The University of Edinburgh. Minutes of the meeting of Senatus Quality Assurance Committee held at 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 12 April 2012.

Transcription

1 The University of Edinburgh Minutes of the meeting of Senatus Quality Assurance Committee held at 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 12 April Present Dr Tina Harrison (Convener) Dr Linda Bruce Mr Alan Ducklin Ms Isabel Lavers Mrs Gillian Mackintosh Ms Emma Meehan Dr Lesley McLellan Professor Graeme Reid Mr Stephen Warrington Dr Caroline Watt Mrs Rio Watt Ms Sheila Williams In attendance Mr Jim Aitken, MBE Dr Shereen Benjamin Mrs Irene Bruce Mr Adam Bunni Ms Shelagh Green Professor Dai Hounsell Ms Vivienne McFarlane Professor Ian Pirie Ms Sarah Purves Dr David Williams Apologies Professor Jeremy Bradshaw Professor Karen Chapman Dr Gordon McDougall (Vice Convener) Mrs Sandra Morris Dr Sue Rigby Assistant Principal, Academic Standards and Quality Assurance Academic Policy Manager, Academic Services Associate Dean, Quality Assurance, CHSS Co-opted member: E-Learning Academic Policy Officer, Academic Services Vice President Societies & Activities, EUSA External member, Scottish HE sector, The University of Dundee School of Biological Sciences School of Engineering School of Philosophy, Psychology & Language Sciences Director of Academic Registry Representative Student Support Services area Director of the Centre for Sports and Exercise Director of Quality, School of Education Head of Academic Services Academic Advice Co-ordinator, EUSA Director of the Careers Service Vice Principal Academic Enhancement Academic Services Assistant Principal Learning Developments Representation Manager, EUSA Senior Academic Administrator, College of Science and Engineering Director of Quality Assurance, CMVM College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine Dean, Quality Assurance, CSE Representative for Collaborative Provision Assistant Principal Taught Postgraduate Programmes Welcome The Convener welcomed to the meeting Ms Vivienne McFarlane, Ms Sarah Purves, Mr Adam Bunni, Ms Shelagh Green and Mr Jim Aitken attending for item 4.1, Dr David Williams attending as Dr Gordon McDougall s representative for item 4.4 and Dr Shereen Benjamin attending for item Minutes of previous meeting held on 23 February 2012 QAC 11/12 5 A Three corrections were noted. Dr Gordon McDougall to be removed from sederunt as attending the meeting and Professor Ian Pirie added as attending the meeting. Under AOCB, Professor Ian Pirie noted the need to discuss evaluation and monitoring framework for the Enhancing Student Support 1

2 Project. With these corrections, the minutes were approved as a correct record. 2 Matters arising from the Minutes: The convener drew attention to item 2 regarding the revised remit for internal subject review. Following the annual briefing meeting for internal reviews some presentational changes are being made to the remit which will be circulated shortly. Action: Dr Tina Harrison and Dr Linda Bruce Under item 6, the ELIR final report is expected by 20 April Planning for response to the recommendations is underway in the Senate Committees Conveners Forum, assisted by Academic Services. It was noted that under item 10 the discussion with Bruce Johnson on the developments for the DRPS are still to take place. Action: Dr Tina Harrison and Dr Linda Bruce to follow up with Bruce Johnson prior to the May meeting. Under item 8 School Director of Quality role, Mr Alan Ducklin reported that he had received responses from seven Schools in the College of Humanities and Social Science stating that the amount of time allocated for this role is approximately 3-7 hours per week. 3 Convener s Business The convener requested an early input by the committee to the development of quality assurance processes for the enhanced student support structures. It was agreed that Professor Pirie and Dr Harrison would discuss and draft an initial outline of a proposal for Year 1 evaluation process. Action: Professor Ian Pirie and Dr Tina Harrison to submit paper to meeting on The convener reported on a recent meeting with the University Secretary concerning the Student Support Service reviews. It was noted that the reviews had proved to be very worthwhile. However due to the additional review being conducted by AP Rigby the University Secretary requested that the International Student Experience thematic review is postponed by one academic year in order that the outcomes of AP Rigby s review have time to be addressed. It was suggested that it could be introduced as a mini theme as part of the Student Support Services annual report. It was agreed that the convener would discuss this proposal further with the University Secretary. Secretary s note: The convener has since discussed with the University Secretary and the proposal has been agreed. 4 Annual Reports 4.1 Student Support Services Reviews sub-committee report QAC 11/12 5 B For next year s reports Support services to highlight key achievements. The convener reported that there is an enormous amount of work taking place over the range of services with an increase in the number of students using these services. This was particularly noted in the services that had recently moved into the Main Library building. The reviews also highlighted the overall importance of these services to the 2

