UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX
QUALITY ASSURANCE AND ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE
(Wednesday 6 th May 2009, 2.00pm – 4.45pm)
APPROVED MINUTES
Chair
Secretary
Present
Professor Andy Downton, Pro-Vice Chancellor (Learning and Teaching)
Miss Lucas (Assistant Registrar, Quality)
Professor Busfield, Dr Campbell, Ms Coleman, Ms Fletcher, Dr Johnson, Dr Jones, Mr
Luther, Dr Mackenzie, Mr Mack, Professor Manson, Mr Murphy, Dr Penman, Dr Scott, Ms
Waldron
Apologies Dr Burnett, Professor Dews, Mr Joondan, Mrs Pearsall, Dr Lyne
In attendance Mrs Billam, Miss Francis, Mrs Nixon, Mrs ONeill, Professor Radford, Mr Steeples, Mrs
Tallentire, Ms Warr, Mr Yates
MINUTES
Approved
MATTERS ARISING (QAEC/09/13)
Resolved that a Working Group for Proofreading should be constituted, as detailed in paper QAEC/09/13, to consider University guidelines and policy regarding proofreading of student’s work.
SKILLS FOR SUCCESS EVALUATION
Reported The Learning and Teaching Unit and the Careers Centre had, over the course of the academic year, run a series of activities aimed at enhancing skills. The Skills for Success programme consisted of workshops, workskills afternoons and online courses. The programme of events were voluntary but had been actively promoted, however, only fifty percent of available places were booked and of the places booked only fifty percent of students attended.
Noted
While the feedback from attendees had been extremely positive, it was clear that voluntary skills development sessions could be only a small part of the answer if the University wished to ensure extensive engagement. The Employability
Skills Working Group would be looking in detail at the outcomes of the programme and would make recommendations to the Committee accordingly.
A credit rated skills programme was being developed to move the employability skills agenda forward and it was anticipated that the module would be introduced for voluntary adoption by students in 2009/10 and as an embedded part of courses in 2010/11.
18/09
19/09
20/09
21/09
22/09

SUB-COMMITTEE ON LEARNING AND TEACHING INNOVATION
Reported The Sub-Committee on Learning and Teaching Innovation had met and had agreed to fund five projects, to the value of £20,000. It had also funded three
Excellent in Teaching Awards, from three different Faculties. Full details would be reported to a future meeting of the Committee, once the successful applicants had been informed.
LEARNING AND TEACHING STRATEGY (QAEC/09/14)
Noted A visual presentation of the intended online presence of the Learning and
Teaching Strategy. It was intended that, subject to approval, the online material
Resolved would be in place for the beginning of the 2009/10 academic year.
Members considered the draft strategy in detail. A number of editorial amendments were suggested. In addition, it was agreed that more explicit mention of academic standards was required. a) that, subject to those amendments discussed at the meeting, the Learning and Teaching Strategy should be recommended to the University
Steering Group for approval;
Noted b) that the Committee should receive a report regarding the implementation of the Strategy at the end of 2009/10.
The Committee extended its thanks to the Working Party and its sub-groups for the hard work they had put in to developing the strategy and in undertaking the extensive consultation on its contents.
STUDENT SELF-SUBMISSION TO TURNITIN (QAEC/09/15)
Noted A report summarising the findings of a project to investigate student selfsubmission to the online plagiarism detection service, Turnitin. Four departments had been recruited to trial different versions of student-self submission. After each trial a full evaluation was completed and the trial was refined and completed again. As a consequence of these findings, the Learning and Teaching Unit made a number of recommendations to the Committee.
One of the most significant technical disincentives to permitting selfsubmission was the potential for ‘self-plagiarism’ as anything previously submitted by the student would become part of the Turnitin database of possible sources of material. This could mask actual plagiarism and increase workload for staff trying to evaluate Originality Reports.
However, since the completion of the project, the Turnitin software had been updated, and it was now possible for prior submissions to be excluded from the database of sources searched by the service.
ISS were exploring developing the links between the internal Online
Coursework Submission service and Turnitin.
The Committee determined that a permissive policy should be adopted but that, rather than being prescriptive about how self-submission was used, the Learning and Teaching Unit should produce guidelines and support tutors in the adoption of the best approach for them.
23/09
24/09
25/09
26/09
27/09
28/09
29/09
30/09
31/09
32/09

