College of Humanities and Social Sciences
[pic]
College of Humanities and Social Sciences
Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee
Report to Senate Quality Assurance Committee
for academic session 2008-09
March 2010
Executive Summary
This report provides an overview of QAE procedures, actions taken as a result of the 2007-08 report, identifies common issues and recommendations for further action to improve the learning and teaching experience across the College of Humanities and Social Science and provides a forward look at some of the major issues facing Schools.
The report covers monitoring in 2008-09 by Schools of approximately 1400 UG courses, more than 200 UG programmes and 173 PG programmes as well as programmes and courses in the Office of Lifelong Learning/IALS. In addition, Schools dealt with 154 UG and 153 PG External Examiners.
The College of Humanities and Social Science can report that Schools and OLL/IALS are, in general, complying with the College QAE guidelines.
However, for the robust operation of College QAE procedures it is essential for some Schools still to ensure:
• Continuity of Directors of Quality
• Embedded QAE School structures
• Head of School support for QAE
• Adequate administrative support
Additionally, some Schools also need to make explicit the improvements they implement and ensure students know of the improvements made as a result of their feedback.
Some of the issues raised in the 2007-08 report are being dealt with by University Committees and others by the College including:
• A sub-group of the College Undergraduate Studies Committee considering why some tutorial attendance is low and looking at practical steps to increase attendance
• The development of a robust approach across the College to ensure consistency in moderation
• A well-attended College Teachability event bringing together experiences from across the three Colleges
The Schools’ QAE 2008-09 reports have identified a range of issues including:
• The requirement for Schools to embed Teachability
• The need to further encourage Peer Observation of Teaching, possibly as part of the promotional process
• The considerable efforts made by Schools as a result of NSS results combined with concern as to whether such efforts will have a positive impact
• The need to improve some students’ study skills
The challenges faced by Schools include the 2011 Enhancement-led Institutional Review, the need to be mindful of the Graduates for the 21st Century enhancement issues, the need to make explicit their own learning and teaching priorities and the increasing pressure on resources.
Contents
Page
1. Annual College Quality Assurance and Enhancement Procedures
Procedures for reviewing School QAE reports 5
School QAE structures 5
Office of Lifelong Learning/IALS QAE structures 6
eca QAE structures 6
Course and programme monitoring 6
Presentation and analysis of statistics 6
Student engagement with QAE processes 6
Undergraduate External Examiners 6
Postgraduate External Examiners 7
Internal and External Programme reviews 7
• TPRs
• PPRs
• eca External Review
Professional and Statutory Body Reviews 8
QAE arrangements for Continuing Professional Development
provision
College Learning and Teaching Strategy 8
• e-learning
• Peer Assisted learning
• Assessment and feedback
• PDP
• Research-teaching linkages
2. Actions taken as a result of issues raised in the QAE 2007-08 report
School of Education College student questionnaire pilot 11
CHSS QAE arrangements for postgraduate research 11
CHSS QAE arrangements for Continuing Professional Development 11
Marks from non-compulsory study abroad contributing to
degree classification 11
Clarification and dissemination of consistent approaches to 11
moderation
Student attendance at tutorials 11
College Teachability event 11
ECMS and Honours degree classification by mean mark 12
Library resources 12
Support and provision of postgraduate tutors 12
QAE review processes for centrally provided support services 12
3. Common themes identified by the QAE 2008-09 School reports
Teachability 13
Peer Observation of Teaching 13
Page
National Student Survey 13
Examination practices 14
External Examiners 14
Sharing good practice across Schools and subject areas 14
Room bookings 14
Study skills 15
Postgraduate tutors 15
Postgraduate programmes 15
ECMS 15
Administration and Teaching support 15
4. A Forward Look
College Learning and Teaching Strategy 16
Highlighting good practice 16
Graduates for the 21st Century 16
Pressure on resources 16
5. Summary of recommendations for action by 17
Schools, College or other University departments
Appendices
Appendix 1 Remit and membership of the College 18
QAE Committee
Appendix 2 Report on Common Issues from QQR/PPR 19
Reviews in Session 2008/09
Appendix 3 Brief summary of Schools involvement in Peer 22
Observation of Teaching in 2008-09
Summary reviews of 2008-09 QAE School reports:
Appendix 4 Arts, Culture and Environment 23
Appendix 5 Business and Economics 24
Appendix 6 Divinity 25
Appendix 7 Education 26
Appendix 8 History, Classics and Archaeology 27
Appendix 9 Health in Social Science 28
Appendix 10 Law 29
Appendix 11 Literatures, Languages and Cultures 30
Appendix 12 Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences 31
Appendix 13 Social and Political Science 32
Appendix 14 Summary review of 2008-09 QAE report: OLL/IALS 33
Appendix 15 Summary review of 2008-09 QAE report: eca 34
Appendix 16 Heads of Schools’ responses to TPRs 35
Appendix 17 Links to Heads of Schools’ responses to PPRs 36
1. Annual College Quality Assurance and Enhancement Procedures
Schools, The Office of Lifelong Learning/IALS and The Edinburgh College of Art (eca) are responsible for implementing Quality Assurance and Enhancement (QAE) policies and procedures, overseen by the College Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee (CQAEC).
Following the new University committee structures, quality and enhancement issues remain with CQAEC which now reports to the Senate Quality Assurance Committee.
College guidance setting out the requirements for the QAE reports is agreed annually by CQAEC. Guidance for the 2008-09 QAE reports can be found at:
1.1 Procedures for reviewing School QAE reports
Each annual QAE report is reviewed by CQAEC through peer reviews, using a pro forma checklist, and at a main CQAEC meeting. Peer reviews are presented at focussed sub-groups (usually 3-4 Schools are represented) for discussion amongst the Schools present to agree areas of good practice for dissemination within the College and issues for further action arising out of the report.
Where possible, lead reviewers are allocated to the same School for two consecutive years. However, changes in Committee members and the difficulties associated with scheduling the sub-groups have meant this level of continuity has not always been possible.
The College of Humanities and Social Science can report that Schools are generally complying with the College QAE guidelines.
1.2 School QAE structures
All Schools now have clear structures of responsibility for QAE issues but vary in their actual structures and the level to which they are fully embedded. It would be helpful if Schools published their QAE structures on their websites.
Some of the issues raised by Schools include:
• The lack of continuity of Directors of Quality as members of CQAEC because of sabbaticals and other staffing reasons. The ideal position would be for School representatives to hold office for 3 years although it is recognised that pressure on Heads of Schools means this will be very difficult to achieve
• The actual support given to the Director of Quality by colleagues can vary
• The lack of handover experienced by some new Directors of Quality
• The need for adequate administrative time to be resourced to compile the necessary data for the reports
1.3 Office of Lifelong Learning/IALS QAE structures
Procedures in OLL/IALS are adapted to meet the particular requirements of short courses and programmes whilst reflecting the broad principles of QAE endorsed by the College.
1.4 eca QAE structures
In response to their 2008-09 Enhancement-led Institutional Review, changes made to eca’s committee system have further improved communication and decision making across the Academic Committee structure.
1.5 Course and Programme Monitoring
Monitoring across the College covers about [final number to be added] UG courses and over [final number to be added] UG programmes and about [final number to be added] PG programmes as well as programmes and courses in the Office of Lifelong Learning/IALS.
Most Schools achieved close to a 100% return rate but where Schools fell short this tended to be due to staff leave, sabbaticals or staff leaving the University. Where possible, Schools need to ensure staff complete forms prior to going on leave, sabbaticals or leaving University employment.
1.6 Presentation and analysis of statistics
Schools’ presentation of statistics has been comprehensive. However, further analysis and reflection on what the statistics reveal is still required by some Schools.
1.7 Student engagement with QAE processes
Schools have shown they have a range of ways that students are involved and engaged with QAE processes including Staff/Student Liaison Committees, the wide use of course and programme student feedback forms, student focus groups, informal discussions with students and representation on School or College Committees. Schools have made many improvements as a direct result of student feedback (see Summary Reviews in appendices for examples). However, Schools recognise they need to do more to make students aware of such improvements so they may recognise that their views make a difference.
1.8 Undergraduate External Examiners
The procedures for dealing with undergraduate external examiners’ reports are:
• External Examiners send their reports directly to the Head of College
• The Associate Dean (QAE) reads and acknowledges reports on behalf of the Head of College
• The Associate Dean (QAE) marks up the reports with starred points requiring responses or actions and forwards them to the relevant Head of School
• Schools respond directly to the External Examiner with copies to the Associate Dean (QAE) with full closure signed off by College (Heads of Schools may delegate this task to a member of staff with an appropriate remit within the School.)
• The Associate Dean (QAE) writes directly to External Examiners where they raise issues of relevance to the College or University
• The Associate Dean (QAE) provides Heads of Schools with more detailed analyses of the External Examiners Reports. He also produces a College report on External Examiners Reports for the Head of College and University Director of Academic Standards and Assurance identifying themes and issues within the College which may require action
• Through the annual QAE reporting process, Schools indicate any relevant School-wide issues arising out of the External Examining process, and confirm that appropriate action is being taken in response to all External Examiners’ reports
A summary report on College UG External Examiners for 2008-09 can be found at:
NB Of the 154 External Examiners, the latest position is that reports are still outstanding from PPLS (1) and SPS (3)
1.9 Postgraduate External Examiners
The report for 2008-09 can be found at:
The general view of the 153 External Examiners was that the quality of postgraduate taught courses and programmes was high. However, Examiners questioned what they felt to be a narrow variety of assessments available to students, suggesting that other assessment types such as seminar presentations and fieldwork should be considered. The Assessment Futures task group of the Senate Learning and Teaching group is investigating alternative forms of assessment and are reporting their findings in 2010.
1.10 Internal and External Programme Reviews
Teaching Programme Reviews
The following TPRs took place in 2008-09 in CHSS:
• Music
• Archaeology
• Architecture
• History
Some of the issues raised which correspond to quality issues raised in other areas of the College are:
• The need to strengthen and clarify mechanisms for acting on course monitoring information
• The requirement to make explicit subject areas’ teaching practices in relation to the School’s own Learning & Teaching Strategy priorities and/or the College’s Learning & Teaching Strategy
• The benefits of sharing best practice across subject areas
Head of Schools’ formal responses to the TPR reviews can be found at Appendix 14.
The Associate Dean, Quality Assurance and Enhancement, has fully reviewed the formal responses and is satisfied they have responded appropriately to the recommendations.
Postgraduate Programme Reviews
Reviews of postgraduate provision in the School of Health in Social Science and the School of Law were carried out in 2008-09 and a report on the common issues from those PPRs can be found at Appendix 2. Links to Head of Schools’ formal responses to the PPR reviews can be found at Appendix 17.
Eca External Review
The 2008-09 Enhancement-led Institutional Review of eca found confidence in eca’s management of academic standards of the awards it offers and the quality of the student learning experience it provides.
1.11 Professional and Statutory Body Reviews
All 2008-09 programme reviews were successfully accredited and a summary of the reviews carried out can be found at:
1.12 QAE arrangements for Continuing Professional Development provision
CPD students in OLL/IALS complete questionnaires which assess course content, administration, venues, catering and value for money and other issues relevant to the particular course. Course Managers provide summarised feedback to the academics responsible for delivering the courses and appropriate action taken to resolve any problems. Course content is updated before each delivery.
As guidance for Schools was only incorporated into the 2008-09 guidance for reporting, Schools will be reporting on CPD provision in their 2009-10 QAE reports.
1.13 College Learning and Teaching Strategy
This section provides an initial snapshot of the College’s Learning and Teaching Strategy. The College will be undertaking a formal annual review of the strategy in May 2010 and the subsequent report will be publicly available.
The strategy was implemented in 2007 and reporting on actions taken as a result is now embedded into Schools’ QAE reports. The strategy is designed to provide both short and longer-term goals for Schools to improve the student learning experience and it is recognised that the strategy is a comprehensive document covering a wide range of issues. As a result, it is also recognised that Schools need to determine their own learning and teaching priorities together with action plans and time-lines to reflect each School’s individual needs. Each School has identified a member of staff to act as ‘academic liaison’ to take forward the Learning and Teaching strategy in their School.
The main overarching priorities for Schools remain:
• E-learning
Schools have developed extensive initiatives and expertise in e-learning . The Associate Dean, E-learning and Innovation, has led a major College initiative in 2009-10, offering e-learning roadshows to all Schools to share information and experiences . The roadshows are particularly designed to encourage those members of staff who may feel less confident using e-learning in their teaching.
• Peer Assisted Learning
Peer Assisted Learning, plays a vital role in supporting some students in their transition from School to University. Such involvement is also highly beneficial to the students providing the support and contributes to the development of a range of valuable ‘graduate attributes’. Schools continue to develop a wide range of initiatives and are providing information on their particular initiatives to establish a College-wide ‘good practice’ website. In addition, CQAEC held a strategic discussion on this issue.
• Assessment and Feedback
The National Student Survey results are being dealt with extensively by the University, College and Schools and more information can be found at 3.3.
• Personal Development Planning
The College worked with Schools to run a programme of five pilots in 2008-09 using the PebblePad e-portfolio tool to support PDP and funded and co-ordinated an evaluation of the pilots. The evaluation points to students’ learning and development, but indicates that these can only be delivered through significant staff and student training. The College is leading a strategic discussion at Senate Learning and Teaching Committee in March 2010 regarding the most appropriate way forward for PDP taking into account Information Services’ recent decision to procure the PebblePad soft ware on a longer-term basis. The new University e-learning strategy will provide valuable support for the implementation of PDP in the College.
• Research-teaching linkages
Research-teaching linkages for pre-honours students is a current priority for Schools and has been discussed at length at CQAEC. Such linkages reflects the importance of engaging in the research culture of the University from an early stage to deepen students’ learning experience from the outset and equip them better to engage in research projects in honours years. Schools are continuing to provide extensive information on their particular initiatives to establish a College-wide ‘good practice’ website.
The College Learning and Teaching Strategy can be found at:
2. Actions taken as a result of issues raised in the QAE 2007-08 report
2.1 School of Education student course questionnaire pilot
As the majority of Schools were considering best practice in course questionnaire design, CQAEC designed a model questionnaire. The School of Education successfully piloted the course questionnaire in 2008-09 and it is now available for use by Schools who wish to use it.
2.2 CHSS QAE arrangements for postgraduate research
Guidelines were agreed in May 2009 by CQAEC on monitoring taught elements of the PGR programmes. The College of Science and Engineering have carried out a detailed pilot on PGR monitoring and CQAEC will be reviewing the College’s guidelines in the light of their findings.
2.3 CHSS QAE arrangements for Continuing Professional Development
Guidelines were agreed in May 2009 (see also 1.12).
2.4 Marks from non-compulsory study abroad contributing to degree classification
The College Undergraduate Studies Committee considered this issue in depth and, having considered all available evidence, agreed to maintain the status quo that marks from non-compulsory study abroad would not contribute to a student’s final degree classification.
2.5 Clarification and dissemination of consistent approaches to moderation
Concerns regarding the need for consistent approaches to moderation were discussed at the October 2009 College Undergraduate Studies Committee. Guidelines for both undergraduate and postgraduate taught courses are now being developed by CUGSC and CPGSC to ensure a robust approach across the College to determine the approaches most consistent with the University’s assessment regulations and the QAA Code of Practice for Assessment of Students.
2.6 Student attendance at tutorials
The College Undergraduate Studies Committee in 2009-10 is looking at developing a reasonable approach to improving and measuring tutorial attendance. It will consider the reasons why some tutorial attendance is low and consider practical steps to increase attendance.
2.7 College Teachability event
In collaboration with the Disability Office and the other two Colleges, the College ran a very well-attended Teachability event in June 2009 with presentations from across the University. The event included such diverse issues as implementing and monitoring adjustments, mental health and well-being in veterinary students and issues for disabled students on Initial Teacher Education placements. However, further work needs to be done (see 3.1).
