Learning and Teaching Committee

 

Subject:        Periodic Programme Review, Department of Politics, International Relations and European Studies

 

Origin:            Marie Kennedy, Secretary to Review Panel

 

 

1.                  Title of report:  Periodic Programme Review

 

2.                  Date of report:  May 2004

 

3.                  JACS codes:  L200, L290, R906 (TBC)

 

4.                  Department:  Politics, International Relations and European Studies

 

5.                  Objectives of review: 

All departments undertake a ‘periodic programme review’ of this kind once every five years.   The review is conducted by an independent review panel and covers a department’s complete portfolio of undergraduate and postgraduate programmes.   A self-evaluative commentary forms the focus of discussions between the department and the review panel, whose report and recommendations are intended to assure the University of the quality of the department’s programmes and the standards being achieved by its students.   The review panel will also report on the effectiveness of the department’s arrangements for managing quality and standards in relation to learning and teaching.

 

6.                  Conduct of review:

The Panel comprised the Dean of the Faculty (Chair), the Associate Dean (Teaching) of the Faculty, two senior academic staff from other University departments, a member of the Programme Development and Quality Team, and an External Assessor from outside the University, and was supported by a Secretary from the Academic Registry.

 

The Panel met throughout the day with key members of Departmental staff, including the Head of Department and the Chair of the Learning and Teaching Committee, and with a representative group of current undergraduate and postgraduate students.   They included students from all years, some who had completed a year abroad, one from another EU country, and two international students.

 

The Panel did not conduct a tour of Departmental resources, but staff commented on the physical infrastructure and learning resources.  

 

Draft reports were circulated to all Panel members and their comments incorporated in the final report.

 

7.                  Evidence base:

Documentation was provided to the Panel a week in advance and found to be comprehensive, clear and useful.   It included standard PPR proforma as required in the University’s Academic Quality Procedures handbook, ie:

 

Departmental commentary (self evaluation document)

                        Department’s Learning, Teaching and Assessment Strategy

                        Statement on personal tutoring

                        Statement on student feedback

                        Statement on reports from recent graduates

Statement on approach to PPR documentation

Statement on future portfolio developments

QAA Subject Review Report (Politics), October 2001

Programme specifications

Annual Programme Review forms conducted in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004

External Examiners’ reports, 2000/01, 2001/02, 2002/03

Staff-Student Committee minutes, 2000/01, 2001/02, 2002/03

 

8.                  External peer contributors to process: 

The University’s Academic Quality Procedures require that the review panel include an External Assessor who is not a serving external examiner for the department.  The External Assessor for this Panel was a senior academic in another university who had not been an external examiner at Loughborough, nor had any member of the Department’s staff been an external examiner for his HEI.   Along with other Panel members, the External Assessor reviewed the documentation provided, took a full part in all discussions, and contributed to the report.

 

9.                  Overview of the main characteristics of the programmes covered by the review

 

The Department’s programmes have recently been significantly revised at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels, changes reflected in its name.  The new programmes are recruiting well, and the number of students has consequently increased substantially.   All programmes share an emphasis on the political, economic, social and historical development of Europe and, specifically, the development of the EU. They adopt a multi-disciplinary approach which reflects the expertise and subject specialisms of staff.   They also build upon the Department’s reputation for research into the development of the EU and its member states, and the place of the EU in its wider international setting.  

 

10.              Conclusions on innovation and good practice

·                     The Panel was pleased to note that the favourable comments made by the External Subject Reviewers from the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, who had visited the Department in 2001 and awarded an excellent score of 23/24, were substantiated by current students.   It was also pleased to note that the Reviewers’ suggestion that the Department might improve its assessment strategy had not only been addressed at the time, but the strategy was under continual review.

·                     Students confirmed that the information they received before arrival, during induction and throughout their studies, was accurate and helpful;  at least one student from outside the UK had chosen to study at Loughborough largely because of the prompt and positive response received to initial inquiries about entry qualifications.

·                     Students confirmed that the environment was friendly and supportive, and staff responsive to requests for changes to (for example) types of assessment.   Students were able to consult a range of staff including personal, module and year tutors.

·                     The Panel considered that staff reacted appropriately to student suggestions, and that students had responded positively.

