Learning and Teaching Committee

Subject: Periodic Programme Review – Human Sciences

1. Title of Report: Periodic Programme Review Report

2. Date of Report: 10 December 2004

3. JACS codes: B100 (Human Biology), C800 (Psychology), J920 (Ergonomics)

4. Department: Human Sciences

5. Objectives of review:

All departments are required to undertake a ‘periodic programme review’ of this kind every 5 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 Head of another Department in the Science Faculty (Chair) (the Dean was ineligible to serve, being a member of the Department), the Associate Dean (Teaching), two academic staff from other departments, the Head of Academic Practice and Quality, Professional Development, and an External Assessor from another University. The Panel 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 Department’s Learning and Teaching Committee, and with a representative group of students.

The Panel was provided with a tour of the Department and its facilities.

The draft report was circulated to all Panel members and their comments incorporated in the final report.

7. Evidence base

Documentation was provided to the Panel two weeks in advance and included the following:

Periodic Programme Review pro-forma

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

Programme Specifications

Data on Undergraduate Programme Population Monitoring

Evidence of Accreditation and Accreditation Report from The British Psychological Society
Evidence of Accreditation from The Ergonomics Society

Annual Programme Review forms for 1998-99 to 2003-04

External Examiners’ reports for 1998-99 to 2003-04

Departmental responses to External Examiners’ reports for 1998-99 to 2002-03

Staff-Student Committee Minutes for 1998-99 to 2003-04

8. External peer contribution to process

The University requires 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. The External Assessor received 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 has four undergraduate programmes (BScs in Ergonomics, Human Biology, Psychology and Psychology with Ergonomics, all available with a four-year sandwich option for the Diploma in Professional Studies award) and one postgraduate programme (MSc Ergonomics), which are established, popular, distinctive and multidisciplinary. All programmes share a common set of generic learning outcomes addressing cognitive, subject-specific and key/transferable abilities and skills. The different degree programmes also have specific learning outcomes which are furthered through specific forms of teaching and assessment. A variety of assessment methods are used to test subject knowledge and develop a range of generic and specific skills. Successful completion of the degree programmes fulfils the requirements for membership of relevant scholarly and professional societies e.g. The Ergonomics Society and the Centre for Registration of European Ergonomics, the British Psychological Society, and the Society for the Study of Human Biology. All programmes expect students to demonstrate an ability to undertake an independent research project under supervision, and provision of adequate practical experience in all three disciplines is considered to be of primary importance. Multi-streamed postgraduate programmes, based on the MSc in Ergonomics and in which core modules are shared, have been introduced in 2004.

The Panel considered all the Department’s programmes to be genuinely interdisciplinary. The BSc in Ergonomics was recognised as being unique to Loughborough, the subject only being available elsewhere as a postgraduate award. The integration of teaching across programmes was considered to be an economical and effective use of resources, though it sometimes resulted in a limited range of module choice.

10. Conclusions on innovation and good practice

· The Department was student-friendly and approachable. Its relationship with its students was highly commendable.

· The problem-based approach to learning was wholly appropriate to the Department’s commitment to research-led teaching.

· The Part A Communication and Study Skills module, one of the few modules which integrated all three subject streams, and on which all staff were involved in teaching via their Personal Tutor role, was a commendable innovation.

· The Coursework Co-ordinator system was commended as a concept.

· The research-led approach to postgraduate teaching gave students experience of contemporary and relevant work, particularly appropriate as most MSc graduates became practicing ergonomists.

· The Staff-Student Committee worked well and issues raised by students were dealt with and acted upon.

11. Conclusions on quality and standards

· The Panel noted that the Department had achieved the maximum score of 24 in the QAA Subject Review of 1998. The Panel acknowledged the very strong academic record of the Department.

· The Panel considered, from the evidence provided in relation to External Examiners’ comments, accreditation, benchmarks and statistical data, that intended learning outcomes were being attained by students, quality and standards were being achieved, and the programme specifications were being delivered.

· The Panel was satisfied that the Masters programme was at the appropriate postgraduate level.

· Progression, retention and completion rates were most commendable.

