The University of Edinburgh

College of Science and Engineering Annual Quality Assurance and Enhancement Report 2009/10

This report summarises the processes followed by the College of Science and Engineering for the Quality Assurance and Quality Enhancement of all undergraduate taught programmes, postgraduate taught programmes and postgraduate research degrees during the academic year 2009/10. The report is structured in five sections including a brief introduction, a summary of actions taken as a consequence of previous reports and a forward look detailing actions on Schools, the College and other areas of the University for the forthcoming year consequent on the content of the report. The main body of the report is sections 3 and 4 which relate to the Assurance of Quality and Standards and Enhancement and Good Practice respectively. Section 3 offers a summary of the issues raised in feedback from students, external examiners, internal subject reviews and external accreditations while Section 4 sets out developments in the College Learning and Teaching Strategy, progress towards wider QAA and University strategic targets and examples of grass roots enhancement and good practice for dissemination across the University as a whole. Where possible, reference to committee memberships and remits and other supporting papers are included as links from the main body of the text. Documents not currently publicly accessible are included as appendices.

1

Contents 1. Introduction 3 2. Actions taken as a result of the previous year’s Report 5 3. Assurance of Quality and Standards 3.1 QA Process 6 3.2 Continuing Professional Development 7 3.3 Student Performance and Achievement 7 3.4 Feedback from External Examiner Reports 8 3.5 Feedback from Students 10 3.6 Internal Teaching and Postgraduate Programme Reviews 11 3.7 External Reviews 12 3.8 Peer Observation of Teaching 13 3.9 Collaborative Provision 13 4. Enhancement and Good Practice 4.1 Learning and Teaching Enhancement Strategy 15 4.2 QAA Enhancement Themes 15 4.3.1 Graduate Attributes and Employability 16 4.3.2 Pastoral and Academic Support 17 4.3.3 Assessment and Feedback 17 4.3.4 Equality and Diversity 18 4.3.5 Teaching and Learning Spaces 19 4.3.6 Summary of Enhancement and Good Practice 20 5. Forward Look 5.1 Recommendations for Action by Schools, College or Other 23

Sections of the University. 6. Appendix 25 Aide Memoire to Schools

2

1 Introduction 1.1 The College of Science and Engineering is one of the three

academic Colleges at the University of Edinburgh. It consists of seven Schools: Biological Sciences; Chemistry; Engineering; GeoSciences; Informatics; Mathematics; Physics and Astronomy. Together the Schools constitute one of the largest and most successful science and engineering groupings in the UK.

1.2 The College offers over 120 undergraduate degree programmes,

nearly 50 postgraduate taught courses and opportunities for research-based postgraduate degrees at the highest level across all disciplines. The College has nearly 2000 staff and hosts close to 8000 students. Nearly 6000 are undergraduates and approximately 2000 are postgraduate students. Around 7% of undergraduates are overseas (non-EU) students while nearly one third of postgraduates are overseas students. Mature and part-time students make up approximately 8% of total student numbers.

1.3.1 Quality Assurance (QA) for all undergraduate courses (UGT),

taught masters’ programmes (PGT) and research degrees (PGR) is overseen by the College Quality Assurance Committee (CQAC) convened by the Dean (Quality Assurance). Both the preceding link and subsequent links in this document lead to the current membership and remit of committees or more complete information on the specific themes. Quality Enhancement (QE) in all undergraduate and postgraduate taught programmes is driven by the College Learning and Teaching Committee (CLTC) convened by the Dean (Learning and Teaching). Enhancement activity related to research degrees is the responsibility of the Research Training Committee (CRTC) and the Dean of Research Careers. To ensure flow of information between the various College committees, the Dean QA is a member of the CLTC and the College Deans and senior administrative staff meet informally on a weekly basis throughout the year in the Academic Group of the Deanery (AGD).

1.3.2 The overarching approach to QA in the College is set out in the

College QA model which is available in Appendix B. The model covers processes for provision and monitoring of pastoral support, teachability, and feedback in addition to solely the maintenance of academic quality. Each of the seven schools in turn post a School QA model detailing their approach to quality assurance. Quality assurance of PGR and PGT/UGT is, in many cases, administratively distinct and so some schools find it more appropriate to maintain separate PGR and PGT/UGT QA models.

1.3.3 Responsibility for routine monitoring and review of both PGR and

PGT/UGT provision at programme and course level rests with the Schools. Questionnaires, class representatives and liaison meetings are standard mechanisms for the collection of student feedback in all taught courses and increasingly also in PGR programmes. More recent, innovative methods of capturing the student voice are detailed in Section 3.5.

3

1.3.4 Each School submits an annual QA Report to CQAC. This serves first as a formal confirmation by each Head of School that the School has acted according to its approved QA model, has considered issues raised by their students, staff and External Examiners, has implemented recommendations from University Committees, periodic reviews or accrediting bodies and has maintained statistical information to allow monitoring of student attainment. The School QA Report should also highlight examples of good practice, innovation and enhancement of the taught or research experience.

1.3.5 CQAC meets six times per annum. Membership of the committee

includes the QA Officer (normally a member of the academic staff) and at least one Senior Administrator from each school, College QA staff, a member from the College of Humanities and Social Sciences and student representatives. The main business is to receive and review the School QA reports and to provide an opportunity for identification of general issues and sharing of good practice. The committee also considers matters related to all aspects of QA and QE arising from the External Examiners’ reports, periodic Teaching Programme or Postgraduate Programme Reviews, Public Sector Body (PSB) accreditations, other College and University Committees and QAA communications. The formal output from CQAC to Schools is actions for immediate implementation and aide memoire on issues that must be address during the coming session and progress reported upon in the subsequent report. Matters beyond the immediate remit of CQAC to resolve are passed to other College and University Committees for further consideration as necessary. The aide memoire to Schools from session 2009/10 are listed in the Appendix A.

1.3.6 The Annual Quality Assurance and Enhancement Report, prepared

by the Dean (QA) with input from the Dean (L&T) and other senior College officers, serves to provide assurance that monitoring and review is being carried out effectively in all areas for which the College is responsible, reports on key trends, issues, innovation and good practice in QA/QE from the College in the past year and updates progress in relation to College and University learning and teaching enhancement strategies. The report is approved by CQAC and CLTC and is available to the College Strategy and Management Committee (CSMC) prior to submission to Senatus Quality Assurance Committee (SQAC).

4

2. Actions taken as a result of the previous year’s Report 2.1 The 2009/10 School reports demonstrated that all Schools had

responded effectively to items carried forward as aide memoire. 2.2 There were no actions on CQAC or other CSE committees arising

from the 2009/10 CSE QAE Annual report. 2.3 At its June meeting CQAC received papers from Senatus detailing

Standards and Guiding Principles relating to both Pastoral & Academic Support and Feedback. Consequent actions are detailed in sections 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 of this report, respectively.

5

3. Assurance of Quality and Standards 3.1 QA Process

All seven Schools submitted annual QA reports covering UG and PG taught courses and PGR for session 2009/10. These reports were scrutinised and reviewed by the College Quality Assurance Committee at its meetings in December 2010 and January 2011.

The principal issues relating to UGT and PGT courses were as

follows: 3.1.1 In response to recommendations from the Royal Society of

Chemistry, the accrediting body for Chemistry degrees in the UK, the School of Chemistry will bring forward proposals to increase the credits associated with the final year research project in the Chemistry integrated masters degrees to 60 credits with effect from Sept. 2011.

3.1.2 The School of Chemistry had found it necessary to introduce

additional (non-credit bearing) classes in chemical/scientific terminology and nomenclature to support overseas PGT students. Problems with high-level technical language for such students, even those with excellent IELTS scores, were recognised as common to several disciplines. It was noted that the new CSE Integrated Foundation Programme (IFP) will include a technical language course provided by the Institute for Academic Development (IAD), albeit at SCQF level 7. AGD considered that it may be possible to extend elements of this course to PGT students and will discuss this with IAD.