2.8 ECMS and Honours degree classification by mean mark
The College has encouraged the University to review progress on implementing ECMS and the Senate Curriculum and Student Progression Committee is in the process of identifying the most statistically pertinent data sets as well as possible markers for future benchmarking. Additionally, SCSPC is asking Heads of Schools for more detailed comments on ECMS and degree classification statistics relating to their particular Schools (see also 3.10).
2.9 Library Resources
Schools’ concerns regarding library resources were raised at the College Library Committee. It is clear from Schools’ QAE reports and annual Library statements that Schools remain concerned about the challenge of maintaining and developing Library collections in the context of currency fluctuations and pressure on resources. Some aspects of library resources have benefited from significant extra investment and the redevelopment of the Main Library Building is progressing. In 2008-09 and 2009-10 the College allocated significant additional Full Economic Costing resources to library materials which allowed most Schools to receive an increase in their cash budgets and allowed for substantial additional one-off purchases
2.10 Support and supervision of postgraduate tutors
The support and supervision of postgraduate tutors is now being covered by University-wide initiatives underpinned by the principle of the ‘professionalisation of postgraduate research’ (see also 3.9). The Senate Researcher Experience Committee is looking at strategic improvements to this professionalism including:
• the newly formed Institute for Academic Development which will be implementing a range of postgraduate training initiatives
• the Principals’ Career Development Scholarships aimed at supporting postgraduate tutors wishing to pursue academic careers
2.11 QAE review processes for centrally provided support services
The CQAEC Convener is leading a University-wide task group in 2009-10. The task group’s main aims include:
• Assessing the effectiveness of the current QA processes
• Identifying an appropriate review cycle
• Identifying appropriate mechanisms for the services to monitor and assure themselves of the quality of experience provided to students and also to enhance the experience
3. Common themes identified by the QAE 2008-09 School reports
3.1 Teachability
Teachability audits are part of a continuing developmental process. All Schools now need to embed processes to improve access for disabled students within the School culture with progress reported in annual School QAE reports. One School has successfully met a student’s extensive and particular disability needs but with very obvious pressure on the School’s financial resources.
Recommendation: Disability Office to review the arrangements for funding and supporting students with the most complex disability needs
Recommendation: Schools to report on their progress in embedding Teachability in their annual QAE reports
3.2 Peer Observation of Teaching
Peer Observation of Teaching (PoT) is an excellent way to receive informal feedback and also provides the opportunity to highlight and share excellent pedagogic practices. It is important to emphasise that PoT is not, and should not form, part of any formal appraisal system and most Schools now carry out some level of PoT with increasing involvement encouraged using a ‘light touch’. Appendix 3 has a brief summary of Schools’ engagement with PoT.
Recommendation: Schools to continue to encourage Peer Observation of Teaching using a ‘light touch’
3.3 National Student Survey
All Schools have made considerable efforts (documented in Senate papers) to improve feedback practices and to change the student perception of feedback and assessment although there is concern that any changes will not necessarily bring immediate improvements in satisfaction. Many Schools continue to try to understand the data by getting more qualitative feedback by holding student focus groups or seeking informal feedback to understand what it is that students want and need in relation to assessment and feedback.
Schools know that such issues as developing a ‘sense of community’, pressure to feedback to students in a timely manner all contribute to students’ satisfaction/ dissatisfaction on feedback and assessment. New University guidance on managing feedback and assessment to students will help all Schools be more explicit regarding what kind of feedback students will be given and when. Schools are of the view that students experience ‘survey fatigue’ which may contribute to a lower NSS response.
Recommendation: All Schools to develop their own implementation strategy on assessment and feedback once general University guidance has been agreed
3.4 Examination practices
Some Schools indicated there were particular difficulties in 2008-09 including rooms too hot or too cold, scripts going missing and inadequate invigilation. Schools reported that Adam House has been uncomfortably warm requiring doors to be kept open to allow ventilation. Schools also reported some students were affected by disruptive noise when exams in other rooms finished.
Recommendation: Registry to review examination practices and venues
3.5 External Examiners
Subject areas provide responses to External Examiners’ comments but College need to be aware of these to ensure that recommendations for improvement are carried out. In order to close this ‘quality loop’, an easy system of informing the College of actions to be taken needs to be implemented and acted upon.
Recommendation: Schools to advise College of improvements made as a result of External Examiners’ comments
3.6 Sharing good practice across Schools and subject areas
An enormous amount of good practice and innovation is carried out in Schools but can often be done in isolation of other initiatives either at University, College, School or even subject area.
Recommendation: College to consider how QA dimensions fit in with other issues across Schools and subject areas to form a broader view of what is happening when reviewing the College Learning and Teaching Strategy
3.7 Room bookings
Schools raised a number of concerns:
• Courses not delivered weekly but in a more ad hoc fashion are not given priority when rooms are allocated
• Room bookings have to be made so far in advance that bookings are made before the admission process closes sometimes resulting in rooms that are either too big or too small for the student numbers
• Tutorials may be cancelled at short notice where professional practitioners, such as solicitors, lead tutorials and Schools are then financially penalised for non-use of a room. When tutorials are rescheduled, available venues may be unsuitable for particular teaching styles
• It is sometimes difficult to get rooms allocated to meet specific pedagogic needs (eg although a room may be allocated for a specific number of students the space available may not allow students to work in groups)
• More venues need to be fully accessible
Recommendation: College to ask the University Learning and Teaching Spaces Advisory Group for a review of booking arrangements
3.8 Study Skills
Schools are becoming increasingly concerned at the gap between school and university study and some Schools are already delivering classes on study skills. The need for students to be aware that more independent study is required at undergraduate level and that a different skill set needs to be developed. Concerns have also been raised about the quality of study skills of some postgraduate taught international students and the need for further development of these skills.
Recommendation: The Institute for Academic Development to provide generic guidance for staff on developing student study skills that can be adapted to make it relevant and useful for both undergraduate and postgraduate taught international students
3.9 Postgraduate tutors
Although much good practice has been developed to support postgraduate tutors, Schools are aware that more needs to be done to develop them and prepare them well for careers in Higher Education. It is recognised that the increasing use of post-graduate tutors, if not properly managed, may have the potential to adversely affect the quality of teaching on pre-honours courses.
3.10 Postgraduate Programmes
Practice across Schools varies with regard to postgraduate students who fail courses and there is uncertainty as to what the regulations require.
Recommendation: The College Postgraduate Studies Committee to develop and implement a uniform policy on the consequences of failing a course on a PG programme.
3.11 Extended Common Marking Scheme (ECMS)
During 2008-09, External Examiners reported the limited use in some subject areas of the higher ‘A’ grades.
Recommendation: College Undergraduate Studies Committee to oversee College and Schools grade descriptor reviews to ensure markers have a consistent understanding of use of the ‘A’ grades.
3.12 Administration and Teaching Support
It is recognised that Administration and Teaching Support is crucial to the continued success of all aspects of teaching and assessment including the role of External Examiners. However, as raised in their 2007-08 QAE and current reports, some Schools have expressed concern that not enough resources are being allocated to support QAE-related work.
Recommendation: College Policy and Resources Committee to review the levels of support Schools make available to ensure they are adequate.
4. A Forward Look
4.1 College Learning and Teaching Strategy
Despite many competing pressures for time and resources, Schools carry out an enormous range of initiatives to continually improve and enhance the learning and teaching experience. However, the development of such initiatives needs to be systematic and linked to Schools’ own learning and teaching priorities.
Recommendation: All Schools need to ensure a continuing cycle of improvement by having clear recommendations for action in the QAE reports, followed by details of actions taken in the following year’s report
Recommendation: Schools need to determine their own learning and teaching priorities together with action plans and time-lines to reflect each School’s individual needs
Recommendation: The role of Academic Liaison for the Learning and Teaching strategy needs to be developed systematically across all Schools
4.2. Highlighting good practice
The growing expectation in HE is for academics to provide evidence of what they do. Whilst this adds to the administrative burden, there is much merit in academics publicising and sharing their good practice. Many academics do not see their own practice as ‘good practice’ but consider they are simply doing what should be expected of any teacher. However, the EUSA teaching awards serve to highlight such good practices.
Recommendation: College to continue to support Schools to identify and publicise good practices
4.3 Graduates for the 21st Century
The Enhancement Themes are a key element of the Scottish higher education sector and they support the University’s work to continually enhance the student learning experience. Graduates for the 21st Century integrates previous themes (research-teaching linkages, first year: engagement & empowerment, flexible delivery, employability, responding to student needs, assessment and integrative assessment). It is essential for Schools to be mindful of these issues and to report on actions taken, as they work to improve the learning and teaching experience.
Recommendation: Schools to engage more fully with Graduates for the 21st Century enhancement themes
4.4 Pressure on resources
The increasing pressure on resources is a challenge for Schools. Despite such constraints, Schools have continued to implement new initiatives and look for new ways to develop their teaching and enhance the student learning experience. Schools will need to continue to find creative ways to enhance and maintain the student experience using available resources as efficiently and effectively as possible whilst vigorously monitoring and maintaining high quality standards.
5. Summary of recommendations for action by
Schools, College and other University areas
5.1 For action by Schools
• Schools to report on their progress in embedding Teachability in their annual QAE reports
• Schools to continue to encourage Peer Observation of Teaching using a ‘light touch’
• All Schools to develop their own implementation strategy on assessment and feedback once general University guidance has been agreed
• Schools to advise College of improvements made as a result of External Examiners’ comments
• All Schools need to ensure a continuing cycle of improvement by having clear recommendations for action in the QAE reports, followed by details of actions taken in the following years’ report
• Schools need to determine their own learning and teaching priorities together with action plans and time-lines to reflect each School’s individual needs
• The role of Academic Liaison for the Learning and Teaching strategy needs to be developed systematically across all Schools
• Schools to engage more fully with Graduates for the 21st Century enhancement themes
5.2 For action by College
• College to consider how QA dimensions fit in with other issues across Schools and subject areas to form a broader view of what is happening when reviewing the College Learning and Teaching Strategy
• College to ask the University Learning and Teaching Spaces Advisory Group for a review of booking arrangements
• The College Postgraduate Studies Committee to develop and implement a uniform policy on the consequences of failing a course on a PG programme
• College Undergraduate Studies Committee to oversee College and Schools grade descriptor reviews to ensure markers have a consistent understanding of the use of the ‘A’ grades
• College Policy and Resources Committee to review the levels of support Schools make available to ensure they are adequate
• College to continue to support Schools to identify and publicise good practices
3. For action by other University departments
• Disability Office to review the arrangements for funding and supporting students with the most complex disability needs
• Registry to review examination practices and venues
• The Institute for Academic Development to provide generic guidance for staff on developing student study skills that can be adapted to make it relevant and useful for both undergraduate and postgraduate taught international students
Appendix 1
Remit and Membership of the College QAE Committee
Remit
• To provide direction, oversight and monitoring of the College Learning and Teaching Strategy.
• To take a proactive role in promoting quality enhancement and monitoring changes and innovation in learning and teaching within the College.
• To develop appropriate policies and procedures for Quality Assurance and Enhancement covering all provision (for-credit and not-for-credit) in the College;
• To monitor the operation of QAE policies and procedures within the College on the basis of School and Office of Lifelong Learning QAE reports, external examiner reports, and the reports of Teaching Programme Reviews and Postgraduate Programme Reviews.
• To review eca annual Quality reports.
• To report to College Planning Resources Committee and Senatus Quality Assurance Committee.
Membership
• Associate Dean, Quality Assurance and Enhancement (Convener)
• One academic representative from each School in CHSS
• Representative from eca
• Representative from the Office of Lifelong Learning
• Two student representatives
• Representative from College of Science and Engineering
• Representative from College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine (TBC)
• Dean of Postgraduate Studies
• Dean of Undergraduate Studies
• Associate Dean, Academic Progression
• Director of Academic and Student Administration
• Representative of Centre for Teaching, Learning and Assessment
• Representative of Careers Service
• Representative of Library
• Representative from College Postgraduate Office
• Head of College Academic Office
September 2009
Appendix 2
COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCE
University of Edinburgh
Report on Common Issues from QQR/PPR Reviews in Session 2008/09
[pic]
Summary
This report summarises the main points and concerns arising from Quinquennial/Postgraduate Programme Reviews (QQR/PPR) which the College might like to note in order to enhance the quality of our processes across the board.
The report covers academic session 2008/2009, in which the review of postgraduate provision in the Schools of Health in Social Science and Law were conducted.
The panels were generally thoroughly impressed by their experiences of the schools. They commented on the high academic quality of taught and research programmes. The academic and administrative staff members demonstrated care and commitment, and the students were enthusiastic and presented encouraging views of both Schools’ postgraduate communities. Student feedback on programmes was overwhelmingly positive as were their comments on the quality of extra-curricular activities in the schools, such as regular research seminars which enhanced the identity of the postgraduate community.
Examples of Good Practice
• PGR Student Progression and Examination
A significant amount of work had been devoted into enhancing the monitoring of PGR student progression at the School of Law. Motivational sign posts had been devised as both an incentive for the student, and in order for the School to scrutinize progression. In year one students/supervisors had to have completed the first year review by June; in year two the students undertook a poster presentation; and in year three they conducted a research seminar. The School of Law had also implemented a PGR student reflective review which detailed how they felt their research was progressing and any other experiences they wished to express. It was felt this helped to ensure any problems were picked up on at an early stage. This kind of review not only monitors the quality of the research but also of the quality of the supervision and the nature of the relationship between supervisee and supervisor. The College may wish to consider whether implementing this kind of quality assurance review across the board might be beneficial.
In terms of PGR examinations, the School of Law was operating an apprenticeship model for internal examiners where they were specifically teamed with experienced external examiners and Non-examining Chairs (NEC). All examinations, in line with College guidance, were conducted with the presence of a NEC at the School of Law. The College recommends this process to ensure consistent practice, experience of and adherence to the regulations and fairness to the student.
• Admissions Conversion Rates
Both Schools were aware of the importance of regular contact with applicants and had put into place processes where both administrative and academic staff were actively involved in consolidating conversion rates through a constant drip-feed of information and welcoming communications. If not already doing so, Schools are encouraged to maintain steady contact with applicants.
• Marketing at School Level
The importance of marketing the Schools and their programmes effectively was recognised in both Schools. However, the School of Law had taken the step to employ a full-time locally-positioned Marketing Officer. The School felt that the investment in this kind of on-site support was noticeable and had proved beneficial to recruitment.
• Relationship between Postgraduate Office and Postgraduate Director
Both Schools reported that the working relationship between the Postgraduate Office and Postgraduate Director was key in the smooth running of the work of the office. The College might like to consider whether the introduction of more formal initiatives to develop and strengthen these key team-working environments would be of value.
Common Issues
• Administration
The introduction of the EUCLID admissions system had proved demanding in both Schools. The system had not been easy to master in its first year and had considerably burdened both administrative and academic staff workloads.
• Accommodation
The reviews both highlighted the need for, and the current lack of, social space for students. The existence of such spaces would increase the comfort of students (and staff) and could potentially lead to intellectual synergies which might enhance collaboration. The quality of the teaching space was also criticised. Though it was evident some refurbishment had taken place (through fund-raising in the School of Law), the tired University estate was a common complaint which threatened the overall student learning experience.
• Quality Assurance Processes
Generally the level of quality assurance provision was high, however, both Schools were not evaluating programmes systematically through annual reflective programme reviews. These self-critical assessments of programmes’ functionality would allow programme directors to annually reflect on the viability of their programmes. Conducting such reviews in a systematic manner would enable the school to inform themselves of the viability of their whole portfolio of programmes in a more focused and strategic way.
Reflections on the Review Process
At present the reviews are organised solely by the CHSS Postgraduate Office. The panels are made up of four internal Postgraduate Director members, two external members, one School Administrator and the Review Administrator. The process appears to work well and schools have reported that the process contributes to the effective running of the school: highlighting issues and offering constructive feedback on how to enhance efficiency. For the first time this academic session the configuration of the panel included a School Administrator, which has turned out to be a positive addition. The School Administrator has been able to offer strategic insights from an administrative and managerial perspective which has added a new and valuable dimension to the questioning process.
