NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY CROSS-FACULTY LEARNING, …€¦ ·

Apologies for absence to [email protected]

NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY

CROSS-FACULTY LEARNING, TEACHING AND STUDENT EXPERIENCE COMMITTEE

14 January 2016 AGENDA

There will be a meeting of the Cross-Faculty Learning, Teaching and Student Experience Committee at 10.00am on Thursday 14 January in the LTDS Conference Room, King George VI Building. Members of the committee who have matters they wish to report should draw these to the attention of either myself or the Chair in advance of the meeting. Please note that Items in Part 3 are for information and will be discussed only if a member requests such discussions. Myra Giesen and Wayne Connolly will be in attendance at 11:30am to discuss item 3 Stage Evaluation. Janice Trewick, Learning and Teaching Development Service

Part 1: Items for Discussion 1. External Examiner Reports To receive:

• Careers Service reports and responses Document A o NCL 3110 report (Dr Sara Shinton) o NCL2100 report (Dr Kelly Smith) o NCL2007, NCL3007, NCL3008, NCL8007 report (Dr David Graham Croot)

• PARTNERS Document B • INTO Newcastle University reports and responses Document C

o International Foundation Biological & Biomedical Sciences o International Foundation Physical Sciences & Engineering o International Foundation Business & Management o International Foundation Humanities & Social Sciences o International Foundation Architecture o International Diploma in Business o International Diploma in Architecture o International Graduate Diploma in Business & Humanities o International Graduate Architecture

• INTO Newcastle University reports and responses: Document D o In-Sessional English and UELA (Louise Greener) o Pre-Sessional English (Karen Nicholls)

Learning and Teaching Development Service Page 2 of 3

o English for University Studies (Florencia Franceschina) 2. Annual Monitoring and Review 2013/14

To receive: • AMR Form for Careers Service Document E • AMR Form for PARTNERS Document F • AMR Form for INTO Newcastle University Document G

o International Foundation Biological & Biomedical Sciences o International Foundation Physical Sciences & Engineering o International Foundation Business & Management o International Foundation Humanities & Social Sciences o International Foundation Architecture o International Diploma in Business o International Diploma in Architecture o International Graduate Diploma in Business & Humanities o International Graduate Architecture

• AMR Form for INTO Newcastle University Document H o In-Sessional English and UELA o Pre-Sessional English o English for University Studies

3. Stage Evaluation Consultation To receive: Document I 4. National Student Survey Results 2015 To receive Document J A report on the 2015 NSS results

Part 2: Routine Business

5. Minutes of previous meeting and Action Log To receive: Minutes of the meeting held on 12 November 2015 Document K

Part 3: Matters of Report 6. Minutes of University Learning, Teaching and Student Experience Committee To receive: Minutes from November 2015 http://www.ncl.ac.uk/quilt/committees/teaching/minutes.htm 7. Revised Policies To receive: Student death procedure (Updated December 2015)

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/students/wellbeing/assets/documents/Studentdeathprocedure-December2015.pdf Undergraduate and Postgraduate Student Travel policy


http://www.ncl.ac.uk/students/progress/assets/documents/FinalUGStudent-Travel-Outside-Study-PolicyJuly2015.pdf

Mediation policy 8. Any other business 9. Date of future meetings:

Tuesday 9 February 2016, 10-12 LTDS Conference Room, King George VI Building Tuesday 15 March 2016, 1:30-3 LTDS Conference Room, King George VI Building Thursday 14 April 2016, 10-12 LTDS Conference Room, King George VI Building Thursday 12 May 2016, 10-12 LTDS Conference Room, King George VI Building Thursday 9 June 2016, 10-12 LTDS Conference Room, King George VI Building INTO London Room 3.11 booked for all the above meetings.

Cross FLTSEC 14 January 2016 Document A






External Examiner (Taught Programmes):Annual Report FormSession 2014/15

For assistance in completing this form please refer to Sections 5-8 of the University’s Policy and Procedurefor External Examiners of Taught Programmes. 1. Please submit your report as soon as possible after completion of your duties (no later than 1 Septemberfor undergraduate programmes; and no later than four weeks following the Board of Examiners – by 30November if possible – for postgraduate programmes). 2. Full details of how this report will be considered can be found in Section 8 of the Policy and Proceduresfor External Examiners of Taught Programmes. 3. Please do not identify individual students and/or staff by name in this report. Any names included will besubject to redaction prior to discussion of the report widely within the University. 4. If you wish to raise a matter of serious concern with the Vice-Chancellor, please send separate from thisreport, a confidential letter to The Vice-Chancellor, Newcastle University, King’s Gate, Newcastle uponTyne, NE1 7RU.

SECTION A - EXTERNAL EXAMINER DETAILSName: Dr Bernadette SandersonInstitutional Address: Schools for Higher Education Programme - West of Scotland (FOCUS West) 10 The Square University of Glasgow Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQSchool in which examining undertaken: PartnersProgramme(s) examined: 1000 - PARTNERS programme Year of Appointment: 2014/15

SECTION B - SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FOR THE ATTENTION OF THE SCHOOL. FACULTY AND UNIVERSITYB1 Exemplary Practice

1. Creative and stimulating subject content, pitched at suitable level

Cross FLTSEC 14 January 2016 Document B

2. Excellent level of high-quality feedback on student forms 3. Anonymous marking enabled where possible 4. Some subject strands providing detailed progress and attendance data 5. Well-structured student support and e-mentoring enabled by PARTNERS team

B2 Commendations:

1. Almost all subjects presented student assessment forms that showed clear evidence of internalmoderation, with second marker signatures. 2. The continuing use of anti-plagiarism software, e.g. Turnitin, emphasizing at pre-undergraduate entrythe need for submitted work to be student's own. 3. The inclusion of subject strands in PARTNERS with small student numbers - important to sustaingrowth and development of these programmes and courses.

B3 Recommendations

As per the recommendation in 2014, where subject strands assess by submission of one project/essay, with no alternative forms of assessment, that a different title is used for at least 3-4 years andtitles are then rotated.

SECTION C - QUALITY AND STANDARDSC1 Are the intended learning outcomes of the programme(s) appropriate (compared to those in similarprogrammes elsewhere in the sector)?

yes

C2 Are the intended learning outcomes appropriate to the level of award as set out in the Framework forHigher Education Qualifications?

yes

C3 Does the curriculum enable students to attain the intended learning outcomes of the programme?

yes

C4 Is there evidence of the influence of current research and scholarship on the curriculum and learningand teaching (e.g. curricula informed by research in the relevant subject and into pedagogy, opportunities


for students to undertake independent research and/or research methods training)?

yes

C5 Are the methods and balance of assessment appropriate in measuring student achievement in relationto the intended learning outcomes?

yes

C6 Are the assessment criteria appropriate for measuring student attainment in relation to the intendedlearning outcomes?

yes

C7 Are the assessment criteria effective in discriminating between levels of attainment in relationship tothe classification of the award?

yes

C8 Is internal marking (in accordance with the marking criteria) impartial, fair and consistent?

yes

C9 Are the standards of the programme(s) appropriate? Please refer to the national subject benchmarkstatements (where appropriate), the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications, the programmespecification and (where appropriate) requirements of professional, statutory and regulatory bodies

yes

C10 Comment upon the extent to which the stated output standards for the programme(s) arecomparable with those of similar programmes in other UK higher education institutions

As the Director of Scotland's west region Schools for Higher Education Programme, with overallresponsibility for quality assurance of taught programme elements, I can verify that the outputstandards for the programme are comparable with those of similar programmes in other UK highereducation institutions.

C11 Comment upon the comparability of the output standards achieved by students comparable withthose achieved by students on similar programmes elsewhere. Please provide any views as to theemployability of students on the programme(s)

The samples of student work (reports, essays and projects) provided for external moderation indicatedthat the students were achieving high output standards in comparison with those achieved on similar


widening access programmes in the UK.

C12 Comment upon the particular strengths and weaknesses of the current cohort

Strengths: the relatively high number of Merits in this year's cohort (33% of students who passed thePARTNERS Assessed Summer School) reflects a well-selected and highly focused group. The numberof student assessments designated 'excellent' by subject leaders also indicates the high level ofconfidence academic staff had in the group overall. Weaknesses: a very small number of students struggled with critical analysis, the capacity to write in anacademic style and, occasionally, to spell adequately or write coherently.

C13 For examiners of subjects which contribute to joint or combined honours programmes, pleasecomment on any notable differences in the standards and student performance between studentspursuing joint/combined honours and students pursuing single honours

n/a

SECTION D - PROCEDURESD1 If you made any recommendations in your previous report have these been addressed by theUniversity? Please outline briefly any issues which you feel have not been considered appropriately

no previous report submitted

D2 Were you given sufficient notice of the examination dates and of the meeting of Examiners?

yes

D3 Did you attend the Board of Examiners meeting? If not, please state reason and provide details of howyou were consulted by other means.

yes, on 7th August 2015

D4 Was the Board of Examiners conducted in accordance with the University's policies and procedures, inparticular were proceedings conducted with student anonymity? Did you endorse the recommendations ofthe Board with regard to students’ progress and/or degree classifications?

yes

D5 Was the process of assessment effective and fair in its treatment of individual candidates, particularlywith regard to the exercise of discretion?

yes


D6 Did you have sufficient opportunity to comment upon draft assessment types for the programme(including coursework and examination papers)? Were these appropriate in terms of the intended learningoutcomes and of an appropriate standard?

yes

D7 Did you have sufficient opportunity to review student work and examination scripts? Was the sampleprovided sufficient for you to make the required judgements (in Section C above)?

yes

D8 (Where appropriate) Were you given an adequate opportunity to participate in the assessment processthrough involvement in, for example, practicals/clinical examinations/exhibitions etc. If YES, was themethod of selection of students appropriate?

n/a

D9 Where appropriate) Were you given opportunity to meet with students on the programme(s)? Wasthe purpose of such meetings made clear well in advance?

yes - the introduction to the PARTNERS Assessed Summer School provided a comprehensive andwell-organised overview of a cross-section of subjects, using a variety of taught systems - interactiveworkshop, lecture, lab session, tutorial, etc. There was sufficient opportunity to meet students - andteaching staff - at this time.

D10 Were you given adequate opportunity to communicate with internal examiners and, whereappropriate, others involved in teaching and assessment?

yes

D11 Was the method and general standard of marking and moderation consistent and satisfactory?

yes

D12 Was the method and quality of feedback on student work consistent and satisfactory?

yes

D13 Were you given sufficient information on the following to enable you to fulfil your duties? Where theinformation was insufficient, please give details.


yes - the information provided was comprehensive, and included: *PARTNERS staff and student handbooks; *Moderation and Scaling Policy for PARTNERS Assessed Summer School; *Policy and Procedures for External Examiners of Taught Programmes; *Module descriptions/ specifications; *Programme aims and learning outcomes; *Assessment procedures (including assessment criteria) and student feedback forms; *Marking schemes and instructions to examiners.

FURTHER COMMENTS - OPTIONALF1 If you wish to provide any further comments, either in relation to the questions above, or as additionalinformation not otherwise covered by the report form, please do so here.

Section F: This is my first External Moderator’s report for the PARTNERS Assessed Summer School. I wassupplied with a comprehensive set of module documentation (previously specified), in addition tocopies of all documentation provided to students and staff. This was highly adequate. I also visited theAssessed Summer School and spoke to staff and students. Review of Assessed Work: A minimum sample of students’ academic work for each subject strand was provided for inspection,including all those determined a Fail. The aim of the external moderation task is to assess a student’scapacity to make a successful transition to an undergraduate degree course in that field of study atNewcastle University. The work involved, therefore, was to determine that the learning outcomes asspecified in the Subject Descriptors were met and/ or exceeded by the students (as exemplified by thesample). Due to the volume and breadth of subject strands, comparisons were judged within modules,rather than across the programme at large.The depth and quality of feedback on student assessment forms was highly commendable. It was clearthat academic staff involved in the delivery of the PARTNERS Summer School invested considerableeffort in this programme, with the expectation that, as future students, the candidates would benefitfrom supportive, focused and detailed commentary on their work. The adoption of peer mentoringacross the programme is also very positive and is in line with good practice in relation to otherassessed widening access programmes in the UK. Module Commentary


Unless otherwise stated, I agree with the assessors’ commentary and decisions. Architecture (sample of 5 out of 12, no fails, 4 merits) •A creative, appealing topic, combining the development of skills in the design process, site analysis,the critical analysis of a building and architectural preparation skills.•Detailed progress and attendance data – very good practice and helpful to the external moderationprocess.•Detailed, high-quality student feedback on the ‘sitooterie’ design project.•All student work presented within sample 2nd-marked – good practice. Biological Sciences (sample of 5 out of 43; 2 students did not attend; 2 students did not submit; onefail; 11 merits) •The programme contains a stimulating blend of practical, lab-based and lecture content – appropriateto this stage of study.•Anonymous marking enabled.•Evidence of 2nd marking across an appropriate sample of submitted work.•A high level of detailed feedback on submitted work – very positive.•Fail due to lack of completion of essay (failure to include sufficient content to enable a higher mark tobe awarded). Biomedical Sciences (sample of 6 out of 63; 1 student did not attend; no fails; 47 merits) •Helpful results table provided, with breakdown of component marks.•Detailed feedback provided on submitted work.•A sample of student feedback forms was unsigned.•Internal moderation not visible from sample provided.•As per 2014, a high number of merits and no fails, indicating a well-selected and focused group. Business (sample of 5 out of 65; 1 student withdrawn; 4 students did not attend; 1 did not submit; 1 fail;12 merits) •Assessment related to the production of a 2,000 word essay (‘Baggers Originals’ case study – appearsto be the same question as previous years. As per 2014 recommendation, it is recommended that thetitle or task is changed for next year’s group).•Detailed, helpful feedback provided on student forms.•Anonymous marking enabled.•Fail due to lack of critical understanding of the topic (candidate did not answer the question at hand). Civil Engineering (sample of 4 out of 6; 1 student did not attend; 1 student did not submit; no fails; 3merits) •A high number of merits, given the size of the cohort – very pleasing.•Helpful and detailed feedback on submitted work.•Clear evidence of 2nd marking/ internal moderation.


Chemical Engineering (sample of 5 out of 34; 1 student did not submit; 2 fails; 23 merits) •A helpful summary sheet detailing student component grades, with clear information on internalmoderation, was supplied with the sample – this supports the task of external moderation.•A high number of merits, relative to the cohort, indicating a strong and focused group.•Good feedback to students supplied on sample of lab reports presented.•Fails due to not meeting the standards of assessment. Chemistry (sample of 5 out of 18; no fails; 6 merits) •Interesting programme of study, with mix of practical, lab-based and theoretical content.•Sessions 5 and 6 of the programme showing clear evidence of internal moderation.•Informative feedback but variable across the differing areas of assessment.•A relatively high number of merits and no fails indicates a focused group engaging well with thematerial/ subject content in the course. Computing Science (sample of 5 out of 22; 2 students did not submit; 1 fail; 3 merits) •Helpful and detailed feedback on each candidate’s assessment sheet.•Clear evidence of 2nd marking of students’ submitted work.•Fail due to inability to complete the assignment and deconstruct the task appropriately (a clear fail). Dentistry (sample of 5 out of 9; no fails; no merits) •Interesting material and activities included in assessed programme.•Evidence of internal moderation – very positive.•Anonymous marking enabled.•Very helpful and encouraging feedback on student submissions. Electrical and Electronic Engineering (sample of 5 out of 7; no fails; 7 merits) •Constructive, supportive feedback given to each candidate across the three areas of: circuitconstruction, use of lab equipment and presentation skills.•Every student participating received a merit pass, indicating a highly engaged, focused and able group– excellent.•Clear evidence of 2nd marking, with student feedback forms signed by both principal and secondassessors.•Anonymous marking enabled – good practice. English Language and Linguistics (sample of 5 out of 21; no fails; 4 merits) •Stimulating syllabus, including dialect study, language acquisition and semantics.•Excellent, highly detailed and informative feedback.•Anonymous marking enabled.•Clear evidence of 2nd marking/ internal moderation on appropriate sample of student submitted work. English Literature (sample of 5 out of 28; 1 student did not submit; no fails; 15 merits)


•A substantial number of merits and no fails – very pleasing to note.•Clear evidence of 2nd marking/ internal moderation.•Very detailed, informative and constructive feedback to students. French (sample of 5 out of 8; no fails; no merits) •Excepting 2 submissions, anonymous marking enabled.•All submissions 2nd marked and signed by 2nd marker – good practice.•Very helpful, detailed and constructive feedback given in English to enable better understanding ofgrammatical concepts – supportive response. Geography (sample of 5 out of 36; 1 student withdrawn; 1 fail; 3 merits) •Engaging subject content in assessed programme.•Anonymous marking enabled.•Sample of student feedback forms signed by principal and secondary assessor – good practice.•Fail due to lack of appropriate interpretation and analysis of the assessed material. German (sample of 4 out of 4; no fails; no merits) •Anonymous marking enabled.•All submissions 2nd marked and signed by 2nd marker – good practice.•Very helpful feedback given in English to enable better understanding of grammatical concepts –supportive response. Historical Studies (sample of 5 out of 35; 1 student did not submit; no fails; 7 merits) •A high level of detailed and helpful feedback on student forms – very positive.•Anonymous marking enabled.•Clear evidence of 2nd marking on a sample of student feedback forms. Law (sample of 7 out of 46; 2 fails; 11 merits) •Helpful summary document provided, with details of project hand-ins and evidence of internalmoderation – supports external moderation process.•Very high level of helpful, constructive, individual student feedback.•Fails due to insufficient acquaintance with the study material.•Clear evidence of 2nd marking/ internal moderation on a sample of student work. Mathematics and Statistics (sample of 5 out of 48; 1 student withdrawn; 1 did not attend; no fails; 14merits) •Helpful, detailed feedback on student assessment forms•All work submitted 2nd marked, with signatures by primary and secondary assessors. Mechanical Engineering (sample of 6 out of 14; 1 fail; 8 merits)


•Very helpful summary sheet, detailing assessed components of programme.•Substantial, hand-written feedback on individual student assessment forms.•Anonymous marking enabled.•Student submissions 2nd marked, with forms signed by primary and secondary assessors.•Fail due to lack of discussion/ conclusions within submitted report (report not of a satisfactory standardto enable a pass). Media (sample of 5 out of 12; 1 student did not submit; no fails; 1 merit) •Very detailed and helpful feedback on each student submission•All student assessed work 2nd marked, signed by principal and secondary assessors. Medicine (sample of 10 out of 40; 6 fails; 5 merits) •Helpful summary sheet presented with component areas of syllabus itemised with pass marks andgrades.•Anonymous marking enabled.•All assessed work 2nd marked and signed by both primary and secondary assessors.•Very detailed and helpful feedback on student forms.•Fails due to the quality of work presented for the written examination (assessment consists of both in-course assessment and testing by written examination). Music (sample of 2 out of 3; 1 student did not submit; no fails; 1 merit) •Anonymous marking enabled.•All student work 2nd marked and signed by 2nd marker.•No feedback/ commentary on written submissions. Philosophical Studies (sample of 5 out of 8; 1 student did not submit; no fails; 4 merits) •Anonymous marking enabled.•All student work 2nd marked and signed by 2nd marker.•Highly detailed and helpful feedback on student assessment forms. Politics (sample of 5 out of 21; 1 student withdrawn; 1 did not submit; 2 fails; 5 merits) •A highly engaging and stimulating syllabus is presented for this subject strand, at a level appropriate tothis stage of study.•Anonymous marking enabled.•A sample of student work was 2nd marked.•Fails were due to a lack of application of knowledge and inability to analyse appropriate data. Psychology (sample of 5 out of 16; 1 student did not attend; 1 student did not submit; no fails; 4 merits) •Detailed feedback given on assessed work.•Anonymous marking enabled.


•Internal moderation not visible from sample provided. Sociology (sample of 5 out of 22; 1 student did not submit; no fails; 4 merits) •Engaging syllabus – promoting greater independence of academic study skills and critical thinking.•Highly detailed and constructive feedback on student forms.•Anonymous marking enabled.•Evidence of internal moderation. Spanish (sample of 5 out of 7; no fails; 1 merit) •Anonymous marking enabled.•All submissions 2nd marked and signed by 2nd marker – good practice.•Very helpful, detailed and constructive feedback given in English to enable better understanding ofgrammatical concepts – supportive response. Speech and Language Sciences (sample of 2 out of 3; 1 student did not attend; no fails; 1 merit) •First-class feedback on student assessment forms.•Anonymous marking enabled.•All submissions 2nd marked and signed by 2nd marker – good practice. Town Planning (sample of 5 out of 5; no fails; 1 merit) •Excellent level of constructive feedback on student forms.•Anonymous marking enabled.•Internal moderation not visible from sample provided. Using the sample of student forms made available, it can be concluded that the learning outcomeswere met by all the students who passed. Student numbers completing the PARTNERS AssessedSummer School have grown from 487 in 2014 to 625 in 2015 (more than 28% growth in numbers inone year). This growth in itself is testimony to the high value of the programme and the esteem it isheld in by secondary schools. Although the number of fails has increased slightly from last year (2.6%[16 students] – compared to 1.5% [7 students] in 2014), the number of merits has increased also (33%[206 students] – compared to 30.4% [146 students] in 2014). This growth in merit passes is a verypositive development, indicating well-selected students who are focusing positively in an intensivestudy environment. A sample of observed classes also indicates a dedicated and supported academicstaff delivery team who generally have a keen appreciation of the philosophy of widening access touniversity. Recommendations/ Suggestions:•The continued commitment to detailed and purposeful feedback on student assessment forms, inaddition to the adoption, across the range of all subject strands, of primary and secondary marking(internal moderation), with staff signatures on student forms, as a form of good practice.•Consideration given to a third category of ‘Excellent’ in the grading of student forms, if there is capacityfor this to be created. Candidates applying to university from backgrounds where there is a level ofdisadvantage often struggle with a concept of belonging on a university campus. A grading of


‘Excellent’ could boost applicant confidence, enable decision making and aid retention during the firstyear of the degree programme.•As per 2014, for subject strands that assess by means of a single project or essay, with no choiceavailable to the candidate, that rotation of examined titles is adopted. In the best interests of qualityassurance, a bank of appropriate examination topics should be created and different titles used for 3-4years. This will mean that fair access can be enabled from one year to the next. Reiterating commentary made in 2014, I would also like to thank Emma Reay, Gemma Kirkbride and allthe administrative team for their hard work in enabling the programme to take place and for theirsupport to me in my first year of involvement as an External Moderator. This programme demonstratesa fine example of high-quality practice in widening participation to higher education. I am delighted tobe involved in it as it evolves and develops its reach in the future and I wish it great success,particularly given the dedication and hard-working nature of the staff team.

END OF APPOINTMENT OVERVIEW G1 To be completed only on conclusion of the period of appointment

No Answer


Cross FLTSEC 14 January 2016 Document C

Board of Studies Response to External Examiners’ Report

Each Board of Studies should complete the following template in response to the relevant External Examiner’s report. If a single Board of Studies is responsible for responding to multiple External Examiners – whether for a single programme or multiple related programmes or stages – then all relevant responses should be included on this template. Please ensure that your report includes a full written response to all issues raised by your External Examiner(s). You are not required to provide a response to exemplary practice, commendations or other positive comments, although you are encouraged to do so where appropriate. Where the Board of Studies does not agree with an External Examiner’s recommendation, the response should outline to the examiner the reasons for this view. Included in the response should be any agreed actions, person/group responsible for the actions and timescale. Such actions should be included in your AMR action plan. Once completed and agreed by your Board of Studies, this compiled response should be sent to each examiner (along with an appropriate covering letter). Only the response should be sent to the FLTSEC sub-committee for consideration (c/o your Faculty Learning and Teaching team). School: INTO Newcastle University Programme(s)/Stage(s): International Foundation Biological & Biomedical Sciences

International Foundation Physical Sciences & Engineering International Foundation Business & Management International Foundation Humanities & Social Sciences International Foundation Architecture International Diploma in Business International Diploma in Architecture International Graduate Diploma in Business & Humanities International Graduate for Architecture

Chair of Board of Studies: Simon Pallett Academic Year: 2014/15

External Examiner(s) Place of Work Programme(s)/Stage(s) Examined Year of Appointment Final Year Ms Diane Schmitt Nottingham Trent University Diploma / Graduate Diploma EAP Modules 2013/14 No Ms Shona Dunn Newcastle College Foundation EAP Modules 2013/14 No Dr Stuart Barrett Manchester Metropolitan University Graduate Diploma Business & Humanities Academic Modules 2011/12 Yes Dr John Pemberton Retired Diploma in Business Academic Modules 2014/15 No


Mr Charles Caplen Southampton Solent University Foundation Business & Management & Humanities & Social Sciences Academic Modules

2013/14 No

Dr Mike Solomon Retired Foundation Biological & Biomedical Sciences Academic Modules

2014/15 No

Mrs Jean Heather Retired Foundation Physical Sciences & Engineering Academic Modules

2011/12 Yes

Dr Jenny Russell University of Ulster Architecture Academic Modules 2014/15 No **If this template is being used to respond to multiple examiners, then clearly identify the examiner’s name next to each comment OR group the comments in sections by examiner. **

External Examiner Report Sections

External Examiner Comments (please replicate the comments as they appear in the External Examiner’s report)

Date External Examiner’s Report considered by Board of Studies

Board of Studies Response (Including any agreed actions and person/group responsible for the actions)

Timescale for actions

Exemplary Practice and Commendations

Ms Diane Schmitt Exemplary Practice: The seminar assessment for the Grad Dip in Business and Humanities is an excellent simulation of the work students would be expected to do at university. Significant improvements have been made to the design and the assessment process and weighting from the previous year. This model should be showcased and I recommend that the team disseminate this good practice by presenting at EAP seminars and events. Commendations: The spoken and written assignments for the Grad Dip Architecture are excellent in the way that they require students to fully engage with the subject matter of architecture and the modes of discourse or genres students will need to use to demonstrate their learning on their PG course. Ms Shona Dunn

20 November 2015 The BoS thanks the external examiners for their comments on exemplary practice, as noted in the individual letters of response.


Exemplary Practice: My role as an external is made easier by the very comprehensive documentation provided, including the tracking of learners and their progress from start to end of their programmes. Files and samples are clearly labelled and samples are thorough. The tailoring of pathways to suit students’ subject specialist needs for EAP continues to be a strength and the teams are very responsive in this regard. Architecture, in its first year as a stand-alone pathway, really a pilot, has taken past work on contextualising EAP to a new level, where the EAP component appears to seamlessly integrate into the overall programme. The planned creation of new module codes for EAP modules for architecture will further facilitate this. Based on past EE feedback, there is a strong focus within this pathway on developing not only reading skills but the range of texts that learners access. Similarly, there has been foregrounding of speaking skills to prepare students for crits, which they will experience in their future architecture studies. It would be interesting to track score improvements in this area. I would suggest writing up the development of this programme for a wider audience. The teams are pro-active in keeping me abreast of programme developments and issues throughout the academic year. An area for further development identified with course teams is to improve learners’ reading skills development and scores. Ironically, this seems to have arisen out of a successful drive to help learners with writing skills. Several initiatives are mooted in this area including amending schemes of work, new reading coursework on the Business and Humanities pathway, team meetings/ staff


training and resource sharing. Some very encouraging work is currently being piloted, in particular the development of new assessments and reviewing of the assessment criteria in tandem. This is a good model for future development. It will be interesting to see the results of these in the next academic year. The continuing development of pathway-specific assessment tasks is a strength. Science pathway speaking tests, new this year, have a clear rationale behind their development, linked to material studied in class with pre-task preparation materials to encourage students to conduct preparatory research. The next development step seems to be refining and honing assessment criteria for these tasks. This is discussed below under “Recommendations”. Extended students present a mixed picture: there have been some real success stories, and also some less successful students. However, students who are at risk are tracked from an early point, though not all interventions are successful. The team has creative ideas to continue to support these students. Next year the Business and Humanities will trial drama-based confidence building, for example. Drilling down into success stories to produce case studies would be an interesting research project. Acting on a past recommendation, videos of speaking assessments are now of very high quality. Commendations: In all discussions with the team, their quality improvement focus and commitment to development is evident. They continue to review provision critically and identify areas for further


develop, particularly in terms of resources and alignment of assessment and curriculum. Transparency and rigour of assessments processes and tracking of these is a strength across the three pathways. There is very good transparency on how coursework scores are arrived at and it is very easy as an external to track marking processes and procedures. For speaking and writing, assessments, which are criterion-marked, I can track which criteria informed the allocation of the final grade, and how double and triple markers agreed on final grades. There is a very good range of marks used. Following my 2014 report, there has been a review of second marking and moderation policy, resulting in a variety of good practices in these areas. The standard use of a 20% moderation sample has streamlined assessment processes but not resulted in a loss in quality or rigour. As part of this policy, the team could also consider automatic triggers for moderation, e.g. marks below 50%/ over 80%. There has been very focussed standardisation and training for markers following an IELTS training model (Architecture Pathway), which has been successful. Business and Humanities has focussed on markers agreeing interpretations of assessment criteria, which has also been effective. This has resulted in first and second markers or first markers and moderators agreeing in 90% of cases, which is greatly increased from the previous cohorts. Within the marking of writing tasks, first markers have been encouraged to comment and exemplify, which adds transparency to the marking process and also aids student tutorials. It is clear from student feedback that they value this. The next phase of this


development will be to ensure that all comments are developmental for students. Feedback to students to aid their development, which is particularly valuable for the semester 1 assessments/ semester 2 coursework. There is very clear identification of ‘at-risk’ students, of deficit areas and targeted interventions are planned. Feedback to these students particularly is very specific and developmental. The success of this personalised feedback also came across when meeting students. Students also have a good understanding of the purposes of their assessments, giving the assessment tools good face validity. Dr Stuart Barrett Exemplary Practice: No plagiarism this year - reflecting concerted efforts over several years to address this. Commendations: Good feedback and clear evidence of moderation. Dr John Pemberton Exemplary Practice: Excellent organisation both throughout the year and during attendance over the four days at the University for the two exam boards (Sept 2014 and Jan 2015 cohorts) - as a new examiner, this made my job so much easier. For both formative and summative assessment, the quality of feedback given to students is generally excellent for the five modules under review - the student experience is clearly greatly enhanced by the commitment and dedication of the programme tutors.

