EXECUTIVE BOARD AGENDA - SOAS, University of London · 2019-09-23 · EXECUTIVE BOARD AGENDA Monday 23rd September 2013 (Room 115) I Minutes ndTo approve: minutes of the meeting held

EXECUTIVE BOARD

AGENDA

Monday 23rd September 2013 (Room 115)

I Minutes

To approve: minutes of the meeting held on 2nd September [Attached]

II Action Points

[Oral Updates]

III Matters Arising/Matters for Report

[Oral Updates]

IV Draft Agenda for Audit Committee (03.10.13) To consider a paper from the Acting Secretary

[Appendix A]

V Emeritus Status Policy To approve: a paper from the Acting Secretary

[Appendix B]

VI Internal audit – Student Experience To approve: a paper from the Acting Secretary

[Appendix C]

Executive Board Open Minutes 02.09.13_draft

These minutes are for information only. Any corrections to the minutes will be recorded in the minutes of the subsequent meeting of the committee.

SOAS, UNIVERSITY OF LONDON

EXECUTIVE BOARD

Monday 2nd September 2013

OPEN MINUTES

Members: Professor Nirmala Rao(Chair) Professor Richard Black

Professor Matt Craven Mr Peter Mitchell

Apologies: Mr Graeme Appleby Mr Donald Beaton Mr Barry Douglas Professor Anne Pauwels Professor Gurharpal Singh Professor Paul Webley

In attendance Dr Chris Ince (minutes) 14. Minutes The Minutes of the meeting held on 19th August 2013, were approved. 15. Action Points (i) MIN271 – Fractional contracts The HR Director reported that around 250 contracts had been processed to date, which was a significantly improved position on the previous year. A number of additional contracts were still expected from the Faculty of Law & Social Sciences. (ii) MIN3 – School of Law EB noted this item would be discussed at its next meeting. 16. Matters Arising/Matters for Report (i) Easter 2014 The Deputy Secretary reported that at Easter 2014 the School’s teaching week required the use of space at Birkbeck, which was scheduled to be closed but could be opened if required. EB confirmed that this was a timetabled teaching week and this would take place so the rooms were needed. 17 National Student Survey 2013 – Key Findings (Appendix A) The Pro-Director, Learning & Teaching reported on the very positive results achieved by the School in the latest National Student Survey and would feed in to the next round of league tables. The paper summarised the results and key findings and would be considered by the next meeting of Governing Body.

- 2 -

There were still significant differences between some departments and further work to do but the results showed a significant improvement in many areas. The improvement was attributed in part to the actions that had been taken over concerns around assessment and feedback and other areas covered in the survey. It was also important to learn lessons from those departments that had made good progress and share best practice across the School. Data on the comments about the personal adviser system would be broken down by department and circulated to the faculties. 18. Governing Body Draft Agenda for 30th September 2013 (Appendix B) EB noted the draft agenda for the next Governing Body meeting on 30 September 2013. The Pro-Director, Research & Enterprise agreed he and the Director would discuss including a paper providing a forward look on research issues and how Governing Body could input to these. 19. The Risk Register (Appendix C) EB noted the current version of the institutional Risk Register. 20. Circulars (Appendix D) Executive Board noted the recent circulars received at Appendix D.

- 3 -

EXECUTIVE BOARD: Action Points

Minute Item Action 2012/13 Deadline for report to EB

By

195 Departmental Reviews

Prepare proposals to extend the ToR and membership of Periodic Programme Reviews to act as full Departmental Reviews

30/9/13 NR/GF

Minute Item Action 2013/14 Deadline for report to EB

By

3 Matters for report – School of Law

Paper on initial discussions with KCL

23/9/13 MC/PK

8 Action Points – Doctoral School(i)

Formalisation of new Financial Model and Budget Transfers

? BD

8 Action Points – Doctoral School(ii)

Consultation with PGRs regarding potential relocation of DS admin team and loss of PC lab

30/9/13 RB

10. Membership and Terms of Reference

EB members-only area on SharePoint to be established and individual papers for each meeting to be uploaded for members to search for download as and when required.

30/9/13 CI/SG

17 NSS Results Circulation of departmental level comments on personal advisers sent to faculties

23/9/13 CI/MB

18 GB agenda Possible item on forward research issues

23/9/13 RB

AUDIT COMMITTEE

AGENDA

Thursday 3rd October 2013 at 11am (Room 115)

I Membership & Terms of Reference To note: the membership and terms of reference of Audit Committee (Standing Order III) and the Procedures for the Conduct of Meetings (Annex XIV)

[Appendix A]

II

Minutes To approve: the minutes of the last meeting 31st May 2013

[Attached]

III

Action Points To receive: updates on action taken

IV Matters Arising

V Audit Committee Forward Business To note

[Appendix B]

VI Internal Audit: To receive: Student Experience

[Appendix C]

VII Internal Audit: To receive: 2012/13 Internal Audit Annual Report

[Appendix D]

VIII Internal Audit: To consider: 2013/14 Internal Audit Plan

[Appendix E]

IX The Audit Committee Annual Report To note

[Appendix F]

XI The Risk Register To note

[Appendix G]

EXECUTIVE BOARD 23.9.13 APPENDIX B

Emeritus Status Policy

Executive Board is asked to approve the recommendations relating to the award of Emeritus Status, as set out in the attached document.

