informed that they (and any Agents) must seek approval of any advertising or publicity that mentions the University and/or our programmes through the Communications, Marketing and Student Recruitment Department. Guidance given to partners ensures that they are aware that this relates to all publicity materials including prospectuses, adverts and websites. 440. On an annual basis, Partnership Coordinators (PCs) and/or Academic Link Tutors (ALTs) update partners on the University processes via the Collaborative Delivery Plan (CDP). All publicity is approved through the Communications, Marketing and Student Recruitment department. PCs and ALTs and the Academic Quality and Partnerships Office (AQPO) regularly check websites and follow up any incorrect information. Information for current students 441. Information for current students is provided in a variety of ways. The currently validated programme of study is published through the Course Pages of the website via the Course Map, and archived course maps and module descriptors are available for both current students and graduates398. Any changes to the map and/or module descriptors are approved through standard quality assurance processes including Programme Change Approval Panel (PCAP), or Periodic Review and Revalidation (PRR). It is a condition of these processes that revised course maps and specifications are produced where appropriate. The revised documentation, approved by PCAP, is then sent to the Student Records team for updating on the SITS student records system and thereafter online, to ensure that the current, accurate version is published to current and prospective students. The course map gives detail to prospective applicants and current students about modules available and route requirements. When students attend for enrolment and induction they are given access to a Course Handbook available electronically via the VLE Moodle site. These handbooks are a requirement of the University, and are written to a standard template399 that is available in the Quality Assurance Handbook, Section 10. This section outlines the expectations of course teams and the requirements of the course handbooks /module guides, and includes as appendices templates to be used in their production. The handbooks cover a number of functions to:

396

[0190] Records Management Policy 397

[0191] University Publication Scheme 398

[0068] Module Descriptor Archive 399

[0071] Module Descriptor Template; [0276] Module Descriptor: AC5004 Business Law(Infonet); [0277] Module Descriptor: NS5207 Animal Behaviour(Infonet); [0278] Module Descriptor: MD4802 Single Camera Production and Editing(Infonet)

114

Set out the academic context of the course within the University, the Faculty, the School and the Subject Group;

Inform prospective and current students of the key course related data;

Set out the academic and pastoral support systems within which the course operates, including Personal Tutoring.

442. The Course Handbook is a requirement of validation for all new programmes. For existing programmes, Course Leaders (CLs) are responsible for producing the Course Handbook, which is agreed by the Subject Group Leader (SGL) at least two weeks before delivery commences. It is a requirement that all handbooks are available electronically to all students on a course. Similarly, it is a University requirement that all modules should have a module guide, produced by the module tutor. These should expand on the basic content of the module as indicated in the guide template 443. The Assessment Scrutiny Process (ASP) approves assessment briefs prior to delivery of modules and module guides are approved by SGLs four weeks before a module run. They are available electronically via the VLE to all students on a module, all staff delivering content, administrative teams for the course, and collaborative partners for franchised provision 444. The University publishes a Student Charter 400 , available electronically, which is updated annually and approved through Academic Board. The Charter is drafted by the Director of Student Services, and includes input from student through focus groups and through consultation with the Students Union. It details in basic terms what the University expects of the student and what the student can expect of the University. It contains a series of ‘Promises and Commitments’ that we make across Teaching and Learning, Advice and Guidance, Engagement in Quality Assurance, Personal Tutoring, Assessment and Employability. The Charter also links to a range of University policies including: Student Code of Conduct, Student Disciplinary Procedure, Student Complaints Procedure, Academic Appeals Procedure and the Fitness to Study Procedure. It also includes electronic links to external bodies including the OIA, Student Finance England, and NUS. 445. Internal Communications with students are managed through the Communications team, who oversee the ‘Current Students’ pages401 on the University Infonet. This includes news, events and links to student resources and relevant departments including the Student Charter, Academic Regulations, Fee Payments, and links to Helpzones. The page is an extensive resource for information about the University and its provision. Following the restructuring of the Communications, Marketing and Student Recruitment team, and through close working with the SU, the University is continually working to improve communications with students. For example, a regular newsletter has been developed to brief students on major developments affecting them. 446. While the University has extensive coverage in published information for current students, assistance in navigating through this information is provided face-to-face through Personal Tutors and other support services, such as Helpzones and the SU. Personal Tutors provide an interface between academic and professional services, advise on module and course choices and signpost to employability and extra-curricular opportunities such as Degreeplus. 447. As noted in section 4.10, information for students at collaborative partners is delegated to the collaborative partner, with oversight through the PCs and/or ALT and our

400

[0096] Student Charter 2014/2015 401

[0192] Current Students Infonet Webpage(Infonet)

115

standard Annual Monitoring processes. This ensures approval and auditing of the information produced. Information for students on completion of their studies

448. The University produces target award certification and accompanying Higher Education Achievement Report (HEAR)402 for its graduates. These define the nature of the award and the level and credit volume of its constituent modules in relation to the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications (FHEQ). The University’s HEARs are provided through the Gradintel403 online platform. Students must register with the Gradintel system to activate their personal accounts before being able to access their individual HEAR. The University provides a detailed map and explanation of the structure of the HEAR via the website404. For collaborative provision see section 4.10.

449. The Award Ceremonies Team is based within Academic Registry where its role is to plan and run the annual award ceremony events (including the coordination of prizes) and to produce the University's award certificates. The team contacts graduating students in advance with information about their graduation ceremony. Before students graduate the University records their up to date contact details on an alumni database so that it can continue communications with them. A dedicated site 405 provides comprehensive information about award ceremonies and associated activities.

Information406 for those with responsibility for maintaining standards and assuring quality 450. The University publishes information on the framework for maintaining Quality and Standards through its website. These pages contain additional links to key documents such as the Academic Regulations for Taught Provision (ARTP), Assessment principles, Committee pages, the Quality Assurance Handbook, and information relating to student engagement in Quality Assurance and Key Information Set (KIS) data. Responsibility for the submission and maintenance of the KIS rests with Finance and Planning with the necessary data being drawn from SITS currently held against modules and courses. The KIS forms a part of internal data quality checking procedure. When new courses and modules are validated the KIS data is collected and agreed at that point and is reviewed annually prior to the completion of the annual return. 451. The KIS return is produced direct from the source data. The University has structures and processes in place to ensure the quality of data maintained on our systems. The quality of the source data and the final return submissions are managed through a hierarchical process that commences at the start of the cycle and is only complete once each return has been formally signed off by the Vice Chancellor. All queries are referred back to data owners for resolution and a full data audit is maintained. Summary of effectiveness with which the University meets the Expectation 452. The University is confident that it meets this Expectation by producing information for the wide range of its stakeholders about the learning opportunities offered that is fit for purpose, accessible and trustworthy. The University is currently revamping the website

402

[0015] Higher Education Achievement Report (HEAR) webpage 403

[0193] GradIntel 404

[0194] Higher Education Achievement Report (HEAR): Structure 405

[0195] University Awards Ceremonies webpage 406

[0196] University Publications webpage

116

presentation and organisation of information for prospective students to make this more user friendly and readily accessible. The University has longer term plans to enhance the student record system and is working with the SU to improve communications with students.

117

SECTION 6: ENHANCEMENT OF STUDENTS’ LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES Expectation: Deliberate steps are being taken at provider level to improve the quality of students' learning opportunities.

A Strategic approach to enhancement of student learning opportunities

453. The University is committed to the provision and ongoing development of high-quality teaching and support for learning, informed by high quality research and knowledge transfer. 454. This commitment is enshrined in the University Strategic Plan407 through the five corporate goals:

To provide students with excellent learning experiences through outstanding learning and teaching support;

To promote enterprise, employability and wider economic, social and cultural benefit for the community;

To embed research, scholarship, practice and consultancy in all our activities;

To build strong relationships with selected partners for mutual benefit;

To be a successful and sustainable organisation. 455. These strands are developed further in a fuller articulation of what the University stands for as introduced in paragraph 16 of this SED, and what differentiates it from other Universities. The three strands are:

giving students outstanding support to learn in a community which values them as individuals.

a breadth and richness of experience which prepares students for rewarding lives and successful careers.

making an outstanding contribution to the well-being of Gloucestershire. 456. The updated Academic Strategy408 sets out in more detail how the University is developing and aligning the University’s major academic activities (teaching and learning, research and enterprise) to achieve those goals. This is the key University strategy with a focus on enhancing students’ learning opportunities. 457. The University does not have a separate Quality Enhancement strategy largely because it views enhancement activities as an embedded aspect of all of its learning and teaching activities and a natural outcome of its quality assurance processes. The University takes a strategic approach to enhancement of student learning opportunities. Actions to promote further enhancement form a key strand of the updated Academic Strategy. 458. Responsibility for enhancement is shared by a number of individuals and committees. In the broadest sense, every member of the University community has a responsibility for continuous improvement of the activities in which they engage, and the University’s success in delivering this approach can be judged by its appetite for change and development and the number of external recognitions it has achieved. More specifically, the Learning and Teaching Committee (LTC) and its faculty sub committees (FLTCs) have