Recommendations
• The College recommends Schools consider implementing research student reflective reviews to monitor the quality of research, the quality of the supervision and the nature of the relationship between supervisee and supervisor.
• The College recommends Schools appoint Non-examining Chairs at all PhD vivas. This process ensures consistent practice, experience of and adherence to the regulations and fairness to the student.
• The College recommends that Schools try to maintain constant contact with applicants at both administrative and academic levels.
• The College recommends that Schools consider introducing annual reflective programme reviews to critically assess overall programme performance and viability.
Elizabeth Goodwin-Andersson (CHSS Academic Administrator)
March 2010
Appendix 3
Brief summary of Schools involvement in Peer Observation of Teaching in 2008-09
|ACE |25% of staff were peer observed |
|Business & Economics |20% of staff were peer observed |
|Divinity |Positive take-up for junior staff with plans for a wider roll-out |
|Education |Carried out both formally and informally as peer observation generally |
| |integral to almost all programmes |
|HCA |100% of staff in Classics were peer observed but History and Archaeology |
| |achieved less than 50% |
|Health in Social Sciences |22% of staff were observed |
|Law |New peer observation programme implemented |
|LLC |Peer observation takes place across LLC but is tracked systematically in DELC|
| |and English Lit |
|PPLS |Experienced a decline in numbers but has now set up a system to |
| |systematically track peer observation |
|SPS |40% of staff were peer observed |
Appendix 4
Summary review of 2008-09 QAE report: Arts Culture and Environment
Checklist
Monitoring is comprehensive. Music’s approach is thorough with twice yearly review meetings with groups addressing different curricular areas. Some areas still remain outside of the standard programme of taught courses not covered by the QAE regime but the School intends to address these in 2009/10. Additionally, feedback processes in Music are recognised as uneven and will also be addressed in 2009/10.
Good practice
• The School is developing an effective QAE system across 3 diverse subject areas that is open to review and improvement
• 25% of staff participate in peer observation of teaching
• Improved support and guidance for junior PG teaching staff
• The Book project with explicit learning outcomes focuses on research-teaching linkages
• Availability of marked music scripts together with supervision for students
• On-line feedback sessions on Web CT provided by Architecture
• The employability agenda is well developed
Recommendations
• Although there is a high level of responsiveness to student feedback, all Staff Student Liaison Committees should be minuted as proof of such responsiveness
• QAE report should provide more examples of action taken to continually improve quality
• Increase the cross-School sharing of good practice in teaching that subject areas will have in common
• Clarify School QAE processes and procedures and ensure they are clearly embedded across the School
• Be more explicit about work carried out as part of the College Learning and Teaching Strategy
• Provide a list of recommendations in the 2009/10 QAE report to make the actions for improvement easier to identify and monitor progress
• Bring those areas of the standard programme of taught courses not currently covered into the QAE regime
• Ensure all standard programmes of taught courses come within the School’s QAE regime
• Ensure feedback processes in Music are streamlined across the subject area
Appendix 5
Summary review of 2008-09 QAE report: Business & Economics
Checklist
The School has a set of course and programme monitoring procedures which are appropriate, well managed and have operated effectively over the year under review. Only 2 courses failed to produce course monitoring forms due to staff changes but the School is committed to embedding QA procedures that are less vulnerable to such changes.
Good practice
• Expanded engagement with alumni, employers, students and industry contacts to fully review UG programmes leading to new course developments and programmes
• Highly responsive to feedback from internal and external programme and course reviews, student feedback and the NSS producing examples to show what has been done
• Concrete efforts to create a student community including their PAL initiatives and free pizza to encourage attendance at weekly gatherings
• Good links with College Learning and Teaching strategy
• Examples given of activities that enhance graduates employability eg study abroad, team working, presentation skills
Recommendations
• Consider colleagues reviewing previously videoed lectures where available to provide feedback for teachers rather than do another live PoT
• Business and Economics, as newly independent Schools, to make clear plans for how they will each ensure QA issues are monitored and embedded in their new structures
• Ensure that the outcome of any QA work is reported on eg reassessment of an honours course
• Report on whether actions to increase the number of student questionnaires returned has been successful
• Monitor the available accommodation for both Business and Economics students
• Report on the review of the DoS system in the Business School
Appendix 6
Summary review of 2008-09 QAE report: Divinity
Checklist
Course monitoring arrangements are appropriate and comprehensive. The School has an effective QA framework in place which will allow the variability of such areas as SSLCs and course delivery arrangements to be addressed and actions reported.
Good practice
• Use of clear recommendations for action with named leads detailed in report
• The adoption of an explicit policy on Peer Observation of Teaching (POT) for new staff
• Actions taken to centralise and systematise QA records
• Consistently good performance in NSS
• Innovative approaches to e-learning
• Good research-teaching linkages
• The influence of the Enhancement Themes in a wide range of areas
Recommendations
• Consider further the possibility of a unified ‘teaching office’ to unite subject areas and share similar processes and good practice
• Investigate and report any inconsistencies between CMFs and SSLC reports and identify actions taken
• Consider programme level issues more regularly so that findings may be included in annual QAE reports
• Consider the viability of PGT programmes with very small numbers of students
Appendix 7
Summary review of 2008-09 QAE report: Education
Checklist
QAE processes have been developed that are appropriate and comprehensive with the School reflecting openly where processes can be more deeply embedded. Given the considerable pressure under which the School is currently operating, together with a range of reaccreditations by outside bodies, the School has been very responsive to the recommendations made in the 2007/08 QA report. Staff turnover has prevented the 100% return of CMFs.
Good practice
• Use of templates to shape programme reporting which raise staff awareness of key strategic concepts and considerations
• Current development of a School Learning & Teaching strategy
• QAE guidance document for staff
• The appointment of a School Teachability Co-ordinator reflecting and encouraging very positive engagement with the teachability agenda
Recommendations
• More data analysis would be helpful in understanding the statistics
• Be proactive in appreciating and highlighting good practice across the School
• School line managers to take greater responsibility for supporting QAE Officers by ensuring the required reporting is completed according to agreed deadlines
• Every effort should be made to ensure CMFs are returned for continuous courses even if there are staff changes
• Use the development of the School Learning & Teaching strategy to increase staff ‘ownership’ and awareness of learning and teaching related issues
• Give more examples to reflect the range of actions carried out to improve QAE
• Peer and self-assessment activities in the BEd Primary programme as well as the PDPs being used in Sport and Recreation Management be outlined in greater details to share good practice with other Schools
• Encourage and formalise Peer Observation of Teaching
• Implement improvements regarding the enhancement of PG dissertation supervision
Appendix 8
Summary review of 2008-09 QAE report: History, Classics & Archaeology
Checklist
The course monitoring procedures work effectively and there is a strong improvement on the CMF monitoring for PG courses. However, further staff commitment is required to ensure 100% CMF returns particularly for UGs.
Good practice
• Devolution to subject areas of the CMF summary forms allows all staff to reflect on the effectiveness of their teaching and on student feedback.
• Very good initiatives to improve student feedback that are bearing fruit
• Clearer rationale provided to try and address perceived unfairness in marking
• Pro forma for marking each question
• The development of a School Learning and Teaching strategy
• Innovative use of e-learning
• Team teaching and 100% peer observation of teaching in Classics
• National recognition for teaching excellence in Classics
Recommendations
• Improve response rates for CMFs in Classics and History, particularly UG
• Fuller discussion of CMFs and SSLCs in subject areas
• Continue efforts to improve marking consistency across all three subject areas
• Monitor the impact of increased class sizes on the teacher/student relationship, student satisfaction and research time
Appendix 9
Summary review of 2008-09 QAE report: Health in Social Science
Checklist
The course monitoring procedures are comprehensive, appropriate and effective with procedures tailored to individual subject areas. Subject leaders and the School Director of QAE meet regularly to monitor and share best practices across the School.
Good practice
• Despite governance restructuring, the School has maintained its effective QAE structures with the ongoing monitoring and development of enhancement projects
• The range of Peer Assisted Learning projects adding value to the student experience
• Use of tutoring teams to review external placements during and after the placement
• A very full and reflective teachability review showing accessibility issues are now embedded across the School
• Raising the importance of student feedback in induction sessions with subsequent high levels of returns
• The use of PDP, particularly in Nursing Studies (where credits are given), may be viewed as a possible model for use across the College where appropriate
• Active engagement with e-learning across the School
• Clear exemplars of good practice in the report directly relating to the College Learning and Teaching Strategy
• External partners involved in curriculum reviews ensuring academic programmes ‘fit for purpose’
Recommendations
• Staff need to be encouraged to report all Peer Observations of Teaching so that an accurate record of involvement can be maintained
• School to report on any impact of changes to the QAE process arising from the governance restructuring
• Ensure improvements made as a result of student feedback are communicated students
• Increase the use of PDP across subject areas
• Consider students reps on the School QAE Committee
Appendix 10
Summary review of 2008-09 QAE report: Law
Checklist
Overall, the procedures are appropriate and comprehensive. The School uses Course Audit Files which subsume the information that can be gathered through the College CMF but not all files are complete. The proportion of 1st class degrees is increasing which may be influenced by the ECMS.
Good practice
• Course Audit Files which contain an audit continuity sheet documenting changes in course delivery, ensuring smooth year to year transition
• Impressive deployment of a wide range of teaching methods
• Provision of a comprehensive e-learning environment
• Implementation of a progression monitoring programme to track student performance on a year by year basis
• LawPALS that has seen increasing student participation
• Introduction of an innovative course (Current Issues in EU Law and Practice) focussing solely on one case drawing on individuals who were actually involved in the case
• The wide range of formative and summative assessment methods
Recommendations
• Ensure all Course Audit Files are up to date
• All external lecturers need to be clear about the importance of students completing feedback questionnaires
• Course organisers need to let students know what action has been taken as a result of student feedback
• Consider using the Institute for Academic Development to provide training to meet the specific development needs of more experienced lecturers
• External examiners should be reminded of the need to attend Examination Boards as required by University regulations
Appendix 11
Summary review of 2008-09 QAE report: Literatures, Languages & Cultures
Checklist
Monitoring procedures are good and comprehensive although some CMFs still missing for level 10 courses. Would be useful to have some indication of student feedback response rates. Use of ECMS may reflect a difference in higher level grades awarded between language courses and discursive courses noted by external examiners.
Good practice
• Development of formal feedback procedures for oral presentations to class (IMES)
• Introduction of a workshop on essay writing skills in the European Theatre MSc
• Extension of opportunities for students to view and discuss their marked examination papers in most School subject areas
• Introduction of smaller classes for some DELC pre-honours courses
• Structured Peer Assisted Learning and Autonomous Learning Groups in English Literature
• SSLC minuting will be formalised next year in DELC and Asian Studies to monitor and close the feedback loop
• LLC QAE structures allow for each subject area scrutinising and reporting on the QAE data for another area
Recommendations
• Increase CMFs and data for level 10 courses to ensure staff are able to fully reflect on courses and follow through actions/enhancements
• Useful to see the staff:student figures to assess impact across subject areas and identify further pressures due to staff or financial resource changes
• Helpful to give more examples of innovations in teaching introduced by School
• The tight exam board timetable and problems with joint boards as raised by external examiners need to be considered further
• School could consider buying an optical mark reader to allow better analysis of paper feedback from students
• Consider investigating reasons for a differential in the performance of joint honours students versus single honours students on some degrees
Appendix 12
Summary review of 2008-09 QAE report: Philosophy, Psychology & Language Sciences
Checklist
Course monitoring procedures are appropriate and comparable with other Schools across the College but fuller statistics on individual course grade-breakdowns would be useful.
Good practice
• Overhaul of Philosophy honours curriculum in response to various reviews and student feedback
• Forthcoming review of Philosophy pre-honours curriculum
• Modification of assessment and feedback methods in response to NSS
• Introduction of question on adjustments for disability on student questionnaire
• Tightening of tutorial practice to link more directly with lectures
• Introduction of essay-writing workshops at subject area level
• Formative Peer Assisted Learning initiatives good but with some resource implications
Recommendations
• ECMS requires new QAE procedures, particularly A1,2,3 at level 10
• Consider most effective ways to use administrative resources to support QAE procedures
• Explore in more depth student dissatisfaction at the quality of some Psychology teaching
• Ensure Peer Observation of Teaching is carried out, separate from any appraisal system, to encourage honest professional assessment of teaching staff’s work by their peers
• More examples of improvements made as a response to student feedback should be publicised
Appendix 13
Summary review of 2008-09 QAE report: Social and Political Science
Checklist
Course monitoring procedures work effectively, comprehensively and appropriately for most of the School. QAE objectives and strategies are well-described with staff involved in reflecting on the effectiveness of their teaching and student feedback through CMFs (currently 90% return). Staff meetings address external examiner feedback and the SSLC is very active with regular meetings and special working groups
Good practice
• Wide range of initiatives to address NSS including more opportunities for more ‘congenial’ staff-student contact
• Better dissemination of good practice between individuals, subject areas and School
• Tutor monitoring and mentoring in many year 1 & 2 courses
• Peer Observation of Teaching is increasing using a ‘light touch’ and is seen as non-threatening
• Teaching innovations including
- assessed blogs
- use of role play as a teaching tool
- presentation of a lecturer’s own conference poster for students to
critique
- mock exam question peer-assessed by student groups
• The plan to establish a Head SSO role dedicated to student support
Recommendations
• Aspire to 100% return of Course Monitoring Forms
• Include a more direct review of the School’s process for engaging with the College Learning and Teaching strategy
• Greater clarification in the administration of QA procedures at PG level
• More provision and reflection of PG statistical data would be useful
Appendix 14
Summary review of 2008-09 QAE report: OLL/IALS
Checklist
The report is very informative and pulls together quite disparate information reflecting the complex nature of OLL/IALS. The monitoring procedures are comprehensive and effective and appropriate to the unique nature of OLL/IALS. Not all courses returned feedback forms but this was caused mainly by major organisational change, particularly the merger of OLL and IALS. There are no formal SSLCs but the report adequately explained the reasons for this. The exceptionally high number of A3 marks in languages is noted but the use of ECMS may reflect a difference in higher level grades awarded between language courses and discursive courses.
Good practice
• The systematic response to issues raised in previous QAE report
• Tutor monitoring procedures with core staff visiting all new tutors in a supportive way - much more suited to the part-time nature employment of tutors than a system of Peer Observation of Teaching. Each class visit for a new tutor or course includes a written report including reflections from the course organiser and the tutor’s response.
• Tutor development events and specific briefing/discussion events arranged by course organisers to enhance the quality of Open Studies teaching and the student learning experience
Recommendations
• Provide more examples of improvements made in response to student feedback
• Summaries of students’ evaluation of Services for Business and Industry would be helpful
• Consider whether using paper questionnaires (rather than electronic) may improve the level of student feedback
• Consider asking for students to complete feedback forms before course results are given as part of a potential contract between the student and university
• Students to be told what improvements are made as a result of their feedback
• Consider the development of a template to be applied across language provision to try and standardise approaches to assessment
Appendix 15
Summary review of 2008-09 QAE report: Edinburgh College of Art
Checklist
The information provided is robust, appropriate and comprehensive and the 2009 Enhancement-led Institutional Review expressing ‘confidence’ supports this view.
Good practice
• All academic staff undertake an annual review to set their objectives and activity plans for the forthcoming cycle and individual as well as collective needs are identified. Staff development needs are also monitored through the Annual Programme Monitoring Review (APMR)
• The ‘Critical Friend’ process
• Introduction of a balanced scorecard approach to analysing KPI statistical data to identify the ideal optimised model for both academic and financial sustainability for each subject specialism
Recommendations
• Report the impact on the teaching and learning experience following substantial changes to eca’s structures in the 2009-10 QAE report, particularly highlighting the enhancement benefits for sharing with University colleagues
• Ongoing monitoring of impact of removal of interim visits by External Examiners in the School of Design
• Ensure consistency of staff contributing to the First Year Studies assessment team
• Monitor cycle of reviews for support functions
• Monitor impact of committee structures and remits to ensure that QAE issues are more fully integrated
• Monitor and report the new ESALA arrangement through eca and the University of Edinburgh structures as appropriate
Appendix 16
Heads of Schools responses to Teaching Programme Reviews
Archaeology TPR response
The University of Edinburgh
Teaching Programme Review
Archaeology
October 2009
1 Responses from the School of History, Classics, and Archaeology
The School of History, Classics, and Archaeology welcomes the positive and supportive report of the TPR reviewers.