Executive Summary As the Emeritus Status Policy currently stands, the award of emeritus status is not automatic. However, those taking decisions about such awards are given no criteria on which to base their decisions. It is important that the policy sets out clearly the basis on which such awards are made.

Recommendations The paper contains recommendations relating to:

a) the introduction of criteria b) the process for approval of awards for Pro-Directors and the Director c) clarifying the benefits that such an award brings.

Financial Impact N/A

Risks If the policy is not amended, and it were decided not to make an award to a particular individual, the School would find it extremely difficult to justify such a decision.

Equality implications The recommendations within the paper are designed to ensure that all eligible members of staff are treated fairly.

Emeritus Status

1. Overview

The current Emeritus Status Policy (attached at Annex A) requires senior members of

School staff to decide whether someone should be offered emeritus status, without any

guidance as to how that decision should be made.

Good practice would suggest that the award either needs to be made automatically to all

eligible staff, or there should be some criteria against which each case should be measured.

An Internet search has shown very little information available about how such an award is

granted in other institutions. At least one other institution (Leicester University) states that

the award of an emeritus title is not automatic, but does not set out any criteria for such an

award. Where criteria are used (for example at Durham University and the University for the

Creative Arts) they are very broad in nature, and require individuals to have provided

distinguished service to the institution. In addition, Durham requires that the conferment of

the title should be used to acknowledge an ongoing, active association with the University.

2. Automatic award or criteria based award?

The automatic award of emeritus status has some obvious advantages. It treats all eligible

staff in exactly the same way, and does not require the involvement of senior staff in the

decision. However, while it may not happen frequently, it is possible to think of

circumstances in which there was agreement within the School that it would not be

appropriate to award emeritus status to a particular individual, and an automatic system

would mean that the School had no choice over the matter.

It is therefore proposed that very broad criteria be introduced to the current policy, against

which eligible staff should be judged.

Recommendation 1:

That a sentence be added to the policy which states that the title Emeritus Professor or

Emeritus Reader should be conferred upon those Professors and Readers who have given

distinguished service to the School.

3. Pro-Directors and the Director

The current policy sets out clearly who should be involved in decisions which relate to Heads

of Department and Deans. However it does not make clear who should be involved in the

decisions relating to awards for Pro-Directors or the Director.

Recommendation 2:

If the individual under consideration is a Pro-Director, then the Clerk to the Governors shall

consult with the Director, the other Pro-Director, and the Vice-Chair of Governing Body and

with their agreement, award Emeritus status on behalf of the School.

If the individual under consideration is the Director, then the Clerk to the Governors shall

consult with the Pro-Directors and the Chair of Governing Body, and with their agreement,

award Emeritus status on behalf of the School.

4. Benefits of Emeritus Status

Policies which relate to the award of academic hospitality and research associateships make

clear that those who receive such an award may enjoy the following privileges:

Library membership

Use of the Staff Common Room

Attendance at lectures and seminars

The Emeritus Status Policy does not include any information about the privileges of the

award.

Recommendation 3:

That the policy lists the privileges enjoyed by recipients of Emeritus Status, and Executive

Board is asked to determine what these should be.

5. Approval of a revised Policy

Academic Board's terms of reference have changed considerably since it approved the

original policy in 2001. Given that the policy relates to a staffing matter, it is no longer

appropriate for the policy to be approved by Academic Board.

After Executive Board has agreed appropriate amendments to the current Emeritus Status

Policy, a revised policy document will be produced for Executive Board's consideration. At

that point Executive Board will need to determine whether it alone may approve the

changes, or whether it will be recommending the changes to another body for approval.

JA

August 2013

Annex A SOAS

EMERITUS TITLES

1. The School may confer the title of title of Emeritus Professor or Emeritus Reader upon a

Professor or Reader respectively who has retired from the School (i.e. is in receipt of an

immediate and full pension)

2. The paragraph above also applies to the Director of the School if he or she is a Professor

or Reader.

3. Professors or Readers taking early retirement are eligible to be considered for an

appropriate Emeritus title. Professors or Readers who resign in order to take up a(n

academic) position (or employment) elsewhere are not otherwise eligible to be considered.

4. The Clerk to the Governors shall, after appropriate consultation with the appropriate Dean

and Head of Department and with the agreement of Director and the Pro-Directors, award

Emeritus status on behalf of the School.

5. If the individual under consideration is a Head of Department, then the Clerk to the

Governors shall consult with the appropriate Dean and, with the agreement of the Director

and the Pro-Directors, award Emeritus status on behalf of the School.