·                     The Panel praised the introduction of the Core Tutorial, designed both to support and to monitor progress of first year students through regular meetings with their personal tutor.   The Core Tutorial had been introduced in conjunction with the Co-Tutor system for electronic monitoring of student attendance and progress, and recording of academic or personal tutoring issues.   The Department recognised that some problems remained, and further refinements were being made to both systems.  The Panel was impressed by the Department's system for managing such developments and was confident that these innovations will become fully effective very soon.   The Panel also welcomed the probable extension of the Core Tutorial to Part B students.

·                     The Panel applauded the highly effective liaison of departmental administrators throughout the University and within the Faculty on matters such as timetabling.   This had been praised on other occasions, including External Subject Review visits.   However, joint and combined honours programmes still presented some problems, and more formal and frequent contact between programme directors across departments could usefully be implemented.

·                     The Panel noted that the option for Politics undergraduates to take a semester or year abroad, while successful for individual students, was in practice not realised.   This was mainly because of structural inhibitors such as the modular system, the structure of the academic year, students’ commitment to housing for the following year, and loss of employment opportunities while abroad.   The Department was already pursuing the potential for development.

·                     The Department had recently been through a period of significant change and restructuring, now reflected in its change of name.   It had met the challenges with enthusiasm and energy, recognised and resolved problems, and handled change sensitively.  Staff had shown a positive, willing attitude to change and to suggestions for improvement.  The interdisciplinary nature of its teaching and research (including some team teaching) made the Department an exemplar of collegial working.   It had replaced programmes that did not recruit as successfully as they once had (largely due to the national trend of fewer students taking A-Level languages) with new and restructured programmes that promised to recruit well.   The retention of its language base puts the Department in a good position should the A-Level situation change in the future.  

·                     During the period since the last Review, recruitment had increased significantly, especially at undergraduate level.   Recruitment, progression and achievement data /are monitored through Annual Programme Review meetings with the Associate Dean (Teaching) for the Faculty.   Data showed that the subsequent performance, in terms of progression, of students recruited through changed course offers compared favourably with other students.   The Panel noted the evidence of value-added in these data, in view of the modest A-Level score of some students, and congratulated the Department on its recruitment and retention record.

 

11.              Conclusions on quality and standards

·                     The Panel observed that although its mission statement was not included in its Self Evaluation, the statement that “The Department is committed to teaching relating to contemporary Europe and the changing international arena based on an exploration of the political, economic, social and cultural transformations taking place in contemporary Europe and the broader global environment” (SED 2.3) might be a good summary of the Department’s self-reflective practice.   It enjoys a high reputation among similar departments in the UK, and its staff have contributed to the development of the subject area.

·                     External examiners’ reports were impressively positive, and demonstrated that students were achieving the intended learning outcomes and that programme specifications were being delivered.

·                     It was clear from discussions with current students and with staff that the Department responded positively and appropriately to issues raised in Staff Student Committees, in student module feedback, and through other channels, and that these media for obtaining feedback from students were functioning effectively.

·                     The Panel considered that feedback to students on coursework was largely satisfactory, with language students especially receiving frequent written feedback.   However, the good practice of providing generic verbal feedback in lectures and on the Learn VLE could be disseminated to more staff.

·                     The Panel recognised that ensuring an appropriate skill set for students was an ongoing problem for all universities.

·                     The Panel acknowledged the Department’s commitment to maintaining quality during its recent period of change, but considered there was scope to simplify its quality monitoring.  The Department is encouraged to reflect whether it has more committees than is necessary to meet University requirements, and on the extent of second marking, with the aim of reducing the staff workload.

 

12.              Conclusions on whether the programmes remain current and valid in the light of developing knowledge in the discipline, practice in its application, and developments in teaching and learning.

·                     The Department had demonstrated its responsiveness to developing student needs by regular review of its portfolio of programmes to ensure that they remain current and valid, and attractive to students.   Its programmes offer students considerable flexibility and choice by including a variety of other social science disciplines.   Students benefit from the high quality of staff research and scholarship (the Department received the excellent rating of 5 in the most recent government Research Assessment Exercise), which informs all teaching.