Noted Dr Michael Cheng – response to Dr Jonathan Pemberton The excellent organisation of the External Examiner visits is attributed to the commitment of the Diploma teaching team as well as the tireless efforts of the Student Progress team.

Sept 2015


Commendations: The programme management and administrative support from INTO is particularly effective, the latter culminating in two streamlined exam boards with excellent documentation provided on both occasions. The newly introduced standardisation and cross-marking forms have been a particular success, with teaching staff embracing their use (despite some additional work involved!) contributing to an even more robust quality assurance process. Major J G F (Charles) Caplen Exemplary Practice: 1. Module handbooks are an extremely useful student resource. 2. Exam boards are thoroughly planned and fairly administered. 3. Student work is at, if not above, the standards to which it is to be assessed. 4. External advice is not only sought but acted upon. 5. The newly inaugurated Internal Verification/Moderation form gives good clarity of assessment. Commendations: 1. Course Leadership and administration is fair, thorough and involved. 2. The Course Team has an obvious rapport with the students and work extremely well together. 3. Staff approach is open, helpful and assistive. 4. Module packs for verification are neatly and logically ordered.

The newly introduced moderation forms for standardisation and cross-marking will be continually used with the inclusion of statistical data including the mean, mode, median, range and, comparison against the previous cohort. The cross-marking sample will include work across the four quartiles. Glen Chapman: Response to Charles Caplen Although there is still room for improvement (as is highlighted in the recommendations) the effort of the team to respond to previous External Examiner comments is recognised and highly valued. This good practice will be continued to enhance the smooth and efficient running of the programme and the exam board.

To be discussed at Programme Development Day, December 2015. Review August 2016 To be discussed at Programme Development Day, December 2015. Review August 2016


Dr Michael Solomon Exemplary Practice: Moderation in the Foundation Chemistry Module is thorough. Feedback to the students on all the assignments in each of the Modules is comprehensive. Commendations: This is the first time I have externally examined. I am impressed by the range of tasks that the students have to do in each Module particularly the Foundation Study Skills Module and the thoroughness in providing the appropriate materials for the process of external examining. Mrs Jean Heather Exemplary Practice: Detailed written feedback on written assignments showing students where their performance can be improved. Commendations: All modules are very well organised: student handbooks, appropriate level of assessments and detailed mark schemes ensuring consistent marking. Dr Jenny Russell Exemplary Practice: 1: The design projects and, in particular, the charette within the Foundation programme is, in my opinion, an excellent example of exemplary practice. The work that students are producing within the respective modules in this programme is very strong and deserving of special mention.


2: The work that is encouraged from students in the study skills modules within both the Foundation programme and the Graduate Diploma demonstrate a high level of rigour and intelligence and skills that are more than appropriate for any K100 UK course. The work is gathered throughout the programme and there is a marked improvement in the work - both in terms of written skills in English, but also in the maturity of understanding of the subject area, throughout the period of the module. Commendations: 1: I wish to commend the team on the organisation and structure of these courses. I had ample opportunity to talk with the Programme Director and relevant staff and all discussions were clear and presented courses which have been designed with a rigorous understanding of the abilities of the students coming onto the course, and also of what is required of students leaving the course in order to progress to K100 or other relevant courses. 2: I would also like to commend the team on the understanding that they demonstrate of each student and the supportive atmosphere that they seem to have developed in which these students study. 3: The use of a number of field trips is obviously beneficial, as is the requirement for students to draw in situ and maintain a sketchbook. 4: The design charettes being implemented within the diploma programme are also designed with a clear understanding of what skills and thinking processes they will help students to develop. 5: The Semester 2 project in the diploma programme is an excellent challenge for students to


enable them to develop their spatial thinking. I would however suggest that the feeder project for this be simplified in order to better prepare students for the main project.

Recommendations

Ms Diane Schmitt: Much good work has been done by the Grad Dip Business and Humanities team in developing a contextually relevant reading assessment. I'd like to see a similar work done to create a relevant assessment for the Grad Dip Architecture. It is also imperative that project time is given to staff in all three programmes to develop a more valid listening assessment. Ms Shona Dunn: With the January cohort, there was an issue on one pathway with lost papers for reading coursework, although mark sheets were available. This seems to be related to staffing changes and space and storage issues. A new administrator is to be appointed and I would recommend agreeing clear quality processes on the tracking of all assessment materials. Areas to consider include more use of electronic marking or scanning in of papers. On-site marking could also be considered, although it is not likely to be popular with staff. Reviewing and developing assessment criteria for interactive speaking coursework assessments, in order to reflect the full range of skills and knowledge the learners are demonstrating in these tasks. Currently, there are 3 categories: Task Fulfilment and Interaction, Grammar and Vocabulary, Fluency, Coherence and Pronunciation. We have discussed splitting the first of these into two categories, one

20 November 2015 Chris Heady response to Diane Schmitt: Graduate Diploma have developed a reading assessment. This involved trialling and analysis. A refining of specification is needed as a result of this. More development will take place in the meantime. Listening test development is happening across the Centre. Cross-programme synergies are to be exploited in developing quality instruments. Chris Heady response to Shona Dunn: We will use a sign/sign out system for assessment marking to go along with clear allocation of papers to markers; we also will improve storage process with new Academic Support person We will add a fourth column to existing criteria thus separating Task Achievement from Interaction

Semester 1 1617 Semester 2 1516 Semester 2 1516 Semester 2 final speaking assessment 1516


related to task development and achievement, one linked to interaction and turn-taking/ coherence. As the 60-69 mark band is a crucial band for progression, also consider clearly marking in the descriptors what constitutes the top/ middle/ bottom of this band. When reworking these criteria also look at some elements of phrasing, for example the use of ‘skillfully’ in 50-59 band. Also consider including register/appropriacy as part of fluency criteria. This could be part of the low/ high 60-69 divide. As part of this review, also consider standardising marker annotations on mark sheets. Dr Stuart Barrett: Consider awarding higher marks at the top end. Dr John Pemberton: a) The number of sampled scripts for standardisation and cross-marking often differs across modules - a more consistent strategy would strengthen the process. b) In a couple of modules, the assessments had little variation in format (e.g. all essays) - this is not necessarily the optimal way to examine the students' abilities. Having flagged this during the year, my recommendations to look at new forms of assessment appear to have been embraced as there are plans to introduce these - clearly, the effect of these changes will need monitoring in terms of student experience and performance. c) At my first exam board, I commented that there is a reluctance to award higher marks, particularly in more qualitative subjects. I would encourage tutors

As part of upgrade of interactive criteria, we will review phrasing. With new versions of these, we will also make sure pre-test examiner standardisation is fully updated to address top/middle/bottom issue within 60-69 band. We include this as an extra element in pre-assessment examiner standardisation preparation Jim Summer Response to Stuart Barrett: To be discussed with module leaders and incorporated in standardisation meetings Dr Michael Cheng – response to Dr Jonathan Pemberton a) The sample size for the moderation process will now consist of:

• x2 assessments for standardisation (exams x2 per essay question)

• 20% for cross-marking (across the four quartiles)

b) As feedback from the External Examiner is received throughout the year, changes to assessments are already in place for this academic year. These will be monitored and reviewed in due course. c) The entire Diploma team has been informed that where work is deemed outstanding, the 80% and 90% bands are to be used.

Semester 2 final speaking assessment 1516 Semester 2 final speaking assessment 1516 November 2015 (Jim Summers) Sept 2015


to use the full range, where the quality of work produced by students merits this. Major J G F (Charles) Caplen: Continuation of work on previous recommendations: 1. Demonstration of marking on all papers, including exams. 2. Clarity of first/second marker identity and demonstrable consideration of marks for the I/V forms. 3. Assessments containing more than one question/multiple parts per question should have the marks allocated per question/part question clearly stated. 4. Continuation and expansion of indicative answering schemes, where relevant. 5. Students should be fully aware of the criteria they are to be marked on, with UoN generic criteria to be used only where applicable. Dr Michael Solomon: I would recommend that the thoroughness of moderation in the Biology examinations be reviewed. The marking criteria for practicals were too generalised and need to be more in line with those in the Chemistry Module. The weighting for the Chemistry end examination was greater than the other subjects. I would recommend that they were all the same weighting. Some of the Mathematics and Statistics assignments were not rigorous enough with many students either achieving full or close to full marks. The assignments could be conducted in more controlled conditions or more tasks added.

Glen Chapman: Response to Charles Caplen 1. A demonstration of marking to be provided

on all papers, including exams. As opposed to a mark only.

2. Greater clarity on first/second marker to be demonstrated and consideration of marks on Internal Verifier forms to be shown.

3. Module Leaders to make mark breakdowns more explicit.

4. Indicative answering schemes will be used, where relevant.

5. Students to be made fully aware of the criteria they will be marked on. Generic criteria will only be used when necessary.

The marking criteria are now specified in more detail and moderation process has been evaluated. The assessment weightings of all modules are now changed in line with Mathematics for Physical Sciences & Engineering module. Differentiation of abilities addressed in new assignments.

November 2015 August 2015 July 2015 August 2015


Mrs Jean Heather: Provide evidence of the support given to students who show themselves to be at risk of doing badly from the start of the course. Dr Jenny Russell: 1: I recommend that students be encouraged to collate their rough work, gathered throughout the session, as supporting evidence for their portfolio. This ensures the appropriate documentation of all work done and enables staff to understand the full journey of the student throughout the session. 2: I would recommend that across all modules, the staff team review the spread of marks. At present, in the work that I have seen to date, the spread is very tight, giving little opportunity to celebrate the exemplary students, of which their are several, while highlighting to students at the lower end of the scale, that there is opportunity for clear improvement. 3: I have some concerns about the "Introduction to British Institutions and Culture" module, however I understand that some changes are already planned for the incoming cohort. While the intention of this module is very clear, I am concerned that some of the elements of the module are working against the potential of the INTO programme, in particular, by including the UK citizenship test, this implies an intention for students on the Foundation programme to 'lose' their culture, however, surely the INTO programmes are encouraging students to 'understand' local culture and to investigate the potential of how they reconcile cultures as opposed to changing their own heritage? I recommend that the staff team review the aims of this module.

A document highlighting the support mechanisms provided to borderline/failing students will be made available at the next BoE. Thomas Kern: Response to Jenny Russell 1: Students had already retrieved their sketchbooks and scrapbooks; hence this evidence wasn’t available at that time, in the future all materials will be available for the external examiner. 2: Will be addressed during the current intake. A wider spread of marks will be applied to provide more recognition in particular for exemplary performing students. Marking moderation sessions will provide the opportunity to encourage the team to make use of the full range of marks. Whilst a wider spread of marks may be justified in many cases, in particular on the Graduate Diploma the students’ performance can be in fact very similar. 3. The British Culture Module was omitted and a new more relevant module created. 4.(1) The design project will be revised and diversified. 4.(2) The portfolio assessment weighting was reviewed and the required module changes are in process.

May 2016 May 2016 May 2016 September 2015 January 2016 May 2016


4: Within the Graduate Diploma, I believe that there are some clear opportunities to broaden the experience and design palette of the students. At present, each semester ask students to undertake a design project for which both projects have the same aims. Both projects appear to be dealing with issues of urban planning and architecture. It may be beneficial to the students if each of these project were to have a distinct direction with clear and different learning outcomes. 4: Within all programmes, but particularly notably, the diploma, the portfolio is given a substantial weighting within the module. I would suggest that the staff team review the weighting that is given to the portfolio compilation to ensure that students are being marked primarily on their design work.

**For the following sections, you need only include any substantive comments made by the external (i.e. you do not need to include every ‘Yes’). Although you do not need to address positive comments, you must address any concerns that have been flagged by the external.



Curriculum Committee/Board of Studies Response (Including any agreed actions, person/group responsible for the actions and timescale)


Comments on Quality and Standards (Section C)

Ms Diane Schmitt: (The intended learning outcomes of the programme) these are appropriate and set a standard for the sector. The EAP curriculum at each level has been developed in close collaboration with subject lecturers to take account of the specific language needs of the various disciplines. Members of each team are actively engaged in professional development in assessment and


other areas of EAP. This is clearly evident in the development of the pedagogy and assessments that I have reviewed over the past three years. The methods of assessment have been in a state of development over the past two years. Great strides have been made in improving the reading and speaking assessments on the Grad Dip Business and Humanities. I would like to see further amendments to the journal critique to ensure that students give less attention to criticizing the research they read and more attention to considering the contribution of the research findings to the subject and how students might use them in their own work. The Grad Dip Architecture is a new programme and the care put into the development of the spoken and written assignments is excellent. These assessments require students to fully engage with the subject matter of architecture and the modes of discourse or genres students will need to use to demonstrate their learning on their PG course. This close link makes the formats and content of the reading and listening tests stand out as being much less clearly linked to the overall course objectives. For the Diploma in Business, the reading assessment remains a strong one. The presentation was much improved with a much more balanced weighting of students talking about their project and their reflection. I’m sorry to see that this assessment will disappear with the changes to the programme and hope that the reflective element can be incorporated into a new or existing assignment. For all of the programmes, the current listening test needs to be scrapped and replaced with one new one or, preferably, three programme relevant assessments developed as soon as possible.

The journal critique is being reviewed in the light of the External Examiner’s comments to identify alternative materials and implement a change of approach in class work. New reading tests are planned for Diploma for S2 1516 New Listening tests are planned for Diploma S2 1516 Actually, I think Diane refers to the Graduate Diploma reading test here. Jim Summers Response: New Listening tests are being prepared by the EAP teaching team for Graduate Diploma B&H. It is planned to have it ready to trial with a student group in February 2016 to allow time for revision before implementation. Chris Heady Response: This is being addressed with cross-Centre cooperation on test development being central to our efforts. We

29 February 2016 (Helen Lewis) 1516 Semester 2 1516 Semester 2 31 March 2016 (Helen Lewis) Semester 2 1516


I do have concerns about the continued use of a generic scale across the three programme levels (foundation, diploma, graduate diploma) as this does not take account of the way language must be used to meet the different learning outcomes at each of the levels. The assessment of learning outcomes implies use of achievement testing and a relevant scale while INTO require use of a generic proficiency scale which has no relation to the curricular learning outcomes at each level. The current scale does not allow for the level of discrimination that could be achieved if scales related to the learning outcomes were used. The procedures for internal marking and recording of marks have become increasingly transparent each year making it easier for me to see the process in reaching final marks. There are still some areas where I think the procedures could be improved. The practice of using high, medium and low to award initial marks within a band makes sense but there does not seem to be an agreed practice for assigning numbers to these levels. It would seem to make sense to assign numbers to these words, e.g. High - 68, Medium – 65, Low is 63, and have an agreed policy for the point at which rounding takes place (at the final mark) so everyone grades consistently. Given the concern about awarding “9s”, this would eliminate 9s from final marks. Such a policy could also minimize the need to make some of the mark adjustments made at the end of course meetings or at least make this process more consistent. In Portfolio assignment for the Graduate Diploma for Business and Humanities, teachers can use evidence from the Independent Learning Logs to award additional marks for the portfolio which

hope to have a new listening test in Grad Dip and Dip for semester 2 1516 There are common elements to task and language elements of criteria. These are helpful when considering wider stakeholder’s needs re: IELTS comparability; task specific marking guides are used with writing tasks to work alongside these. In detail, criterial elements do operationalise learning outcomes in each programme. See above. In Diploma especially, there is discrimination between higher and lower levels. We will make the change to Low = 62, Mid = 65, High = 68; and effect this across all programmes in relevant criteria marked assessments. For speaking and writing.

Semester 1 1516 formative and summative assessments


contributes to the writing mark. This makes sense when a student has focused on developing their reading or writing skills in the ILL. However, it does not make sense that a student who has not met the pass mark for writing, for example, gets points added to their final semester writing score when the focus of all of their ILL work has all been on listening (TED Talks and IELTS practice tests) cf. Henry Li (W62 + 3 ILL points = 65 for writing). You may need to rethink how ILL is used in determining final marks. I did not appear to receive the final mark sheets for the redrafted writing pieces for the Grad Dip Business and Humanities September cohort. It would be very useful to see these to see how and where students have made improvements, especially since so much of the course is devoted to this element. For the Grad Dip Architecture, I think the incorporation of sources marks are rather skewed towards the mechanical aspects of source use so the marks for source use are high even when they are presented as lists of information. I’m not completely convinced that some of the students are not simply weaving together a patchwork of sentences from the texts they are reading. I’m not sure whether weaknesses in how sources are used are addressed under the category of thematic development or the sources category or whether there is some overlap. (If 80%+ is benchmarked to CEFR C2 then the marks awarded are too high). I suggest you rethink the weighting of the mechanical aspects of source use in the criteria. I suggest setting the ceiling for the mechanical aspects at the 60% band and marks above that should be awarded to more nuanced use of sources - purpose, comments

The Graduate Diploma B&H team had thought this had been provided but apologise for the administrative oversight. This will be rectified in the next cycle. The team to review this for pre-marking standardisation

24 May 2016 (Helen Lewis) Semester 1 1516 (Chris Heady)


on sources, selection of appropriate reporting verbs, appropriate grammatical and discourse integration into the local and larger text. The outputs for the programme match those of comparable programmes I am familiar with both in terms of workload and standards for marking. The spread of marks is similar at the pass mark and above, but other programmes I am familiar with have a higher number of students who do perform at levels below the Newcastle progression mark. The cohort in the January was notable for the wide spread of ability. This raises issues for both the types of task set and the wording of marking criteria at the highest levels. The curriculum needs to clearly add value for all students even those entering at high levels of ability and the marking criteria need to consider a wider range of attributes for the awarding of high marks, e.g. In oral presentations, register must be appropriate and audience awareness also must be demonstrated to get into High C1 and any C2 marks. There is considerable scope for stretching and improving the language skills of students entering with high proficiency and the team needs to give careful thought to how to achieve this. Streaming students is one option that I would support. Ms Shona Dunn: As part of my visits, I met with students to explore their perceptions of programmes. •Business and Humanities: They felt feedback had been personalised and highly developmental. All were extremely happy with their progress in English, particularly in speaking and listening. All appreciated contextualisation of English language.

The curriculum materials are pitched to the entry level of the Diploma students. These materials are then adapted by the teachers to suit the ability level of the streamed student groups and are uploaded to Blackboard class folders. The marking criteria to be improved to add value for those students in bands 8 and 9. Classes are already streamed

Semester 2 1516


•Architecture: Students praised passionate staff, valued studio sessions, and overall found the programme a very positive experience. They found their project very challenging but very rewarding and sound preparation for future studies. The students had difficulty separating out EAP from the other modules of their programme, which indicates the success of this model. All students felt their writing had developed the most and would value further development in this area. Again, they found feedback from tutors ‘amazingly helpful’. •Science: The student had very clear perceptions of her progress and challenges, and echoed the comments of other groups on the value of feedback. It is clear that recent staff training and conference attendance has had a positive effect on the development of new reading and listening coursework assessments and on the development of interactive speaking assessments. A good variety of methods of assessment is used and these are increasingly contextualised to learners' subject specific pathways. I would also reiterate last year's comment that for coursework writing tasks, the nature of the tasks differs across pathways, which is a strength. However, whilst I do not detect disparity in grade allocation across pathways, the current criteria are most suited to essay-style responses. The PSE pathway has a laboratory report coursework task, which is the quite specialised and this would seem to require adaptations to marking criteria. I would like to see this as part of future development plans. See "Commendations" for details of developments in this area (internal marking) as a result of a review of

Update task elements in writing criteria and provide marking guide to be used for science writing assessment

Semester 2 1516


second marking and moderation policy. There is a range of good practice evident. As in the previous academic year, (standards) compare very favourably with other similar programmes. The learners demonstrate a good degree of preparednesss for their future undergraduate studies, both when interviewed and through their assessed work. This is particularly true of those students on the Architecture pathway. The learners demonstrate the greatest progress in speaking and writing skills. As in 2013-4, the area in which the students felt they still needed to develop was reading skills and this is borne out by their results. The teams have clear plans in place to target reading skills with 2015-6 cohorts. Dr Stuart Barrett: The standards are comparable to other HEI's. The output standards similar to those achieved by other students elsewhere. The current cohort are stronger than previous cohorts. This was clearly reflected in the marks awarded. Dr John Pemberton: A wide range of modules, assessment vehicles and feedback mechanisms (staff and student) ensure the curriculum allows the learning outcomes to be achieved. Staff are well qualified and several have doctorates, with one currently working towards a PhD. The subject expertise of the staff is reflected in the modules and students are expected to research

Dr Michael Cheng – response to Dr Jonathan Pemberton The range and number of assessments will be reviewed as the academic year progresses. Any changes will be

July 2016


cuttingedge business and management themes as part of individual and group assessments. I have discussed the potential limitations of assessment vehicles with the programme team (see Section B3 comments) - new assessment formats are being introduced in two modules and a revised module replacing study skills (academic and professional development) will also be introduced in 2015/16. I have been particularly impressed with the rigour of the assessment criteria and execution, supported by the quality assurance procedures in place on the programme. The scope for awarding excellent performances with higher marks still exists. This (internal marking) is a particular strength of the programme. It seems to have been instilled in the tutors and the cross-marking and standardisation regimes bears witness to this. (There have been some staffing issues with one module where moderation was not as detailed on parts of the assessment, but I was provided with enough evidence by the module leader to verify and confirm the marks awarded). Given that successful students progress to year 2 of the University's own business and management degree programmes, and rigorous internal quality assurance is in evidence, it is clear that the standards are comparable with other parts of the University and other institutions. From my personal experience of degree programmes at other institutions, the INTO students are performing to a level commensurate with those at other HE organisations. Not only have I seen

reported to the July 2016 BoS at the latest, ready for the following academic year. For this academic year (Sept 2015) Study Skills has been replaced with Academic and Professional Development in line with the Business School’s Academic and Professional Skills module.


evidence of this via written module assessments and examinations, but presentations (recorded on DVD) that I have seen also demonstrate the communication and analytical skills required by today's future business and management graduates. The September 2014/15 cohort was a stronger group at the top end, with mean marks slighter higher for most modules - the exception is quantitative methods where marks are similar for both cohorts. In the January 2015 cohort, one group was consistently identified as having weaker English language skills - tutors felt that this may have contributed to poorer performances. Ironically, however, there is a higher proportion of passes in the January cohort, but this masks a weaker top end performance. Major J G F (Charles) Caplen: Learning outcomes are of a high and robust standard, commensurate to level 3 outcomes elsewhere. FHEQ guidelines have given a demonstrable input into both module and programme guidelines. Evidence was presented giving clarity of attainment standards by the students, correlating directly to the standards expected from a level 3 [foundation] programme. Many assessments gave good opportunity for the student to show personal investigative and research skills, with good formative discussion as to improvement. Assessments were contemporary and dealt with applied and current issues. Assessments show a varied and considered mix of approaches, with a useful balance of methods and experiential in application.

Glen Chapman: Response to Charles Caplen The Programme Team, particularly Module Leaders, go to great efforts to ensure that assessment is broad, diverse and applicable to contemporary topics and issues.

Noted Noted

To be discussed at Programme Development Day, December 2015. Review August 2016


Some (assessment) criteria would have benefited from greater individual clarity and less reliance on UoN generic criteria. The student is given ample opportunity to demonstrate his/her ability in attainment, which can be fully recognised by those modules applying considered assessment criteria. Further clarity in the identity of internal moderators and, ensuing demonstration of independent consideration of the standards obtained would be useful. FHEQ Level 3 guideline standards are properly and appropriately applied. This assists in the assurance that the standards set by the INTO Newcastle Team are extremely high. Output standard, particularly of overall averages, is of an extremely high level, an aspect raised at the Board of Examiners. I would suggest that this is due to a dedicated teaching team, an applied student cohort and the usage of the full mark range, as required. Comparability with students on other foundation programmes demonstrates both a higher generic and extremely good standard overall. This student cohort, as in previous years, produced a very high level of attainment overall. Any weaknesses were due to the student involved. Dr Michael Solomon: There are no official national subject benchmarks for pre-degree level, but the aims and ILOs are comparable with courses elsewhere nationally and appropriate for student progression. The topics are taught to the appropriate level and the assignments provide opportunities for

Noted Students to be made fully aware of the criteria they will be marked on. Generic criteria will only be used when necessary.

Greater clarity on first/second marker to be demonstrated and consideration of marks on Internal Verifier forms to be shown.

Noted

Noted

Noted

Noted

November 2015 November 2015


independent research. A good range of assignments and end examinations but the relative weightings differ from module to module. Some over generous marking in some modules and occasionally failure to adjust moderated Marks. Internal moderation is carried out but not always consistently applied in Biology. Some over-generous marking at times. There are no official national subject benchmarks for pre-degree level, but the standards of the programme are comparable with courses elsewhere nationally and appropriate for student progression. The output standards are comparable to other international foundation programmes in other UK higher education institutions. Employability is not really applicable in this case but the standards reached will enable students to progress to degree level programmes. There is some variability in the standards of the students in the cohort and the programme allows for discrimination between them. Staff work hard to support the students and help find alternative institutions to Newcastle University where appropriate. Mrs Jean Heather: Students who successfully complete the modules should be well prepared for further study in the programme area. Practical assignments encourage students to take on different responsibilities in their team. The theory learned is applied to open ended projects.

The assessment weightings of all modules are now changed in line with Mathematics for Physical Sciences & Engineering module. The marking criteria are now specified in more detail and moderation process has been evaluated.

July 2015 August 2015


Assessments are varied and the standard is appropriate in relation to the learning outcomes. The final results cross the full range, discriminating between levels of attainment. Comprehensive marking schemes are followed and there is evidence of double marking. Students will be well prepared for further study in appropriate degree programmes. The modules are of a similar standard to GCE A levels in the same subject areas and good preparation for undergraduate study in these disciplines. Students will usually be moving on to undergraduate study before employment but the wider skills developed in the team work for the practical assignments will be good experience for employment. Dr Jenny Russell: The learning outcomes are appropriate and comparable. The learning outcomes are appropriate as regards the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications. The curriculum of each programme enables students to attain, and in some modules, exceed, the learning outcomes. The assessment methods are generally highly appropriate as regards the measurement of student performance. The assessment criteria are generally highly appropriate as regards the measurement of student performance. At present, the difference between top and bottom marks is very small which is not particularly helpful for students at either the higher or lower end of the scale. While the assessment criteria can

This will be addressed through revised assignment weightings as mentioned before. The portfolio will be


discriminate between levels of attainment, it would be advantageous to reflect on these criteria and if they are fully appropriate in this regard or if perhaps they could be implemented more stringently in order to spread the mars more appropriately. Insofar as I can see, internal marking is rigorous, fair, impartial and consistent. The standards of each programme are appropriate and are in line with the national framework. While the programmes are not validated by the professional bodies in Architecture, the diploma work is of an equitable standard (or higher) to year 1 work that I have seen on professionally validated programmes. The stated output standards for the programme are comparable with those of similar programmes in other UK HE institutions in all areas of architectural study. This is commendable, particularly due to the additional EAP requirements on these students. The output standards from the foundation diploma exceed those that I have seen elsewhere. The diploma and graduate diploma are directly comparable to standards that I have seen elsewhere. As regards employability, all passing students demonstrate highly employable practical skills and an appropriate level of knowledge. Foundation Diploma: Strengths of the foundation diploma students are many. In particular, their drawing and painting skills are excellent along with the creativity of thinking on display. Diploma:

reduced in its weighting respectively the design projects increase.


