UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX
QUALITY ASSURANCE AND ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE
(Wednesday 10 February 2010)
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
Chair
Professor Andy Downton, Pro-Vice Chancellor (Learning and Teaching)
Secretary
Miss Lucas, Assistant Registrar (Quality)
Present
Dr Andrews, Dr Campbell, Dr Cox, Ms Fletcher, Dr Harris-Worthington, , Dr Johnson, Dr
Jones, Mr Mack, Professor Manson, Mr Mohammed, Mr Murphy, Dr Penman, Dr Scott,
Mrs Davies
Apologies
Dr Burnett, Mrs Davies, Dr Hughes, Mr Luther, Dr Mackenzie, Mrs Murray
In attendance
Ms Nixon, Mrs Walker, Ms Warr
STARRING OF AGENDA ITEMS
Noted
Agenda items 7, 8b, 9a and 10 were additionally starred for discussion.
1/10
The minutes of the meeting held on 11th November 2009.
2/10
MINUTES
Approved
CHAIR’S ACTION (QAEC/10/01)
Reported
That the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Learning and Teaching) had taken Chair’s Action
on behalf of the Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee to approve
minor changes to the policy and procedure for Examinations – Individual
arrangements on grounds of disability or medical condition. The revisions had
been made to include alternative assessment and reflect existing practice.
3/10
HEFCE CONSULTATION ON THE FUTURE OF QUALITY ASSURANCE FOR HIGHER
EDUCATION IN ENGLAND AND NORTHERN IRELAND (QAEC/10/02)
Noted
The draft response from the PVC (Learning and Teaching) and the Assistant
Registrar (Quality). The paper would, once approved by QAEC, be forwarded
to USG for final consideration and submission. In addition, a copy would be
supplied to the ’94 Group for collation into a shared response.
4/10
The consultation by HEFCE represented the first stage in an extended period of
debate and consultation regarding the future of quality assurance and, as such, no
changes to the methodology would be made on the strength of this consultation
alone.
5/10
The section regarding judgements was discussed at some length, particularly in
relation to the secondary proposal that a graded approach might be applied now
that league tables were common place and derived from a wide variety of data.
While it was reported that Audit would be one area where the University might
exercise some control over the outcome, in contrast to several KPIs, it was
6/10
1
recognised that scoring was something of a blunt instrument. It was not
considered desirable to return to a scoring approach and members favoured the
time limited judgement of confidence which was also contained within the draft
response.
The Committee supported the authors’ assertion that standards should be judged
and compared at the threshold level and that flexibility in the methodology was
desirable so long as there was a fixed core to which judgements were attached.
7/10
Resolved
that, subject to those minor amendments noted in the meeting, the draft response
to HEFCE consultation paper 09/47 should be forwarded to USG for approval.
8/10
Noted
The areas for further consideration by the University emerging from the
consultation paper and related discussions at national forums.
9/10
Resolved
That, through the annual monitoring process, Deans should review progress
within their Faculty in respect of the recommendations arising from TRACS.
Difficulties regarding implementation of recommendations should be reported to
QAEC.
10/10
THE FUTURE OF BOARDS OF EXAMINERS’ MEETINGS (QAEC/10/03)
Noted
Resolved
The paper that had been produced in response to issues arising from the
operation of examination boards in 2008/09 and the outcomes of the Senior Staff
Retreat, where the need to reduce bureaucracy was highlighted.
11/10
Members discussed the functions of the pre-board and examination board in the
light of changes to rules of assessment. At present, it appeared that examination
boards replicated much of the work of pre-boards, while there was some
evidence that pre-boards scrutiny was not always as detailed as might be hoped.
The function and status of pre-boards would benefit from updating. Members
also indicated that the status of Masters boards needed attention.
12/10
Pre-boards were important bodies for the checking of grids to ensure computer
outputs were accurate, and reassessment recommendations were discussed as
were potential areas where further investigation to confirm marking standards
might be required. It was important that pre-boards preceded examination
boards by at least three working days. It was also considered that external
examiners might more usefully attend pre-board meetings rather than the final
examination board.