3 student experience and as an external indicator of quality. Ms Sheila Williams noted 2 corrections to the report; on page 3 under key facts and figures the total number of adjustments should read In the section on increasing use of services on page 5 representing 8% of the student population this figure is a snapshot of the student population at January It was noted by the representatives of the Student Support Services attending the meeting that the reviews had proved to be useful, well-structured, provided a forum for exchanging ideas and that the new approach was welcomed. The convener thanked Ms McFarlane and the Heads of the Support Services for engaging with the review process. College Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee Report Humanities and Social Science QAC 11/12 5 C The Associate Dean Quality Assurance, CHSS, presented the report. It was noted by the lead readers that the report was well-written and the structure of the report highlighted the key points. The return rates on course monitoring forms and external examiners reports for both UG and PGT were noted and this continues to be an area for attention. The College was encouraged to achieve a higher return rate. It was noted that the School of Education has introduced on-line annual monitoring forms which has made the process more user-friendly. The convener suggested that consideration be given to the implementation of online forms to encourage engagement with the process. It was also noted that School Directors of Quality need to be empowered to return forms that are not adequately completed. Action: Annual monitoring forms to be looked at over 3 Colleges especially with reference to good practice of on-line reporting in the School of Education. College Deans to supply examples and Associate Dean Quality Assurance, CHSS, to supply examples from School of Education. There continued to be issues concerning the lack of the higher end of the Extended Common Marking Scheme (ECMS). It was agreed to remit this issue to the Curriculum and Student Progression Action: Secretary to remit to CSPC. The convener asked for the External Examiners summary reports for to be submitted and circulated to the committee. The convener asked for an update on the recommendations from the College report to be circulated to the committee. The College was asked to check College Collaborative Provision data against the GaSP repository. It was suggested that the College and School annual report template to be amended to include interaction with support services. 3

4 Action: Dr Linda Bruce to amend template by June The commendations and recommendations set out in Paper F were remitted to the College for action. The convener thanked the Associate Dean Quality Assurance, CHSS, and Ms Lynn Hyams for preparing the report. The lead readers, Professor Bradshaw and Mr Warrington were thanked for preparing the readers comments. 4.3 Medicine and Veterinary Medicine The college was commended for its clear report. Professor Reid noted in particular the flowchart showing the process for handling external examiners reports in the Vet School which could be shared as a good practice in other Schools and Colleges, the actions taken as a result of issues raised in the report shown as you said, we did table. Similar issues on the follow up on External Examiners reports was noted as an area for action. Action: College Deans to discuss for May Meeting, Secretary to include as agenda item. It was noted that many of the written responses to recommendations raised in relation to the previous year s report stated noted, clarification was required to confirm if this means that the issue is now complete. Secretary s note: Professor Bradshaw has confirmed that these issues are to be completed and action taken will be noted in next year s report. The commendations and recommendations set out in Paper F were remitted to the College for action. Action: Director of Quality, CMVM. The convener thanked the Director of Quality, CMVM, and Ms Ruth Stewart for preparing the report. The lead readers, Dr McDougall and Professor Reid were thanked for preparing the readers comments. 4.4 Science and Engineering QAC 11/12 5 E Ms Watt highlighted that the report was well structured and gave a clear account of the College and Schools QA models. With regards to item relating to concerns over the relative weighting of the honours years, it was agreed that the School and College should make a proposal to CSPC to consider the relative weighting of honours years. In respect of item 4 student engagement, it was agreed that the College would follow up to have a clearer understanding of the devolved practice between Schools. Action: Dean, Quality Assurance, CSE In the absence of the Dean, Quality Assurance, Dr David Williams gave an oral update on progress with recommendations from last year s report. Secretary s note: note circulated to QAC for information. The commendations and recommendations set out in Paper F were remitted to the College for action. Action: Dean, Quality Assurance, CSE 4