This cohort of diploma students demonstrate a clear ability at integrating information from different modules and applying it to design work. Graduate Diploma: There are some good presentation skills among the Graduate Diploma students, however as a cohort they favour final presentation over any real demonstration of process and thus the work can at times feel glossy but lacking substance. While I don't believe this to be the case, it would be worth ensuring that students develop methods of communicating process as well as product.

Graduate Diploma students arrive with a specific output and result oriented mind-set shaped by their previous studies in their native countries. They often find it a challenging to pay more attention to development processes. However, assessment criteria require evidence of exploration and experimentation. Students will be required to provide a regular documentation update in the future.

Comments on Procedures (Section D)

Ms Diane Schmitt: Reading Test for Grad Dip in Business and Humanities I’m pleased to see the progress that has been made on developing a new reading test. This assessment makes it much easier to clearly separate out a reading mark from the writing mark, while still providing a clear purpose and use for reading that reflects how reading and writing are integrated in university. Listening Test for all programmes This is an area where there is still a lot of work to be done. The Cambridge IELA may provide a partial solution to the problem, but does not appear to tap into academic listening skills so there is still a need for a locally produced listening assessment at mid-term and exit or as coursework. The first step is that those in charge of curriculum and assessment development first need to identify the key listening skills needed to be a successful PG student at Newcastle and then identify a format or formats that allow you to sample those skills in your assessment.

Addressed elsewhere. Cross Centre development on listening assessments has begun. For Graduate Diploma B&H see action point above re development of new Listening Tests

Semester 2 1516 / Summer 2016 on other programmes (Chris Heady)


Examiners received a paper from the Academic Leader detailing the processes followed in the exercise of discretion. As usual I was pushed for time, but this will be rectified next year when the external duties for the Graduate Diploma are taken on by another examiner. Staff are always ready to meet and discuss any issues that arise during the external examining period. The formative feedback for the Grad Dip Architecture Presentations could benefit from being better structured with each point clearly explained or exemplified before moving on to new feedback points. Ms Shona Dunn: (Recommendations in my previous report) have either been addressed or are being addressed as part of phased developments. I have no significant concerns. Staff are in regular contact and I have had the opportunity to comment on drafts of new assessments and we have discussed the results of pilots of assessment tools in some depth. Well-organised samples of scripts for students in all mark bands used and across all pathways were provided, along with comprehensive tracking data. All other scripts and assessments were also made available or were available on request. Students were willing and able to discuss their experiences of the programmes in some depth and were very complimentary about staff, the supportive learning environment and the thorough preparation for undergraduate studies they have benefitted from.

The team to take this on-board and amend in pre-task standardisation.

Semester 2 1516


There is some exemplary practice in this area (marking and moderation). Feedback is detailed, developmental and learners are able to articulate its impact on them. Dr John Pemberton: Both BoEs were conducted in an exemplary manner, with excellent documentation provided. I endorsed the marks presented. For the programme that I oversee, I was briefed about the decisions made at the internal examination board the day before the formal BoE – this was particularly helpful and I am appreciative of the programme leader for doing this. At the start of my tenure, I agreed with the programme leader that he would send me drafts of assessments and course work. I have provided 6 reports to the PL during the year, the contents of which were discussed with the programme team. Staff also responded to my comments, as appropriate. In all cases, the assessments set and the samples of work looked at reflected the standards expected and were commensurate with the requisite learning outcomes. I had ample time to review scripts given I had seen the majority of assessments (aside from exam scripts) prior to my visits (see D6 above). The number of sampled items was variable (see my comment in section B3), but enough for me to make an informed assessment. I was also provided with the whole batch of exam scripts for various modules, should I want to look at them. A sample of presentations were recorded for me on DVD to review - I found this most helpful and thank the staff involved for organising the recordings.

Dr Michael Cheng – response to Dr Jonathan Pemberton The agreement between the Programme Manager, Dr Michael Cheng, and External Examiner, Dr Jonathan Pemberton, to send and receive assessment drafts (essay and exam questions) prior to student distribution, for verification, will and has continued for this academic year. Moreover, samples of work will continue to be sent throughout the year so that any comments/suggestions can be taken on board more efficiently.


I have not met any of the current cohorts, but it could have been arranged, if I had felt it necessary. A greater consistency is needed in terms of the number of sampled scripts for standardisation and cross-marking in the modules. The students get a particularly good learning experience in terms of constructive feedback on their assessments. Major J G F (Charles) Caplen: All previous recommendations are in the process of adaptation. (Board of Examiners) proceedings were student anonymous, equitable and fair. Quality processes were outlined and applied. Endorsement was freely and willingly given to Board decisions with regard to student progress. Degree classification was not a feature of this Board. The exercise of discretion was not required at this Board, with assessment decisions either being straightforward or applied under standard UoN compensation rules. Draft [future] assessments were not seen but, ample opportunity was given to comment upon both current and forward-looking assessment types. Assessments are valid, current and applicable. A major part (of student work and examination scripts) was sent by post, with the remainder available on the day prior to the board. Presentations were recorded for external viewing, with a representative sample chosen across a wide range of attainment. Marking was commensurate with the standard expected of this level, with clarity of marks awarded

Glen Chapman: Response to Charles Caplen Noted Noted Noted Noted Noted

November 2015


generally very good. Moderation was present for all aspects of student work, although possibly requiring more by clarity of identification and rationale for agreement/disagreement. With very few exceptions, student feedback was of a near-consistent high and formative quality, delivered in a clear and satisfactory medium. All information required in the pursuance of this role was available both prior to and, at the time of my visit. Dr Michael Solomon: I have not met students this year but may do in future years. There were opportunities to engage with most of the internal examiners. (The method and general standard of marking and moderation was consistent and satisfactory) but with some generosity in Biology essays and practicals. Feedback on assignments particularly effective. Mrs Jean Heather: Videoing of presentations of computing projects has not proved practical but printouts of the powerpoint presentations were supplied. Spreadsheets were provided for all modules. Dates were set at the BoE meetings the previous year. (Board of Examiners) proceedings were conducted in accordance with the University's policies and procedures. Student anonymity was upheld. I endorsed the recommendations of the Board with regard to students' progress.

Greater clarity on first/second marker to be demonstrated and consideration of marks on Internal Verifier forms to be shown.

Noted The marking criteria are now specified in more detail and moderation process has been evaluated.

August 2015


I do not comment on draft assignments. All assessments were of an appropriate standard and appropriate in terms of learning outcomes. Student work and scripts were provided. The sample was sufficient but if I required more I knew who to ask and more would have been provided. I met with the Programme Manager and Assistant Programme Manager and one of the teaching staff. Any queries were answered by them. I could have asked to meet with other teaching staff but this was not necessary. Marking was of an exemplary standard. There was evidence of moderation with some minor adjusting of marks. Detailed feedback and comments on scripts gave students advice on how to improve. Sometimes a student was told on the script that the feedback would be given orally in class. This was where a student had major problems and either had answered the question completely wrongly or couldn't answer the question at all. written feedback would not have been helpful to the student. The course team provided me with all the materials in the list. Everything was carefully organised into boxes which allowed me to carry out my duties with no time wasted. Dr Jenny Russell: The Board (of Examiners) was conducted appropriately.


I endorsed the recommendations of the board. The process of assessment was effective. I had adequate time to discuss the programme and methods of assessment. I had adequate time to review work which was prepared and presented in an exemplary way by Staff. I am the sole external examiner for the architecture programme - (not EAL, however I had ample time to speak with staff about the programme. The method and standard of marking and moderation was consistent and satisfactory, however I would suggest that staff consider the spread of marks as I believe that there could be a wider spread between the highest and lowest which would better reflect the work. I was given ample information in order to fulfil my duties.

Comments on Educational Partnerships (if applicable) (Section E)

General Comments

Ms Diane Schmitt: As noted briefly above, the January cohort was notable for the wide range of proficiency among the students. It is important that attention is given to developing the marking criteria at the higher levels to ensure that marks are awarded to students based on their demonstration of learning outcomes on the course rather than their incoming proficiency.


Dr Stuart Barrett: The current cohort seemed to be stronger than previous years which was reflected in the marks. Across all modules I looked at there was clear marking criteria, clear evidence of internal moderation and high quality feedback. Dr John Pemberton: My first year as an external examiner has been relatively pain-free, due largely to the excellent organisation at Newcastle INTO. The programme seems extremely well managed, and the students clearly benefit from the diligence and commitment of the programme tutors and administrative support offered. I have not provided the six reports submitted to the programme leader during the year as they are subject-specific and any key/general points/issues have been highlighted in this report - the PL has electronic copies on file, should these need to be appended to this report. The study skills module is due to be replaced by an academic and professional development module for 2015/6. I have been particularly impressed with the integration of material from other modules in the assessment regime and my hope is that the new module retains an element of cross-integration. Major J G F (Charles) Caplen: This Foundation Programme has continued to impress by the quality of the teaching and administration teams, student attainment and the obvious rapport between the staff and students. The

Dr Michael Cheng – response to Dr Jonathan Pemberton Working with Dr Pemberton throughout the year is preferable to having student work examined only at the end (of the academic year/cohort). This close working relationship allows for any suggestions/inconsistences to be considered/resolved in due course therefore fine-tuning the programme throughout the year. The change of module from Study Skills to Academic and Professional Development will be monitored closely with the intention of retaining cross-integration of the other academic modules. Glen Chapman: Response to Charles Caplen BoS and the Programme team would like to minute its thanks to Major Caplen for his continued diligence and commitment to the standards of the programme.

Continuous To be discussed at Programme Development Day, December 2015. Review August 2016


teaching team has willingly listened to previous advice and is in the process of instigating all previous recommendations. External Examiners are given ample opportunity to comment on programme aspects, with an extremely good system which has them as an integral part of the assessment process. Thank you. Dr Michael Solomon: I would like to see more consistency between modules in relative weightings of end examinations and assignments. The marking criteria for essays and practicals in Biology were too generalised such as 20 marks for results with no breakdown of individual points. Chemistry was a particularly good example of how this could be done and I suggest module teams look at examples of good practice in other subjects. Mrs Jean Heather: The Standardisation/Moderation sheets have been introduced and are now being used well by many staff. They allow a formal record of the reflections by the team after an assessment, about wording of questions, timing of projects etc.

The marking criteria are now specified in more detail and moderation process has been evaluated.

August 2015

End of Appointment Overview (if applicable)

Dr Stuart Barrett: Over the 4 years i have seen marked improvements. The number of assessments have been reduced and plagiarism problems have been reduced significantly. The teaching team should be commended for their hard work in working with students to achieve their goals. Hopefully this work will continue. Mrs Jean Heather:


The modules that I cover have developed well over the four years of my appointment. Timings and types of assessments have changed especially in Physics and Computing which allow more practical projects. The spreadsheets provided routinely now allow me to track student performance within and across modules. Over the four years any recommendations that I have made have been discussed with the Programme leader and Assistant Programme leader. Sometimes changes have not been practical and reasons have been given but mainly recommendations have been followed up. Numbers of students and staff have grown in the four years but the course still has the feeling that every student is treated as an individual and given the attention that they require. A very enjoyable four years!

Cross FLTSEC 14 January 2016 Document D

Board of Studies Response to External Examiners’ Report

Each Board of Studies should complete the following template in response to the relevant External Examiner’s report. If a single Board of Studies is responsible for responding to multiple External Examiners – whether for a single programme or multiple related programmes or stages – then all relevant responses should be included on this template.

Please ensure that your report includes a full written response to all issues raised by your External Examiner(s). You are not required to provide a response to exemplary practice, commendations or other positive comments, although you are encouraged to do so where appropriate. Where the Board of Studies does not agree with an External Examiner’s recommendation, the response should outline to the examiner the reasons for this view. Included in the response should be any agreed actions, person/group responsible for the actions and timescale. Such actions should be included in your AMR action plan. Once completed and agreed by your Board of Studies, this compiled response should be sent to each examiner (along with an appropriate covering letter). Only the response should be sent to the FLTSEC sub-committee for consideration (c/o your Faculty Learning and Teaching team).

School: INTO Newcastle University Programme(s)/Stage(s): English for University Study

In-Sessional English & University English Language Assessment Pre-Sessional English

Chair of Board of Studies: Stuart Edwards Academic Year: 2014/15

External Examiner(s) Place of Work Programme(s)/Stage(s) Examined Year of

Appointment Final Year

Louise Greener Durham University In-Sessional English & University English Language Assessment 2013/14 No Florencia Franceschina Manchester Metropolitan University English for University Study 2011/12 Yes Karen Nicholls Sheffield Hallam University Pre-Sessional English 2014/15 No



Date External Examiner’s Report considered by Board of Studies

Board of Studies Response (Including any agreed actions and person/group responsible for the actions)


Exemplary Practice and Commendations

Ms. Louise Greener Exemplary Practice: The In-sessional programme offers a comprehensive range of credit-bearing and non credit-bearing

6 November 2015 The BoS thanks the external examiners for their comments on exemplary practice, as noted in the individual letters of response.

17


EGAP (English for general academic purposes) and wherever possible, ESAP (English for specific academic purposes) courses. ESAP embeds students' language development in their own discipline and focuses on the genres (spoken and written) that students will be required to produce on their degree programme. Such an approach is considered best practice in the field of EAP. This is clearly a programme that takes course development seriously and the quality and polish of the materials given to students is very high. The non-credit bearing courses are given the same scrutiny and also offer carefully considered provision. Overall, this is an organised, highly iterative programme that offers strong provision for students. Commendations: There has been a thoughtful and coherent reaction to previous comments and I note a creative and ambitious restructure of the coursework elements of the reading and writing modules (INU1004, INU1005, INU8001 and INU1010). The process writing approach taken in these modules ensures the focus of the coursework is on the academic language and literacy skills required for university study. The planning, designing and production of these workbooks must have taken considerable effort and they are a very strong addition to the programme. There is also considerable care and attention given to the non credit-bearing programme. As I mentioned in the 2013-14 report, of particular note is the existence of carefully prepared materials for each course. On a programme as large as the In- sessional, providing materials and detailed teachers

18


notes, enables to the management team to ensure the quality of the provision. To have this in place across the In-sessional courses is a highly commendable achievement and represents best practice in the field. The provision of detailed, task-specific marking criteria across the programme should be commended.

Dr Florencia Franceschina Exemplary Practice: Course administration As mentioned in previous visits, the general management of the programme continues to be excellent. Among many examples of good practice, the programme team make good use of BlackBoard and shared drives for administration of teaching and assessment; they have an effective system for monitoring attendance; they have invested in IT to support the speaking exams; the team are professional and efficient in preparation of materials and communication in support of the external moderation process. Good course administration undoubtedly benefits the everyday running of the programme and it also allows appropriate external moderation to take place. Student handbook As mentioned in previous years’ external examiner reports, this programme’s student handbook is exemplary: it is very informative and accessible and therefore likely to be a valuable resource for the students throughout their time on the programme. Administration of student assessment The programme makes good use of learning technology, in particular BlackBoard and Turnitin,

The BoS thanks the EE for her positive comments on the EUS programme management and administration and they will be disseminated to the rest of the team. We are always looking to develop and improve the programme and to use learning technology to achieve this. Similarly, the EUS Handbook is reviewed every term so that it will remain up- to-date and useful for the students and staff.

19


for the management of student writing. Investment in new cameras for recording speaking exams and presentations is a positive development, as it will allow the programme to have high quality recordings for use in teaching, standardisation and internal and external moderation. Internal process for maintaining high assessment standards The programme follows very good practice regarding standardisation before marking takes place, second marking and moderation of marks. The marking and moderation processes used are principled, transparent and well documented. Commendations: As in previous years, I commend the INTO Newcastle University Centre for choosing to subject its English for University Study programme to external moderation when this is not strictly required. This indicates that the Centre is committed to a transparent and proactive approach to academic quality assurance. It was encouraging to see that the recommendations made in last year’s External Examiner’s report were acted on in the current academic year.

Ms Karen Nicholls Exemplary Practice: The cycle of formative feedback delivered online is extremely well structured and supported, ensuring that >700 students receive explicit, appropriate individual feedback of a high standard. Commendations: The support in place for staff during induction and throughout the course (with the use of senior tutors) is a considerable factor in its success.

We will continue to use the same standardisation, marking and moderation processes but also look for new ways to enhance them.

We intend to continue to open the programme to external moderation and plan to appoint a new external examiner in the near future. We have always paid close attention and carefully evaluated the recommendations made by the external examiner and will continue to do so.

The large number of temporary staff, many of whom had little previous experience of EAP, necessitated a great deal of time and effort on the part of the management team, both before

20


and during the programme. This was only made possible by the management team having no teaching commitment throughout the programme.

Recommendations Ms. Louise Greener: Aspects of the assessment tasks for modules INU1009 and INU1008 should be considered. The current approach on both modules is creative and interesting but for both the lecture listening and the seminar assessment, there is the potential for the tasks to focus on skills other than those specifically being assessed. For INU1008 the writing task at the end of the lecture listening could be reconsidered as it pushes the emphasis of the assessment towards writing rather than listening. I discussed this with the team, and they were already aware of the need to review the task. Although I liked the 'seminar leader' approach taken in the seminar assessment for INU1009, I did wonder if asking students to focus on this and then assessing how effectively they fulfilled this role, detracted from the overall purpose of the assessment which was whether students had the language resource, fluency and awareness to contribute effectively to academic discussion. I agree that leading a seminar is useful skill and the students generally produced good work, but in terms of the goals of the assessment, there may be a slight mismatch.

Dr Florencia Franceschina: Please continue to send the External Examiners the assessment materials in advance of the Board of Examiners meeting when possible, as this allows a more effective review of the materials and a better

6 November 2015 The final exams for INU1008 and INU1009 are being rewritten for 2015/16. They will be contextualised in a recording of an authentic lecture.

The marking section of the criteria used for assessing the coursework will be amended so that it focuses on whether the students have the language resource, fluency and awareness to contribute effectively to academic discussion.

We will continue to send the assessment materials to the External Examiner, and as we should have a new appointment in place for

Dec. 2015

Dec. 2015

21


understanding of the possible reasons for patterns of results, need for adjustments, etc. I am aware that this is not completely under the Centre’s control, as these materials are jointly produced in collaboration with other centres, but where practically possible it would be good to continue to send these materials to the external examiner before their Board of Examiner visit. I would also like to encourage the INTO Newcastle University Centre to work with other INTO centres and with Cambridge Assessment to understand how the new IELA tests are working for their student cohorts and to continue developing them before they are fully implemented as an element of the summative assessment. These tests have the potential to benefit the programme (for example, by providing quick and reliable test scores that are aligned to the CEFR), but there are issues related to the running of the tests and to the test design that need to be worked on before IELA test scores can be considered suitable assessments for this programme. For example, it is not clear why the IELA test scores taken at different points during the course do not indicate that students have gradually improved, while other assessment materials show this; it is not clear why the IELA test scores for specific skills show no correlation with the scores of the corresponding INTO assessments, which have been used for several years and are known to be a valid and reliable assessment of the students’ English and academic study skills abilities; it is not clear how the new tests relate to the programme learning outcomes beyond providing a global assessment of English language proficiency.

Ms Karen Nicholls:

next year, we will do this as soon as possible to allow the new examiner to review and understand how our assessment process works.

We are very aware that the IELA test is a work in progress and we are working closely with the EUS Steering Group and Cambridge Assessment to find solutions to the issues we have been facing.

22


I would recommend that a clear decision be made about the use of final assessments provided by an external provider. If the decision is made to use such assessments, details such as assessment criteria should be made available to course designers and teaching staff in order to inform the teaching and exam preparation. Samples of spoken language are not currently available for external scrutiny. It would be useful to capture examples in order for them to be made available.

The use of entry and exit written tests delivered by an external provider proved not to be successful due to issues of on-line delivery, choice of question type, lack of transparency of assessment criteria and (in our view) harsh and inconsistent marking. We will revert to in-house delivery in future.

For both moderation purposes and use in the event of students appealing their results, we feel that all presentations should be captured. This will, of course, necessitate a substantial investment in recording equipment. It is estimated that approximately 25 camcorders will be needed.

**For the following sections, you need only include any substantive comments made by the external (i.e. you do not need to include every ‘Yes’). Although you do not need to address positive comments, you must address any concerns that have been flagged by the external.



Curriculum Committee/Board of Studies Response (Including any agreed actions, person/group responsible for the actions and timescale)


Comments on Quality and Standards (Section C)

Ms. Louise Greener: The programme has a coherent structure and approach. The assessment tasks are designed to focus on developing students' academic language and literacy skills through exposure to a range of reading, writing, listening and speaking tasks. As was mentioned above, as far as possible, the programme takes an ESAP approach and embeds students' language development in their own discipline with particular focus on the genres (spoken and written) they are required to produce.

The review provides us with confidence that we are developing the Programme. There are no current plans to increase the specificity of the provision. Our aims for the coming academic year centre on the consolidation of the current teaching materials and assessment.

Our responses to the comments about the assessment for INU1008 and INU1009 have been included in the recommendations section above.

We acknowledge the limitations of final exam for INU1005. However, given the development that is necessary for the assessment in INU1008 and INU1009,

23


Students achieving top grades on these courses are well placed to perform effectively in their departments. The programme has a clear goal: to help students develop the academic language and literacy skills they need to produce effective academic texts (spoken and written). The curriculum is structured to help students engage with the processes required to produce effective academic writing (essays, research reports and literature reviews) and speaking (seminars and presentations). Modules INU1004, INU1005, INU1010 and INU8001 offer a detailed, process- approach to teaching academic reading and writing that encourages critical engagement with literature and reflection on how to manage large volumes of academic reading. The speaking and listening modules INU1008 and INU1009 also focus on the key skills students will need: engaging effectively in academic discussion, giving effective presentations and accessing lecture content to support learning. The programme, as far as possible, takes a process- driven, discipline-specific approach to EAP which embeds language development in the academic context. Such an approach is supported by the recent research in the field. The courses are set up to encourage student autonomy by asking students to develop the kinds academic language and literacy skills which will enable them to function effectively on their courses. Overall, the assessment methods are appropriate in relation to the intended learning outcomes. However, it might be interesting to consider the assessment tasks for INU1009 and INU1008. The

it is doubtful whether it will be possible to address this issue until 2016/17.

24


current approach is creative and interesting but for both the listening and the seminar assessment, there is the potential for the tasks to focus on skills other than those specifically being assessed. For INU1008 the writing task at the end of the listening could be reconsidered (which I am aware the team are keen to address) and although I liked the 'seminar leader' approach taken in the seminar assessment for INU1009, I did wonder if asking students to focus on this and then assessing how effectively they fulfilled this role, detracted from the overall purpose of the assessment which was whether students had the language resource, fluency and awareness to contribute effectively to academic discussion. I agree that leading a seminar is useful skill and the students produced good work, but in terms of the goals of the assessment, there may be a slight mismatch. It would also be interesting to consider the examination in INU1005 and whether the task is the most effective approach to assessment. The course offers students effective input on the empirical research process but the task is rather 'IELTS'-like. It and might be interesting to consider a more demanding task that better reflects the carefully constructed input. If context allows, the team might want to consider moving towards live lectures for their lecture assessment as this would replicate more closely the students' experience. The assessment criteria are detailed and appropriate. As I mentioned above, there are task- specific criteria for each assessment which work effectively. The assessment criteria allow clear distinctions to be made between different levels.

25


I am confident that the internal marking is impartial, fair and consistent. The procedures for double marking (and on occasion triple marking) had visibly been enforced. The standards on the programme are appropriate. The tasks students are given require real engagement with the academic process and offer students a genuine opportunity to develop their academic language and literacy skills. The stated output standards on this programme are comparable to my own institution (Durham) and other institutions where I am external examiner. As with my own institution, students at the top end of the marking scale on this programme often compare favourably with native speakers in terms of the their ability to produce coherent academic texts (spoken and written) and most students produce work that may be flawed, but shows that they should function effectively at University level. Overall, there seemed to have been a good level of engagement with modules, demonstrated by the high completion rate for the coursework and the students produced some very good work. Those at the top of the scale produced impressive work showing a clear understanding of academic style, structure and conventions and an excellent command of sentence level language. However, many of those students whose sentence level language was of a lower level, also showed a real understanding of academic style, structure and conventions which would serve them well in their academic departments. This is a reflection of the clear vision and effective course design at work across a number of modules.

Dr Florencia Franceschina:

26


The INTO Newcastle Centre staff work with cognate staff in other INTO Centres via an EUS Steering Group to maintain and improve the quality of the teaching and assessment on the programme. The assessment criteria are effective in discriminating between levels of attainment that can inform academic progression to other programmes of various levels. The programme does not lead to a formal award. I have seen evidence of very good practice in this area (e.g., standardisation, second marking, moderation, etc). There are no relevant national subject benchmarks or FHEQ levels that apply to this type of programme, but the programme teaching and assessment materials make clear and consistent reference to established standards in the sector, including the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) and well- established language proficiency tests such as IELTS. The stated output standards for the programme are comparable to those of similar programmes in other UK HE institutions. The stated output standards achieved by students on this programme are comparable to those of similar programmes in other UK HE institutions. For the most part, the students on this programme were able to make good academic progress and achieve good results. As in previous years, it was encouraging to see that the students appear to have a high level of engagement with the programme, as evidenced for example in good attendance levels. The approach to encouraging student engagement and the attendance policy currently in operation seem to be effective.

It is pleasing to hear that the External Examiner recognises the effectiveness of our assessment criteria and that she has identified areas of very good practice on the programme.

It is good to see that the External Examiner has chosen to highlight the level of student engagement on the programme and to point out the very good attendance that our programme enjoys. This reflects the well- motivated and hard-working qualities of the students who attend our programme.

27


Ms Karen Nicholls: The intended learning outcomes of the course are appropriate for second language students who are planning to gain entry in to UK HE courses. They are comparable to other institutions. For this course, the level of achievement can be compared to relevant benchmarks, such as the Common European Framework of Reference, IELTS exam and BALEAP Can-do Statements. The level is appropriate in relation to those benchmarks. The curriculum is coherent and supports students in attaining the intended learning outcomes. The design of the course is well-thought through. A significant aspect which is noteworthy (especially given the fact that a large number of teaching staff are brought together from a wide range of teaching contexts for this short intensive course) is the availability of staff development sessions on pedagogy and theory throughout the course. The methods and balance of assessment are appropriate. The results from one of the assessments were not included due to issues with the external provider. This however, did not affect the assessment of the learning outcomes, as another assessment covered those learning outcomes. I would question, therefore, whether that assessment (the online written test) is in fact necessary. The criteria are well-considered and thorough; they measure student attainment in relation to the learning outcomes. In the sample of work that I saw, internal marking was fair. Please note my earlier comment regarding the CEFR and IELTS. There is careful attention paid in

We are pleased to report that these optional weekly teacher development sessions were well attended by between 60 and 75% of staff.

As mentioned above, the use of an exit written test delivered by an external provider will not be used in future. Instead, we will revert to using the research project written assignment as an assessment of writing skills on exit, as has been done previously and, in fact, was also done this year.

28


particular to the meeting of CEFR B2, as required by the UKVI. The stated output standards are similar to those in UK HEIs with similar language entry requirements. The sample of outputs which I viewed are comparable to those achieved by students on other programmes in institutions with similar English language entry requirements. The degree to which students succeeded, for example, in the written piece of coursework, was directly related to the level to which they incorporated changes in their drafts to the written formative feedback. I understand that specific information about the importance of using feedback constructively was given to the cohort, and this is certainly something worth repeating. The variability within the cohort is to be expected given the diverse backgrounds which they come from.

Students were given guidance on the aim of formative feedback and how they should use feedback to prepare for their tutorials. This made students much more active participants in their tutorials, and we shall certainly repeat this next year.

Comments on Procedures (Section D)

Ms. Louise Greener: In 2013-14 I made a number of comments about the reading and writing modules and the extent to which the coursework was appropriate. The restructure of these modules for 2014-15 has been very successful and significantly enhances the provision. I was not given the opportunity to meet students. I would be happy to do this but do not feel it is essential. Students were given appropriate feedback. In the reading and writing modules there were a number of examples of impressively detailed and thoughtful comments. This was particularly evident in the science dissertations course.

Dr Florencia Franceschina:

We agree that the restructuring of the assessment has made a significant improvement to the credit-bearing provision.

We can arrange for Ms. Greener to meet with some of the students during her visits in 2015/16.

29


The recommendations in the previous report have been adequately addressed in the current academic cycle. I attended the Board of Examiners meeting, which was held on 3 September 2015. The Board of Examiners was conducted in accordance with the University’s policies and procedures and I endorsed its recommendations. The Centre may wish to provide for the new external examiner who has his/her first visit next year to have slightly longer time to familiarise themselves with the systems and materials.

