School Annual Quality Assurance and Enhancement Report … · 2016-08-02 · School Annual Quality Assurance and Enhancement Report Template Policy Title 6 UG: no significant or persistent

School Annual Quality Assurance and Enhancement Report Template

Purpose of Policy

The policy is the University framework for annual quality assurance and enhancement reporting by Schools to the relevant College.

Overview

The policy sets out the key areas of quality assurance and enhancement on which Schools report consistently across the University on an annual basis. Themes from School reports are identified by Colleges and form the basis for action and dissemination of good practice at College level. Themes identified by Colleges are reported annually to Senate Quality Assurance Committee, which identifies areas for action and dissemination of good practice.

Scope: Mandatory Policy

Scope in relation to report content: all credit-bearing provision. Scope in relation to staff roles: School Directors of Quality have overall responsibility for preparing the School annual quality assurance and enhancement report to College. They liaise with other roles in the School as relevant to the School context.

Contact Officer Linda Bruce Academic Policy Manager, Academic Services

[email protected]

Document control

Dates Approved: 29.05.14

Starts: 01.08.14

Equality impact assessment: tbc

Amendments: Next Review: 2014/15

Approving authority Senate Quality Assurance Committee

Consultation undertaken College Dean/Associate Dean/Director of Quality, College Office administrators, School Directors of Quality and professional staff

Section responsible for policy maintenance & review

Academic Services

Related policies, procedures, guidelines & regulations

College Annual Quality Assurance and Enhancement Report Template, Quality Assurance, Monitoring and Reporting of Postgraduate Research Provision

UK Quality Code Chapter B8, Programme Monitoring and Review; Chapter B5, Student Engagement; Chapter B7, External Examining; Chapter B3, Learning and Teaching; Chapter B11, Research Degrees.

Policies superseded by this policy

School Annual Quality Assurance and Enhancement Report Template 2013/14

Alternative format If you require this document in an alternative format please email [email protected] or telephone 0131 650 2138.

Keywords QA report, QAE report, annual quality report, School annual quality report, School Quality Assurance and Enhancement Report

mailto:[email protected]


Policy Title

2

Further guidance including data sources to support reflections can be found in the accompanying document ‘School Quality Assurance and Enhancement Report Template Guidance’.

Formal confirmations

Has this report been discussed at the relevant School committee (Quality Assurance/ Learning and Teaching/Postgraduate/Researcher Experience)? N If N, have arrangements been made to discuss at the next meeting? Y Has this report been discussed at a Student-Staff Liaison Committee or equivalent forum? N If N, have arrangements been made to discuss at the next meeting/equivalent forum? Y ATTACH COMPLETED HEAD OF SCHOOL SIGN-OFF FORM.

SCHOOL CONTEXT

Provide brief context about School – subject areas, list of School degree programmes, overall student numbers (UG, PGT & PGR) and highlight any major changes since the last report e.g. increase in student numbers in a particular category.

The following report has been prepared by HCA School Director of Quality and provides information derived from the Annual Quality Assurance UG Reports submitted by the HISTORY, CLASSICS and ARCHAEOLOGY subject areas that together comprise the School. Reports were received from Subject Area QA co-ordinators for both UG provision and from the Director of the Graduate School for postgraduate degree programmes (PGT and PGR). In response to a concern recently raised in the Archaeology TPR (January 2015), this HCA Annual QA report attempts to retain notice of any Subject Area specific matters as well as highlighting concerns or examples of good practice across the School. An attempt has been made to provide a concise summary of the issues raised in the HCA internal QA reports, and, if required, further information from the separate SA and Graduate School reports may be found on the HCA website. [ADD LINK] Annual reporting process: Recommendation: Please ensure that all HCA UG/PG QA annual reports use the approved CHSS QA reporting template. Also attention is drawn to the School Annual Quality Assurance and Enhancement Report Template Guidance document (see Appendix). Statistical data and interpretation provided by Andrew Thomson, CHSS Business Intelligence Team. This data was made available 11 December 2014, but does not seem to have been distributed to the SAs and Graduate School. HCA QA Director would like to record thanks to Andrew Thomson for his work on this statistical data. Recommendation: QA Director to ensure that the statistical data is distributed to the SA and Graduate School QA officers for inclusion and comment in the SA and Graduate School Annual QA reports. Action: HCA QA Director to review HCA QA reporting processes in advance of next QA reporting cycle and issue revised guide-lines.


Policy Title

3

UNDERGRADUATE: List of School undergraduate degree programmes. HCA offers 31 UG Degree programmes: (MA (Hons.) unless indicated):

Ancient and Medieval History

Ancient History

Ancient History and Classical Archaeology

Ancient History and Greek

Ancient History and Latin

Ancient Mediterranean Civilisations

Archaeology

Archaeology and Social Anthropology

Classical and Middle East Studies

Classical Archaeology and Greek

Classical Studies

Classics

Classics and English Language

Classics and Linguistics

Economic and Social History

Economic and Social History with Environmental Studies

Economic History

Economic History and Business

Environmental Archaeology (BSc Hons)

Greek Studies

History

History and Archaeology

History and Classics

History and History of Art

History and Politics

History and Scottish History

History and Sociology

Latin Studies

Scottish History

Social and Architectural History

Social History

Overall student numbers:

Year Full-Time Part-time TOTAL Change +/- Notes

2010/11 1068 17 1085

2011/12 1081 15 1096 +11 Drop in P/t

2012/13 1133 16 1149 +53 Increased intake F/t

2013/14 1127 13 1140 -9 Drop in P/t

Source: S:\Quality\ELIR and Course Monitoring\Reports\HCA Annual Reports\2013-14\Stats


Policy Title

4

Changes since 2012/13:

A slight drop in total numbers (-9) since 2012/13. The decline in P/t numbers continues. The large intake of 2012/13 now in Year 3. POSTGRADUATE: Six taught/research/mixed mode MSc programmes ran in Archaeology, five in Classics, and 15 in History. Overall student numbers starting in 2013-14:

2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14

Masters 114 140 135 139 152 Increase of 8.5%

PhD and Mphil 25 35 27 33 40 Increase of 17.5%

Figure 1. PG Student intake in HCA, 2009-13 This reflected increases, respectively, of 8.5% and 17.5%: cf. 2012-13 intake of 139 and 33. 2013/14: 111 students achieved an award for an MSCT degree, (23 distinctions @ 20.72% of total). 6 diploma awards. For comparison: distinctions in previous years: 27.77% (2009-10), 25.00% (2010-11), 18.85% (2011-12), and 21.36% (2012-13), averaging 2009-14 at 22.74%. The proportion of distinctions awarded in 2013-14 was broadly in line with the average.