5 It was noted that the annual report was received late for the second year running however it was appreciated that that this year there were staffing shortages in the College Office. The convener thanked the Director of Quality, CMVM, and Ms Lynda Henderson for preparing the report. The lead readers, Mr Alan Ducklin and Dr Watt were thanked for preparing the readers comments. 4.5 Commendations and Recommendations on Annual Reports QAC 11/12 5 F The convener presented the commendations and recommendations from the College annual reports. The main issues related to concerns over poor submission rates on course monitoring forms and External Examiners reports and the internal processes for responding to these forms. Action: College Deans to discuss for May meeting, Secretary to include as agenda item. The example in the College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine annual report detailing a flow chart for the management of External Examiners reports to ensure that all are appropriately considered is commendable. Action: recommendations remitted to College Quality Deans for dissemination and action. The report detailed recommendations to various parts of the University for action, these include: Student Support Implementation Group to consider the development of appropriate support for distance learners. Action: Secretary to remit to SSIG. The University to consider the income and expenditure model to facilitate the development of business planning for collaborative provision. Action: Secretary to remit to University for discussion with GaSP GaSP to continue assisting with the development of statistical reports for PPRs in AY 2012/13 Action: Secretary to remit to GaSP The University to develop electronic External Examiner report submission. Action: Secretary to remit to Academic Services to scope a proposal. Researcher Experience Committee to review the payment of PGR externals on receipt of Part 3 Form. Action: Secretary to remit to REC. Curriculum and Student Progression Committee to review the ECMS. Action: Secretary to remit to CSPC. Learning and Teaching Committee to consider the role and format of Peer Observation of Teaching. Action: Secretary to remit to LTC (summary paper of issues will be submitted). With regard to references throughout College and readers reports to statistical reports produced by GaSP, it is noted that GaSP is involved in work led by the Dean of Quality Assurance, CSE, aimed at enhancing existing reports available to Schools. This will be available for all Colleges and Schools. 5

6 5 Code of Practice on External Examining QAC 11/12 5 G Dr Bruce presented the paper on the draft code of practice for approval by the committee. It was agreed that the wording on the date of commencement should be amended to read begins at the start of the academic session or after resit exams. The wording under item 53 should now read the names, positions and institutions of External Examiners must be made available normally in the relevant course/programme handbook and made available to students. Action: Dr Bruce to amend wording for final version. It was noted that information in item 53 should be flagged to Schools as part of a communication of the revised code. A list of specific issues that will affect Schools will be collated and communicated to Schools. Action: Convener to write to Schools. It was discussed that there continues to be a variation across the Colleges in relation to the fee paid to external examiners. Action: Secretary to review and include on agenda for September 2012 meeting. The Code of Practice was approved by the Quality Assurance 6 Revised External Examiner Report Form QAC 11/12 5 H The revised version of the external examiner report form was presented to the committee for discussion. The wording on the section on Year of examiner to be amended to read how many years have you been examining and under section- Provision of Information- draft examination papers to include a n/a option. Action: Members are asked that any further suggestions for amendments to the form should be sent to Dr Bruce prior to the next meeting. Linda Bruce to amend form and present at May meeting for approval. Secretary to include on May agenda. 7 Draft University/EUSA QAA response to UK Quality Code consultation on Chapter B5: student engagement in quality systems The convener presented the draft response to the QAA consultation on the Quality code Chapter B5. It was noted that during discussions with EUSA in drafting the response, 2 immediate actions were highlighted: a joint EUSA/ University high level statement on valued partnership working and student participation/ representation on the Curriculum and Student Progression QAC 11/12 5 I The convener discussed seeking the student voice in annual school QA reports and ways to encourage student participation in the annual monitoring process. This might be achieved by adapting existing guidance on student involvement in internal review for the annual monitoring process. The draft response was approved by the Quality Assurance Action: Convener and VPSA to draft statement. Secretary to include on agenda for September 2012 QAC meeting. Convener to discuss with Assistant Principal Sue Rigby re: student participation on CSPC. 6

7 Dr Bruce to submit approved response to QAA by University response to QAA consultation on UK Quality Code Chapter B11: Research Degrees The committee noted the University s response to QAA Chapter B11: Research Degrees consultation that had been prepared by Professor Jeremy Bradshaw. It was noted that further work may be needed to align with the code, and this will be identified in collaboration with Researcher Experience QAC 11/12 5 J Action: Dr Linda Bruce to liaise with Academic Services colleagues and report to October 2012 QAC meeting. 9 Internal subject review reporting to Senate Quality Assurance Committee QAC 11/12 5 K The convener presented the paper setting out the proposed change in the reporting route for internal subject review reports and responses. It was noted that there is a need for strengthened institutional oversight of internal review outcomes and action on recommendations and in addition this will allow the committee to assess the effectiveness of its internal review processes and procedures. It was noted that both the committee and the relevant College Quality Committee would receive the reports and the responses for information and that this would be done by electronic business. It was agreed that the importance of adjustments in terms of mainstreaming and implementation of best practice would be included in guidance for School annual quality reports and a steer to be given in the Analytical report guidance. The proposed change in procedure was approved by Quality Assurance Action: Secretary to update guidance as appropriate and report to QAC in September meeting. 10 School Director of Quality role QAC 11/12 5 L The committee noted the paper on the revised version of the proposed role outline for School Directors of Quality. There were 2 amendments to wording in outline; the term of office to read 3-5 years and under the role outline heading the term postholder to now read role. Professor Hounsell asked that his dissatisfaction be minuted that the role was aimed at Grade 8 members of staff rather than a higher grade in terms of the authority and leadership aspects of the role. The role outline was approved by the Quality Assurance It was agreed that the approved role outline to be circulated to College and School Management for information. Action: Secretary to circulate paper as appropriate Collaborative Provision Task Group update QAC 11/12 5 M The committee noted progress in implementing the recommendations of the task group on collaborative provision. The convener highlighted to members recent issues of Schools and Colleges signing off on agreements without following the correct guidance and University procedures. It was noted that further work is being undertaken by the second task group on 7