Ms Karen Nicholls: Student anonymity was protected at all times (at Board of Examiners). I endorse the recommended grades given. (Coursework and examination papers) were given to me when I asked to see them. They were appropriate in terms of the intended learning outcomes and they were of an appropriate standard. I saw samples of written work, exam scripts for listening and reading. I did not see any samples of students' spoken presentations. I met with staff on the programme this year before the assessment board and this was extremely useful. I hope to be able to meet students on the programme if manageable in the future.

As mentioned above, if funding for approximately 25 camcorders can be secured, we will be able to capture all presentations in future.

This can certainly be arrange next year.

Comments on Educational Partnerships (if applicable) (Section E)

30


General Comments Ms Karen Nicholls: I would like to thank the course team for taking the time to introduce me to the course in advance of the board which made the consideration of assessments much easier, and made me more informed.

We felt that the external examiner’s half-day visit in week eight, two weeks before the official visit and Board of Examiner’s meeting, was particularly helpful for all concerned, and something we intend to repeat, if possible, in the future.

End of Appointment Overview (if applicable)

Dr Florencia Franceschina: I have always been positively impressed by the work of the EUS team during the four years of my appointment as External Examiner. I have seen many examples of excellent teaching, assessment and course administration practice. I would like to thank the EUS programme team and other staff from the Centre who have been very helpful during my visits and I hope that this excellent programme continues to thrive in future years.

We would like to thank Dr. Franceschina for her much appreciated input and insightful comments over the last 4 years. Her constructive observations and positive recommendations have helped to develop and improve the programme whilst she has been External Examiner.

31


Louise Greener 17 Burnley Street Blaydon on Tyne NE21 4DD

6th November 2015

Email [email protected]

Dear Louise

On behalf of the Board of Studies I am writing to thank you for your thorough and valuable work as external examiner for the In-Sessional English Programme’s non-credit and credit-bearing modules at INTO Newcastle University for the 2014/15 academic year. In addition to these thanks, this letter is to outline our response to your recommendations which are included for reference in this letter as Appendix A.

Your report was discussed at the Board of Studies on Friday 6th November 2015 and the responses were discussed and agreed in the attached Report. To assist your understanding of the context of our replies, we also attach the 2014/15 Annual Monitoring and Review (AMR) form and full action plan. Please note that these documents include items from other English language programmes taught at INTO Newcastle University.

I hope this meets the issues that you raised in your report and we would like to take this opportunity to thank you for sharing your expertise with the In-Sessional English team. Finally, I would like to thank you for your notes on the exemplary practice and commendations of these modules, which is much appreciated. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further queries or wish to raise any issues connected to the responses given above.

Yours sincerely

Stuart Edwards Chair of the Board of Studies

cc. Alex Perrin, INTO Nick Bailey, INTO

mailto:[email protected]


Appendix A

Exemplary Practice The In-sessional programme offers a comprehensive range of credit-bearing and non credit-bearing EGAP (English for general academic purposes) and wherever possible, ESAP (English for specific academic purposes) courses. ESAP embeds students' language development in their own discipline and focuses on the genres (spoken and written) that students will be required to produce on their degree programme. Such an approach is considered best practice in the field of EAP. This is clearly a programme that takes course development seriously and the quality and polish of the materials given to students is very high. The non-credit bearing courses are given the same scrutiny and also offer carefully considered provision. Overall, this is an organised, highly iterative programme that offers strong provision for students.

Commendations There has been a thoughtful and coherent reaction to previous comments and I note a creative and ambitious restructure of the coursework elements of the reading and writing modules (INU1004, INU1005, INU8001 and INU1010). The process writing approach taken in these modules ensures the focus of the coursework is on the academic language and literacy skills required for university study. The planning, designing and production of these workbooks must have taken considerable effort and they are a very strong addition to the programme. There is also considerable care and attention given to the non credit-bearing programme. As I mentioned in the 2013-14 report, of particular note is the existence of carefully prepared materials for each course. On a programme as large as the In-sessional, providing materials and detailed teachers notes, enables to the management team to ensure the quality of the provision. To have this in place across the In-sessional courses is a highly commendable achievement and represents best practice in the field. The provision of detailed, task-specific marking criteria across the programme should be commended

Recommendations Aspects of the assessment tasks for modules INU1009 and INU1008 should be considered. The current approach on both modules is creative and interesting but for both the lecture listening and the seminar assessment, there is the potential for the tasks to focus on skills other than those specifically being assessed. For INU1008 the writing task at the end of the lecture listening could be reconsidered as it pushes the emphasis of the assessment towards writing rather than listening. I discussed this with the team, and they were already aware of the need to review the task. Although I liked the 'seminar leader' approach taken in the seminar assessment for INU1009, I did wonder if asking students to focus on this and then assessing how effectively they fulfilled this role, detracted from the overall purpose of the assessment which was whether students had the language resource, fluency and awareness to contribute effectively to academic discussion. I agree that leading a seminar is useful skill and the students generally produced good work, but in terms of the goals of the assessment, there may be a slight mismatch. It would also be interesting to consider the examination in INU1005 and whether the data task is the most effective approach to assessment. The course offers students effective input on the empirical research process but the task is


rather 'IELTS'-like. It might be interesting to consider a more demanding task that better reflects the carefully constructed input. If context allows, the team might want to consider moving towards live lectures for their lecture assessment as this would replicate more closely the students' experience.


Karen Nicholls Sheffield Institute of Education Faculty of Development and Society Science Park, City Campus Sheffield Hallam University Sheffield S1 1WB

6th November 2015


Dear Karen

On behalf of the Board of Studies I am writing to thank you for your thorough and valuable work as external examiner for the Pre-Sessional English Programme at INTO Newcastle University for the 2014/15 academic year. In addition to these thanks, this letter is to outline our response to your recommendations which are included for reference in this letter as Appendix A.


I hope this meets the issues that you raised in your report and we would like to take this opportunity to thank you for sharing your expertise with the Pre-Sessional English team. Finally, I would like to thank you for your notes on the exemplary practice and commendations of these modules, which is much appreciated. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further queries or wish to raise any issues connected to the responses given above.

Yours sincerely


cc. Alex Perrin, INTO Darran Shaw, INTO



Appendix A

Exemplary Practice The cycle of formative feedback delivered online is extremely well structured and supported, ensuring that >700 students receive explicit, appropriate individual feedback of a high standard.

Commendations The support in place for staff during induction and throughout the course (with the use of senior tutors) is a considerable factor in its success.

Recommendations I would recommend that a clear decision be made about the use of final assessments provided by an external provider. If the decision is made to use such assessments, details such as assessment criteria should be made available to course designers and teaching staff in order to inform the teaching and exam preparation. Samples of spoken language are not currently available for external scrutiny. It would be useful to capture examples in order for them to be made available.


Dr Florencia FRANCESCHINA MMU International, Student Hub, All Saints Campus, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, M15 6BH

6 November 2015


Dear Florencia

On behalf of the Board of Studies I am writing to thank you for your thorough and valuable work as external examiner for the English for University Study English Programme at INTO Newcastle University for the 2014/15 academic year. In addition to these thanks, this letter is to outline our response to your recommendations which are included for reference in this letter as Appendix A.


I hope this meets the issues that you raised in your report.

I note that 2014-15 was your final year as an external examiner for the English for University Study Programme at INTO Newcastle University. I would like to thank you for all your hard work and input into the programme during your time as external examiner and wish you well with your future endeavours. Your contributions were useful, enlightening and insightful.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further queries or wish to raise any issues connected to the responses given above.

Yours sincerely


cc. Alex Perrin, INTO George Wickstead, INTO



Appendix A

Exemplary Practice Course administration As mentioned in previous visits, the general management of the programme continues to be excellent. Among many examples of good practice, the programme team make good use of BlackBoard and shared drives for administration of teaching and assessment; they have an effective system for monitoring attendance; they have invested in IT to support the speaking exams; the team are professional and efficient in preparation of materials and communication in support of the external moderation process. Good course administration undoubtedly benefits the everyday running of the programme and it also allows appropriate external moderation to take place. Student handbook As mentioned in previous years’ external examiner reports, this programme’s student handbook is exemplary: it is very informative and accessible and therefore likely to be a valuable resource for the students throughout their time on the programme. Administration of student assessment The programme makes good use of learning technology, in particular BlackBoard and Turnitin, for the management of student writing. Investment in new cameras for recording speaking exams and presentations is a positive development, as it will allow the programme to have high quality recordings for use in teaching, standardisation and internal and external moderation. Internal process for maintaining high assessment standards The programme follows very good practice regarding standardisation before marking takes place, second marking and moderation of marks. The marking and moderation processes used are principled, transparent and well documented.

Commendations As in previous years, I commend the INTO Newcastle University Centre for choosing to subject its English for University Study programme to external moderation when this is not strictly required. This indicates that the Centre is committed to a transparent and proactive approach to academic quality assurance. It was encouraging to see that the recommendations made in last year’s External Examiner’s report were acted on in the current academic year.


Recommendations Please continue to send the External Examiners the assessment materials in advance of the Board of Examiners meeting when possible, as this allows a more effective review of the materials and a better understanding of the possible reasons for patterns of results, need for adjustments, etc. I am aware that this is not completely under the Centre’s control, as these materials are jointly produced in collaboration with other centres, but where practically possible it would be good to continue to send these materials to the external examiner before their Board of Examiner visit. I would also like to encourage the INTO Newcastle University Centre to work with other INTO centres and with Cambridge Assessment to understand how the new IELA tests are working for their student cohorts and to continue developing them before they are fully implemented as an element of the summative assessment. These tests have the potential to benefit the programme (for example, by providing quick and reliable test scores that are aligned to the CEFR), but there are issues related to the running of the tests and to the test design that need to be worked on before IELA test scores can be considered suitable assessments for this programme. For example, it is not clear why the IELA test scores taken at different points during the course do not indicate that students have gradually improved, while other assessment materials show this; it is not clear why the IELA test scores for specific skills show no correlation with the scores of the corresponding INTO assessments, which have been used for several years and are known to be a valid and reliable assessment of the students’ English and academic study skills abilities; it is not clear how the new tests relate to the programme learning outcomes beyond providing a global assessment of English language proficiency.


External Examiner (Taught Programmes): Annual Report Form Session 2014/15

For assistance in completing this form please refer to Sections 5-8 of the University’s Policy and Procedure for External Examiners of Taught Programmes.

1. Please submit your report as soon as possible after completion of your duties (no later than 1 September for undergraduate programmes; and no later than four weeks following the Board of Examiners – by 30 November if possible – for postgraduate programmes).

2. Full details of how this report will be considered can be found in Section 8 of the Policy and Procedures for External Examiners of Taught Programmes.

3. Please do not identify individual students and/or staff by name in this report. Any names included will be subject to redaction prior to discussion of the report widely within the University.

4. If you wish to raise a matter of serious concern with the Vice-Chancellor, please send separate from this report, a confidential letter to The Vice-Chancellor, Newcastle University, King’s Gate, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU.

SECTION A - EXTERNAL EXAMINER DETAILS Name: Ms Louise Greener Institutional Address:

17 Burnley Street Blaydon on Tyne

NE21 4DD School in which examining undertaken: INTO Programme(s) examined:

Various - In-Sessional English Language Course

Year of Appointment: 2014/15

SECTION B - SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FOR THE ATTENTION OF THE SCHOOL. FACULTY AND UNIVERSITY B1 Exemplary Practice

The In-sessional programme offers a comprehensive range of credit-bearing and non credit-bearing


EGAP (English for general academic purposes) and wherever possible, ESAP (English for specific academic purposes) courses. ESAP embeds students' language development in their own discipline and focuses on the genres (spoken and written) that students will be required to produce on their degree programme. Such an approach is considered best practice in the field of EAP.

This is clearly a programme that takes course development seriously and the quality and polish of the materials given to students is very high. The non-credit bearing courses are given the same scrutiny and also offer carefully considered provision.

Overall, this is an organised, highly iterative programme that offers strong provision for students.

B2 Commendations:

There has been a thoughtful and coherent reaction to previous comments and I note a creative and ambitious restructure of the coursework elements of the reading and writing modules (INU1004, INU1005, INU8001 and INU1010). The process writing approach taken in these modules ensures the focus of the coursework is on the academic language and literacy skills required for university study. The planning, designing and production of these workbooks must have taken considerable effort and they are a very strong addition to the programmme.

There is also considerable care and attention given to the non credit-bearing programme. As I mentioned in the 2013-14 report, of particular note is the existence of carefully prepared materials for each course. On a programme as large as the In-sessional, providing materials and detailed teachers notes, enables to the management team to ensure the quality of the provision. To have this in place across the In-sessional courses is a highly commendable achievement and represents best practice in the field.

The provision of detailed, task-specific marking criteria across the programme should be commended

B3 Recommendations

Aspects of the assessment tasks for modules INU1009 and INU1008 should be considered. The current approach on both modules is creative and interesting but for both the lecture listening and the seminar assessment, there is the potential for the tasks to focus on skills other than those specifically being assessed.

For INU1008 the writing task at the end of the lecture listening could be reconsidered as it pushes the emphasis of the assessment towards writing rather than listening. I discussed this with the team, and they were already aware of the need to review the task.

Although I liked the 'seminar leader' approach taken in the seminar assessment for INU1009, I did wonder if asking students to focus on this and then assessing how effectively they fulfilled this role, detracted from the overall purpose of the assessment which was whether students had the language resource, fluency and awareness to contribute effectively to academic discussion. I agree that leading a seminar is useful skill and the students generally produced good work, but in terms of the goals of the assessment, there may be a slight mismatch.


It would also be interesting to consider the examination in INU1005 and whether the data task is the most effective approach to assessment. The course offers students effective input on the empirical research process but the task is rather 'IELTS'-like. It nmight be interesting to consider a more demanding task that better reflects the carefully contructed input.

If context allows, the team might want to consider moving towards live lectures for their lecture assessment as this would replicate more closely the students' experience.

SECTION C - QUALITY AND STANDARDS C1 Are the intended learning outcomes of the programme(s) appropriate (compared to those in similar programmes elsewhere in the sector)?

Yes. The programme has a coherent structure and approach. The assessment tasks are designed to focus on developing students' academic language and literacy skills through exposure to a range of reading, writing, listening and speaking tasks.

As was mentioned above, as far as possible, the programme takes an ESAP apporach and embeds students' language development in their own discipline with particular focus on the genres (spoken and written) they are required to produce.

Students achieving top grades on these courses are well placed to perform effectively in their departments.

C2 Are the intended learning outcomes appropriate to the level of award as set out in the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications?

N/A


The programme has a clear goal: to help students develop the academic language and literacy skills they need to produce effective academic texts (spoken and written).

The curriculum is structured to help students engage with the processes required to produce effective academic writing (essays, research reports and literature reviews) and speaking (seminars and presentations). Modules INU1004, INU1005, INU1010 and INU8001 offer a detailed, process-approach to teaching academic reading and writing that encourages critical engagement with literature and reflection on how to manage large volumes of academic reading.

The speaking and listening modules INU1008 and INU1009 also focus on the key skills students will need: engaging effectively in academic discssion, giving effective presentations and accessing lecture content to support learning.

C4 Is there evidence of the influence of current research and scholarship on the curriculum and learning


and teaching (e.g. curricula informed by research in the relevant subject and into pedagogy, opportunities for students to undertake independent research and/or research methods training)?

Yes. The programme, as far as possible, takes a process-driven, discipline-specific approach to EAP which embeds language development in the academic context. Such an approach is supported by the recent research in the field.

The courses are set up to encourage student autonomy by asking students to develop the kinds academic language and literacy skills which will enable them to function effectively on their courses.

C5 Are the methods and balance of assessment appropriate in measuring student achievement in relation to the intended learning outcomes?

Overall, the assessment methods are appropriate in relation to the intended learning outcomes.

However, it might be interesting to consider the assessment tasks for INU1009 and INU1008. The current approach is creative and interesting but for both the listening and the seminar assessment, there is the potential for the tasks to focus on skills other than those specifically being assessed.

For INU1008 the writing task at the end of the listening could be reconsidered (which I am aware the team are keen to address) and although I liked the 'seminar leader' approach taken in the seminar assessment for INU1009, I did wonder if asking students to focus on this and then assessing how effectively they fulfilled this role, detracted from the overall purpose of the assesment which was whether students had the langauge resource, fluency and awareness to contrbiute effectively to academic discussion. I agree that leading a seminar is useful skill and the students produced good work, but in terms of the goals of the assessment, there may be a slight mismatch.

It would also be interesting to consider the examination in INU1005 and whether the task is the most effective approach to assessment. The course offers students effective input on the empirical research process but the task is rather 'IELTS'-like. It and might be interesting to consider a more demanding task that better reflects the carefully contructed input.

If context allows, the team might want to consider moving towards live lectures for their lecture assessment as this would replicate more closely the students' experience.

C6 Are the assessment criteria appropriate for measuring student attainment in relation to the intended learning outcomes?

Yes. The assessment criteria are detailed and appopriate. As I mentioned above, there are task- specific criteria for each assessment which work effectively.

C7 Are the assessment criteria effective in discriminating between levels of attainment in relationship to the classification of the award?

Yes. The assessment criteria allow clear distinctions to be made between different levels.



Yes. I am confident that the internal marking is impartial, fair and consistent. The procedures for double marking (and on occassion triple marking) had visibly been enforced.

C9 Are the standards of the programme(s) appropriate? Please refer to the national subject benchmark statements (where appropriate), the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications, the programme specification and (where appropriate) requirements of professional, statutory and regulatory bodies

The standards on the programme are appopriate. The tasks students are given require real enagement with the academic process and offer students a genuine opportunity to develop their academic language and literacy skills.

C10 Comment upon the extent to which the stated output standards for the programme(s) are comparable with those of similar programmes in other UK higher education institutions

The stated output standards on this programme are comparable to my own institution (Durham) and other instituations where I am external examiner.

C11 Comment upon the comparability of the output standards achieved by students comparable with those achieved by students on similar programmes elsewhere. Please provide any views as to the employability of students on the programme(s)

As with my own institution, students at the top end of the marking scale on this programme often compare favourably with native speakers in terms of the their ability to produce coherent academic texts (spoken and written) and most students produce work that may be flawed, but shows that they should function effectively at University level.


Overall, there seemed to have been a good level of engagement with modules, demonstrated by the high completion rate for the coursework and the students produced some very good work.

Those at the top of the scale produced impressive work showing a clear understanding of academic style, strucure and conventions and an excellent command of sentence level language. However, many of those students whose sentence level language was of a lower level, also showed a real understnading of academic style, strucutre and conventions which would serve them well in their academic deparments. This is a reflection of the clear vision and effective course design at work across a number of modules.

C13 For examiners of subjects which contribute to joint or combined honours programmes, please comment on any notable differences in the standards and student performance between students pursuing joint/combined honours and students pursuing single honours


N/A

SECTION D - PROCEDURES D1 If you made any recommendations in your previous report have these been addressed by the University? Please outline briefly any issues which you feel have not been considered appropriately

Yes. In 2013-14 I made a number of comments about the reading and writing modules and the extent to which the coursework was appropriate. The restructure of these modules for 2014-15 has been very successful and significantly enhances the provision.


Yes

D3 Did you attend the Board of Examiners meeting? If not, please state reason and provide details of how you were consulted by other means.

Yes

D4 Was the Board of Examiners conducted in accordance with the University's policies and procedures, in particular were proceedings conducted with student anonymity? Did you endorse the recommendations of the Board with regard to students’ progress and/or degree classifications?

Yes

D5 Was the process of assessment effective and fair in its treatment of individual candidates, particularly with regard to the exercise of discretion?

Yes

D6 Did you have sufficient opportunity to comment upon draft assessment types for the programme (including coursework and examination papers)? Were these appropriate in terms of the intended learning outcomes and of an appropriate standard?

Yes

D7 Did you have sufficient opportunity to review student work and examination scripts? Was the sample provided sufficient for you to make the required judgements (in Section C above)?

Yes


D8 (Where appropriate) Were you given an adequate opportunity to participate in the assessment process through involvement in, for example, practicals/clinical examinations/exhibitions etc. If YES, was the method of selection of students appropriate?

Yes and Yes

D9 Where appropriate) Were you given opportunity to meet with students on the programme(s)? Was the purpose of such meetings made clear well in advance?

I was not given the opportunity to meet students. I would be happy to do this but do not feel it is essential.

D10 Were you given adequate opportunity to communicate with internal examiners and, where appropriate, others involved in teaching and assessment?

Yes


Yes. Overall this was very strong.


Yes. Students were given appropriate feedback. In the reading and writing modules there were a number of examples of impressively detailed and thoughtful comments. This was particularly evident in the science dissertations course.

D13 Were you given sufficient information on the following to enable you to fulfil your duties? Where the information was insufficient, please give details.

Yes

FURTHER COMMENTS - OPTIONAL F1 If you wish to provide any further comments, either in relation to the questions above, or as additional information not otherwise covered by the report form, please do so here.

No Answer


No Answer









SECTION A - EXTERNAL EXAMINER DETAILS Name: Ms Karen Nicholls Institutional Address:

Sheffield Institute of Education Faculty of Development and Society Science Park, City Campus Sheffield Hallam University Sheffield S1 1WB

School in which examining undertaken: INTO Programme(s) examined:

2901 (A/L) - Pre-Sessional Programme

Year of Appointment: 2014/15


The cycle of formative feedback delivered online is extremely well structured and supported, ensuring


that >700 students receive explicit, appropriate individual feedback of a high standard.

B2 Commendations:

The support in place for staff during induction and throughout the course (with the use of senior tutors) is a considerable factor in its success.

B3 Recommendations

I would recommend that a clear decision be made about the use of final assessments provided by an external provider. If the decision is made to use such assessments, details such as assessment criteria should be made available to course designers and teaching staff in order to inform the teaching and exam preparation. Samples of spoken language are not currently available for external scrutiny. It would be useful to capture examples in order for them to be made available.


Yes. The intended learning outcomes of the course are appropriate for second language students who are planning to gain entry in to UK HE courses. They are comparable to other institutions.


Yes. For this course, the level of achievement can be compared to relevant benchmarks, such as the Common European Framework of Reference, IELTS exam and BALEAP Can-do Statements. The level is appropriate in relation to those benchmarks.


Yes. The curriculum is coherent and supports students in attaining the intended learning outcomes.

C4 Is there evidence of the influence of current research and scholarship on the curriculum and learning and teaching (e.g. curricula informed by research in the relevant subject and into pedagogy, opportunities for students to undertake independent research and/or research methods training)?

The design of the course is well-thought through. A significant aspect which is noteworthy (especially given the fact that a large number of teaching staff are brought together from a wide range of teaching contexts for this short intensive course) is the availability of staff development sessions on pedagogy and theory throughout the course.



The methods and balance of assessment are appropropriate. The results from one of the assessments were not included due to issues with the external provider. This however, did not affect the assessment of the learning outcomes, as another assessment covered those learning outcomes. I would question, therefore, whether that assessment (the online written test) is in fact necessary.


Yes. The criteria are well-considered and thorough; they measure student attainment in relation to the learning outcomes.


Yes. They clearly discriminate between different levels of attainment.


Yes. In the sample of work that I saw, internal marking was fair.


Yes. Please note my earlier comment regarding the CEFR and IELTS. There is careful attention paid in particular to the meeting of CEFR B2, as required by the UKVI.


The stated output standards are similar to those in UK HEIs with similar language entry requirements.


The sample of outputs which I viewed are comparable to those achieved by students on other programmes in institutions with similar English language entry requirements.



The degree to which students succeeded, for example, in the written piece of coursework, was directly related to the level to which they incorporated changes in their drafts to the written formative feedback. I understand that specific information about the importance of using feedback constructively was given to the cohort, and this is certainly something worth repeating. The variability within the cohort is to be expected given the diverse backgrounds which they come from.


n/a


This is my first year as external examiner for this course.


Yes.


Yes.


Yes. Student anonymity was protected at all times. I endorse the recommended grades given.


Yes.



These were given to me when I asked to see them. They were appropriate in terms of the intended learning outcomes and they were of an appropriate standard.


I saw samples of written work, exam scripts for listening and reading. I did not see any samples of students' spoken presentations.


n/a


I met with staff on the programme this year before the assessment board and this was extremely useful. I hope to be able to meet students on the programme if manageable in the future.


Yes.


Yes. At the critical point of CEFR B2, this was particularly strong.


Yes.


Yes.



I would like to thank the course team for taking the time to introduce me to the course in advance of the board which made the consideration of assessments much easier, and made me more informed.


No Answer








SECTION A - EXTERNAL EXAMINER DETAILS Name: Dr Florencia Franceschina Institutional Address:

35 Tagore Close Manchester

M13 0YS School in which examining undertaken: INTO Programme(s) examined:

English provision - INTO English only provision

Year of Appointment: 2014/15 This is your final year



Course administration As mentioned in previous visits, the general management of the programme continues to be excellent. Among many examples of good practice, the programme team make good use of BlackBoard and shared drives for administration of teaching and assessment; they have an effective system for monitoring attendance; they have invested in IT to support the speaking exams; the team are professional and efficient in preparation of materials and communication in support of the external moderation process. Good course administration undoubtedly benefits the everyday running of the programme and it also allows appropriate external moderation to take place.

Student handbook As mentioned in previous years’ external examiner reports, this programme’s student handbook is exemplary: it is very informative and accessible and therefore likely to be a valuable resource for the students throughout their time on the programme.

Administration of student assessment The programme makes good use of learning technology, in particular BalckBoard and Turnitin, for the management of student writing. Investment in new cameras for recording speaking exams and presentations is a positive development, as it will allow the programme to have high quality recordings for use in teaching, standardisation and internal and external moderation.

Internal process for maintaining high assessment standards The programme follows very good practice regarding standardisation before marking takes place, second marking and moderation of marks. The marking and moderation processes used are principled, transparent and well documented.

B2 Commendations:

As in previous years, I commend the INTO Newcastle University Centre for choosing to subject its English for University Study programme to external moderation when this is not strictly required. This indicates that the Centre is committed to a transparent and proactive approach to academic quality assurance. It was encouraging to see that the recommendations made in last year’s External Examiner’s report were acted on in the current academic year.

B3 Recommendations

Please continue to send the External Examiners the assessment materials in advance of the Board of Examiners meeting when possible, as this allows a more effective review of the materials and a better understanding of the possible reasons for patterns of results, need for adjustments, etc. I am aware that this is not completely under the Centre’s control, as these materials are jointly produced in collaboration with other centres, but where practically possible it would be good to continue to send these materials to the external examiner before their Board of Examiner visit.

I would also like to encourage the INTO Newcastle University Centre to work with other INTO centres and with Cambridge Assessment to understand how the new IELA tests are working for their student cohorts and to continue developing them before they are fully implemented as an element of the summative assessment. These tests have the potential to benefit the programme (for example, by


providing quick and reliable test scores that are aligned to the CEFR), but there are issues related to the running of the tests and to the test design that need to be worked on before IELA test scores can be considered suitable assessments for this programme. For example, it is not clear why the IELA test scores taken at different points during the course do not indicate that students have gradually improved, while other assessment materials show this; it is not clear why the IELA test scores for specific skills show no correlation with the scores of the corresponding INTO assessments, which have been used for several years and are known to be a valid and reliable assessment of the students’ English and academic study skills abilities; it is not clear how the new tests relate to the programme learning outcomes beyond providing a global assessment of English language proficiency.


Yes


N/A


Yes

C4 Is there evidence of the influence of current research and scholarship on the curriculum and learning and teaching (e.g. curricula informed by research in the relevant subject and into pedagogy, opportunities for students to undertake independent research and/or research methods training)?

Yes The INTO Newcastle Centre staff work with cognate staff in other INTO Centres via an EUS Steering Group to maintain and improve the quality of the teaching and assessment on the programme.


Yes (but see the comments related to the IELA test trials in section B3)


Yes



Yes, the assessment criteria are effective in discriminating between levels of attainment that can inform academic progression to other programmes of various levels. The programme does not lead to a formal award.


Yes

I have seen evidence of very good practice in this area (e.g., standardisation, second marking, moderation, etc).


Yes

There are no relevant national subject benchmarks or FHEQ levels that apply to this type of programme, but the programme teaching and assessment materials make clear and consistent reference to established standards in the sector, including the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) and well-established language proficiency tests such as IELTS.


The stated output standards for the programme are comparable to those of similar programmes in other UK HE institutions.


The stated output standards achieved by students on this programme are comparable to those of similar programmes in other UK HE institutions.

Employability is not relevant to this programme.


For the most part, the students on this programme were able to make good academic progress and achieve good results.


As in previous years, it was encouraging to see that the students appear to have a high level of engagement with the programme, as evidenced for example in good attendance levels. The approach to encouraging student engagement and the attendance policy currently in operation seem to be effective.


N/A


The recommendations in the previous report have been adequately addressed in the current academic cycle.