1. QUALITY ASSURANCE

1.1 Progress Report progress in addressing School level issues/recommendations/actions from the previous year’s report, including whether and how staff and students have been advised of progress. 2012/13 report recommended submission of a Graduate School QA Report in addition to the 3 SA Annual UG QA Reports. A Graduate School QA Report was compiled and made available for this report. Staff and students are advised of progress in QA matters through School and Subject Area meetings, as well as via the HCA website at: http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/history-classics-archaeology/about-us/academic-excellence/teaching-quality/course-prog-review/overview A particular problem involving student participation in Staff/Student liaison committees has been identified, especially in the History SA for Honours level students. History Honours SSLC meetings had to be cancelled due to lack of student participants. Action taken: the History SA has established (from Autumn 2014) inaugural meetings for student representatives with the aim of introducing them to each other and informing them of their role. It may also be worth liaising with EUSA to ensure that those trained by EUSA as student representatives fulfil their duties or lose their accreditation if they do not attend meetings. It has been suggested that the sections within the History SA take a much greater role in QA matters, perhaps managing SSLCs at this level. The precise structure of SSLCs within the History SA remains under review. PG: Review of sustainability of MSc programmes and courses.


Policy Title

5

Action taken: Two programmes closed at the end of 2013-14 due to staff changes, one was suspended and placed under review, and there were plans to close further programmes.

1.2 Key performance points Comment or where relevant provide information on the following, for the current year in relation to the previous 5 academic years. Please highlight where any specific programme or student group can be identified, and where rates fall below the relevant benchmark (see guidance), what is being done to address the issue. For actions that are on-going, please comment on their impact. See guidance section for sources of data. Undergraduate and Postgraduate Taught: 1. Course results: State proportion of A-D grades versus E-H grades (or grades from E and below as relevant).

[UG & PGT] HCA Summary Results

2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14

Pass 93.2% 92.8% 93.6% 93.1% 92.4%

Fail 0.7% 0.8% 0.6% 0.7% 0.8%

Withdrawn/Absent 4.2% 3.4% 3.0% 3.0% 2.8%

UG Summary Results

2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14

Pass 94.0% 93.8% 94.7% 94.5% 94.3%

Fail 0.8% 0.9% 0.7% 0.8% 0.8%


PG Summary Results

2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14

Pass 87.2% 87.5% 86.6% 85.2% 82.5%

Fail

0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.9%


2. Comment on the above including proposed actions if the proportion of grades A-D or E-H is higher than expected and briefly state actions taken or planned to address any issues of concern. [UG]

It is noted that the overall 2013-14 pass rate (92.4%) is slightly down on 2012-13 (93.1%), and the fail rate slightly up (0.8% from 0.7%). The slight drop in the Withdrawn/Absent figures continuing a downward trend is noted. 1.2 Key performance points (contd.) 3. Comment on any significant variations or persistent issues in the last 5 year trend in student achievement

and any reasons identified. [UG & PGT]


Policy Title

6

UG: no significant or persistent issues in the last 5-year trend. Postgraduate Taught: PGT coursework averages since 2009-10: broadly consistent in every subject area. 2013-14 68.43 in Archaeology (67.06 average over five years), 64.85 in Classics (66.52 average), and 63.96 in History (65.74 average). Cf HCA average 2013-14 was 65.27 (66.22 average). Where there was significant deviation from average in individual courses, action was taken. The reasons for the deviation were investigated with the course organizer, who commented on the relative under-preparedness of the students and patchy attendance. 4. Comment on withdrawal rate in relation to the College average [see guidance], including any trends, and

identify actions needed or being taken if the rate is of concern to the School. [UG, PGT & PGR]

UG: The withdrawal rate of 8% is higher than the average for the previous 4 years and just above this

year's college average of 7%.

PGT: The withdrawal rate in 2013-14 was 1.32% and compares with withdrawal rates over last five

years of 2.63% (2009-10), 5.00% (2010-11), 8.15% (2011-12), and 2.88% (2012-13).

PGR: Remains constant over the period.

5. Proportion of entrants who have successfully achieved an award. [UG, PGT]

UG: The proportion of entrants who have successfully achieved an award is down on the previous 4

years, but part of this is due to a small number of entrants who are still currently fully matriculated.

PGT: The proportion of full-time entrants who have successfully achieved an award is down on the

previous year, continuing a general downward trend. However part of this is due to a handful of

students still being currently matriculated.

6. Any notable change in degree classifications in relation to the past 5 years, including notable divergence from Russell Group degree classification data. [UG] For College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, state any issue raised by regulatory bodies in relation to comparator information and performance in subsequent postgraduate examinations, and state follow up action being taken or planned [UG]. The proportion of UG entrants who achieved a first class award is down on the previous year continuing a downward trend. The proportion of second class division 1 awards is also down on the previous year. Instead there was a higher proportion of second class division 2 awards compared to the previous year and the proportion of pass awards was up on the previous year continuing an upward trend. NOTE: The Russell Group degree classification comparison is sent to Schools by Governance & Strategic Planning (GaSP) in Semester 2 annually. [See Appendix] Pages 2, 12 & 13 of the report indicate a slight reduction in 2:1 awards and an increase in 2:2 awards, whilst firsts remain stable. Comparing the 2012/13 Russell Group data on page 12 shows their average first awards were 22% which is higher than the 13% achieved in HCA.


Policy Title

7

Action: The fall in the number of Firsts and the comparison with the Russell Group average should be noted for discussion by HCA and its SAs.

7. In relation to the University’s Strategic Plan target of the creation of at least 800 new opportunities for students to study abroad as part of their degree, state of Number of students going abroad as part of their degree, together with trend numerically [UG]. If proportion of students going abroad is increasing, briefly state what actions are being used successfully to promote study abroad.

HCA has increased the numbers of students studying abroad from 60 students (2012/13) to 89 (2013/14). This increase may be the result of attempts by HCA to draw more attention to the possibility of studying abroad through advertising and arranging meetings for those interested. Classics have introduced (2013/14) a field school connected to Honours courses that provides the opportunity to excavate and/or survey abroad: 4 students in 2013-14. Measures are also in place to advertise the Baldwin Brown Fund more actively which supports students financially when visiting the Mediterranean for study purposes. 8. State where the School has exceeded performance in the recruitment of Widening Participation students

within the recruitment context of the School, as reported in the University’s Outcome agreement. Comment on the specific reasons identified for success e.g. participants in summer school. [UG]

HCA has increased the numbers of WP entrants from 94 to 111 an addition of 17. HCA is among the lowest WP recruiters in CHSS. This modest increase may have been a result of participation in the Summer School, although data will need to be gathered on this issue. This relatively low WP recruitment is flagged as an issue to be discussed, although HCA does not have direct control over UG admissions and this concern should be communicated to CHSS Admissions. 9. Report on any known issues arising from differences in student performance, for example degree

outcomes in relation to gender, ethnicity and age. [UG& PGT]

No significant issues have been noted here.