3.1.3 All schools have introduced the ‘regulation’ requiring the mark for

any element of assessment required for a pass, in addition to an overall pass mark for the course, to be set as a minimum of 40%. This action appears to have had little or no negative effect on progression and has arguably improved standards in laboratory and coursework. CQAC recommend that this regulation now forms part of the University Assessment Regulations.

3.1.4 Several Schools noted dissatisfaction with examination scheduling,

vis. clustering of examinations for certain groups of students or timetabling large examinations towards the end of examination diets (exacerbating the difficulty of timely provision of information to Boards of Examiners, particularly in the summer diet). CQAC requests that timetabling issues raised with Registry will receive a sympathetic hearing.

Items relating to PGR were as follows: 3.1.5 All Schools now have approved QA models for PGR and the

2009/10 School PGR QA reports demonstrate all Schools to have an effective operational model for monitoring and encouraging student progression, offering good student support and maintaining high academic standards.

6

3.1.6 Common features of the models include induction programmes for students and well defined/clear progression milestones which help both the students and their supervisors to track progress and address issues as they arise. Many Schools had developed training courses linked to milestones e.g. ‘Managing PhD Studies’ in the first year and thesis writing courses/ workshops for more senior students.

3.1.7 Several schools now offer students named academic advisors to

offer alternative pastoral support on their studies beyond their immediate supervisor. These roles were felt to fit in well with the new University Guidelines on Pastoral Support.

3.1.8 Several Schools had now introduced Wikis as a focus for

communication with PGR students and these were generally found to be useful, informative and easily accessible.

3.1.9 Staff-student liaison committees were still not as well developed for

PGR as UGT/PGT but committees were now functioning effectively in several Schools providing useful feedback in both directions. CQAC encourages all schools to establish suitable fora for discussion of issues related to PGR.

3.1.10 The transition from the postgraduate database to the new

Postgraduate Programme Management Database (PPMD) had been delayed and all Schools reported consequent difficulties in maintaining accurate statistical information. CQAC undertook to generate standard reports from the PPMD during 2010/11 which could then be adopted by all Schools.

3.2 Annual monitoring and review of Continuing Professional

Development (CPD) 3.2.1 All CPD 'for credit' courses and all regular (e.g. annual) industrial

courses, even if they are not 'for credit', are be included in Annual School QA Reports. There was a nil return for 2009/10.

3.3 Student Performance and Achievement 3.3.1 All schools maintain statistics for monitoring student performance

and achievement in UGT and PGT courses and programmes and these are featured in the annual reports.

3.3.2 School statistics are still predominantly maintained on local

databases based on data downloaded from EUCLID and manually updated and corrected as necessary.

3.3.3 For 2009/10 a series of BOXI reports using data directly from

EUCLID were prepared to produce School and College level statistical reports for all taught programs according to a common algorithm and format. Training sessions were organised for school administrators to gain and share experience of BOXI.

7

3.3.4 The reports generated showed good agreement with the locally produced school figures allowing confidence in the use of EUCLID data for retrospective reporting. BOXI reports from EUCLID will henceforth be used for production of statistics for Annual reports.

3.3.5 Schools were asked to comment upon any course returning a pass

rate, after resit, of less than 80%. Where there was no satisfactory explanation for the poor pass rate, schools are required via the aide memoire to review the course and report progress in the subsequent annual report.

3.3.6 The reports available are currently restricted to course pass

statistics, numbers failing to complete a given course and degree classification by programme. The need for a greater suite of reports to inform QA and management decisions, routinely available rather than on demand, is appreciated. The supply of statistical reports to College committees is being pursued by AGD.

3.3.7 The majority of PGR QA reports included suitable summaries of

student progression and completion but not to a common standard or format. It was hoped that the PPMD would allow generation of statistics for PGR in a similar fashion to the BOXI reports for UGT and PGT but delays in commissioning the system meant that this was still impossible for the 2009/10 PGR reports. The PPMD is now believed to be fully operational and its utility for the production of statistical reports will be reviewed this coming session.

3.4 Feedback from External Examiner Reports 3.4.1 For undergraduate and taught postgraduate programmes the

primary function of External Examiners is to ensure appropriate academic standards are achieved and to benchmark these standards against QAA guidelines and equivalent programmes in comparable institutions.

3.4.2 In accordance with the University Assessment Regulations,

External Examiners review examination papers and course documentation, review assessed work and marking procedures, attend Board of Examiners meetings and report annually to Head of College via a standard report.

3.4.3 Within CSE there are a total of 65 External Examiners, 39 covering

UGT, 24 PGT, and 2 both UGT and PGT programmes. 3.4.4 These examiners are drawn from 30 HE institutions across the UK,

2 industrial consultants working in parallel with academic examiners and 1 European HE institute.

3.4.5 External Examiners produce an annual report on the courses and

programmes for which they are responsible and receive written acknowledgement of their comments and a response from both the School and the Dean (QA).

8

3.4.6 The External Examiners’ comments and subsequent response and actions by the School are summarised in the annual School QA reports.

3.4.7 It is gratifying to note the number of occasions on which External

Examiners affirm the standard of courses and programmes to be equal to, or indeed set, the highest standards in the sector.

The more significant issues raised by the External Examiners include:

3.4.8 Concern over the relative weighting of the honours years in the degree programme assessment of BSc Honours programmes was expressed by external examiners for programmes in Biological Sciences, Chemistry and GeoSciences, the common theme being that the 50:50 contribution from years 3 and 4 was ‘unique’ to Edinburgh and that a system placing more emphasis on study at higher level in the final year would be more in keeping with comparator institutions. This matter, and the related weighting of the Honours years in integrated Masters programmes, was subsequently discussed at the CLTC. Although there was considerable sympathy for the examiners’ views, the majority decision was to retain the status quo. The issue is reported here to note continued dissatisfaction in certain Schools and those concerned have been invited to bring the matter forward for future discussion if they wish to pursue the issue further.

3.4.9 Examiners in Engineering and the accrediting bodies suggested it

was inappropriate for students to be able to graduate with an accredited degree if they had received credit by compensation for a fail in a significant or core component of a programme. As a consequence, the School of Engineering will seek to introduce Honours resit examinations ‘for accreditation purposes’ with effect from Sept. 2011. The Engineering proposal will allow students to resit courses solely for professional accreditation and no change to the existing University regulations regarding compensation or classification is proposed sought.

3.4.10 Moderation of marks, where there was a discrepancy between

internal markers/examiners, was raised in several subject areas. In each case the External Examiner was satisfied that the final mark was a fair reflection of the academic merit of the work but the moderation process criteria were not clear and/or there was poor documentation. Best practice in this area first uses clear grade related marking criteria to guide markers towards a common grade. Where there was still a discrepancy, a well defined and documented process was then employed to arrive at a final mark. CQAC were encouraged all Schools to adopt this practice.

3.4.11 Comments from external examiners for PGR, other than those relating specifically to the research summarised in the particular thesis, are rare and there were, once again, no general issues raised in relation PGR.

9

3.5 Feedback from Students UGT 3.5.1 Student comments on their learning experience are routinely

collected at course and programme level by schools via a variety of means such as questionnaires, liaison committees and regular communication with class reps. The National Student Survey (NSS) serves as a useful additional measure of student satisfaction. Schools annual reports record substantive issues from student feedback and the consequent actions taken.