6. If the individual under consideration is a Dean, then the clerk to the Governors shall

consult with the Director and the Pro-Directors, and with their agreement, award Emeritus

status on behalf of the School.

7. The Clerk to the Governors shall write, on behalf of the School, to inform the individual

and the matter should be noted at the following meeting of Academic Board and Governing

Body.

8. The Governing Body of the School shall have the right to withdraw the title of Emeritus

Professor or Emeritus Reader from an individual who is no longer deemed to merit the title.

It is for Governing Body to decide the grounds on which such an action may be taken.

9. A panel, which shall be constituted as Governing Body determines, but which shall have

as a majority of its members Professors from the School, shall be set up to consider a case

for withdrawal of Emeritus status. The panel will make a recommendation to Governing

Body.

10. The decision of Governing Body is final and there is no right of appeal.

Approved by Academic Board on 14/12/01

Updated April 2013

EXECUTIVE BOARD 23.9.13 APPENDIX C

Student Experience internal audit report

Executive Board is asked to approve that the recommendations in the report are agreed.

Executive Summary The School’s internal auditors have completed the attached audit around the student experience, assessment & feedback and academic support. A number of the recommendations require agreement at the institutional level so the report has been brought to Executive Board for discussion.

Recommendations The paper contains eight recommendations relating to:

Departmental NSS Corrective Action Plans

Assessment feedback timeframe

Monitoring of three week turnaround time

Personal advisers

Feedback template

Storage of marks at academic level

Monitoring departmental NSS action plans

Quality of Feedback Any management responses will need to reflect the School’s SDR process, rather than a formal appraisal system and also be clear on who is responsible for implementing and monitoring any actions. EB is recommended to agree that the School implement the recommendations with the Faculty Administrators and Director of Academic Development determining the detailed responses.

Financial Impact None identified

Risks Failure to meet student expectations, particularly in the key areas of assessment and feedback and academic support.

Equality implications None

Internal Audit

review:

Student

Experience

DRAFT

SOAS, University of London

September 2013

Overall report rating:

Satisfactory

1 @ 2013 KPMG LLP is a subsidiary of KPMG Europe LLP and a member of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated

with KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative. All rights reserved. This document is confidential and its circulation and use are restricted.

The KPMG name, logo and 'cutting through complexity' are registered trademarks of KPMG International Cooperative (KPMG

International)

Contents

The contacts at KPMG

in connection with this

report are:

Neil Thomas

Partner

Tel: +44 (0)20 7311 1379

Fax: +44 (0)20 7311 4121

[email protected]

Susan Harris

Manager

Tel: +44 (0)20 7694 8908

Fax: +44 (0)20 7311 4121

[email protected]

Samadur Rahman

Assistant Manager

Tel: + 44 (0)20 7694 5815

Fax: + 44 (0)20 7311 4121

[email protected]

Status of report

Discussion draft issued 17 September 2013

Management responses received XX September 2013

Final report issued XX September 2013

Presented to Audit Committee 3 October 2013

Distribution

To (for action):

■ Nirmala Roa, Pro Director

■ Chris Ince, Deputy Secretary

■ David Christmas, Director of Student and Registry Services

■ Mandy Bentham, Director of Academic development

cc (for information):

■ Graeme Appleby- Acting Registrar

Page

Section one: Executive Summary 2

Section two: Recommendations 5

Appendices

1. Summary of work undertaken and risks reviewed

2. NSS Results

3. Follow up of prior year recommendations

4. Staff involvement and information sources

9

12

13

15

This report, together with its attachments, is provided pursuant to the terms of our

engagement. The use of the report is solely for internal purposes by the management of

the School of Oriental and African Studies, pursuant to the terms of the engagement, it

should not be copied or disclosed to any third party or otherwise quoted or referred to, in

whole in part, without our written consent.




International)

Section one

Executive Summary

Conclusion

We have reviewed the processes in place at SOAS, University of London (‘SOAS’ or ‘School’) regarding the student experience and have reached an overall assessment of ‘Satisfactory’, which is in line with management’s expectation.

Following on from last year’s NSS results the School has introduced a number of initiatives to help the address poor performing areas including Assessment and Feedback and Academic Support. Such initiatives include conducting workshops for academics on delivering feedback and using online resources to deliver additional support to students. In addition the engagement of students in developing initiatives has been built into department NSS action plans. These initiatives have proved to be successful as the School has seen jump in Assessment and Feedback results of 7% to 67% and Academic Support up from 13% to 76%. Whilst the overall message for the year is very positive there is still further work to be done as the School still falls below the sector average by 4% in both areas.

There are NSS Corrective Action Plans in place across departments which covers areas around Assessment and Feedback and Academic Support, however we found that improvements could be made to the plans to ensure that actions and outcomes are aligned to the School and Faculty plans and that actions and outcomes are measurable. This will ultimately help hold departments accountable for NSS actions.