Postgraduate Research 10. Comment on trends in the data provided in BI suite reports ‘PGR progression and outcome’ , in particular

any trends relating to the numbers of students completing (i) within the prescribed period of study; (ii) within the prescribed period of study plus permitted submission period; and (iii) outwith the prescribed period of study plus permitted submission period.

Postgraduate Research Submission: HCA students who began their study in 2011-12 have taken an average of 38 months to complete, two months over the expected period of full-time study. However, this figure should be taken as a provisional snapshot of a moving target as a number of students are taking an interruption of studies. The revised average for submission may be closer to that of 44 months for students who began their studies in 2010-11. Interruptions of Study: Students have taken interruptions of study during 2013-14 largely as a result of medical or psychological problems, and sometimes as a result of financial difficulties.


Policy Title

8

Action taken: in view of comments about support made in the 2013 PRES survey, the Director of the Graduate School (DGS) appointed a Deputy Director with special focus on PGR students. Since he took up this 0.25 role in the School the Deputy Director has acted to provide greater support and training for PGR students combining their studies with tutoring in the School. He has also provided opportunities for scholarly and social interaction among PGR students. At the same time DGS has initiated a PG Office hour and is exploring the possibility of developing PGR peer support and augmenting financial support during 2014-15, as well as establishing a personal tutor system for PGR students, which will complement existing supervisorial duties. MOOCs 11. For Schools with MOOCs, provide a brief reflection on the School’s experience of providing MOOCs, and in

particular any way in which its MOOC provision is informing its credit-bearing provision. State total enrolment per MOOC and completion rate as a proportion of active users.

N/A

1.3 External Examiner reports and actions taken in response Undergraduate and Postgraduate Taught 1. What proportion of External Examiner reports have been received at this point and what action is being

taken to follow up outstanding reports? All UG External Examiners' Reports were available for this QA Report. PG: 12/14 External Examiner reports have been received and the remaining two externals have been contacted with a reminder to submit their reports. 2. Has the proportion of reports received improved on the final point in the previous year?

No change. 3. What action has been taken if a 100% return rate has not been achieved? SEE ABOVE. 4. Themes from External Examiner reports (including both positive themes/commendations, and areas for

consideration) and actions taken in response, including any on-going remediation.

UNDERGRADUATE:

Issues identified:

Degree classifications

Marking profiles and Moderation

Marking criteria

Examination timetable


Policy Title

9

Feedback: coursework and examination

Fieldwork (Archaeology)

Dissertations (Classics)

CHSS and UoE responses to EE reports (Classics)

History SA: marking profiles and moderation

To address the variation in marking profiles and to examine whether moderation procedures might be utilised to

address this issue, a detailed review of marks has been launched. This goes beyond noting the mean mark to

examine how the same student cohort performed across other courses. This review indicated that some

apparent variation was in fact related to the particular qualities of the students on those courses. Where the

variation cannot be thus explained, discussions will be held with individual course organisers to raise the issue. In

addition, where course are delivered by temporary staff, these shall be monitored more closely.

Revised moderation documentation and procedures were introduced during the 2012/13 session. Externals

who had experience of the previous system were appreciative of the revised procedures and where the

documentation was used fully it proved useful. Some externals did note, however, that there was inconsistency

in the operation of the moderation procedures probably due to the time constraints imposed by the examination

timetable (see below).

Action: The SA intends to address this matter by ensuring that academic staff are aware of the need to follow

the moderation procedure fully and provide full documentary evidence of its operation.

History SA: external examiners were particularly critical of the exam timetable and its inadequate provision of

time for internal marking and moderation, as well as external review of work.

Action: Given that this is an issue outwith its control, the SA attempted to remedy the problem by seeking to

ensure a more effective turnaround of material. To this end daily meetings were instigated to monitor the

progress of scripts through the marking process. This resulted in 70% of scripts being sent out to externals

before the week of the final boards. The SA recorded its thanks to administrative staff and to Sophie

Lockwood in particular for their assistance in facilitating this procedure.

Archaeology:

External examiners commended the robust and fair assessment procedures and noted the overall improvement

that had taken place in recent years. In particular, the problem of overlap between coursework and examinations

had been addressed, but at least one instance was such overlap was noted. A greater range of types of

assessment was noted but it was felt that this range might be extended.

Moderation: it was felt that greater explanation of the moderation process was needed.

Recommendation: that Archaeology compares its procedures with those in other areas of HCA.

Year-Abroad: it was felt that those students who had participated in the year-abroad programme were at an

advantage because their degrees were assessed solely on their final year performance.

Recommendation: that some statistical evidence is produced to either support or refute this contention.

Examination feedback form: one external examiner suggested that an examination feedback form is needed.


Policy Title

10

Recommendation: such forms are used in other subject areas and the Archaeology SA might adapt these forms

for this purpose.

Marking criteria: one external examiner suggested that marking/evaluation criteria should vary according to

level.

Recommendation: that Archaeology seeks further clarification of this comment and discusses its implications.

Classics:

Degree Classifications: concern was raised about UoE's 'rigid' degree classification regulations. It was pointed

out that SA does not have control over this matter.

Examination content: the SA noted that examination papers should not be recycled in a single assessment

period and undertakes to monitor this issue.

Assessment: the issue of 'over-assessment' of language modules was raised and the SA is to discuss this matter.

Dissertations: in response to concern raised over the effect that having a dissertation supervisor acting as first

marker had on student marks. The SA trialled a system where the supervisor was second marker. In addition,

statistical analysis showed that there is no foundation for the concern raised.

Moderation: the SA will leave the checking of marks from profiles that are borderline to external examiners.

Query: can this procedure be clarified, please? Is this about moderation or classification, or both?

CHSS and UoE responses to EE reports: the SA expressed concern that it is not possible to know if any action has

been taken by CHSS/UoE in response to EE comments. Concerns were raised over the Special Circumstances

process by CHSS and UoE, specifically (a) the SC Committee's power to bind Examination Boards with their

decisions and (b) the new form. The SA advocates the rejection of the new SC form as it does not provide the

necessary information required to ensure the rigorous and speedy consideration of cases.

Query: what are the particular issues here and how might they be solved?

Examination timetable: it was noted that there was a tight-turnaround time at the examination boards due to

the centrally imposed examination diet. The SA noted that this matter rests with UoE for resolution.

Note: this matter is consistently highlighted by external examiners in ALL three SAs.