3.5.2 A significant issue to have arisen in recent years is the ‘feedback’

score from the NSS survey. Although overall levels of satisfaction and other NSS categories are generally high, scores for the quantity, quality and timeliness of feedback to students on their work appear poor relative to the rest of the sector.

3.5.3 The issue of feedback is a concern in itself but also worrying is the

fact that internal QA measures had not previously identified feedback as a significant weakness. CLTC identified the need to have common, college-wide, standard metrics on a number topics related to the NSS survey questions to allow direct, meaningful, course to course comparison.

3.5.4 To this end, all course questionnaires issued by schools in CSE

during 2010/11 have incorporated a brief set of standard College-set questions. The outcomes will be correlated with NSS scores to test the validity of the method as a useful indicator of performance.

3.5.5 A summary of the 2010 NSS statistics is offered in sections 3.5.6 –

3.5.12 below. 3.5.6 Overall satisfaction: there was little significant change to scores in

this category from 2009 with all Schools within, or close to, the top quartile.

3.5.7 Teaching Quality: again little change from the previous year’s

figures with the majority of schools comfortably within the top quartile.

3.5.8 Assessment and feedback: there was a significant improvement to

responses for both assessment and feedback in all CSE subject areas with the exception of ‘Computer Science’ however even the highest score (Chemistry) remained outside the top quartile. Efforts to further improve feedback are discussed in Section 4.3.3.

3.5.9 Academic support: again many areas lie comfortably within the top

quartile in this category. 3.5.10 Organisation & management: All Schools maintained or increased

their score from 2009, placing the majority in the top quartile. The only exception was Geology where a low score was consonant with comments raised by an External Examiner, following discussions with student representatives, relating to communication between

10

elements of programmes taught across different sites in the University. This specific issue is believed to have been satisfactorily resolved this session.

3.5.11 Learning resources: all areas lie within the 2009 top quartile, most

of them significantly so. 3.5.12 Personal development: the majority of areas remain in the 2009 top

quartile. 3.5.13 Innovation and good practice in collecting and responding to

student opinion in UGT courses includes the circulation of a questionnaire ‘Survey of Experience’ for students to give the Teaching organisation direct feedback on the overall quality of support available, the scheduling of meetings between external examiners and students during Board of Examiners visits and weekly ‘Facilities, Teaching and Learning’ meetings with the Director of Teaching and the student reps.

PGT and PGR

3.5.14 Student opinion in PGT and PGR programmes is collected in a

similar fashion to UGT Programmes in most instances. In addition, the College draws upon the substantive Postgraduate Taught Experience (PTES) and Postgraduate Research Experience Surveys conducted by the University.

3.5.15 The 2010 PTES survey indicated overall levels of satisfaction to be

high, with no significant level of negative responses in teaching, learning resources or management. The main area of discontent was feedback, as in the NSS survey. Schools should ensure that the good practice in feedback that has been developed for UG programmes, and has improved the NSS responses, is carried into PGT programmes.

3.5.16 The last PRES survey was conducted in 2009 and raised no major

issues relating to PGR in CSE.

3.5.17 Innovation an good practice in collecting and responding to student opinion in PGR includes the formation of Graduate School Staff – student liaison committees, student representation on school research experience/training committees and student led committees.

3.6 Internal Teaching and Postgraduate Programme Reviews 3.6.1 A College procedure for the consideration of TPR and PPR reports

and responses was developed in September 2009. The procedure ensures the consideration of the quality enhancement and quality assurance aspects of both the taught and research programmes. The procedure is appended to the College QA Model Appendix B.

11

3.6.2 The School of Biological Sciences underwent a PPR in March 2010. The full review can be found at:

http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/academic-services/quality-unit/quality-assurance/internal-review/postgraduate-programme-review/past-reports/2009-2010

3.6.3 The School of Mathematics underwent a TPR in March 2010. The

full review can be found at:

http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/academic-services/quality-unit/quality-assurance/internal-review/teaching-programme-review/past-reports/2009-2010

3.7 External Reviews (including accreditation reviews) 3.7.1 The following is a summary of the status of Public Sector Body

accreditations, including those accreditations which took place in 2009/10. There were no major issues arising.

3.7.2 Degrees from the School of Biological Sciences are not currently

accredited by any external body. 3.7.3 School of Chemistry: all the Masters programmes are accredited

and all BSc Honours programmes are recognised by the Royal Society of Chemistry. All Masters and BSc Chemical Physics Honours programmes are also accredited by the Institute of Physics (IoP).

There were no accreditation visits in 2009/10.

3.7.4 School of Engineering: all Honours programmes are accredited by

a Public Sector Body, depending on the engineering discipline: Joint Board of Moderators; Institute of Civil Engineers; Institution of Structural Engineers; Institute of Chemical Engineers; Institute of Engineering and Technology; Institute of Mechanical Engineers; British Computer Society.

The Institute of Engineering and Technology (IET) visited in March 2010 to review programmes in electronics and electrical engineering.

3.7.5 School of GeoSciences: Honours programmes in the Earth

Sciences are accredited by the Geological Society and the Honours programmes in Physics with Meteorology and Geophysics with Meteorology are accredited by the Royal Meteorological Society. In addition BSc Honours Physics with Meteorology is accredited by the Institute of Physics (IoP).

The Institute of Chartered Foresters permits exemption from some of their exams for the BSc Ecological Science and some forms of the MSc Forest Ecology and Management programmes.

There were no accreditation visits in 2009/10.

12

3.7.6 School of Informatics: Honours programmes are accredited by a

combination of the British Computer Society and Institute of Electrical Engineers (and British Psychological Society for programmes in Artificial Intelligence and Psychology).

There were no accreditation visits in 2009/10.

3.7.7 Degrees from the School of Mathematics are not currently

accredited by any external body. 3.7.8 School of Physics and Astronomy: all Masters and BSc single

honours programmes are accredited by the IoP. In addition, the honours programme in Physics with Meteorology is accredited by the Royal Meteorological Society.

The next scheduled visit by the IoP was due in November 2010.

3.8 Peer Observation of Teaching (POOT) 3.8.1 Participation rates in POOT vary considerably between Schools

with the highest rates in the reporting cycle recorded in Engineering and Physics (51% and 61% respectively).

3.8.2 There is a strong commitment to improving teaching quality

throughout the College however feedback on teaching standards via such channels as comments from course committees, based on course questionnaire returns, or colleagues involved in tutoring courses, were felt to be just as effective but more time efficient than POOT.

3.8.3 In GeoScience student feedback through course questionnaires

now forms the basis for discussion of teaching quality in CPD interviews and appraisal.

3.9 Collaborative Provision 3.9.1 CSE has extensive links with institutions across the UK, Europe

and worldwide. These collaborations provide opportunities for our own students to study abroad in UG programmes or develop their PG research internationally. The large numbers of overseas students, both as visiting students and those associated with collaborative programmes, students greatly enrich the student body and the overall experience of studying at Edinburgh.

3.9.2 Taught collaborative programmes include reciprocal student

exchange schemes, 2+2 degree programmes, accredited degrees, articulated degrees and joint degrees. All operate under Memoranda of Agreement (MoA) which detail the specific arrangements and responsibilities for QA in each programme.

13

3.9.3 A MoA for a 2+2 programme was approved in December 2010 between the School of Chemistry and the University of KwaZulu Natal, SA.

3.9.4 The College of Science and Engineering convenes, on behalf of

the University, the Validation Board for two Scottish Agricultural College (SAC) programmes:

(i) a portfolio of BSc programmes in Environmental Resource Management (ERM), vis. Environmental Protection, Rural Resource Management and Sustainable Environmental Management.

(ii) the BSc Animal Science.