407

[0004] University Strategic Plan 2012-2017 408

[0006] Academic Strategy 2013-2017(Infonet)

118

oversight of the institutional approach to enhancement of student learning opportunities409. The link with the formal consideration of the outcomes of quality assurance processes is facilitated by cross-membership and regular joint meetings of this committee and the Academic Standards and Quality Committee (ASQC). In 2014 the decision was taken to reconstitute and develop this Committee into a less formal and more dynamic group, the Strategic Enhancement Group 410 , to consider and take forward university-wide, enhancement initiatives. 459. The core institutional drivers are the Academic Strategy, the Academic Staff Development Framework (ASDF), the work of the Academic Development Unit (ADU) and the partnership working with the SU. The SED has interwoven discussion of the key enhancement initiatives and activities throughout the document and these include:

the proactive consideration of and action taken in response to NSS outcomes;

the ambitions stated in the updated Academic Strategy (see paragraph 26);

continuing work with the Students’ Union to encourage active student engagement in

enhancement;

the development and implementation of the School (student) Representative system;

staff development at the level of the individual through the Staff Review and

Development (SRD) scheme, attendance at Staff symposia and biannual

conferences where good practice is shared;

the ongoing work of the ADU in supporting longer term staff development activities

across the University and the relationship with the HEA;

the Enhanced Student Year (ESY);

the introduction of e-Assessment in response to student needs;

the impact of Degreeplus on underpinning support for student employability;

the continued strength of the Helpzones.

460. A further enhancement is associated with employability, which is further explored in the thematic section (7) of the SED. The employability of students and the employment prospects of graduates are coordinated centrally by Student Services. The University has elected to explore the theme of student employability as the thematic strand of the review. The focus of this section will be on how the University’s strategic approach to this has enhanced the student learning opportunities. The University provides a breadth of opportunities, resources and support, which enable students to explore and achieve their potential and to create strong opportunities for successful transition into employment or further study. 461. To this end the University has taken a deliberate approach over the last four years and developed strategies, associated operational plans and Key Performance Indicators to promote student employability. This is enshrined in the commitment expressed within the Strategic Plan ‘To promote enterprise, employability and wider economic, social and cultural benefit for the community.’ This deliberate approach is underpinned further by the ‘Learning for Life and Employment’ strand within the Learning and Teaching Strategy411 which outlines major areas for student development within the curriculum: employability skills and

409

[0279] Exemplar Faculty Learning and Teaching Committee minutes (February 2014); [0280] Exemplar Learning and Teaching Committee minutes (11 March 2014)

410 Strategic Enhancement Group consists of: Faculty Heads of Quality and Standards; Learning and Teaching Committee Chair; Dean of Academic Development; Professional Leads; Students Union representation; Faculty Learning and Teaching Coordinators.

411 [0007] Learning and Teaching Strategy 2011-2015

119

capacities; work-focused learning; application of learning in real-world contexts; and skills for public, business and community engagement. Schools have developed activities and approaches to learning appropriate to their disciplines to address these areas and to nurture graduates who are ‘prepared for life and employment’. Most recently in 2013/14, the University developed its Employability Strategy 412 to establish a clear and consistent institution-wide approach to the development of student employability within and outside academic courses, encompassing academic study, co-curricular and extra-curricular activities. The strategy also promotes closer partnership working between academic teams, Personal Tutors and Degreeplus professional Careers Consultants and Placement Advisers, to make best use of academic and professional expertise and resources for the benefit of students. 462. As noted in section 4.8, the University is currently realising one of the ambitions of the Academic Strategy in refreshing its approach to annual monitoring to strike a better balance between its essential quality assurance focus and its potential to underpin enhancement activities in a more direct manner. The new process seeks to draw out and disseminate good practice across the academic provision more systematically and to provide an evidence-based approach for structured enhancement activities. It is envisaged that this will enable a focus on accessing, analysing and responding to information and data in a more timely manner coupled with a more transparent and accessible repository for course monitoring. This will not only greatly enhance the quality process but lead to a more strategic approach to enhancement activities across the University. 463. The Growth Hub provides a business interface and is the primary point of contact for businesses, strategic partners (Local Authorities, Local Enterprise Partnership), professional membership organisations promoting jobs, placements and internships for students and graduates. The University anticipates that the impact of the work of the Growth Hub in providing an essential interface between academic, student and business stakeholders will result in the development of more innovative courses and in the enhancement of the students’ learning opportunities and their employability413. This will apply particularly in the Business School, with Growth Hub staff working closely with Business School staff on the design and content of courses, the organization of work experience opportunities, and the engagement of businesses in supporting course delivery. Recent activities include an event in November 2014 where the Growth Hub worked with the Business School and School of Art and Design to support student memberships of the Institute of Directors and to provide mentors for nine students. The Growth Hub also ran a ‘Venture into Enterprise’ conference for staff, students, alumni and local partners aimed at providing practical sessions for budding entrepreneurs. Integration of enhancement initiatives in a systematic and planned manner at provider level 464. The University ensures enhancement is a significant component of all strategic initiatives and routine activities, which contribute to the student learning experience. A systematic approach to quality assurance and enhancement is supported through the collective responsibilities of Academic Board, ASQC, LTC, University Research Degrees Committee (URDC), Academic Portfolio Committee (APC), FLTCs and Faculty Academic Standards and Quality Committees (FASQCs) and the recently established Strategic Enhancement Group (SEG) which has taken on the role of the former joint ASQC/LTC to enable a more organic discussion of enhancement initiatives 414 . Campus Life Groups

412

[0197] Employability Strategy 2014 413

[0412] Students receiving Institute of Directors membership through the Growth Hub 414

[0481] Strategic Enhancement Group (ASQC/118/14); [0482] Strategic Enhancement Group notes 15 December 2014 (ASQC/22/15)

120

(CLGs) were reconsidered in 2014 and re-launched as student-led and student chaired committees to ensure a stronger focus on the student perspective, and to facilitate partnership working, and students are full members of all key School and University level Committees and Working Groups. 465. The University’s 5 year Strategic Plan is delivered via the annual operating plan, which includes actions and KPIs that are reported to the University Executive Committee (UEC) and University Council. Departmental Business Plans include some of the institutional KPIs, where relevant, as well as local KPIs. Business Plans are available on the institution’s web site and are discussed throughout the year when members of school and department teams meet with the Vice Chancellor and other key staff to review progress. In 2014/15 students have been invited to attend these meetings in order to offer them the opportunity to participate in the process. This planning cycle promotes enhancement by embedding regular review and development discussions. It is supported through regular discussion at University Management Group (UMG) and, from 2014/15 the University has introduced a series of review meetings (known as ‘Breakthrough Days’) where professional support departments and academic schools discuss their longer term plans and share their collective vision for future developments. 466. The University has been making increasingly direct and active use of its management information to enable an evidence-based approach to be adopted in the allocation of resource to Schools and to University wide enhancements via the workload allocation model. The approach provides for the use of statistical data generated by Finance and Planning and also a more systematic consideration of National Student Survey (NSS) outcomes at institutional through to course level. This enables easy identification of areas which require further development and those which might be considered as beacons of good practice. The University’s approach to analysis and discussion of NSS outcomes has been particularly effective in considering underlying trends, prompting discussions about plans to address areas of weakness or to build on areas of strength towards the next survey point. As a result of this exercise in 2013 a series of action points were developed as actions to be taken across the University over 2013/14. The outcomes of the NSS in 2014 demonstrated a marked improvement for the University overall.

467. Recent integrated enhancement initiatives include the ESY and the e submission projects both of which were prompted by issues which arose within quality assurance processes and student surveys (see section 4.3 for further details). The University has acted promptly to reengineer the student year and ensure that a range of enhancement activities are built into the curriculum programme. The aim is to ensure maximum beneficial use of the student time on campus to undertake a range of complementary activities to underpin their academic achievement and build associated skills for employment. The e-submission project was piloted in 2014 and was rolled out across the University from 2014/15 in response to issues raised by students and also external examiners as well as practice observed by University staff in other institutions to provide consistently high quality and timely feedback to students on assessed work. 468. The University has worked closely with and supported the SU in the development of the School Representative (SR) role to enable students to strengthen representation across the University and to play a more active part in School based learning and teaching developments as explored in greater detail in section 4.5. 469. Dissemination of good practice has been subject to deliberative action through enhancement of communication channels. In addition to the formal management and governance structures, Council, Faculty management teams, Heads of Schools, Senior Tutors, the University Executive and UMG engage in a series of initiatives including Away Days and breakthrough days to identify priorities for strategic improvements.