To address specific concerns around feedback, the School has rolled out Turnitin in the 2012-13 academic year. Turnitin is a cloud based system which allows assignments and marks to be submitted. This has helped the School standardised its processes for assignment submission as well as reduces the risk around data loss. We found that the Turnitin system is used consistently across faculties for the submission and marking of assignments.

Whilst the overall NSS results are very positive for the School, we did however find areas where the School could improve upon. For example, we found that the School has a standard three week turn around time for assignments and is communicated to students at the start of our their courses, however in a number of instances faculties did not always meet the three week deadline. This is often due to faculty course load or class sizes. Also, discussions with the Students Union highlighted certain instances assignment feedback was not provided to students in advance of sitting exams which left the students feeling unprepared for sitting for their exam. We also found that the monitoring of the assignment turn around time is only performed on a ad-hoc basis by department administrators and is very manual intensive process as there is no reporting functionality built in to Turnitin which allows departmental administrators to monitor the assignment turnaround time. This is expected to be corrected for the 2013-14 academic year.

Finally, we found that each faculty has a procedure in place in for assigning personal advisors to students as well additional support to be provided by tutors (e.g. office hours). For example, personal advisors are generally required to meet with students two to three times a years and have published office hours, however we found that there are no mechanisms in place for monitoring such support to students in order to ensure that its carried out in-line with policy.

In addition, we reviewed the progress of the recommendations raised as part of the 2011-12 Student Experience Review and found that all four recommendations have been implemented.

Background

Student experience will continue to be a key performance measure over the coming years following the changes to the higher education fee regime which sees a shift in funding to the student, coupled with increasing budget pressures to maintain student satisfaction levels with more limited resources. The overall satisfaction results from the 2011-12 National Student Survey (NSS) were down by 2% from the previous year. The School scored well in areas around learning and teaching, however scored lower in areas around assessment and feedback and academic support.

As part of our 2011-12 internal audit plan we carried out a student experience review which focused on the processes for collecting, monitoring and taking action on student feedback. We found that there were effective processes in place to support the collection and analysis of data at a faculty and department level. We also found that there was strong governance arrangements in place around the monitoring and reporting of students experience data.




International)

Section one

Executive summary (cont.)

As part of our 2012-13 review we performed a detailed review around the arrangements in place around assessment and feedback. We will review the School’s processes for module assessments and how these are fed back to the students. This will include analysis of the School’s timeframe to assess work, how marks are stored and the medium used to provide assignment feedback to students. We have also reviewed how the School provides academic support at course and module level.

Objectives

Areas of good practice

Department NSS corrective action plans – All departments have a NSS corrective action plan in place which focus on academic support and learning and teaching. The departmental plans are signed off by the Deans.

Turnitin – The School uses Turnitin, a cloud based system which allows students to submit their assignments through. There are a number of benefits that Turnitin bring to the School including electronic submission of assignments and marking which reduces the risk of data loss. We found that all three faculties use Turnitin for the majority of assignment submissions with the exception of certain assignments such as art based assignments and doctorial thesis’s.

Student union input to department plans – following our prior year audit recommendation departments have involved Student Union representatives in the development of their NSS corrective action plans for the year to ensure that the student’s voice has been heard.

Objectives Description

Objective One

Design and effectiveness of assessment and

feedback process

We have reviewed the following across two School’s, Language and Culture and Law and Social Sciences, to:

■ Assess if there are standardised polices and procedure in place for assessment processing and feedback;

■ Review the systems and processes in place that students must use to submit assessments for marking;

■ Confirm how assignment marks are stored by academics;

■ Review how assignment marks are fed back to students; and

■ Review if timetables and module guides are produced clearly stating assessment hand deadlines, marking timescale and when feedback will be provided.

Objective Two

Academic support arrangements for

modules and courses

In order to assess how academic support is provided to students at module and course level we have:

■ Reviewed processes in place for assigning Personal Advisors;

■ Assessed the methods of support provided by Tutors outside seminars, classes and lectures;

■ Confirmed if there are on-going support provided to students such as additional classes, webinars, and pre exam lessons.

Where applicable, we have selected a sample and performed testing to confirm the process and controls are working effectively.

Objective Three

Student Experience

We have reviewed the processes in place for establishing and monitoring corrective action to address the specific areas of concern highlighted in the NSS survey around assessment and feedback and academic support.

As part of our review, we will test a sample of three departments (Linguistics, Development Studies and South and South East Asia) to ensure corrective action plans are established and the action plans are carried out to address the concerns highlighted around assessment and feedback and academic support.

Objective Four

Prior year recommendations

We have performed a follow up review on our recommendations from the 2011-12 Student Experience Report.




International)

Section one

Executive summary (cont.)