3.9.5 Detailed annual review is undertaken by SAC Subject Panels. The

Subject Panels for the ERM programmes and the Animal Science degree met during December 2010. The Validation Board met in February 2011 to consider the recommendations of the Subject Panels and agreed the validation of the ERM programmes should be reaffirmed for a further year. The BSc in Animal Science would close in 2011, subject to the satisfactory completion of the final student.

3.9.6 From Sept 2011 SAC will deliver degrees under an accreditation

agreement whereby an Accreditation Committee comprising representatives from both institutions will meet annually to consider a report on the performance of all of the programmes leading to awards of the University delivered wholly or jointly by SAC. The committee will report formally to SQAC via the Annual CSE Quality Assurance and Enhancement Report. SAC will be responsible for the validation of new programmes and the periodic revalidation (normally six-yearly) of all programmes delivered by SAC and leading to awards of the University.

3.9.7 In PGR all schools are involved in strategic partnerships and

research pooling initiatives supported by the Scottish Funding Council. Within Edinburgh, the College has developed a successful policy of investing in research centres to stimulate and enhance interdisciplinary research between the seven schools. We also participate in cross-College centres and inter-University collaborations. CQAC encourages all graduate schools to incorporate the QA associated with collaborations in their PGR QA model and reviews the effectiveness of the arrangements via PPR

14

4. Enhancement and Good Practice 4.1 Learning and Teaching Enhancement Strategy 4.1.1 The CLTC is currently reviewing and updating the College Learning

and Teaching and Enhancement Strategy (LTES). Discussions with key College and School staff have suggested that the principles from the original strategy, formulated in 2005, remain valid, but would benefit from a reworking with more clearly defined targets that reflect the current challenges and opportunities that we face. The draft updated strategy articulates with the developing University LTES and is intended to guide and inform, but not rigidly prescribe, School-level implementation of developments in and enhancement of learning and teaching.

4.1.2 The document not only sets out the overarching aims of the

College and the strategic principles by which the College strives to achieve these aims but also sets challenging targets in areas such as staff development, recognition and reward for excellence innovation and leadership in teaching, significant review of assessment practices, development of collaborative and distance learning programmes and further improvement of the estate to support innovative teaching methodologies and changing styles of learning.

4.1.3 The updated CSE LTES document has been well received and,

subject to final approval in the March meeting of the Senatus Learning and Teaching Committee, the strategy will be implemented in 2011/12, including targets for 2011-13.

4.1.4 It is recognised that ‘strategy documents’ are not necessarily the

best way to widely communicate strategy and a Guide for Students will accompany the full document.

4.1.5 Immediate and longer-term strategic goals from Schools are

brought forward each year in the annual planning round. Elements of School plans relating to enhancing the UG or PG student experience are now reviewed openly at CLTC or CREC, respectively, to increase shared awareness of forward planning issues in each school and aid the development of collaborative or common strategies.

4.2 Update on activities in support of QAA Enhancement Themes 4.2.1 The current Enhancement Theme, ‘Graduates for the 21st

Century’, has a key focus on graduate attributes and this theme features highly in the new College LTES through emphasis on the qualities we would wish our students to develop during their studies. In addition to developing expertise in their chosen discipline, supporting them in becoming highly effective learners and equipping them with the skills required for a wide range of intended careers, we strive to give students an authentic experience of thinking about and doing science like a scientist.

15

4.2.2 This latter goal in particular illustrates our commitment to strong research-teaching linkages where our research base provides the capacity for project work in UGT and PGT programmes at the frontier of knowledge in all disciplines. It sets the content for much of our Honours years courses and increasingly informs earlier years where, for example, in Biological Sciences 1st and 2nd year classes now include material on research techniques and analysis and in Chemistry 1st year students hear presentations from Masters students returning from their period of research in industry or study abroad.

4.2.3 In June the College will host a Graduates for the 21st Century:

National Symposium Series meeting where Professor Anne Glover, Chief Scientific Adviser for Scotland and Mr Graeme Waddell, Director of Energen Biogas and former business director of Rolls Royce Aero Repair and Overhaul will address questions fundamental to the G21C Theme: What should be the attributes of a graduate from Scottish higher education in the 21st century in order that they can contribute to future cultural, civic and economic prosperity; and How can the achievement of these attributes best be supported?

4.3.1 Graduate Attributes and Employability 4.3.1.1 The Dean (Learning and Teaching) is a member of the University

Employability Steering Group. 4.3.1.2 The Careers Service ‘Careers in the Curriculum’ is now embedded

in most schools with elements for 1st to final year classes. This aims to first inform students of the opportunities and services offered by the Careers Service and the importance early CV building and forward planning. Interview and application support are offered in later years. Custom courses are delivered in certain areas to support activities such as application for industrial placements.

4.3.1.3 Employability continues as a feature of programmes in the College.

Many degrees hold professional accreditation and the accrediting bodies offer careers advice and support which augments that delivered through the Careers Service. In Chemistry membership of the Royal Society of Chemistry is encouraged from first year both for the support offered to students and the resulting sense of community that arises from strong professional ties throughout the School.

4.3.1.4 Industrial placements are an established element of programmes in

Engineering and Chemistry. Chemistry and Physics now offer ‘Science Education Placements’ in schools for students with a potential interest in careers in teaching. All the aforementioned placements are an assessed element of degree programmes but they also provide excellent opportunities to apply knowledge and develop many key transferrable skills and essential graduate attributes to enhance employability.

16

4.3.2 Pastoral and Academic Support 4.3.2.1 CQAC discussed the newly issued ‘Pastoral and Academic

Support Standards and Guiding Principles’ in June 2010 and agreed that all schools would audit their current system for delivery of pastoral and academic support against the new guidelines and standards and, where necessary, take action to ensure conformity with the new code of practice.

4.3.2.2 All schools considered that their current practice matched the

guidelines and standards well, at least for UGT and PGT students. 4.3.2.3 Some difficulty was foreseen related to the necessarily close

working relationship between student and supervisor in PGR, where a change of supervisor as a consequence of disagreement between the two would often not be practical. It was felt that measures such as second supervisors, academic advisors or thesis committees nonetheless provided sufficient support to resolve most difficulties before they became problematic and so satisfied the spirit of the guidelines.

4.3.2.4 Although all schools considered themselves to have satisfactory

models for pastoral and academic support it was suggested that all should test the effectiveness of their delivery of support via a ‘Student Experience Survey’ similar to that currently employed by Chemistry.

4.3.3 Assessment and Feedback 4.3.3.1 School reports indicated that considerable effort had been devoted

to improving feedback including the introduction of hard deadlines for assessment return in all Schools and review of course delivery to make it possible to deliver prompt and effective feedback. It was gratifying to see the 2010 NSS survey indicate and upward trend in scores, but there is still considerable room for improvement.

4.3.3.2 This session, in addition to maintaining the improved standards

delivered by many schools and continuing review of course design, the focus has been on eliminating problematic cases rather than pushing for yet greater efforts across the board.

4.3.3.3 To achieve this, Heads of Schools have been asked to first ensure

that the Feedback Standards and Guiding Principles introduced in June 2010 are being fully implemented across all levels of study.

4.3.3.4 Schools with Low Scores on Promptness of Feedback have been

requested to monitor turnaround times for feedback, and to report their performance to all their Honours students, the Head of College and the Principal’s Strategy group.

4.3.3.5 In addition to 4.3.3.3 and 4 above, the lowest performing schools

are expected to draw up action plans to deliver substantial improvements in students' satisfaction with both quality and timeliness feedback across all courses.

17

4.3.4 Equality and Diversity 4.3.4.1 The College is committed to promoting equality, diversity,

sustainability and social responsibility through active involvement in Teachability, Widening Participation Programmes and Membership of the Athena Swan Charter.