Postgraduate Taught The subject area responses are as follows: History ‘Most external examiners praised the high quality and variety of coursework seen, and the fairness, consistency and rigour of marking procedures overall. The general standard of feedback was complimented by most externals, who praised how full and constructive it was. It was noted by some, however, that a small number of second markers’ dissertation comments were too brief for a piece of work which constitutes such a substantial component of the student’s final grade, and that some essays had no moderator comments whatsoever or failed to use the School’s standard marksheet. Dr Miller noted quite a marked gap in the grade awarded between first and second (blind) dissertation markers, and praised their attempts to reach and document an agreed mark.


Policy Title

11

However, in a small number of cases, other external examiners criticised the lack of documentation justifying an agreed mark, where first and second markers had differed significantly in their original grade. Action: In the interests of good consistent practice across the board, staff will again be encouraged to use the common marksheet, and to moderate work and reach an agreed mark more visibly. Those teaching the ODL courses were complimented. Not only did they provide consistent grading and full and constructive feedback, but they appeared to invest a good deal of time in interacting with students taking the online courses, including offering one-to-one ‘formative’ guidance and advice for students via skype. This helped overcome the challenges of online learning, though it was asked whether students had the opportunity to follow up on coursework feedback. At the exam board there was discussion of the most practical and cost-effective way to share coursework with our external examiners. While Dr Taylor preferred to arrive in Edinburgh a day early to moderate dissertations on our premises, Prof Anderson and Dr Mulligan expressed a strong preference for receiving coursework via encrypted email or drop box. Either method would allow us to reduce the cost of mailing bulky packages out by expensive next day delivery, and to best manage the very tight turnaround time. The Graduate Office administration team was commended for so effectively managing this process. As she had last year, Prof Anderson criticised the fact that achieving a distinction depended on achieving a mark of 70 or over for both coursework and dissertation, rather than as an aggregate mark. Other EEs agreed with this criticism, though it was noted that grading decisions on borderline regulations were made by College, not by our School.’ Classics: ‘The external examiners were very satisfied with the assessment systems in place and the range and quality of work produced by the students. The quality of feedback was singled out for particular praise – ‘clear and to the point’ (Prof. Moignard). It was generally felt that the assessment process was structured well and transparent. Prof. Moignard, in particular, singled out the range of assessment types for praise, suggesting that it reflected innovative teaching practices. Prof. Morley noted that in a few cases the quantity of feedback might even have been excessive. There were no major problems with assessment, except in one case (Period of Ancient History 2), in which the marks given for participation and a class test were considered inappropriate; for this course, and all others, it was felt that 100% coursework assessment is a preferable model. Dissertations. Prof. Morley commented that only one dissertation that he moderated received a distinction and questioned whether this might result from a certain lack of intellectual ambition or ‘a lack of facility with developing high-level academic arguments’ across the MSc programmes. In fact, though only one of the dissertations read by Prof. Morley received a distinction, 6 out of the 23 dissertations examined this year received distinctions and this is roughly the same as, or only slightly lower than, the results in previous years: 5 out of 20 in 2012-2013, 7 out of 18 in 2011-2012, and 6 out of 20 in 2010-2011. DGS response to EEs: ‘You commented at the exam board that students who achieved a Distinction mark for their dissertation but lower marks for their coursework were not rewarded for demonstrating improvement in marks over the year. This matter has been raised by other externals who have also added that the rule might mean that students from Edinburgh are placed at a disadvantage in applying for PhD studentships and might effectively be penalised for taking courses in relatively less familiar topics. The implementation of a 'Merit' award related to dissertation achievement has been raised at the College Postgraduate Studies Committee and at the Curriculum and Student Progression Committee (CSPC). As the minutes of the former committee, dated 7 May 2014, state: 'The Head of the Postgraduate Office confirmed that the CSPC had been supportive of the merit category for masters degrees and acknowledged that the matter had been discussed several times previously at


Policy Title

12

the request of External Examiners. It was confirmed that the proposal would return to CSPC with a view to approval for 2015, and agreed that any remaining concerns of the CPGSC should be discussed over the next year.'’ There was general criticism from all three examiners at both board meetings that achieving a distinction required the student to get a mark of 70 or over for both coursework and the dissertation.’ Action: The Director of the Graduate School has acted to ensure that marking procedures are clear, consistent, and robust by underlining the need for markers to provide feedback which justifies the mark awarded, and for moderators to pay attention to the quality of feedback and its application of the marking criteria. Moderators must indicate on the feedback form every piece of work they read and they must fill in a moderation form for every course they look at. The Graduate Officers will be asked to look over the feedback and marks for each course in their subject area to ensure consistency and clarity, and the Director of the Graduate School will also be involved in a QA role. Postgraduate Research State themes from Part III Assessment Forms submitted by External and Internal PhD/MPhil Examiners, (including both positive themes/commendations and areas for consideration) and actions taken in response, including any on-going remediation. No issues were raised by the Part III Assessment Forms submitted by External and Internal PhD/MPhil Examiners during 2013-14.

1.4 Student Engagement

1. Highlight significant issues arising from student feedback, including course monitoring, ESES, NSS, PTES and PRES, indicating where relevant if it relates to a specific programme.

UNDERGRADUATE History: Analysis of NSS, ESES returns continued to highlight the issue of feedback as a matter for student concern. The History SA participated in the LEAF (Learning Enhancement in Assessment and Feedback) project and this noted that Edinburgh's practices did not vary substantially from those employed by comparator institutions which secure higher levels of student satisfaction. The History SA QA report noted that in the NSS an almost 80% adherence to the 15 day turnaround for coursework return translated into a 48% rating for 'prompt return'. The History SA continues to strive towards 100% compliance with the University policy on the return of coursework, but it has been suggested that the roots of the problem may lie elsewhere. Are the students using the issue of 'feedback' as a method of criticizing the institution? Are these low satisfaction rates connected, perhaps, with the educational profile of the student cohort (more than 50% of the intake for History are from RUK Independent schools and colleges)? Other issues identified as of concern to students in History were class sizes and the course allocation system. The History SA has addressed the issue of class sizes in a number of ways, including the delivery of some courses