Yes


I attended the Board of Examiners meeting, which was held on 3 September 2015.


The Board of Examiners was conducted in accordance with the University’s policies and procedures and I endorsed its recommendations.


Yes



Yes. However, the Centre may wish to provide for the new external examiner who has his/her first visit next year to have slightly longer time to familiarise themselves with the systems and materials.


Yes


N/A


N/A


N/A


Yes


Yes


Yes



None


I have always been positively impressed by the work of the EUS team during the four years of my appointment as External Examiner. I have seen many examples of excellent teaching, assessment and course administration practice. I would like to thank the EUS programme team and other staff from the Centre who have been very helpful during my visits and I hope that this excellent programme continues to thrive in future years.

Cross FLTSEC 14 January 2016 Document E

Undergraduate Annual Monitoring and Review report form - 2014-15

School: Careers Service

Programme(s) reviewed: Career Development Modules (CDM): NCL2007, Career Development for 2nd year students; NCL3007, Career Development final year students; NCL3008, Advanced Career Development; NCL8007, Career Development for Masters students. NCL2010, Career Management Module NCL2100, Exploring Enterprise, Entrepreneurship and Employability. *NOTE – Dr Carys Watts will submit a separate AMR for Careers Service “owned” NCL3110 Vacation Research Project that is administrated by the School of Biomedical Sciences.

Professional accreditation:

Report submitted by: Mr Gareth Trainer

Section A: Key issues and features highlighted by the review

1. Please provide a brief summary of your progress implementing the action plan from last year’s AMR report.

a. Actions taken to increase Evasys response rates have had no discernible effect. Response rate for CDM remained stable at 53% while the rate dropped for NCL2100 from 42% - 27%.

b. CDM external examiner commented favourably on his experience of “tracking” specific students’ performance over the course of the module.

c. Review of NCL2100 has been completed and approved by CFLTSEC. New format module will be introduced in 2015/16.

2. What were the key strengths of the programme(s), identified in the review of the last academic year?

a. Maintained student retention rates between module registration and module completion at 98% i.e. 2% of students that are registered for the module at the beginning of the academic year fail to complete.

b. Improved student attainment of module marks of 60+ to 81% (76% in 2013/14). This is broadly in line with University degree awards with 73% of Newcastle University students attaining a 2:i or 1st class degree in 2014/15.

c. Student feedback collected through Evasys shows an improvement in the overall student evaluation of CS modules (CDM increase from 3.1 to 3.6; NCL2100 increase from 2.6 to 3.6).

AMR Report Form

Page 2 of 7

d. Internal records evidence that all module assessment marks and feedback were returned to students within 20 working days of relevant deadlines. SSC feedback confirms that students appreciated the clarity of the feedback and how it was presented in the Grademark function of turnitin.

3. What were the weaknesses of the programme(s), identified in the review of the last academic year?

a. CS student response rate to Evasys: CDM 53%; NCL2100 27%; NCL2010 75% (cohort of 8). Prior to Evasys, CS methods employed to collect module feedback had produced response rates of 98%.

b. Recruitment levels to CS modules have not grown as planned: CDM from 473 in 13/14 to 384 in 14/15 (19% reduction); NCL2100 from 37 – 33 (11%). Total 17% reduction in recruitment to CDM and NCL2100 (inaugural NCL2010 cohort was 8).

4. What opportunities for improvement and development of the programme(s) were identified in the review of the last academic year?

a. CDM introduced a “flipped” classroom approach to limited module teaching sessions and evaluated impact through a combination of peer dialogue for teaching, SSC and Evasys. The positive feedback evidenced in this review presented the team with the opportunity to increase student engagement with concepts and skills by extending the use of the “flipped approach”.

5. What threats to the quality and standards of the programme(s) were identified in the review of the last academic year?

a. Co-teaching NCL2100 with SUG3500 is having a negative effect on student perceptions of the module. This has arisen as NCL2100 is a year-long 20 credit module while SUG3500 is a semester 1 module 10 credit module. This means that semester 2 revisits content delivered in semester 1. This repetition is viewed negatively by NCL2100 students.


Section B: Reporting on key assessment issues

6. Please summarise below the percentage of feedback on summatively assessed course work returned to students within 20 working days, AND the percentage of feedback on exams returned within the stated policy deadline (for the University policy on this, please see http://www.ncl.ac.uk/quilt/assets/documents/qsh-assmt-assessedwork-policy.pdf ).

Examinations Coursework Area(s) of provision Number returned

on time Total number % returned

on time Number returned on time

Total number % returned on time

NCL2010 - Report 8 8 100 NCL2010 - Portfolio 8 8 100 NCL2007 – Reflective log 102 102 100 NCL2007 – Oral presentation

102 102 100

NCL2007 – Professional skills assessment

102 102 100

NCL2100 - Report 33 33 100 NCL2100 – Essay 33 33 100 NCL2100 – Poster 33 33 100 NCL2100 – Professional skills assessment

33 33 100

NCL3007 – Reflective log 211 211 100 NCL3007 – Oral examination

211 211 100


211 211 100

NCL3008– Reflective log 16 16 100 NCL3008 – Oral examination

16 16 100


16 16 100

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/quilt/assets/documents/qsh-assmt-assessedwork-policy.pdf

AMR Report Form

Page 4 of 7

NCL8007 – Reflective log 49 49 100 NCL8007 – Oral presentation

49 49 100


49 49 100

7. Please note any assessments that have an approved exemption from the 20 working day turnaround policy, and state when feedback was received for these pieces of work.

Not applicable

8. Please comment on any assessment(s) that exceeded the turnaround time, and note the reasons for the late return.

Not applicable

9. Please summarise below the use of discretion by boards of examiners in respect of the programmes covered by this report.

Classification Progression

2:1 to 1 2:2 to 1 3 to 2:2 Fail to 3 Programme(s) Considered Promoted Considered Promoted Considered Promoted Considered Promoted Considered Applied Not applicable

10. Please comment on the use of discretion for the programme(s) under review (including the use of PECs), and note any issues arising from this.

Not applicable


Section C: Reporting on educational partnerships (if relevant)

11. If any programme(s) reviewed is delivered through an educational partnership, please comment on the operation of this partnership during the year under review.

Not applicable

Section D: Reporting on the operation of key quality management processes

12. Please state the date(s) on which each of the following was considered by the board of studies:

a. Review of admissions and recruitment cycle: n/a

b. Review of modules (including consideration of module evaluation questionnaire data, and assessment results):

CS BoS 13th November 2015 Minute 10

c. Review of student progression data: n/a

d. Review of degree classification outcomes (including the use of discretion):

n/a

e. Review of PEC Committee’s summary of actions taken throughout the previous year:

n/a

f. Where offered within the programme(s), review of operation of placements and/or study abroad:

n/a

g. Review of National Student Survey results: n/a

h. Review of graduate destinations data from the Destination of Leavers from Higher Education survey:

n/a

i. Consideration of external examiner reports, at a meeting at which students are present:

CS BoS 13th November Minute 9. No student able to attend

j. Review and where necessary revision of programme specifications:

n/a

13. Please confirm that the ‘Responsibilities of the School’ set out in the University’s Postgraduates who teach policy have been met for postgraduates who have taught on the programmes covered by this review:

n/a

14. Please describe briefly the approach you have taken to meeting the University’s Peer Dialogue for Teaching policy during the academic year under review, and state the number and percentage of teaching active staff who undertook Peer Dialogue in the year under review.

Peer dialogue for teaching is thematically focused and 100% of CS staff who teach participated in the process. Outcomes can inform CPD and continuous improvement of module delivery.

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/quilt/resources/pg-policy/

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/quilt/assets/documents/qsh-peerdialogue-pol.pdf


AMR Report Form

Page 6 of 7

Section E: Action Plan

Action Source of issue By whom By when

(3a) Time release of module evaluation to students to synch with individual module cycle rather than all at once

Evasys completion rates Dr Jess Jung March 2016

(3a) Consider incentivising completion Evasys completion rates Dr Jess Jung March 2016

(3b) Develop a more proactive approach to module promotions including:

• “Pop-up” promotion activities • Engage CS Student Communication Team in promotion

activities e.g. module shout outs • Develop new marketing materials and resources • Highlight accredited provision to DELTS and Heads of

Schools

Module recruitment review

Ms Gayle Leach January 2016

(3b) Convene a module marketing team to concentrate on student recruitment to CS provision

Module recruitment review Ms Gayle Leach January 2016

(4a) Increase use of flipped classroom approach in CDM teaching Peer dialogue for teaching; SSC; evasys

Dr Jess Jung September 2015

(4a) Encourage all CS module leaders to observe flipped approach and consider suitability for their modules

Peer dialogue for teaching; SSC; evasys

Dr Jess Jung November 2015

(5a) Teach NCL2100 independent from SUG3500 Evasys Dr Victoria Mountford September 2015

Approved by University Learning, Teaching, and Student Experience Committee, June 2015. Last modified June 2015.

AMR Report Form

Page 7 of 7

This document is primarily intended for: Chairs of Boards of Studies

Degree Programme Directors

Course Representatives

Contact: Simon Meacher, LTDS, ext. 83969 [email protected]


Cross FLTSEC 14 January 2016 Document F


School: Marketing and Student Recruitment, Student Recruitment Team

Programme(s) reviewed: PARTNERS Programme supported entry route and Assessed Summer School

Professional accreditation: N/A Report submitted by: Gemma Kirkbride

Student Recruitment Manager Student Recruitment Team


a. Please provide a brief summary of your progress implementing the action plan from last year’s AMR report.

All but one of the actions from the 13-14 AMR report have been completed. The exception is the rotation of assessment questions by all academic subject areas – although this was asked of academic colleagues for the 2015 Assessed Summer School, the new External Examiner has identified that this has not taken place in all subject strands, and has reiterated the recommendation in her 2015 report. In addition, although the action point from 2013-14 to review the content and delivery of the HE Study Skills sessions did take place for 2015, this has not solved the issue and will need to remain in the Action Plan this year.

b. What were the key strengths of the programme(s), identified in the review of the last academic year?

a. The dedication and supportive academic staff delivery team and the ‘creative and stimulating subject content’ have been identified as strengths of the programme by both the External Examiner, and student feedback – 98% of students felt the academic subject sessions were well-structured and prepared which is an increase of 11% from last year, and 99% rated the teaching staff’s enthusiasm and interest for the subject strand positively.

b. The depth and quality of feedback on student assessment forms has been commended by the External Moderator.

c. There has been an increase in the number and proportion of students who received a pass with merit at the Assessed Summer School – 33% (206 students) compared to 30.4% (146 students) in 2014, “indicating well-selected students who are focusing positively in an intensive study environment” (External Moderator 2015).

d. There was an increase of 28% in applications to the PARTNERS Programme in 2015, with a higher proportion being eligible/accepted (81.4% compared to 80% in 2014) and receiving offers from their course (99% in 2015 compared to 94% in 2014). As a result, we saw the biggest Assessed Summer School to date, with 641 attendees – an increase


AMR Report Form

Page 2 of 12

of 33% from the previous year. These increases suggest that the programme is targeting and reaching the appropriate (eligible) students.

e. The introduction of a structured Peer Mentoring programme across all subject strands was well-received by students (81% found the material and information provided useful) and commended by the External Moderator - “the adoption of peer mentoring across the programme is also very positive and is in line with good practice in relation to other assessed widening access programmes in the UK”.

f. Working with cross-service colleagues to implement a residential programme to help support the transition of students to the Summer School, utilising undergraduate Student Reps for delivery. 77% of students accepted the offer of accommodation, resulting in the highest number to date staying in Castle Leazes for the duration of the Summer School.

g. The extension of the PARTNERS Programme to all self-identified looked after young people/care leavers. As a result, eight looked after young people/care leavers took part in PARTNERS who would not otherwise have had the awareness or opportunity to do so.

h. The implementation of a ‘Welcome webpage’ for all subject strands to provide subject information for students in advance of the Summer School to help ease concerns and support the transition to the Summer School. This was a new development in 2015 and was supported by a Student Intern within the Student Recruitment Team.

i. The implementation of two separate but simultaneous models of delivery was successful, enabling a much larger number of students to be accommodated and managed overall.

c. What were the weaknesses of the programme(s), identified in the review of the last academic year?

a. There was a lower conversion of offers to attendance at the Summer School than in previous years – 63% in 2015 compared to 65% in 2014 and 67% in 2013.

b. There was a significantly lower student feedback completion rate in 2015 – 66.3% compared to 77% in 2014. In addition, very few academic colleagues completed feedback, although slightly more attended and provided commentary at the Board of Assessors meeting.

c. The continued mixed and negative feedback about the HE Skills sessions at the Summer School, despite a number of changes being implemented in 2015.

d. Despite the recommendation of the External Moderator last year, and academic colleagues involved in the delivery of the Summer School being asked to rotate assessment questions (with the exception of confidential question banks), the new External Moderator still identified some subject strands where this had not taken place.

e. The graduate performance of PARTNERS students continues to be below the University average, in terms of degree classification and graduate destination – in the most recent analysis, 72.6% of PARTNERS graduates achieved a 2:1 and above classification, compared to the University figure of 75.6% for the same cohorts. Similarly, although we saw a significant increase in the proportion of PARTNERS graduates entering graduate-level employment/further study in the last year (53.8% compared to 42.4% the previous year), this was still significantly below the University figure of 78%.


AMR Report Form

Page 3 of 12

f. The unemployment rate for PARTNERS graduates saw a significant increase this year to 12.2% (8.7% previously) and for the first time this figure exceeded that of the wider University and the National Average.

d. What opportunities for improvement and development of the programme(s) were identified in the review of the last academic year?

a. The national expansion of the PARTNERS Programme supported entry route provides an opportunity to review and develop the content of the academic subject strands, as well as the delivery of the transitional support and HE skills elements, in order to prepare for an increase in numbers overall, and for students from further afield. There was some evidence of this in 2015 but we hope that this extends to more subject areas that have perhaps not reviewed their content or delivery style for a number of years.

b. The majority of students (70%) reported that they completed between 0 and 20 hours of personal study time, which is less than half of the recommended time (50 hours). This suggests that the academic subject strands could utilise this time more to compensate for the reduction in teaching hours, if appropriate.

c. The success of the Undergraduate Reps in 2015 provides an opportunity to further utilise and increase this resource to support the central Student Recruitment Team with increased student numbers.

d. As a result of the increase in merits awarded at the Summer School, and comments from academic colleagues at the Board of Assessors and the External Moderator, consider the introduction of a ‘distinction’ award for exceptional performance at the Summer School to help increase the confidence of these students and support them with the transition – “a grading of ‘excellent’ [distinction] could boost applicant confidence, enable decision making and aid retention during the first year of the degree programme.” (External Moderator 2015)

e. The development of the ‘Career Insights’ programme, and working with new colleagues within the Careers Service, provides a number of opportunities for our PARTNERS entrants to improve graduate employment and destination results. The Career Insights programme also provides a promotional opportunity to aide the conversion of applicants.

f. Newcastle University London may provide opportunities for the recruitment and conversion of potential PARTNERS students from target schools in London – a priority recruitment area for the University.

g. The appointment of a new lay member of Council, with a particular interest in students from a ‘WP’ background, provides a number of opportunities in the recruitment, conversion and retention of PARTNERS students through her involvement in pre-entry programmes (such as summer schools for Year 12 students) and in the Career Insights programme as a mentor and provider of personal development materials/resources for students.

e. What threats to the quality and standards of the programme(s) were identified in the review of the last academic year?

a. The increase in numbers overall on the Summer School, and for each strand, may create a number of issues/’threats’:


AMR Report Form

Page 4 of 12

i. The increased numbers will begin to impact on the resources and funding available. This was already felt with the increase in numbers this year, before national expansion was launched, and no additional staff resources have been made available centrally to co-ordinate/deliver the programme in the coming year.

ii. The increase in numbers is already beginning to put a strain on the administrative processes associated with project hand-in and preparation for Board of Assessors and Confirmation and Clearing in the time available, and equally on academic colleagues with large subject strands. Similarly, as numbers increase so too do the demands on the External Moderator’s time.

iii. Although the implementation of a dual model for Summer School delivery helped to manage the increase in numbers this year, a limited number of subject strands chose the shorter, ‘green model’. As such, if numbers continue to grow there is the risk that the ‘blue model’ will reach capacity overall. The current length and number of contact hours of the ‘green model’ means that it is less appealing to academic colleagues. Resource limitations may prevent any change being made to the length of the ‘green’ model in 2015-16.

b. The Student Recruitment Team has been informed that Castle Leazes will not be available for the duration of the Assessed Summer School next year, which is a threat to the overall capacity for accommodation and the delivery of the successful residential programme that was introduced this year.

c. The conversion rate of students registering at the University has remained constant over the last couple of years (61%), which is a reduction on the average conversion of the previous few years (64%). This represents a relatively high proportion of attendees at the Summer School that do not go on to secure a place and therefore ‘cost’ the University, in terms of financial and time resource. This presents a threat to already limited resource and overall capacity.



f. Please summarise below the percentage of feedback on summatively assessed course work returned to students within 20 working days, AND the percentage of feedback on exams returned within the stated policy deadline (for the University policy on this, please see http://www.ncl.ac.uk/quilt/assets/documents/qsh-assmt-assessedwork-policy.pdf ).





PARTNERS Assessed Summer School

0 104 0 624 624 100

g. Please note any assessments that have an approved exemption from the 20 working day turnaround policy, and state when feedback was received for these pieces of work.

N/A

h. Please comment on any assessment(s) that exceeded the turnaround time, and note the reasons for the late return.

We were not able to provide feedback within 20 days for those subject strands who completed examinations on the last day of the Summer School (7 July) as the Board of Assessors did not take place until 23 days after this, to allow enough time for all other strands to submit and mark work. Feedback to these students (16.6% of all students) was 24-25 days after ‘submission’. Of these 104 students, only 2 of them completed an examination as their only form of assessment, the remaining 102 students also handed in work after the Summer School (21 July) so all feedback was returned together and as a combined result

i. Please summarise below the use of discretion by boards of examiners in respect of the programmes covered by this report.


2:1 to 1 2:2 to 1 3 to 2:2 Fail to 3 Programme(s) Considered Promoted Considered Promoted Considered Promoted Considered Promoted Considered Applied PARTNERS Programme Assessed Summer School

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A



AMR Report Form

Page 6 of 12

j. Please comment on the use of discretion for the programme(s) under review (including the use of PECs), and note any issues arising from this.

There were six PEC forms submitted for consideration – four were based on medical reasons and two on extenuating personal circumstances. Three students were granted an extension for submission, and three students were given the ‘alternative assessment’ as identified by the academic subject strands. One student who was granted an extension did not go on to submit a piece of work.



k. If any programme(s) reviewed is delivered through an educational partnership, please comment on the operation of this partnership during the year under review.


l. Please state the date(s) on which each of the following was considered by the board of studies:

a. Review of admissions and recruitment cycle: 5 November 2014, Minute 4c


5 November 2014, Minutes 4b and 5b

c. Review of student progression data: 5 November 2014, Minute 5


5 November 2014, Minute 5


7 August 2015, Minute 6


N/A

g. Review of National Student Survey results: N/A


5 November 2014, Minute 5


5 November 2014, Minute 5b

j. Review and where necessary revision of programme specifications:

5 November 2014, Minute 5d

m. Please confirm that the ‘Responsibilities of the School’ set out in the University’s Postgraduates who teach policy have been met for postgraduates who have taught on the programmes covered by this review:

Yes

n. Please describe briefly the approach you have taken to meeting the University’s Peer Dialogue for Teaching policy during the academic year under review, and state the number and percentage of teaching active staff who undertook Peer Dialogue in the year under review.

N/A





AMR Report Form

Page 8 of 12

Section E: Action Plan


a. Continue to develop the content of the Assessed Summer School, including the academic content and ‘Welcome webpages’, Peer-E-mentoring and the residential programme. Conduct focus groups with current PARTNERS students and work with academic colleagues and wider University services to develop a programme of pre-entry support for students from further afield who are unable to access the on-campus provision in advance of the Summer School (‘Phase 3’ of Expansion Plans), in order to support conversion from application to Summer School attendance.

Student feedback; External Moderator; PARTNERS Expansion plans – ‘Phase 3’

Gemma Kirkbride, Student Recruitment Manager; Hilary Wilkinson, Louise Harrison and Anna Glasper, Student Recruitment Co-ordinators Academic subject strand ‘leads’

July 2016

b. Consider the introduction of a ‘distinction’ award for exceptional performance at the Summer School, to help increase the confidence of these students and support them with the transition.

External Moderator; Board of Assessors meeting 2015

Gemma Kirkbride, Student Recruitment Manager; Hilary Wilkinson, Student Recruitment Co-ordinator Academic subject strand ‘leads’

June 2016

c. Monitor eligibility criteria to ensure PARTNERS targeting continues to be accurate and appropriate in identifying ‘WP’ students, as defined/reported to HEFCE post-entry. Continue to explore and consider the inclusion of new criteria to target new ‘categories’/priority target groups (as identified by the Government and the University), such as Young Carers and Estranged Students.

Application and eligibility data; requests from Senior Management

Gemma Kirkbride, Student Recruitment Manager

March 2016


AMR Report Form

Page 9 of 12


d. Consider the use of Student Reps and how they can be utilised more to support the development and delivery of the 2016 Assessed Summer School and provide additional resource for the Student Recruitment Team

Student feedback Hilary Wilkinson, Louise Harrison and Anna Glasper, Student Recruitment Co-ordinators

July 2016

e. Work with the University Accommodation Service to explore the residential options given the closure of Castle Leazes during the summer of 2016 and assess the impact this will have on the successful residential programme offered to all students in 2015.

Accommodation Service Gemma Kirkbride, Student Recruitment Manager; Hilary Wilkinson, Louise Harrison and Anna Glasper, Student Recruitment Co-ordinators

January 2016

f. Explore the impact of introducing GCSE eligibility criteria on the conversion of ASS attendees to intake in an attempt to reduce the costs associated with students who do not register at the University. Analyse the GCSE performance of previous entrants and unsuccessful students to ascertain if this criteria would address the issue, and if so, at what level the criteria requirements should be set.

Conversion rates from attendance to intake 2015 (and 2014)


March 2016

g. Utilise different communication methods to encourage a higher completion rate of student feedback, such as use of social media and text message reminders. Contact students who have not completed feedback after project hand-in, but before the publication of results, as one final push for completion.

Student feedback completion rates

Hilary Wilkinson, Louise Harrison and Anna Glasper, Student Recruitment Co-ordinators

August 2016


AMR Report Form

Page 10 of 12


h. Review the content of the HE Skills sessions and consider the alternative provision for study/transitional support, in particular looking at possible online alternatives and optional attendance. Consult with current students for ideas and to review suggested changes.

Student feedback Hilary Wilkinson, Louise Harrison and Anna Glasper, Student Recruitment Co-ordinators

July 2016

i. Determine the most appropriate method to communicate and ensure that academic subject strands are rotating assessment questions as requested. SRT to monitor this using the subject returns.

External Moderator 2014 and 2015

Hilary Wilkinson, Student Recruitment Co-ordinator; Dawn Dowling, Senior Student Recruitment Assistant

March 2016

j. Consider ways in which the lower conversion rate from application to summer school, and lower graduate performance of PARTNERS students can be addressed: • Work with colleagues in the Careers Service to monitor

the impact of the newly developed Career Insights programme and to continue to contribute to developments, including working with the new lay member of Council to provide additional resource and links with employers. Consider ways in which the programme can be utilised as a promotional and conversion tool for PARTNERS applicants.

• Explore the use of the London campus to support and provide additional opportunities for the Career Insights programme, such as hosting employer fairs and networking opportunities.

• Explore the use of Alumni to support the Careers Insights

Graduate Performance and DLHE data, PARTNERS Progress Report April 2015, PARTNERS application and attendance figures 2015

Emma Reay, Senior Student Recruitment Manager; Gemma Kirkbride, Student Recruitment Manager; Anna Jenner, Student Recruitment Officer Naomi Oosman-Watts, Assistant Director, Careers Service; Fiona O’Connor, Member of Council; NU Advancement

October 2016


AMR Report Form

Page 11 of 12

Action Source of issue By whom By when programme by providing work experience/placement opportunities and/or mentoring for students.

k. Explore the possibility of dividing the External Moderation process, and Board of Assessors, into two ‘Boards’ - Sciences and Humanities/Arts - in order to accommodate the increase in the number of participants on the Assessed Summer School and to allow for more subject-specific recommendations and feedback. Review the timeline for project hand-in, returning of marked work and Board of Assessors.

Increase in numbers as a result of national expansion


August 2016

l. Review the blue/green models of Assessed Summer School delivery and explore the possibility of increasing the number of timetabled days on the ‘green’ model. Consider the impact this will have on the resource and budget available and if the additional contact time would result in a more even distribution of subject strands. Consider utilising personal study time more to ‘compensate’ for the reduced number of contact hours.

Increase in numbers as a result of national expansion; student feedback


July 2016

m. Monitor the impact of national expansion, in particular looking at the geographical spread of applicants and if additional targeting/promotion is needed in priority target areas

Increase in numbers as a result of national expansion


September 2016

Approved by University Learning, Teaching, and Student Experience Committee, June 2015. Last modified June 2015.


AMR Report Form

Page 12 of 12

This document is primarily intended for: Chairs of Boards of Studies

Degree Programme Directors

Course Representatives

Contact: Simon Meacher, LTDS, ext. 83969 [email protected]



School: INTO Newcastle University

Programme(s) reviewed: Int. Foundation Biological & Biomedical Sciences (F-BBS)

Int. Foundation Physical Sciences & Engineering (F-PSE)

Int. Foundation Business & Management (F-BM)

Int. Foundation Humanities & Social Sciences(F-HSS)

Int. Foundation Architecture (F-Arch)

Int. Diploma in Business (D-Bus)

Int. Diploma in Architecture (D-Arch)

Int. Graduate Diploma in Business & Humanities (GD-BH)

Int. Graduate for Architecture (GD-Arch)

Professional accreditation: N/A

Report submitted by: Simon Pallett, Chair of Board of Studies (Academic)



F-BBS and F-PSE All of the issues carried over from the previous action plan have been implemented: A strategy for the retention of high achievers in Physical Sciences & Engineering; Internal moderation has been standardised; Marking in Study Skills and Biology are now in line with other modules; A text book in Physics has been written; The timing of Mid-Semester Examinations has been changed.

F-BM and F-HSS At least some action has taken place for all of the points in the plan. Of the thirteen action points in the 2014 plan seven have been completed and six are currently ongoing. One outstanding action point relates to methodological benchmarking and the remaining five outstanding points relate to assessment – therefore none of these issues could be resolved in one academic cycle. D-Bus The number and variation of assessment types has already been changed for this academic year (2015) due to feedback received (throughout the duration of the programme) from the External Examiner. Issues relating to EAP grade scales and the development of new reading and listening tests is currently being led by the Director of Studies (English). F-Arch, D-Arch and GD-Arch Most of the actions identified in the last years AMR were implemented. Two previous key points: staff-student ratio and improving facilities within the studio space were addressed.

Cross FLTSEC 14 January 2016 Document G

AMR Report Form

Page 2 of 20

New staff were employed and teaching schedules reviewed while space requirements and improvements to facilities will be addressed when the INTO Annex becomes available. GD-BH All items on the action were completed by the target dates specified in the plan.


F-BBS and F-PSE a. Feedback to students is informative and detailed in all modules b. Student evaluations provide strong evidence of excellent teaching, student support and

approachable teaching staff providing a stimulating learning environment c. The text books written in-house are valued by learners

F-BM and F-HSS

a. The quality of the teachers and the teaching. b. The skills and abilities of the staff on the programme. c. The diligence and efforts of the Module Leaders.

D-Bus

a. All D-Bus modules have had a great deal of curriculum development with increased resources and more relevant textbooks.

b. New forms for Standardisation and Cross-Marking records were introduced (presented in the report for the Board of Studies 6th March 2015).

c. Personal Tutors are now all full-time members of staff to increase their availability. d. Exam technique workshops have been introduced.

F-Arch, D-Arch and GD-Arch

a. The programmes continue to receive good student feedback and all achieved satisfactory progression rates.

b. The various modules and subject areas are well linked up in terms of content, assessment and learning outcomes and so complement each other in a way that provides a holistic and comprehensive learning experience for students.

c. On all three pathways, assignments, marking, feedback and time management were found to be exemplary by the external examiner.

GD-BH

a. The key strength of the programme is the level and range of qualifications among the teaching team on the pathway which brings a range of subject specialisms and perspectives.

b. Progression levels have remained consistently high.


