Committee to Review the Structure of the Academic Year

 

Report and Final Recommendations

                                                                                                                                                     

 

1.         Introduction and Background to the Review

 

The Committee to Review the Structure of the Academic Year was established in January 2003, following a recommendation from Senate that a “root and branch review” be carried out with the aim of achieving “efficiency and effectiveness gains in learning, teaching and assessment”.  Two prior reviews had resulted in the abolition of Module Boards at undergraduate level, and greater opportunity for the use of year-long modules.  Advice had also been given to departments on more effective use of the year with a view to improving teaching efficiency.

 

This review was in response to further perceived difficulties with the structure of the academic year, together with modularised programmes, assessment practices and credit accumulation in the context of the University’s commitment to increasing its research intensity.  The Committee was invited to consider all these issues as part of its work.

 

2.         The Process of the Review

 

It emerged from the Committee’s preliminary discussions that the issues of modular weight, modular length and assessment were at the root of considerations about the use of the academic year.  An analysis of the ways in which modules were delivered and assessed was undertaken.  This showed that, at undergraduate level, modules of 10 credits predominated, with only a minority of modules being year-long.  Assessment practices varied widely, with some departments relying heavily on formal examinations and others using them not at all.  At postgraduate level the weighting of modules was more varied with an emphasis on methods of assessment other than examination.

 

In the light of this evidence, the Committee identified the following problems with the structure:

 

 

In its deliberations the Committee examined evidence from across the sector.  Most HEIs operated either a two semester or three term structure but beyond that there was little uniformity in teaching and assessment arrangements.  Some institutions had introduced a modular programme structure but retained the three term model.  Others had a semester structure but scheduled all formal examinations at the end of the year.

 

In order to create a focus for discussion, it was decided that three alternative models should be evaluated against a range of key criteria.  These became the subject of the consultation exercise and formed the basis for debate on the strengths and weaknesses of the current system.  Academic departments, support services, relevant University committees, and the Students’ Union were all invited to comment on the three models proposed:

 

 

Views were also invited on experiences of working with the current system and on any other alternatives which might combine greater flexibility and efficiency in teaching and learning with more time for research.

 

The Committee discussed credit accumulation in the context of concerns about the relationship between the overall marks achieved by students and the credit obtained.  As this issue was the subject of a separate consultation by the Programme Development and Quality Team, the Committee did not include it in the consultation on the academic year. 

 

3.         Key Issues Arising from the Consultation

 

Responses were received from academic departments via the Faculty Boards, various University committees, support service sections and the Students’ Union.  A wide variety of views were expressed.  There was some support for each of the three models.  Other suggestions for changes to the structure were also made and the Committee considered these.  Overall, there seemed to be most support for retaining the status quo, but with improved flexibility in the use of the year.  There was general agreement that there was not a compelling case for change. 

 

Respondents supporting the status quo believed that it would be much improved by allowing departments to use weeks 12-15 of Semester One for a variety of activities.  These might include formal examinations, coursework, project work and the delivery of new material. There was also a recognition that due consideration would need to be given to joint degree students.  A move away from imposed uniformity in the use of the year was seen as an advantage and should henceforth be allowed wherever appropriate.

 

There was some academic support for a return to the traditional three term structure, with a number of departments preferring it in principle to a semesterised system.  However, there was a reluctance to put the University through a disruptive process of change and students were particularly concerned at the possibility of a major shift in the weight of assessment to the summer.  Academic support services directly affected by assessment patterns, such as the Library and Computing Services, were also concerned about the increased pressure on their resources at one point in the year.

 

The 13/15 semester model received only limited support.  There was unease at the shortening of the year as this would reduce the time available for revision and marking at the end of Semester One.  The asymmetry of the year was seen as inflexible as modules would have to be taught either in the long semester or the shorter one, instead of being able to be delivered in either.  Varied use of weeks 12-13 of Semester One would be limited by the requirements of joint degree programmes.  Students were concerned that the distribution of their workload would be uneven with assessment pressure moving to the end of the year, and that hall rents were unlikely to fall even though the year would be shorter by two weeks.  The commercial activities of the Union would also be affected by the shortened year.  A significant academic concern was that shorter Christmas and Easter vacations impede the continuity of research at these times even though the summer research period would be extended.

 

4.         Conclusions of the Committee

 

In the light of the consultation the Committee concluded that the current structure of the year should be retained but that steps should be taken to permit it to be used more flexibly.  Departments should be freer to use the year in ways which suited their programmes and the University should move away from strictly demarcated periods of teaching and assessment.

 

Weeks 12-15 of Semester One could be used by departments for a variety of activities, including the introduction of credit-bearing material as well as assessment and project or laboratory work.  It would be important to plan joint degrees rigorously so that complex issues arising during the planning stage could be properly resolved and advantage taken of the flexibility available.  Staff-Student Committees would have an important role in this process.  There would also be a need to document any changes, and possibly to evaluate them in Annual Programme Reviews.  Departments should include appropriate academic-related and technical staff in discussions of any changes, in view of their crucial role in administering programmes.