Policy Title

13

twice, and the recruitment of additional staff to cover various types of leave. Despite the difficulties, the History SA has maintained the wide range of courses on offer. As for course allocation, the History SA has taken steps to make the allocation system more transparent. Archaeology: the SA noted that their ratings were lower than the University average and lower than the other HCA SAs. There were, however, improvements in the ratings for Assessment and Feedback (+6%); academic support (+3); learning resources (+3) and personal development (+17%). There were falls in the scores for teaching (-7%) and organization and management (-6%). Archaeology suggested that significant turnover in administrative and academic staff may have had an effect, together with timetabling issues, a lack of 'hands-on' learning and some ambiguities in marking criteria. Classics: The single most disconcerting result of the NSS is the student response to the University’s new approach to the student experience: the Classics figures in the areas of a) Feedback, and b) Student Support, have dropped precisely in the period in which the University has emphasised those areas and has taken a number of actions. It appears that University action is deteriorating the Classics students’ response in these areas in the NSS. Comment: this point is worth discussing further: is the UoE's emphasis on the Student Experience having a dilatory effect on NSS/ESES results, perhaps by highlighting the issues and perhaps raising student expectations beyond a level that the institution can deliver? POSTGRADUATE PTES 2013-14: Overall satisfaction of taught masters students remains very high (90%), reflecting generally very positive comments on courses and programmes found in the questionnaires completed by students. Satisfaction with teaching and learning increased compared with last year, and there was a 10% increase in satisfaction with resources and services. However, free text, programme and course questionnaire evidence suggest that dissatisfaction with the University Library, on which our students depend heavily, remains high. The other area of major and continuing concern is the promptness of feedback, with satisfaction falling by 4% to 48%. Action taken: DGS asked programme directors and course organisers to ensure provision of clear and consistent guidance for students on assessment through PT group meetings in Semester 1, 2014-15, mid-semester formative feedback, and properly recorded moderation for EEs.

2. Indicate action planned by the School.

UNDERGRADUATE:

Archaeology: the SA has undertaken to examine the issues raised above.

Classics: The School has agreed a number of actions that have not found unanimous support in the subject area,

which will be included by the School in this report. It is not likely that Classics would have chosen to agree those

actions itself.

Query: what does the Classics SA suggest as remedial action for these issues?

3. Evaluate effectiveness of mechanisms used for obtaining and responding to feedback from students, including feedback from on-line non-credit courses (including MOOCs).

History: course questionnaires are distributed usually in the penultimate week of the semester. The forms are

returned to the teaching office and are then passed on to the course organisers for comment in the annual

CMFs. On-line questionnaires have been tried, but do not seem to improve response rates. In fact, it seems that


Policy Title

14

greater numbers are returned if the questionnaires are distributed and completed in class (course

organisers/tutors are not present when the forms are completed).

Archaeology reported 'patchy' return rates for student feedback forms. On-line questionnaires issued via LEARN

were used for first-year courses, whereas course questionnaires were given out/collected by Staff at the final

class of each course.

Query: did the use of on-line forms improve the return rates?

Classics: Response rates for course questionnaires are high, and colleagues take constructive and useful feedback

seriously. The ‘you did – we listened’ campaign has potentially a negative impact on staff morale.

The subject area follows the standard course monitoring practised in the School. We are moreover introducing as

part of the PT scheme ‘subject meetings’ for our students in Semester 2 that allows them to identify with other

students on their programme, and also provide a new window onto the student experience on our programmes.

4. OPTIONAL: Include if wished a reflection from student representatives or other configurations of the student voice on student engagement and its effectiveness.

Action: SAs to look into the feasibility of implementing this option.

1.5 Annual Monitoring UNDERGRADUATE Course and Programme – Undergraduate and Postgraduate Taught 1. Outline briefly the process for course and/or programme monitoring [UG & PGT] Formal programme monitoring takes place as part of the TPR process, i.e. every five years. A Classics TPR was held during the 2012/13 session and TPRs for History and Archaeology are scheduled for the 2014/15 session. HCA uses Course Monitoring Forms completed by each course organiser. Courses and programmes are monitored by each Subject Area. In addition, due to the size of the History SA, meetings of heads of section within the History SA consider QA matters relating to History courses and programmes. PG: PGR Student progress is monitored by supervisors, who have been advised to make regular notes about contact in the Engagement tab of the student’s EUCLID file. Supervisors are also reminded by the PG Office to undertake an annual review in a timely manner. These reviews are considered by the Director of the Graduate School who may ask for clarification of the research schedule, or other matters. Graduate Officers in each subject area are also responsible for liaising with staff and ensuring that when a staff member leaves the University a new supervisorial team is put in place and that the student’s progress is not adversely affected. However, when problems of communication (or other) between students and staff arise outside of the annual review period both the Graduate Officers and Director of the Graduate School may act to ensure student progress. This is an infrequent, but not unknown occurrence and there may be an argument for the establishment of PGR personal


Policy Title

15

tutors in 2015-16. 2. Course level: Has annual monitoring been conducted for all credit-bearing courses (University of Edinburgh

provision, distance learning provision, study abroad experience, collaborative provision)?

Yes 3. If annual monitoring of courses has not been carried out, why is this, and what follow-up action is being

taken?

N/A

4. Identify the key themes from annual monitoring in 2 categories:

Positives History: the variety of assessment methods continues to grow. For example, many more members of staff are assessing presentations in order to incentivise students to produce work of good quality. Peer assessment of presentations has also been adopted in some courses. Tutorial contributions are also assessed in some cases, but there is no uniformity of practice across the SA. Other innovative methods of assessment are also employed including the use of bulletin boards, autonomous learning groups and study units. The balance between examination and coursework is also under review and for the first time a History honours course will be assessed solely through coursework (two essays and presentations). History: the provision and use of electronic resources (e.g. for course bibliographies) continues to expand, especially at pre-Honours. The SA acknowledged the considerable efforts of the HCA Academic Liaison Librarian (Margaret Forrest) in promoting staff and student awareness of the various e-resources available. It should be noted that some academic staff expressed concerns that over-reliance on such material may impede students exploring their subjects more widely.

Classics: Positives: Students appreciate supportive staff; dissertation projects. Staff appreciate the flexibility of course delivery esp. at Honours level.