121

Ethos, which expects and encourages enhancement of student learning opportunities 470. The University promotes an institutional ethos where the enhancement of student learning opportunities is valued and promoted. The development of an enhancement culture that encourages and supports staff development and reward centres upon: academic leadership, staff recruitment and development, and reward and recognition. 471. Academic appointments, probation and promotion processes require individuals to demonstrate high levels of performance in teaching and learning. All new members of staff are required, as appropriate, to complete the University accredited Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice (PGCAP) as part of their probation. Further details can be found in section 4.3 on Learning and Teaching. As noted in section 4.3, staff are supported to develop their academic practice through the ASDF in alignment with other University schemes such as the revised Staff Review and Development (SRD) process. 472. The University’s PGCAP requires all new members of staff with fewer than three years’ experience of teaching in higher education to participate in the PGCAP, and is also available to staff members of collaborative partner organisations. This ensures that there is a deliberate commitment to ensuring that staff are appropriately qualified to teach and have the opportunity to explore and share innovative approaches to teaching across the institution. ADU has institutional oversight of the operation of the scheme and provides support and workshops for members of staff who wish to apply for HEA Fellowship. The University has also developed the Postgraduate Research Development Programme to support Postgraduate Research Students who wish to submit an individual application for recognition as an Associate Fellowship of the HEA. 473. The ASDF is a key driver for staff with ‘Teaching and Scholarship’ and ‘Teaching and Research’ role profiles to participate in the University’s RAPP scheme. This was developed in 2013 in alignment with the both the UK Professional Standards Framework (UKPSF) and the Researcher Development Framework (RDF). As noted in the Learning and Teaching section, the University is seeking formal HEA accreditation. 474. The continuing work of ADU with Subject Groups is part of the plans for further enhancements of the quality of teaching staff. It seeks to engender discussions with Subject Groups to identify and disseminate innovative and effective practices across the University415 and draw these together via symposia and conference activities. 475. It is a fundamental platform of the University’s approach to enhancement that academic staff are also encouraged to participate in national scholarly and professional activities including, engagement with the HEA, professional body committees and external examining 416 . These external experiences inform the University’s provision and provide additional opportunities to benchmark at subject level and to adopt good practice developed elsewhere. 476. The HEA National Teaching Fellowship Scheme (NTFS) is an important driver for teaching excellence in the University. As explored in section 4.3, this University has a long history of successful applications and the University NTFs actively contribute to the strategic development of learning and teaching and are playing an important role in academic developments as explored in section 4.3.

477. The University seeks to strike an appropriate balance between the encouragement of ‘bottom up’ enhancement initiatives by individual members and groups of staff and the

415

[0487] Academic Development Unit Good Practice Case Studies 416

[0326] UoG Staff as External Examiners

122

maintenance of a consistent institutional direction via a framework for development, which enables and supports enhancement activities while ensuring that they are aligned with overarching institutional direction of travel. Examples of this ethos in practice are the Curriculum Framework Review (CFR) and the academic portfolio review, both of which have prompted a discussion about the rationalisation of the curriculum offer to make this clearer for students and make the most effective use of staff resources and facilities. Another example of this is the Learning for Sustainable Futures417 scheme which supports staff professional development and programme-level curriculum innovation in alignment with the Academic Strategy and the institution’s strategic commitment to Education for Sustainability. 478. The University’s approach to the area of student support and guidance, in particular the introduction of Student Helpzones, exemplifies its commitment to taking ‘deliberate steps’ to improve the quality of students’ learning experiences. Since being identified as a feature of good practice in the previous QAA review, the Helpzones have become an embedded feature of student support across the University and provide comprehensive coverage of support for a range of student needs including accommodation, counselling, services for students with disabilities, learning support skills and assistance with careers planning. The Helpzones also complement the service provided by personal tutors in providing academic support for students with their studies and the advice and guidance available from the SU. These provide a holistic range of services designed to enable students to fulfil their potential and to enhance their learning opportunities. Identification, support and dissemination of good practice 479. Central to the overarching governance arrangements concerning learning and teaching is the identification, support and dissemination of good practice via both staff conferences and annual symposia but also through the traditional deliberative structure418. While responsibility resides with key individual role holders the identification and dissemination of good practice involves a number of interrelated activities overseen by the ADU and the University’s central and faculty based committees of LTC (FTLCs) and ASQC (FASQCs). These provide a range of both formal and informal opportunities for staff and students to discuss aspects of good practice:

Policies and procedures for implementation and evaluation in line with the ambitions of the Academic Strategy.

SRD processes that encourage and support staff research and scholarly activity.

The Use of NTFs in key University Learning and Teaching Projects.

University Learning and Teaching Conferences and Celebration of Research days.

480. Faculty Learning and Teaching Coordinators and Directors of Postgraduate Research have responsibility for and make a significant contribution to the identification and dissemination of good practice at Faculty level. Use of quality assurance procedures to identify opportunities for enhancement 481. There have been recent developments to reshape what were predominantly assurance-based processes to inculcate and embed enhancement activities within these routine quality management and assurance processes, such as annual monitoring (now

417

[0098] Learning for Sustainable Futures website 418

Exemplar FTLC minutes: [0391] Faculty Teaching & Learning Committee AS minutes 13 February 2014 (minute FLTC.AS.14.08); [0394] Faculty Teaching & Learning Committee BEPS minutes 17 June 2014 (minute FLTC.BEPS.14.16.04-08); [0395] Faculty Teaching & Learning Committee MAT minutes 16 October 2014 (minute FLTC.MAT.14.20)

123

moving to continuous improvement monitoring). Features of the developing quality assurance procedures such as action planning and the summary of good practice will be used to identify enhancement priorities, which will then be addressed in a more dynamic and transparent manner at course, School and Faculty level and reported through the University’s committee and executive structures. The University recognises that this cultural shift is a continuous process requiring concerted effort to deliver more tangible year-on-year improvements.

482. The planned changes to the annual monitoring process place a central emphasis on action planning for enhancement activites. It will serve the purpose of both assuring the academic health of courses but also of identifying features of good practice and opportunities for enhancing the student learning opportunities in a more proactive and timely manner. Summary of effectiveness with which the University meets the Expectation 483. The University meets the Expectation by taking demonstrable and deliberate steps at an institutional level to improve the quality of its students’ learning opportunities. It achieves this through a management approach and deliberative structure which enable the development of ‘bottom up’ enhancement initiatives and active learning from quality assurance processes. The University’s ethos expects and encourages the enhancement of student learning opportunities by listening to the voices of its students and other significant stakeholders. The University works closely with its stakeholder community to develop an organic and strategic approach to enhancing not only the student learning opportunities across its provision but also the effectiveness of its quality assurance processes. This systematic and planned approach places a premium on institutional learning and ensures an embedded enhancement focus in all major initiatives.

124

SECTION 7: THEMATIC STRAND – STUDENT EMPLOYABILITY

Innovations in promoting the employability of students Strategic and operational development 484. Developing the employability of its students is a key priority for the University. The strategic approach taken to ensuring employability has a direct bearing on the student learning experience and is integral to their preparedness for professional life or civic activity after graduation. This has been cited in a recent QAA publication on Employer Engagement (January 2015)419. The University aims to provide students with a breadth of opportunities, resources and support which will enable them to explore and achieve their potential and maximise their chances of making a successful transition into a competitive graduate labour market. The University is also aware of the economic impact of its employability activities420, as it plays an active role in developing highly skilled graduates who can contribute to the growth and success of local businesses and the local economy of Gloucestershire. The recently published independent report by Biggar Economics estimates that the University’s activities and spending support almost 3000 jobs in the South West region. Staff and students spend more than £28 million in the county and commit more than 10,000 hours of volunteering each year and almost a third of graduates choose to start their careers in Gloucestershire. The report also explores the social and cultural impact the University makes in the county through sponsorship and staff and student volunteering. It highlights the University’s strong links with the world-class festivals for which Cheltenham and Gloucestershire are renowned and its support for and active participation in the 45 cultural festivals that are hosted every year in the county. The key findings of the report have been published as part of ‘A University for Gloucestershire: Our Economic, Social and Cultural Contribution’, featuring case studies of staff, students, graduates and local businesses and organisations. [ www.glos.ac.uk/glos-contribution.] 485. Over the last four years, the University has developed strategies, associated operational plans and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to promote student employability. There has been considerable investment in the development of infrastructure and human resources to underpin these and to enable the evolution of professional departments to support student employability more effectively. 486. In 2012, the University stated its commitment to the development of student employability in its Strategic Plan, goal 2 of which is ‘To promote enterprise, employability and wider economic, social and cultural benefit for the community.’ As mentioned in paragraph 28, the importance of employability is reinforced in the second of the three ‘Things we stand for’ statements: ‘A breadth and richness of experience which prepares students for rewarding lives and successful careers’. Strong support from the Vice-Chancellor and Executive for subsequent employability initiatives has promoted rapid development of employability provision and practice within and beyond academic programmes. 487. The University’s Learning and Teaching Strategy incorporates a ‘Learning for Life and Employment’ strand, which outlines four areas for student development within the curriculum:

Employability skills and capacities

Work-focused learning

419

[0460] QAA Employer Engagement Report 420

[0434] University of Gloucestershire Economic Impact Report

125

Application of learning in real-world contexts

Skills for public, business and community engagement

488. In 2011, an internal review of departments supporting student development resulted in the restructuring of the Careers team (previously located in the Academic Development Unit (ADU) and Placements teams (previously based in Faculties) into a central Student Employability Team within Student Services. This provided a more coherent and unified set of services supporting student employability. The subsequent creation of the Degreeplus team in February 2012 (following a successful HEA Change Academy Project421) enabled further growth and development of the Student Employability Team. Degreeplus offices were built on each campus, adjacent to Student Helpzones, to encourage student engagement with employability opportunities, in particular, internships and volunteering activities and the University’s Employability Award. Staffed by students doing a twelve-month placement as part of their degree, the Degreeplus offices provide a student-friendly access point to employability services. To build on this successful brand, Degreeplus became the overarching name for the Student Employability Team from autumn 2014. 489. During 2013/14, an Employability Strategy422 for the University was developed which aims to establish a clear and consistent institution-wide approach to the development of student employability within and outside academic programmes, encompassing academic study, co-curricular and extra-curricular activities. The strategy also promotes the continuing development of closer partnership working between academic teams, Personal Tutors and Degreeplus professional Careers Consultants and Placement Advisers, to make best use of academic and professional expertise and resources for the benefit of students. 490. The University of Gloucestershire and Gloucestershire Local Enterprise Partnership (GFirst LEP) have formed a new and innovative partnership in the county to boost the development of companies, increase exports and fast-track entrepreneurial start-ups with high growth potential through the new Growth Hub. It is envisaged that the Growth Hub will provide business support services in Gloucestershire that will act as a catalyst for a step change in driving economic growth in the county. The partnership between the University and the LEP reflects a shared commitment to responding to the needs of the business community. This will also promote economic growth in Gloucestershire. The Growth Hub will focus upon integrating services for business, and will be underpinned by stronger engagement with the Business School. The goal is to transform the business support currently on offer to Gloucestershire firms, and thereby ensure a flourishing future for the county's economy. 491. The University has also invested in Career Hub, a Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system which will provide one-stop-shop online access for students to Degreeplus services, under the name of My Degreeplus423. Through this system, once it is fully functional, students will be able to access online careers guidance, book one-to-one appointments with advisers, book onto careers and employability events and workshops, browse comprehensive resources and search for opportunities of all kinds; volunteering, internships, placements, summer and vacation work and graduate jobs. The acquisition of Career Hub has already enabled the streamlining of systems across the three Degreeplus teams and is fostering closer collaborative working. The system will also enable the University to assess the impact of its work in this area by providing comprehensive reporting on student activity and levels of engagement. The system also provides a single point of access for employers 424 to advertise their opportunities, which will make it easier for 421

[0202] Change Academy Project : Executive Paper and UMG Presentation 422

[0197] Employability Strategy 2014 423

[0203] My Degreeplus UMG Presentation 424

[0204] Degreeplus Access for Employers

126

recruiters to engage with the University. The system went live in August 2014 and is still being developed, but is already transforming the ways in which the University communicates with students about employability matters and the working practices of Degreeplus staff. This reflects the commitments to continuous improvement of a service that is highly regarded and valued by the student body. 492. The introduction of the Enhanced Student Year (ESY) from 2014/15 is a key institutional enhancement initiative which will facilitate implementation of the Employability Strategy. The length of each semester has been increased by two weeks, giving academic Schools more time to incorporate into their programmes additional activities for students to enhance their employability, information literacy, digital literacy and study skills. An Employability Developmental Framework425 and associated Enhanced Year Template have been devised to assist Schools to plan appropriate activities for students in collaboration with the Degreeplus team426. 493. During 2014/15, the University is piloting the introduction of a Personal Career Plan427for all students including a career and employability review questionnaire428. The process of developing an individual career plan will commence for every student in year 1 and continue throughout their time at the University. It will be supported by Personal Tutors. The Plan is based upon the Employability Development Framework and will provide a basis for discussion between Personal Tutors and their tutees about employability matters. Students will be encouraged to seek out appropriate activities and conversations within and outside their academic programme, to enable them to ‘Explore, Decide, Achieve’ in the three domains of work experience, skills development and career management. The Plan will also provide a common point of reference for academic teams, professional staff and tutors, so that students hear consistent messages, while receiving a range of support from different members of staff. Presentations429 were given at staff conferences to raise awareness of the initiative and to recruit Personal Tutors to take part in the pilot. The project will also be supported by the Higher Education Academy, following a successful bid to participate in their ‘Embedding Employability into the Curriculum’ Strategic Enhancement Programme. 494. The creation of the University’s Growth Hub430 offers the opportunity for Degreeplus staff to build on the well-established links forged with its predecessor, the Business Development Unit (BDU). Growth Hub Business Guides will liaise with the Degreeplus team to raise awareness of our employability offer within Gloucestershire and act as a conduit for employers to access student talent in a bespoke, uncomplicated way. The Growth Hub incubation units also offer students the chance to receive support developing their own business, be offered an internship with resident businesses and for those resident businesses to offer guest talks to relevant student cohorts. 495. As reflected in the Student Submission and NSS outcomes, the employability and, in particular, placement opportunities are valued highly by the student body. Schools have developed activities and approaches to learning appropriate to their disciplines to address employability and to nurture graduates who are ‘prepared for life and employment431’ There

425

[0199] Employability Development Framework (Infonet) 426

[0234] School Enhanced Student Year Plans 2014/15 427

[0205] Personal Career Plan(Infonet) 428

[0206] Career and Employability Review Questionnaire(Infonet) 429

[0207] Personal Career Plan Presentation 430

[0018] The Growth Hub webpage; [0019] Growth Hub Objectives - Extracts from the HEFCE Bid; [0412] Students receiving Institute of Directors membership through the Growth Hub

431 [0198] Employability Overview (Infonet); School employability evidence : [0474] Employability-School of Art & Design; [0475] Employability-Schools of Business & Management and Accounting & Law; [0476] Employability-School of Media; [0477] Employability-School of Sport & Exercise

127

are numerous examples of development teams carefully considering this through the course development process drawing on expertise from industry representatives, professional bodies and employers. 496. Carefully planned placement modules at each level allow students to engage with industry at an appropriate level to their level of study. This allows them to gain a greater understanding of the industry in which they wish to develop a career. In addition to placement opportunities other modules provide for the development of work-based skills and capacities. In certain disciplines students have the opportunity to obtain industry specific qualifications alongside their course of study which will help develop their employability prospects (e.g. National Governing Body coaching courses and REPS accredited Fitness Instructor and Personal Trainer courses at levels 2 and 3). In line with the Learning and Teaching Strategy432 all courses are required to consider how employability skills will be developed over the duration of the course and enable students to develop transferable employability skills that will enhance their suitability for a range of professional careers. 497. There are a number of University-wide employability and enterprise focus initiatives which provide wider opportunities for students to develop skills and experience. Examples include:

The University’s Venture programme provides a series of stand-alone workshops that develop enterprise skills and enable individuals to start a new business. This programme is also embedded in a number of taught modules. The Venture programme also runs an annual business plan competition with winners receiving prizes of a cash injection to assist with business start-up.

The University views volunteering as playing an important role in helping students build their skills, confidence and capabilities. To this end, the ‘Bank It’ campaign was launched in December 2014. This is, a joint campaign by the University and the Students’ Union which sets a target to ‘bank’ 18,000 hours of volunteering hours by the end of 2014-15 academic year. Bank It aims to capture and celebrate the vast amount of volunteering433 time the University’s students and staff contribute to the community in Gloucestershire and further afield. The volunteering opportunities include: organising tea dances for older residents; working with school and community sports clubs; promoting sustainability and travelling further afield as part of the university’s award-winning Sport Malawi project434.