·                     The relevance of the Department’s programmes is evident in recruitment and graduate employment data:  employment in areas such as national government and the EU confirmed the relevance of content, and the development of students’ key skills.   The Department had a good relationship with the University Careers Service.   Teaching is informed by staff research and scholarship, and all staff are involved in teaching.

·                     The innovative content of the MSc programmes gives them a clear market position.  ESRC recognition (for which the Department deserves congratulation) provides opportunities to broaden the programme portfolio within the proposed Faculty Graduate School.

 

13.              Forward-looking recommendations for actions to remedy any identified

shortcomings, and for further enhancement of quality and standards.

Following its period of change, the Panel encourages the Department now to consolidate and to build on its considerable recent achievements.  

 

The Department is encouraged to:

·                     Continue monitoring its recruitment strategy to ensure it remains effective and attracts a growing number of applicants for its revamped programmes

·                     Give further consideration to the potential international market for postgraduate programmes;  the International Office should help identify areas to target.  

·                     Consider whether the international relations strand of its undergraduate programmes is sufficiently distinct from what is offered by other institutions.

·                     Continue its review of the Core Tutorial, and build on its strengths, including the possibility of extending it into Part B

·                     Further refine its assessment strategy to reduce possible over-assessment, and achieve an appropriate balance for both staff and students

·                     Consider some positive sanctions to ensure fuller attendance at tutorials

·                     In view of its usefulness for marketing and value-added, seek a meeting between faculty and department representatives to promote the benefits of the Department’s University Wide Language Programme

·                     Disseminate to colleagues the good practice of providing generic verbal feedback in lectures and on the Learn VLE

·                     Make more consistent use of the Learn VLE, consider whether module portals might benefit from a more uniform approach, and whether areas such as the Core Tutorial could be incorporated

·                     Continue to pursue the potential for improving the take-up by students of the semester or year abroad

·                     Reflect whether it has more committees than is necessary to meet University requirements and for efficiency, and on the extent of second marking, with the aim of reducing the staff workload.

 

14.              Further observations and recommendations

(for internal use only, this section will not be published in the TQI summary)

·                     The Panel noted that external examiners’ reports were almost entirely positive, but had expressed some frustration with university regulations that prevented their exercising more discretion at programme boards.   This was especially so regarding degree class thresholds.   However, compared to practices in other HEIs, the current situation provided a good balance.  

·                     The Panel acknowledged the Department’s unease about the regulation which puts the onus on a department to prove plagiarism where an individual student is suspected of such misconduct.   For a number of years, the Department had provided detailed advice in student handbooks, and coursework cover sheets included a declaration that all the work was the student’s.   Evidence suggests a lack of understanding rather than deliberate plagiarism, and the Department is now also dealing with the issue in Core Tutorial sessions.

·                     The Panel acknowledged that despite its marketing value and usefulness for value-added in programmes, perceptions of the University Wide Language Programme (UWLP), together with timetabling constraints, affect the Department’s ability to gain recognition for the Programme by other departments.   The Panel recommended that a meeting be arranged with ADTs, HoDS and Teaching Co-ordinators to discuss this issue.

·                    The Panel recognised that with current staffing levels, the Department would be stretched to establish its new and revised programmes, increase research output, and continue to contribute to subject discipline activities beyond the University.   It acknowledged that the restructuring work undertaken by Departmental staff had been at a cost, notably in a reduced research output. 

·                    The Panel noted the request for two additional staff to stimulate and enhance its research and teaching.

·                     The Panel recognised that some items needed further discussion at University level:

-                      thresholds at programme boards, and EEs’ unease at the restrictions on the exercise of discretion

-                      timetabling flexibility within a modular system and the current structure of academic year

-                      unease about putting the onus on departments to prove plagiarism

-                      remaining problems with physical infrastructure within the Department, and the quality of some teaching spaces on campus;  the need for departments continually to update learning resources and especially IT equipment (the recent award of £10,000 to the Department would help with the latter).

 

mk

June 2004

Response to Periodic Programme Review (PPR) Panel Report

Department of Politics, International Relations and European Studies

 

 

1.            Background

 

1.1       The Periodic Programme Review (PPR) for PIRES was conducted on May 5th 2004. The formal Report on the exercise was forwarded to the Dept by the Secretary from the Academic Registry, Marie Kennedy on June 15th  2004.