AMR Report Form

Page 3 of 20


F-BBS and F-PSE a. The external examiner in BBS report recommends re-assessment of moderation and marking

in Biology F-BM and F-HSS There are no immediately apparent areas of obvious or severe weakness. However, some recurrent issues have been noted in student feedback:

a. The (short) length of the programme for some students. b. Timetabling issues – spacing of classes too far apart or classes starting too early

(9am). D-Bus

a. The use of ePortfolio was not well-received by students. Many found it to be an inefficient system, citing the use of emails and BlackBoard as a preferred method of communication and for storing records.

b. The majority of the teaching staff are part-time which causes constraints on timetabling and also hampers the effectiveness of adhering to the 20 working day deadline for assessed work to be returned to students.

F-Arch, D-Arch and GD-Arch a. The Architecture Programmes are still in their infancy with four new modules, hence

regular revision and possible adjustments to teaching curricula may be required, in particular concerning assessment balancing.

b. With a range of new staff members on the programme’s different pathways, staff training and development will be necessary to support the quality of teaching and effectiveness of teaching materials.

c. Even though there were no notable concerns or weaknesses as far the external examiner is concerned, the nationality structure on the Graduate Diploma is an issue as the current intake has only one nationality, which may impact on the students’ learning experience. The Foundation and Diploma pathways have a good range of nationalities.

GD-BH

a. The programme relies on students from one market, albeit large.


F-BBS and F-PSE a. Differentiation of abilities in assessing Mathematics & Statistics module b. Students’ workload in EAP to be re-assessed

F-BM and F-HSS

a. To take advantage of the wide range of talent within the teaching and Module Leadership team. This could involve looking at areas of programme provision not currently served – for example, Art and Design.


AMR Report Form

Page 4 of 20

b. To continue working closely with the External Examiner who provides constructive criticism and a new perspective on areas of practice.

c. To experiment with timetabling limitations or amendments. For example, use one hour timeslots as opposed to two or to start classes later in the day.

D-Bus

a. The peer tutoring scheme that ran for INU1110/1510 can be expanded. b. More enrichment activities can be developed. c. The International Diploma in Business at Newcastle University London (NUL) leads to

International Business Management (IBM) whereas the Diploma in Newcastle does not. There is an opportunity to have a second Diploma in Business strand that leads to IBM in Newcastle.

d. The INTO Newcastle University brochure for 2016-17 states on page 47 that studying ‘International Year One (Diploma) “you may also be eligible to apply for entry to the following degrees at Newcastle University London: BSc (Hons) IBM; BSC (Hons) Accounting and Finance; BSc (hons) International Management and Marketing.” The same destination courses for Newcastle would very likely see an increase in student numbers, in particular for Accounting and Finance.


a. The two new modules (Architecture, Culture and History & Professional Studies) on the International Graduate Diploma and Foundation in Architecture require stronger linkage with the other modules on their respective programmes.

b. The documentation process of student work in the Architecture Design modules needs improving.

c. Diversification and balancing of the two major design projects on the GD-Arch needs consideration.

GD-BH

a. Opportunities for development of new programmes and possibly new modules to extend the offer to potential students.

What threats to the quality and standards of the programme(s) were identified in the review of the last academic year?

F-BBS and F-PSE a. None

F-BM and F-HSS

a. Instances of plagiarism and collusion are still apparent. b. Overall numbers to F-BM. It is not known as yet if this represents a ‘blip’ or a trend.

D-Bus

a. From this academic year, the progression grade to enter Newcastle University has been raised from 50% to 55%. The outcome will be a fall in the number of students who progress to the Business School.

b. A lower progression rate than in recent years can be viewed by potential students as an unattractive course to study.


AMR Report Form

Page 5 of 20

c. Newcastle University London can potentially enrol students who would have otherwise chosen the International Diploma in Business at INTO Newcastle.

d. There is now greater competition from other education providers (e.g. Kaplan and Study Group) who offer equivalent ‘Year One’ programmes in a shorter time period and lower tuition fees.


a. None identified GD-BH

a. None identified




Examinations Coursework

Area(s) of provision Number returned on time


Number returned on time


F-BBS (Sept & Jan) 40 40 100 48 48 100

F-PSE (Sept & Jan) 40 40 100 48 48 100

F-HSS (Sept & Jan) 9 9 100 13 13 100

F-BM (Sept & Jan) 16 16 100 9 9 100

D-Bus (Sept & Jan) 18 18 100 26 26 100

GD-BH (Sept & Jan) 10 10 100 8 8 100

F-Arch (Sept) 7 7 100 9 9 100

D-Arch (Jan) 7 7 100 11 11 100

GD-Arch (Sept) 9 9 100 9 9 100


Not Applicable.


International Diploma in Business Of the Sept 2014 cohort, 4 terminal exams were not returned within the 20 working day turnaround policy but these are not applicable here as they are final exams (at the end of Semester 2) and students receive these grades on Result’s Day. The turnaround time for these 4 exams was, in fact, 21 days.



AMR Report Form

Page 7 of 20

8. Please summarise below the use of discretion by boards of examiners in respect of the programmes covered by this report.


2:1 to 1 2:2 to 1 3 to 2:2 Fail to 3

Programme(s) Considered Promoted Considered Promoted Considered Promoted Considered Promoted Considered Applied

Not applicable


No discretion was exercised by the Boards of Examiners.

No specific matters arising from the use of PECs by INTO Newcastle University arose.




Not applicable



a. Review of admissions and recruitment cycle: 20 November 2015

6 March 2015

10 July 2015


20 November 2015

6 March 2015

10 July 2015

c. Review of student progression data: 20 November 2015


Not applicable


20 November 2015


Not applicable

g. Review of National Student Survey results: 20 November 2015 (INTO Survey Data)


Not applicable


20 November 2015

j. Review and where necessary revision of programme specifications: 10 July 2015

12. Please confirm that the ‘Responsibilities of the School’ set out in the University’s Postgraduates who teach policy have been met for postgraduates who have taught on the programmes covered by this review:

N/A


All pathway programmes did undergo Peer Dialogue to some degree last academic year. The main reason for Peer Dialogue not being done with more staff was the need to perform teaching observations by line managers in order to comply with the requirements of INTO’s new Performance Management and Personal Development scheme. For this academic year, the Academic Director is performing teaching observations in the first semester, and the University’s Peer Dialogue policy will be the focus of observation in the second semester of 2015-2016.





AMR Report Form

9

Section E: Action Plan (updates from 2013/14 AMR and 2014/15 New actions)

Abbreviations: AD (Academic Director), DOS (Director of Studies), PM (Programme Manager), APM (Asst. PM), ML (Module Leader)

EAP (English for Academic Purposes), EE (External Examiner), SSC (SSC)

Updated AMR Action Plan for 2013/14

Issue Programme(s) Source of issue Action By whom By when Outcome Completion date

A replacement for the current summative listening test is desirable

D-BUS EE’s report We will consider the impact of the Cambridge Test and evaluate the need for a new in-house listening test going forward.

DOS (English), APM

S2 15/16 Cross-centre listening test development will help with need for appropriate test for Diploma – DOS(EAP) to lead

May-16

Additional scrutiny is desirable to ensure that placement of marks awarded within a band for the writing test is consistent.

D-BUS EE’s report Extra measures can be taken during the standardisation process to ensure that the placement of scripts within a band is consistent across the range of markers.

APM S2 14/15 Agreement across EAP teams to actual numeric value of High, Mid, Low band placement

Completed - S2 14/15

EAP grade scales D-BUS EAP EE DOS (English) to review current grading system but this is a wider issue to be addressed by INTO Newcastle University as a whole as well as referral to the University (INTO Academic Group in the first instance).

DOS (English)

Working party to meet in S2 14/15, and interim reporting predicted for Sept 15/16.

INTO Newcastle will be part of a sector working party on this issue initiated by the Chair of BALEAP (sector professional body for EAP lecturers/teachers) Diane Schmitt.

Ongoing

For the Sept cohort of students, the samples of the joint-marked assignments chosen for moderation were not drawn from across the full range of marks awarded.

D-BUS EE’s report This criticism was taken on board in selecting and presenting the moderated sample of joint-marked coursework for the 13/14 Jan cohort, and it will also be ensured that a sample of assignments across the full range of abilities is chosen for moderation during 14/15.

ML Completed for the Jan cohort 13/14

The module leader carried out moderation for a sample of assignments graded by each other marker in the team, and across the range of student abilities.

Completed for the Jan cohort 13/14


AMR Report Form

10

Internal moderation of the seminar speaking tests could benefit from additional clarity.

D-BUS EE’s report Clarity in the moderation process for these tests was improved following the initial visit to assess marking for the Sept cohort, and it will also be ensured that the marking and moderation process is clearly logged for the both cohorts during academic year 14/15.

APM Completed for the Jan cohort 13/14

Documentation has been improved to present the sample of moderated tests together with notes which show how second, third and fourth markers have reached and agreed their decisions.

Completed for the Jan cohort 13/14

Review the number of assessments as a whole across the programme.

D-BUS Student and staff comments about the total number of assessments.

Review with Module Leaders and the newly appointed EE, Dr Jon Pemberton.

PM & EE During the forthcoming academic year.

To reduce the number of overall assessments whilst retaining the same tested knowledge and skills outcomes.

Completed - Jul 2015

The equipment used to record the seminar discussion tests and presentations needs to be upgraded in order to provide higher quality recordings.

D-BUS EE’s report An additional Sony camera has been purchased by the centre since the time of these recommendations, but the purchase of further cameras is highly desirable.

DOS (English)

S2 14/15 10 extra cameras have been purchased.

May-15

The feedback which the students receive from the seminar speaking tests could be more comprehensive and more individually-tailored.

D-BUS EE’s report A student-facing marking criteria is planned to facilitate more comprehensive feedback.

DOS (English)

S2 14/15 interactive speaking criteria to be amended in line with other external feedback, and student facing issues will be incorporated

Jun-16

The intellectual challenge of the topics assigned for the seminar speaking tests could be increased

D-BUS EE’s report New seminar speaking test tasks should be produced and piloted with these requirements in mind.

APM S2 15/16 The new speaking tasks should stretch the most able students further and help to prepare them for the challenges of seminars at stage 2 in their degree studies.

S2 15/16


AMR Report Form

11

The reflective element in many students’ joint-marked EAP and Study Skills presentations lacked depth and supporting examples.

D-BUS EE’s report Lesson materials designed to prepare students for the joint-marked presentations in the second semester should be extended to include a model of a sample presentation incorporating an example of well-supported reflection.

APM S2 14/15 Improved quality in this element of the students’ presentations should provide them with better preparation for similar assignments stage 2 of their degree studies.

Completed S2 14/15

The summative reading test currently features three descriptive passages and too much emphasis on testing vocabulary.

D-BUS EAP EE’s report Development of an undergraduate reading test is planned.

APM & DOS (English)

S2 14/15 Production and use of a new reading test.

Ongoing

Up to this point, EAP and subject colleagues (in this case from Management and Organisation) have not met to compare the marks awarded for the joint-marked coursework to ensure a consistency in feedback.

D-BUS EE’s report For both cohorts of students during 14/15, subject and EAP colleagues can convene at the stage of moderation to compare samples of feedback for the same assignments in EAP and Management and Organisation. The two teams of markers can re-convene before feedback is given to the students to compare the two sets of marks and avoid any significant anomalies in joint feedback.

APM S2 14/15 Tasks completed as in Action column.

Completed S2 14/15

Assessment Development Training

F-BBS, F-PSE, F-BM, F-HSS, F-ARCH

English EE’s Report

Investigate and implement training for key EAP staff

DOS (English)

Sep-15 Three training session completed with a fourth in Dec 2014

Dec-14

Collaboration between Academic and EAP module staff to continue



Away day activities, clearer internal communication (new handbooks) to help facilitate this linkage

EAP MLs Dec-14 Ongoing Dec 2014 but ongoing


AMR Report Form

12

Contextualise writing assessment criteria



Writing criteria ‘task fulfilment’ section to be amended appropriately for different writing coursework tasks

EAP MLs Start of S2 2014/15

Mark schemes from liaison with academic colleagues for joint writing assignments used with criteria

Jun 2015

Contextualising reading coursework



Pathways to create context relevant reading tasks

EAP MLs Start of S2 2014/15

Ongoing Completed apart from F-BBS and F-PSE

IELTS /TOEFL Benchmarking and Equivalence


EE’s Report and Jan S2 SSC Meeting

Review the learning outcomes of EAP and the link to IELTS

DOS (English)

Sep-15 Home Office visa changes, impact on sector and other wider pressures had knock on effect on this planned working party.

Dec-15

Written feedback more student friendly



Student-facing version of assessment criteria to be created to support feedback process

DOS (English), EAP MLs

Start of S2 2014/15

Writing criteria completed; speaking to be completed for Jun 2016

Jun-16

Answering schemes F-BM, F-HSS Academic EE’s Report

Introduction of indicative answering schemes

PM & MLs Ongoing Discussed at Programme Development Day. Ongoing objective.

Review Aug 2016

Assessment breakdown of marks

F-BM, F-HSS Academic EE’s Report

Greater clarity on assessment breakdown of marks sought

PM & MLs Ongoing Discussed at Programme Development day. Ongoing objective.

Review Aug 2016

Assessment briefings F-BM, F-HSS Academic EE’s Report

Clearer assessment briefings for students to be created

PM & MLs Ongoing Discussed at Programme Development Day. Ongoing objective.

Review Aug 2016

Assessments within modules


Consider amount of assessments within modules

PM & MLs Dec-14 Discussed at Programme Development Day. Amount of assessment is appropriate.

Dec-14

Availability of computers

F-BM, F-HSS SSC Students required information on how to find available PCs on the campus

DOS (Academic)

Oct-14 Student provided with electronic and noticeboard information on the Newcastle University app.

Completed Oct 2014

Internal verification procedures


More formal internal verification procedures

PM Sep-14 More formal system introduced for 2014/15 academic year

Completed Sept 2014


AMR Report Form

13

Learning outcomes for modules


Re-consider number of learning outcomes for modules

PM Sep-14 Learning outcomes are consistent with Newcastle University parameters

Completed Sept 2014

EAP. It is not immediately clear how the overall mark was achieved for this assignment.

GD-BH EE A cover sheet will be produced for each portfolio which shows the breakdown of the marks for each component and how the total mark is achieved.

MLs Mar-15 Cover sheet produced Mar-15

EAP. Policy documents which support the procedure for moderating student marks should be made available to Examiners

GD-BH EE Policy documents are held on a central file and will be made available to the EEs.

DOS (English)

Jun-15 Documents made available Jun-15

EAP. Some of the formative feedback in the portfolio appears to be too positive. Balanced feedback should be given which gives credit for satisfactory elements but which also provides clear guidance for improvement where necessary.

GD-BH EE Marks in the 50’s will be referred to as ‘satisfactory’ in the feedback and advice on how to improve.

MLs Jan-15 ‘Satisfactory’ implemented Jan-15

EAP. Students should be encouraged to do wider reading in preparation for the Seminar Discussions to improve their contribution

GD-BH EE Students are encouraged to do wider reading but this will be made explicit by adding it to the task briefing sheet

MLs Jan-15 Task briefing sheet updated Jan-15


AMR Report Form

14

EAP. The assessment criteria for the Seminar Presentations does not explicitly indicate how marks are weighted for leading or participating in the seminars.

GD-BH EE The mark is split 40% to presentation and 60% to participation and an average calculated based on the number of seminars. This will be clearly shown on the record sheet.

MLs Jan-15 Record sheet updated Jan-15

EAP. The journal article chosen for the Critique would be more suitable if it related in some way to another reading or listening task

GD-BH EE The journal selected will be linked to a subject covered in the Management & Organisation curriculum

MLs Jan-15 Relevant topic chosen after liaison with Jo Craggs (M&O module leader)

Jan-15

EAP. The writing criteria are too general for some of the tasks. Criteria should be more task specific.

GD-BH EE Crib sheets are prepared for each question/assignment. These will be made available to the EE.

MLs Jun-15 Crib sheets made available Jun-15

Management & Organisation is a 20 credit module but has three pieces of assessment

GD-BH EE Reduce to two pieces of assessment

APM Sep-14 Assessment changed in MOF to remove the S2 essay, so that the two pieces of assessment comprise an end of S1 exam (30%) and a S2 final exam (70%).

Jul-14

Social & Cultural Studies is a 20 credit module but has three pieces of assessment

GD-BH EE Reduce to two pieces of assessment

APM Sep-14 Assessment changed in MOF to remove the S2 essay, so that the two pieces of assessment comprise an end of S1 exam (30%) and a S2 final exam (70%).

Jul-14

The marks for this cohort are lower overall than previous cohorts and it is not clear why

GD-BH EE Review cohort performance to try and determine why

PM & AD Jan-15 No specific reason identified Jan-15


AMR Report Form

15

The actions below relate to the review of the academic year 2014-15.

Action Programme(s) Source of issue By whom By when

Produce a document to outline support mechanisms in place for borderline/failing students

F-BBS, F-PSE External Examiner (PSE) report PM May-16

PM/APM to discuss with the Biology team and re-design detailed mark schemes

F-BBS, F-PSE External Examiner (BBS) report PM & APM Aug-15

Propose changes to assessment weightings at BoS F-BBS, F-PSE External Examiner (BBS) report PM Jul-15

Module leader to evaluate content of assessments and the way assignments are carried out in Mathematics & Statistics module

F-BBS, F-PSE External Examiner (BBS) report ML Aug-15

Module leader to discuss with the team on balancing of homework and assessments

F-BBS, F-PSE SSC meeting minutes ML EAP Aug-15

EAP team to liaise with subject teaching staff in setting deadlines for assessments

F-BBS, F-PSE SSC meeting minutes ML EAP On going

Evaluate marking criteria in Study Skills and ICT F-BBS, F-PSE SSC meeting minutes PM Aug-15

Assess the policy of punctuality in lessons F-BBS, F-PSE SSC meeting minutes PM Aug-15

Marking :A demonstration of marking on all papers, including exams

F-BM, F-HSS Academic External Examiner’s Report PM & MLs Dec 2015

Internal Verifier Marking: Greater clarity on first/second marker and demonstrable consideration of marks on I/V forms


Marking Criteria: Students to be made fully aware of the criteria they will be marked on. Generic criteria only used when necessary.


Administration Improvement: To use a sign/sign out system for assessment marking to go along with clear allocation of papers to markers; to improve storage process

F-BM, F-HSS English External Examiner’s Report APM & other EAP MLs Beginning of Semester 2 1516

To have a consistent approach (the sample number) across modules for standardisation and cross-marking. The sample size for the moderation process will now consist of: x2 assessments for standardisation (exams x2 per essay question) 20% for cross-marking

D-BUS Academic Modules External Examiner’s report – Dr Jonathan Pemberton

PM, APM, MLs From Sept 2015 onwards.


AMR Report Form

16

To review the programme as a whole in relation to assessment variation. As feedback from the External Examiner is received throughout the year, changes to assessments are already in place for this academic year. These will be monitored and reviewed in due course.

D-BUS Academic Modules External Examiner’s report – Dr Jonathan Pemberton

PM, APM, MLs Sept 2015 (any changes for the next academic year will be presented to the Board Of Studies, Jul 2016 at the latest).

The entire Diploma team has been informed that where work is deemed outstanding, the 80% and 90% bands are to be used. Therefore, the full scale of marks (for qualitative assessments) is used.

D-BUS EE Academic Report PM, APM, MLs From Sept 2015 onwards.

The curriculum materials are pitched to the entry level of the Diploma students. These materials are then adapted by the teachers to suit the ability level of the streamed student groups and are uploaded to Blackboard class folders. The marking criteria to be improved to add value for those students in bands 8 and 9.

D-BUS EAP EE Report

APM & EAP staff Nov 2015

INU1101/1501 (EAP) to develop a new speaking assessment based on INU1107/1507 (Academic and Professional Development) assessment 4 (800-word account: reflection of impactful learning).

D-BUS EAP EE Report

APM & EAP staff Jan 2016

Improve evidence of comprehensive documentation processes on design modules

F-ARCH, D-ARCH, GD-ARCH External examiner review PM Jun 2016

Encourage wider range of marks F-ARCH, D-ARCH, GD-ARCH External examiner review PM Jun 2016

Diversify design projects on Graduate Diploma F-ARCH, D-ARCH, GD-ARCH External examiner review PM Jun 2016

Revise weightings of portfolio assessments F-ARCH, D-ARCH, GD-ARCH External examiner review PM Jun 2016

Improve studio space requirements F-ARCH, D-ARCH, GD-ARCH SSC Meetings SMT Ongoing

Review the opening times of the studio F-ARCH, D-ARCH, GD-ARCH SSC Meetings SMT Ongoing

Identify new materials for the journal critique and implement a change of approach in classwork

GD-BH EAP External Examiner’s Report ML EAP Feb 2016

Prepare new Listening Test GD-BH EAP External Examiner’s Report APM and EAP team Mar 2016

Review allocation of the ILL mark in the Semester 2 tests to make marks available for all four skills

GD-BH EAP External Examiner’s Report ML EAP Mar 2016

Final marksheets for the redrafted Writing pieces to be supplied to the External marker

GD-BH EAP External Examiner’s Report ML EAP May 2016

Award higher marks at the top end GD-BH Subject External Examiner’s Report All staff Dec 2015

To develop a proposal for a new Graduate Diploma in Music GD-BH Opportunity for development PM & ML Designate Dec 2015


AMR Report Form

17

Action Plan: Diane Schmitt report on 14/15 Dip/Grad Dip

NOTE: these ACTIONS are separate to those included in Programme AMRs. It has been agreed with PMs that generic EAP issues only will be focussed on here, where programme specific

responses are inappropriate

Action Source of issue By whom By when update

C6: criteria are a detailed operationalisation of learning outcomes in each skill area. Across the programmes there are similar learning outcomes and thus similar criteria reflect this. WE do need to ensure criteria are contextualised where appropriate, and we will review task fulfilment criteria in both speaking and writing as necessary.

EE report Aug 2015: C6 concerns about use of generic criteria across three different programmes where learning outcomes are different

Director of Studies EAP/English

Start of semester 2 1516 Ongoing

C7: in Diploma and Graduate Diploma, there is discrimination between levels and we do demonstrate this in relation to marking criteria.

EE report Aug 2015: C7 Concerns about level of discrimination shown in marking

N/A N/A Ongoing

C8: to implement a cross programme use of fixed numerical scores to match placement levels within bands: High: 68, Mid: 65, Low: 62

EE report Aug 2015 C8 Concerns about inconsistency of score calculation with criteria-based assessment and use of H/M/L inside criterial bands

Director of Studies English/EAP

Start of semester 2 1516 Ongoing

C12 [Diploma in Business] We will review criteria in writing and speaking to take account of higher levels of language ability on students entering the programme.

C12 EE report Aug 2015 Concern that criteria don’t reflect cohorts at C1 C2 level on entry

Director of Studies English/EAP D

Mar 2016 Ongoing


AMR Report Form

18

Progression Data from 2014/15

(September Cohort) Stud

ents

Reg

iste

red

(SE

PT

2014

) (N

o.)

Stud

ents

Com

plet

ed C

ours

e (N

o.)

Ret

entio

n R

ate

(%)

Pass

Rat

e (N

o.)

Pass

Rat

e (%

)

Pass

ed &

Elig

ible

for

New

cast

le (N

o.)

Pass

ed &

Elig

ible

for

New

cast

le (%

)

Ove

rall

Prog

ress

ion

(No.

)

Ove

rall

Prog

ress

ion

(%)

Prog

ress

ion

into

New

cast

le

(No.

)

Prog

ress

ion

into

New

cast

le

(%)

Prog

ress

ion

to IN

TO D

iplo

ma

(No.

)

Prog

ress

ion

to IN

TO D

iplo

ma

(%)

Stud

ents

Pas

sing

Fou

ndat

ion

- N

o Pr

ogre

ssio

n

Stud

ents

Pas

sing

Fou

ndat

ion

- N

o Pr

ogre

ssio

n (%

)

Prog

ress

ion

to o

ther

Rus

sell

Gro

up U

nis

(No.

)

Prog

ress

ion

to o

ther

Rus

sell

Gro

up U

nis

(%)

Foundation

Humanities & Social Sciences 41 41 100% 40 98% 37 90% 40 98% 35 85% 0% 0% 0%

Business & Management 92 91 99% 86 95% 61 67% 83 91% 53 58% 4 4% 0% 0%

Physical Sciences & Engineering 78 76 97% 70 92% 52 68% 60 79% 47 62% 0% 0% 0%

Biological & Biomedical Sciences 29 29 100% 28 97% 23 79% 27 93% 19 66% 1 3% 0% 0%

Architecture 47 46 98% 45 98% 45 98% 45 98% 43 93% 0% 0% 0%

Sept Fdn Total 287 283 99% 269 95% 218 77% 255 90% 197 70% 5 2% 0 0% 0 0%

Diploma

Business 64 63 98% 62 98% 56 89% 56 89% 56 89% 0% 0 0% 0%

Sept UG Total 351 346 99% 331 96% 274 79% 311 90% 253 73% 5 1% 0 0% 0 0%

Graduate Diploma

Business & Humanities 95 95 100% 91 96% 70 74% 81 85% 70 74% 0% 0 0% 0%

Architecture 7 7 100% 7 100% 5 71% 5 71% 5 71% 0% 0 0% 0%

Sept GD Total 102 102 100% 98 96% 75 74% 86 84% 75 74% 5 5% 0 0% 0 0%

SEPT Academic Totals: 453 448 99% 429 96% 349 78% 397 89% 328 73% 5 1% 0 0% 0 0%


AMR Report Form

19

(January Cohort) Stud

ents

Reg

iste

red

(JAN

201

5)

(No.

)

Stud

ents

Com

plet

ed C

ours

e (N

o.)

Ret

entio

n R

ate

(%)

Pass

Rat

e (N

o.)

Pass

Rat

e (%

)

Pass

ed &

Elig

ible

for N

ewca

stle

(N

o.)

Pass

ed &

Elig

ible

for N

ewca

stle

(%

)

Ove

rall

Prog

ress

ion

(No.

)

Ove

rall

Prog

ress

ion

(%)

Prog

ress

ion

into

New

cast

le (

No.

)

Prog

ress

ion

into

New

cast

le (

%)

Prog

ress

ion

to IN

TO D

iplo

ma

(No.

)

Prog

ress

ion

to IN

TO D

iplo

ma

(%)

Stud

ents

Pas

sing

Fou

ndat

ion

- No

Prog

ress

ion

Stud

ents

Pas

sing

Fou

ndat

ion

- No

Prog

ress

ion

(%)

Prog

ress

ion

to o

ther

Rus

sell

Gro

up

Uni

s (N

o.)

Prog

ress

ion

to o

ther

Rus

sell

Gro

up

Uni

s (%

)

Foundation

Humanities & Social Sciences 16 16 100% 14 88% 13 81% 15 94% 12 75% 0% 0% 0%

Business & Management 60 60 100% 56 93% 41 68% 47 78% 37 62% 0% 0% 0%

Physical Sciences & Engineering 50 49 98% 49 100% 40 82% 43 88% 31 63% 1 2% 0% 0%

Biological & Biomedical Sciences 14 14 100% 13 93% 8 57% 11 79% 5 36% 0% 0% 0%

Jan Fdn Total 140 139 99% 132 95% 102 73% 116 83% 85 61% 1 1% 0 0% 0 0%

Diploma Business 48 48 100% 48 100% 44 92% 45 94% 44 92% 0% 0% 0%

Architecture 10 10 100% 10 100% 8 80% 10 100% 8 80% 0% 0% 0%

Sept DIP Total 58 58 100% 58 100% 52 90% 55 95% 52 90% 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Jan UG Total 198 197 99% 190 96% 154 78% 171 87% 137 70% 1 1% 0 0% 0 0%

Graduate Diploma Business & Humanities 81 69 85% 68 99% 61 88% 63 91% 61 88% 0% 0% 0%

JAN Academic Totals: 279 266 95% 258 97% 215 81% 234 88% 198 74% 1 0% 0 0% 0 0%


AMR Report Form

20

OVERALL: 732 714 98% 687 96% 564 79% 631 88% 526 74% 6 1% 0 0% 0 0%

OVERALL Progression - English Prog: 735

OVERALL Progression to NCL: 1261

N.B. - 2013/14 Progression = 69%; 2012/13 = 66%; 2011/12 = 64%

Student Satisfaction Survey 2014-15

The findings and results of the 2013-14 INTO Student Survey were released in July 2015. The actual survey was carried out in May and June 2015. Headline results are:

INTO Newcastle University Satisfaction Summary

2014-15 2013-14 2012-13 2011-12

OVERALL 94% 93% 96% 90%

LEARNING 96% 93% 98% 91%

LIVING 93% 94% 92% 82%

SUPPORT 97% 92% 95% 92%

RECOMMENDATION LEVELS 81% 74% 82% 80%

A soft copy of key extracts of the survey was included in the support documents to the Board of Studies (Academic) dated 20 November 2015, which highlighted overall satisfaction and importance ratings across a number of key learning and living dimensions.