Commendations
The School is extremely heartened by the 34 issues that the Review Team singled out for commendation:
1 The review team commends the School’s vision of a centre for the study of the human past, and notes that Archaeology is crucial to the fulfilment of that vision (para 3.4).
2 The review team commends the School for its efforts to achieve a balance between autonomy and independence in its relations with the Subject Area, and for its emerging School-wide structures and processes including the Student Support Office, the Undergraduate Director, the Special Circumstances Committee and the implementation group (para 3.10).
3 The review team commends Archaeology for their growing expertise in Mediterranean pre-history, on the strong theoretical basis provided to the student, on the flexibility and choice offered to the student and on the recent restructuring of the sub-Honours curriculum, which appears to have been well received by students (para 3.12).
4 The review team commends the quality and innovation of some courses across Archaeology which make good use of synergies and collaborative working within the University, College and School while seeking to maximise teaching offerings within the same staffing resource, particularly at PGT level (para 3.13).
5 The review team commends the requirement to demonstrate presentation skills as part of learning (para 3.15).
6 The review team commends plans to provide a course for Junior Honours students on dissertation skills (para 3.16).
7 The review team commends the standard of teaching and the quality, enthusiasm and commitment of the academic staff which was evident throughout the Review visit (para 3.19).
8 The review team commends the incorporation of e-learning approaches to teaching, and the plans to develop this across the School, as well as the plans to develop distance learning Masters courses (para 3.20).
9 The review team commends the level of support and guidance provided to students to help them make informed and appropriate subject choices (para 3.24).
10 The use of drop-in surgeries for student support is commended (para 3.25).
11 The review team commends the commitment and the depth of knowledge of the staff, as evidenced by the many positive comments by the students interviewed as part of the Review (para 3.29).
12 The review team commends the Subject Area for its use of a range of tactics and work-arounds in order to deliver continuously improving and expanding teaching and learning within a constrained staffing envelope (para 3.30).
13 The review team, in concurrence with the History TPR team, commends development of a very thorough workload model (para 3.33).
14 The review team commends the quality of the PG tutors (para 3.35).
15 The review team commends the PG tutors for their strong peer support and ethos (para 3.36).
16 The review team commends the quality of the administrative support staff, which is evidenced from the external assessors’ reports and the comments from the students (para 3.42).
17 The review team commends the plans to develop an Undergraduate Teaching Office, as recommended by the History TPR team (para 3.45).
18 The team commends the appointment of the E-learning and Web Development Officer as a School-level resource, while noting that this may be perceived in the short-term as a loss to the Subject Area (para 3.46).
19 The review team commends the plans to develop further the links between the library resources and teaching, particularly e-learning, across the School (para 3.47).
20 The review team commends the plans for the new building as seen for their use of shared flexible spaces (para 3.48).
21 The team commends the School on achieving a rare breadth of collaboration across the School and the University (para 3.54).
22 The review team commends the School’s commitment to research-led teaching (para 3.60).
23 Student progression trends, degree results and programme specifications, together with the comments of the external assessors, make it clear that the quality of student learning outcomes is high, and that the programmes are challenging students to attain their intellectual potential. The review team commends the Subject Area on this finding (para 4.4).
24 The Subject Area is commended on the diversity and effectiveness of its assessment and examination procedures (para 4.5).
25 The review team, in concurrence with the History TPR team, commends the establishment of a School-wide Special Circumstances committee and hopes it will operate in line with the recommendations of the History TPR team (para 4.11).
26 The review team commends the efforts made to date by the School and the Subject Area to improve the quality, quantity and timeliness of feedback (para 4.12).
27 The review team commends the feedback forms used (para 4.15).
28 The team commends the employability and transferable skills demonstrated by the students interviewed (para 4.17).
29 The review team commends the Subject Area for the quality of the Analytical Report and the willingness to engage with the TPR process (para 5.1).
30 The team also commends the Subject Area for its recent work in developing new teaching methods (para 5.2).
31 The review team commends the Subject Area for its robust processes for amending and improving courses, either on a stand-alone basis, or in conjunction with other Subject Areas, which have been adopted as best practice within the School (para 5.3).
32 The team commends the School for its recently completed review of UG teaching (para 5.4).
33 The review team commends the School for its robust and thorough response to the findings on assessment and feedback in the National Student Survey (para 5.8).
34 The Subject Area is commended for its responsive relationship with external assessors, for its robust arrangements for undertaking course assessment and obtaining student feedback, for the improvements noted in its QA processes and for its role as a site of QA best practice for other parts of the School
Recommendations
These are the responses to the Review team’s recommendations.
[Please note: The School Management Committee (SMC) was established in 2009/10 and is the successor to the School Management Group (SMG).]
The Quality of Teaching Provision and Student Learning Experience
1 The review team, in concurrence with the History TPR team, recommends the development of a School Learning and Teaching Strategy that aligns with the College strategy, in order to take full advantage of the latter and cultivate a proactive approach to the development of teaching and learning across the School. (para 3.3)
A working group convened by the School’s Director of Quality is currently at work refining a draft School Learning and Teaching Strategy, intended to be put to School Management Committee for approval in January 2010 and in place by August 2010.
2 The review team recommends that the Subject Area develops its own medium to long-term strategy, which would give context to its ambitions for growth and resource planning, identify future demand trends, help balance the issue of PGT provision against UG provision, assess the competitors in the market and define the Subject Area’s distinctive appeal. This may have consequences for the planned space allocation in the new building and should accordingly be undertaken without delay. (para 3.5)
The Subject Area held an away-day in May 2009 to consider aspects of UG teaching and in particular the reconfiguration of sub-honours year one and year two provision. Revisions have been made to the year one provision in the light of major changes to year two (Archaeology 1 and 2).
We also considered issues of the PGT and UG teaching balance. Currently however we are also aware that both areas appear to be market-driven and there are often significant market fluctuations.
In response to continuing demand for MSc programmes in Forensic Anthropology and Osteology, the School has made a successful bid for a new post in Forensic Anthropology to be appointed in October 2009. This will consolidate further the Bioarchaeology group in the Subject Area.
Regarding space allocation relating to the PGT programmes with particular relevance to the Osteology and Forensic Anthropology programmes, as part of the new building we have planned that there will teaching and laboratory areas to meet the requirements of these programmes.
Long-term strategy was also discussed at the away-day and it was recognised that the department needed to be able to reinvest in a number of areas so that the Abercromby chair could, in time, attract candidates of world-class standing.
3 The review team recommends that the Subject Area considers how its joint offerings with other Subject Areas, other areas across the School and University and with external associates, can be managed and delivered to ensure maximum potential benefit to the students and to the University. That means that collaborations are documented with clearly defined responsibilities, resources and expected outcomes from each partner, in order to ensure commitments are deliverable, are clear and are kept. (para 3.7)
Archaeology incorporates a number of joint and combined programmes as well as subjects offered at honours level across the School and beyond. We are currently unaware of any significant issues with these programmes. Staff from outside the School are involved with some teaching, although we have found in recent years that the opportunities to use external experts from organisations such as the National Museum have become limited through individual and institutional work commitments. We recognise the need to monitor any significant involvement in external teaching delivery and will respond as the needs arise.
4 The review team, in concurrence with the History TPR team, recommends the practice of setting up small taskforces across the School to tackle priority areas such as e-learning, assessment, feedback and employability. (para 3.8)
The School Learning and Teaching Strategy will identify the School’s main strategic priorities and specific actions to address them: the idea of taskforces will be put to the working group by the Archaeology representative or the School’s Director of Quality, for possible enshrinement in the Learning and Teaching Strategy.
5 The team recommends that the Subject Area considers whether its strategy may look to provide a given range of courses primarily because staff have the relevant expertise, rather than because students want to enrol on those courses (“supply-led”, rather than “demand-led” provision) and what risks may arise and need to be managed as a result of that approach. (para 3.13)
Pre-honours courses reflect staff experience in Old-world archaeology, especially the Near, Mediterranean and Temperate Europe. At Honours level, teaching largely matches individual teachers’ current or past research interests. It is unclear on what basis the review team are concerned by this supply-led provision. Student demand for courses can vary from year to year.
6 The team recommends that the Subject Area and School consider the curricular offerings as part of the proposed strategic plan. (para 3.14)
The School UG Studies Committee is always interested to consider the issue of cross-school collaboration in terms of courses and degree programmes.
The School is unlikely to take a lead role in any staffing-related review of Archaeology curricula; however, as regards enhancing the ‘Scottishness’ of the curriculum, there may be a case for reflection on the possibility of better coordinating the study of the Scottish past across the School’s disciplinary boundaries, and seeking to enhance further links with local and national institutions (eg. NMS, RCAHMS, HS) where there is additional expertise of an outstanding calibre. Clear links with a range of national institutions exist and these have contributed over a number of years towards teaching. However currently this has become limited by the demands due to greater demands from the external institutions.
7 The review team recommends that the Subject Area considers whether they need to increase or amend their provision of fieldwork and whether they need to take a more proactive role in provision of fieldwork opportunities for students. (para 3.17)
The requirement to undertake a programme of fieldwork or other associated practical activities is a distinctive component of archaeology degree programmes across the UK. At Edinburgh, the current compulsory requirement is reduced from a decade ago in part to meet students’ need for paid employment in the summer vacation. It should be noted that students are told this represents an absolute minimum. The level of support from Edinburgh University is more than students receive at many other institutions and there are further funded opportunities for those taking the fieldwork option in years two and three. It is some years since CFA separated from Archaeology, however this has not prevented students from gaining work experience and, in some instances, employment with commercial archaeology within Edinburgh and beyond.
8 The review team recommends that the Subject Area continues with its work to build on its good practice in relation to e-learning. (para 3.20)
This continues to develop through the close collaboration with the eLearning Officer. In particular we have collaborated and continue to develop new options as part of the School’s new initiative for a distance learning MSc programme in Historic Landscapes; some aspects of this programme will have applications for undergraduate teaching.
9 The review team recommends that the roles and the underpinning procedures and systems for student support be further clarified and publicised to staff and to students before the move by the Subject Area and the School. (3.23)
Work on review of student support within the School was delayed during 2008/09 because a University-level review was expected to provide a framework within which such a School-level review should take place.
The School Management Group agreed to some changes to procedures for induction week designed to strengthen the DoS-student relationship and which were implemented in September 2009.
In coordination with the School UG Studies Committee, during 2009/10 the Senior Director of Studies is undertaking a review of student support within the School in order to make recommendations to School Management Committee in time for implementation in 2010/11.
10 The review team recommends that the Subject Area begins to draw together a medium-to-long-term strategy without delay, to provide a context and a case for additional staffing resources. (para 3.32)
A medium- to long-term strategy was discussed at the away-day in May. A summary of this meeting is available on request. It will be discussed at a future School Management Committee.
11 The review team, in concurrence with the History TPR team, commends development of the very thorough workload model and recommends that the Workload Model be used to move towards equity of teaching and administration loads across the Subject Area and the School. (para 3.33)
This is a key priority for the School and the School Management Committee already remitted these issues for resolution to a Workload Working Group with representatives from each Subject Area, the School Directorate and senior administration.
The School has also appointed a Deputy Head of School (to start January 2010), who will assume oversight for the delivery of an equitable workload as a key responsibility.
In May 2009 the School Management Group approved the revised workload model proposed by the Working Group for implementation in 2009/10. In the first instance the revised model will be utilised to distribute work more evenly within subject areas and the incoming Deputy Head of School will subsequently give priority to balancing workloads across subject areas.
The Deputy Head of School will review the workload model and its implementation each year and make recommendations for further improvements and revisions to the School Management Committee.
12 The review team recommends that the School and College take into consideration, when reviewing the Subject Area’s strategic plan, the effect on the Subject Area’s national reputation and staff morale of the unfilled Abercromby Professorial Chair. (para 3.34)
The Head of School and Acting Head of College have considered this and regard the filling of the Abercromby Chair as a priority, however resource conditions make it impossible to fill the Chair at this time but the Head of College and Head of School will keep this under review.
13 The review team recommends a School-based induction to complement the University-wide programme. (para 3.37)
The possibilities and limits of what the School can provide internally, as regards PG Tutor training, began to be studied in 2008/9. The School’s Director of Quality is intending to convene a working group on this subject in the course of 2009/10.
14 The review team recommends that the Subject Area and School consider how feedback for PG tutors could be achieved. (para 3.38)
The University-level peer observation scheme mentioned applies to academic staff, not to PG Tutors. Within the School, Classics has developed a mentoring scheme for PG Tutors which has been identified as Good Practice. This will be more clearly flagged up for History and Archaeology through revised QA procedures in 2009/10 (subject area reports will be exchanged and studied by their representatives) and by the working group mentioned in Item 13.
16 The review team recommends that the Subject Area makes use of the peer support provided by the Higher Education Academy. (para 3.40)
Two members of support staff attended a two-day meeting organised by the HEA held in London in July 2009 on the subject of eLearning in Archaeology. We expect to participate in other future activities as appropriate and ensure that all staff and PG tutors are informed of forthcoming events and of the availability of training funds from the School. 17 The team recommends that the Subject Area works with the School to consider how to preserve the strong sense of community that currently exists within the Subject Area, when the move to new premises takes place. (para 3.48)
The Head of Archaeology is a member of the ‘West Wing’ user group and he and other key teaching and technical staff in Archaeology have been working, and will continue to work, closely with the project team on plans. The new building will include many new facilities that will encourage a greater sense of community not just for disciplines but for all staff, tutors and students, such as a School staff room and School PG and UG study and social areas.
The School Management Committee will consider space allocation in October 2009 and decide how best to arrange ourselves in the new building so as to optimise opportunities for collaboration, integration and social contact for all staff and students while making the most of the opportunities to represent and celebrate the strengths of our disciplines, create an environment which fosters collaboration in research and teaching and strengthen and develop a sense of community within and across existing disciplines and new and emerging areas of interest.
18 The review team, in concurrence with the History TPR team, recommends the appointment of a full-time move co-ordinator from within the staff at the School to ease and negotiate the transition to the new building, who can ensure that the learning resources are fully responsive to emerging teaching and learning approaches. (para 3.49)
The School’s eLearning Officer and Academic Liaison Librarian have been, and will continue to be, intimately involved in the planning process for all of the teaching and learning spaces in the new premises.
The West Wing Project budget will pay for a ‘Move Manager’, but the appointee will not be a School staff member as this is a specialist service normally provided externally. The project budget will also pay for a move coordinator/administrator but there is very limited scope for re-allocation of duties to free up existing staff time to undertake these managerial and administrative roles and in the current financial climate the School does not have the resources to employ additional staff to undertake these roles. The School is currently looking into possible options to fill this role such as secondment or an appointment from outwith the School.
19 The longer term relationship between both field centres and the University is noted in the Analytical Report as being unclear and the review team recommends that this relationship is clarified by the University. (para 3.52)
Archaeology has historically been involved in two field centres, one in the Western Isles and the second on Cyprus. The former at Callanaish received significant resources from the University over a number a years and provided the focus for successful field projects. Staff retirals and the changing focus of research interests have meant that the centre has ceased to be an active field base and has now been handed over the local community (in 2008). The second centre at Lemba, near Paphos in Cyprus, has been resourced from local support and through fieldwork and research grants over two decades. It continues to provide the focus for a number of the University’s and other UK institutions’ excavation and post-excavation projects. It is administered by an Honorary Fellow, Dr Paul Croft, under the overall direction of Honorary Professor Eddie Peltenberg. It is hoped that this valuable resource can continue to function in the future.