The PPR Report was discussed at a Departmental Staff Meeting on June 23rd and at the Department’s annual Teaching Day on September 24th. This document constitutes the Department’s formal response.

 

2.            General Observations

 

2.1.      The PPR exercise involved the compilation and presentation of an extensive evidence base (see item 7 of the PPR Report). This short document will avoid repeating material already disseminated and will confine itself to matters raised in the PPR Report, particularly those which may require further action.

 

2.2.      The broader context of the Department’s submission (and follow-up actions) has been outlined in successive Developmental Plans, the most recent of which was presented by Head of Department, Dave Allen, to SSH Faculty Directorate on October 5th 2004 and to the SSH Dean at the end of September.

 

2.3.      The Department welcomes the positive assessment of its teaching provision and issues relating to academic quality contained in the PPR Report. Para 9 of the Report noted that the 5-year PPR reporting period covered a period of Departmental restructuring and commended PIRES for increasing recruitment and maintaining student quality at this time. UG intake in 2004/05 increased still further to meet a quota of 145 (actual intake was 160 home students). The most recent Development Plan requests increased intake quotas of 160 in 2005/06 and 175 in subsequent years. A full-time PGT intake of 14 in 2004/05 was slightly down on 2003/04 owing, in part, to the non-arrival of eleven overseas students. The Development Plan envisages an enrolment of 32 PGT students by 2006/07 (including 20 overseas students). It should also be noted that the total number of students enrolled on the University-Wide Language Programme (UWLP) remains healthy. Provisional registrations for 2004/05 are: French language modules, 253;German language modules, 193; and Spanish modules, 205

 

3.            Specific Observations

 

3.1            Paragraph 10 of the PPR Report offers a number of examples of innovation and good practice within the Department. Of the points raised, a few are worth commenting on:

           

            (i) the Department continues to develop use of the Co-Tutor system. A Departmental Staff Meeting in October 2004 saw a presentation by Melanie Bates (Co-Tutor system manager). Within PIRES, the Co-Tutor system is overseen by the Director of Student Welfare, a new position created in July 2004 and held by a senior member of staff.  Co-Tutor is now the main method for the monitoring of student attendance.

 

(ii) in 2004/05 the Core Seminar programme was extended to Part B of undergraduate programmes. Part of the rationale behind the Core is to reinforce the personal tutoring system by the holding of regular, scheduled meetings between personal tutor and tutees. At Part B, the Core contains a more substantive teaching element and consequently attracts credit on the basis of two 10 credit modules (EUB607 and EUB608). There are currently no plans to extend the Core to Part C. However, some of its purposes are served by personal tutoring, regular supervisory contacts between staff and students through the dissertation module (EUC301), and seminar meetings attached to final-year options.

 

(iii) Para. 10 noted that the Department had not realised the full potential of its semester study abroad opportunities. The indications for study abroad in semester 2 of 2004/05 are positive. In 2003/04 only one student took advantage of this programme; there are currently six being processed for 2004/05.

 

3.2.      Para. 11 of the PPR Report (quality and standards) notes that the Department should consider simplifying its quality monitoring procedures through a reduction of Departmental structures. Since the PPR, the Department has created the post of Director of Student Welfare (see above para 3.1(i)), a position which replaces three separate Year Tutors; it has also rationalised the committee structure for monitoring PGT and PGR affairs. Para 11 also suggests that the Department reflect on the extent of second marking as a way of reducing burdens of staff. No major change has occurred in this area, but related changes have been made to student assessment (see para. 3.3(iv) below)

 

3.3.      Para 13 of the PPR Report (forward-looking recommendations) contains a number of suggestions. These will be taken in turn:

 

            (i) the Department is encouraged ‘to consolidate and to build on its considerable recent achievements’:

This is a sentiment with which PIRES is in full agreement. With no PPR or ESR imminent, and with new programmes either in train or approved the Department will be able to concentrate on the delivery and refinement of its new and existing programmes at both UG and PGT levels. The considerable work which the Department has put into the restructuring of programmes, the monitoring of teaching, and alterations to forms of assessment and quality control require, of course, ongoing efforts, but the Department is also mindful of the need to gear staff efforts to the requirements of the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise (RAE).