Issues identified for improvement and how this will be taken forward

History: the relative lack of student reading in preparation for classes was identified as an issue to be addressed. It has been suggested that student presentations might be a contributory factor disincentivizing non-presenting student from preparing adequately for the class. The SA will review whether dropping student presentations from the assessment will have any effect on this issue. Concern has been expressed about students entering Honours level without the necessary background in particular areas of history. Action: The SA has begun a comprehensive reform of the MA in History curriculum in response to this and other issues arising from current provision. Concern over the provision of suitable class accommodation and particularly over the necessity for courses to be held outwith the William Robertson Wing (WRW). Some teaching accommodation (e.g. Forrest Hill) was seen as particularly unsuitable. Some rooms within WRW, especially those without windows, were considered


Policy Title

16

unsuitable. The History SA QA report noted that comparatively few As were awarded to pre-Honours students and indeed there was a fall in the numbers across the pre-Honours courses. Action: The SA is reviewing the consistency of marking standards in pre-Honours years as well as the provision of external examiners. It is anticipated that fewer pre-Honours external examiners will aid the comparison of standards across as well as within courses. History: Honours courses. The QA report noted the overwhelming preponderance of 2.1 marks for these courses. There was a modest downward drift in the proportion of firsts. History: recruitment to History courses continued to be strong. The numbers continue to rise, both as a result of the larger intake for History degree programmes and because History courses remain popular outside subjects for students from other Schools. In some cases courses had to be capped largely due to the restricted capacity of the teaching accommodation. Action: In the light of the current curriculum review, the SA is weighing the advantage derived from teaching such large numbers of students. A related issue - and also being scrutinized as part of the curriculum review - is the insistence that History students have a minimum of 80 credits in History in each pre-Honours year. History: review of the Honours course provision. In particular, the SA is examining whether progression between Year 3 and Year 4 can be made clearer, perhaps by ending the practice of courses recruiting both third- and fourth-year students. Archaeology: The annual QA report identified a number of issues raised by the student questionnaires and in each case, the Subject Area responded (see below). Pre-Honours: Tutorials: students felt that these could be better structured, with questions issued in advance to encourage discussion. Archaeology was taking this up with course organizers and tutors. Practicals and seminars: students felt that the structure of these classes was confusing. Archaeology responded by undertaking to address the issue with course organizers and tutors. Honours: no specific issues were raised. Classics: Issues identified for improvement and how this will be taken forward: The library provision has been an issue for both students and staff in some areas. The timing of the e-reserve requests has been problematic esp. with regard to new staff. Both these items are outwith the control of the subject area. The matters have been flagged repeatedly in the appropriate outlets (e.g. in Annual Reviews; and relevant committee meetings). Query: can the SA provide more detail on the issues of library provision and the timing of e-reserve requests and what remedies the SA would like to see? POSTGRADUATE Course and Programme – Postgraduate Taught Course/programme questionnaires were completed at the end of each course/programme and examined by Subject Area Officers who responded as follows:


Policy Title

17

Archaeology ‘Overall Satisfaction … was generally positive. On the question of academic matters, most of the respondents ticked agree/strongly agree in relation to the questions. Negative comments related to: (1) access to skeletal material for self-directed study (in the case of the ‘Osteo” students): Response: This is problematic. Some plastic skeletal material (not ideal) and non-diagnostic actual skeletal remains are left in the Archaeology Teaching Lab. Leaving archaeological skeletal material has caused problems in the past, with damage to and mixing of the remains. There are also ethical issues to consider. Archaeological human remains used for teaching are kept locked away, and would require a dedicated lab technician to allow access and to ensure their return. To address this issue, the Programme Director has introduced a weekly, supervised open lab. To date this has been very well attended. In previous years, one of the teaching staff held voluntary weekly sessions in which students had the opportunity to identify and create an inventory of skeletal material. This was not offered in 2013/4 because of sabbatical leave, but will be re-introduced in Semester 2 2014/5. (2) problems with library resources: Response: This is an ongoing issue. Because the ‘osteo’ subjects are relatively new, much effort has been made to build up library resources. All of the major academic journals are now available. As have stocks of textbooks. However, the problem is partly because of the number of students all doing the same courses. Another issue is that several copies of books that have been purchased are now ‘missing’. Consideration will be given to obtaining more e-books. (3) the Research Sources and strategies in Archaeology course: Response: The lack of positive response to this course has been ongoing for a number of years. Recent changes on the way the course is examined have been introduced that has resulted in improved feedback, although this is still cool. New topics will be introduced in Semester 2 this year. (4) hands-on or practical training for Archaeology MSc students: Response: This is an on-going issue. The programmes are largely lecture-based and practical work is difficult to fit into the programmes. One-day field trips are being introduced this year, as well as an osteology workshop for non-specialists. (5) the availability of academic staff: Response: This was a major area of dissatisfaction across both the Archaeology and ‘Osteo’ MSc students, although most of the criticism was made by Forensic Anthropology students. This is clearly always going to be problematic with 12-month taught MSc programmes; academic staff need to take sabbatical leave, annual leave and to conduct research, often out of the country. In the case of Forensic Anthropology the main lecturer/dissertation supervisor was on sabbatical in Semester 1 and was on a research trip during the dissertation-writing period. According to the staff member in question, she had several meetings with each of her supervisees during Semester 2, many of them were present at the 3-week field school she runs in Ibiza in May, and was contactable by email (although this was limited). Staff availability is an issue that will be addressed during the current academic year and is the currently in active discussion with the Head of SA. Staff absences during the crucial dissertation research and writing up period will be kept to a minimum.’ Classics: Msc Classical Art and Archaeology: Positive comments on the structure and delivery of the course. MScT or MScR in Classics: Generally positive comments on the structure of the course. A small minority of students raised issues concerning the assessment and its consistency.


Policy Title

18

LAIBS: Only one student had negative comments about the programme. Section B (Dissertations) There was general satisfaction with Dissertations across the programme. Minor points were flagged by the SA. Section C (Support and Resources) Students on all the programmes were generally content with the accessibility of academic staff, the support staff, the handbooks, and the library. Section D (Recruitment) Comments were made on novelty of programme as a reason to come to Edinburgh as well as UoE's and Classics SA's reputation. Among the best aspects of the MSc programmes listed were the expertise of the tutors, the flexibility of assignment topics, the range of courses offered, the dissertation supervision process, and the student community in Edinburgh. Criticism: was limited to a specific course or not enough courses were offered in their area of interest. One student criticized a lack of communication with the Programme Director, while another on the same programme complained about the timings of courses clashing (presumably across Schools). There were also a few complaints about having to produce work to specific formatting standards and some general comments on the difficulties of adjusting to a new academic system. Final Comments There were one or two complaints about the range of course options and in particularly the number of historical or archaeological options, suggesting that not enough core language and literature options were offered this year. There was one complaint about courses clashing. History 32 questionnaires were received. Section A (Academic Matters) Students were generally positive about the structure and delivery of the History programmes. Some suggestions were made for improvement: core courses needed to be more relevant or more tutorial-based, too many courses were geared towards medievalists and contemporary historians with little c.1700-1900, the cancellation of a programme at a month’s notice, staff should follow the same marking guidelines, stagger the essay deadlines, assess oral contributions, diversify modes of assessment, make more of a distinction between taught and research MSc students, and improve communication with part-time students. Section B (Dissertations) The majority of respondents expressed satisfaction with their dissertation supervisor, or offered no comments in this section. A small number made suggestions on how the system could be improved: supervisors should not provide very negative feedback just before the dissertation deadline, there should be more time between the second semester essay and the dissertation proposal, we should encourage discussion with possible supervisors in the first semester, we should make more first-class dissertations available, and we should provide more funding for research travel. Section C (Support and Resources) All who responded agreed that academic staff were generally accessible and pleasant to deal with. All praised support staff. 1 student complained that email enquiries were sometimes responded to quite slowly, while another noted that the ‘threatening tone’ of some emails suggested that student visits to the office were a nuisance. Course and programme handbooks were considered helpful. There was some comment that staff were inconsistent on word count and referencing. There were one or two negative comments about library provision. Section D (Recruitment)


