Learning and Teaching Committee

Subject: Annual Programme Review – 2011/12

Origin: Rob Pearson, Programme Quality and Teaching Partnerships

1. Introduction

The Annual Programme Review (APR) process was significantly revised in advance of the 2011/12 session. The revisions took account of the restructuring of the University and were also designed to deliver enhancements which would reduce the burden on Schools, provide greater consistency in the use of data, and enhance the link with School Developmental Plans.

LTC is asked to consider a brief overview of the operation of the revised process for APR and to approve outline proposals for developing the process in preparation for 2012/13.

LTC is also asked to consider the outcomes of the APRs undertaken in 2011/12 and to approve recommendations for action.

2. Operation of APR in 2011/12

The Programme Quality and Teaching Partnerships Office (PQTP) led the operation of the APR process during 2011/12 and facilitated the provision of a standard data set for each School by the agreed deadline of 31 October 2011.

Following receipt of the data Schools undertook an internal evaluation and produced a self-evaluation document, using an agreed template, in advance of the formal APR meeting. Schools were encouraged to utilise the expertise of the Teaching Centre Quality Enhancement Officers when producing their evaluation.

The APR meetings took place between December 2011 and January 2012. Present at each meeting were a panel comprised of the PVC(T), VP Education and Head of PQTP. Attending on behalf of each School were the Dean, AD(T) and Operations Manager as a minimum, with other members of staff attending if necessary. Each meeting lasted around an hour.

The discussions identified various strengths and room for improvement of the revised APR process.

Strengths included:

• A reduction in the preparation required by Schools.
• The opportunity for Schools to receive advice on and support for proposed developments.
• The opportunity to raise University strategic priorities with Schools (for example, all Schools were asked to consider their position in regard to contact time with students).
• A clear link between APR and the School Development Plan.
• Embedding of responsibility for monitoring and evaluation of provision within Schools.

Suggested improvements / issues raised by the revised process included:

• Some of the data could be refined / better presented.
• Analysis of the data would be enhanced by the development of KPIs and benchmarks.
• Consideration should be given to the incorporation of a full set of PGT data.
• Consideration should be given to incorporating the Key Information Set data.
• The expectation of Schools to comment on effective practice in their evaluation should be reviewed to consider whether it is effective.
• The provision of more detailed guidance to help Schools with the production of the self-evaluation document, building on the experience of the first year of the new process.
• The depth of discussion possible for single Dept Schools cannot be replicated for Federated School APRs.

LTC is asked to approve a recommendation that PQTP should develop the APR process in line with the recommendations for improvements identified during the review, in preparation for the APRs in 2012/13.

3. Effective practice

The APR meetings identified numerous instances of effective practice that could usefully be disseminated across some or all Schools. This practice was identified either as a result of comments by Schools in their self-evaluation documents or as a result of the discussions at the APR meetings.

It is recommended that the Teaching Centre and PQTP review the practice that has been identified, with a view to reporting back to LTC on practice that is worthy of dissemination and/or adoption across the University.

4. Institutional actions

The APR process identified several actions and / or requests for action that are outwith the responsibilities of individual Schools.

LTC is asked to note the issues identified below, and to approve a recommendation that the Academic Standards and Procedures Sub-Committee should follow up the issues and report back to LTC.

i. A-level tariffs

There was concern that the method used by the University to report A-level entry grades to HESA puts the University at a disadvantage in comparison to some other institutions. Electronic, Electrical and Systems Engineering

ii. Marking conventions

It was reported that some Departments appeared to be marking to an average of 55%. The School was reviewing marking conventions and requested the University provides assistance by producing an overview of marking averages across the institution. Science

iii. Social Spaces

There was consensus that the Maths and Physics building would benefit from development of a shared student social space. Science

iv. Joint degrees

There was concern that that the timetabling system may constrain student optional module choices for joint degree students. Science

It was reported that processes should be developed to facilitate the routine sharing of module information for modules taken by the Schools’ students but delivered by other Schools. This was important to allow the student home Schools have a holistic view of the student experience and due to the potential impact of modules from outside the School on the home School NSS scores. Electronic, Electrical and Systems Engineering and Science

v. IP claims

There was concern at the volume of claims and that they are often submitted for small coursework elements. It was felt that these ‘low tariff’ IP claims result in a high administrative workload but have no or little noticeable effect on degree outcomes. Loughborough Design School

It was recommended that the University should review whether the practice of adding marks in response to IP claims was beneficial to students (especially for finalists who may / may not wish to defer graduation in order to resit an exam). One suggestion was to allow student to state their preferred permissible course of action on their IP claim. Electronic, Electrical and Systems Engineering

vi. Contentious reasonable adjustments

The School raised concerns about the rise and acceptance of ‘stress’ as a just cause for the replacement of exams with coursework. Loughborough Design School

vii. Group coursework policy

The School recommended that the University revised its guidance on group coursework, especially where peer review was used. Loughborough Design School

viii. Anonymous marking

In light of external examiner comments, the University was encouraged to consider best practice in regard to anonymity of students in assessment. Aeronautical, Automotive, Chemical and Materials Engineering

ix. Registration

The School reported concerns about delays in the processing of student registration transfers at the beginning of semester 1 in 2011/12, particularly for BEng to MEng transfers. The School sought assurances that the delays would not happen in future years. Aeronautical, Automotive, Chemical and Materials Engineering

x. IT performance / developments

It was reported that a slow boot-up time for machines was having a negative impact on the time available for teaching. Aeronautical, Automotive, Chemical and Materials Engineering

