Learning and Teaching Committee

Subject: Joint Degrees

Origin: PDQ Team

Earlier this year, in response to ongoing concerns about the University’s arrangements for the co-ordination of joint degree programmes, a working group was established to examine the issues in more detail and make recommendations through the PDQ Team to Learning and Teaching Committee.

PDQ considered the report from the Joint Degrees Working Group at its meeting in June 2005. The discussion on the report is recorded as follows:

1. PDQ endorsed the need for timely dialogue between partner departments over student intakes, particularly to avoid difficulties over viability or teaching space. It endorsed also the importance of making it clear to students what to expect in terms of modular options before they embarked on their programme.

2. PDQ concurred in the recommendations set out in para 2.3 of the report concerning the appointment of a ‘link person’ by the ‘away’ department (ie the department that was not administratively responsible for the joint programme), to take responsibility for co-ordinating their part of the joint programme and liaising with the ‘home’ department, to include participation in the annual programme review process, attendance at Programme Boards, and at the Staff/Student Committee. They should also be available for students to turn to if they had difficulties with the programme. It was suggested that the recommendations be drawn to the attention of the Human Resources WG to ensure that the link person role was recognised and taken into account in departmental workload models.

3. The observations concerning placement services were noted. It was agreed that it was reasonable to expect joint degree students to be catered for by the ‘home’ department and important that the arrangements were made clear to students in advance of need.

4. The complexities of the structure of the TQI web-site were noted. It was anticipated that there would be further communication with departments about it when the results of the NSS were made available.

5. It was RESOLVED that the report be forwarded to Learning and Teaching Committee with PDQ’s endorsement of the recommendations and observations contained within it.

The Report is attached.

In connection with (2) above, the attention of Learning and Teaching Committee is drawn to the following feedback from the Human Resources Working Group:

HRWG felt it ‘would not wish to add further administrative responsibilities to staff as there already exists a mechanism to deal with this through the allocation of personal tutors and programme directors’.

PDQ agreed to draw this response to the attention of LTC. PDQ considered existing arrangements unsatisfactory because only the ‘home’ department was involved in the appointment of programme directors and personal tutors for joint programmes.

Learning and Teaching Committee

Report of a Working Group on Joint Degrees

1. Membership and Terms of Reference

Received a background note on the establishment of the working group and noted the membership and terms of reference which were as follows:

Terms of reference

1. To review the arrangements for the co-ordination of joint degree programmes, with reference to the following headings:

· Student recruitment and admissions

· Curriculum design, content and organisation

· Teaching, learning and assessment

· Learning resources

· Student support and guidance

· Monitoring and review processes

· Quality assurance and enhancement

2. To report and make recommendations to Learning and Teaching Committee.

Membership

Professor Morag Bell, PVC(T) - Chair

Dr Paul Byrne, AD(T) SSH

Dr Martin Harrison, AD(T) Science

Dr Alan Bairner, School of Sport and Exercise Sciences

Professor Malcolm King, Business School

Professor Phil McIver, Mathematical Sciences

Professor Vickie McKee, Chemistry

Robert Bowyer - Secretary

Noted that although issues had been raised in the QAA Institutional Report and in a recent PPR in SSES, the University’s arrangements for the co-ordination of joint degree programmes were not a new concern.

Agreed for the purposes of current discussions to define a ‘joint degree’ as a programme whose title reflected two discipline areas delivered in different departments joined by the word ‘and’, where each of the two components contributed at least 40% to the degree in terms of overall credit, eg ‘Geography and Management’. Noted that the FHEQ expected a distinction to be drawn between qualification titles in the format ‘A and B’, where there was an approximately equal balance between two components, and ‘A with B’ for a major/minor combination where the minor subject accounted for at least a quarter of the programme. Noted that students on programmes where there was a major/minor subject balance might have some of the same experiences as those on joint degree programmes.

2. Agenda for the Working Group

Received a list of potential issues under each of the areas identified in the terms of reference and agreed to use this as a framework for discussion.

2.1 Student recruitment and admissions

Noted that the allocation of student numbers was the responsibility of the department with administrative responsibility for the programme. Numbers could be vired between single and joint honours programmes by the ‘home’ department. There needed to be dialogue with the ‘away’ department over intakes, over viability and capacity issues. This did not always happen in a timely fashion, sometimes causing difficulties over matters such as room sizes if numbers did not match with expectations.

The Group felt its focus of attention should be the experience of students once at the University, and apart from encouraging dialogue between partner departments, it did not wish to explore this area in further detail.

2.2 Curriculum design, content and organisation

Curriculum Sub-Committee scrutinised the various aspects listed under this heading in considerable detail when looking at new programme proposals. It was noted that the choice of modular options was likely to be more limited for joint honours students in most instances. This lack of flexibility was felt to be inherent in the nature of joint degree programmes, not so much for educational as for administrative reasons. This had to be made clear to students on joint degree programmes at the outset so that they knew clearly what to expect and did not perceive themselves being treated less favourably than their single honours counterparts in terms of modular choice.