Cross FLTSEC 14 January 2016 Document H


School: INTO Newcastle University

Programme(s) reviewed: In-Sessional English (IS) Pre-Sessional English (PSP) English for University Study (EUS)

Professional accreditation: N/A

Report submitted by: Stuart Edwards, Chair of Board of Studies (English)



In-Sessional English

Action Point Outcome

Review the existing assessment and consider a more contextualised approach

We have adopted a coursework approach that guides students through the process of writing a literature review

Review the existing assessment and consider a more contextualised approach.

The weighting of this component will also be considered

We have adopted a coursework approach that guides students through the process of writing up literature-based research.

The weighting of the assessment is still the same as this task requires a considerable amount of time to complete.

Review the existing assessment and consider the validity of assessing notes in INU1008

This task has been removed from the exam paper

Review the existing assessment and consider the validity of ‘Genre bending’ when writing-up notes in the exam for INU1008.

We agree with this recommendation and will reconsider the task-type.

Pre-Sessional English All issues were addressed and the stated outcomes achieved. (See Section E Page 7).

English for University Study All action points have been addressed and completed. The External Examiner commented that it was encouraging to see that the recommendations made in last year’s report were acted upon in the following academic year. To summarise, course books for the six language levels have been reviewed and confirmed. The trial of materials for Level 7 was successful and the new course books have been introduced. Saudi Military students are no longer included in the EUS programme so there are no further issues with integrating them into the class groups. Group sizes are being monitored and have so far been kept to a maximum of 18 in line with the External Examiner’s recommendation.


AMR Report Form


In-Sessional English • The timing of courses to fit in with students’ workloads appears to work well. This is

noticeable in improved levels of student retention • The new online registration system (RISE) has reduced waiting times for students and

increased levels of administrative accuracy and efficiency • We have responded to feedback from the Faculty of Medical Sciences and updated and

expanded the support for Medical students. Pre-Sessional English • The cycle of formative feedback delivered online is extremely well structured and

supported, ensuring that >700 students receive explicit, appropriate individual feedback of a high standard (External Examiner’s report).

• The support in place for staff during induction and throughout the course (with the use of senior tutors) is a considerable factor in its success (External Examiner’s report).

• The new scheme of work was generally found to be very helpful (Teacher exit survey) • The majority of teachers found the specially prepared grammar materials to be a valuable

addition (Teacher exit survey) • Optional weekly teacher development sessions were well attended (between 60 and 75%

of staff) • Teachers appreciated the support of the management team (Teacher exit survey) • 90 to 96% of students felt they had improved in each of the various skills areas (Reading &

Writing, Grammar & vocabulary, Speaking and Listening) (Student exit survey) • 93 to 99% of students felt that the programme was pitched at the appropriate level in each

of the various skills areas (Student exit survey) • 91% of students felt that the programme met their expectations (Student exit survey) English for University Study The External Examiner has once again commended the general management and administration of the programme, including the Students’ Academic Handbook. Good practice identified includes the use of BlackBoard and IT and effective attendance monitoring. She also commented that good course administration benefits the everyday running of the programme. The EUS programme and the centre have also been commended for a commitment to a transparent and proactive approach to academic quality assurance. The “very good practice regarding standardisation before marking, the double-marking of projects, and the principled, transparent and well-documented moderation” was also highlighted as exemplary, as was the academic student handbook which was described as a valuable resource for the students. Student feedback was positive throughout the year with 78 - 88% giving a rating of very good or good, and only 0 - 4% giving a negative rating. Individual comments from students have been largely positive and there was plenty of praise for the teachers. The consistency in the ILOs, adopted by all centres, and use of the same course books for each term has led to continuity and stability.

Page 2 of 16


AMR Report Form


In-Sessional English • The final exams for the credit-bearing Listening and Speaking modules, INU1008 and

INU1009, are in need of updating to ensure that they match the learning outcomes of the modules accurately.

• The content of the Listening & Speaking modules would benefit from a review so as to provide more input on developing the skills that students require during their academic study.

Pre-Sessional English • The use of entry and exit written tests delivered by an external provider proved not to be

successful due to issues of on-line delivery, choice of question type, lack of transparency of assessment criteria and (in our view) harsh and inconsistent marking. We will revert to in-house delivery in future (Recommendations from External Examiner’s report).

• The External Examiner recommended that samples of presentation assessments be recorded for external scrutiny. However, for both moderation purposes and use in the event of students appealing their results, we feel that all presentations should be captured. This will, of course, necessitate a substantial investment in recording equipment. It is estimated that approximately 25 camcorders will be needed.

English for University Study Attempts to introduce the online IELA test developed by Cambridge English to the end of term assessments have proven problematic. The original plan agreed by the Steering Group was for the IELA part of the test to count for 30% of the final mark with the traditional elements of the EUS exams counting for the other 70% of the end of term scores. In the event, the marks for the IELA element came out significantly lower than the EUS marks when compared. As this would have reduced the overall scores for the students, it was decided to remove the IELA element and base the final results on the EUS exams only. There were similar problems at other INTO centres and many of them decided on the same course of action. There were also technical problems that prevented some centres from actually running the IELA exams. This was later found out to be connected to a technical upgrade to the exam which had been performed over the Bank Holiday weekend. There were also issues with the Speaking element of the test which did not affect Newcastle as we had made the earlier decision not to run this part of the test. This was because we had earlier experienced a host of problems when we had tried to run the Speaking element during the trial period. These issues were commented on by the External Examiner in her recommendations for the programme (EE Report p.2). She pointed out that “there were issues related to the running of the tests and to the test design that need to be worked on before IELA test scores can be considered suitable assessments for this programme”. The introduction of GOLD (Guided Online Language Development) had also had its teething problems. This is partly because EUS already has a programme of self-study tasks which have proven popular with students, and some students on GOLD believed that there was too much to do if a GOLD module was added to their normal programme of study and their independent study commitments.

Page 3 of 16


AMR Report Form

It was unclear in some cases why students had been selected for GOLD and there was a sense that those included had somehow “failed” by having study plans that were overly ambitious when related to their period of study.


In-Sessional English • Subject to approval by the Board of Studies, the final exams for INU1008 and INU1009 are being

rewritten for 2015/16. They will be contextualised in a recording of an authentic lecture. • Subject to approval by the Board of Studies, the marking section of the criteria used for assessing

the coursework will be amended so that it focuses on whether the students have the language resource, fluency and awareness to contribute effectively to academic discussion.

• Review the content of the Listening & Speaking modules as noted in section (3) above. Pre-Sessional English More recordings of student presentations, together with assessment notes and/or commentaries provided by the management team, might be made available to teachers for the purpose of further standardisation (Teacher exit survey). English for University Study The issue related above came about as a result of the Steering Group agreeing to introduce the IELA exam to the final assessment, which was seen originally as a positive development and an improvement to the programme. It is evident that further work on the IELA exam is required and this should involve direct discussions with the creators of the test, Cambridge English. The potential benefits of the test, identified by the External Examiner, include quick test scores aligned to the Common European Framework for Reference. The introduction of GOLD also has the potential to enhance the programme in the near future, particularly in further developing students’ independent study skills and improving the quality of the learning experience.

5. What threats to the quality and standards of the programme(s) were identified in the review of the last academic year?

In-Sessional English • Reductions in student numbers due policy changes by UKVI could affect the funding of In-

Sessional • Some Schools can be less willing to share examples of student work with the In-Sessional

team. This is essential for the development of subject-specific support. Pre-Sessional English Although average entry scores are much the same as the previous two years (O: 59; L:59; R:62; W:56; S:56), the number of students being admitted to PSP with two sub-skills less than B2 on entry has increased from 9.7% in 2014 to 11.6% in 2015 (the percentage of students with one and three sub-skills less than B2 on entry remained much the same). The increased number of weaker students on the programme may well account for the increase in the PSP fail rate (1.2% in 2014 up to 5.2% in 2015).

English for University Study See above regarding assessment. The introduction of the new elements of the exams is a potential threat to standards if they are used towards providing the final marks before we can guarantee that the conversion scale mapping IELA scores to EUS scores is creditable and reliable.

Page 4 of 16








INU1004 (IS) 39 39 100% 39 39 100% INU1005 (IS) 5 5 100% 5 5 100% INU1014 (IS) 16 16 100% 16 16 100% INU1008 (IS) 32 32 100% 32 32 100% INU1009 (IS) 21 21 100% 21 21 100% INU1010 (IS) 8 8 100% 8 8 100% INU8001 (IS) 36 36 100% 36 36 100% EUS 100% 100%

Pre-sessional exit listening assessment

715 715 100%

Pre-sessional exit reading assessment

715 715 100%

Pre-sessional research project oral presentation

715 715 100%

Pre-sessional research project written assignment

715 715 100%



AMR Report Form


Not applicable


Not applicable

9. Please summarise below the use of discretion by boards of examiners in respect of the programmes covered by this report. Classification Progression

2:1 to 1 2:2 to 1 3 to 2:2 Fail to 3 Programme(s) Considered Promoted Considered Promoted Considered Promoted Considered Promoted Considered Applied Not applicable

Page 6 of 16


No discretion was exercised by the Boards of Examiners. Re-sits were arranged for supported PECs, with capped marks for those not supported.





a. Review of admissions and recruitment cycle: 6 November 2 27 February 20 17 July 2015

015 15

b. Review of modules (including consideration of 6 November 2 module evaluation questionnaire data, and 27 February 20 assessment results): 17 July 2015

015 15

c. Review of student progression data: 6 November 2 015

d. Review of degree classification outcomes (including Not applicable the use of discretion):

e. Review of PEC Committee’s summary of actions taken 6 November 2 throughout the previous year:

015

f. Where offered within the programme(s), review of Not applicable operation of placements and/or study abroad:

g. Review of National Student Survey results: Not applicable

h. Review of graduate destinations data from the Not applicable Destination of Leavers from Higher Education survey:

i. Consideration of external examiner reports, at a 6 November 2 meeting at which students are present:

015

j. Review and where necessary revision of programme 6 November 2 specifications:

015

13. Please confirm that the ‘Responsibilities of the School’ set out in the University’s N/A Postgraduates who teach policy have been met for postgraduates who have taught on the programmes covered by this review:


Information to follow.


The operational arrangements of the INTO Newcastle University has been very successful. No major issues or incidents were reported.






AMR Report Form

Section E: Action Plan 2015-16


a. IS - The final exams for INU1008 and INU1009 are being rewritten for 2015/16. They will be contextualised in a recording of an authentic lecture.

External examiner recommendation

Jonny Laing December 2015

b. IS - The marking section of the criteria used for assessing the coursework will be amended so that it focuses on whether the students have the language resource, fluency and awareness to contribute effectively to academic discussion.

External examiner recommendation

Nick Bailey December 2015

c. PSP - To revert to in-house delivery of entry and exit written tests

External Examiner’s report Darran Shaw, Nicky Collins

June 2016

d. PSP - To secure funding for, and then invest in, 25 camcorders for the purpose of recording all research project oral presentations.

External Examiner’s report Darran Shaw, Nicky Collins

June 2016

e. PSP - To make more recordings of student presentations, together with assessment notes and/or commentaries available to teachers for the purpose of further standardisation

Teacher exit survey Darran Shaw, Nicky Collins

June 2016

f. PSP - To develop materials to guide students in creating a word list relating to their main degree programme for self- study

Student Staff Committee Meeting Darran Shaw, Nicky Collins

June 2016

g. EUS - To review the introduction of the IELA test to the EUS end of term assessment and base the setting of future exams on the review outcome.

Experience in assessment process of Term 4 and External Examiner’s recommendation (EE Report p.2)

George Wickstead (PM)

December 2015

Page 8 of 16


AMR Report Form


h. EUS - To monitor the development of the GOLD programme and its modules and consider how the aims and learning objectives can be more closely connected to the EUS programme.

Feedback from GOLD students and EUS tutors.

George Wickstead (PM) and Dan Turner (GOLD Coordinator)

September 2016

Last year’s Pre-Sessional English action plan

Issue Source of issue Action By whom By when Outcome Completion date

a) Difficulty of reading texts used in the final assessment compared with those used in class

Student exit survey Investigate the suitability of the texts used in class for teaching purposes, and the need for supplementary texts for practice.

Darran Shaw (PM) and Nicky Collins (APM)

December 2014

Provision of supplementary texts for practice purposes.

June 2015

b) Improved quality listening classes/ materials

Student exit survey and Teacher exit survey

Investigate materials to identify if it is the materials or the tasks which are at fault.


December 2014

Replace the materials June 2015

Page 9 of 16


AMR Report Form

c) Providing more input on presentation skills

Teacher exit survey Identify gaps in scheme of work and materials to address these gaps


December 2014

Improved scheme of work and suggested materials

June 2015

d) A greater focus on grammar needed

Teacher exit survey Identify gaps in scheme of work and materials to address these gaps


December 2014

Improved scheme of work and suggested materials

June 2015

e) Late introduction of research project on ten-week programme


Investigate the possibility of re- scheduling the research programme, starting in week one

Darran Shaw (PM)

December 2014

A new research project schedule

June 2015

f) The negative effect on reliability of assessing all presentations in one day

Teacher exit survey Investigate the possibility of re- scheduling the presentation skills assessment schedule over two days

Darran Shaw (PM)

December 2014

A new presentation skills assessment schedule

June 2015

Page 10 of 16


AMR Report Form

g) The need for additional student support and guidance


Investigate the possibility of including an additional academic tutorial to allow students to discuss feedback they have received on their assignment plan

Darran Shaw (PM)

December 2014

An extra tutorial included in programme

June 2015

h) Continue with and further develop … the expansion of induction and CPD

External examiner’s report

Analyse teacher exit survey in more detail to identify strengths and weaknesses; discuss possible modifications with senior teachers

Darran Shaw (PM)

March 2015 Improved schedule and materials for induction and CPD

June 2015

i) Continue with and further develop … close monitoring of feedback on written work


Analyse teacher exit survey in more detail to identify strengths and weaknesses; discuss possible modifications with senior teachers

Darran Shaw (PM)

March 2015 Improved schedule and systems for monitoring of feedback on written work

June 2015

j) Continue with and further develop … individual


Analyse teacher exit survey in more detail to identify strengths and weaknesses; discuss

Darran Shaw (PM)

March 2015 Improved schedule and systems for individual guidance/training

June 2015

Page 11 of 16


AMR Report Form

guidance/training available

possible modifications with senior teachers

k) Look at adding other subjects to the research project list.

Staff student committee meeting

Identify major subject areas ‘missing’ with reference to main subjects studies by PSP students; collect suitable essay titles (with the help of schools?)

Darran Shaw (PM)

March 2015 The area of ‘Art’ together with five essay titles was added

June 2015

l) Suggest information packs on trip destinations could be provided.

Staff student committee meeting

Liaise with John-Paul Appleton (Student Services Officer) to discuss the possibility and practicalities.

Darran Shaw (PM)

March 2015 Students are now provided with an information booklet during the week before the trip.

June 2015

Last year’s English for University Study action plan

Issue Source of issue

Action By whom By when Outcome Completion date

Add Study Skills tasks on Blackboard for Level 8 students

EUS SSC

Will look at providing Study Skills for Level 8 students

Bruce Bax / George Wickstead

Sept 2014 Reviewed by Bruce Bax. It was felt at this level (potentially IELTS 7.0) students should have developed their study skills sufficiently to be

September 2014

Page 12 of 16


AMR Report Form

able to source their own additional self-study tasks.

Add links to academic word practice sites to Blackboard

EUS SSC

Will look at what we can provide on Blackboard

Bruce Bax / George Wickstead

August 2014 BB emailed all students on 18/08/2014 details of the website http://www.englishvocabularyexerci ses.com/ and instructions on how best to utilise this

August 2014

Suitability of course books selected for levels

EUS SSC

Materials to be reviewed at all levels both at Steering Group meeting and within the centre.

George Wickstead/

Bruce Bax Darran Shaw

Sept 2014 Decision made to keep same course books at Levels 3 – 6 as they are working well.

They are used on all of the EUS programmes across the INTO centres.

Trial of alternative materials to go ahead for Level 7 group with Darran Shaw and Nicky Collins.

December 2014 Trial completed successfully by DS and NC and schemes of work introduced with course materials in April 2015

Continue to send the External Examiner the assessment materials in advance of the Board of

Examiners meeting, as this allows a more effective review of the materials themselves and a better

EUS EE Make sure exams are sent out sufficiently early by the Steering Group Coordinator so that they can be sent on to the EE before her visit. The EUS part of the assessment may be

George Wickstead

August 2015 Ongoing, Assessment materials including IELA practice test sent to EE in August 2015. The same recommendation has been made by

Page 13 of 16

http://www.englishvocabularyexercises.com/




AMR Report Form

understanding of the possible reasons for patterns of results, need for adjustments, etc.

reduced anyway if the inclusion of the INTO Cambridge Test (IELA) goes ahead as planned.

the outgoing EE for her successor

The typical class size seems to have increased this year – I understand that it is currently approximately 18 students per class on average, up from a maximum of 16 students per group in the past. I would recommend that this number is not exceeded in future, as there is a clear risk that the quality of the student experience will suffer and academic progression may also go down.

EUS EE Class sizes will be monitored when estimating staffing levels for future terms

George Wickstead / John Timney

September 2014 – August 2015

Have managed to keep the class sizes at a maximum of 18, though competitors are advertising classes of 10 - 15 maximum for English preparation courses.

Up to October 2015

A sub-group of Saudi students appears to have performed relatively poorly. Saudi students have also been found to present particular challenges at other UK higher education institutions.

EUS EE Review the inclusion of Saudi Military students in the EUS programme

(see section 2)

Kevin Conroy, Centre Director

May 2015 Decision made not to accept any more Saudi Military students at INTO Newcastle on to the EUS programme.

May 2015

Page 14 of 16


AMR Report Form

Progression Data from 2014/15

OVERALL Progression - English Programmes: 735 OVERALL Progression to NCL: 1262

PROGRESSION (UNCON OFFER) TO En

glis

h fo

r Uni

vers

ity S

tudy

/ Ex

tend

ed /

PSG

D

Pre-

Sess

iona

l Eng

lish

(10

wee

k)

Pre-

Sess

iona

l Eng

lish

(6 w

eek)

OVE

RAL

L PR

OG

RE

SSIO

N (U

F)

HaSS 26 369 62 457 UG 3 12 14 29 PG 23 357 48 428 SAgE 22 176 71 269 UG 4 8 1 13 PG 18 168 70 256 Med 6 1 2 9 UG 0 0 0 0 PG 6 1 2 9 Pre-Sessional English (10 week) 41 41 Pre-Sessional English (6 week) 6 6 Progression TO UG NCL programmes 7 20 15 42 Progression TO PG NCL programmes 47 526 120 693

OVERALL Progression from English (direct to NU): 54 546 135 735

Page 15 of 16


AMR Report Form

INTO - Sept 2015 Intake Extended / PSGD - Sept 15 Start 11 Foundation Architecture 1 0 0 1 Humanities & Social Sciences 1 0 0 1 Business & Management 11 0 0 11 Physical Sciences & Engineering 4 0 0 4 Biological & Biomedical Sciences 1 0 0 1 Diploma 0 Business 5 0 0 5 Architecture 2 0 0 2 Graduate Diploma 0 Business & Humanities 23 0 0 23 Architecture 2 0 0 2

INTO - Jan 2015 Intake Extended / PSGD - June 15 Start 4 Foundation Humanities & Social Sciences 0 0 0 Business & Management 6 0 0 6 Physical Sciences & Engineering 0 0 0 Biological & Biomedical Sciences 0 0 0

Business 0 0 0 Architecture 0 0 0 Graduate Diploma 13 0 0 13

OVERALL Progression from English (to INTO academic): 84 0 0 84

Page 16 of 16

OVERALL Progression from English (to both INTO and NCL academic programmes): 819


Page 1 of 6

FLTSEC Consultation on Stage Evaluation Rollout

Purpose

1. The purpose of this paper is threefold. First, it is to provide Faculty Learning, Teaching and Student Experience Committees an overview of the pilot of stage evaluations held during 2015. Secondly, it provides FLTSECs an opportunity to comment on the expectation that stage evaluations will be rolled out at the end of Academic Years (AY) 2015/16 for full implementation in AY 2016/17. The Module and Stage Evaluation Steering Group (Steering Group) will present a proposal on this to ULTSEC in February 2016. Thirdly, it gives FLTSECs an opportunity to identify a preference for the delivery of module evaluations.

Background

2. A Task and Finish Group, established by the PVC Learning and Teaching, was formed in 2014 to develop a stage evaluation questionnaire in order to establish a holistic approach to the student experience at programme level and to gain insight that module evaluation would not provide, on issues such as personal tutoring, assessment and feedback, support from services, and information for programme data sheets. Where necessary, questions were removed from the module evaluations to be placed into stage evaluations to streamline the process. Following the approach used for module evaluations, a core set of questions was established for the pilot stage evaluation to ensure consistency and equity in the student experience results. The Module Evaluation Data Generator (MEG) and EvaSys interface used to generate the module evaluation was selected to generate the stage evaluations. Therefore, all evaluations could be completed online using EvaSys, removing the need for paper evaluations on the grounds of added staff time and cost.

3. In July 2014, ULTSEC received a proposal (Document B) from the Task and Finish Group for the introduction of a stage evaluation for undergraduate students, with a view to pilot it in autumn 2014 in relation to AY 2013/14 programmes, and then roll out the evaluation across the University at the end of AY 2014/15. Extensive student consultation and cognitive review was undertaken in the production of the EvaSys template and proposed core questions, with a desire for flexibility to allow programmes to include programme-specific question in addition to core set of questions. ULTSEC resolved to 1) support the rollout of stage evaluations in AY 2014/15, with a pilot to be conducted, where the committee would have an opportunity for evaluation; and 2) instruct the EvaSys Implementation Steering Group to address the outstanding issues and to bring recommendations back to the ULTSEC in Semester 1 of AY 2014/15.

4. In September 2014, a section on stage evaluations was added to Policy on Surveying and Responding to Student Opinion. This policy states that all stages other than the intercalating and final stages of undergraduate programmes should be evaluated every year, where a core question set (Appendix A) and optional questions are provided to ensure that the University takes a consistent approach to stage evaluation.

5. In September 2015, ULTSEC was updated (Document E) on the initial state evaluation pilot by Steering Group. This paper summarised the stage evaluation pilot and the requirements for its continued development. It was noted that further work was required to raise awareness of the importance and value of stage and module evaluations and to foster understanding that participation was a standard feature of quality management and enhancement. Additionally, the committee felt that a minimum of two academic units in each Faculty was required to participate in an extended stage evaluation pilot. ULTSEC supported the continuing pilot of stage evaluation and proposal for a full rollout at the end of AY 2015/16.

6. With the introduction of the upcoming Teaching Excellent Framework (TEF), it is likely the University will need stage level data for the TEF at some point. Although, it is unclear what TEF-specific data are required in the future; by rolling out the stage evaluation now, the University will have an embedded process in place where questions can be modified as needed.

Cross FLTSEC 14 January 2016 Document I

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/quilt/assets/internal-documents/com-rep-ultsec-14jul-documentB.pdf

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/quilt/assets/documents/qsh-studentopinion-pol.pdf

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/quilt/assets/documents/qsh-studentopinion-pol.pdf

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/quilt/assets/internal-documents/com-rep-ultsec-15feb-documentE.pdf

07 December 2015 FLTSEC Consultation on Stage Evaluation Rollout

Page 2 of 6

Pilot Consultation

7. The interface between the MEG and EvaSys was completed and used in the pilot to ensure the process used in the pilot will mirror the live system on full rollout. If approved small changes to the MEG will be required carried out by NUIT as the MEG test system was used to generate surveys in the pilot. This has been confirmed as being a minor update with no impact to users.

8. The stage evaluation was piloted by six Schools, two in the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences - History, Classics and Archaeology and Education Communication and Language Sciences; one in the Faculty of Medical Sciences - Psychology; and three in the Faculty of Science, Agriculture and Engineering - Agriculture, Food and Rural Development; Chemistry; and Electronic and Electrical Engineering. Over 35 programmes were evaluated during the pilot, with response rates ranging from 0% to 54.5%, with the average being around 29%.

9. Information gathered during a feedback session with participating Schools held on 11 November 2015 include the following topics:

a. Training was positive.

b. Technical issues raised between Electric Paper and the University servers were dealt with quickly.

c. Several Schools indicated they had their own paper-based stage evaluations, which regularly receive higher response rates. Online surveys tend to receive lower response rate than paper surveys. However, some areas of the University are seeing a consistent rise in response rates for the module evaluations since the start of online evaluations. It could be that given time, stage evaluations would see a similar rise.

d. Some still perceive over surveying of students to be an issue.

e. Marketing of evaluations need to be improved to ensure student engagement. This discussion bought up the possibility of incentives for Schools, where Schools that achieve a response rate greater than 60% could receive a sum of money that could then be spent on an activity/resource to be determined by/with students.

f. As observed in the initial pilot, the overall quality of feedback from the students was high despite the response rate being low.

10. The Steering Group considered the stage evaluation pilot results at its 12 November 2015 meeting, agreeing to propose that stage evaluations continue on an ad hoc basis through the remainder of AY 2015/16, with full rollout and implementation in AY 2016/17 in a report to ULTSEC in February 2016, following consultation with FLTSECs.

Implementation

11. Academic Units will be made immediately aware of the requirement to administer stage evaluation in AY 2016/17. The process should become an embedded activity to be carried out annually.

Resource Implications

12. Academic Units will need to annually create, promote, collect, and analyse all undergraduate programmes fitting the requirements for stage evaluations. Additionally, Academic Units will need to respond to feedback with plans identifying any agreed actions, timescales for implementation, and who is responsible for each action. These activities have direct bearing on workloads.

13. It has been suggested that incentives be offered in the form of a “prize” to Schools when a student cohort reaches a response rate benchmark. How this scheme would be implemented needs further consideration, and views from FLTSECs on this would be welcome.

14. The Learning and Teaching Development Service (LTDS) will continue to provide general oversight of the stage evaluation, which includes providing training and support of MEG and EvaSys training, and



Page 3 of 6

responding to policy related enquires of the stage evaluation. LTDS will rally a promotional campaign to raise awareness of the importance and value of stage (and module) evaluations and to foster understanding that participation is a standard feature of quality management and enhancement. LTDS also will liaise with NUIT to ensure that the systems are working correctly.

15. NUIT will take over the technical support for both the MEG and EvaSys in Semester 2 of AY 2015/16.

Module Evaluations

16. Given the concerns identified above about survey fatigue (paragraph 9.d.), views are being sought about whether with the introduction of a requirement for stage evaluation, the University should consider changing the frequencies at which module evaluations are collected. Currently, University policy states “[e]ach module should be evaluated every time it is delivered.” It could be that all new or recently updated modules should be evaluated and that Schools would then have the option of deciding that module evaluations would then be gathered every other time the module is delivered. This would reduce the overall volume of module and stage evaluation questionnaires, while still ensuring oversight of provision. This approach would need to be managed carefully so the evaluation cycle did not result in peak cycles; e.g., implementation would need to be staggered.

17. Reducing the University’s requirement to evaluate modules comes with both advantages and disadvantages. Potential benefits would include reducing the danger of survey fatigue among students while still giving them several opportunities to provide feedback through surveys, and perhaps creating more time for schools to consider a slightly reduced volume of student survey data in order to allow more time for reflection and action planning on these data. The disadvantages would be that staff would lose the opportunity to collect a full run of student evaluation data to support; e.g., promotions applications, and students would not be able to provide survey feedback on all modules they undertake.

Action Requested

18. Members of FLTSECs are requested to:

a. comment on the Steering Group’s recommendation to rollout stage evaluations across the University for the remainder of AY 2015/16, with full rollout of stage evaluations in AY 2016/17.

b. provide a preference on whether to keep module evaluation on an annual basis or to shift module evaluations to an alternating cycle, and include any advantages or disadvantage related to changing the frequency of module evaluations that have not already been identified in paragraph 17 above.

19. The Steering Groups needs to receive feedback no later than 20 January 2016 in order to incorporate it into its ULTSEC paper.

Myra Giesen, Development Officer, LTDS

on the behalf of the Module and Stage Evaluation Steering Group 07 December 2015



Page 4 of 6

Appendix A – Stage Evaluation Core Question Set

Number and Question Text Response Format

1. Curriculum

Introductory Text: This section is about the structure of your degree programme and how well it works for you. Try to think about the whole of your programme rather than any specific part of it when responding to the statements/questions.