The School recommended University IT developments to enable the provision of an electronic personalised timetable for all students (preferably downloadable to mobile devices), that would include provision for Schools to specify deadlines for coursework submission and return. Civil and Building Engineering

IT access issues had been raised at SSC, in particular about out of hours access. Aeronautical, Automotive, Chemical and Materials Engineering

xi. Timetabling / pool rooms

Central timetabling had presented some rooming problems that were reflecting badly on the School. The timetabling team had been supportive, but the School was concerned about the effect on the student experience. Sport, Exercise and Health Science

Timetabling issues due to a need to travel across campus because of limited room size and availability at that west end of the campus. Aeronautical, Automotive, Chemical and Materials Engineering

SSC concerns about the poor condition of some pool teaching rooms. Business and Economics

xii. Merit Awards for Masters programmes

The School feel there is considerable student and academic support for the introduction of a Merit award at Masters level. Business and Economics

xiii. Central support for placements

The School would welcome greater central advice and support in providing placements and supporting students on placements. Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences

xiv. Periodic Programme Review

LTC should be asked to postpone the timing of the School PPR until after a major accreditation visit in 2014. Electronic, Electrical and Systems Engineering

5. School actions

The APR process identified a range of issues and actions for Schools to consider. The majority were identified by Schools in their Self-Evaluation Documents, but additional actions were identified by the panel during discussions with Schools during the formal APR meeting.

In the APR process prior to 2011/12 the Faculty AD(T) produced a detailed report for each Department, often with a comprehensive list of recommendations for action. At least one Self-Evaluation Document for 2011/12 identified the impossibility of addressing the sheer volume of actions arising from former APRs within current resources. With this in mind, the panel have sought to identify a limited number of issues and actions that they would expect each School to have addressed by the time of the next APR.

This is not to say that all other actions identified by Schools in their evaluation should be dismissed. Schools are encouraged to take due care in following up other actions they have identified in their Self-Evaluation Documents.

Therefore, LTC is asked to note the issues and actions identified below, and to approve a recommendation that Schools should follow them up as appropriate, with an expectation that they will be asked to comment on the outcomes at the next APR.

Aeronautical, Automotive, Chemical and Materials Engineering

1. Auto MEng. It was noted that the pass rate was lower than previous years. This was possibly statistical fluctuation, but the School had also identified the potential impact of an issue with group design projects and with staffing.

2. Staff communication skills

The NSS identified English language communication issues for some staff. Staff had been encouraged to take part in the ‘Communicate’ course, but as yet none had due to sessions being full. The School was encouraged to explore possibility of Teaching Centre providing extra sessions.

3. Assessment strategies

It was reported that the School was looking at assessment strategies for BEng and MEng students to ensure BEng students have opportunities to achieve the full range of degree classifications.

4. Project fees

Chemical Engineering reported concerns about the fee that students were expected to pay for taking Part C semester-long credit bearing research project at external HEIs. The Dept. was encouraged to be clear to students that the fee contributes to supervision at the host HEI.

Arts, English and Drama

1. 3D Design. Several of the APR indicators had highlighted potential issues with this programme. The School reported that a comprehensive review of programme was in progress and expected to report shortly.

2. NSS response rate. The School had introduced an action plan to improve Arts student engagement with the NSS.

3. Assessment Feedback.

· The Arts LTC was addressing External Examiner comments about consistency and quality of assessment feedback.

· It was noted that Drama was running workshops on assessment for staff.

4. Linked award initiatives. The School was encouraged to explore options for the introduction of 3+1 (BA + MA) and 1+3 initiatives (MA + PhD). It was noted that these may require the introduction of revised regulations by the University LTC.

5. NAFA. It had been indicated that NAFA wishing to introduce a 2 year degree (3 year Dip followed by 2 year Degree). It was noted that a proposal would need to go to Operations Committee and then a validation panel.

Business and Economics

1. BSUB91 Automotive Dealership Management Comparisons. A reduction of external sponsorship had had a negative impact on pass rates and withdrawals. The School was exploring options to enhance recruitment.

2. Feedback. The School was looking at how assessment is set within long 20 credit modules, with the intention to redesign and set common standards.

3. Placements. The School was looking at how placements and employability skills can operate successfully within Economics.

4. Accreditation requirements
   EQUIS peer review report had identified need to focus on the international dimension of the portfolio. The School was looking at options for student mobility via summer schools and for developing appropriate international partnerships.

There was concern that Singapore provision does not meet AACSB requirements for the proportion of required academically qualified staff. The School needs to address this issue by the start of 2012/13. The Dean was discussing issues related to staff mobility with the DVC.