 

            (ii) recruitment strategy. The Department has continued to recruit healthily.  (see para. 2.3 above). Approximately half of the intake on to UG programmes in 2004/05 was a consequence of changed course offers. The Department aims to reduce this percentage to approximately 33% for 2005/06 entry. For 2005/06 it has also increased its points offer from 240 to 240/280 in order to better reflect the Department and the University’s reputation for quality.

 

            (iii) review of the Core Seminar (see para. 3.1(ii) above)

 

            (iv) possible over-assessment:

The Department has revised the assessment regime on a number of modules for 2004/05. At UG level, a 10 credit module now typically involves assessment by either a two-hour exam or single piece of coursework (prior to 2004/05, 10 credit modules involved both an exam and a coursework element). A 20-credit module now typically involves a three-hour exam plus a single piece of coursework (prior to 2004/05 two pieces of coursework were required). Comparable reductions have also been made on PGT modules.

 

            (v) use of ‘positive sanctions’ to encourage attendance at all tutorials:

This was discussed at length at the Department’s Teaching Day in September 2004. University guidelines are clear in ruling out mark deductions (‘negative sanctions’) to encourage attendance and the Department feels that the scope for other more ‘positive’ measures  is limited. The Department has, however, through the Co-Tutor system made considerable efforts to monitor attendance and to contact students who are remiss in this regard. It is made clear to students that attendance is recorded, that non-attendance at two or more organised meetings will be investigated and that student references (for potential employers, Hardship Fund applications etc.) may refer to attendance records.

 

            (vi) promotion of the UWLP through meetings of Departmental and faculty representatives:

The Head of Languages within PIRES has been tasked with this and has visited several departments to inform students about language-learning possibilities when they are making their selection of module options.

 

(vii) use of greater generic feedback to students through the Learn Server:

this is a matter to be taken up by the Department’s Learning,

Teaching and Assessment Team (LTAT) during the current academic year.

 

(viii) more consistent use of Learn and a presence for the Core Seminar:

Learn is widely utilised within the Department and the Department has a good record among Departments in terms of the range and quality of the materials it has mounted. The Department has minimum requirements for Learn content by module (assessment details, schedule of teaching, links to reading etc.). LTAT will take up in 2004/05 a more detailed elaboration of these requirements. The Core Seminar at Parts A and B now has fully developed Learn sites with specially designed case study materials.

 

3.4.            Paragraph 14. of the PPR Report contains further observations and recommendations (to be excluded from the TQI summary). Points of note here are:

 

            (i)  PIRES welcomes the PPR Report’s acknowledgement that ‘with current staffing levels, the Department would be stretched to establish its new and revised programmes, increase research output, and continue to contribute to subject discipline activities beyond the University’. PIRES, therefore, welcomes the decision of Operations Sub-Committee of October 20th to sanction University Development Funding for two posts for two years.

 

            (ii) the issue of plagiarism. The Department has made exhaustive efforts to educate students on the issue of plagiarism. Its undergraduate and postgraduate student Handbooks contain lengthy guidance on referencing and plagiarism avoidance. A session of the Core Seminar programme at Part A is dedicated to the subject and supervision for the Part C dissertation also places due emphasis on the management and referencing of source material. All coursework submissions require students to sign a declaration noting their authorship, that the work has been properly referenced and that the student has read the Department’s ‘Coursework Code of Practice’.The PPR Report noted Departmental unease over regulations concerning academic misconduct in the case of plagiarism. The relevant regulation is Assessment Regulations for Undergraduate Assessment (1999) Part 5, paras. 36 –50. This places the emphasis on proof of guilt rather than proof of innocence in examining such cases. In practice this has meant staff being subject to intolerable demands relating to the provision of evidence. In the case of plagiarism, misconduct hearings should, therefore, place a greater emphasis on students demonstrating the provenance of a suspect piece of work and conformity with accepted referencing guidelines. . This is a procedural matter in terms of the way in which Misconduct Hearings are conducted and need not require any revision of ARUA. The Department fully supports any University initiative aimed at the application of plagiarism detection software.

 

Mark Webber

(Chair, Learning, Teaching and Assessment Team)

October 2004