Areas of good practice (continued)

Informing students on feedback and marking – The expected timeframe for feedback to be returned to students is clearly documented within the student hand book. Providing this information helps to manage student expectations. There are clear marking requirements available to both tutors and students. This allows for a transparent marking system and aids consistency of marking.

Developing additional academic support – In addition to lectures and seminars there are a number of other types of academic support offered to students by the Academic Development Directorate (ADD) such as dissertation writing and exam technique workshops. In addition to support form ADD in some departments pilots of offering mock exams have been conducted to develop the range of additional resources available to students.

Areas for development

■ Departmental NSS Corrective Action Plans - Each department has a NSS corrective action in plan in place which is signed off by the Dean. However, we found that the actions and outcomes in the plans are generic and not measurable (See recommendation one).

■ Assignment Feedback Timeframe - The School has a set three week turnaround time for assignment marks which is communicated to students at the start of the course. We found that the faculties were not always able to adhere to the three week turnaround time. Where the three week turnaround time is not expected to be met because of class volume or workloads these exceptions should be approved by the Dean and communicated to students at the start of the course. (See recommendation two).

■ Monitoring Assignment Turnaround Time - Monitoring of the three week assignment turnaround time is performed on ad-hoc basis across departments and faculties, there is no formal process which is followed. This is in part due to the fact that there is currently no reporting function within Turnitin which allows faculty administrators to easily monitor (See recommendation three).

■ Personal Advisors - Each faculty has their own policy for assigning personal advisors to students as well as setting minimum meeting requirements. We noted that that there is no formal monitoring in place to ensure that the personal advisors have met the minimum meeting requirements with students (See recommendation four).

Recommendations raised

We have raised the following recommendations in this review (high priority represents the most urgent and high risk category):

Acknowledgement

We thank your staff for their assistance during our review.

High Medium Low Total

Made - 4 4 8

Accepted - - - -




International)

Section two

Recommendations

This appendix summarises the recommendations that we have identified during the work performed. We have given each of our observations a risk rating (as explained below) and agreed with management what action SOAS will need to take.

No. Priority Issue and recommendation Management response Officer and due date

1 (two)

Departmental NSS Corrective Action Plans

There are standard templates in place for departmental NSS corrective action plans which are agreed and signed off by the Dean. Whilst we found that the corrective action plans cover off areas of concern around assessment and feedback and academic support, there is no direct link back to the NSS survey questions of particular concern. We also found that the anticipated outcomes from the correction action plans are often not measurable. For example, they include outcomes such as ‘improve timeliness of feedback’ instead of ‘improve feedback turnaround from X% to Y% compliance’.

We recommend that:

- The School’s and faculty NSS objectives are passed down to departments for inclusion in their plan (e.g. improve NSS results for academic support by X% for 2014 and Y% for 2015).

- Proposed actions are linked back to poor performing NSS survey questions (set out in appendix 2).

-SMART outcomes are set to ensure that actions are achievable (e.g. to improve feedback from students to X% to Y% compliance).

- Specific outcomes should be linked to staff’s annual performance appraisals, as appropriate, in order to increase staff accountability. For example, academics and tutors should have an objective around achieving 100% compliance with the three week assignment turnaround time.

Priority rating for performance improvement observations raised

Priority one: Issues arising referring

to important matters that are

fundamental to the system of internal

control. We believe that the matters

observed might cause a business

objective not to be met or leave a risk

unmitigated and need to be addressed

as a matter of urgency.

Priority two: Issues arising referring

mainly to matters that have an

important effect on controls but do not

require immediate action. A business

objective may still be met in full or in

part or a risk partially mitigated but the

weakness represents a significant

deficiency in the system.

Priority three: Issues arising that

would, if corrected, improve internal

control in general but are not vital to

the overall system of internal control.




International)

Section two

Recommendations (cont.)


2 (two)

Assessment feedback timeframe

The School has set a three week timeframe for assessments to be marked and fed back to the students from the deadline assessment hand in date. In the second term of 2012/13, all three faculties have performed an analysis to identify if departments are complying with the turn around time. We found that the compliance with the three week turnaround time varied from 60% to 87% across the three faculties.

We recommend that the School:

- Review its current three week turnaround time policy to determine if its appropriate (e.g. should it be extended for certain modules or shortened for others).

- Where tutors / academics believe that the three week turnaround time is not achievable, a statement of rationale should be submitted and approved by the Dean in advance of the course start date and communicated to students.

- Turnaround times should be monitored by faculty administrators throughout the year in order to address poor performance (See recommendation 3).

3 (two)

Monitoring of three week turn around time

Faculty administrators have stated that it is the departmental administrators responsibility to chase individuals if they fail to meet the three week assessment turn around deadline. Currently this is performed on an ad-hoc basis and is very manual and time consuming process. This is in part due to the fact that there is currently no reporting function within Turnitin. We note that for the academic year 2013-14 a reporting function for monitoring submissions should available within Turnitin to faculty administrators.