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 itself has recognised the urgent need for development of the curriculum to cover contemporary developments in the discipline, such as that relating to neuroscience.

· The Department has a mechanism in place for curriculum development, driven primarily by Subject Teaching Committees, which have recently shown a resurgence in activity.

· The Panel commended the wide range of appropriate assessments across the programmes.

13. Forward-looking recommendations for actions to remedy any identified shortcomings, and for further enhancement of quality and standards

· There was an urgent need to review assessment criteria to ensure maximum clarity and transparency.

· The requirements for feedback on coursework needed to be confirmed and applied consistently within the Department.

· Use of the Learn server by the Department was currently limited and should be further exploited.

· The Department should explore the possibility of including content-based tutorials at programme level, in addition to the small-group discussions already used in some individual modules and in practical classes.

· The Panel felt that there could be some benefit in revisiting the role and function of the Subject Teaching Committees.

· The Panel was satisfied that documentation provided to students in promotional material and during their studies was accurate and helpful. The Department was advised, however, to look carefully at the presentation of its programmes when module changes became necessary.

· The Department was working under difficult conditions with the delay in the completion of its new facilities. The Panel stressed the urgency of completion of the refurbishment project and the need for the new facilities to be in place at least by the start of the next academic year to permit the planned expansion of postgraduate provision.

· Student feedback had drawn attention to the difficulties sometimes faced by students with the teaching of statistics. The establishment of a Departmental Statistics Working Group was commended, but the Panel, whilst understanding the problems in this regard, felt that the Department should look further at the integration of statistics teaching into the subject context.

· The Department should seek to enhance and improve the already established Personal Tutoring system, using IT facilities where appropriate.

The above recommendations would be followed up as part of the Annual Review of Programmes for 2004-05 during 2006.

14. Further observations and recommendations (The following section is for internal use and will not be reproduced in the TQI summary)

· Curricula and assessment

Ø The Panel acknowledged the difficulties of maintaining 3 disciplines with staff numbers much lower than would normally be expected for those disciplines, and was impressed with the range of programmes on offer in view of this. The Department has shown that it can deliver quality programmes, but the Panel was concerned about the vulnerability of the provision to sudden staff losses.

Ø The Department was not fully compliant with the University’s or Department’s Code of Coursework practice in ensuring that timely feedback was provided to students on coursework assignments, and should address this as a matter of urgency. The value of the Coursework Co-ordinator in theory was recognised but the Panel felt that the Co-ordinator needed to be given the authority to ensure that the Code of Practice was fully enforced.

Ø The Department should make special provision in its marking policy for the double marking of scripts marked by probationary staff.

Ø Though assessment guidelines on the commended Communication and Study Skills module were available, student feedback suggested that these were not always adhered to and that there were anomalies in the amount of coursework set by different tutors. This needed to be resolved.

Ø The Panel considered that the curriculum for the BSc in Human Biology was not necessarily what a student might expect from the title. The Panel was however satisfied that the core of Human Biology with options in Psychology/Ergonomics was made clear in promotional activities.

· Quality of learning opportunities

Ø The Diploma in Professional Studies option was clearly a positive experience for students, and the Department provided good support to students during this placement year.

Ø At the time of the review the Panel considered that the Department’s laboratory facilities were barely fit for purpose, as a result of the delay in completion of the refurbishment programme. The resultant temporary lack of space for casual contact between students and between students and staff has been detrimental to the Department and affected the quality of the student experience. The Panel recognised that these issues should be resolved no later than the end of the present academic year. Should there be further delays, however, it urges the Department to make strong representations to the appropriate bodies and officers.

Ø The Panel considered that the Department’s Policy on Personal Tutoring was compliant with University requirements, but was not convinced that this was fully enforced or was sufficiently structured to incorporate Personal Development Planning. Of particular concern to the Panel were any students with difficulties who did not approach their tutor. The Department may wish to reconsider the effectiveness of its undergraduate Personal Tutoring system after the first year.

· Maintenance and enhancement of standards and quality

Ø Greater use of the Learn server would be of particular value in a Department which was very stretched in terms of its human resources.