8 various work packages one of which includes drafting a risk assessment template and as a part of this work the group are looking at good examples that are currently used in the School of Chemistry. A report will be submitted to the May meeting of QAC. Action: QAC members are asked to disseminate to colleagues on the correct procedures 11.2 Accessible Learning Task Group update QAC 11/12 5 N Introducing the paper, the secretary outlined the progress of the implementation group. It was noted that an awareness building workshop had taken place in January and had been well received and generated some useful discussions around making accessible learning practices standard for all students rather than as specific adjustments for a few students. A workshop on curriculum design is planned for semester /13. The convener and other members of the implementation group took part in the recent EUSA Inspiring Teaching Conference, this focussed on accessibility issues concerning field trips and looking at alternative methods of assessment and examination. It was noted that a sub group are currently working on developing a package of academic guidance material; the first document scheduled for revision is on curriculum design with the development of a leaflet to accompany the scheduled workshop. Professor Hounsell suggested that it would be useful to contact Carolin Kreber concerning a current work package on the PG Cert on Engaging with Student Diversity as this may be relevant to the on-going work of the implementation group. Due to the retirement of the convener of the implementation group, members are asked to forward nominations to the secretary. Action: Secretary to contact Carolin Kreber. Members to contact Secretary with nominations for convener of the implementation group. 12 Assessment Moderation QAC 11/12 5 O Introducing the paper, the Associate Dean for Quality, CHSS, and Ms Benjamin noted that within the College of Humanities and Social Science concerns had been expressed by colleagues as to what exactly is meant by moderation. This purpose of this paper was to consider whether further detailed discussion was necessary to establish current practice and understanding as well as sharing good practice. It was noted that colleagues in the School of Design and the School of Art may have examples of good practice and that documentation used in the Business School could also be considered for reference. It was agreed to develop a set of guiding principles and examples of good practice. The Convener thanked CHSS Associate Dean Quality Assurance and Ms Benjamin for preparation of the paper. Action: CHSS Associate Dean Quality Assurance and Ms Benjamin to produce a first draft for the May meeting of QAC. 8

9 13 Committee Priorities 2012/13 Verbal report The convener highlighted some of the priorities for consideration ahead of the Committees Away on 3 rd May. It was noted that the implementation of the ELIR recommendations would form part of the committee s priorities for next academic year. The effective implementation of task group recommendations not only from the current task groups but also from last academic year would continue to be an area for attention particularly if there are follow-on work packages to be considered. Further to the QAA consultation on student engagement in quality systems, the current EUSA Vice-President Academic Affairs has requested that the committee looks into current student representation systems. It was noted for information that compliance with the revised QAA Quality code would affect Academic Services as a whole. Action: Members to give consideration to priorities ahead of Committees Away Day. 14 QAA Consultation Planner QAC 11/12 5 P The committee drew attention to the QAA UK Quality Code consultation planner and highlighted the suggested list of those who would consulted and lead on the implementation for each part/chapter of the code. Action: Members are asked to forward any revisions to the suggested list to the Secretary before the May meeting. 15 Review of the Academic Appeals Process QAC 11/12 5 Q The Head of Academic Services, Mrs Bruce, presented the paper outlining the review of the academic appeals process that was currently being undertaken by Academic Services. The review would include workshops using the LEAN process review method. 16 Allocation of Business 2011/12 QAC 11/12 5 R The convener noted that student-staff liaison committee principles may be deferred until September 2012 to take account of the UK Quality Code chapter on student engagement which takes place in June Ms Williams noted that the Mental Health policy should be removed from the May meeting agenda as it would be dealt with by the Equality and Diversity 17 AOCB There was no further business. Gillian Mackintosh 27 April