From:  Moira Collett, Academic Registrar                                      12 March 2001

 

SUMMARY OF ACADEMIC POLICY DECISIONS - AUTUMN 2000

 

This information note refers to decisions made at the following meetings:

 

ASC – 12 July 2000; 18 October 2000; 24 January 2001

Senate – 13 December 2000

 

Minute numbers are given to indicate the source of the information set out below. Where extracts of minutes are included verbatim, this is indicated by speech marks.

 

LIST OF CONTENTS

 

SECTION A - FOR ACTION

 

1.            Attendance and Progress Monitoring – COR system

2.            Treatment of Borderline Candidates

3.            Accreditation of University Provision by Professional and Statutory Bodies

 

SECTION B - FOR INFORMATION

 

1.      Annual Monitoring and Periodic Review of Degree Schemes

2.      QAA Code of Practice on Programme Approval, Monitoring and Review

3.      Establishment of Board of Collaborative Education

4.      Code of Practice for Staff/Student Liaison Committees

5.      Programme Specifications

6.      Cheating

7.      Abolition of Second Year Progress Committees

8.      Recruitment Training for Staff

9.      Membership Committee

10.    Creation of Titles of Honorary Senior Lecturer and Honorary Lecturer

 

 

 

SECTION A - FOR ACTION BY HEADS OF DEPARTMENT AND CENTRES

 

1.        Attendance and Progress Monitoring – COR system (ASC.MM.307-308/00, 12.7.00)

 

RESOLVED:

 

(i)       that all departments should be required to implement the COR system for the purpose of recording students’ individual coursework marks in October 2000 or as soon as practically possible afterwards;

 

(ii)       that all departments not currently using COR should evaluate the benefits of using other elements of the system with a view to implementing it fully.

 

 

2.        Treatment of Borderline Candidates (ASC.MM.388-389/00, 18.10.00)

 

RESOLVED:

 

(a)             that all departments be reminded of the requirement to make appropriate arrangements to allow External Examiners to review the coursework and examination scripts of candidates who were borderline for degree classification, prior to the Board of Examiners meeting;

 

(b)       that departments in the Schools of Humanities & Comparative Studies, Social Sciences and Law be reminded of the existing policy that they should, where possible, resolve internally "x9" marks which could have no effect on degree classification (ASC.M.313/98 & 33/99), in order that External Examiners were not requested to review such work unnecessarily.

 

3.                   Accreditation of University Provision by Professional and Statutory Bodies (SM.253/00, 13.12.00)

 

RESOLVED:   that Academic Standards Committee should receive brief information on the outcomes of all major professional body accreditation decisions on degree schemes within the University, and be notified of any problems arising from applications for accreditation.

 

 

SECTION B – FOR INFORMATION

 

1.      Annual Monitoring and Periodic Review of Degree Schemes (SMM.256-257/00 and SMM.260-261/00, 13.12.00)

 

RESOLVED:     (a)     that a system of degree review - incorporating annual monitoring and periodic review - be implemented from 2001/02 as set out in the Working Party report at Appendix A to the report of Academic Standards Committee (18.10.00, see http://www2.essex.ac.uk/academic/Quality_Manual/key_QA_documents.htm) and that the Chair of Academic Standards Committee be authorised to approve the final version of the procedures, to be derived from the Working Party Report;

 

(b)       that, in consequence of (a) above, the terms of reference of Academic Standards Committee be amended by the substitution of the words “To consider reports on periodic reviews of degree schemes” for the present wording “To consider proposals from School Degree Review Committees for the renewal or otherwise of existing schemes”.

 

RESOLVED:    (a)      that the new procedures for Degree Review should allow for the possibility – not envisaged in the Report of the Working Party on Degree Review – of an Annual Monitoring Report being compiled by a Scheme Director and submitted to the relevant Dean without specific consideration by a single committee of all the separate issues involved.  A single report could be submitted for a group of closely–related schemes involving one department only and which were the responsibility of a single Scheme Director;

 

(b)       that Heads of Department should approve Annual Monitoring Reports before submission to the Dean, and should be responsible for ensuring that Annual Monitoring took place (except in the case of designated interdisciplinary taught postgraduate schemes, where separate arrangements defined in the Working Party report would apply).

 

2.      QAA  Code of Practice on Programme Approval, Monitoring and Review (ASC.MM.33-43/01, 24.1.01)

 

In December 2000, Senate had approved ASC's proposals for a new system of degree review, drawn up in the light of Precepts 7-8 of this Code of Practice section (ie Precepts relating directly to monitoring and review) and the requirements of the new Subject Review process as laid out in Appendix 3 of the Code section. (ASC.MM.355-60/00; S.MM.256-61/00). 