20 The team recommends the School considers the degree of integration sought between the three Subject Areas as part of its review of course allocation for 2010/11. (para 3.56)
Integration seeks to do more with less, not to do less, and the School consistently identifies its diversity of subjects and disciplines, and its chronological span, as perhaps its greatest strength.
As part of the School’s mission statement, the current introduction to the School’s website stresses that the School is concerned with the understanding of the Human Past, chronological time extending back to the earliest hominds, not merely in historic time.
Within this context, colleagues in prehistoric archaeology should have no concerns about the various integration initiatives across the School, and it is to be hoped that Archaeology may gain from greater synergies and collaborations.
21 The review team recommends that the Subject Area continues to lobby for Archaeology to be a separate subject in the Research Evaluation Framework (REF). (para 3.58)
It remains our ambition to ensure that Archaeology should be reviewed as part of the wider Archaeological academic community throughout Scotland and the UK in the forthcoming REF. This aim was reinforced at the meeting of Scottish Archaeology departments in May where Professor Barker, chair of the Archaeology RAE sub-panel, expressed his concern that the long-established Archaeology department at Edinburgh had not figured independently, but should do in future assessments. The final decision on this matter will depend not on the School or Subject Area but with College Research Director.
22 The review team recommends that, when undertaking its review of course allocation for 2010/11, the Subject Area and School take into account the greater operational complexity involved in offering the widest possible range of subjects and options, rather than a small number of specialisms. (para 3.59)
We would question this statement since in our sub-honours teaching we only need to offer three courses which closely match expertise across archaeology. At honours the range of courses reflects the research experience and expertise of individual staff. What is referred to by the review team as subject specialism in practice reflects research-led teaching. We are fully aware of some limitations in the range of teaching imposed by the Subject Area’s current size, but this is alleviated by other archaeology courses available in the School, especially in Classical Archaeology, and will be improved by a new full-time appointment in Bioarchaeology.
23 The review recommends that the Subject Area and School make a decision to deliver the teaching of science based archaeology through MA and other programmes, undertaking, if necessary, a more detailed costed option appraisal as the basis for that decision. (para 3.62)
Scientific Archaeology currently recruits very poorly at an undergraduate level across the UK. We recommend that the joint honours programme with Geography is the main entry for students with these interests. However we also recognise that as students become more familiar with components of the course, some may wish to adopt a more explicitly science route and graduate with the BSc in Environmental Archaeology.
Standards: Student Progression and Achievement
24 The review team recommends that further research be done by the Subject Area on the area of recruitment trends, possibly in collaboration with other institutions with archaeology departments, or the relevant HEA subject centre. (para 4.1)
The question of recruitment in the Scottish sector was considered at the May meeting of Scottish departments. In general this matched the pattern recognised by the subject area UK committee (SCFA). It should be noted that the SCFA review has yet to report on the results of an assessment of recruitment although it is clear that across most UK institutions single honours Archaeology is under pressure to attract sufficient well-qualified students and the majority apply for joint degrees especially with History or Ancient History. Scientific archaeology undergraduate programmes are the most severely affected.
In Scotland, Glasgow recruits very few at sub-honours but is able to enlist more to proceed into honours. Aberdeen is able to recruit but with low A-level and Higher grades. Overall the situation at Edinburgh remains positive. Although we remain below our quota for single honours this is mitigated by various combined programmes especially with Social Anthropology. A new combined degree with History has been introduced this year and a combination with Scottish history is under review. A combined programme with Classics could attract more although at present this constituency is divided between Ancient Mediterranean Civilisations (with Archaeology) and Ancient History and Classical Archaeology taught wholly in Classics.
25 The review team recommends that further research be done by the Subject Area on retention trends and students’ motivations for moving, as too high a level of “churn” is hard to manage. (para 4.2)
We see a benefit of the Edinburgh degree structure as providing students with the opportunity to experience and study a wide range of courses in their two sub-honours years. Archaeology is not a school subject and students will encounter it afresh. We do not recognise there is evidence for a significant deficit out of the discipline, but will continue to monitor the potential ‘turn-over’ of students in the future.
26 The review team nevertheless recommends that further research be done by the Subject Area in the area of destination trends, which might be done in collaboration with other institutions’ archaeology departments and their Careers Services. (para 4.3)
The review panel recognise the difficulties of measuring the initial destinations of Archaeology graduates but we have initiated discussions with the Careers Service and we will consider other strategies to assess the employability of our graduates in the future.
27 The review team recommends some “marking of the markers” by the Subject Area, particularly provision of feedback to tutors. (para 4.8)
Currently we have successfully instituted moderating of all course work and examined work; course conveners moderate all tutors’ marking for year 1 students and there is a rota of peer observation.
28 The external assessors observed that there is sometimes a degree of overlap in content between the different assessment streams, e.g. a similar focus for a continuous assessment essay and an examination question. It is recommended that this be kept under review by the Subject Area. (para 4.9) To address this question we intend to convene a sub-committee to approve all exam questions to ensure consistency of practice and to check overlaps between course work and exam questions.
29 The review team recommends that the detail to be included in the grade descriptors be debated at the School, College and University level. (para 4.10)
This is a university-wide issue at both UG and PG levels, and the College is already pressing the University in this direction due to external examiners’ comments. The matter is likely to fall in the sphere of the new Senatus Learning and Teaching Committee.
The School’s UG Studies Committee will discuss the discipline-specific elements of grade descriptors within the framework adopted by the University and the College.
See also below, for CHSS response
30 The review team recommends that the Subject Area puts in place stronger mechanisms for ensuring that assessment and feedback is consistently received by the student within the target three weeks. (para 4.13)
This problem will be addressed as part of the continuing concerns about some of the NSS responses from Archaeology fourth-year students.
31 Feedback was reportedly issued piecemeal in some cases, so that some students had access to their results before others. Again only in some cases, students had not always received feedback on their first essay before entering their first examination. The review team recommends that procedures in this respect are clarified and communicated to staff by the Subject Area. (para 4.14)
We can expect to do better in this field, especially as it is being targeted as a way to improve the NSS rating for Archaeology. Staff will be reminded of deadlines and the need to return work within the designated period.
32 The review team commends the feedback forms used but also recommends that the Subject Area considers allowing more space in the forms for comments, if needed. (para 4.15)
The redesign of the forms was not intended to restrict the space available for comments, but it was expected that colleagues would either expand the space when using the form as an electronic document or use the back of the form when using it in printed format.
33 The review team recommends that the Subject Area seeks guidance from the Careers Service, CTLA and other colleagues about how to evidence employability more explicitly in its assessments. (para 4.17)
The Teaching and Learning Strategy documents the improved provision of Career Service drop-ins for third and fourth year students.
34 The team recommends the Subject Area consider whether a session of training in presentation skills would be a useful addition to the curriculum. This might include provision of opportunities for students to practice presentational skills at an earlier stage in the degree programme in the form of formative assessments that receive staff feedback. (para 4.18)
Presentation skills forms part of the Honours option in Archaeology Fieldwork however we expect this to be available to all third students as part of the new Archaeology in Practice course.
35 The team also recommends the Subject Area investigate the appropriateness of employing video feedback in assessing UG students’ presentation skills, as Transkills does for post-graduates. (para 4.18)
Presentation skills are currently only assessed as part of the Archaeological fieldwork honours course, however we will investigate the possibility of developing these skills through eLearning.
36 The review team recommends more specialised support is sought for Archaeology students from the Careers Service or alternative arrangements are made (for example, a shared careers event or advice pack for Archaeology students across Scotland). (para 4.19)
We are encouraging the students to become involved in community archaeology in collaboration with Archaeology Scotland and expect to have specific Careers Service meeting as part of the new Archaeology in Practice programme. Careers sessions specifically for Archaeology students have been scheduled in 2009/10 by the University Careers Service.
Sharing of Good Practice: Quality Enhancement
37 It was suggested that employers’ views be sought to support proposals for new courses by the Subject Area and the review team supports this recommendation. (para 5.3)
This recommendation is only relevant to those courses which have a local or vocational dimension. However we can expect to attend to this in future developments relating to Landscape Archaeology and other appropriate courses.
38 The team recommends the creation of a channel of communication from the PG tutors into the quality enhancement process by the Subject Area. (para 5.5)
This mechanism already exists from course conveners to the wider QAE support within the School. We aim to ensure that there are regular documented links between convenors and tutors.
39 The review of History recommended that the School creates a School-wide teaching and learning forum to foster a more proactive culture of sharing of good practice in teaching, learning and assessment from inside and outside the School and encourage the piloting of innovation, and the Archaeology review team reiterate that recommendation. (para 5.6)
The remit of the School UG Studies Committee includes the promotion of sharing good practice across the School.
The School UG Director, with the support of the School UG Studies Committee, launched a continuing series of development and good practice sessions in the School in 2008/09. Assessment and feedback have been the themes to date. Support has also been offered to the School eLearning Officer for sessions offered relating to eLearning and intellectual property. These sessions will continue in 2009/10 and amongst the topics to be tackled will be ‘feed-forward’ as well as the assessment of non-written skills. These sessions have featured contributions from colleagues outside as well as within the School, and it is planned that sessions during 2009/10 will also include, on occasion, visitors from other universities.
Although led by the UG Studies Committee, these initiatives have implications for PG as well as UG teaching, because most academics within the school have teaching responsibilities at both levels and all members of the school are welcome at these events.
40 The review recommends that staff are encouraged by the Subject Area to attend the Staff-Student Liaison Committee, while acknowledging that workload pressures can make this difficult. (para 5.9)
Staff will be encouraged to attend Staff-Student Liaison Committee meetings.
41 The review team recommends that the SSLC examine whether targeted survey or focus group work might help assess the weight to be given to minor complaints, and therefore the appropriate level of response. (para 5.10)
The chair of the SSLC (who is not the Head of Subject Area) will be asked to ensure that minor issues are handled in a timely and positive manner.
42 The review recommends that the Student Archaeology Society approaches the Head of School for funding for speakers and any other added-value activity it feels is appropriate. (5.11)
We have commended the Student Archaeology Society for their imaginative programme of lectures and have assured them that funds are available through the School in addition to those from EUSA. The Head of School has contacted the Society’s representatives and offered funds in support of their activities in 2009/10.
Audit Monitoring: Quality Assurance
43 The review team recommends that the University considers whether it should take steps to encourage and embed consistency of quality assurance processes across the Colleges. (para 6.2)
The Senatus Quality Assurance Committee, which started its work on 1 September 2009 following a review of academic governance activities which created a separate Committee responsible for Quality Enhancement, is responsible for the University's academic Quality Assurance framework. It also provides a forum for the three Colleges, via their representatives on the Committee, to discuss and promote whichever developments in academic quality assurance are considered to be generally applicable and practicable. The School Director of Quality, in tandem with the Archaeology QAE rep, will investigate the inconsistencies of practice highlighted by the review team, and consider whether or not there is case to be put to the SQAC (of which the Director of Quality is currently a member).
44 The review team recommends that the University, College and the School seek to roll out peer observation and have it accepted as normal working practice as quickly as possible. (para 6.3)
Peer review is undertaken in Archaeology and this is documented. In future, however, this will conform more closely to the pattern in Classics and History and a more rigorous programme will be undertaken in 09/10.
45 The review team, in concurrence with the History TPR team, recommends that the Subject Area publish QA results on student webpages. (para 6.4)
The Senatus Quality Assurance Committee has identified the communication of QA results as its top action priority. The School’s Director of Quality is the convenor of SQAC’s taskforce on this, with a remit to produce guidelines and suggestions university-wide.
As recommended by the School’s UG Studies Committee, School Management Group encouraged course organisers to consider a range of ways to communicate the impact of student feedback on the development and delivery of courses. One example is the inclusion of this information in course booklets.
In order to promote further student awareness of the role played by student opinion in informing the development of courses and degree programmes, in 2008/09 the School launched a webpage on student representation, where minutes of staff-student liaison committee meetings are available.
2 Responses from outwith the School of History, Classics and Archaeology
15 The review team recommends that a continuing professional development programme for PG tutors would not only assist their development and enhance the quality of their teaching, but would help provide documented standardised evidence for tutors to use in applying for the next stage in their careers. This recommendation may benefit from being taken forward at the University level. (para 3.39)
Response from Dr Richard Williams, CHSS Dean of PG Studies:
CHSS is well aware of the issues surrounding professional development, and is in fact acting on them in the present session. Its programme of Career Development Studentships, due to be rolled out in the 2010/11 session, is designed to provide funded students with a coherent plan of work experience, with training provided by TLA or its equivalent.
The implementation of the new programme will very likely lead to a wider provision of resources for professional training in the medium term.
Response from Dr Miesbeth Knottenbelt, Development Officer, Centre for Teaching, Learning & Assessment, Higher & Community Education:
It has been TLA's business to encourage the establishment of basic support for tutors and demonstrators locally in Schools, in line with the Code of Practice on Tutoring and Demonstrating, which firmly puts the responsibility for supporting tutors and demonstrators in local hands. It is my understanding that we had indeed successfully initiated this process also in your school.
Alongside this basic local support, the TLA Centre Orientation courses for tutors are intended to provide back-up for tutors who cannot access their local support, and we have taken in tutors from your school alongside others into these courses on these terms.
As far as further development of teaching is concerned for tutors who are especially interested and experienced, the TLA Centre has set up a further two courses that run towards the end of the first semester, for the second year running. More interested and experienced tutors from all schools in the university are welcome to sign up for these courses to continue their professional development beyond the basics.
Apart from this face-to-face support, we have also compiled a large online resource for tutors mounted in WebCT.
The main reference point for detailed information about all our provision (courses and resources) for tutors and demonstrators is our TLA Centre webpages at:
29 The review team recommends that the detail to be included in the grade descriptors be debated at the School, College and University level. (para 4.10)
See also above, for School response.
Architecture
School of Arts, Culture and Environment
University of Edinburgh
Response to Teaching Programme Review, March 2009
We were delighted to host the TPR team in the then Department of Architecture, particularly as we were about to implement a complex and far-reaching restructuring of our programmes under the auspices of the SFC-funded ‘Project for the Alignment of Architectural Education in East Central Scotland’. We appreciated the broadening of the conventional TPR remit to include the prospective dimensions of this project. The TPR contributed positively to our reflection on existing programmes, and to our planning for what has now emerged as the Edinburgh School of Architecture & Landscape Architecture (ESALA).
In summary we note that all of the commendations pertain to our existing provision, and that a number of recommendations pertain to the new ESALA project
The Architecture community in the School of Arts Culture & Environment – academic and administrative staff and students – appreciate the generous commendations relating to: the commitment and dedication of staff, the research-led teaching, the excellence of our facilities, the commitment of technical support staff, the strategic use of one-to-one teaching.
With regard to the report’s recommendations, we outline our responses as follows:
8.16 The Review Team recommends that the Edinburgh School of Architecture explicitly includes students as partners in the creation of the ESA.
Student involvement in the ESALA project has been prioritized. A number of mechanisms have been implemented to this end: focus group meetings, staff-student liaison committee meetings (currently separate, but to be combined in coming years), inclusion of students on key ESALA committees, and a student-focussed website (). Student societies, supported financially and in-kind, are active in both partner institutions, and plan to combine activities and constitutions in the coming years.
8.17 The Team recommends that the Edinburgh School of Architecture manages the change processes involved in its creation in a way which is student / learner focussed.
A number of meetings with student groups have been held, and more are planned, regarding the development of ESALA. Student representatives have also been invited to sit on key ESALA committees.
8.18 The Review Team recommends that every effort is made to maintain the level and quality of facilities and working space for students, particularly in the first critical years of operation of the new ESA and pending a decision from SFC on future buildings provision.
This remains a priority for ESALA and will be written into the school’s Strategic Plan. Current discussions on estate proposals for ESALA have taken account of the existing workshop and studio space provision.
8.19 It recommends that attention is given to how best to manage student expectations in relation to two different sets of arrangements regarding access to some of the technical facilities.