 

In terms of increasing teaching efficiency and managing assessment load, these matters could be addressed by means other than changing the calendar of the year. 

It was suggested that the issue of over-assessment could be dealt with by a review at Faculty level of student effort and assessment load within programmes.  Such a review might facilitate the sharing of good practice.  Colleagues in Professional Development might be able to advise on appropriate and efficient assessment methods.

 

As regards credit accumulation, although some progress had been made through a separate consultation, and proposals would be presented to Senate by Learning and Teaching Committee in June, there remained concerns among members of the Academic Year Committee about the number of resits in the Special Assessment Period, especially at Part B.  A significant increase in resit fees should be considered.  Departments and Faculties might also explore the reasons underlying high resit rates as part of the scrutiny of assessment practices proposed above.

 

Despite some concerns about the interruption of teaching at Easter, the Committee accepted the view that there should be a four week break at both Christmas and Easter.  This would allow staff the opportunity to pursue their research, and would offer students additional time to complete any coursework and begin revision.  Support services would have ample time for maintenance work and income from the conference trade would not be adversely affected.  The year would consequently end one week later than at present.

 

5.         Recommendations

 

1.   There should be no changes to the overall structure of the academic year other than the inclusion of four week vacations at both Christmas and Easter.  The latter could not come into effect before 2006/07 as conference bookings have already been made for 2005/06.

 

2.   Flexibility in the use of weeks 12-15 of Semester One should be permitted, but progress towards achieving this should be evolutionary and carefully monitored.  The current rule which prohibits the introduction of new material in that period should be removed.

 

3.   In the planning and development of joint degree programmes, arrangements between departments should be managed in ways that are workable and that ensure the structure of programmes is coherent.  Co-ordination and advice should be facilitated by the AD(T)s.  Annual Programme Reviews should be used to monitor any changes and to ensure that appropriate documentation is in place.

 

4.   Learning and Teaching Committee should be responsible for overall monitoring of how the academic year is used, and the effects of the changes proposed by this Review.

 

5.   Faculty Boards should co-ordinate departmental reviews in order to consider refinements to their programmes, focussing on the following issues:

 

·         assessment practices -  to ensure efficient and appropriate assessment in all programmes.

·         the balance of modules of different credit weighting within programmes eg. the use of 10 credit modules as the predominant unit of study.

·         the number of optional modules available to students at different levels within programmes.

 

6.   The requirement to send module marks to external examiners at the end of Semester One should be abolished.  External examiners would have the opportunity to moderate the marks as part of the end of year Programme Board procedures.  Prior to the Boards the provisional nature of these marks should be further stressed to students.

 

7.   The resit fees should be significantly increased and widely publicised to students.  The structure of assessment and credit accumulation should be kept under review with the long term aim of significantly reducing the need for the September Special Assessment Period.

 

8.   There should be no further review of the structure of the academic year before the changes proposed have been implemented and the outcomes have been effectively evaluated.

                                                                                                                

Author – GL Weale
May 2004
Copyright (c) Loughborough University.  All rights reserved.

 

 

 

 

Senate

 

Subject:        Report of the Committee to Review the Structure of the Academic Year

Origin:           Unconfirmed Minutes of Learning and Teaching Committee on 3 June 2004

                                                                                                                                                                  

 

 

Consideration was given to the final report of the Committee.  Attention was drawn to the recommendations on the final page and in particular to those advocating flexibility in the use of the academic year and proposing that departments review and refine their academic programmes with attention to assessment practices, modular weightings and modular options. 

 

In relation to the departmental review of programmes, the following points were made:

 

·         Some departments had already undertaken reviews or were in the process of doing so

·         It would be desirable for the AD(T)s to take a proactive role in helping departments with their reviews: the reference to ‘Faculty Boards’ in 5.6 might be changed to ‘Faculties’

·         It would be desirable for every department to be asked to produce an ‘assessment matrix’ for every one of its programmes (as recently instigated by the CSC for new programmes); this would be a useful starting-point for a review and would enable the AD(T)s to identify and share examples of good practice

·         Any support that could be provided by CIS would be welcome (for example, a web-based template for the assessment matrix)

·         In terms of timescale, it was hoped that programme changes identified in the course of the reviews could be acted upon for 2005/06.

 

In relation to the other recommendations, the Committee noted:

 

 

and commented as follows:

 

·         That resit fees should not only be increased but also publicised more widely to students

·         That the overall monitoring of the effects of the changes proposed should be undertaken by the PDQ Team which would advise LTC as appropriate

·         That the final recommendation should be reworded or removed altogether.

 

LTC resolved, subject to the above comments, to endorse the Committee’s recommendations for onward transmission to Senate.

 

Note:  Minor amendments have been made to the attached report in the light of the comments of Learning and Teaching Committee.

                                                                                                                                                                

 

Author:  R A Bowyer

Date:  June 2004

Copyright © Loughborough University.  All rights reserved