Resolved a) that Student submission to Turnitin should be allowed, where deemed appropriate by the module tutor; b) that the Learning and Teaching Unit should produce guidelines on the adoption of self-submission to support departments; c) that students should be warned that a clean Originality Report would not be accepted as proof that they had not committed plagiarism, due to the limitations of the service.
E-LEARNING THEMATIC REVIEW (QAEC/09/16)
Noted An E-learning Review had been devised by the Learning Technology Team to encourage departments to make the most of the learning technologies available within the University. The hope was that it would encourage departments to review what learning technologies they currently used and ensure that they knew what else was available for them. It was proposed to pilot the review with two departments, Biological Sciences and LiFTs, in the first instance.
It would be important to ensure that the student view of e-learning was sought, since students did not always view it favourably. The review represented an excellent mechanism for sharing good practice and it would be helpful if it were
Resolved a continuous cycle of engagement. However, calling it a review might suggest something potentially punitive or prescriptive, which was not the intention. The term engagement was therefore suggested. that the e-learning thematic engagement process should be approved and a report back on progress should be made after the completion of the two pilots.
REPORT FROM THE WORKING PARTY ON UNDERGRADUATE MODULAR STUDY
(QAEC/09/17)
Noted The draft report from the Working Party on Undergraduate Modular Study was presented to the Committee for comment in advance of its submission to the
Undergraduate School Board for approval.
A number of significant concerns were expressed regarding the recommendations of the report. It was not the intention of the University to adopt modular study at undergraduate level unless there was a specific market
(e.g. in HHS) for several reasons, the most significant being that the change to fee allocation meant that modular students would use up student numbers available for traditional study. Modular study was also costly to administer.
The recommendations did not adequately reflect this position.
Faculties and departments were not necessarily aware of potential markets for modular studies and External Relations would need to provide information on this as part of the individual marketing strategies being prepared for each department.
All proposals to offer a course or series of modules by modular study would need specific approval and as a consequence there would need to be evidence of demand and cost-effectiveness. Open access to modules would not be an appropriate approach – proposals would need to identify admissions requirements and apply AP(E)L as appropriate. Proposals would also need to indicate if an exception to standard maximum periods of study was required.
33/09
34/09
35/09
36/09
37/09
38/09
39/09
40/09
41/09
42/09

Resolved
The student records database did not, at present, adequately support record keeping in respect of modular programmes and this would need to be addressed if the modular market was to grow. that the Working party should revisit its recommendations in the light of discussions and present revised recommendations to the Undergraduate School
Board for approval.
QUALITY ENHANCEMENT AND ASSURANCE IN ONLINE ASSESSMENTS
(QAEC/09/18)
Noted The proposed baseline set of requirements aimed at improving the quality assurance in relation to all online assessments.
Resolved that, subject to some minor amendments noted in the meeting, the Online
Assessment Checklists should be approved for implementation from 2009/10.
ACADEMIC PARTNERSHIPS INTERNATIONAL HANDBOOK (QAEC/09/19)
Noted The draft handbook detailing the procedures for the approval and monitoring of international partnerships, which built on and expanded the procedures for the approval of international collaborations previously approved by Quality
Resolved
Assurance Committee in May 2007. The handbook was intended to sit alongside the University’s Academic Partnerships Handbook for UK-based collaborative provision and the joint University of Essex/University of East Anglia Validation
Handbook for University Campus Suffolk, and drew upon the same principles.
The handbook did not make reference to the Dean of the Graduate School and it was agreed that, in cases of PGR approval events for articulation arrangements, the Graduate School Dean should be involved. It was also suggested that a footnote, explaining the function of the Dean of International Development be added to make it clear that this Dean did not have a quality assurance role. that, subject to those amendments noted above, the International Handbook and the procedures detailed therein should be approved with immediate effect.
REPORT FROM THE WORKING PARTY ON FITNESS TO PRACTICE (QAEC/09/20)
Noted The report from the working party, established through QAC in January 08, to review the University’s Fitness Practice procedures. Several small matters of
Resolved detail were raised. a) that departments with programmes which are relevant to the Fitness to
Practice Policy should establish a committee, called the Professional
Suitability Group to receive reports and information on, disciplinary matters, academic offences and other issues which might relate to fitness to practise. The Departmental Professional Suitability Group should act as a ‘gateway’, to consider these issues in the light of fitness to practice and to make appropriate referral; b) that, in order to ensure transparency, details of the departmental procedures relating to the Professional Suitability Group to be included in Departmental Handbooks;
43/09
44/09
45/09
46/09
47/09
48/09
49/09
50/09
51/09
52/09

