Learning and Teaching Committee

Subject: Report from Programme & Development Team Departmental Reviews Group

Introduction

1. As reported to LTC at its last meeting, the PDQ Team has set up a sub-group to take forward the recommendations from the Committee to Review the Structure of the Academic Year that departments review and refine their programmes with attention to modular weightings, modular options and assessment practices.

2. In addition to the recommendations from the RSAY Committee, the group has been asked to consider relevant issues raised in the QAA Institutional Audit Report, and ways of minimising the wider documentation demands on departments in respect of learning and teaching matters.

3. The group comprises the PVC(T), the three AD(T)s, the Head of Academic Practice and Quality (Professional Development) and the PDQ Team Manager.

4. The group has met on three occasions and its work is continuing.

5. At this stage, the approval of LTC is sought for a number of proposals, which, if agreed, will have a bearing on the conduct of the next round of Periodic Programme Review in spring 2005.

Summary of proposals

6. It is proposed that Annual and Periodic Programme Review should provide the vehicle for the departmental review of programmes requested by the RSAY Committee.

7. The reviews should be instigated through adjustments in the documentation requirements for APR/PPR, and involve an exploration of relevant issues with the department by the AD(T) (APR) or the PPR Review Panel (PPR).

8. In the current session, it is proposed the exercise be confined to departments with PPR (expected to take place in April/May 2005). In 2005/06, it should be extended to all other departments, whether undertaking APR or PPR.

Focus of the reviews

9. The reviews should focus in the first instance on undergraduate programmes.

10. Key objectives are to increase teaching efficiency and improve the learning experience for students.

11. As requested by the RSAY Committee, there should be an exploration of issues concerning programme structure (for example, balance of modules of different credit value; range of modular choice at different parts levels of the programme). Current guidelines on modular structure should be the starting point, but not an overriding constraint. Departments should have the opportunity at the time of their review to discuss possible departures from the guidelines and make a case for greater flexibility which can be brought back to a wider forum (PDQ Team/LTC) for consideration.

12. The Audit Report recommends the University to consider measures that will ensure that the learning support of students (including contact hours) is always appropriate to the demands of the learning outcomes of programmes. It is proposed the reviews be used to explore what students can expect from departments by way of learning support, including issues such as contact hours and feedback on formative assessments.

13. The RSAY Committee wished to see a review of assessment practices, to ensure efficient and appropriate assessment in all programmes. The Audit report encourages the University to ‘finalise its consideration’ of assessment linked to learning outcomes, and how assessment strategies might better underpin the current levels and types of assessment being used. Assessment will be another major theme for discussion in the reviews.

Documentation

14. A substantial volume of documentation is already required for APR/PPR and the group will be considering ways in which it might be reduced rather than increased. The adaptation of the process to encompass the issues identified above will however result, in the case of departments due to undertake PPR in 2005, in a request for two additional documents :

· An ‘assessment matrix’ for each UG programme, showing the mode of assessment for every module

· A table listing modules against programme learning outcomes to show where the ILOs are delivered and assessed

The assessment matrix is already required by Curriculum Sub-Committee for new programme proposals. A significant number of departments have already produced a table along the lines of the second of the two documents, or have been recommended to do so by a PPR Panel.

15. In most other respects, existing documentation requirements can be re-formulated to produce the information required as a basis for discussion between the department and the Review Panel; for example, a gloss can be added to the guidance for producing the ‘self-critical and analytical commentary’, which currently draws heavily on QAA guidance for Discipline Audit Trails, to ensure that departments address the issues on our internal review agenda.

16. The group has yet to conclude its discussions on the documentation requirements for APR, to come into effect in 2005/06, and is continuing to explore the demands on departments for documentation more generally (see para 2 above).

Summary

17. LTC is invited to endorse the approach proposed and to approve the specific proposals set out in paras 6 – 9 above.

____________________

Supplementary recommendation

Whereas it is proposed that contact hours generally will be discussed as part of the review process (para 12 above), both the Departmental Reviews Group and the Audit Steering Group consider it important for departments to be more explicit in future about the contact and support that students can expect in the case of project and dissertation supervision, at both UG and PGT levels. This is increasingly an area subject to student appeals.

It is therefore recommended:

(i) That all departments publish a statement of the minimum level of contact and support that students are entitled to expect of their project/dissertation supervisor. (This might be included in a Departmental or Programme Handbook or in a separate document or web page available to all students concerned.)

(ii) That the same statement (or a summary) be reproduced in the relevant module specification, in the method of teaching, learning and assessment field.

(iii) That all staff keep records of their interactions with students undertaking projects or dissertations under their supervision.

(iv) That departments in addition consider publishing a statement indicating what they expect from students undertaking projects or dissertations, in terms of communications with their supervisor as well as any interim submission of work.

RAB/010205