We recommend that Faculty’s put in place a formal process to report on turnaround times of assignments using the new reporting function within Turnitin. The report could be used to highlight persistent departments or individuals which fail to meet their agreed deadlines. For example, one week before marks and feedback are due faculty administrators should run a report to identify where marks or feedback have not yet been submitted. Faculty administrators should contact the relevant markers to confirm if the deadline will be met or if there are any issues that could prevent this happening. Where there are issues, remedial action should be taken to assist the marker meeting the three week deadline.




International)

Section two



4 (two)

Personal Advisors

Each faculty has its own policy in place for assigning personal advisors to students. Each policy sets out the minimum requirements for PA's to meet with students which is between 2-3 a year. However, we note that there is currently not formal monitoring of process.

We recommend that department / faculties introduce formal monitoring procedures to ensure that PA's are complying with the faculties policy.

5 (three)

Feedback template

The School has two methods for providing written feedback to students. If a hardcopy assignment is submitted, then feedback is provided in a feedback template. If the assignment is submitted via Turnitin, then feedback is provided within Turnitin.

Turnitin allows markers to add comments directly to the scripts and also provides a comments box for additional feedback. However unlike the feedback template there is no section within Turnitin for markers to show a breakdown of how marks were provided. As such, students are not able to identify how their total mark was allocated.

We recommend that management should explore if the scoring breakdown table found in the assessment feedback template can be replicated within Turnitin in order to meet the students expectations.

6 (three)

Storage of marks at academic level

We noted the School predominately uses Turnitin for assignments, however there are certain circumstances where the system is not used (e.g. art based courses). Where marks sit outside of Turnitin, there is no formal guidance specifying how marks should be held by academics on their system. As such there is a risk that marks may not be held securely.

We recommend that management confirm how marks should be held by academic tutors. Consideration should include where the data should be stored, security measures, back up and access by other members of staff if the main tutor is not available.

7 (three)

Monitoring departmental NSS action plans

We have noted that the oversight of the departmental action plans is through the faculty deans. Faculty Deans then have the responsibility to report to the Executive Board, however this is done on an ad-hoc basis.

We recommend that progress at implementing NSS action plans should be reported to Faculty Boards as well as to the Dean. We also recommend that a formal process be implemented for reporting progress into the Executive Board.




International)

Section two



8 (three)

Quality of Feedback

Quality of feedback has been highlighted as a weakness for the School over the past two years. Through discussions with faculty administrators we have noted that there is no formal review of the quality of feedback provided to students. With no review of feedback it is difficult to determine whether feedback provided is sufficient and if feedback is provided consistently across courses.

We recommend that in conjunction with recommendation one, detailed departmental action plans with measurable outcomes are put into place.




International)

Appendix one

Summary of work undertaken and risks reviewed

Below we set out the processes tested and the respective risks that this testing provides assurance over. We

have also referenced to issues and exceptions, and given an assurance level over the processes tested:

Area tested Controls Risks Reviewed Comments Assurances

Design and effectiveness of assessment hand in process and feedback

■ Standardised polices and procedure in place for assessment processing and feedback

■ Assessments feedback is not provided on a timely or consistent basis.

Each faculty has policies and procedures in place for assessment processing and feedback.

Substantial

■ Defined systems and processes to submit assessments for marking

■ Assessments are not submitted on time.

■ Assessment papers are lost.

We found that all three faculties use Turnitin for the majority assignment submissions. Only in exceptional circumstances are assignments submitted outside of Turnitin.

The method of submission is communicated to students at the start of the course.

Substantial

■ Assignment marks are stored in a secure location.

■ Assessment marks are lost and delays the feedback process.

The School uses Turnitin, a cloud based system which allows students to submit their assignments through and helps to reduce the risk of data loss.

Where marks sit outside of Turnitin, there is no formal guidance specifying how marks should be held by academics on their system. As such there is a risk that marks may not be held securely. See recommendation six.

Substantial

Assurance level Classification

Satisfactory Any weaknesses identified relate only to issues of good practice which could improve the

efficiency and effectiveness of the system or process.

Substantial There are weaknesses requiring improvement but these are not vital to the achievement of

strategic aims and objectives.

Weak The weakness or weaknesses identified have a fundamental impact preventing achievement

of strategic aims and/or objectives.




International)

Appendix one

Summary of work undertaken and risks reviewed (cont.)


■ Process for assignment being fed back to students;

■ Feedback is not suitable and usable for the students.

■ Feedback is not sent back on a timely basis.

The School has two methods for providing written feedback to students. If a hardcopy assignment is submitted, then feedback is provided in a feedback template. If the assignment is submitted via Turnitin, then feedback is provided within Turnitin.

The expected timeframe for feedback to be returned to students is clearly documented within the student hand book. Providing this information helps to manage student expectations.

The feedback form and feedback provided in Turnitin is in a different format. For example, unlike the feedback template there is no section within Turnitin for markers to show a breakdown of how marks were provided. As such, students are not able to identify how their total mark was allocated. See recommendation five.