c) that departments should establish an administrative procedure for collating information on the outcomes of academic offences and progress cases, including those related to disability, and provide it for the gateway group; d) that the Proctor’s Office should establish a procedure to identify students for whom there is a fitness to practise implication; e) that the Proctor’s Office should establish a procedure for informing the relevant Department if there is a proven disciplinary case in respect of a student for whom there is a fitness to practise implication; f) that departments should incorporate information received from the
Proctor’s office regarding disciplinary cases into their procedures for collating information on Academic offences and progress cases; g) that in the Breach of Professional Conduct and Termination of Training
Procedure , the name of ‘Professional Misconduct Committee’ should be changed to ‘Professional Practice and Conduct Committee’. The procedure should be reviewed to ensure the wording is appropriate to professional suitability issues related to health or other issues as well as disciplinary issues; h) that the Breach of Professional Conduct and Termination of Training
Procedure should be listed in the University Calendar; i) that departments should ensure that a statement about the sharing of information in cases of issues of fitness to practise should appear on the application forms for continuing professional development students; j) that an addition should be made to the guidance for completion of
Extenuating Circumstances forms to inform students that although information given on such forms is confidential, it could be shared with other authorities if the circumstances raised issues of fitness to practise; k) that the guidelines for establishing a Professional Suitability Group should be approved with immediate effect. that the amendments to the Breach of Professional Conduct and Termination of Recommended to Senate Training Procedure, as detailed in annex A, should be approved with effect from
2009/10.
STAGE 2 NEW COURSE APPROVAL (QAEC/09/21)
Resolved that, with effect from 2009/10, Deans should have the authority to approve new courses that fall within category one of the Stage 2 approval criteria for provision to be offered at any of the University’s three campuses.
EMPLOYABILITY FRAMEWORK PROGRESS REPORT (QAEC/09/22)
Noted
FRONTRUNNERS PROGRESS REPORT (QAEC/09/23)
Noted
58/09
59/09
60/09
61/09
53/09
54/09
55/09
56/09
57/09
62/09
63/09
64/09
65/09

TERMLY/ANNUAL REPORTS
Careers Centre (QAEC/09/24)
Noted
Noted
Professional Development (QAEC/09/25)
Staff Development (QAEC/09/26)
Noted
Rachel Lucas
Assistant Registrar (Quality)
May 2009
66/09
67/09
68/09

Breach of Professional Conduct and Termination of Training
Procedure (for students undertaking professional training courses)
QAEC recommends the following amendments to the procedure:

The name of the committee which considers fitness to practise cases should be changed from the ‘Professional Misconduct Committee’ to the ‘Professional Practice and Conduct
Committee’. This was because the committee will need to consider cases where the alleged reason for unsuitability was health related, for instance, rather than because of an incident of misconduct.

Other small changes of terminology have been made throughout the document to reflect the fact that the procedure covers issues of unsuitability other than misconduct.

A3 has been redrafted to clarify the process and make clear the purpose of the initial meeting

An addition to Point A6 concerning the membership of a Professional Practice and
Conduct Committee to allow the accommodation of professional/regulatory body requirements where relevant

An addition made to A12 to clarify that a student could only be allowed to undertake a further placement if allowed to so under the Rules of Assessment for the course.

A change to B3 to specify that the member of staff from within the Faculty who is to sit on the appeals panel comes from a relevant professional background as well as the same academic area.

The existing procedure stated that all referrals should be made initially to the Dean of
Faculty. The procedure has been invoked and in practice it has become clear that the
Dean, who is separate from the operation of the courses and the rest of the process becomes involved at this initial point only. There was no clear reason for this involvement which served only to delay initial consideration of the case and the appointment of an Investigating Officer. It is proposed that within our structures it might be more appropriate for the relevant Head of Department/School to take in the role ascribed to the Dean in the procedure. This would be more in keeping with the procedures for academic offences, where a HoD/HoS makes the initial decisions.