Policy Title

19

Reasons cited for choosing History at Edinburgh: enjoyable UG experience here, a recommendation from relatives and teachers, the prestige of the university, the reputation of the department and of individual academics, the attraction of a specific programme, and the opportunity to live in Edinburgh. Most would still have come with the benefit of hindsight. Most prominent among the best aspects of their Master’s year were the opportunities which the dissertation provided to conduct detailed research, discussion based tutorials, engagement with staff who were leaders in their field, and the chance to live in Edinburgh. Worst aspects: the misrepresentation of a programme (18th-Century Cultures), the non-availability of courses that had been advertised, clash of essay deadlines, lack of discussion due to large class sizes, inconsistent standards across the subject area, and too much bureaucracy. Final Comments Comments were made about the abolition of programmes, about military history provision; and interdisciplinary programmes; and better support for the PG students, perhaps from a designated member of staff. In general, student satisfaction with the programmes in HCA was very good and there is evidence that academic staff were responsive to student problems. Some student dissatisfaction with obligatory core courses was noted, but staff are working to address these and it should be noted that it is not uncommon for some students to object to a required element of their studies, especially that involving engagement with generic theoretical questions or skills. Staff Issues identified for improvement include the availability of staff and communications between staff and students. The School has already acted to ensure that staff advertise their availability to students more effectively in the light of NSS results, and the PG Office has e-mailed all students with guidance on the office opening hours and e-mail response times. However, there may be scope for encouraging staff to dedicate one hour a week of their office hours to students on programmes which they direct. The group personal tutor meetings in semester 1 2014-15 were organised by programme directors and focused on some of the problems raised during 2013-14.

1.6 Internal Subject Review (TPR and PPR)

1. Attach annual report of progress with recommendations for individual reviews until all completed.

Classics: There is no further annual reporting after the progress report was completed as required within the TPR cycle.

Next PPR scheduled for 2016-17

2. Reflect on impact of actions taken to date.

Classics: There has been little impact from the actions. E.g. the restructuring of the UG Teaching Office ultimately

followed a design that has not had any direct impact on the issue of an administrative overload of academic staff.

1.7 Reviews by accrediting and professional bodies

1. Report any review by an accrediting or professional body which has taken place since the last annual report and confirm the outcome (attach the outcome letter or other documentation).


Policy Title

20

N/A

2. Note any recommendations or actions which have an impact beyond the School.

1.8 Collaborative Arrangements (including placements and study abroad partnerships)

1. Has the School entered into any new collaborative teaching arrangement/s in which part or all of a programme of study is provided by a partner institution either in the UK or abroad leading to an award by the University of Edinburgh either wholly or in joint names? N

2. If Y, state title of award or nature of collaboration (e.g. new study abroad partnership), and whether notified to Governance and Strategic Planning.

3. Have any issues arisen from existing collaborative arrangements? 4. Are any changes foreseen which are likely to require changes to existing agreements? Please outline

these briefly. 5. Are there any issues of wider concern to the College/University arising from collaborative

arrangements?

1.9 Any other issues (optional) Reflect on any issues emerging from the School’s quality assurance processes not covered by the sections above.

2. Quality Enhancement

Reflect on good practice identified through annual monitoring, student feedback/surveys or other mechanisms, including the impact of actions which have worked well and how this impact has been evaluated. Please include name of contact for follow up. Student Support: the HCA Student Support Office continues to receive high praise from both staff and students alike. As well as providing advice to students, the SSO deals with student special circumstances and reports to the Special Circumstances Committees. Classics: The subject area continues to engage vividly in POoT – which has had an effect also on the student experience in that our students now take it for granted that they regularly see more than one of their teachers in the room. This has created a more holistic learning environment for all involved, strengthening the identity of all members of the subject area, staff and students. [Contact: Dr Ulrike Roth] Graduate School: In response to student concerns about ‘community’ expressed in the PRES 2013 and in line with the University’s current emphasis on ‘Student Experience’ in August 2014 the Director of the Graduate School appointed a Deputy Director with special focus on PGR students. Since he took up this 0.25 role in the School the Deputy Director has acted to provide greater support and training for PGR students combining their studies with tutoring in the School. He has also provided opportunities for scholarly and social interaction


Policy Title

21

among PGR students. At the same time the Director of the Graduate School has organised a PhD supervisor training session, run jointly with IAD, and initiated a PG Office hour

3. Engagement with Strategy

1. Report on key priorities as outlined in the School Learning and Teaching Enhancement Strategy and Postgraduate Research Strategy, or the sections of the School annual plan relevant to UG, PGT and PGR provision. Schools may wish to reference University priorities which influence School strategies.

Academic standards: central to teaching in HCA is the induction of students to habits and practices of intellectual autonomy and independence. Small group teaching and the introduction of primary source materials from pre-Honours onwards facilitates this aim.

2. Reflect on engagement with the University’s current priority theme:

Improvement of the Student Experience, focussing the five key areas outlined in the Student Experience leaflet summer 2013: community, engagement, support, feedback and recognition.

3. How has the implementation of these recent developments impacted on staff and students?

Personal tutor system: HCA has implemented the new Personal Tutor system, although PTs are assigned more tutees than is recommended by CHSS, due, in part, to the need to cover staff research leave. There was considerable concern expressed about the PT Group meetings, but HCA responded by organizing School meetings by year cohorts in the first semester and then each SA organised meetings to address matters relevant to each year cohort in the second semester. Student Support: the HCA Student Support Office continues to receive high praise from both staff and students alike. As well as providing advice to students, the SSO deals with student special circumstances and reports to the Special Circumstances Committees. Community: it has been mentioned that the History SA is obliged to teach outwith the William Robertson Wing and this peripatetic component in course delivery is seen as counterproductive in the School's attempts to build community. Even within the WRW some teaching accommodation is viewed as unfit for purpose (e.g. small teaching rooms with no windows become very uncomfortable). On a more positive note, the introduction of an UG Common-room has proved very popular. There are also a number of student resource centres in WRW. There are active student societies for each of the subject areas as well as an in-house magazine Retrospect to which both staff and students contribute. Interaction between these student societies and academic staff is beneficial to building community and represents another point of contact for the transmission of ideas from the students to the School.