Detailed handbooks and induction sessions have been held for all ESALA students, and these have paid particular attention to the workshop and technical facilities at both campuses.
8.20 The Review Team recommends that the Edinburgh School of Architecture should use Director of Studies arrangements to help ensure integration of the new intake from 2009-10.
The Director of Studies system has been adopted by ESALA
8.21 The Review Team recommends that the Edinburgh School of Architecture monitors closely the experience of its first cohort.
We have implemented a series of focus group meetings – in addition to the DoS system – conducted by two academic staff. These groups have functioned very well to date, and will be sustained for the foreseeable future.
8.22 The Team recommends the need for the Edinburgh School of Architecture to strengthen the existing support provided to new first year intake, recognising the pivotal importance of that experience of this year to the reputation of the ESA over its first few, critical years.
In addition to the focus groups and DoS system, the teaching support in first year has been improved with the appointment of Teaching Assistants (TAs) in studio- and lecture-based courses. A consistent system of tutorial support – set at a ratio of 1:15 – has been implemented across all courses, and has worked well to date.
8.23 The Review Team recommends that the Edinburgh School of Architecture consider the use of formative assessment and feedback, particularly in first year.
Formative assessment and verbal and written feedback has been written into the pedagogy of new programmes.
8.24 The Review Team recommends that the Edinburgh School of Architecture should consider reviewing or adjusting admissions procedure to give some attention to candidates' creativity in visual media.
Our current admissions policy is regarded as being very effective with consistently high-calibre intake that performs well in the undergraduate programmes. While the question of supplementary admissions procedures has been mooted from time to time, we have concluded that the additional administrative complexities are not warranted given the standard of current intakes.
8.25 The team recommends that the Edinburgh School of Architecture should consider ways in which to extend existing work in widening participation
ESALA has recently worked with the University’s widening access team to developed an architectural strand to their successful Pathways to the Professions programme. We are aware of the particular difficulties of widening access for the discipline of architecture, and will build on our existing efforts in the new ESALA context. We would note that our existing programme was referred to positively in the professional press earlier this year:
8.26 The Review Team recommends that the Edinburgh School of Architecture consider embedding e-Learning across the curricula, building on existing good practice.
E-learning is an area that we have sought to develop through the adoption of the Web-CT platform across the whole of ESALA. We have also developed more specialised e-learning packages in particular subject areas such as Technology & Environment, and the Part 3 professional development programmes. We have also developed distance learning postgraduate programmes with Heriot Watt University. These involve an e-learning component that will provide useful input into this developing area. We plan to establish an e-learning committee to ensure that policy, funding and development in the area of e-learning is co-ordinated across ESALA.
8.27 The Team recommends that the Edinburgh School of Architecture keeps Quality Assurance & Enhancement arrangements under review in order to ensure manageability.
The QAA arrangements for ESALA have been devised but have yet to be tested. This is an area of concern for us in ESALA as many details of the system as originally devised have been refined and negotiated over the past Semester. We have observed the eca exam board in action at the last diet, and this has helped with diagnosing potential difficulties in our hybrid system. We will review the QAA arrangements following each of the exam boards in the coming year.
8.28 The Review Team recommends that consideration be given as a matter of priority to the development of explicit structures for financial management and resource allocation to, and within, the ESA.
The governance structures, including the financial management, of ESALA have been outlined and are operational. The appointment of an ESALA Director will clarify these arrangements.
8.29 The Review Team recommends that the Edinburgh School of Architecture explore ways in which to make it visible and outward looking.
Since the TPR, ESALA now has a joint web-presence – esala.ac.uk -- and has instituted a series of launch events:
1. November: Geddes Honorary Professorial Fellowship lecture, Malcolm Fraser, 'The Integrity of the City', Informatics Forum, 5th November
2. November: An academic conference on the theme of Fieldwork in the architecture, landscape architecture and the creative arts, featuring over 80 international and national speakers from diverse fields -- art, anthropology, geography, architecture, urbanism, landscape architecture. This was hosted conjunction with the Architectural Humanities Research Association (AHRA).
3. December: Architecture & Work, Journal Launch
4. January: Nicolas Grimshaw (London based architect) -- exhibition and seminar
5. February: Peter Eisenman and Cynthia Davidson (New York based architects and publishers) – lectures, workshops and reviews
6. March: Postgraduate Conference
The first launch event had an audience of 200+ which included many leading figures in Edinburgh’s business, conservation and planning communities. The event was positively reported in the press:
The launch event programme and branding of ESALA is supported by Marketing and Communications teams at the University and eca. ESALA has a clear vision to connect with local, national and international communities and will build on this vision in practical ways in the coming years.
8.30 The Team recommends the development of a communication strategy to share and promote the vision, brand and contribution of ESA.
ESALA now has a new committee structure that will be central to the management of the school and will aid communication. As noted above, ESALA is working with the Communications and Marketing teams at the University and eca on this aspect of our operations. Following the TPR, we instituted ESALA-wide staff and UG/PG student e-mail addresses, a wiki for committee minutes and related documents, the public facing website – esala.ac.uk -- and a student-oriented blog site – . We will continue to build on these initiatives.
8.31 Finally, the Review Team recommends that the strategic and operational plans for the creation of the new School are more widely shared with appropriate internal and external stakeholders.
Strategic and Operational Plans for ESALA were presented in draft from to the TPR as they were still being negotiated at the time. We have now planned a series of staff Forums and an Away Day in February 2010 with the view to formalising our Strategic and Operational Plans.Response from Alan Ducklin, CHSS Associate Dean (Quality Assurance and Enhancement):
This was discussed in both the College Postgraduate Committee and the Undergraduate Committee this week [October 2009] (first meetings of each committee this session) and is being looked at College-wide… The TPR has, therefore, usefully raised an issue for consideration which has wider implications than in Archaeology and warrants broader consideration therefore.
I hope that this is a useful indication of the importance attached to the issue raised in the TPR.
As noted in the TPR comment it will be desirable also that consideration be given to this in the appropriate Senatus Committees also.
Follow-up response, forwarded by Tom Ward, CHSS:
As part of the implementation of the Curriculum Project, the College encouraged Schools to develop their own grade descriptors to complement the University's formal grade descriptors for the Extended Common Marking Scheme. At its meeting in October 2009, the College Undergraduate Studies Committee agreed to review Schools’ grade descriptors to consider whether they remain appropriate and to allow Schools to learn from the approaches taken by other Schools. The Committee plans to undertake this review at its meeting on 19 November 2009. The College Postgraduate Studies Committee has also recently discussed the issue of grade descriptors.
Professor TM Devine OBE DLitt FRSE HonMRIA FBA
Head of School
School of History, Classics and Archaeology
October 2009
Response to Archaeology TPR (2009), October 2009 14
The University of Edinburgh
Teaching Programme Review
Music: School of Arts, Culture and Environment
20-21 October 2008
The School welcomes the review team’s confidence in the quality of academic standards and of teaching, learning and assessment in Music, and of the quality of the student experience. We welcome the recognition of the excellent quality of the learning and teaching provision, the positive and dynamic atmosphere in Music and its engaging and inspiring teaching. Colleagues found the review to be positive and have noted the report’s helpful contents, commendations and recommendations. We include here the Schools responses to specific recommendations.
Response to Recommendations
8.24 The review team recommends that the Music management team give thought to the optimum strategic partnerships for the discipline both within the University of Edinburgh and externally. [3.2]
Plans for strategic partnerships are being developed in line with School policy with particular reference to our work on music and the moving image, and possibilities of partnership within the School (with Sound Design/Architecture), within the College (through the newly established Centre for Film, Performance and Media Arts), and with Edinburgh College of Art (ECA). To this end we have appointed a new lecturer with an expertise in composition for the screen.
8.25 The team recommends that the University examine the balance between the needs of research and teaching in its current staffing strategy. [3.3]
This recommendation pertains mainly to relationships with Physics. Music is continuing its discussions with staff in Physics about continuity of staffing, and is looking at alternative arrangements with other institutions, and syllabus adjustments, in the event that provision for acoustics teaching is no longer available in Physics.
8.26 It is recommended that any development of the Music Technology provision take into account the changes in musical skills being taught at secondary level. [3.5]
We are aware of the implications of the reorganisation of the secondary school music curriculum, particularly in Scotland but also in England and Wales, and are in continuing dialogue with music teachers at both an individual level and through the collective activities of Scottish university music departments in talking to teachers and the SQA. Our policy is to remain committed to the expectations of musical literacy in our incoming students as necessary for both the distinctive quality of the Edinburgh degree and in solidarity with teachers endeavouring to maintain these standards in their teaching.
8.27 It is recommended that Music consider the introduction of an undergraduate programme in Intercultural Music. [3.5]
We have considered the introduction of an undergraduate programme in Intercultural Music but concluded that this is not feasible with present staffing level and expertise. We would, of course, be happy to keep this under review as resources allow.
8.28 It is recommended that Music make explicit its four key research areas which inform undergraduate teaching. [3.6]
Music will make explicit its key research areas in departmental documentation that informs undergraduate teaching such as the handbooks.
8.29 In terms of developing the research strategy it is recommended that Music build its strategy out of its areas of strength which are productive in research and distinctive and interesting in undergraduate teaching [3.6]
Music will continue to build its research strategy out of areas of strength that are productive in research and distinctive and interesting in undergraduate teaching and to reflect on the relationship between key research areas and teaching.
8.30 In the context of possible expansion of degree provision it is recommended that Music consider whether existing areas should be strengthened: ethnomusicology within the broad musicological/historical strand is seen by the review team as important for an expansion into Intercultural Music. [3.6]
See 8.26, 8.27 responses.
8.31 Reflection on the relationship between key research areas and teaching is recommended as a means of defining a departmental vision for teaching. [3.6]
See 8.29 response.
8.32 While acknowledging that possible future funding is actively under discussion, the review team recommends that in the light of the importance of these collections [St Cecilia’s Hall museum of Instruments and the Reid Concert Hall Museum of Instruments] and their curatorial resource to the review area, Music should make a case for proleptic funding of a curatorial post with teaching responsibilities and potentially a research specialism in Early Music. [3.8]
The future of the curatorial/teaching resources of the instrument collections is primarily the responsibility of Library/Collections and has been resolved in the short term by the continuing appointment of Arnold Myers. Longer term solutions are under active discussion.
8.33 It is recommended that Music seeks to derive further value from [away day events] by summarising the outcomes and feeding them into subsequent strategic discussions between away day events. [3.9]
Music will ensure that outcomes from departmental away days are properly recorded and fed into subsequent strategic discussions.
8.34 It is recommended that Music carries out a strategic review of the purpose, intended audience, pricing policy, and publicity and marketing strategy for the Lunchtime Concert series, potentially drawing on expertise within the University via the Business School. [3.10]
We take this recommendation to imply that the concert series be promoted to students as useful in their learning. We have initiated a review of concert policy, publicity and profile (which also takes account of music events such as Dialogues and Soundings), and we will consider how this relates to student learning.
8.35 It is recommended that Music considers the potential of a higher profile curated [concert] series in attracting sponsorship and raising the profile of University music within the city [3.10]
See 8.34 response.
8.36 If progress is made in [the] dialogue [with schools and with the school-level curriculum development process], it is recommended that the methods, routes and measures adopted be disseminated widely across the university to address similar issues elsewhere. [3.11]
Dialogue with schools and the SQA is ongoing and if the outcome is successful we will certainly disseminate our experience with this across the university (and see response to 8.26).
8.37 it is recommended that the review area consider how to encourage greater awareness in Music students of the opportunities of the wider University so as to mitigate any potential insularity. [4.2]
We are pleased that the strong sense of identity exhibited by students no longer inhibits their ability to participate in the University’s range of course offerings.On the evidence of their wide range of activities (musical and otherwise) our students well aware of the opportunities of the wider University.
8.38 In the light of the range of musical skill sets of potential applicants it is recommended that the review area consider ways in which entrants might provide evidence of appropriate musicianship skills equivalent to the current keyboard skills requirement. [4.3]
We continue to consider ways in which entrants might provide evidence of the required musicianship skills equivalent to the current keyboard skills requirement, though we have not yet found a satisfactory solution to this that can be generalised beyond the occasional special individual case.
8.39 The review team recommends that the review area make representations to the SQA, in particular regarding the skill set with which students are equipped in Higher and Advanced Higher qualifications. [4.4]
See 8.36 response.
8.40 The review team recommends that Music considers the pace at which elements such as harmony and figured bass are taught in the pre-Honours years. [4.4]
We have considered the pace at which such elements as harmony and figured bass are taught in pre-honours years and consulted with our external examiners. We are satisfied with present arrangements but will keep them under review.
8.41 The review team recommends that Music embraces the practical implications of the curriculum framework for Project Weeks, and launches them afresh to the student body with particular emphasis on their purpose and place within the curriculum. [4.6]
We have refreshed our provision of Project weeks making clear to students their place and purpose in the curriculum.
8.42 The review team recommends that Music consider the feasibility of re-locating the Research Methods course to Year 2, while taking into account the already full pre-Honours curriculum. [4.7]
We are actively considering the feasibility of relocating the Research Methods course to Year 2, although this raises problems for the existing pre-honours curriculum which may not be resolvable.
8.43 It is recommended that the Centre for Teaching, Learning and Assessment discuss with Music how to provide courses which meet the needs of Music tutoring staff. [4.8]
We will take forward discussions on potential tailored induction training for Music tutors with the new, consolidated, Institute for Academic Development early in 2010.
8.44 It is recommended that as an immediate step Music identify key rooms in which high quality speakers and a piano would provide maximum benefit, and present a case to the relevant budget holder. [4.10]
Music agrees that Alison House is not fit for purpose as a building for the department’s teaching developments and is fully supporting the School/College/University’s present explorations of the possibility of a new building. The School and College have also made a major investment (supported by Music) in studio facilities in the Reid Hall, which will be valuable for teaching purposes. In the short term key rooms in Alison House are adequate in terms of piano/sound provision; problems of sound provision in the Reid are the responsibility of MALTS, and we will raise this issue with them.
8.45 In the medium to longer term, it is recommended that group listening space and speaker quality are specified by Music in identification of facilities requirements.
[4.10]
See 8.44 response.
8.46 It is recommended that the review area consider its estates and facilities requirements as part of its consideration of longer term strategic academic partnerships. [4.11]
See 8.44 response.
8.47 It is further recommended that the review area:-
a) Consider the strategic relationships with other schools in the College that are most critical to the development of teaching and research in Music, aiming to inform a plan for re-location and possible co-location.
b) Identify, in conjunction with the College and the Estates and Buildings department, the medium to long term physical requirements of Music and how these can be achieved within the University’s estates strategy. [4.11]
See 8.44 response
8.48 It is recommended that Music reviews the interaction between room booking policy and course requirements for students. [4.12]
This comment about room booking seems to relate specifically to the use of St Cecilia’s. We have reviewed the situation and can confirm that there is inevitablysometimes pressure on this space when it is being used for rehearsals/concerts, but the present booking system seems to work efficiently as a way of rationing use fairly.
8.49 The review team recommends that the needs of Music students [in access to practice rooms] should be prioritised by a number of steps: an increase in the annual permit fee for non-Music students; longer opening hours, facilitated by the recent installation of swipe card entry to Alison House; and advance booking slots, potentially prioritised for Music students, to allow forward planning. [4.13]
Music, in consultation with students, continuously monitor the use of practice rooms and adjust permit fees, opening hours and booking arrangements as recommended.
8.50 It is recommended that the Library make all efforts to maximise the on-line availability of music within its collections. [4.14]
The library, in consultation with Music, is currently calculating the full-economic cost of this procedure, looking at possible sources of funds, and are conducting a feasibility study that involves the digitization of a small set of high-use CDs.
8.51 It is recommended that the Library carry out an examination of the detailed customer needs of Music students and staff for implementation as resources allow. [4.14]
This mainly pertains to the lending of music CDs and scores. Music is consulting its undergraduates on their attitude to lending CDs to undergraduates.