Teachability

4.3.4.2 A College Teachability Working Group was established in 2006

comprising representatives from all Schools and the College Office. The remit of the Group is to oversee the implementation of the Teachability Strategy and to review self-assessment documents and action plans produced by each School.

4.3.4.3 The working group reports annually to CQAC. The report is also

reviewed and commented on by the Disability Office. The themes of previous reviews were ‘creating accessible examinations and assessments’ (2006/7), ‘creating accessible course or programme design and structure for disabled students’ (2007/8), ‘creating accessible placements, study abroad and field trips for disabled students’ and creating accessible practical classes for disabled students’ (2008/9 & 2009/10)

4.3.4.4 The Teachability Report to CQAC in June 2010 summarised the

outcomes from exploration of the most recent theme: accessible practical classes. Although the responses from Schools indicated that there was often sufficient flexibility to be able to make reasonable adjustments within the stated learning outcomes and competencies required for the practical component of a course or programme, it was possible to envisage circumstances where adjustments could not be made. The Schools of Chemistry and Physics for example expressed concern over being able to ensure sufficient practical work and skill development as outlined in the QAA subject benchmark statements or professional accreditation agreements.

4.3.4.5 It was felt that the College should therefore consider development

of a non-accredited BSc Honours (SCQF level 10) level programme, streamed for each School, e.g. BSc Honours Advanced Study <name of School>. The DPT of the programme would be flexible enough such that a laboratory or field trip component may be substituted by a course in the same subject area of an equivalent standard. Transfer onto this programme would only be with College approval.

4.3.4.6 Timely information on disabled applicants was considered essential

so that any potential difficulties a student might have meeting ‘competence standards’ could be identified and discussed at the earliest opportunity. CQAC will pursue improvement in communication and liaison between the Admissions Office, the Disability Office and School Coordinators of Adjustments.

18

4.3.4.7 The College Annual Theme for 2010/11 will be: “Creating accessible information about course or programmes of study for disabled students and applicants”.

Widening Participation

4.3.4.8 The College of Science and Engineering is involved in a range of

outreach activities that link to secondary schools and colleges. SCI-FUN and FUSION and involvement in Science festivals range across all disciplines while several schools have their own programmes and activities (Biological Sciences, Chemistry, Engineering, Informatics and Mathematics)

Gender Equality

4.3.4.9 In 2010 Chemistry was successful in renewing its Silver Athena

Award and hopes to achieve the Gold award in 2011/12. 4.3.4.10 Biological Sciences have announced their commitment to work

towards a Silver Athena award. 4.3.4.11 Physics have been awarded a Juno Award by the IoP which

recognises action to address the under-representation of women in university Physics.

4.3.5 Teaching and Learning Spaces 4.3.5.1 The 2005 College LTES placed emphasis on collaborative learning

and flexibility of learning styles. Progress required improving the student experience through better study and social space, design of learning environments to ensure that students take ownership of their own learning, and measures to encourage collaborative learning.

4.3.5.2 These strategic objectives have been spearheaded by two projects

at The King’s Buildings: the Learning & Teaching Cluster (LTC) on level 3 of the James Clerk Maxwell Building (JCMB) and the Library & Learning Resource Centre (LLRC) on the Robertson Library site.

4.3.5.3 Phase 1 of the LTC was delivered in September 2009 (with the

Teaching Studio following in November). Phase 2 was delivered in September 2010. The LTC offers a variety of learning and teaching settings, around a large informal study and social area. WiFi is available throughout and open access PCs are available at various points. The LTC has been a great success, welcomed and extremely popular with students.

4.3.5.4 In November 2010, the University appointed the main contractor for

the new King’s Buildings LLRC. Construction will start during February 2011 and is scheduled for completion in spring 2012. This will be followed by a commissioning and fit out period. The

19

new facility will be open and ready for use at the start of the 2012/13 academic year.

4.3.5.5 More minor but nonetheless welcome developments include a

scheduled refurbishment of GeoSciences laboratories in JCMB and success in the EUSA (Edinburgh University Students' Association) run ‘Pimp My School’ competition. A proposal to upgrade the Crush Hall area in Engineering, submitted by students, was chosen as the winner from 36 entries across the University. The University took on the project and a new and relaxing environment for students was delivered in Sept 2010.

4.3.6 Summary of Enhancement and Good Practice

UGT & PGT Programmes

Biological Sciences

4.3.6.1 Questionmark Perception has been used in an innovative fashion

where students, working in groups, go through submitted work of other students, dropping in pre-prepared feedback statements for common mistakes and giving discursive feedback of their own. This allowed students to gain a better feel for what is a good answer and what was not. The initiative has been well received by the students and now Questionmark Perception will be introduced for self taught revisions session in selected classes.

4.3.6.2 A trail of PeeblePad was held at PGT master level to help students

with different cultural backgrounds to adapt to European ways of learning and teaching. The students were given a profile of generic skills to acquire. They then could assess themselves against these criteria, submit evidence of attainment and produce action plans for the future including career strategy. Each student produced a web site on a designated topic using the ePortfolio. The exercise was concluded with group sessions for the students to give formative feedback to each other.

4.3.6.3 Biological Sciences has been awarded a PTAS award to produce a

‘Best Practice Web Site’ to encourage dissemination of good practice amongst staff on different courses. A template is provided which includes a description of the innovation together with videos of the innovator talking about it, a section about the pedagogic theory behind the innovation and finally, focus group interviews with students to give their opinions. It is anticipated that this will provide a rich source of data which will assist staff to connect with the students’ experience of both innovative and conventional education. The ‘site’ is still under construction but a 2011 launch date to the public domain is planned.

4.3.6.4 The School of Biological Sciences have trialled delivery of recorded

oral and video feedback over last 3 years. The process is now working well and the school are looking to encourage its wider use in the School and share their positive experience with other

20

schools.

School of Engineering 4.3.6.4 “Feedback Concordats” in each of the four engineering disciplines

were co-signed by the Head of Discipline and the discipline Senior Class Rep. For 2009/10, these covered feedback arrangements for all senior honours courses (i.e. 4th and 5th years). These concordats have now been extended to include 3rd year, meaning that all three honours years across all four disciplines are now covered.

GeoSciences

4.3.6.5 GeoSciences have produce a ‘Support Map’ which details all principal sources of information and provision of student support on a single page as an excellent means of providing staff and students with rapid access to essential information.

Chemistry 4.3.6.6 Students were given the opportunity to anonymously peer-mark

their examination scripts from a non credit bearing, purely formative Junior Honours class examination. The scheme has had a high impact and good take up by students and the philosophy will be developed further by the school.

Mathematics

4.3.6.7 A Senior student convenes staff-student liaison committees 4.3.6.8 4th year students provide peer support to 2nd & 3rd year students

in the Maths Hub in the JCMB

Postgraduate Research

Biological Sciences 4.3.6.9 The Graduate School provides small funds to support student led

initiatives such as retreats and journal clubs. This is aimed to help foster a student community across the wide diversity of student groupings, buildings and associated institutes.

4.3.6.10 New BioDocSoc – this is a research staff and student society which

holds monthly career development focused events.

School of Engineering 4.3.6.11 The School has introduced “Graduate School of Engineering”

laboratory notebooks to each PGR student. These are provided with spaces on each page for signing and dating by supervisors. Each page is consecutively numbered and the book contains a foreword with a set of guidelines on good practice in recording

21

work, and in particular it gives guidance on the legal aspects of recording IP and has some information on patentability. Each lab book has a unique number that is recorded against the name of the student when issued. This move encourages the levels of professionalism in record keeping required by industry Good Laboratory Practice legislation.

4.3.6.12 Engineering have formed separate PG Progression and Research

Experience committees to allow the progression committee to focus on QA matters and the research committee strategic matters and enhancement of the research experience. The research committee has good active student participation.

