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.