8.52 The review team recommends that Music include library and on-line resources in its thinking about strategic partnerships and estates and facilities requirements.
[4.14]
Music is presently actively collaborating with the library in developing the online provision of musical resources.
8.53 It is recommended that Music consider the feasibility of giving students some recognition of extra curricular performance activities, while acknowledging the laudable desire not to absorb everything into a ‘credit-bearing’ culture. [4.16]
Students are given recognition of extra curricular performance activities through a number of (monetary) prizes awarded at the end of each year.
8.54 It is recommended that the review area introduce back-up cover for the Student Support Officer, potentially in collaboration with the School-level administration. [5.2]
The School of Arts, Culture and Environment is currently considering the matter of developing cover for the Student Support Officer role.
8.55 The review area suggests, and the review team concurs and recommends for consideration by the Disability Office in discussion with Schools, that the administrative load on academic staff could be further eased by transferring the responsibilities of the Co-ordinator of Adjustments to administrative staff. [5.4]
The School has initiated discussion with the Disability Office, in liaison with other Schools, on the desirability of having administrative Co-ordinators of Adjustments.
8.56 In order to allow full participation of academic staff in Board of Examiners meetings it is recommended that Music support staff take on administrative tasks wherever possible, particularly the minuting of meetings. [6.2]
Music support staff do take on appropriate administrative tasks for the Board of Examiners, including minuting. It is important that academic staff have responsibility for the final marks recorded.
8.57 It is recommended that Music consider introducing revision sessions in Semester 2 covering material taught in Semester 1. [6.4]
Music has considered introducing revision sessions in Semester 2 covering material taught in Semester 1, but given the wide range of students taking these courses (which are not confined to music students) this has proven to be unfeasible in timetabling terms. We are, rather, making use of WebCT in semester 2 to provide sample exam papers and guides to revision.
8.58 It is recommended that Music consider examining subjects such as Acoustics, which are entirely new to students, at the end of Semester 1. [6.4]
Music has considered examining new subjects such as Acoustics at the end of Semester 1 (and will keep this under review) but presently our feeling is that students benefit from consolidating their knowledge in the second semester exam.
8.59 It is recommended that Music consider how some areas of the programmes, such as Project Weeks, could be explicitly recognised and valued, potentially through their inclusion in students’ Personal Development Plans. [6.5]
Music will certainly ensure that Project Week learning is recognised in students’ Personal Development Plans while remaining fully committed to the weeks as providing students an opportunity to learn in an environment in which assessment is not an issue.
8.60 The review team recommends that in order further to enhance its feedback to students Music monitor the use of pro formas, in particular the variability in depth and detail of individual textual comments from different markers, and produces criteria for continuous assessment. [6.6]
Music (like other subject areas in the School) is involved in continuous reflection on and assessment of our feedback mechanisms, including the use of pro formas and criteria for continuous assessment. With assistance from TLA the School recently conducted a highly informative consultation lunch with undergraduate students on the issue of feedback. Music students were very well represented, and discussions are ongoing.
8.61 It is recommended that Music make explicit its teaching practices which follow the College Learning and Teaching Strategy and subsequently take every opportunity to use the College strategy for guidance. [7.4]
Music will share its best teaching practices within the School and outside as the opportunity arises, and will continue to take every opportunity to use the College Learning and Teaching Strategy for guidance. (Amended 12 January 2010 SF and RC )
School of History, Classics, and Archaeology
Formal response to History Teaching Programme Review
The School of History, Classics, and Archaeology welcomes the positive and supportive report of the TPR reviewers.
Commendations
The School is extremely heartened by the 25 issues that the Review Team singled out for commendation:
7.1 The review team commends the School for its open, reflective and forward-looking approach to the TPR and the quality of the Analytical Report (para 3.2)
7.2 The review team commends the quality, enthusiasm and commitment of the academic staff which was evident throughout the Review visit. (para 3.4)
7.3 In particular it commends the School’s commitment to research led teaching. (para 3.5)
7.4 The review team commends the quality of the part-time staff and tutors. (para 3.6)
7.5 The review team commends the School’s induction of new members of academic staff into their teaching duties and the supportive and welcoming environment created for these staff. (para 3.7)
7.6 The review team commends the histories for their international scope and range of courses, in particular the close links which Economic and Social History enjoys with economics and the social sciences and the wide international coverage in these courses. (para 3.8)
7.7 The review team commends the quality of the teaching administrative staff. (para 3.9)
7.8 The team commends the commitment of the School to fund the librarianship position, given the testing financial climate that prevails. (para 3.10)
7.9 The team commends the School’s recent appointment of a School UG administrator. (para 3.11)
7.10 The team commends the appointment of the School E-learning and Web Development Officer. (para 3.12)
7.11 The team commends the initiative of the Student Support Office to maintain contact with students during their year abroad. (para 3.13)
7.12 The review team had been asked to consider the extent to which History had taken advantage of the wider community of Classicists and Archaeology within the School and the potential opportunities ahead arising from the co-location of the School. The team commends the School on achieving collaboration on the pre-honours courses. (para 3.15)
7.13 The review team commends the high quality and diversity of the students and the standard of their work. (para 4.3)
7.14 The review team commends the good work of the Senior Director of Studies in providing guidance and information to other DoSs. (para 4.4)
7.15 The team commends the setting up of the Student Support Office and the valuable role played by the team in providing advice to students. (para 4.5)
7.16 The review team commends the provision of comprehensive course booklets which provided detailed information on Learning Outcomes and assessment for each course. (para 5.2)
7.17 The review team commends the University on its investment in investment in the relocation and intention of creating an integrated community of scholars. (para 5.3)
7.18 The review team commends the histories for their diverse modes of teaching. (para 5.5)
7.19 The review team commends the quality and innovation of some courses across the Histories. (para 5.6)
7.20 The area of Economic and Social History is commended for its use of clear milestones for students completing their dissertation. (para 5.10)
7.21 The team commends the School on undertaking the internal review process following the increase in the number of the School’s subject areas. (para 5.11)
7.22 The team commends the School for its participation in the Careers Service Framework. (para 5.13)
7.23 The review team commends the willingness of the PG tutors to provide one to one feedback to students. (para 6.1)
7.24 The review team commends the decision to start profiling of marks and to make this available to the students once agreement has been reached on when this will start. para 6.3)
7.25 The review commends the histories on the development of a very thorough workload model. (para 6.5)
Recommendations
These are the responses to the Review team’s recommendations
The Quality of Teaching Provision and Student Learning Experience
7.26 The review team recommends that the Subject Areas should make further efforts to share best practice across all the histories (para 3.4)
The remit of the School UG Studies Committee includes the promotion of sharing good practice across the School. During 2008/09 the range of teaching and learning issues considered by the Committee has included assessment, feedback (including examination feedback), eLearning, and how we respond to student opinion about our courses.
To foster School-wide discussion of these issues and to share ideas, the School UG Studies Committee has launched a series of development and good practice sessions in the School and will continue to offer such sessions. Assessment, feedback, and eLearning have been the themes to date.
We hope that the creation of an amalgamated History subject area will greatly facilitate and promote shared practice among the School’s historians.
7.27 The review team recommends that the School consider creating a central Teaching Organisation office (para 3.9)
The development of an integrated School undergraduate teaching office has been a stated aim of the School for some time. The appointment of a School UG Administrator in January 2008, with specific responsibility to support such a development, was an early step towards this goal.
Whilst progress has already been made to bring the School UG staff together as a team and to harmonise procedures where appropriate, the goal will not be fully realised until all UG staff are brought together in the new office within the School’s new premises in 2010.
7.28 The review team recommends that the existence of the School Librarian and the services that are offered are publicised more widely to students so as to maximise what is an increasingly valuable resource as e-resources in history grow in volume and importance in the curriculum (para 3.10)
The School Academic Liaison Librarian has recently moved office to be within the ‘hub’ of the School in the William Robertson Building. Her new location is noted on the School Contact List webpage and plans are in hand to promote services available in a number of ways, namely: creating a webpage for library support on the School website, adding information to course and programme handbooks and using designated noticeboard space to promote library services.
During 2008-2009 a number of library resource sessions have been held by the School Librarian. It is intended to increase the number of these subject-specific information literacy sessions and also the more generic library induction sessions for Freshers from next semester.
The School Librarian has become a member of both the School UG and School PG Studies Committees.
7.29 The team recommends that the histories explore possible solutions to the issue of large class sizes at honours level, recognising that this involves some difficult choices about resource allocation but noting the importance of this issue to student satisfaction (para 3.14)
Following the report of the School Review Group (January 2009) and the agreement to amalgamate the three histories into one subject area from August 2009, workload across the School has been agreed as a high priority for the Implementation Group which will take forward the Review Group’s recommendations. The new Head of History will consider workload in relation to the History subject area specifically, in liaison with the new Deputy Head of School. In the shorter term, the Head of School has also identified the issue as one of high priority for the current School Management Group to address, and he has established a working party to develop recommendations for SMG to consider.
A change to the methodology for allocating students to history honours courses was proposed and agreed at School Management Group in February 2009, and will be applied for 2009/10. It should facilitate more effective management of honours class sizes. There was agreement that 3/4 options should have a maximum of 20 (plus VUGs) and 4MA courses should have a maximum of 16 (subject to college approval). The new History subject area plans to keep this matter under review, considering how best to use available resources in ensuring that class sizes are appropriate to learning/teaching goals and strategies. The avoidance of large tutorial and seminar groups is essential for the successful pursuit of our courses’ intended learning outcomes, and we wish to achieve smaller-sized classes.
7.30 The team recommends the School seeks further opportunities for collaboration on honours courses between all existing components of the School to increase the choice of courses available to History students and ease imbalances in workload (para 3.15)
Following the report of the School Review Group (January 2009) and the agreement to amalgamate the three histories into one subject area from August 2009, it is anticipated that opportunities for further collaboration between all history staff will be enhanced.
Early examples include:
• the School UG Board of Studies’ approval in October 2008 of a new programme: MA Scottish History and Economic and Social History
• the School UG Board of Studies’ approval in January 2009 of the cross-listing of 11 history honours options for students on Scottish History programmes.
A further example of cross-School collaboration can be seen in the School UG Board of Studies’ approval in October 2008 of a new programme: MA History and Archaeology. A proposal for a new programme MA Scottish History and Archaeology is also under discussion.
The School Review Group report also recommended the appointment of a School UG Honours Convener to explore, in consultation with the three School subject area heads, ways in which honours students in History, Classics and Archaeology might be given the opportunity to take courses from across all three subject areas. It is anticipated that this work will be undertaken in 2009/10 for implementation in 2010/11.
Additionally, the exercise to migrate all degree programme tables to the EUCLID system will require consideration of all lists of course options open to students on School programmes. Opportunities will be taken to ensure that these lists are as comprehensive as possible, with proposals for amendments presented at School UG Board of Studies for approval.
The College’s Learning and Teaching Strategy recommends the expansion of team-teaching beyond pre-honours courses to include honours courses, too. The histories’ key innovation in this area involves History in Practice and History in Theory, both of which include contributions from many of the School’s historians. The School UG Board of Studies will welcome any further proposals for team-taught honours courses.
7.31 The team recommends that the layout of the new building includes common staff and administration areas for the whole School which should further increase collaboration between Subject Areas (para 3.15)
See also 7.40
The plans for the West Wing include many common staff and administration areas which we hope will further increase collaboration between Subject Areas: Staffroom: this will be the only staff room in the building, and without space for separate subject area, administrative, tutor or Honorary Fellow staff rooms we hope that this will become the main hub for staff and tutors from all over the School. This room will be the main pick up and drop off point for mail with the aim of providing just one ‘driver’ for staff to frequent the staff room. The room will have full kitchen and refreshment facilities and it will be wireless, but also with some in situ shared computing facilities such as computers with scanners. There will be a variety of comfortable seating and tabled areas designed to encourage staff to relax and take time out together or to hold informal meetings and ‘breakout’ groups. The staff room will be used for functions such as the School Christmas party or start of year welcome party.
School UG Teaching Office: see also 7.27. All UG administrative support staff will work together in one large office. Whilst individual staff will retain responsibility for specific courses and/or programmes, working together will increase the opportunities for sharing good practice across the subject areas, for increasing awareness of activity across the School and for providing consistent levels of support to students and staff.
School Student Support Office: This dedicated office will be situated close to the entrance, to maximise accessibility for students and staff across the whole School. It will offer a supportive and private environment appropriate to its guidance function.
School Administrative Offices: All Postgraduate, Research, Finance and Resource and other School support offices will be centralised (as they are now) which provides common support services for all staff, students and tutors.
Honorary Fellows Room: This room will provide common working space for all of the School’s Honorary Fellows.
2nd mezzanine/3rd floor: a Library/Exhibition/ Study Space on the 2nd mezzanine and 3rd floors are linked by a spiral staircase. The 3rd floor room in particular has a flexible layout and will be used for events and social gatherings.
It has been agreed in principle that on each of the 1st, 1st mezzanine, 2nd and 2nd mezzanine floors there will be informal staff/student meeting and study spaces; the final layout of these spaces has still to be decided.
Standards: Student Progression and Achievement
7.32 The review team recommends that the histories clarify exactly how students meet the benchmark statements with regard to geographic and chronological coverage for each degree programme and in each year of study (para 4.2)
The review area proposes to deal with recommendations 7.32 and 7.33 together, as follows:
The School UG Studies Committee intends to establish a History subgroup to consider the benchmark statements and progression, on behalf of the newly amalgamated History subject area. The subgroup will seek advice of colleagues and will report its findings to the History subject area and School UGSC during session 2009/10.
7.33 It further recommends the histories clarify progression at all levels in terms of meeting intended Learning Outcomes in order to assist students to more easily monitor their academic development and see the coherence of their programme of study (para 4.2)
See 7.32
7.34 The team recommends that the Student Support Office track movements of students between DoS’s and return a student to their original DoS once a sabbatical is ended. (para 4.4)
The School Student Support Office has undertaken this responsibility since it was established in August 2007. We consider the goal to be a priority in the allocation of students to Directors. There have been problems of implementation, however.
It should be acknowledged that there are occasions when it is unavoidable for a student to be reallocated to a new DoS: when staff leave the School, for instance.
The School is currently awaiting the outcome of the University’s review of the student guidance system and will review its own roles and procedures in the light of the University’s recommendations.
7.35 The team recommends clarifying the division of roles of the Director of Studies and the Student Support Office and ensuring that the distinction is communicated to students and the students have a clear view of how to access the support services they need within the School. (para 4.5)
On the introduction of the Student Support Office, we assembled and distributed a list of the SSO’s responsibilities and those of the Director of Studies.
There are occasions when students are given the clear guidance to contact their DoS: at the start of 1st or 2nd years to discuss and agree course choices are examples.
Apart from these occasions, in general, students are informed and encouraged to contact the Student Support Office as the first point of contact for help or advice with issues relating to their programme of studies. The SSO can determine whether they can deal with the student directly, or whether to refer them to their DoS. This does not, however, prevent students from contacting their DoS directly.
Given the ad hoc nature of student circumstances throughout their academic career, it is very difficult to establish rigid rules by which students should contact the SSO or their DoS
The School is currently awaiting the outcome of the University’s review of the student guidance system and will review its own roles and procedures in the light of the University’s recommendations. It is likely that this review will involve a redefinition of the roles of Directors and the Student Support Office.
7.36 One of the concerns of the School was the bureaucracy and constraints imposed by College on changing assessment practices. The review team recommends that colleagues in the histories take a positive and proactive approach towards making changes (para 4.6)
We welcome this observation, and we plan to respond positively to these opportunities. The School UG Director has sought further guidance from College. As a result he is encouraging colleagues across the School, via the School UG Studies Committee, to consider their courses’ assessment methods. Committee members are endeavouring to promote an environment of proactive innovation in this area within the School.
To achieve this goal, the School UG Studies Committee has offered a number of development and good practice sessions in the School during semester 2 and will continue to offer these in 2009/10. Assessment was the first and key theme of this initiative to date.