The University’s Re:fresh435 initiative is a new enterprise the University has established within The Growth Hub. Young creative talent is harnessed across a host of disciplines, including Marketing, Graphic Design and ICT, to create a truly collaborative initiative whereby industry professionals mentor and guide the students through to the completion of a commercial project. Students are offered the opportunity to earn while they learn and in doing so build up a professional body of work that will support the transition from academia to the work place. This provides local businesses with opportunities to engage with the next generation of creative minds.

The University’s Incubation Programme provides a ‘Growth Hub’ for start-ups companies and is the go-to place for essential advice, subsidised office space/desks (in 4 centres across the county), support, collaboration and networking for early stage start-up companies in Gloucestershire436 The programme is currently supporting over

432

[0007] Learning and Teaching Strategy 2011-2015 433

[0501] University of Gloucestershire launches campaign to complete 18,000 hours of voluntary work. 434

[0503] Sport Malawi Project webpage 435

[0504] Re:fresh webpage 436

[0505] Incubation Programme webpage

128

60 new companies in fields ranging from renewable energy, media and communications, ICT, sport, retail and IP law.Several of the start-ups have been founded by existing students, alumni or staff off the University.

498. Annual Faculty Business Plans437 and the Student Services Business Plan438 contain KPIs related to employability. Targets are set for the percentage of students meeting the DLHE employment indicators and the ‘graduate level jobs’ indicator. The Student Services Business Plan also contains a target for the number of students engaging with employability opportunities, including placements, the Degreeplus internship programme and the University’s Employability Award (Degreeplus Award from autumn 2014). 499. During the 2013/14 academic year, DLHE Survey meetings were held with all Heads of School and their Subject Group and Course Leaders, to raise awareness of the DLHE survey, how it is conducted, and share best practice on how the outcomes can be used to further develop the employability opportunities offered for students and graduates. These meetings have raised the profile of the DLHE survey amongst academic staff and have promoted closer working between Schools and the Careers team to facilitate the gathering and appropriate use of information from graduates during the survey period. DLHE is a key source of data that Course Leaders (CLs) consider as part of NSS and Annual Monitoring discussions. It is used to inform decisions about course content in relation to enhancing employability within the course or as part of students’ wider University experience. As mentioned in section 4.8 the University is incorporating key data sources, such as the DLHE data, into the Continuous Improvement Monitoring (CIM) process. 500. There is a dedicated section of the Degreeplus Careers website for DLHE

information – providing the outcomes of the most recent DLHE survey 439 , along with separate School by School reports on graduate destinations. Each summer an e-mail is sent to all Heads of School to notify them of updates on the page and to provide them with a direct contact for further more specific or detailed analysis of the available data. 501. Historically the DLHE survey was outsourced to the University of London, but a review identified that it would be beneficial to the University to bring the survey in-house. The survey of 2013/14 graduates will be undertaken by the Careers Information team. Current University students will staff the call centre to contact recent graduates. It is anticipated that the outcomes will include better response rates, better understanding of graduate destinations and the opportunity to offer immediate support to those who are unemployed, from the Careers team. The callers will be recruited through the SU JobShop and will go through a formal selection process. These students will benefit from direct work experience within the university and will also receive bespoke customer service and call centre training, delivered by a local employer, Endsleigh Insurance Limited, who themselves operate a large call centre in Cheltenham. 502. Employability and career development has become a high-profile strand of the student experience as a result of the initiatives and evolving practice outlined above. The information below outlines the ways in which students at each level are informed, motivated and supported to approach the development of their career thinking and employability as an essential personal project for which they take responsibility right from the beginning of their course.

437

[0418] Institute of Education and Professional Services Business Plan 2014/15; [0419] Applied Sciences Business Plan 2014/15; [0420] Media Arts and Technology Business Plan 2014/15

438 [0200] Student Services Business Plan 2014/15

439 [0201] DLHE Outcomes (Infonet)

129

Prospective students 503. Prospective students are provided with information about the University’s approach to employability through initial presentations at Open Days explaining the ‘Your Future Plan440’ concept. They can also find out about the graduate destinations of students from specific courses through the Key Information Sets (KIS) published on Unistats. The Degreeplus team is present at Open days and Applicant Days and the Degreeplus Careers team also provide DLHE information for prospective students and pre-entry guidance for applicants on request. Via the University website, prospectus, Open Days and Applicant Days, Schools provide prospective students with information about work experience opportunities as part of their course, employer involvement in the development and delivery of course content, the professional qualifications and industry experience of academic staff and the ways in which skills for employability are developed as part of the degree programme441. From the autumn of 2015 entrants will receive guaranteed personal support to create a ‘Personal Career Plan’ which will support them in defining and realizing their goals442. Current students 504. All students have access to Degreeplus 443 , a service which promotes the employability and career development of students. The Degreeplus team offer information, advice and guidance to engage students in activities, internships, volunteering and events which will help them to acquire experience, skills and career focus. There is a high-profile Degreeplus office near the Student Helpzone on each campus. Each office is staffed by Degreeplus Advisers who are also students on their twelve-month placement. These students are tasked with engaging students with the Degreeplus offer, signposting them to appropriate opportunities and encouraging them to apply for a Degreeplus Internship or Degreeplus Award. They also refer students on to professional staff to discuss placement or career questions. From October 2014 My Degreeplus will also enable online access to all Degreeplus services for students and graduates. The Degreeplus engagement team is proactive in employer liaison and organises events such as the Opportunities Showcase444 , the annual Teaching Fair and a range of employer presentations throughout the year. 505. Each School has developed its own approach to the development of student employability, guided by the Learning and Teaching Strategy, the new Employability Developmental Framework, the requirements of professional bodies and the needs of employers in the sectors their students are preparing to enter445. The introduction of the ESY from 2014/15 provides additional space within the curriculum for appropriate activities to be integrated into academic programmes, so that all students have the chance to develop their skills, acquire relevant experience, explore career ideas, network and make plans for their next step after university446. Schools provide opportunities447 for work based or work-related learning, through short placements, year-long placements, Degreeplus internships, ‘live’ projects and employer-led activities. To date Degreeplus has enabled 229 internships.

440

[0017] Your Future Plan: Personal Career Planning (UEC/153/14) 441

[0209] School of Art and Design webpage; [0210] School of Leisure webpage; 442

[0211] Personal Career Planning (UEC/153/14) 443

[0217] Growth Hub Training Presentation – Degreeplus Explained 444

[0212] Degreeplus Opportunities Showcase and Evaluation 445

School employability evidence: [0474] Employability-School of Art & Design; [0475] Employability-Schools of Business & Management and Accounting & Law; [0476] Employability-School of Media; [0477] Employability-School of Sport & Exercise

446 [0234] School Enhanced Student Year Plans 2014/15

447 [0213] School of Leisure Student Profiles: Opportunities for Students

130

Degreeplus placements 506. The University has a long history of providing placements, professional practice or work related learning as assessed modules on various courses, for example within Education courses or undergraduate sandwich courses. This has been seen as a key factor in developing students’ employability skills448. 507. The University’s Curriculum Framework Review (CFR) in 2011 led to an increase in the number of students on placement through embedding additional placement modules into courses across the University. The number of student placements has grown from 2175 in 2011/12 to 3061 in 2013/14. For 2014/15 it is anticipated that there will be in excess of 3200 student placements449. 508. Across the University there is now a wide variety of placement provision, the duration and placement type being influenced either through criteria provided by relevant professional bodies or factors relevant to the particular sector or the subject discipline. The majority of placement modules are compulsory450. 509. The three main models of placement that inform the University’s approach to supporting students and working with academic placement staff are:

The ‘Allocated’ model - the University has a defined list of placement providers, usually partnership organisations, offering specific roles. The students are allocated to a placement dependent on their professional requirements at that time, for example in the professional programmes such as PGCE Primary and Secondary and Social Work. In addition many of the School of Sports placements allocate students to placements.

The ‘Recruited’ model - most prevalent for the long-term (typically 12 month) placement, where students face a competitive recruitment process to secure their placement. In these cases there is extensive preparation for placement activity. This is usually embedded within a skills based module, for example in Accounting AC5090 ‘Professional Skill’ 451 BM4105 ‘Business Skills 2’ 452 . Following this students are supported through one-to-one meetings; drop-in advice, mock interviews and preparation for assessment centre activities453 . Supporting material for students concerning recruitment is now found on MyDegreeplus – Resources.

The ‘Student-led’ model - predominantly for short-term placements where students are required to be the driving force in securing their placement. This is particularly prevalent within Media courses on modules MD5934 and MD6934454 where the module includes preparation activities from Degreeplus Placements and Degreeplus Careers providing the tools for students to approach organisations professionally. Frequently appropriate opportunities are advertised through My Degreeplus.

510. There are always a number of presentations to students from organisations. This year the ESY has provided more space within the curriculum for placement recruiters to attend presentations or workshops and meet students455.