4. Comment on potential enhancements at College or University level that could be made to

support Schools’ implementation of strategic developments, either in general or in relation to current projects (optional).


Policy Title

22

Community: The central room booking procedures seem to militate against the attempts of HCA to establish a meaningful connection between a sense of community and a sense of place and belonging. It is ironic, not to say frustrating, that despite the availability of suitable teaching accommodation in the recently refurbished William Robertson Wing, many classes organized by HCA have to take place outwith the building. Query: Can the room-booking policy be reviewed to allow more of HCA's teaching to be done within the William Robertson Wing's accommodation? POSTGRADUATE: In response to student concerns about ‘community’ expressed in the PRES 2013 and in line with the University’s current emphasis on ‘Student Experience’ in August 2014 the Director of the Graduate School appointed a Deputy Director with special focus on PGR students. Since he took up this 0.25 role in the School the Deputy Director has acted to provide greater support and training for PGR students combining their studies with tutoring in the School. He has also provided opportunities for scholarly and social interaction among PGR students. At the same time the Director of the Graduate School has organised a PhD supervisor training session, run jointly with IAD, and initiated a PG Office hour. Classics has identified a particular issue, namely Staff-Student Ratios: Financial support is needed to deliver most of the University’s goals. E.g. to create the kind of staff-student rapport that is envisaged, a substantially greater number of staff is required to allow more personal contact between staff and students outside the classroom. The table below documents the problem for Classics: SSRs in Classics at Edinburgh have been quite different to those in institutions that are our main competitors.

The average SSR is 1:18.7; the highest SSR is 1:34; and the lowest SSR is 1:7.6. Edinburgh sits at the higher end with 1:22. (Source: CUCD; using figures from Bristol, Cambridge, Cardiff, Durham, Edinburgh, Exeter, Glasgow, Kent, KCL, Lampeter, Leeds, Leicester, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham, Oxford, Reading, Roehampton, RHUL, St. Andrews, Swansea, Warwick, and UCL. In four cases the figures from 2011-12 have been used.) To be competitive nationally, a maximum SSR of 1:15 is required. POSTGRADUATE School Plan Proposed Actions for 2015-16, and broad planning objectives to 2018

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

SSRs


Policy Title

23

Improve, or at least maintain PGT recruitment numbers and quality by continuing to improve programme web pages, publicise open day events, circulate e-newsletters, and provide other communications with students or applicants, including new media. There are sufficient programmes, courses, and staff to maintain numbers, and even permit a slight increase, but we will take care to continue to rationalise existing programmes and courses by means of the new Admissions Board. We will ensure that key courses, such as the core course for all History PGTs, are improved and well-supported by all staff. Continue to increase ODL recruitment. Given the increased number of ODL courses to be offered during 2015-17 there is scope for a rise in aggregate student numbers each year with an annual target of around 20-30 (full-time and part-time) realistic. Improve PGR recruitment by maintaining or improving scholarship provision and by encouraging staff to develop institutional partnership or joint supervisorial arrangements with other institutions and universities. In addition, there should be further improvements to web pages, open day events, e-newsletters, and other communications with students. Core training for PhD students and their supervisors will be enhanced with the inclusion of sessions on KE and Impact in the PhD training workshop series, and high quality training for new and experienced supervisors in each subject area.

4. Opportunities identified for development and action Reflect on matters requiring attention, with a suggestion for the action required. State whether the issue is for the attention of the School, College or University. UNDERGRADUATE MATTERS: History: Accommodation: Generally the experience of teaching in the refurbished WRW with its up-to-date AV equipment has been positive. There are concerns about the small size and unfortunate layout of some teaching rooms and staff offices. There is limited space for the storage of books and some offices are unsuitable for meeting with students. The provision of offices is a matter of concern for the whole school given its success in the recruitment of new staff. For example, the History SA has employed seven Chancellor's Fellows in the last three years. The issue of office space is particularly acute when academic colleagues are asked to act as Personal Tutors when a degree of privacy is necessary in order to deal with student concerns. Library provision: concerns were raised about the reorganisation of the library and the provision of accessible resources for teaching. Class-size: it is proposed to rationalize teaching provision by identifying where there is overlap of courses and reassigning colleagues to offer courses where there are pressure points in the degree programme. There are related issues that will need to be considered such as the fact that pre-Honours course recruit very well from outwith HCA. RCUK Fees: the current level of fees raises the issue of the sustainability of the four-year degree. The expedient of entry raises questions about progression and the preparedness of students to enter the Honours programme after only one year of study. Recruitment remains buoyant nonetheless and the SA was encouraged to increase its quota. Archaeology:


Policy Title

24

Moderation: a review of the documentation and procedures for moderation has been identified as desirable. Marking scale: the SA has identified the issue of the suitability and application of the marking scale for discussion. Feedback: the SA identified a particular problem with one pre-Honours course due to the Easter break, but a review of procedures may ensure that the mandatory 15-day turnaround time is adhered to. POSTGRADUATE The University may wish to consider how it can provide greater support for PGR students. At present in this School when problems of communication (or other) between PGR students and staff arise outside of the annual review period both the Graduate Officers and Director of the Graduate School may act to ensure student progress. This is an infrequent, but not unknown occurrence and there may be an argument for the establishment of PGR personal tutors. The University could support the implementation of the School’s strategic developments by considering the possibility of developing PGR peer support and augmenting financial support during 2015-16, as well as establishing a personal tutor system for PGR students, which will complement existing supervisorial duties.

5. Engagement with annual reporting process Reflect on the structure and/or content of this report template and, where relevant, make suggestions for how it can be improved. It has been remarked that aspects of this reporting template are unsuitable for Schools made up of a number of Subject Areas. It may be worth considering whether they might be adapted for use at the level below that of School. The CHSS Report Template Guidance notes: In large Schools with several subject areas the School Director of Quality may wish to subdivide the WORD template further by subject area, and ask the subject areas for input to each section. The following is excerpted from the Classics Annual QA Report: The single School template may make sense in single subject and/or discipline schools; it does not make sense for HCA. The result of this process of reporting is so meaningless that it would not stand scrutiny if anyone actually asked publicly what the purpose of this exercise was. The reporting process also dissects artificially the close working contexts between UG and PG teaching, and PG research. The format as a whole appears to drive a particular type of unit structure that cannot fit all schools and subject areas. The formatting of this form is awkward. 1.5.1 Is it necessary to outline the QA reporting process if it has not changed since the last QA report?

WMA/5-2-15

Documents

School Annual Quality Assurance and Enhancement Report … · 2016-08-02 · School Annual Quality Assurance and Enhancement Report Template Policy Title 6 UG: no significant or persistent