The School UG Board of Studies has approved new procedures for the amendment of existing courses, intended to simplify the process for course organisers and to promote discussion of assessment within subject areas
The first results are in place, though as yet these involve relatively few of the School’s courses. In January 2009 the Board of Studies approved the first history honours course to vary the assessment methods from the norm. Three other honours courses have now also completed plans for the assessment of non-written skills for the next academic session. Two of these courses will assess group-work as well as individual presentations and classroom participation.
As the TPR report notes, a greater degree of innovation already exists at the pre-honours level, and this innovation continues. In semester 2 of 2008/09 another pre-honours course developed a new assessment model, involving the assessment of group-work as well as individual assignments and an examination.
7.37 The review team recommends the School reviews the relationships between the programmes and the structure of each programme to see if a more balanced distribution can be achieved while taking account of the needs of the students (para 4.7)
Balance of this kind will be a key concern of the new History subject area.
The report of the School Review Group (January 2009), recommended the appointment of a School UG Sub-honours Convener, to work in consultation with the School UG Director and the Head of History to propose a more integrated sub-honours curriculum. It is anticipated that this work will be undertaken during 2009/10 for implementation in 2010/11.
See also 7.30, above
Sharing of Good Practice: Quality Enhancement
7.39 The team recommends the histories consider providing Programme Level Handbooks for first and second year students which would allow the generic information on areas such as plagiarism, special needs, roles of the Director of Studies etc. to be moved from the course handbooks into programme level handbooks (para 5.2)
Following the report of the School Review Group (Jan 2009) and the agreement to amalgamate the three histories into one subject area from August 2009, the course and programme information provided to students is under review.
The review area recognises the importance of providing generic information to students as efficiently and consistently as possible and will explore the opportunities available to rationalise this information and provide it electronically as well as in hard copy.
However, in view of the high numbers of students from other Schools and programmes taking history pre-honours courses (and in some cases honours courses) as outside subjects, it will be important to ensure that they, too, can access relevant course information and it is not only available through programme information.
7.41 The review team recommends the appointment of a full-time move co-ordinator from within the staff at the School to ease and negotiate the transition to the new building (para 5.4)
The West Wing Project budget will pay for a ‘Move Manager’, but the appointee will not be a School staff member as this is a specialist service normally provided externally.
The School will need to co-ordinate with the Move Manager and in the year prior to the move and in the months following the move there will be a considerable job to be done in working closely with the project team, making local arrangements for the move and dealing with issues arising when we move in.
The School does not and will not have additional resource to employ a dedicated full-time move co-ordinator and unless the University or College can assist us to provide this additional resource, these jobs will have to be carried out by existing administrative and support staff in addition to their regular workload. There is very limited scope for re-allocation of duties to free up staff time, again due to limited resources.
The School would therefore welcome any resource that either the University or College could provide for this crucial assistance.
7.42 The team recommends the School creates a School-wide teaching and learning forum to foster a more proactive culture of sharing of good practice in teaching, learning and assessment from inside and outside the School and encourage the piloting of innovation (para 5.5)
The remit of the School UG Studies Committee includes the promotion of sharing good practice across the School.
The School UG Director, with the support of the School UG Studies Committee, has launched a continuing series of development and good practice sessions in the School. Assessment and feedback have been the themes to date. Support has also been offered to the School eLearning Officer for sessions offered relating to eLearning and intellectual property. These sessions have featured contributions from colleagues outside as well as within the School, and it is hoped in future to invite speakers on occasion from other universities.
As mentioned in 7.36, as a result of this initiative, four honours courses are introducing new forms of assessment for 2009/10.
7.43 The Review Team recommends that such creativity in curriculum design and delivery (History in Theory, History in Practice, Economic & Social History 2 and American History ) is encouraged and extended so as to maximise the quality of the student learning experience (para 5.6)
The Review Area is grateful to the TPR team for acknowledging curricular creativity. Support to colleagues who wish to build on such examples will continue to be made available through the new History subject area, the School UG Studies Committee and the School UG Board of Studies.
7.44 The review team recommends the development of a School Learning and Teaching Strategy that aligns with the College strategy (para 5.7)
The School QAE representative will work with the School UG Director and School PG Director, in consultation with the UG and PG Studies Committees, to develop a School strategy that aligns with College strategy. A draft is now largely complete.
7.45 The team recommends that the History Subject Area endeavours to strengthen its own communications and relationship with its students by considering the implementation of good practice from the other areas (para 5.8)
Following the report of the School Review Group (Jan 2009) and the agreement to amalgamate the three histories into one subject area from August 2009, arrangements for communicating with students will necessarily be reviewed and harmonised across the new subject area.
It will clearly be desirable to reduce the opportunities for duplicated or inconsistent information. The new subject area will be able to draw upon the experience of good practice from all areas of history.
7.46 It was noted that there are a variety of penalties imposed across the histories for non-attendance at tutorials and late submission of coursework. The team recommends that these inconsistencies are eliminated where there is no strong reason for there to be a variance (para 5.9)
Firstly, it should be noted that across the review area, there are no inconsistencies of penalties relating to late submission of work: practice accords with the University’s UG Assessment Regulations.
There are differences, however, relating to penalties for non-attendance at pre-honours tutorials and honours seminars.
It is agreed that the amalgamated History subject area will have to ensure consistency of penalties. The new Head of History will review current practices with colleagues with a view to eliminating inconsistencies, ideally with effect from 2009/10.
7.47 Each student has to submit a research proposal of 1500 words as part of this [dissertation preparation]. Students commented that these milestones did not exist in some other Subject Areas, and the team therefore recommends that the other Subject Areas consider the adoption of this practice (para 5.10)
Work is currently being undertaken to review the guidance to dissertation supervisors in the review area. The aim is for students to receive consistent levels of supervision across the amalgamated History, as well as to provide appropriate support to students in writing the dissertation.
The guidance will be introduced with immediate effect, and the History subject area will monitor the effectiveness of the dissertation project’s structure.
7.48 The review team recommends the practice of setting up small Taskforces to tackle priority areas such as eLearning, Assessment, Feedback and Employability (para 5.12)
The review area prefers to work with a wider group of colleagues across the School rather than establish subject-specific taskforces for such teaching and learning issues. The School UG Studies Committee is already taking the initiative in offering school-wide sessions on assessment and feedback, and will consider eLearning and employability as issues for future events.
The School’s eLearning Officer also supports and offers teaching and learning sessions to the School’s academic staff.
In developing these initiatives, we are seeking assistance and input from colleagues with relevant expertise elsewhere in the University. Where appropriate and feasible, we plan to look beyond as well as within the University in future.
7.49 The team recommends that the course/programme booklets provide advice that students can turn to when considering careers and applying for positions (para 5.13)
Many course booklets already include information about the University’s Careers Service, and the careers sessions it provides for students on history programmes. The review area will ensure that all booklets contain this information for 2009/10.
Audit Monitoring: Quality Assurance
7.50 The review team commends the willingness of the PG tutors to provide one to one feedback to students but recommends that the School publicises more firmly and widely that students can and should take advantage of this (para 6.1)
This has already happened in a number of ways, and will continue to be emphasised. Following the revision of the pay structure for PG tutors, tutors are now entitled to claim payment for hours specifically targeted at such consultation with students.
The honours coursework feedback forms were re-designed in 2008/09 and now include the following statement: ‘Students are strongly encouraged to see their tutor during their advertised office hours if they require further assistance with any of the points made above’. We shall ensure that, with effect from 2009/10, all pre-honours feedback forms include the same statement. Furthermore, organisers of first- and second-year courses will be encouraged to look for ways to emphasise the availability of such feedback.
The Head of School, in a letter sent to all pre-honours and honours students in December 2008, stated: ‘we think that discussion between students and tutors about coursework is an essential part of the feedback process, and it concerned us to learn from the NSS results that some students were unaware that this help is available. The revised assessment feedback forms will emphasise that members of staff are available to discuss students’ work during their advertised office hours. Please do not hesitate to ask your tutors for their advice; we are here to help.’
The School’s support of postgraduate tutors is a matter that our QAE officer is considering, and we plan to review our structures of training and mentoring in this regard in order to assist tutors in carrying out such work.
See also 7.45, above
7.51 The team further recommends that space for private consultations between students and PG tutors is provided in the new location of the School to facilitate both formal and informal feedback (para 6.1)
The plans for the West Wing include several private offices that will be made available for individual consultations and feedback. Meeting rooms (formal and informal) will also be available for PG tutors to book for group consultations and feedback.
7.52 The team recommends that the layout of the coursework feedback form is reconsidered to encourage all tutors to provide effective and full feedback, and that second markers and those monitoring essays ensure that this is the case (para 6.2)
The honours coursework feedback forms were re-designed in 2008/09, with the addition of the headings ‘Strengths’, ‘Weaknesses’ and ‘Areas for Improvement’, to provide space and structure for effective and full feedback.
See also 7.50, above.
To date, the response to these forms from students (anecdotal) has been positive.
However, it is accepted that we should think about the nature of the moderator’s responsibilities, especially in referring back to the first marker any instances where the comments do not provide adequate feedback to students. Guidance to moderators will be reviewed.
Sampling coursework feedback forms will also be considered by the review area as a means of monitoring the quality of feedback provided to students.
In the case of pre-honours courses, course organisers are responsible for monitoring both tutors’ marks and feedback to students. Advice will be available to pre-honours course organisers about these procedures.
7.53 The team recommends that the Histories strengthen and clarify the mechanism for acting on course monitoring information collectively and that the process and outcomes are transparent to students (para 6.4)
The review area proposes to deal with recommendations 7.53 and 7.54 together.
The provision of QA information to students, including course monitoring, is currently under consideration by the School UG Studies Committee, in liaison with all the subject areas in the School. (The current Economic and Social History and Scottish History subject areas already publish questionnaire results.)
A number of options are being considered whereby students are informed of the impact of student feedback on the development and delivery of courses. The School’s UG Studies Committee have developed recommendations, endorsed by SMG, which offer a variety of suggestions about ways in which course organisers might explain the impact of course monitoring on a course’s development.
The School has launched a webpage on student representation, where minutes of staff-student liaison committee meetings are available.
7.54 The team recommends that QA results are published on student webpages. Much of this type of analysis could be undertaken by the Undergraduate teaching administration (para 6.4)
See 7.53
7.55 The team recommends that the Workload Model be used in allocation of effort as well as in accounting for effort in order to move towards equity of teaching and administration loads across the School (not to be applied Subject Area by Subject Area). To include PGT (para 6.5) This is a key priority for the School and the School Management Group (SMG) have already remitted these issues for resolution to a Workload Working Group with representatives from each Subject Area, the School Directorate (including the PG Director) and senior administration. The Group will report to the SMG by the end of May 2009. The School is also appointing a Deputy Head of School, who will assume oversight for the delivery of an equitable workload as a key responsibility.
7.56 The review team recommends that the histories review their approach to student communications to ensure appropriate systems are in place and are monitored to ensure that they work (para 6.6)
See 7.45
7.57 The review team recommends the encouragement of the recruitment of class reps by the School and that the importance of their role is communicated effectively to the student body (para 6.7)
The School continues to encourage students to become class reps and to participate in other ways also, in discussions and decisions about courses and programmes.
Recent and ongoing examples include:
The School’s recently created webpage devoted to staff/student liaison that includes:
• Information on the role of the class rep
• Lists of current class reps in the School
• Minutes of Staff/Student Liaison Committees
• The many opportunities in the School for students to take part in discussions about courses and programmes and other School-wide matters
• Responses to student feedback
The School’s strong support for the student History Society (and Classics and Archaeology Societies)
The School’s support for the recent student-led ‘Student Forum’
A School-wide SSLC is planned, as is a regular meeting between student representatives and SMG.
7.58 The team recommends that the School ensure that SSLC meetings take place regularly in all its areas of activity, and that students are made aware of information relating to the class rep and SSLC system with minutes being published (para 6.8)
See 7.57, staff/student website
7.59 The team recommends the establishment of a Special Circumstance committee that would take place before the arrival of the External Examiners (para 6.9)
The review area does not agree with this recommendation. The review area strongly believes that external examiners should be present at its Special Circumstances Committees to underpin the robustness of the process that ensures student cases are treated fairly and consistently. In reviewing the external examiners’ comments relating to the history honours Special Circumstances Committee meeting in 2007/08, it was noted that comments related to the length of the meeting, rather than the attendance of external examiners.
History has therefore drafted proposals to streamline the presentation of cases to the Special Circumstances Committee in June 2009 with the intention of shortening the meetings without compromising the involvement of the external examiners or the fairness to students.
The views of the external examiners will be sought on these procedures and the effectiveness monitored.
7.60 The review team recommends that the School sets up a small Taskforce to consider where consolidation of exam boards could be implemented (para 6.10)
Since the TPR review visit in November 2008, the College has issued guidance and instruction in relation to exam boards.
Additionally, this was one of the items considered by the School Review Group.
As a result of CHSS guidance and the Review Group’s recommendations, exam boards for single honours and ‘internal combined’ programmes will be consolidated within each of the School’s subject areas, from 2009/10.
2 Response from University's Director of Human Resources
7.38 The review team recommends that the University of Edinburgh renews and reinforces its institutional commitment to support and value teaching and recognise and reward excellence in this area of activity in the promotions process, including to the highest levels (para 5.1)
This is an issue that will be progressed to Staff Committee at its June meeting for discussion and agreement. Any changes that are formally approved at that meeting would then be implemented in collaboration with Colleges and Schools.
3. Response from Director of Estates and Buildings
7.40 The review team recommends that the School and the University continue to take a strongly collaborative approach to defining appropriate flexible learning spaces in the new accommodation that supports the aims of the teaching staff including PG tutors (para 5.4)
The following response from the Director of Estates and Buildings is fully endorsed by the School:
The School will benefit from the next phase of the University’s multi-phase redevelopment programme for Schools in the College of Humanities and Social Science. This is a strategic investment of c£15 million, and extensive consultation has taken place between the College of Humanities and Social Science, the School of History, Classics and Archaeology and the Estates and Buildings Development division on the requirements for the new accommodation.
A collaborative approach has been taken at every stage of the design process to ensure that, within the limitations of fitting out existing space, the teaching requirements of the School are met. While the specification for the AV fit-out of teaching areas is still to be agreed, all teaching or meeting rooms will have appropriate power, data cabling and blank wall space to enable audio visual presentations to take place.
Ground floor: this includes eight seminar rooms of varying sizes and alternative styles of seating, which have the flexibility to be used for a variety of purposes.
Mezzanine: includes Archaeology teaching lab and associated technical labs.
1st floor mezzanine: includes an Honorary Fellows study room, with associated tea preparation area.
2nd floor: this has a computer lab for PG History and Archaeology students, as well as two multi-purpose meeting/tutorial rooms. These will be furnished with tables and chairs which can be used for a variety of configurations and purposes.
It has been agreed in principle that on this floor and on the 2nd mezzanine, there will be an informal staff/student meeting space; the layout of this space still has to be decided.
2nd mezzanine/3rd floor: a Library/Exhibition/ Study Space on the 2nd mezzanine and 3rd floors are linked by a spiral staircase. This flexible multi-use area includes, on the second floor, a PG area with workstation spaces, formal meeting spaces for small groups and an informal seating area.
Angus Currie
Director, Estates and Buildings
Professor TM Devine OBE DLitt FRSE HonMRIA FBA
Head of School
School of History, Classics and Archaeology
March 2009
Appendix 17
Heads’ of Schools responses to Postgraduate Programme Reviews
Link to Head of School’s response to Law PPR
Link to Head of School’s response to Health in Social Science PPR
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- department of public and social services
- what are social sciences courses
- definition of social sciences pdf
- social sciences college courses
- ministry of labour and social security
- list of social sciences degrees
- ministry of labour and social insurance
- the journal of personality and social psychology
- examples of social sciences degrees
- social sciences definition and examples
- american college of occupational and environmental medicine
- college of william and mary admissions