University of Essex
Breach of Professional Conduct, Fitness to Practise and Termination of Training
Procedure (for students undertaking professional training courses)
Introduction
1 All University students are required to comply with the regulations of the University regarding conduct. Students enrolled on courses where a practical professional placement is required (including health, social work and education) have additional responsibilities placed upon them regarding not only their conduct but also their professional suitability, as outlined in relevant regulatory and/or professional body codes of practice. Failure to meet these responsibilities can lead to the Breach of
Professional Conduct and Termination of Training Procedure being invoked. Students will be notified on enrolment if their course of study is subject to the terms of this procedure.
2 The Breach of Professional Conduct and Termination of Training Procedure applies to all relevant courses leading to awards of the University of Essex, although the office holders identified in Sections A and B below may be adapted where the course is offered through a partner institution of the University.
3 In the event of one or more allegations of misconduct that does not reflect upon a student’s professional suitability, these will be dealt with under the University’s
Disciplinary Procedures (or those of the relevant partner institution in the case of collaborative provision) and/or through criminal proceedings.
4 In the event of one or more allegations of misconduct or other factors that indicate that the student may not be suitable for engagement in the relevant profession, the
University’s
Breach of Professional Conduct and Termination of Training Procedure shall be invoked. A student may at any time be suspended or precluded from further study by the University if in breach, or alleged to be in breach, of professional conduct.
5 Breaches of professional standards by students may involve a range of actions or omissions but may include any of the following: a) actions that are harmful to service users, other members of the public or service providers b) actions that are likely to constitute an unacceptable risk to the student or others c) failure to disclose information about previous matters relating to their professional suitability prior to enrolment on the course, including previous convictions and cautions d) contravention of the relevant professional code of conduct e) actions that are prejudicial to the development or standing of professional practice.
6 In the event of an allegation of misconduct or professional unsuitability, students are advised to seek impartial help, advice, guidance and support from the Students’ Union
Advice Centre.

A Procedure for Dealing with Allegations of Professional Misconduct or Professional
Unsuitability
A1 Allegations of professional misconduct or professional unsuitability against a student shall be made in writing to the Head of Department/School offering the professional course.
A2 It must be borne in mind that an allegation of professional misconduct or professional unsuitability is a serious and potentially defamatory one. Consequently it is essential that the proceedings should be conducted on a basis of strict confidentiality.
A3 On receipt of a written allegation, the Head of Department/School, in consultation with the relevant Course Director or equivalent, shall: a) take such immediate action as is deemed appropriate in the circumstances to safeguard all relevant parties, but without prejudice to the outcome of the enquiry b) interview the student to inform them of the nature of allegation made, the action taken under A3 (a) above and the procedures for dealing with the allegation c) confirm in writing the nature of allegation made, the action taken under A3 (a) above and the procedures for dealing with the allegation d) appoint, after consultation with the Academic Registrar, a senior member of academic staff to act as Investigating Officer.
A4 The Investigating Officer shall assemble impartially the evidence relevant to the allegation and shall prepare a written report for the Head of Department/School which shall not pass judgement for or against the accused nor recommend a particular course of action.
A5 If the Head of Department/School deems that no prima facie case has been made against the student, he/she shall inform the student in writing.
A6 If the Head of Department/School deems that a prima facie case has been made against the student, he/she shall refer the case as expeditiously as possible to a
Professional Practice and Conduct Committee which shall be appointed by the Pro-
Vice-Chancellor (Learning and Teaching). The Committee shall normally comprise the following, but will also conform to the requirements of the relevant professional and/or regulatory body: a) a senior member of academic staff from another Faculty as Chair b) two members of academic staff from the relevant subject discipline within the
School who have had no previous involvement in the case c) one practising member of the relevant profession who is from outside the
University and who has not been associated with the teaching of the appellant.
A7 Neither the student's adviser/supervisor nor the Investigating Officer shall be members of the Committee.
A8 The Secretary of the Professional Practice and Conduct Committee shall be the
Academic Registrar or his/her representative.
A9 The Dean shall submit to the Secretary of the Professional Practice and Conduct
Committee such evidence, including the report of the Investigating Officer, as the Head of Department/School shall deem fitting. The Secretary shall send copies of the evidence to the members of the Committee and at the same time to the student concerned and shall convene a meeting of the Committee as soon as possible.