448

[0214] Abi Newson IBM Placement Video 449

[0215] Placement Clips 450

[0216] Placement Modules List 2014 451

[0218] AC5090 Professional Skills Module Guide 2014/15 452

[0219] BM4105/MS4101 Business/Marketing Skills 2 Module Guide 2013/14 453

[0220] Seven Steps to Placement 454

[0221] MD6934 Work Placement Module Guide 2014/15 455

[0222] Business and Marketing Enhanced Week Events Programme 2014

131

511. The Degreeplus Placement Offices at each campus provide support before and during the long placement and link directly to the Placement Module tutor. There are discrete arrangements for some professionally orientated courses e.g. initial teacher education and social work. Furthermore a large number of opportunities are advertised through MyDegreeplus. The Placement Offices are responsible for confirming the appropriateness of placements for different roles and approving placement providers which includes checking Health and Safety considerations456. This year, through MyDegreeplus, the process is now online. This process is identical for the short-term placements in Law, (LW4004), School of Leisure, (LE4002) and School of Art and Design (AD5000). Degreeplus Internships and Volunteering 512. The Degreeplus Internship Programme457 offers any student at any level, on any course the chance to gain experience through an 80 hour, project-based internship458. 229 students have been matched to internships to date. Internships are offered by a range of stakeholders from internal departments to local business. The Degreeplus team works in partnership with the University’s Regional Centre of Expertise (RCE) in Education for Sustainability, offering internships with organisations in the RCE consortium (e.g. IT Schools Africa, Furniture Recycling Project). These opportunities are provided in response to student demand 459 and Student Union initiatives to connect sustainability with enterprise and employability skills. The internship programme focuses on a quality experience for students with feedback from the student and the provider gathered at the end. Analysis in the last academic year demonstrated that 97% of students felt more employable and confident as a direct result of the experience and 100% of providers would use the service again460. The University has received nominations in the outstanding intern category of the Gloucestershire Showcase Awards in the two years that it has been running461. 513. The Degreeplus Volunteering Officer has developed links with businesses, third sector organisations and local community groups to enhance the volunteering offer. The University offers students diverse opportunities with a range of organisations. Over the last year the University has analysed the profile of its student volunteer programme enabling it to offer opportunities more suited to student demand462. Degreeplus Careers 514. The Degreeplus Careers team works in collaboration with academic staff to reach as many students as possible through taught careers and employability sessions delivered into academic programmes. These cover a broad range of topics, grouped under the Employability Developmental Framework headings of ‘Explore, Decide, Achieve’ and tailored to specific subject needs. Approximately 150 sessions per year are delivered, some of which are generic sessions centrally delivered, which any student may attend. The team aims to empower students to move through the four key stages of career planning; self-analysis, opportunity awareness, decision-making and the development of transition skills – that is, the skills they will need to research, apply for and secure their first graduate opportunity.

456

[0223] Example of placement validation for twelve month placement modules 457

[0224] Internship Annual Report 2013/14 458

[0225] Internship Feedback Report 459

[0226] NUS HEA Research on Education for Sustainable Development 460

[0227] Yvonne Igbojekwe Glos Conservatives Internship Video 461

[0233] Gloucestershire Showcase Awards nomination 462

[0228] Degreeplus Volunteering Report 2013/14; [0229] Gearing Up for Festival Radio

132

515. Careers Consultants and Advisers also offer bookable one-to-one careers guidance appointments on all campuses and a popular ‘advice by e-mail’ service. Students can book appointments via My Degreeplus at any stage of their studies. Comprehensive careers information resources are also made accessible to students via the Careers website and My Degreeplus. 516. Careers Consultants and Advisers deliver, review and develop the University’s Degreeplus Award. The Award verifies achievement in co-curricular and extra-curricular activities, so that it may be included in section 6.1 of a student’s HEAR. Students have to demonstrate achievement in three skills from a set of five – Communication, Numeracy and ICT, Business/Community Awareness, Teamwork and Leadership and Problem-Solving. (Skills based upon the CBI/UUK Future Fit Report (2009) as set out in the University’s Employability Statement.) They receive coaching and support from the Careers team to present their evidence in a CV and at a formal interview. The Engagement team is responsible for the marketing of the Award to students and providing administrative support to the Careers team. The Students’ Union 517. Degreeplus works in partnership with the Students’ Union, meeting regularly with relevant sabbatical officers and permanent members of staff. The Degreeplus team actively promotes to students the advantage of taking part in SU opportunities, events and training sessions and advertise SU opportunities in the Degreeplus Directory of Opportunities. The SU has been an engaged partner with the internship programme offering over 20 opportunities to which 14 student have been matched. 518. The Students’ Union is committed to employability both operationally through the opportunities it offers to students and more formally through its strategic plan that contains a promise to help students develop their skills463. The enhanced year project has meant that several SU employability opportunities are now becoming embedded in academic courses. An example of this is that a Business School course now includes a module in social enterprise, with students spending time working with the Students’ Union run Cheltenham Chilli Company. 519. The SU has been recognised in its sector for its innovative work in enterprise by winning a 2014 NUS Award464 for Enterprise and Engagement as well as being recognised nationally by The Observer and NESTA as one of the 50 most radical organisations in the UK for its work on the Big Green Gap Year project465. The SU’s ’50 Shades of Green’ programme also encompasses components focussing on employability and enterprise. 520. Following a governance review the Students’ Union has developed a more formal approach to managing student demand for employability. This is now managed by a student led Employability Committee and there is a Part-Time Officer for employability who will be elected in the 2014 October Part-Time Officer elections. Graduates 521. Degreeplus hosts an annual Graduate Job-Hunting Event in May where final year students are invited to a lunch to meet Alumni 466 , followed by training and workshops culminating in a speed-networking event with employers.

463

[0114] Students’ Union 3 Year Strategy 2013-2016 464

[0231] NUS Awards 2014 465

[0232] Guardian New Radicals Winners 2014 466

[0435] Alumni Association

133

522. Every student is able to take up the Degreeplus Careers team offer of support for up to three years post-graduation which is promoted through Schools’ social media channels and the Alumni Association. The offer is further enhanced by access to MyDegreeplus for 3 years post-graduation. The HEAR 523. The University was involved at a national level in the Higher Education Achievement Report (HEAR) project467 and actively encourages students to create an electronic transcript providing evidence of their academic and co-curricular achievements during their time at University that have been verified by the University. Degreeplus awards468 are verified by the University and can be added to Section 6 of the HEAR. For example, in the School of Art and Design, a Professional Practice module enables students to review their Personal Development Planning (PDP) and progress their HEAR. Work related experience, community engagement and the development of wider life skills are also acknowledged through the Degreeplus award. Through this scheme all students have the opportunity to further develop skills by undertaking Internships which involve them working on projects with the local community, local organisations or within the University itself. How employers are involved in the delivery and development of the curriculum 524. The University’s commitment to employability is reflected within the ‘Learning for Life and Employment’ strand of the LTS, which outlines four areas for student development within the curriculum:

Employability skills and capacities

Work-focused learning

Application of learning in real-world contexts

Skills for public, business and community engagement 525. In order to ensure this commitment is realised within the curriculum the University seeks to appoint staff who have industry-specific qualifications, professional experience and currency. Once appointed staff are actively encouraged to retain these vital links with their industry, to ensure their practice remains current and to bring their industry experience into the classroom. Having staff with appropriate industry experience makes involving industry representatives and employers in the design and development of new courses a natural and very important part of the development. For example within the Media School no course is introduced without consultation with employers and alumni who may be used to inform course design469, the development of facilities, purchase of kit and employment of staff. External industry professionals have commented favourably on the strength of course design in nurturing the talents of students and equipping graduates to face the ever changing face of the industry and to be well placed for relevant employment opportunities. 526. As noted in section 4.1 (paragraph 118), a significant amount of the taught provision within the University is overtly professional in nature and this is often exemplified through accreditation. This is further strengthened by initiatives in the Media School, the School of Computing and Technology, the School of Sport and Exercise and the School of Art and Design which aim to ensure course teams actively seek appropriate accreditation for taught provision. It is not just the initial achievement of accreditation that is important but it is the

467

[0015] Higher Education Achievement Report (HEAR) webpage 468

[0436] Degreeplus Week 19-23 January 2015 469

[0496] Feedback from Employers on Media School course proposals

134

ongoing work on the currency of the curriculum to ensure it remains in good standing that gives confidence to both students and employers. For example in the Media School this adds an additional annual monitoring requirement and a commitment to working with an industry panel to ensure the currency of the courses, the staff and the work placements on offer.