22

5. Forward Look 5.1 Summary of recommendations for action by Schools, College

or other University departments arising from the Annual Report

5.1.1 Recommendations for Schools (in addition to the items detailed

in the aide memoire) Chemistry will bring forward proposals to increase the credits

associated with the final year research project in the Chemistry integrated masters degrees to 60 credits with effect from Sept. 2011 (3.1.1)

All school should establish staff-student liaison committees or an equivalent forum for PGR (3.1.9) BOXI reports from EUCLID should be used for production of statistics for School Annual Reports (3.3.4) Chemistry, Biological Sciences and GeoScience are invited to bring forward papers discussing the relative weighting of the Honours years in BSc programmes if they wish to pursue the issue further (3.4.8).

The School of Engineering should bring forward proposals to introduce Honours resit examinations ‘for accreditation purposes’ with effect from Sept. 2011 (3.4.9).

All schools are encouraged to adopt ‘best practice’ in the

moderation of marks (3.4.10) All Schools should test the effectiveness of their delivery of

pastoral and academic support via a ‘Student Experience Survey’ (4.3.2.4).

5.1.2 Recommendations for College Committees CSE AGD consider adaptation of the level 7 technical language

course from the Integrated Foundation Programme provided by the Institute for Academic Development (IAD) for support of PGT students (3.1.2)

CQAC to generate standard reports from the PPMD during 2010/11 (3.1.10).

The supply of a suite of statistical reports to College committees should be pursued by CSE AGD (3.3.6)

CLTC should report on the set of standard College-set questions

incorporated in all course questionnaires issued by schools in CSE during 2010 (3.5.4).

23

CLTC should consider development of a non-accredited BSc Honours (SCQF level 10) level programme, streamed for each School, e.g. BSc Honours Advanced Study <name of School> as an alternative to accredited programmes where ‘competence’ issues might prevent the award of an accredited degree (4.3.4.5).

CQAC should pursue the timely flow of information between the

Admissions Office, the Disability Office and School Coordinators of Adjustments on students with physical impairments that may challenge the required competences of a degree programme (4.3.4.6).

5.1.3 Recommendations for other sections of the University Curriculum and Student Progression Committee should consider

making it a formal requirement for the mark for any element of assessment required for award of a pass, in addition to an overall pass mark for the course, to be set at a minimum of 40% (3.1.3).

Registry is requested to assist schools in resolving difficulties with examination scheduling (3.1.4).

24

Appendix A

Aide Memoire 2010-11

Taught Courses

School of Biological Sciences 1. Report on progress with implementation of the workload planning model. 2. Report on the progress of rolling out of moderation marking schemes. School of Chemistry 1. Report on the effect of English Language Courses for PGT students. 2. Report on the outcome of the “examination trial run” students marking

each other’s scripts. 3. Report on the introduction of 60 credit research project for MChem

students in year 5 (detailed proposal under preparation). 4. Report on problems with lab sessions due to large class numbers. School of Engineering 1. Continuing update on External Examiner attendance at Exam Board

stages. 2. Report on outcome of introduction of “Resit for Professional Purposes”. 3. Update on proposals for longer (> 1.5 hour/10 credit) exams. 4. Report of review on Chemical Engineering: Kinetics and Catalysis 3

performance. 5. Report on effect of revisions to Thermodynamics 3 and Dynamics 4 to

improve course attendance and pass rates. School of Geosciences 1. Report on Ecological Sciences TPR and degree changes. 2. Report on working group on math strategy for the school. 3. Report on the operation of Teaching Load Model. 4. Comment on progress in resolving low number of answers in exam on

earth structure and geophysics. 5. Comment on whether changes in practical organisation within

Meteorology; Weather and Climate led to student approval on feedback. 6. Comment on any review of Hydrogeology course and its delivery

(External noted concern re modelling and relation to the rest of the programme.)

7. Report on Global Geophysics pass mark. School of Informatics 1. Report on progress with assessment and feedback scores as expressed

in the 2009/10 NSS. 2. Report on the FPS pass rates. 3. Report on the perceived difference in ‘demand’ of classwork only

assessed courses in comparison to those with final exams as well as

25

decisions made regarding EEs having prior sight of coursework materials for such courses.

Mathematics 1. Report any changes to non-specialist mathematics provision prompted

by the review of non-specialist mathematics teaching. 2. Report on the implementation of year 5 for the integrated masters MMath

degree. 3. Report on application and entry numbers for MMath versus BSc degrees. 4. Report on any changes that have been implemented in response to the

recommendations of the Teaching Programme Review Physics & Astronomy 1. Report on the progress with first year mathematics courses. 2. Monitor pass rates for Physics 2A, Electromagnetism and Physical

Mathematics. 3. Report on the results of the forthcoming TPR and the IoP accreditation

visit. 4. Report on steps to improve student feedback.

PGR

All schools are requested to: 1. Comment on PRES results. 2. Report on Progression Statistics 3. Report on the utility of the PPMD.

School of Biological Sciences 1. Report on efforts to raise the profile of the Graduate School generally

and Liaison and Research Committees in particular, amongst PGR Students.

2. Report of provision of new supervisor induction materials via the Wiki or otherwise as discussed in response to the 2010 PPR.

3. Report on provision of guidance to students on data storage and archiving as discussed in response to the 2010 PPR.

4. Report on attempts to devolve admin-orientated roles from PG advisors to appropriate admin staff.

School of Chemistry

No action other than those common to all schools noted above. School of Engineering 1. Report on PG supervisor training uptake and School plans to widen

uptake. 2. Report on plan to implementing more close interaction and more formal

and frequent meetings between students and supervisory teams to improve progression.

26

3. Report on Completion Rates.

School of Geosciences 1. Include submission/completion rates in next year’s report. 2. Consider using a format closer to the cover sheet list and include a

section entitled “short summary of PGR provision and key feature of School QA process”

3. Consider including more evidence on the outcome of initiatives and enhancements rather than just a more procedural summary.

School of Informatics 1. Report on the TO and Graduate School merger and how it evolves. 2. Update on the new Structure for PGR Milestones. 3. Update QA Model. School of Mathematics 1. Report on 12 month response to PPR

School of Physics and Astronomy No action other than those common to all schools noted above.

27

APPENDIX B

COLLEGE OF SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING

COLLEGE QUALITY ASSURANCE MODEL The main strands in the College QA process for teaching are the review of External Examiners’ Reports, engagement with periodic programme reviews, monitoring of Public Sector Body (PSB) accreditations and consideration of annual QA Reports from the seven Schools in the College. The structures and procedures at College level are described below. 1. ACADEMIC MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE 1.1 ROLES WITH QA RESPONSIBILITY Dean of Quality Assurance The Dean is responsible, on behalf of the Head of College, for leadership, planning and effective performance of quality audit and assurance processes for all degree programmes (undergraduate and postgraduate) within the College. S/he convenes the College Quality Assurance Committee and oversees the annual “QA Cycle”, ensuring appropriate interactions with Schools including the consideration of External Examiners’ reports on behalf of the Head of College. S/he represents the College on the (Senatus) Quality Assurance Committee and contributes as necessary to the University’s Teaching Programme Reviews and Postgraduate Programme Reviews, and to external QA consultations and activities. School QA Representative Each Head of School must nominate one member of its Academic staff as Quality Assurance Representative for the School and its representative on the College Quality Assurance Committee. This person should have experience of course or programme management (e.g. should be or have been a Course Organiser or Degree Programme Director) but should not have current responsibility for organisation of teaching delivery (i.e. should not be a current Director of Teaching). The School may also nominate one member of Administrative staff to accompany (but not replace) the Academic staff at College Quality Assurance Committee meetings. The main roles of the School Quality Assurance Representative are: • To keep up to date the School QA model for all taught and research programmes,

and to ensure that the School QA procedures are implemented. • To co-ordinate the preparation of the School QA Annual Reports (the extent to

which they write it, rather than coordinate it is up to the School, but in most cases it is the latter). The expectation is that the Report, in draft or final form, should have been presented to the School Teaching Committee or equivalent before it is passed to the College. The report is submitted in December / January each year.