2.3 Teaching, learning and assessment

Noted that the critical comments in the QAA Institutional Audit Report concerned issues under this heading, for example, feedback to students on marked work and the timing of assessments, where it had been suggested that ‘variations in practices between departments [had] the potential to affect the learning experience of joint and combined honours students detrimentally’.

Noted that the University had sought through its quality assurance procedures to specify minimum acceptable thresholds, but had been reluctant in several areas to be more prescriptive. This approach could be seen to reflect the way in which the QAA expected universities to respond to its own Code of Practice.

The Working Group felt that even if it attempted to address specific issues, such as feedback to students on marked work, it would not be able to eliminate variations in practice which occurred within individual departments as well as between different departments. It would be more beneficial to address students’ perceptions of ‘not belonging’ and ‘not knowing who to turn to’, which seemed to lie beneath many of the concerns about procedural issues.

It was suggested that each department involved in a joint degree programme that was not their administrative responsibility (the ‘away’ department) should ensure that a member of staff was given responsibility for co-ordinating their part of the joint programme and liaising with the ‘home’ department. The Group discussed a number of areas the role could encompass:

(i) The ‘link person’ should be required to take part in the Annual Programme Review in the ‘home’ department, and be prepared to answer questions about their department’s element of the programme.

(ii) It was noted that changes in the membership of Programme Boards were currently out for consultation and these would require a presence at Boards from the ‘away’ department in the case of joint degrees: this could be another role for the ‘link person’. It was noted that there was still scope for differential treatment between departments in the treatment of impaired performance claims in spite of the new procedures introduced; the Group felt the position might be improved by the new proposals on the membership of Programme Boards.

(iii) It was suggested that the ‘link person should be invited to attend meetings of the appropriate Staff/Student Committee in the ‘home’ department, and expected to attend when there was an issue relevant to the joint programme on the agenda. In any case, it was essential that joint degree students were represented on a Staff/Student Committee in their ‘home’ department where programme issues could be raised and that they received feedback on such issues in due course.

(iv) Staff from ‘away’ departments were sometimes invited to participate in visit days in the ‘home’ department. The Group would encourage this practice, but felt it difficult to insist on a presence in view of the time commitment involved.

The Group considered it should be the responsibility of the Head of the ‘away’ Department to allocate the job of ‘link person’ for a joint degree programme, ensure that it was taken into account in the departmental workload model and see that it was properly carried out.

It was resolved to RECOMMEND accordingly.

2.4 Learning resources

The Group was not aware of any disparity between joint and single honours programmes in terms of the learning resources available to students.

2.5 Student support and guidance

Noted that it was normally, if not invariably, the case that joint degree students were included in the personal tutoring arrangements in their ‘home’ department. It not infrequently seemed to be the case, however, that students did not know who to approach if an academic problem arose in relation to the ‘away’ part of their programme. The Group considered it essential that students knew who to turn to: this could also be the ‘link person’, as discussed above, though module organisers and departmental administrators were likely to be able to assist in many situations.

The Group discussed the feasibility of joint degree students being represented on Staff/Student Committees in their ‘away’ departments, but concluded that this would be difficult to administer. Consideration should be given, nonetheless, to requiring the ‘away’ department to make arrangements formally to consult with the joint degree students at least once a year.

Attention was drawn to an issue over industrial/professional placements for students on joint degrees. The Business School ran a well resourced placement service to which students on joint degrees with the Business School would sometimes seek access. Some partner departments had negotiated – and paid for – access for their students, but if no such arrangements were in place, the Business School felt it not unreasonable to turn the students away and to tell them to seek help from their ‘home’ department. The Group concurred, but could understand the students’ viewpoint and felt it essential that the position was made clear to students before they started to think about arrangements for their placement year.

2.6 Monitoring and review processes

It was considered this had been covered under 2.3

2.7 Quality assurance and enhancement

It was considered this had been largely covered under 2.3. The Group noted however the ramifications of the launch of the national Teaching Quality Information (TQI) web-site. It was important to recognise and exploit the potential of the TQI web-site as a marketing tool and consequently to understand the subject structure for organising information on the site, particularly the amalgamation of data from different programmes and in some cases different departments under single subject areas. The Group noted that this would apply also to the imminent publication of the results of the first National Students Survey.

It was felt that the arrangements put in place within the University for the production of a summary external examiners’ report for each programme for the TQI site had worked reasonably well.

The Group did not consider it necessary to encourage the attendance of a larger numbers of external examiners at Programme Boards for joint programmes (or for any other programmes), by inviting externals who were responsible for modules taken by students outside the ‘home’ department.

3. Any other business

It was agreed to forward a report of the Group’s discussions to the next meeting of the PDQ Team, for onward transmission to Learning and Teaching Committee. Members were invited to reflect on the report and raise any further issues with the secretary.

There was no other business and it was proposed that unless any matters were referred back for further consideration the Group should be stood down.

Author – Robert Bowyer

Date – November 2005