527. Students on professional courses require a learning experience that is designed and led by professionals with industry as well as academic qualifications and experience. The qualitative comments provided by students within the NSS survey are a testament to this470. Students particularly value: an experience that prepares them well for the industry they plan to enter; the relationship with staff and the contacts with industry; the way their learning is supported; the content of the curriculum; and the way in which assessment is conceptualised471. 528. In the Business School, most courses are designed to maximise exemptions from professional qualifications. To this end engagement during formal validation and review processes is primarily with the professional bodies (ACCA, CIMA, ICAEW, CIPD, CIM, Solicitors Regulation Authority) who represent employers in their profession, rather than with individual employers. However, individual employers/organisations provide valuable input via feedback to staff during student placement visits, via live briefs472 and, increasingly through engagements via the Growth Hub. 529. All members of staff working in the performing arts and drama subject community remain involved in professional activities outside of the University, where they continue to develop their skills and knowledge of current practice. This informs the development of the curriculum and also means that the team has access to a wealth of industry contacts. The courses use a number of visiting lecturers who are experts in their field, including in 2013/14 TV directors, the composer for the Theatre Royal (Bath) and the Creative Director of The Everyman Theatre (Cheltenham). 530. The University offers a range of teacher training routes from Schools Direct where employers have co-constructed the courses with University staff. University-based initial teacher education (ITE) provision has been designed in consultation with partner schools (employers) through the Partnership Board and working party groups. 531. In addition to the formal curriculum the University is keen to develop co-curricular experiences that will enhance student employability. One example of this The Physical Activity and Sport Enterprise (PhASE) which is a student-led social enterprise whereby students have the opportunity to develop and deliver real world sports and physical activity interventions. Examples of PhASE initiatives include a Healthy Lifestyles project which currently runs in primary schools within Cheltenham and Gloucestershire. This project offers primary school pupils and their parents an opportunity to participate in weekly sports and physical activity sessions, while at the same time learning the principles of healthy eating. Students from PhASE have been successful in securing external funding in order to develop such projects473. 532. The ESY introduced in 2014/15 has provided an excellent opportunity to extend employability opportunities. Supported by central professional departments across the University, industry representatives have been invited to work with students on a wide range

470

[0473] A Selection of NSS 2014 Student Comments 471

Exemplar Assessment Briefs (contained within module guides): [0511] MD6803; [0512] MD6804; [0513] MD6935; [0515] CS4001; [0516] CS4002; [0517] CS4004

472 [0506] Exemplar Live Assessment Briefs

473 [0514] Phase Project

135

of employability related themes, and particularly strong examples of this can be found in the School of Accountancy and Law474.

533. The way in which placements are selected and used greatly supports the development of student employability skills. In the Media School all courses have a compulsory work placement in the second or third year plus modules across all courses which require students to work to ‘live’ briefs and to organize ‘real’ commercial or community events.

534. In the School of Computing and Technology via placements students are encouraged to develop their technical and creative skills. This scheme offers students the opportunity to work with a range of employers within a local/regional/national setting. Placement providers are drawn from a variety of sectors including games, programming, databases, cyber-security and networks. The placement enables students to apply skills learned within modules in an applied setting, and relate academic skills to practice. Students also develop their subject knowledge when on placement. Fast Track students take the compulsory module CT5015 Supervised Professional Work Experience, where they undertake a short internship. This module is optional for all other students. Regular skills audits are part of the assessment requirement of the module.

535. All courses within the School of Art and Design engage and prepare students for working within the creative industries, as well as the broader workplace, and aim to embed entrepreneurial thinking. An intrinsic part of developing employability, and conveying the importance of understanding the employment marketplace, is the undertaking of a short placement or period of industry experience. This requirement for students and staff to engage with professional standards and industry expectations is embedded throughout all of the courses within the School of Art and Design.

536. Students in Humanities are the biggest pool of applicants for Degreeplus internships and these are promoted strongly at all levels. Several projects have originated in the School, including two in English Language to support the development of the Communication for Leadership module and the Forensic Linguistics module. The Editing Project, run in English Literature, will run for a second time this year. On this project, students are trained to edit part of a 17th century play. The project also embeds team working and presentation skills, as the students present to fellow students on their work. 537. Subject areas within the School of Natural and Social Sciences have, for several years, made use of employer contributions as guest lectures or as members of careers panels. The introduction of the ESY provided the opportunity for the School to coordinate this within a ten day School “Futures Conference”475 where Employability was a key theme. As part of the conference five Careers panels featured employers and alumni discussing careers options for graduates in the social, environmental and psychological sciences. 538. Within the School of Education initial teacher education is comprised of a number of professional courses, all with teaching practices that are designed to develop employability. The programmers include a number of initiatives, delivered by external partners (including Head teachers and local authority leaders) which enhance students’ employability. These include: training to meet the needs of vulnerable children and safeguarding; training to support the needs of pupils with English as an Additional Language; advice from Head teachers and LA Leaders on applying for jobs and access to ‘mock’ interview sessions.

474

[0234] School Enhanced Student Year Plans 2014/15 475

[0507] School of Natural & Social Sciences Futures Conference

136

539. The University has a strong track record in involving employers, industry representatives and PSRBs in the development and review of courses. In autumn 2014 School of Sport and Exercise undertook a periodic review and revalidation of a range of undergraduate courses. Both staff currently teaching in secondary schools and pupils themselves studying A-Levels in sports courses were consulted during this process. Positive comments were received from all who were consulted confirming that the module titles were clear and that the information regarding the skill set required by potential PE teachers was explicit. 540. By ensuring that all staff recruited in the last 5 years have had strong industry experience and are enabled to maintain these links the Media School has been able to ensure a close and current network to support placements, guest speakers and practitioners. Media staff continue to work in media practice. When hired their contacts and what they can bring to the University’s Media network are considered along with their teaching skills and research background. No course is introduced to the Media School without consultation with industry bodies, accreditation bodies, employers and alumni. These bodies have been used to inform course design, the development of facilities, purchase of kit and employment of staff. As previously stated all media courses are accredited where accreditation is available. In the Media School assessment is frequently linked to live industry briefs, events and workplace simulations. Although they are not part of the marking team media practitioners frequently provide feedback on pitches, project work and studio practice. 541. In the School of Computing and Technology the BEng (Hons) Integrated Engineering (Level 6) was developed in consultation with local employers who were deeply involved in the development of the curriculum working closely with UoG staff. Representatives of the employers joined the development team at the validation event and emphasised the need for the course in Gloucestershire in terms of its content and mode of delivery (see paragraph 547). 542. In the School of Leisure, as part of standard validation practice, employers are included in the consultation process. The vocational nature of the provision in this School makes engagement with employers fundamental to curriculum design. The course team also makes reference to an independent industry expert in the development of the final proposals to go to validation. Employers are not involved in the formal assessment of students but within the applied management courses mentors do offer written evaluations of students’ progress during their placement year. This comes in the form of feedback on the four learning contracts completed during the placement. Furthermore, a written appraisal is completed as part of the placement tutor visit which happens part way through the students’ year in industry. 543. Within the School of Art and Design courses are comprised of modules that also offer students opportunities to present work to industry clients and practitioners, and gain industry insights from the feedback. Examples include Advertising students presenting work to Advertising Agencies, Photography students presenting work to Art Directors from magazines and Design Agencies, and Landscape Architects presenting work to Council Planners. A number of assignments within all courses in the School of Art and Design are set in collaboration with course relevant external agents as live industry oriented briefs that address employers’ needs. Through consultation with professional bodies and industry practitioners, digital technology, software and associated skills are constantly reviewed in order to maintain the currency of the skills and knowledge which students are acquiring. Similarly, the ethos of the Fashion Design programme promotes active links to the fashion design and manufacturing industry both locally and nationally. The opportunity provided to undertake work placements and engage with industry experts, standards and practice is critical to the student experience. Currently the first year cohort is undertaking a Live Brief