Substantial

Design and effectiveness of assessment hand in process and feedback

■ Set timetables clearly stating assessment hand deadlines, marking timescale and when feedback will be provided

The expected timeframe for feedback

to be returned to students is clearly documented within the student hand book. Providing this information helps to manage student expectations. There are clear marking requirements available to both tutors and students. This allows for a transparent marking system and aids consistency of marking.

We found that the compliance with the three week assessment turnaround time varied from 60% to 87% compliance across the three faculties. See recommendation two.

Monitoring of the three week assignment turnaround time is performed on ad-hoc basis across departments and faculties, there is no formal process which is followed. This is in part due to the fact that there is currently no reporting function within Turnitin which allows faculty administrators to easily monitor. See recommendation three.

Satisfactory




International)

Appendix one

Summary of work undertaken and risks reviewed (cont.)


Academic support arrangements for modules and courses

■ Assignment of Personal Advisors

■ Students are not given support needed to be successful in their studies

Each faculty has their own policy for assigning personal advisors to students as well as setting minimum meeting requirements. The tailored approach helps faculties to meet their individual student needs.

There are no formal monitoring in place to ensure that the personal advisors have met the minimum meeting requirements with students. See recommendation four.

Satisfactory

Academic support provided of outside seminars, classes and lectures

■ Train tutors in delivering additional support

■ The ADD has a programme of academic support resources.

■ Students are not given support needed to be successful in their studies

The Academic Development Directorate offer a range of study skills workshops that cover areas such as dissertation writing technique, exam technique and methods of dealing with exam related stress.

Academics are offered workshops on things such as how to deliver additional support to students using online technology.

There is an inconsistent approach to the provision of additional support and it is left to individual tutors to decide what additional support they will offer. Due to this there is not a joined up approach between support offered by the ADD and by course tutors.

Substantial

Review of processes in place for establishing and monitoring corrective NSS action plans

■ NSS action plans are approved

■ NSS action plans are monitored on a regular basis

■ NSS action plans deal with issues raised in the NSS

■ NSS action plans are not implemented

For a sample of departments in our testing all had an NSS approved NSS action plan in place and approved by the Deans.

The NSS action plans reviewed were not consistent in there level of detail and in most cases did not include SMART actions. See recommendation one.

The monitoring of NSS action plans is carried out on an ad hoc basis and does not feed into the most relevant groups. See recommendation seven.

Satisfactory




International)

Below we have detailed SOAS NSS Results for 2012 and 2013 around Assessment and Feedback and Academic Support as well overall comparison to the Sector Average:

Below we have included actions set out in the three departmental NSS corrective action plans tested as part of our audit as well as feedback areas from the Students Union around areas where the School could improve:

Appendix two

NSS Survey Results

Excerpts from Departmental NSS Corrective Action Plans Feedback Received from SU around improvements

Linguistics Development Studies South and Southeast Asia

Ensure that students receive feedback within 3 weeks through personal monitoring by the HoD

Provide clear and easily accessible information about marking criteria for students, through attaching the list of criteria to each assignment.

Organize at least two special meetings with final year students to address their questions and concerns, one in cooperation with ADD and Career services.

Closer monitoring of assignment assessment turnaround time.

Review of student course feedback on new development communications option course, followed by direct discussion of any issues raised with student reps.

Closer collaboration with careers office to provide additional support to 3rd year students

Monitoring of the personal advisors system

Consistently implement and monitor feedback policy; improve the mechanisms and type of feedback provided by adopting a more pro-active approach to feedback; special focus on students new to Higher education in need of more guidance

Attach a copy of the marking criteria to all coursework

Introduction of an ISP seminar to present dissertation plans to peers and give and receive mutual feedback

• Lunch time lectures of topics that is open to all in the School, webinars and podcasts.

• Allocation of personal advisors requires improvement as students feel intimidated meeting with the advisor on their own for the first time and that the first meeting is not until the third week of enrolment.

• Often times meetings with students and tutors do not occur after the first term.

• Assessment turnaround times not being met.

• Students arriving at office hours and tutors / academics are not around.

SOAS Sector

Average Performance against PY

Performance against sector

average NSS SURVEY QUESTIONS 2013 2012 2013

Assessment and feedback 67% 60% 71% 7% -4%

5. The criteria used in marking have

been clear in advance. 70% 60% 76% 10% -6%

6. Assessment arrangements and marking have been fair.

78% 74% 77% 4% 1%

7. Feedback on my work has been prompt.

60% 51% 67% 9% -7%

8. I have received detailed comments on my work.

67% 60% 70% 7% -3%

9. Feedback on my work has helped me clarify things I did not understand.

62% 57% 65% 5% -3%

Academic support 76% 63% 80% 13% -4%

10. I have received sufficient advice

and support with my studies. 73% 60% 78% 13% -5%

11. I have been able to contact staff

when I needed to. 85% 76% 86% 9% -1%

12. Good advice was available when I

needed to make study choices. 69% 52% 76% 17% -7%




International)

Appendix four

Follow up of prior year recommendations

No. Priority Issue and recommendation Status

1

(Two)

Student admissions and support strategy

The students admissions and support strategy was adopted in

March 2010 to cover areas of the student experience not covered

by other sub-strategies within the School. We have established

that this strategy is now outdated, does not take into account the

findings of recent surveys, and over 90% of the actions have now

passed their deadline dates.

