Institute of Archaeology AMR for PGT Programmes 2008/9
This report covers the following 20 taught graduate degree programmes: MA Archaeology, MA Archaeology
of Eastern Mediterranean & Middle East, MA Artefact Studies, MA Comparative Art and Archaeology, MA
Cultural Heritage Studies, MA Egyptian Archaeology, MA Field Archaeology, MA Managing Archaeological
Sites, MA Maritime Archaeology, MA Museum Studies, MA Principles of Conservation, MA Public
Archaeology, MA Research Methods, MSc Conservation for Archaeology and Museums, MSc Environmental
Archaeology, MSc Forensic Archaeological Science, MSc GIS and Spatial Analysis in Archaeology, MSc
Palaeoanthropology and Palaeolithic Archaeology, MSc Skeletal and Dental Bioarchaeology, MSc The
Technology & Analysis of Archaeological Materials.
Head of Department/Chair of
Departmental Teaching
Committee
Number Enrolled in department
Dr Mark Lake (Chair DTC)
259 PGT (261 inc. PGT affiliate students)
A. i) commentary on student recruitment and student performance overall; ii) difficulties experienced and
action(s) taken to resolve these
Student recruitment
Commentary
In 2008/9 we offered 20 PGT programmes resulting in 261 PGT enrolments, a c. 14% increase in numbers on the
previous year. The mean enrolment per programme was 12.4. In the period 2006/7-8/9 42% of our PGT programmes
recruiting on average fewer than 10 FTEs recruited an average of at least 33.3% overseas fee students. The 21 PGT
programmes were delivered through 77 courses with a mean enrolment of 16.1.
Action
In general, the Institute of Archaeology remains committed to running a diverse range of MA programmes drawing upon a
wide range of course options for two reasons: 1) given the nature of the discipline it is doubtful that a reduction in diversity
would result in the same number of students transferring on to a curtailed number of programmes, thus it is anticipated
that any substantial reduction in the number of programmes offered would lead to a gross loss of students and income;
2) many specialist PGT programmes contribute (particularly by their role in recruiting PGR students) to the Institute’s
reputation as the pre-eminent UK centre for global archaeology (as recognised in the last RAE). Nevertheless, the
Institute monitors recruitment and withdraws programmes where they consistently recruit very low numbers over several
years (2 PGT programmes were withdrawn in the period 2008/9 and 2 more have since been withdrawn). The Institute
similarly monitors course enrolment with the effect that in the 2008/9 AMR period it withdrew 20 PGT courses.
Student performance
Commentary
PGT students performed well and the completion rate was very good. Out of 222 students due to complete in 2008/9,
just 16 deferred assessment in one or more assignments. Of the 206 students completing their studies, 35.4% obtained
a distinction (approx. 6% more than 2007/8, but almost identical to 2006/7), 63.6% were awarded pass level degrees and
1% (2 students) failed with exemptions. Student performance varied between programmes, with the percentage of
distinctions awarded ranging from 0% to 100% (the latter relating to an enrolment of one student on the MA Research
Methods), but as in the past, the largest deviations from the Institute of Archaeology overall percentage of distinctions are
found in smaller programmes. Furthermore, all the largest per-programme differences between the percentages of
distinctions awarded in 2007/8 and 2008/9 are in the direction of the Institute overall percentage (in some cases resulting
in an over-correction). Both observations are compatible with the expectation that smaller enrolments will be subject to
greater sampling error. Out of 1230 course enrolments there were only 3 course failures.
Action
The Institute will continue to monitor longitudinal trends in individual degree programme results and act where appropriate
(as happened with the MA Principles of Conservation following the 2007/8 AMR). See also the discussion under B below
of possible clustering of marks.
Student feedback
Commentary
Students were very satisfied with the tuition they received. Some 95.7% of courses received an overall student
evaluation score of 4.0 or greater (58.6% >= 4.5) on a scale of 1 is ‘very poor’ to 5 is ‘very good’, while 100% received a
score of 3.0 (satisfactory) or greater.
Action
Although no PGT courses were deemed unsatisfactory by students, those that scored less than 4.0 ( Conservation
Processes, Collections Management and Care, and Collections Curatorship) have since been modified in various ways.