Ø The Department should consider methods of improving student feedback response rates.

· Learning and teaching aspects of the departmental development plan

· Future portfolio developments

Ø The Panel noted the Department’s intention to maintain the three disciplines and to continue with its parallel but overlapping programmes. It would, however, recommend that the Department consider whether the undergraduate programme in Psychology with Ergonomics, which recruited very low numbers, should be discontinued. Though promoted for its multidisciplinary dimension, it could be argued to be superfluous, given the already integrated provision for the other three undergraduate programmes.

Ø The new suite of postgraduate programmes had provided the opportunity for links with other specialisms at the University. The Department was encouraged to explore further teaching collaboration with the School of Sport and Exercise Sciences and the Department of Social Sciences.

Ø The Head of Department informed the Panel of the medium-term vision for the Department which assumed a significant increase in international student recruitment to enable the appointment of additional staff and the achievement of critical mass in all 3 disciplines.

JEME/Dec 04

Department of Human Sciences

Periodic Programme Review Report: Comments and Actions from the Department

Date of Response: 26 January 2005

We are pleased to receive a positive and supportive PPR report, acknowledging the strong academic record of the Department. Sections 9-12 highlight a number of positive points, identifying areas of good practice and stating that quality, standards and currency of programmes are good. The overall assessment of the Panel is accepted.

13. Forward-looking recommendations for actions to remedy any identified shortcomings, and for further enhancement of quality and standards

· There was an urgent need to review assessment criteria to ensure maximum clarity and transparency.

HS: We do not entirely understand what has prompted this concern. Detailed guidance on assessment criteria is available on the Department website and in the Student Handbook. Nevertheless, we will continue to review our practices and consider how we might improve student understanding of these.

· The requirements for feedback on coursework needed to be confirmed and applied consistently within the Department.

HS: We will reinforce to staff the importance of providing appropriate feedback on coursework and will review how we can improve the monitoring of consistency in this respect. Also see comment below under item 14.

· Use of the Learn server by the Department was currently limited and should be further exploited.

HS: The Department currently has a very comprehensive portfolio of teaching materials on the Learn server. For example, for the semester just ended, 37 out of 41 modules had material available. Furthermore, all modules use the Learn server as a means of access to basic module information and coursework cover slips. Further usage of this facility is planned in a number of areas, some of which it is envisaged will take advantage of the recently appointed Science Faculty Online Development Officer.

HS: We welcome this recommendation in principle but it has difficulties in a modular scheme. It means we would need to consider how to deliver programme wide integrative tutorials – possibly needing the creation of a dedicated module. STCs will be encouraged to discuss these issues and assess feasibility.

· The Panel felt that there could be some benefit in revisiting the role and function of the Subject Teaching Committees.

HS: The function of STCs was discussed at a Department awayday, July 2004. It was concluded then that this element of our administrative structure continues to have value. The STCs in the Department are active and collaborative in that they feed into the DLTC; they actively engage in curriculum development and overall running of the degree programmes. Further refinements to activities of STCs will be discussed at DLTC and Department level.

HS: Normally, all changes are communicated at the time of making choices or in extreme cases at the start of the academic year. The Department will continue to strive for minimum disruption to student learning. The 'module choices meetings' in Week 12 of Semester 2 were introduced a few years ago to help make upcoming finalists aware of any anticipated module/programme changes. These meetings may be expanded to include students moving into Part B.

HS: The Department agrees fully with the urgency of building work being completed at the earliest possible time, before the start of the next academic year. Both staff and students have been very patient and understanding this year. It is alarming, however, that at the time of writing, the likelihood of the work being completed within this timescale is uncertain.

HS: Economy of teaching means we have to maintain common teaching of statistics across programmes. But new staff appointments, with an interest in this area, may present opportunities to develop and improve current content and delivery. In addition, we will explore where it might be possible to include statistical analysis within other modules involving data collection and manipulation.

· The Department should seek to enhance and improve the already established Personal Tutoring system, using IT facilities where appropriate.