We recommend that a revised strategy coupled with a status

report on overdue actions is submitted to the next Student

Experience Committee. Once approved, the monitoring of actions

should be reviewed by the Student Experience Committee on an

ongoing basis. Further, the new strategy document should have

version controls stated within the document, this should include

the owner of the document, when it was created and when it is

next up for renewal.

Implemented.

The Student Experience

Committee received a final

report on the

Student Administration and

Support Strategy as planned in

2012. Subsequent meetings

have considered drafts of a

proposed Student Experience

Strategy to replace it and a

further version will go to SEC in

October 2013.

2

(Two)

Deans to approve student experience action plans

Where underperformance has been indentified in the NSS and

SEC, departments complete action plans to confirm measures

they will put in place to improve performance. However, there is

concern from management in service support level that there

appears to be lack of ownership at departmental level by some

departments which may result on limited commitment to

improving the overall student experience; and/or deriving limited

value from the data which is collected.

We recommend that all departmental action plans should be

approved and signed off by respective Faculty Deans and

referenced and aligned to the faculty plan. This should then be

supported by a report on the status of actions submitted to the

Academic Development Committee at the end of the academic

year.

Implemented.

Our testing found that the

department corrective plans

have been signed off by the

Faculty Deans.

3

(Two)

Student representative involvement in department action

plan process

The Student Union have student representatives for each

department in the School. At present, some, but not all,

departments engage student representatives in the formulation of

action plans.

Departments working with student representatives are more likely

to achieve buy-in from the student body and design targeted

actions which when delivered ultimately assist in the

improvement of the student experience. Consistency in this

approach allows students from all departments to be involved in

improving the student experience.

We recommend that each department should involve a student

representative in the process for drawing up departmental action

plans in response to the NSS and SEC surveys.

Implemented.

Our testing found that Student

Union Representatives have

been involved in the

development of departmental

action plans.

This appendix summarises the recommendations that we have identified during the work performed as part of our 2011-12

Student experience review and their status as at August 2013:




International)

Appendix four

Follow up of prior year recommendations

No. Priority Issue and recommendation Status

4

(Two)

Promotion of improvements

Communication back to the student body of improvements made

by the School in response to student feedback is limited.

The School have made obvious improvements, such as

improved waiting times for registration and canteen facilities in

response to feedback previously collated. We recommend that

these and other key messages and openly communicated back

to the students. To achieve this is a structured way, we

recommend that the School identify the top 5 areas of

improvement of most interest to students and identify ways in

which these promoted.

Examples of communicating improvement can include ‘You

said’, ‘we did’ posters around the university camp, especially in

student common rooms. In Fresher's week, the School could

have a stall with other Societies and showcase improvements

made by the School.

Implemented.

Five improvements in the

student experience were

publicised to students and staff

as recommended earlier this

year. This work was

undertaken by the Academic

Development Directorate.




International)

Appendix five

Staff involvement and information sources

We undertook interviews in July / August 2013 with key stakeholders to inform this work:

During our audit, we reviewed the following documents:

■ Faculty Plans for Languages and Culture, Law and Social Sciences and Arts and Humanities;

■ NSS Action Plans;

■ Student Handbook 2012-13;

■ Feedback turn around reports;

■ Example feedback forms;

■ Faculty Board minutes;

■ Personal Advisors handbook;

■ UG Marking guidelines; and

■ The Turnitin application.

Name Title

Nirmala Rao Pro-Director (Learning and Teaching)

Graeme Appleby Acting Registrar

Mandy Bentham Director of Academic Development

Roger Nutall Faculty Administrator, Languages and Cultures

Cate Knowles Faculty Administrator, Law and Social Sciences

Leigh Ward Faculty Administrator, Arts and Humanities

Alex Fulton Student Sabbatical for Education

© 2013 KPMG LLP is a subsidiary of KPMG Europe LLP

and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent

member firms affiliated with KPMG International, a Swiss

cooperative. All rights reserved. This document is

confidential and its circulation and use are restricted.

The KPMG name, logo and ‘cutting through complexity’ are

registered trademarks of KPMG International Cooperative

(KPMG International)

Documents

EXECUTIVE BOARD AGENDA - SOAS, University of London · 2019-09-23 · EXECUTIVE BOARD AGENDA Monday 23rd September 2013 (Room 115) I Minutes ndTo approve: minutes of the meeting held