1.1 This academic year, the different modules/courses/units which made up my programme worked well together as a whole.

Likert

1.2 Please comment on whether you feel the different parts of your programme worked well together as a whole.

Open

1.3 During this stage of my programme, my confidence in my work has generally improved

Likert

Introductory Text: Comment on this year’s study in relation to the year before (different questions for stages 1 and 2 (e.g., 1.4 to 1.6), a further set can be added for 4 year programmes)

stage 1

1.4 My A-levels (or equivalent prior education) provided a good foundation for stage 1 Likert

1.5 Stage 1 developed my abilities to a higher level than my previous education Likert

1.6 Please comment on the transition from your previous education into the first year of university

Open

stage 2

1.4 Stage 1 provided a good foundation for stage 2 Likert

1.5 Stage 2 developed my abilities to a higher level than stage 1 Likert

1.6 Please comment on the progression between stage 1 and stage 2 of your degree Open

all stages

1.7 How much do you enjoy your programme? (range - Not at all to Very much) Likert

1.8 Say briefly what you enjoy about your programme Open

1.9 Say briefly what could be better about your programme Open

2. Feedback

Introductory Text: This section is about the feedback you are given on your academic work.

2.1 In this stage, the feedback I have been given through the year has been helpful for improving the quality of my academic work

Likert

2.2 What types of feedback have you received during this stage of your programme:

a) Written feedback (after coursework) b) Written feedback (after exams) c) Face-to-face oral feedback d) Audio (recorded) feedback e) Other (please specify)

Multiple choice

2.3 Please give your views on the feedback you have received. How could it have been made more helpful to you?

Open



Page 5 of 6


3. Assessment

Introductory Text: This section is about how you are assessed on the work you do on your programme.

3.1 In this stage, the balance between types of assessment on my programme (coursework, oral presentations, exams etc.) has been useful for helping me learn.

Likert

3.2 If you would like the balance between types of assessment on your programme to be different (e.g. more/less coursework in relation to exams), say briefly how you would change it.

Open

3.3 Throughout this stage the spread of hand-in dates for my coursework and assessments has been reasonably manageable.

Likert

3.4 Say more about the spread of hand-in dates if you wish Open

4. Access to Resources

Introductory Text: Please respond to the following statements about learning resources.

4.1 In this stage I have normally been able to access the on-campus IT facilities needed for my programme

Likert

4.2 In this stage the physical resources (books, dvds, photocopiers etc.) available through the Library were sufficient for the needs of my programme

Likert

4.3 In this stage the electronic resources (e-journals, e-books etc.) available through the Library were sufficient for the needs of my programme

Likert

4.4 Comment on these resources (in questions 4.1 to 4.3) if you wish Open

4.5 In this stage has ReCap been available to access lecture content? Yes/No

4.6 If you used ReCap in this stage, under what circumstances has it been most useful to you

Open

4.7 Was the VLE (Blackboard/LSE) a useful part of your learning in this stage? Yes/No

4.8 If you have views on the VLE, or suggestions as to how it could be made more useful, please note them here.

Open

5. Tutorial and Pastoral Support and Student Mentoring (stage 1)

Introductory text: This section is about the mechanisms of support for students in ways connected to, but sometimes apart from, study and academic contexts. It begins with questions about the personal tutor system then moves onto other areas.

5.1 In this stage, my personal tutor has been responsive if I have contacted them. Likert

5.2 In this stage, my personal tutor has been a good source of guidance. Likert

5.3 In this stage, my personal tutor has been useful as a guide to services available for advice and support.

Likert

5.4 If you have comments on how the personal tutor system has worked for you please include them here (note that you should not include the name of your tutor).

Open

5.5 Stage 1 students are allocated a student mentor. Respond to this statement: My student mentor has been helpful to me:

Likert

5.6 If you have comments on how the student mentor system has worked for you, please include them here.

Open



Page 6 of 6


6. Representation and Academic Community

Introductory Text: This section refers to the representation system which is supposed to allow students to communicate with university staff on academic and teaching issues. It is not about student-social organisations.

6.1 I am aware of the system of student representation and I know who my course reps are.

Likert

6.2 I feel that student feedback on the positive and negative aspects of the course (given through the representation system) is listened to

Likert

6.3 If you have views on how the system of student representation could be made more effective, please include them here

Open

6.4 Within my subject area, I feel that I am part of an academic community Likert

6.5 In relation to the experience of shared academic life and communal learning (rather than student social life more generally), can you think of ways in which the student experience at the University could be improved?

Open

7. Estates

Introductory Text: This section is about the physical space and organisation of the University.

7.1 The lecture theatres / seminar rooms / labs / other rooms in which I am taught are of good quality

Likert

7.2 Please indicate how you think these rooms could be improved, if at all Open

7.3 Which places do you use for independent study (multiple choice)

a) Home b) Library c) Subject area building d) Student Union building e) Other (please specify)

Multiple choice

7.4 Comment on the sufficiency of these independent study spaces if you wish Open

7.5 Have there been any problems with your timetable this year Open

7.6 Do you have views to share on the University campus? Which parts of the campus do you like or dislike? What changes to the campus would you like, if any?

Open


Cross FLTSEC 14 January 2016 Document J

National Student Survey results, 2015 Background and context 1. The National Student Survey (NSS) is a survey of all final year undergraduate degree students

at all publicly funded Higher Education Institutions in England, Wales, NI and Scotland. The survey consists of 22 questions, 21 of which relate to Teaching, Assessment and Feedback, Academic Support, Organisation and Management, Learning Resources or Personal Development. The 2015 results are the first to include students who paid higher tuition fees which were introduced in England in 2012.

Results 2. Results for the six topic areas covered by NSS have been generally very positive:

Table 1 Newcastle University’s NSS results 2006-15, by question group

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Teaching on my course 82 82 85 87 87 89 89 89 90 89

Assessment and feedback 52 54 58 62 63 66 67 70 71 71

Academic support 70 71 75 78 79 82 83 84 86 86

Organisation and management 74 76 79 81 83 86 84 85 86 86

Learning resources 86 84 86 85 83 82 86 91 90 91

Personal development 75 75 77 80 81 80 83 84 84 86

Overall satisfaction 81 82 86 87 87 89 89 90 91 91

Students’ Union 76 78 82 81

3. Newcastle scored higher than the HEI average across the majority of questions in the NSS, and achieved results within the top quartile for 14 of the 23 questions (16 in 2014). Overall section scores were within the top quartile in four of the six areas – compared with five in 2014. The area with the weakest scores, including two questions below the HEI average and with none in the top quartile, is Assessment and Feedback. Tables showing these scores in detail are included in Annexes 1 and 2.

4. At question level Newcastle’s scores have improved or remained static since 2014 in 17 of the 23 questions within the survey, with eight questions seeing increased satisfaction. In relation to each of the areas:

a. Despite Teaching on My Course declining overall since last year, it remains the University’s second highest scoring area, with our joint second highest score for any question in this section, 92% in response to ‘Staff are good at explaining things’. This was our joint highest scoring question in 2014.

b. There have been increases for two out of the five questions (with one static) for Assessment and Feedback. We remain behind the HEI average (73%) for this topic area, with the question ‘Feedback on my work has helped me clarify things I did not understand’ once again presenting the lowest overall score for the survey. Just 64% of students agreed with this statement (against 68% national average).

c. There has essentially been no change in relation to Academic Support and Organisation and Management: marginal changes in the results for individual questions have had no effect on overall scores.



d. Rises of 1% for two of the questions relating to IT resources have counteracted a 1% fall in the score relating to Library provision, leading to a slight increase in the overall sore for Learning Resources. This remains the University’s highest scoring area. It should be noted that although the score for Library provision has fallen from 94% to 93%, this remains our highest question score.

e. There have been rises of 2% or 3% for each of the questions relating to Personal Development, leading to the overall section score increasing by 2%.

5. Of the 45 subject groups (JACS level 3), 30 are at or have exceeded the 90% overall satisfaction score for Question 22, with one scoring a full 100% (see Annex 3). This compares to 33 subjects, of which one was not published due to low numbers of respondents, in 2014, and 30 of 48 subject areas in 2013. Of the remaining 15 subjects, all but five scored above 80%. These were Maritime Technology (79%), Business Studies (79%), Marketing (79%), Management Studies (72%) and Nutrition (52%).

6. In terms of dissatisfaction, subjects receiving the highest scores for % disagreement (with students scoring a 1 or a 2), included Maritime Technology (17%), Management Studies (13%) and Marketing (12%). The highest dissatisfaction score was in Nutrition, where 18% of students were actively dissatisfied with their experience. This represents an improvement since 2014 when dissatisfaction in this subject area was 24%. All other subject areas received a dissatisfaction score of less than 10%, with most (31 of 45) scoring only 5% or less.

Comparative performance 7. Overall this is a strong set of results. However, consideration of the University’s comparative

performance suggests that performance is not as strong overall as the University would wish.

8. Our overall satisfaction score of 91% places us joint 6th among ‘full service’ universities (excluding small and specialist colleges) and joint first in the Russell Group with Oxford. However, in relation to Assessment and Feedback we fall short of the sector average (73%) and 7% points away from the top quartile and this remains the most challenging area for the institution. Also, the score for Teaching was 89% - a 1% decrease compared to 2014 with a 2% decrease for the question ‘Staff are good at explaining things’. Although 89% for ‘Teaching’ is higher than the Russell Group and HE sector averages, it is outside the top quartile (90%) and it is therefore important for the institution to work to improve scores in this area not least because of the impending Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) which may not use overall satisfaction as a key outcome.

9. A further perspective on comparative performance at institutional is provided by the recent Sunday Times Good University Guide 2016. Previously this has included a single score for student satisfaction based on NSS results. This year student satisfaction has been split into ‘Teaching Quality’ (including Teaching, Feedback and Assessment and Academic Support) and ‘Student Experience’ (including Organisation and Management, Learning Resources, Personal Development and Overall Satisfaction). This methodology places Newcastle joint 7th nationally for Student Experience, but only 47th for Teaching Quality.

10. Similar issues arise when subject level results are considered. The following table provides ranking by quartile and subject area of subject groups offered by the University, within the subject group nationally (for the detailed data see Annex 4). This analysis is important since it normalises to a certain extent recognised subject differences. It demonstrates our strength in Academic Support, Organisation and Management and Learning Resources, but raises some concerns in relation Teaching, and Assessment and Feedback:



Table 2 NSS 2014 and 2015: Ranking by quartile and subject group of subject areas offered by Newcastle, within the subject group nationally

Number of Newcastle subject groups in each quartile

1 2 3 4

2014 2015 2014 2015 2014 2015 2014 2015

Teaching on my course 15 9 16 16 6 12 4 8

Assessment and feedback 9 11 18 13 10 8 4 13

Academic support 22 10 11 25 7 6 1 4

Organisation and management 21 17 17 19 2 5 1 4

Learning resources 24 19 9 16 6 9 2 1

Personal development 12 13 13 15 23 12 3 5

Overall satisfaction 17 13 14 20 9 8 1 4

11. The strength of the University’s NSS performance in Academic Support, Organisation and Management and Learning Resources, and relatively weaker scores in relation Teaching, and Assessment and Feedback, is also demonstrated in the subject level scores in the Sunday Times Good University Guide 2016. Annex 5 shows the scores for Teaching Quality and Student Experience for each Newcastle subject that appears in a Sunday Times subject league table. This demonstrates that while it is not the case for all subject areas, there are a large number of subject areas where relative performance for Teaching Quality is noticeably weaker than for Student Experience. Again this is relevant to the development of the TEF. In addition to suggestions that TEF is likely to include NSS data but focus on areas other than overall satisfaction, the current indications are that while early iterations of the TEF will operate at institution level only it is highly likely that TEF will operate at both institutional and subject levels.

Next steps

12. Results of the NSS 2015 are now available for staff in academic units. Quantitative results can be accessed via the Planning Office website. Free text comments have been circulated to academic units by LTDS. Academic units are asked to consider and comment on their NSS 2015 data as part of the 2015/16 round of Annual Monitoring and Review, with the expectation that AMR action plans will incorporate actions relating to any issues arising from NSS results. There will be detailed scrutiny and interaction with those subject areas where overall scores are low and a renewed focus on assessment and feedback, starting with the ULTSEC Away Day in September 2015, and consideration of teaching in preparation for TEF.

Action requested 13. Members of ULTSEC are asked to consider the issues arising from this analysis of the TEF,

particularly any further steps they feel are necessary in addition to those set out in paragraph 12 above.

Professor Suzanne Cholerton PVC - Learning and Teaching 6 October 2015


Annex 1 Newcastle University NSS results 2015



Annex 3 Results for Question 22 by subject Of the 45 subject areas (JACS level 3), 30 are at or have exceeded the 90% overall satisfaction score for Question 22, with one scoring a full 100%.

% Agree

Philosophy 100 Physical Geography and Env Sci. 98 Archaeology 98 Fine Art 98 Dentistry 97 Psychology 97 Chemistry 97 Combined 97 Human and Social Geography 96 Media Studies 96 Medicine 95 Molecular Biology and Biochem. 95 Mathematics and Statistics 95 Anatomy, Physiology and Pathology 93 Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmacy 93 English studies 93 Classics 93 German and Scandinavian studies 93 History 93 Biology 92 Economics 92 French studies 92 Aural and Oral Sciences 91

Others in Subjects allied to Medicine 91 Zoology 91 Chemical, Process and Energy Eng. 91 Law 91 Electronic and Electrical Engineering 90 Civil Engineering 90 Politics 90 Planning (Urban, Rural and Regional) 89 Iberian studies 89 Computer Science 88 Accounting 88 Agriculture and related subjects 86 Mechanical, Production, Manufac Eng. 86 Architecture 86 Sociology 86 Linguistics 85 Music 83 Maritime Technology 79 Business studies 79 Marketing 79 Management studies 72 Nutrition 52


Annex 4 NSS 2015 results by question group and subject level quartile Teaching Assessment and

feedback Academic support Organisation and

management Learning resources Personal development Overall satisfaction

Subject Count of institutions

Newcastle Response Rate

Score Quartile Score Quartile Score Quartile Score Quartile Score Quartile Score Quartile Score Quartile

(001) Medicine 33 70 95 2 67 2 88 2 86 1 94 3 93 2 95 2 (002) Dentistry 15 69 99 1 83 2 96 2 85 3 97 2 98 2 97 3 (003) Anatomy, Physiology and Pathology 55 67 95 2 86 1 88 2 80 3 91 3 83 3 93 2 (004) Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmacy 43 85 86 3 73 2 87 2 87 2 92 3 88 3 93 2 (007) Nutrition 33 57 85 3 49 4 73 4 60 4 82 3 74 4 52 4 (009) Aural and Oral Sciences 20 94 90 4 68 2 88 2 89 1 90 2 92 2 91 2 (011) Others in Subjects allied to Medicine 99 71 90 2 68 3 86 2 82 2 93 1 80 4 91 2 (012) Biology 86 75 91 2 71 2 88 1 86 2 93 1 86 2 92 2 (013) Zoology 39 78 89 3 74 2 84 2 86 2 90 2 89 1 91 2 (016) Molecular Biology, Biophysics and Biochemistry 58 83 94 2 83 1 95 1 88 2 97 1 90 1 95 1 (019) Psychology 133 74 94 1 71 3 91 1 94 1 92 1 90 1 97 1 (024) Agriculture and related subjects 37 77 78 4 62 4 84 3 79 2 85 3 79 3 86 3 (025) Chemistry 54 67 87 4 67 3 88 2 91 1 89 3 78 4 97 1 (031) Physical Geography and Environmental Science 68 67 92 2 74 3 90 1 89 2 92 2 89 2 98 1 (032) Mathematics and Statistics 69 68 93 1 85 1 92 1 91 1 86 4 89 1 95 1 (035) Computer Science 159 61 83 3 62 4 82 3 83 2 92 1 78 3 88 2 (037) Mechanical, Production and Manufacturing Eng 89 68 77 3 48 4 82 3 74 3 88 2 88 1 86 2 (040) Electronic and Electrical Engineering 80 64 76 4 72 2 83 2 86 1 89 2 84 2 90 1 (041) Civil Engineering 62 74 88 2 72 2 86 2 90 1 92 1 87 2 90 2 (042) Chemical, Process and Energy Engineering 24 70 84 3 77 1 88 2 86 2 95 1 90 2 91 2 (045) Maritime Technology 4 65 79 4 53 4 77 4 61 4 91 3 78 3 79 4 (047) Architecture 54 75 90 3 67 4 80 3 76 3 94 1 91 1 86 3 (050) Planning (Urban, Rural and Regional) 21 67 86 3 81 2 87 2 76 4 87 2 86 3 89 3 (052) Economics 77 67 90 1 64 3 85 2 88 2 86 3 83 2 92 1 (053) Politics 90 66 91 3 75 3 88 1 87 2 86 2 81 3 90 2 (054) Sociology 116 62 84 3 72 3 81 2 90 1 87 1 78 3 86 3 (059) Human and Social Geography 54 71 95 1 80 2 86 2 92 1 91 2 88 2 96 1 (060) Law 113 62 89 3 67 4 80 2 88 1 92 1 87 2 91 2 (061) Business studies 147 93 76 4 61 4 71 4 82 2 89 1 78 4 79 4 (062) Marketing 79 65 72 4 57 4 78 3 83 2 89 2 80 4 79 3 (063) Management studies 104 65 72 4 61 4 72 4 75 4 88 2 79 3 72 4 (066) Accounting 102 59 85 3 73 3 85 2 89 2 90 2 82 3 88 3 (069) Media Studies 96 79 97 1 87 1 93 1 96 1 92 1 88 1 96 1 (075) English studies 112 85 93 2 81 2 90 1 91 1 87 2 86 1 93 2 (078) Classics 21 79 93 2 80 2 86 2 94 1 86 2 76 3 93 2 (079) French studies 51 93 93 2 86 1 85 2 90 2 95 1 89 2 92 2 (080) German and Scandanavian studies 32 92 92 2 86 1 83 3 87 2 95 1 90 1 93 2 (082) Iberian studies 51 92 92 2 82 1 82 2 88 2 91 2 89 2 89 2 (084) Linguistics 31 88 92 2 74 2 81 2 76 3 95 1 77 3 85 3 (090) History 98 71 95 2 83 1 88 2 92 1 91 1 85 2 93 2 (091) Archaeology 26 65 98 1 95 1 92 2 98 1 92 1 95 1 98 1 (093) Philosophy 53 61 93 2 65 4 85 2 91 1 83 3 85 1 100 1 (095) Fine Art 86 88 96 1 89 1 96 1 84 1 93 1 93 1 98 1 (097) Music 105 75 91 2 60 4 85 2 81 2 99 1 81 2 83 2 (107) Combined 5 71 95 1 68 4 87 1 89 2 88 2 86 1 97 1


Annex 5 NSS 2015 results by question group and subject level quartile


Ranking for Teaching quality

Ranking for Student experience

Overall subject ranking

Accounting and Finance 97 =52 =42 17

Agriculture and Forestry 15 13 11 5

Anatomy and Physiology 39 7 20 5

Archaeology 56 2 1 12

Architecture 51 43 25 9

Art and Design 80 4 4 4

Biological Sciences 99 =26 =23 33

Business Studies 117 109 89 32

Chemical Engineering 26 6 8 6

Chemistry 54 34 17 34

Civil Engineering 53 20 18 12

Classics and Ancient History 22 12 6 7

Communication and Media Studies 91 6 3 3

Computer Science 103 69 35 22

Creative Writing 48 18 8 5

Dentistry 15 5 5 4

Economics 73 29 21 30

Electrical and Electronic Engineering 71 41 21 22

English 106 35 21 10




Ranking for Teaching quality

Ranking for Student experience

Overall subject ranking

Food Science 38 35 37 12

French 50 12 10 7

Geography and Environmental Science 74 17 11 8

German 38 =14 8 6

History 93 25 4 =18

Iberian Languages 52 17 18 7

Law 101 67 21 19

Linguistics 29 =13 18 8

Mathematics 69 10 8 13

Mechanical Engineering 62 51 34 26

Medicine 32 13 10 8

Music 77 52 24 =25

Pharmacology and Pharmacy 44 21 18 12

Philosophy 50 36 8 8

Politics 78 24 30 27

Psychology 111 24 3 =10

Sociology 93 66 38 28

Subjects Allied to Medicine 79 39 =26 13

Town and Country Planning and Landscape 29 10 15 =6


NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY CROSS-FACULTY LEARNING, TEACHING AND STUDENT EXPERIENCE COMMITTEE

12 November 2015 Minutes

Present: Professor J Calvert (Chair), Mr D Beattie, Dr L Ferrie, Dr S Grinsell (until 11am), Mr C Heady (from 11am), Dr J Kamara, Mr M Price, Dr R Young, Miss J Trewick (Secretary) Apologies: Dr R Harrison, Mr A Jammeh, Ms G Kirkbride, Dr J Timney, Dr A Tully, Dr C Watts In attendance: Dr R Spencer Noted: 1) That Cross-FLTSEC Representatives were asked to ensure that when they are unable to attend a Cross-FLTSEC meeting that a deputy attends on their behalf. 2) That attempts were made to contact Mr A Jammeh at Newcastle University London by Skype which were unsuccessful. Part I: Items for Discussion 24. UKPSF CPD Scheme 1. Considered: Annual report on UKPSF CPD Scheme, Report of External Reviewer and responses, Equality and Diversity Data for UKPSF CPD Scheme

Documents A, B, C – circulated with agenda 2. Noted:

1) That the Annual report provided an overview of the activities which had taken place during 2014-15. 2) That the completion rates were not included in the report and that it would be useful to include these in future reports. It was noted that completion rates varied amongst participants. It was felt that those participants on the experiential route might benefit from a time allocation within the workload model.

3) That the number of participants on the experiential route is increasing. These participants are being supported throughout the process by professional standards advisers and new materials have been made available on Blackboard.

4) The scheme will be re-accredited next year however HEA are in the process of changing their accreditation process and further information will not be available until January 2016.

5) That the scheme needs to be fully embedded within the promotion criteria. If the proportion of staff with recognition becomes more important then it may be desirable to make this a requirement for promotion. This issue should be referred for consideration by ULTSEC.


Action: JT to forward comments to TPSC


25. Consultation: Employability Strategy

1. Considered: Employability Strategy Document D – circulated with agenda

2. Noted:

1) That initial consultations had taken place across the University and common themes have been identified.

2) That it was proposed every degree programme would be able to offer students a placement year, which would be run by the Careers Service. It was agreed that the placement year option would be a valuable addition to the degree programmes.

3) That the details of the placement year have not yet been finalised and that further consideration would need to be given to capacity and logistical arrangements.

4) That students would need a guarantee of a placement if they opted to take the placement year.

5) That students taking the placement year would need to be monitored, in line with University policy. It was noted that this would have resource implications for the Careers Service but could be offset by the placement fee. 6) That the scheme would be more efficient to manage if employers were identified that were able to take more than one student.

7) That all programmes would need to have a duplicate programme set up on SAP for the placement year. It would be important to find a way to do this efficiently. It was suggested that the duplicate code may cause confusion for students when applying, although it was felt that students would normally apply for the programme without placement year and then transfer after they had secured a placement. It was agreed that there would need to be flexibility within the system to allow students to switch programmes.

8) That the strategy did not mention supernumerary modules such as the vacation scholarship module and language modules that link to employability.

9) That the place of the Graduate Skills Framework (GSF) in the strategy should be considered. The GSF was felt to be in need of review. It is rather cumbersome in terms of the number of skills and the relevance needs to be more clearly articulated to students. The GSF appears in every MOF but students do not generally use these documents and there is some confusion with the ‘skills outcomes’ section. It might be more helpful for the GSF to be articulated at programme level. Endorsement by employers would also be helpful.

10) That the strategy would embrace all students and INTO felt this was a positive move to engage with INTO students, which could in turn increase retention rates.

Action: Comments to be forwarded to ML. 26. Policy for consideration: Review of Partnership and International Campus Provision 1. Considered:


Document E – circulated with minutes

2. Noted:

1) That the visits will complement the Learning and Teaching Review (LTR) but focus on the campus and issues across disciplinary provision.

2) That there were no further comments and it was agreed that the policy was thorough and provided clear guidelines on the process for documentation.

Action: JT to forward comments to LJ. 27. Newcastle University London 1. Considered: Academic Governance for INTO Newcastle University and Newcastle University London

Document F – circulated with minutes

2. Noted: 1) That the document detailed and clarified the academic governance

arrangements for Newcastle University London. 2) That section 2.1.c should read should be supported by tele-

conferencing/video-conferencing, it was noted that facilities between Newcastle and London will need to be improved.

3) That Section 2.3.b should include reference to how the Chair of the BoE will be involved if scaling has been applied.

4) That subject to the minor amendments the academic governance was approved.

Action: JT to forward comments to LJ. Part 2: Routine Business 28. Minutes of previous meeting 1. Considered: Minutes of the meeting held 8 October 2015

Document G – circulated with minutes 2. Noted: 1) That M2 should read UKPSF CPD and not CASAP. 2) That M2 INTO Newcastle that there were other external factors involved with

the lower student numbers. 3) That the minutes be accepted as an accurate record. 4) That Simon Pallett be contacted for a HASS representative. Action: JT to amend minutes and contact SP. Part 3: Matters of Report 29. Minutes of University Learning, Teaching and Student Experience Committee


1. Received: Minutes from September and October 2015. 30. Any other business 1. Noted: 1) That there were no further business.


Cross-FLTSEC Action log, as of 6 January 2016

Key: JC Jane Calvert RH Richard Harrison GK Gemma Kirkbride JT Janice Trewick DB Darrin Beattie CH Chris Heady AT Alan Tully LF Lynsey Ferrie AJ Amadou Jammeh RY Richard Young SG Stephen Grinsell JK John Kamara JTi John Timney

Action log: Meeting date Minute number and item title Action required Responsible Deadline Update Status 08.10.15 1. Terms of Reference and Membership

2015/16 Contact Simon Pallett to discuss new representative from HASS faculty.

JT 05.11.15 15.10.15 Contacted SP no rep as yet 23.11.15 Paul Fleet to become HASS rep

Completed

08.10.15 1. Terms of Reference and Membership 2015/16

ToR to be updated to include Dr Watts. Wording relating to teaching and learning to be corrected.

JT 05.11.15 15.10.15 Updated Completed

08.10.15 1. Terms of Reference and Membership 2015/16

Contact the Student Union Representative regarding attendance at the meetings.

JC 05.11.15 SU rep attending meetings Completed

08.10.15 3. Consultation: Fit to Sit Comments to be reported to Simon Pallet. JT 05.11.15 23.10.15 Comments forwarded to SP. Completed 08.10.15 4. Consultation: Role of Senior Tutor job

description SG and AJ to be added to the Senior Tutor mailbase list and to be invited to Senior Tutor forums.

JT 05.11.15 23.10.15 SG and AJ added to the list Completed

08.10.15 5. INU8001 Comments to be reported to TPSC regarding INU8001 module which was highlighted during the Chemistry ISR.

JT 05.11.15 04.11.15 Minutes and INTO report and BoS minutes forwarded.

Completed

8.10.15 6. University Learning, Teaching and Student Experience Strategy

To check the strategy circulated with the minutes was the latest version. To circulate to members the latest version for reference.

JT 05.11.15 19.10.15 Contacted SM version circulated with the agenda is the latest.

Completed

08.10.15 7. Reported Board of Examiners’ and PEC Committee Membership

Outstanding membership to be submitted. JTi 05.11.15 16.10.15 All received Completed

08.10.15 10. EPSC Sub Group: London 15/16 To contact LJ regarding an update on academic governance of pathway programmes at London

JT 05.11.15 Documents submitted for discussion at Cross-FLTSEC 12 November 2015.

Completed

08.10.15 15. Credit Transfer and Recognition of Prior Learning Policy

Individual policies to be updated to reflect the changes All 01.12.15 Ongoing

08.10.15 18. Schedule of Student Surveys for 2015/16

To request that the schedule includes the Decliners and New Entrants Survey to the schedule.

JT 05.11.15 04.11.15 Extract of minutes sent to Myra Giesen

Completed

12.11.15 24. UKPSF CPD Scheme Comments regarding promotion to be forwarded to TPSC for consideration at ULTSEC.

JT 06.01.16 25.11.15 Comments forwarded to TPSC Secretary

Completed

12.11.15 25. Employability Strategy Comments to be forwarded to Marc Lintern. JT 03.12.15 25.11.15 Comments forwarded to Marc Lintern

Completed

12.11.15 26. Review of Partnership and International Campus Provision

Comments to be forwarded to Laura Johnstone. JT 03.12.15 25.11.15 Comments forwarded to Laura Johnstone

Completed

12.11.15 27. Newcastle University London Comments to be forwarded to Laura Johnstone. JT 03.12.15 25.11.15 Comments forwarded to Laura Johnstone

Completed

12.11.15 28. Minutes of previous meeting (October 2015)

Minutes to be corrected. Contact Simon Pallett to discuss HASS representative.

JT 03.12.15 23.11.15 SP contacted JT to advise that Paul Fleet would become the HASS representative

Completed