 

The Committee noted that a substantial part of the Code section relating to the design and approval process for new degrees (Precepts 1-6) had not fallen within the Scope of the Working Party on Degree Review, and thus remained to be considered.

 

It was noted that the overall approach adopted by the QAA in this Code section was summarised in paragraph 10 of the introduction, viz:

 

The rationale underlying this code is that programme design, approval and review are linked, and that the processes involved need to be seen in a holistic and integrated manner. Good programme design creates programmes that deliver the intended learning outcomes and required standards and should be a fundamental consideration when institutions approve new programmes or review the effectiveness of existing provision. Where practices for the initial approval of programmes are rigorous and effective, subsequent monitoring and review is likely to be relatively straightforward. Duplication of effort and documentation can be reduced if the requirements of external bodies, such as professional and statutory bodies and the QAA, are taken into account when programmes are approved, monitored and reviewed.

 

In approving the new internal process of Degree Review, ASC and Senate had already agreed that, on the first occasion when new degree schemes are reviewed after their launch, the relevant to new degree scheme checklists completed when the scheme was submitted to the School Board for approval, together with the minute of any School Board discussion, would form part of the documentation. However, there was no other systematic relationship at Essex between procedures for Approval and Monitoring/Review of degree schemes.

 

The Committee identified the following points for action in the light of the guidelines under the programme approval-related precepts:

 

Precept 1: It would be necessary for relevant QAA Benchmarks to be identified explicitly in proposals for new degree schemes, which could occur via the checklist for new degree schemes and/or draft Programme Specifications.

 

Precept 2: External advisers could make a valuable contribution to degree scheme design - especially in disciplines with industrial links, but it was agreed that this should not be a requirement. However, it might be appropriate to undertake external consultation at a later stage in the approval process (eg at School Board level: see also Precept 6, concerning access to specialist advice).

 

Precept 4: It was noted that the process of briefing departments on the preparation of Programme Specifications would in effect fulfil a staff development function in relation to programme design.

 

Precept 5: The Committee felt that it would be desirable for the next version of the new degree scheme approval form to give more detailed guidance on the identification of key skills.

 

Precept 6: The Committee agreed that the anticipated demand for a programme as predicted at inception should be reviewed during the first periodic review of the scheme concerned.

 

3.      Establishment of Board of Collaborative Education (SM.274/00, 13.12.00)

 

Senate and Council in December 2000 and January 2001 respectively approved the establishment of a Board of Collaborative Education with the following membership and terms of reference:

 

Membership

 

Ex Officio

Vice-Chancellor

Dean of Collaborative Education (Chair)

Pro-Vice Chancellor (Academic Standards)

Dean of the School of Social Sciences

Dean of the Graduate School

Vice-President (Welfare/Academic), Students’ Union

A student nominated by the President of the Students’ Union

 

Appointed members

Head of Department of Biological Sciences

Head of Department of Accounting, Finance and Management

Academic Director for South East Essex College

 

Partner College Representatives

One representative from each institution with which the University has a formal Partnership Agreement to validate programmes which lead to University of Essex awards.

 

It is proposed that the Board would be a Committee of Senate, reporting directly to Senate, but making recommendations to APC or ASC where appropriate.

 

If it were necessary to have a discussion in confidence concerning a single partner institution then the matter could be discussed as Reserved Business without the remaining Partner College Representatives.

 

Terms of Reference

 

1.        to oversee the quality and standards aspects of the University’s collaboration with designated partner institutions[1] regarding educational programmes, and to make recommendations to Senate as appropriate;

 

2.        to consider validation reports in relation to provision at designated institutions and make recommendations to Senate accordingly;

 

3.        to consider reports from partner institutions of reviews of schemes, departments, faculties and institutions in accordance with requirements of the partnership agreement for each collaborative provision;

 

4.        to make recommendations to partner institutions on the enhancement of the quality of education and the maintenance and monitoring of academic standards of programmes which lead to University of Essex awards;

 

5.        to consider an annual report on relevant aspects of the University’s collaboration with each of the partner institutions;

 

6.        to develop policies and procedures applicable to collaborative provision, to promote best practice and to make recommendations as appropriate;

 

7.        to consider documents from national bodies which concern academic quality assurance issues relating to collaborative provision.

 

4.      Code of Practice for Staff/Student Liaison Committees (SMM.249-250/00, 13.12.00)

 

RESOLVED:   

 

(a)       that the University’s policy document on Staff/Student Liaison Committees be retitled “University Code of Practice on Staff/Student Liaison Committees”;

 

(b)       that the text of the Code of Practice be as set out in Appendix A to the report of Academic Standards Committee (12.7.00, see http://www2.essex.ac.uk/academic/Quality_Manual/key_QA_documents.htm).