HS: We acknowledge that there is scope to improve our Personal Tutoring system, particularly with respect to being more proactive in ensuring PT contact occurs with all year second- and final-year students. See also response to comment under item 14.

The above recommendations will be followed up as part of the Annual Review of Programmes for 2004-05 during 2006.

14. Further observations and recommendations (The following section is for internal use and will not be reproduced in the TQI summary)

· Curricula and assessment

· The Panel acknowledged the difficulties of maintaining 3 disciplines with staff numbers much lower than would normally be expected for those disciplines, and was impressed with the range of programmes on offer in view of this. The Department has shown that it can deliver quality programmes, but the Panel was concerned about the vulnerability of the provision to sudden staff losses.

HS: The Department is well aware of these problems. The Development Plan for the Department includes a strategy for staff expansion and consolidation. We would welcome formal endorsement of this strategy from the University committees overseeing the Department, or discussion on how else we might proceed.

· The Department was not fully compliant with the University’s or Department’s Code of Coursework practice in ensuring that timely feedback was provided to students on coursework assignments, and should address this as a matter of urgency. The value of the Coursework Co-ordinator in theory was recognised but the Panel felt that the Co-ordinator needed to be given the authority to ensure that the Code of Practice was fully enforced.

HS: The Department continues to assess student feedback related issues and has instituted changes, which will be reviewed at the end of the current academic year. The DLTC and DSM will examine the issues of management and enforcement and how best the Coursework Co-ordinator can be empowered.

· The Department should make special provision in its marking policy for the double marking of scripts marked by probationary staff.

HS: The Department will consider the feasibility of this promptly. We recognise that this presents a quality assurance issue.

· Though assessment guidelines on the commended Communication and Study Skills module were available, student feedback suggested that these were not always adhered to and that there were anomalies in the amount of coursework set by different tutors. This needed to be resolved.

HS: Both of these issues are recognised. Changes, with the aim of introducing greater specificity and transparency, were introduced to the Communication and Study Skills module this session. These will be reviewed at the end of the academic year. Feedback from individual staff members is also being collected.

· The Panel considered that the curriculum for the BSc in Human Biology was not necessarily what a student might expect from the title. The Panel was however satisfied that the core of Human Biology with options in Psychology/Ergonomics was made clear in promotional activities.

HS: The Human Biology Programme Director and staff were surprised by the Panel's comment in this respect. There are now Human Biology degrees offered at around 85 institutions. These vary in content from a heavy emphasis on anatomy, to concentration on molecular biosciences. The Human Biology degree at Loughborough offers the range of content, from molecular to whole organism and population biology. We remain of the view that the programme title is appropriate.

· Quality of learning opportunities

Ø The Diploma in Professional Studies option was clearly a positive experience for students, and the Department provided good support to students during this placement year.

HS: We welcome this recognition of the benefits of the Diploma.

HS: We are making strong representations!

HS: We will review the Department’s Personal Tutoring scheme, particularly with regard to supporting the personal development planning of students. One improvement already being implemented is that STCs will be reviewing student progress at the end of Semester 1, with a view to identifying any students at risk. Personal Tutors will be encouraged to follow up on any concerns. We will also consider further how we might better identify students with difficulties who do not make these known to us.

· Maintenance and enhancement of standards and quality

Ø Greater use of the Learn server would be of particular value in a Department which was very stretched in terms of its human resources.

HS: We agree in principle provided that it does not create extra demands on already stretched staff!

Ø The Department should consider methods of improving student feedback response rates.

HS: We routinely emphasize to students the seriousness with which their constructive comment on modules and programme are treated. We already have a Learn server based route for feeding back student feedback on each module. Nevertheless, the comment is noted and we will consider further.

· Learning and teaching aspects of the departmental development plan

· Future portfolio developments

HS: The responsibility for the Psychology with Ergonomics programme moved to the Ergonomics STC at the start of the current academic year. The STC has already embarked on a review of the programme, giving consideration to its long-term viability. At this stage, however, we feel it is too early in the review to be able to agree that it is superfluous.

HS: The Department continues to actively explore possibilities.

HS: This is the essence of the Department Development Plan.