B. Commentary on report of Chair of Boards of Examiners and action taken or planned
Commentary
The external examiners found the conduct of examination and the awards and standards to be satisfactory in all cases
and the majority of their supplementary comments were satisfactory or complimentary. In particular, the following were all
commended by more than one examiner: the fact that previous comments had resulted in positive changes in practice;
the the high quality of teaching and feedback, the appropriate mix of theoretical and practical work and the efficiency of
the administrative arrangements. Some external examiners did, however, express concern about particular issues or
make suggestions for further improvement, in particular the poor quality of written English displayed by some candidates;
differential adherence to word limits; the possibility that there is a clustering of marks in the 67-72% range and the
difficulty of ensuring that marks awarded for group work are fair to all concerned.
Action
The Chair of of the Board of Examiners maintains a record of external examiners’ comments, the Institute of
Archaeology’s response and any actions required. This internal quality assurance process is subject to scrutiny by the
Departmental Teaching Committee. It would not be appropriate to repeat every minor issue here, but in respect of issues
noted above: a) a Writing and Learning Mentor is available to all Institute students; b) from 2009/10 students will be
required to state the word limit and actual word count on coursework coversheets, and from 2010/11 the Institute will be
implementing the UCL-wide penalties for over-length work; c) the Chair of the Board of Examiners’ will analyse the spread
of marks and report his findings to Departmental Teaching Committee, and his suggestion to the Faculty Board of
Examiners that UCL might consider introducing a ‘Merit’ is being explored by the UCL Board of Examiners; d) in several
courses the method of assessing group projects has been reviewed and where appropriate revised for 2009/10 or
2010/11.
C. Commentary on resourcing issues and action taken or planned
Commentary
Feedback from staff and students highlighted two main issues in 2008/9: a) UCL Information Services failed to implement
the variant of the the Myriad service upon which the previous year’s upgrade of the Archaeological GIS and Computing
Laboratory was based, leading to further problems with that facility; b) the generally unattractive décor and dated facilities
available in some seminar rooms and workspaces.
Action
In respect of a) above the Institute secured an emergency Supplementary Teaching Equipment Grant to renew the AGIS
Computing Laboratory server in time for the start of the 2009/10 session. In respect of b) the Institute will continue its
rolling programme of teaching room refurbishments; this includes a successful STEG bid for a new Lithics Laboratory
which will be available for the 2009-10 session, along with a new Artefact Analysis Laboratory from January 2010.
D. Examples of good practice or prizes or accolades awarded to students or staff
i)
ii)
Professor Roger Matthews received a Provost’s Teaching Award for excellence and innovation in teaching.
The Institute was one of two UCL departments selected for scrutiny by the QAA auditors as part of the quinquennial
audit of UK universities and contributed 54 examples of good practice to preparations for that audit.
iii) The Institute came second in the Guardian newspaper’s League Table for Archaeology departments in the UK and
fourth in the Independent newspaper’s table. The Institute achieved particularly high scores under a number of
headings, including satisfaction with assessment and value added.
iv) The Institute has already met (and in fact exceeded) UCL’s target PGT:UG ratio of 1:1.
E. Major changes envisaged and main forward-looking recommendations for action
The Institute of Archaeology continues to monitor recruitment to PGT degree programmes and courses with a view to
withdrawing those that are difficult to justify on enrolment and/or academic grounds. Some 20 PGT courses have been
withdrawn since the 2008/9 AMR period and it has since been decided to withdraw the MA Field Archaeology and MA
African Archaeology. The Institute nevertheless considers that its diverse offering has been an important factor in its
exceptional success in recruiting PGT students (largest 3 year mean enrolment of PGT students in the SHS Faculty;
approx 1.7 PGT student per UG student) and it therefore continues to evaluate proposals for new courses and/or
programmes suggested by developing research interests and UCL strategic imperatives.
G. confirmation that the Departmental Teaching Committee has received an annual summary of the operation of
peer observation in the department (i.e. a statement confirming that peer observation of all relevant staff has
taken place in the preceding 12 months according to UCL policy)
In 2008/9 some 45 out of our 48 HEFCE funded staff who were not on sabbatical, that is 94%, completed Peer
Observation of Teaching according to UCL guidelines and the annual summary of this has been forwarded by the
departmental Teaching Committee to the Faculty Teaching Committee.
H. Confirmation that all Programme Specifications have been reviewed
All of the PGT Institute of Archaeology programme specifications have been reviewed for 2008/09.