 

5.      Programme Specifications (ASC.M.366/00, 18.10.00)

 

(b)       that a University-wide template for programme specifications be adopted (see Appendix A to this information note).

 

6.      Cheating (ASC.MM.384-387/00, 18.10.00)

 

          The Committee had decided in 20 May 1998 that departments should be required to issue guidelines on Cheating to students, and to supplement these guidelines with face-to-face explanations of the correct methods of referencing and the kinds of practices which were unacceptable. The Committee noted the findings of a recent survey to ascertain the informal measures that were employed across the University’s teaching units to promote the understanding of the concept of Cheating amongst students. Overall, the findings of the survey suggested that awareness of the concept of Cheating was becoming more widespread amongst students. However, it was pointed out by the Students' Union representative that Cheating was apparently often tolerated in the early stages of a student's studies, and that this was regrettable as it caused subsequent problems with enforcement of the rules. The departmental responses suggested that incidences of Cheating were becoming fewer overall, although there was no systematic evidence of whether this was directly in response to the measures employed to promote an understanding of the concept of Cheating, which varied greatly amongst departments. It was noted that academic staff could expend considerable effort to detect a single case of plagiarism and the detection of some cases often occurred by chance, particularly now that large amounts of material could be obtained from the world wide web.

 

RESOLVED:

 

(a)     to disseminate the results of the survey in Paper ASC/00/94 to the Heads all of departments and other teaching units, with a view to promoting good practice across the University;

 

(b)    to invite the Learning and Teaching Committee to investigate the different educational measures that might be employed to demonstrate correct referencing and good academic practice to students, in the light of initiatives at other institutions (including the production of briefing materials for students);

 

(c)    to invite departments to arrange for their Staff-Student Liaison Committees to discuss the measures that could be used to promote the understanding of the concept of Cheating.

 

7.      Abolition of Second Year Progress Committees (SMM.240-242/00, 13.12.00)

 

RESOLVED:     (i)      that with effect from June 2001, the post-Examination Board Progress Committees for second year students be abandoned.

 

(ii)       that Boards of Examiners be given the power to make the final decision on the results of second year students. The following was a list of the most common decisions:

 

                                 ·     Pass

·    Repeat the year

·    Resit the examinations without attendance in the intervening period

·    Withdraw permanently

·    Other specific action taken in the light of extenuating circumstances.

 

(iii)      that students have the right to appeal against the decision on the Board of Examiners on a specified set of grounds for appeal.

 

[Note: the Progress Procedures will be revised in light of these resolutions, in time for the May/June 2001 examination period.]

 

8.      Recruitment Training for Staff (SM.262/00, 13.12.00)

 

Senate and Council in December 2000 and January 2001 respectively approved the following resolution:

 

that recruitment training be phased in for staff who will be regularly involved in the recruitment process, with emphasis on the importance of training for those members of staff who will be chairing interview panels.

 

9.      Membership Committee (SMM.288-292/00, 13.12.00)

 

RESOLVED:    (a)       that Membership Committee be dissolved with immediate effect;

 

(b)       that the following recommendations of the Working Party on Membership Committee be approved:

 

(i)        that the University should continue to operate a procedure to consider the admission of a student when the applicant is know to have a criminal record, or when there is other evidence of unacceptable behaviour;

 

(ii)       that all application forms for admission to the University should include a question which asks the applicant if he or she has any criminal convictions, with appropriate information provided for guidance;

 

 

(iii)      that the role of the Disciplinary Officer should be extended to include acting as the Chair of Membership Committee. The post should be renamed Disciplinary and Membership Officer, and he or she would refer cases to either a Disciplinary Committee or a Membership Committee as appropriate, with members drawn from a single group, which would be renamed Disciplinary and Membership Panel.

 

Membership Committee Procedures and revised Regulations to incorporate the new arrangements would be submitted to Senate for approval.

 

10.    Creation of Titles of Honorary Senior Lecturer and Honorary Lecturer (SMM.296/00, 13.12.00)

 

Senate and Council in December 2000 and January 2001 respectively approved the following recommendation:

 

                                that the titles of Honorary Senior Lecturer  and Lecturer be established, subject to the following criteria for the award of such titles:

 

(i)                the person is giving his/her services on an on-going basis without receiving payment from the university other than expenses or notional honoraria

(ii)               a requirement that the person must hold or have held an appropriate professional appointment or have sufficient independent professional standing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FOR ACTION:

 

Heads of Department

Directors of

           Centre for Psychoanalytic Studies

           Centre for Theatre Studies

           Human Rights Centre

           Pan-European Institute

           Centre for Theoretical Studies

           HSSI

          

FOR INFORMATION:

 

Vice-Chancellor

Pro-Vice-Chancellors

Deans

Academic Registrar

Academic Section Administrators

Departmental Executive Officers (including Centres listed above)