A10 The Committee shall proceed in judicial fashion and, in particular, shall allow the student against whom allegations have been made to present his/her case in person and, if the student wishes, to bring to the Committee a student or employee of the
University, the relevant partner institution or the Students’ Union to help him/her in presenting his/her case to the Committee.
A11 The Committee shall consider the written evidence submitted by the Head of
Department and any statement or evidence provided by the student. It shall have the power to seek such other evidence as it deems necessary.
A12 The Committee shall have the power to: a) permit the student to recommence training b) discontinue the placement and institute arrangements for locating an alternative placement if this is permitted under the Rules of Assessment c) preclude the student from further study on the course through the termination of training d) impose such other penalty as it considers appropriate, provided that no such penalty requires or implies a concession or exemption under the Regulations governing the award of degrees.
A13 When the Committee has reached its decision, the Secretary shall inform the student and the Head of Department/School concerned in writing. The student shall be informed of the right to appeal against the decision in accordance with Section B
(below).
A14 If the case of professional misconduct or professional unsuitability against the student is found proven, the Head of Department/School and the Academic Registrar shall decide whether a report should be made to the relevant professional or statutory body.
B Procedure for Appeals against Decisions of the Professional Practice and Conduct
Committee.
B1 Written notice of appeal by the student must be lodged with the Academic Registrar within five working days of the student being informed of the decision by the
Professional Practice and Conduct Committee.
B2 In the event of an appeal, the Academic Registrar and the Pro-Vice-Chancellor
(Learning and Teaching) shall decide whether the grounds for the appeal are covered by the provisions of paragraph B5 below and warrant further consideration by a
Professional Practice and Conduct Appeals Committee. If they agree that there are no grounds for further consideration of the appeal, the Academic Registrar shall inform the student in writing giving the reasons for that decision.
B3 If the Academic Registrar and the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Learning and Teaching) decide that the appeal does warrant further consideration, the Academic Registrar shall refer the case to a Professional Practice and Conduct Appeals Committee which shall be appointed by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Learning and Teaching) and which shall normally comprise: a) a Chairman who shall be from a different Faculty from that relevant to the course b) one member of staff from the relevant subject and professional discipline within the Faculty concerned who shall not be the Head of Department/School or the
Investigating Officer or a member of the Professional Practice and Conduct
Committee c) one senior practising member of the relevant profession who is from outside the
University and who has not been associated with the teaching of the appellant.

B4 The Secretary of the Committee shall be the Academic Registrar or his/her representative.
B5 The grounds for the appeal shall be one or more of the following: a) that the Professional Practice and Conduct Committee did not make reasonable efforts to acquire all relevant information b) that new evidence had become available that could materially affect the
Professional Practice and Conduct Committee's decision c) that there was evidence of procedural irregularity or prejudice or bias in the conduct of the hearing by the Professional Practice and Conduct Committee.
B6 The Committee shall have before it all documents relating to the original hearing, together with a written statement submitted by the student setting out the grounds for the appeal. The Committee shall not proceed by way of a re-hearing, but shall have power to require the presentation of such further evidence as it deems necessary.
B7 The Committee shall have the same powers as the Professional Practice and Conduct
Committee and may confirm the decision of the Professional Practice and Conduct
Committee or substitute such other decision as it considers appropriate.
B8 When the Committee has reached its decision, the Secretary shall inform the student and the Head of Department/School concerned in writing.
B9 If any action had been taken under paragraph A14 above to inform the relevant professional or statutory bodies, the Head of Department/Dean and the Academic
Registrar shall decide whether any further report should be made to the professional or statutory bodies concerned in the light of the decision of the Committee.
B10 The decision of the Professional Practice and Conduct Appeals Committee shall be final.
B11 The Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA) provides an independent course for the review of student complaints or appeals. When the
University’s internal procedures for dealing with complaints and appeals have been exhausted, the University will issue a Completion of Procedures letter. Students wishing to avail themselves of the opportunity of an independent review by the OIA must submit their application to the OIA within three months of the issue of the
Completion of Procedures letter. Full details of the course are available on request and will be enclosed with the Completion of Procedures.
Kirstie Sceats
Assistant Academic Officer
Registry
April 2009