Civil and Building Engineering

1. Part B progression. The School had identified issues with students attending but not necessarily engaging with study. The School had taken steps to rectify engagement by improving induction arrangements at Part B and personal tutors have been reminded to discuss performance with students.

2. NSS feedback. The School was addressing student expectations about feedback: in week 1 all students are provided with a timetable of coursework hand in deadlines and deadlines for the return of work and feedback.

3. IELTS requirement for PGT provision. The School was concerned that a consequence of setting an IELTS requirement of 6.5 for postgraduate programmes was that some entrants struggled with academic English. There was concern that raising the IELTS score would have a negative impact on recruitment. It was recommended that the School investigate the provision of an ‘English for Economics’ module provided by the Department of Economics and the Student Support Centre, to see if there were opportunities to provide a similar language module for Civil Engineers.

Electronic, Electrical and Systems Engineering

1. Student failure at Part B and C. It was noted that actions had been taken to enhance student engagement, including an improved Part B tutoring system and a School Code of Practice for attendance monitoring.

2. Feedback. The School was considering options for enhancing feedback at Part C and was looking at efficacy of feedback for PG block-taught modules.

3. DIntS. The School was to follow-up options for offering DIntS for the UNITECH programme, which would be outside the norm of 25 weeks for a placement.

Loughborough Design School

1. Ergonomics (Human Factors Design)

· Applications were low. It was noted that this was the only course of its kind in the UK and the School was taking steps to raise its profile in schools by building up case studies and developing the alumni network.

· There were concerns about failure rates and low attendance. The School felt that moving to new premises had helped to address these issues and students were more engaged with the programme than in previous years. There had also been less reliance on bought in teaching.

· The NSS had highlighted student concerns about the teaching relationship with students. It was noted that contact time was lower in Ergonomics than in the other disciplines within the School. Staff had been encouraged to think about contact time and the need to ensure consistency across all staff.

2. Additional course costs. The NSS had highlighted student concerns about additional costs associated with some courses. The School was reviewing overall costs for each course to ensure transparency for students.

Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering

1. Advanced Manufacturing Engineering and Management. There had been a fall in recruitment, most notably with international students down. The programme been reviewed and a semester long module would be introduced which would be shared with M-level Part D modules. It was anticipated that this would make the programme more attractive.

2. Marking across the range of available marks. A reluctance of staff to mark over 70% had been noted. The School had revised coursework marking grade descriptors and was working with colleagues to encourage use of the whole marking range.

3. Feedback. The School LTC was leading a review of feedback practice across School.

4. Nomenclature. It was reported that there was on-campus competition for the Product Design Engineering programme from the portfolio of programmes at LU with ‘design’ in the title. The School had discussed with the relevant Depts/Schools. It was noted that the School ensured potential students were aware of programme content by interviewing all applicants.

Science

1. Student applications. There had been a drop in applications in some Departments. The Senior Management Team was monitoring. Reasons for the drop were not clear, with one possibility being the raising of entry requirements.

2. Synoptic assessment in final year. Following a suggestion from Chemistry external examiner, the School acknowledged that a synoptic final year assessment was a good idea but considered that the modular credit system made it difficult to implement. The School was encouraged to give the proposal further consideration.

3. Accreditation. The School was encouraging all programmes not currently accredited to investigate the possibilities for accreditation.

4. SEFS. The School had identified the need to resolve the following:

· a process for the consideration of the SEFS annual report now it can no longer be submitted to the Science and Engineering Faculty Boards.

· A process for the SEFS team to access module QA data for the modules undertaken by the programmes students

· Appropriate mechanisms whereby SEFS can access funding for initiatives now that the Faculties no longer exist.

Social, Political and Geographical Sciences

1. Placements. The School was encouraged to clarify the structure for the management and administration of placements across the School.

2. Work Experience module. The School was encouraged to develop a similar work experience module to the one introduced this session on the English Department.

3. PDP. It was reported that PDP was not consistent across all three Departments and the School was encouraged to develop a process to ensure greater consistency.

4. Minimum module presence on Learn. It was reported that the AD(T) was working with Dept. Learning and Teaching co-ordinators to ensure consistency of module information on Learn, especially in regard to lecture materials.

Sport, Exercise and Health Science

1. Student performance on Business modules. The School was in discussion with the Business School to gain a better understanding of the reasons for the underperformance of some students on Business modules.

2. Projects. The School had identified on-going work to ensure parity of project supervision across the different disciplines within the School.

3. Staff CPD. The School was working with the Teaching Centre to run bespoke CPD sessions for colleagues in areas such as assessment.

4. Placements. A Placement Working Group had been established to improve placement provision. The School was looking enhance staff engagement with placements, identifying the potential for developing research opportunities through placement links.

5. Student feedback. It was reported that student representatives were using Facebook as a means of gathering views / feedback. The School had some reservations and had introduced a discussion forum on Learn for all modules.

6. e-learning resources. The School was looking to enhance its provision by developing e-learning material.