13/10
There was some support for the adoption of more focused consideration of the
profile of module marks rather than candidate based grids, and for the separation
out of extenuating circumstances consideration. However, the implications for
external examiners and the workload of administrative and academic staff
needed further consideration. It was considered possible that final examination
boards might be run at Faculty level, if the functioning of pre-boards and the
consideration of extenuating circumstances could be sufficiently improved and
streamlined. While this could result in a significant reduction in bureaucracy,
the viability of this approach could not, at present, be judged.
14/10
that revised guidelines regarding the operation of pre-boards should be presented
to the next meeting of the Committee for approval. Wider consideration of the
structure and function of examination boards would be undertaken for 2010/11
in the light of these revised guidelines.
15/10
2
EMPLOYABILITY
a. Employability Framework Progress Report (QAEC/10/04)
Received
The report regarding progress made in respect of the Employability Framework.
In particular, the number of students on the Career Development module
proceeding to the submission of coursework was considered encouraging.
16/10
Noted
Students’ Union members had expressed some concern regarding the level of the
module and whether it could or should supplant subject specific content. At the
moment the module was extra-curricular, but departments would be able to
embed it within their programmes should they wish to do so. The module was
subject to external scrutiny and was assessed appropriately, at a level and in a
manner comparable to other level 5 modules.
17/10
b. Towards a University Skills Centre (QAEC/10/05)
Noted
The proposal to develop a Skills Centre, designed to bring together activity
presently fragmented across the University. The draft proposal was not
intended to be comprehensive at this stage, however, it was agreed that some of
the activities of Student Support Office, ICT skills training and training to
promote excellence ought to be included in the final paper.
18/10
PROCEDURE FOR THE DISCONTINUATION OF A COURSE (QAEC/10/06)
Noted
The proposed form for the discontinuation of a course. The form did not
represent a change in policy, merely a change in the method of information
gathering. The form was not intended for use by Academic Partnerships, where
an equivalent already existed. The form was intended to replace the present
email based system and would allow for consistency in the application of the
discontinuation procedure, and the timely and accurate collection of all relevant
information required.
19/10
Approved
The Discontinuation of a Course form, for use with immediate effect.
20/10
ANNUAL REPORTS
a. Careers Centre Report (QAEC/10/07)
Noted
21/10
b. Student Support Annual Report (QAEC/10/08)
Noted
The report from Student Support and, in particular, the significant increase in the
number of students accessing the service. The Director of Student Support
confirmed that the figures contained in the report accurately represented a trend
over the last few years that had seen a steep year on year increase in the number
of individuals contacting the service. There was no reason to anticipate that the
trend would reverse and the ability of the Service to absorb further increases was
limited.
22/10
SUB-COMMITTEES
a. Admissions Qualifications Review Group Report (QAEC/10/09)
Noted
23/10
3
Recommended
to Senate
that Admissions Regulation 1.5 be amended as follows (new wording
underlined) with effect from 2010/11 in order to make explicit the locus of
authority for decisions relating to applicants who declare a criminal conviction
after they have been accepted for admission to the University:
24/10
“A person who, after his/her acceptance for admission as a
student, has been convicted of a criminal offence in a court of
law or has formally been cautioned by a police officer, is
required to notify the Head of Admissions immediately. Such
cases will be referred to the Academic Registrar for
consideration under the University’s Membership and
Disciplinary procedures and the student concerned may be
required to withdraw from or be refused admission to the
University.”
b. Learning and Teaching Innovation (QAEC/10/10)
Noted
25/10
WORKING PARTIES
a. External Examiners Working Party Membership and Terms of Reference
(QAEC/10/11)
Noted
The membership and terms of reference of the External Examiners Working
Party.
26/10
b. University Tutorial System Working Party Membership and Terms of
Reference (QAEC/10/12)
Noted
The provisional terms of reference and membership. The terms of reference
would need to be refined at the first meeting of the working party and priorities
for action identified.
27/10
In finalising the membership, it was suggested that each Faculty should be
represented and that, when the group considered postgraduate support, additional
members should be co-opted.
28/10
COLLABORATIVE PROVISION AUDIT UPDATE (QAEC/10/13)
Noted
The IBP was approved by the University Steering Group at its meeting on 1
February and would be submitted to QAA on 22 February 2010.
29/10
LEARNING AND TEACHING STRATEGY PROGRESS REPORT (QAEC/10/14)
Noted
30/10
Rachel Lucas
Assistant Registrar (Quality)
February 2010
4