• Participate in the meetings of the College Quality Assurance Committee. At these meetings they will speak to their own School report and also review the Report from another School.

• Keep up to date on current QA issues

28

1.2 ADMINISTRATION Administrative support to the Dean and members of the College Quality Assurance Committee is provided by the Academic Affairs section of the College Office. This section is responsible for all the day-to-day management and record-keeping, provides advice to staff and students on the College policies and procedures relating to quality assurance; and also provides and disseminates relevant documentation. Relevant contacts are: Senior Academic Administrator; Administrative Officer (who is Secretary to the CQAC); and the Clerical Officer (QA). 1.3 COMMITTEES / BOARDS College Quality Assurance Committee (CQAC) The CQAC develops the application of University of Edinburgh quality assurance policies and procedures for undergraduate, taught postgraduate and research postgraduate courses and programmes in the College of Science & Engineering, and monitors the operation of these processes within the College. The membership comprises: Dean, Convener, ex-officio; 1 Academic and 1 Administrative representative from each School in the College; Representative from the College of Humanities and Social Sciences; Student Representative (nominated by EUSA); Senior Academic Administrator, ex-officio; Administrative Secretary. The detailed remit is given below: • Monitoring the systems used by Schools to establish and maintain appropriate

standards for courses and degree programmes, for assessment methods and for teaching quality.

• Reviewing the continuing development of Schools’ QA Models, in the light of internal changes and external requirements.

• Specifying the format of School Annual QA Reports, and receiving and reviewing these Reports in an annual cycle.

• Auditing the engagement and response of Schools to the Reports of External Examiners.

• Receiving, auditing and monitoring responses by Schools to recommendations of Teaching Programme Reviews and Postgraduate Programme Reviews, and reporting outcomes to Senatus Quality Assurance Committee.

• Providing a forum for discussion of all aspects of quality assurance as it pertains to undergraduate, taught postgraduate and research postgraduate teaching and programmes in the College.

• Collaborating with College Learning and Teaching Committee in quality enhancement through the recognition and encouragement of innovative good practice.

• Supporting the preparation of the Annual Report of the College of Science and Engineering to the Senatus Quality Assurance Committee.

1.4 STAFF-STUDENT LIAISON Staff/Student Liaison Committees operate at School level. Their structure and organisation vary according to the School. In general terms this Committee is a forum for consultation and reporting between the staff and students of each individual School.

29

These Committees play an important role in the dissemination of information to students, and are an important element in the quality assurance procedures. In addition to subject level student representation on Staff/Student Liaison Committees, there are student representatives on a number of the School and College committees, including CQAC. 2. SUMMARY OF QA ARRANGEMENTS FOR TAUGHT COURSES AND PROGRAMMES Principal responsibility for routine Course Monitoring and Review activities rests with the seven Schools which make up the College of Science and Engineering, and is overseen by the CQAC. For each School a Quality Assurance Model (a standing document setting out QA arrangements in the School) is lodged with the College and a single QA Annual Report for each School is presented annually to CQAC during December / January. The QA Annual Reports employ a “cover sheet” which requests formal confirmation by each Head of School that certain routine functions have taken place, or explanations where this is not so. For undergraduate programmes, External Examiners’ reports are received by the Dean and acknowledged with a summary of the main points noted. By this means the Dean gains a comprehensive overview of external academic judgement of the teaching programmes in the College, and is able to identify common themes. The reports and acknowledgements are copied to Heads of Schools and to the School’s QA representative. It is the School’s responsibility to communicate directly with Externals on specific issues raised, including a written response, and maintain the correspondence on file. Copies (or a résumé) of the written responses are included with the QA Annual Report. The Dean (QA) will communicate directly on matters of significance at the College or University level. All this material, together with an aide memoire of the outcome of the previous QA cycle, is considered by a member of CQAC who acts as Reporter for the Subject Group at the meetings in December/January. Monitoring by CQAC concentrates on tracking issues raised by External Examiners and QA Annual Reports until they are appropriately resolved. Reporters, therefore, compare the Annual Report with the previous year’s aide memoire, this year’s External Examiners’ reports and the School responses to understand how ongoing issues are being handled and to identify new issues requiring attention. They also highlight other matters such as reviews undertaken, anomalous results or progression giving cause for concern, suggested changes in the QA Model, and matters to be brought to the attention of (Senatus) Quality Assurance Committee (SQAC), including instances of good practice worthy of wider attention. The CQAC meetings provide an opportunity for identification of general issues and sharing of good practice. At the end of the cycle, an aide memoire is drawn up and sent to each School as a statement of issues which CQAC wishes to see addressed in the current year. 3. SUMMARY OF QA ARRANGEMENTS FOR RESEARCH PROGRAMMES Each School has a PGR Quality Assurance Model (a standing document setting out QA arrangements in the School, either integrated with the UG/PGT model, or as a separate

30

document) which is lodged with the College. This document details the lines of responsibility, reporting channels, student progression criteria and monitoring processes in place. Each School also has a PGR QA Annual Report which is presented annually to CQAC during December / January. The QA Annual Reports employ a “cover sheet” which requests formal confirmation by each Head of School that certain routine functions have taken place, or explanations where this is not so. This document details the implementation of the process, progression statistics and enhancement. Monitoring student progression is an essential part of postgraduate research assessment and development. There are two parts to first-year and annual reporting for PhD/MPhil students in the College of Science and Engineering. At the School level a first year or annual report is produced based on the review of each student by the School. This is the basis for the School’s recommendation on the progression of students into their next year of study. In parallel there is a College level annual report form that those carrying out the review should complete and return to the College Office. Any issues of concern in the reports are considered by the Dean of Research Careers and, if necessary, the Research Training Committee. Any recommendations concerning withdrawal are referred to the Board of Examiners (see section 5.2 below). 4. INTERNAL AUDIT The College procedures for consideration of internal quality assurance reports of undergraduate programmes (Teaching Programme Review, TPR) and of postgraduate programmes (Postgraduate Programme Review, PPR) is set out in the Appendix. It sets out a common framework for consideration of both types of reports, and is based on the University guidance. 5. EXTERNAL AUDIT 5.1 External Examiners – taught courses and programmes For undergraduate and taught postgraduate programmes the primary function of External Examiners is to ensure appropriate academic standards are achieved and to benchmark these standards against QAA guidelines and equivalent programmes in comparable institutions. In accordance with the University Assessment Regulations, External Examiners review examination papers and course documentation, review assessed work and marking procedures, attend Board of Examiners meetings and report annually to Head of College via a standard report. External Examiners are appointed, on contract, for three years with a permitted extension to four. New Externals are proposed to College by the Head of School owning the programme. These proposals are reviewed by the Dean and the College Office to ensure academic quality and compliance with University regulations. The primary QA reporting scheme is via the External Examiners’ annual report which within the College is processed by the following procedure: • The submitted annual report addressed to the Head of College is received by the

College Office. The College Office retains a list of received and outstanding reports and follows up late reports with reminder e-mails.

• Each report is reviewed by the Dean who acknowledges the receipt of the report and briefly highlights any specific points raised that require further action. On receipt of the report, the Dean authorises payment of the External Examiner's fee.

