Origin: Marie
Kennedy, Secretary to Review Panel
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.
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
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.
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.
·
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.
·
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.
·
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.
·
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