137

in collaboration with the Superdry Design team and undertaking a module specifically designed to reflect the technical specifications as supported by Emma Willis. In the School of Education all proposed developments and validation events include representatives from Partnership schools who form part of the Development team. Partnership school staff and LA representatives sit on and Chair partnership boards and the terms of reference of the Partnership Boards include the development, design, assessment and review of higher education provision 544. In the Business School, part time and work based provision (primarily CIPD and CMS) provides opportunities for students to complete assessments based on their own organisation, culminating in a research based project, which enhances employability skills. Specific employability skills sessions are also included in both courses. 545. The BA (Hons) Playwork and MA Professional Studies in Children’s Play programmes are distance learning awards. In addition to stand alone study days that support their learning experience, students are also invited to Professional Development Days. These are day long events designed to raise awareness of current research agendas, facilitate discussion on playwork practice and offer networking opportunities. For example, in January 2014 the playwork team hosted What IS Play Space?. The event was offered free of charge to existing students as part of their study day programme and opened up to other playwork professionals at a cost of £50 per head. 546. A number of courses attract students already in employment to study either on a part-time basis or through a foundation degree-programme. The BEng (Level 6) provides a means of completing a single honours degree for those who have already achieved a Level 5 qualification in a cognate engineering discipline. The course has been designed so that it

can be studied part-time over two years. 547. It is anticipated that most of the students entering this Level 6 top-up in Integrated Engineering will be engineering apprentices employed by local companies. The Level 6 BEng Integrated Engineering will enable students who have completed a Higher Education qualification to Level 5 in a cognate engineering discipline such Mechanical Engineering, Electrical or Electronic Engineering or Manufacturing Engineering. Many of the students will have recently completed a Level 5 award such as a Diploma in Higher education (Dip HE) or Higher National Diploma (HND) or a Foundation Degree (FdSc) in one of these areas. However, strong consideration will be given to mature candidates who have many years of experience in a relevant engineering vocation and are able to demonstrate levels of achievement equivalent to Level 5 or higher476. 548. Analysis of DLHE data indicates that overall many students graduating from the University gain graduate employment. In addition reflection upon the the NSS free form comments generally suggests a good level of satisfaction amongst students across all three faculties, with particular strengths in areas such as the Computing and Education. 549. In initial teacher education students who have completed their ITE course provide feedback during the following year NQT feedback. With the NQT Survey 2014 48% of the UoG NQT respondents rated their training as VG compared with 45% of the sector respondents. 79% of the UoG NQT respondents rated the support for gaining employment as Good or Very Good compared with 74% of the sector respondents. DLHE data shows that across Initial Teacher Education provision, over 90% of graduates gain employment. 550. However, the University is aware of the importance of analysing DLHE data carefully to identify ways in which improvements can be realised. DHLE statistics are analysed as

476

[0340] BEng Integrated Engineering validation 26 June 2014 (approved by ASQC 17 July 2014) (page12)

138

part of the Annual Monitoring Process (now replaced by CIM) to identify areas for further development and good practice. For example, in the latest Business School DLHE outcomes it was clear that while the employment rate for Law graduates remained relatively constant, the percentage in graduate employment had declined. The University is fully aware of the competitive market for training contracts. However, these statistics, together with a lower satisfaction rating for Personal Development (82.1%) than Overall Satisfaction (97.6%) contributed to the decision that the Business School should focus the additional ESY weeks on career development, including personal presentation and interview skills and on legal presentation skills including client interviewing and mooting skills. Summary 551. Over the last four years the University has put in place strategies, infrastructure and processes to encourage the development of effective employability practice within and outside academic programmes. Our aim is to motivate, support and guide our students to explore their potential, develop their skills, acquire work experience and make successful applications for graduate opportunities. The introduction of the Enhanced Student Year has given Schools additional time to incorporate employability activities into their programmes, while the creation of Degreeplus, with offices on each campus and an associated on-line portal, has raised the profile of co-curricular and extra-curricular employability activities and made more accessible the expertise of professional staff to support students. The University’s employment rate increased in 2014 on the previous year’s return by 4%, with 94.3 % of graduates from full time first degrees finding jobs or going on to further study within six months’ of graduating. The proportion of students who reported being unemployed fell correspondingly to 4.7%, down from 7.4% on the previous year. 552. The University’s next phase of development aims to build ever-stronger partnerships between academic teams, Personal Tutors and professional staff, to ensure that it communicates clear and consistent employability messages to students and raise their awareness of the wealth of personal and professional development opportunities and support available to them within the University. The introduction of the Personal Career Plan (PCP) for all students from the autumn of 2015 will be central to this endeavour, as it will provide a shared framework to be used by all staff and students to plan for and develop employability. Through PCP conversations, students will be encouraged to look at their university experience holistically and to record achievement outside their academic programme in section 6.1 of their Higher Education Achievement Report.

139

APPENDIX 1

Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies

Association of International Accountants

BA (Hons) Accounting and Financial Management

Association of Chartered Certified Accountants

Association of Chartered Certified Accountants

BA (Hons) Accounting and Financial Management

BSc (Hons) Accounting and Financial Management Studies

BA (Hons) Accounting and Business Management from 2012 / 2013

Bar Standards Board LLB (Hons) Law/ BA (Hons) Legal Studies(Exit Award Only)

British Association of Sport and Exercise Science

BSc (Hons) Sport and Exercise Studies

BSc (Hons) Sports Science

British Psychological Society

PGC/PGD/MSc Sport and Exercise Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology

BSc(Hons) Criminology and Psychology

BSc(Hons) Psychology and Sociology

BSc (Hons) Criminology and Sociology

Graduate Diploma (Psychology)

PGC/PGD/MSc Occupational Psychology

PGC/PGD/MSc Forensic Psychology

Broadcast Journalism Training Council

BA(Hons) Journalism

Chartered Institute of Management Accountants

BA (Hons) Accounting and Financial Mgmt

Chartered Institute of Marketing

MSc Marketing

BA (Hons) Marketing Management Studies

BA (Hons) Marketing, Advertising and Branding

Certificate in Management Studies (CMS)

Diploma in Management Studies (DMS)

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development

MSc Human Resource Management (Masters stage)

University Diploma: Intermediate Diploma Human Resource Management

PGD Human Resource Management

PGC/PGD Management of Human Resources

BA (Hons) Business Management (Human Resource Management) (Successful completion of L5 achieves CIPD accreditation)

Children's Workforce Development Council

BA (Hons) Early Childhood Studies

Health and Care Professions Council (September 2014)

BSc (Hons) Social Work (pre-qualifying)

BSc (Hons) Social Work with Adults (post qualifying)

University Diploma in Social Work with Adults (post qualifying)

BSc (Hons) Child Care Practice (Level 6 Top Up) (post qualifying)

University Diploma in Child Care Practice (post qualifying)

MSc in Work with Children, Young People and their Families and Carers (Advanced Level Social Work)

Postgraduate Diploma in Work with Children, Young People and their Families and Carers (Higher Specialist Social Work)

Institute for Learning Diploma in Post-Compulsory Education and Training (PCET)

Postgraduate Certificate in Post-Compulsory Education and

140

Training (PCET)

Institute of Hospitality

BA (Hons) Events Management

BA (Hons) Sports Management

BA (Hons) Hotel and Resort Management

BA (Hons) Events Tourism Management

BA (Hons) Hotel, Resort and Events Management

BA (Hons) Hotel, Resort and Tourism Management

BA (Hons) Strategic Events Management (Level 6)

BA (Hons) Strategic Hospitality Management (Level 6)

BA (Hons) Strategic Tourism Management (Level 6)

International Federation For Landscape Architecture

BA(Hons) Landscape Architecture

PGD/MA Landscape Architecture

PGD/MA Landscape Architecture(Conversion)

Landscape Institute

BA(Hons) Landscape Architecture

PGD/MA Landscape Architecture

PGD/MA Landscape Architecture(Conversion)

National College for Teaching and Leadership

BEd (Hons) Primary Education

Postgraduate Certificate in Education (Primary)

School Direct PGCE Primary

Postgraduate Certificate in Special Educational Needs Coordination (SENCo)/National Award in Special Educational Needs Coordination

Postgraduate Certificate in Education (Secondary)

Professional Graduate Certificate in Education (Secondary)

PGCE Secondary GTP

National Youth Agency

PGC(Unnamed)/PGD/MA Youth Work

BA (Hons) Youth Work

BA (Hons) Youth Studies

BA (Hons) Integrated Youth Practice

Nursing and Midwifery Council

CPS: Return to Practice (Nursing)

CPS: Non-medical Prescribing (NMU) (45 Credits )

PGC Non-medical Prescribing (Level 6 and Level 7)

BSc (Hons) Community and District Nursing Specialist Practice (Level 6)

PGD Community and District Nursing Specialist Practice (Level 7)

SkillsActive CertHE/DipHE/BA Playwork

PGC/PGD/MA Professional Studies in Children’s Play

Skillset

BA(Hons) Radio Production

BA(Hons) Film Production

BA(Hons) Television Production

BA(Hons) Photography: Editorial and Advertising

BA(Hons) Photojournalism and Documentary Photography

PGD/MA Visual Communication

Solicitors Regulation Authority

LLB (Hons) Law/ BA (Hons) Legal Studies(Exit Award Only)

The College of Social Work (September 2014)

BSc (Hons) Social Work (pre-qualifying)

The Society of Biology BSc(Hons) Animal Biology

BSc(Hons) Biology

141

The Society of Sports Therapists

MSc Sports Therapy

PGC/PGD Sports Health Studies

BSc (Hons) Sports Therapy

Tourism Management Institute

BA (Hons) Tourism Management