Executive Officer, Socrates Office

 

 

 

 

Appendix A

 

APPENDIX B

 

UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX

 

PROGRAMME SPECIFICATION

 

CONTENTS

 

The QAA Guidelines for preparing programme specifications (June 2000) states that ‘the following information will normally be provided in a programme specification:’ (page 5)

 

·        awarding body/institution

·        teaching institution (if different)

·        details of accreditation by a professional/statutory body

·        name of the final award

·        programme title

·        UCAS code

·        aims of the programme

·        relevant subject benchmark statements and other external and internal reference points used to inform programme outcomes

·        programme outcomes: knowledge and understanding; skills and other attributes

·        teaching, learning and assessment strategies to enable outcomes to be achieved and demonstrated

·        programme structures and requirements, levels, modules, credits and awards

·        date at which the programme specification was written or revised.

 

The Guidelines also suggest that institutions may wish to include the following:

 

·        criteria for admission to the programme

·        information about assessment regulations

·        indicators of quality

·        particular support for learning

·        methods for evaluating and improving the quality and standards of learning.

 

UNIVERSITY TEMPLATE

 

The following template is based on several of the examples in the QAA Guidelines.

 

SECTION A

 

Awarding Body/Institution	University of Essex
Teaching Institution	University of Essex
Programme accredited by	British Computer Society
Final Award	BSc (Hons)
Programme Title	Computer Science
UCAS Code	G500
Relevant QAA Subject Benchmark Group(s)/Other Reference Points	??
Admissions Criteria	??
Publication/Revision Date	September 2000

 

SECTION B

Programme Aims
(to be completed by department)
Programme Outcomes (to be completed by department)
(a)	Knowledge and Understanding	Learning/teaching methods/strategies
		Assessment methods
(b)	Skills and other Attributes
(i)	Intellectual/Cognitive Skills	Learning/teaching methods/strategies
		Assessment methods
(ii)	Practical Skills	Learning/teaching methods/strategies
		Assessment methods
(iii)	Key Skills	Learning/teaching methods/strategies
		Assessment methods

 

SECTION C

 

Programme Structure (to be completed by Academic Section from Structure document)
Year 1	Eight modules
	Course	Level	Credits
	CC111 [Title]	1	15
	CC112 [Title]	1	15
	CC151 [Title]	1	15
	CC152 [Title]	1	15
	CC153 [Title]	1	15
	CC161 [Title]	1	15
	CC171 [Title]	1	15
	CC181 [Title]	1	15
Year 2	Eight modules
	Course	Level	Credits
	CC251 [Title]	1	15
	CC252 [Title]	1	15
	CC254 [Title]	1	15
	CC201 [Title]	1	15
	Option from Computer Science list	1	15
	Option from Computer Science list	1	15
	Option from Computer Science list	1	15
	Option from Computer Science list	1	15
Year 3	Seven modules
	Course	Level	Credits
	CC351 [Title]	1	15
	CC301 [Title]	1	30
	Option from Computer Science list	1	15
	Option from Computer Science list	1	15
	Option from Computer Science list	1	15
	Option from Computer Science list	1	15
	Option from Computer Science list	1	15

 

List of Options

(to be completed by department/Academic Section from Student Records Database (SRDB))

 

SECTION D

 

Rules of assessment (to be completed by Academic Section from Structure document)

This section will include rules of assessment for individual modules/courses and a (generic?) statement about rules of assessment for degree classification.

 

SECTION E

 

Particular support for learning

(This can be a list; a standard set of items can be inputted centrally, with departments adding specific items.  The list below is an example of what might be included.)   Induction at beginning of autumn term? Student Handbook Departmental student handbooks Student Support Office study skills workshops EFL tuition (for non-native English speakers) Library providing …… Learning resources …… Departmental student support system (department to describe) IT facilities for students including on-line basic IT skills training Staff/student ratio of …..?? Departmental equipment/resources Guidelines on avoiding cheating in assessed work?? Notes on Essay-writing booklet

Methods of evaluating and improving the quality and standards of learning

(This can be a list; a standard set of items can be inputted centrally, with departments adding specific items.  The list below is an example of what might be included.)   Generic statement about SAT/SAC. Staff/student liaison committee?? External accreditation (where appropriate) Departmental reviews Annual scheme reviews Joint scheme management committees (where appropriate) Curriculum/course management committee (or similar, where appropriate) External Examiners reports Staff development strategy/departmental arrangements

Indicators of quality

(This can be a list; a standard set of items can be inputted centrally, with departments adding specific items.  The list below is an example of what might be included.)   Professional body accreditation Subject Review scores Student progression/degree results data?? Prizes awarded by industry for student achievement on courses (where appropriate) RAE scores??