31

• The Dean passes the report to the appropriate School, highlighting points that must be addressed in their response to the External Examiner. This is sent electronically to the appropriate Head of School, with copies to the School QA Representative and Teaching Organisation Administrator. If there are no specific points, the School is expected to acknowledge with a note of thanks to the External. The School's response is to be included in the School's annual QA report which is reviewed by the College Quality Assurance Committee.

• If, during the initial review process, the Dean identifies any significant issues that require specific or urgent action they will initially contact the relevant School seeking clarification, and if required will escalate the issues to College level.

5.2 External Examiners – research programmes The examination of Postgraduate Research students is managed jointly by the School and College. It is the responsibility of the School to recommend the appointment of examiners, ensure that the examination takes place and that the recommendation(s) of the Examiners is made available to the College. It is the responsibility of the College to ensure that paperwork relating to the examination is made available to Examiners. Thesis examinations and the subsequent Board of Examiners meetings to confirm awards are administered by the College. A Board of Examiners meets monthly (as a Sub-Committee of the College Research Training Committee). The Board comprises the Convener of the Research Training Committee (the Dean for Research Training), the secretary of the Committee and two additional academic members on a rotational basis, drawn from Heads of Graduate School (or others identified by the relevant Head of School). The Board will evaluate viva and award recommendations, ensuring that University postgraduate research procedures and regulations are adhered to. The Board will advise the College Research Training Committee on any matters of concern about the supervision of an individual student, or more generally on the supervision and management of research students in a School as a whole. 5.3 External Accreditation by Public Sector Bodies Five of the seven Schools in the College have programmes which are accredited by Public Sector Bodies (PSBs). Schools are responsible for arranging and organising such visits and for preparing the documentation required. The outcome of the accreditation visits are reported by Schools to the College Office (which collates an annual report for the Scottish Funding Council). Copies of the accreditation reports and feedback from the PSB is included in the School Annual QA Report and considered by CQAC in its annual cycle of meetings. 5.4 Other The College will consider the outcome of external surveys relating to the quality of programmes or the student experience, such as the NSS, PTES and PRES, and the Secretariat will submit a report to CQAC on surveys reported during the year, how they were considered, and any significant issues. 6. COLLABORATIVE PROGRAMMES The quality assurance arrangements for programmes involving collaboration with other institutions should come under the College procedures, unless specific College approval

32

has been given for equivalent alternative arrangements. Such approval will normally only be given where another institution is the lead partner in the collaboration. In such cases, the lead institution will be expected to submit to the Dean an annual report on the quality assurance process and outcome. The College Office will maintain a list of programmes where alternative arrangements apply, what those alternative arrangements are, and log the reports submitted. A report of the quality assurance outcomes of collaborative degrees will be included in the College Annual QA report to SQAC. In some cases the College, on behalf of the University, validates degrees at another institution (e.g. BSc degrees in environmental resource management at SAC). The procedures for such validation will be specified and the outcome reported as part College Annual QA report to SQAC. 7. PROCEDURES FOR QUALITY ENHANCEMENT Quality enhancement of taught programmes, at College level, is the responsibility of the College Learning and Teaching Committee (CL&TC), with oversight by the Dean of Learning and Teaching. The quality enhancement agenda is articulated by the College Learning and Teaching Strategy, which is led by the Dean of Learning and Teaching. For research programmes, quality enhancement is the responsibility of the College Research Training Committee (CRTC), with oversight by the Dean of Research Careers. The College QA Report to SQAC includes a brief summary of issues of relevance to quality enhancement arising from consideration of the School Annual QA reports. These issues are reported to CL&TC and CRTC with any recommendations for CQAC. 8. TEACHABILITY The goal of Teachability is the promotion and maximisation of the inclusion and effective participation of disabled students in higher education. The College has adopted a strategy to address Teachability issues as part of the overall College Learning and Teaching Strategy, whilst addressing particular aspects in focused, College-wide activities as annual “themes”. A College Teachability Working Group has been established, convened by the Administrative Officer, and comprising of representatives from all Schools. The remit of the Group is to oversee the implementation of the College Teachability Strategy, to review the self-assessment documents and action plans produced by each School for each theme. The Working Group reports to the College Learning and Teaching Committee and to CQAC at the end of each annual cycle of the theme. 9. SUMMARY OF QA DOCUMENTATION HELD The following documentation is held n the College Office:

Documentation Who is responsible for producing it,

and where it is held List of Convenors and members of Boards of Studies

List of External Examiners for each programme Membership and remit of CQAC Calendar of events archive of all QA models

33

QA reports TPR and PPR reports and responses EE comments and replies from the Dean and Schools

Annual College reports etc...

34

Appendix College of Science and Engineering

College procedures for consideration of Teaching Programme Reviews

(TPR) and Postgraduate Programme Reviews (PPR) This document sets out the College procedures for consideration of internal quality assurance reports of undergraduate programmes (Teaching Programme Review, TPR) and of postgraduate programmes (Postgraduate Programme Review, PPR). It sets out a common framework for consideration of both types of reports, and is based on the University guidance: http://websiterepository.ed.ac.uk/qahandbook/tpr/ and http://www.acaffairs.ed.ac.uk/Quality/PostgraduateProgrammeReview.htmIf there are any queries on these procedures, please contact the Academic Affairs Section of the College Office (david.williams@ed.ac.uk or lynda.m.henderson@ed.ac.uk) 1. The Report is issued by the Review Team Secretary The Report is sent by the Review Team Secretary to the Head of College and Head of School. The Head of College forwards copies to the Dean. 2. The initial review of the Report by the College The Dean, Quality Assurance (QA) will raise the Report as an item at the next meeting of the Academic Group of the Deanery (a weekly meeting of College Officers), to identify any urgent items. If there are any such items, the Dean (QA) will take these up directly with the Head of the School involved. 3. The School drafts a formal response to the Report The Academic Affairs Section of the College Office will liaise with the School and ensure that a draft Response* (signed and dated) is prepared by the Head of School, in consultation with Director of Teaching, Head of Graduate School and School QA Officer, within 14 weeks of the issuing of the Report.

*The response should take the form of comments on the reports commendations and recommendations, together with an indication of the actions to be taken or, if actions are not proposed, explanatory reasons. It is the School’s responsibility to compile a full response. This means that it must obtain responses to those recommendations passed to other areas of the University for action. So, for instance, if the report recommended that the Library should place more copies of core textbooks for the degree programme in its reserve section, it is the review area’s responsibility to find out from the Director of Library Services what action has been taken in response to this recommendation.

4. The draft School response is considered by the College Upon receipt of the draft School response, the Academic Affairs Section will arrange for it to be considered by the relevant College Committee(s). TPRs and sections of PPRs relevant to taught programmes are considered by the College Learning and Teaching Committee (CL&TC); sections of PPRs relevant to research programmes are considered by the College Research Training Committee (CRTC). The Dean (QA)

35

and the Head of the School are invited for these items, and the Committees may request further information, if necessary. 5. Reporting to University Committees When the CSMC and / or CL&TC are satisfied with the School Response they include a formal Minute of consideration of the Reports and Responses, including any feedback to the School on actions to be taken. The Academic Affairs Section then forwards the Response to the relevant University Committee(s) who publish it on the University quality web pages. 6. The College QA Committee reviews the process The School QA Officer includes the links to the Report and Response and any comments from College Committees in the Annual School QA Report which is considered by the College Quality Assurance Committee (CQAC). The CQAC includes a section on TPR / PPR Reports and Responses considered it its report to the relevant University Committee(s) 7. The College monitors progress on the Response The Academic Affairs Section will liaise with the School and ensure that a 12 month update on the Response is prepared by the Head of School (signed and dated) 12 months after the issuing of the Report. This update will be considered by CL&TC/CRTC and reported to CQAC as above.

36