UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX
QUALITY ASSURANCE AND ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE
Wednesday 12 th May 2010
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
Chair
Secretary
Present
Professor Andy Downton, Pro-Vice Chancellor (Learning and Teaching)
Miss Lucas, Assistant Registrar (Quality)
Dr Andrews, Dr Burnett Dr Campbell, Ms Coleman (for Mrs Murray), Dr Cox, Mrs
Davies, Ms Fletcher, Dr Harris-Worthington, Dr Hughes, Dr Johnson, Dr Jones, Mr
Luther, Dr Mackenzie, Mr Mohammed, Mr Murphy, Dr Penman, Dr Scott
Apologies Mr Mack, Professor Manson, Mrs Murray
In attendance
Ms O’Neil
STARRING OF AGENDA ITEMS
Noted Agenda items 7, 8, 9 and 13 were additionally starred for discussion.
MINUTES
Approved The minutes of the meeting held on 10
CHAIR’S ACTION (QAEC/10/15) th February 2010.
31/10
32/10
Noted The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Learning and Teaching) had taken Chair’s Action on behalf of the Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee to approve changes to the International Handbook. The revised handbook was available at: http://www.essex.ac.uk/partners/documents/international_handbook.pdf
UNDERGRADUATE ADMISSIONS POLICY (QAEC/10/16)
Noted At its meeting in November 2009 Quality Assurance and Enhancement
Committee noted plans to develop a University admissions policy in accordance with guidelines published by the Supporting Professionalism in Admissions
(SPA) programme (QAEC.M.102/09). Admissions had since produced an initial draft and was now seeking QAEC consideration as to how to take forward the development of a final policy.
Members considered that the most appropriate group to be tasked with coordinating the production of a policy was its sub-committee, the Admissions
Qualifications Review Group, in consultation with other expert groups and staff, including the International Recruitment Committee and partner institutions.
It was important that the admissions policy was developed with all students in mind, rather than only full-time undergraduates. While the immediate imperative was for an undergraduate policy, the core principles covering all admissions should be identified. The undergraduate policy should cover part time and modular students and should incorporate AP(E)L.
33/10
34/10
35/10
36/10
1

Resolved
The first stage of development would be to collate existing policy and practice, so that it could be properly evaluated. The University should make use of the experience of its partners as well as the outcomes of the recent SUMS review of admissions at the University. that the Admissions Qualifications Review Group should coordinate the development of the University’s admissions policy, in consultation with other relevant committees and staff within the University and with input from the
University’s collaborative partners.
Noted
Resolved
The title and remit of the Admissions Qualifications Review Group ought to be reconsidered to ensure it adequately covered the quality oversight of the admissions process. a) that the Admissions Qualifications Review Group should be renamed the
Admissions Sub Committee; b) that the Admissions Sub-Committee should be asked to review its terms of reference and make recommendations for changes to QAEC as appropriate.
LEARNING AND TEACHING STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION (QAEC/10/17)
Noted a) Engage: Collaborative Learning Experience
The active involvement of students in processes of curriculum design and delivery is an area which could benefit from a renewed focus. The TRACS process and subsequent good practice resource needed to be built upon. The curriculum review remit of Faculty Boards, supported by the annual monitoring process could be used to promote collaborative learning. To this end, departments should be reminded to reflect on the extent to which all the recommendations arising from TRACS had been addressed in their next AMR.
Reported
Noted
Noted
The PVC (L&T) informed the committee that Café Vert and two labs would be developed into group working spaces in time for the start of the 2010/11 academic year. b) Enhance: Learning Technology
Use of learning technologies had increased significantly but further work was needed in this area. The E-Learning reviews had not yet progressed as far as had been hoped, but an interim report of progress would be available for the next meeting of the committee.
It was important for the adoption of learning technologies to be driven strategically and from the standpoint of pedagogic development rather than the technology itself. It was anticipated that the revised approach to ICT management would help address this. c) Empower: Student Employability
A skills audit by departments was underway, with the Faculty of HCS having completed its audit. The committee endorsed the Learning and Teaching Unit’s proposal that an employability skills portal should be developed and that HCS module maps should be used for the purposes of the pilot.
37/10
38/10
39/10
40/10
41/10
42/10
43/10
44/10
45/10
46/10
2

Noted
Resolved
Noted
Resolved d) Enable: Professional Development of Academic Staff
During the academic year 2009/2010 in excess of seventy seminars and workshops have been and are being offered by the LTU to support the professional development of academics, PG CHEP participants and graduates who teach. Attendance at the events was not, however, always satisfactory. Of particular concern was the low attendance at the training for research supervisors. Staff were not permitted to supervise research students until they had undertaken the supervisors training. that the Dean of the Graduate School should alert the Faculty PVCs regarding the levels of completion of training for research supervisors in their Faculty.
While there was value in generic skills training for research students, students appreciated subject-specific skills training. With the cessation of Roberts funding, the University needed to explore Faculty-based training, as well as departmentally delivered training. While the LTU could advise and offer some support in the development of such training, they could not deliver discipline specific training and departments/faculties would need to invest resource if student demand for discipline focused training was to be met. that the provision of discipline-specific skills training for research students should be referred to the Faculty Steering Groups for their consideration.
ANNUAL QUALITY REPORT (QAEC/10/18)
Noted The report from the QAEO. The Committee was concerned that departments ensure their summary and response to the NSS was readily available to students
Resolved on their WebPages. that the Assistant Registrar (Quality) should undertake a further audit of departmental WebPages and report back to the committee regarding the adherence to policy in respect of student surveys.
OPERATION OF EXAMINATION PRE BOARDS (QAEC/10/19)
Noted New guidelines for Pre-Boards were presented for approval. The guidelines sought to reflect present practice and make the distinction between the function of the Pre-Board and the main Board of Examiners clearer. If approved, the guidelines would be incorporated in the document entitled, ‘ Assessment policies for undergraduate and taught postgraduate awards of the University of Essex ’
Resolved which was published on the web. that, subject to those minor editorial amendments noted at the meeting, the new guidelines for UG and PGT Pre-Board Meetings be approved with immediate effect.
REASSESSMENT AND THE ROLE OF EXTERNALS (QAEC/10/20)
Noted At its March 2010 meeting the UGSB recommended to Senate that “Summer reassessment for final year students should be introduced with effect from
2010/11” (UGSB.M.13/10). Senate considered the recommendation at its meeting on 28 th April 2010 but expressed reservations concerning the proposed role of external examiners in the reassessment process. Specifically, Senate members expressed concern about the fact that there will be no requirement for
47/10
48/10
49/10
50/10
51/10
52/10
53/10
54/10
55/10
3

Reported
Recommended to Senate
Noted
External Examiners to scrutinise or approve resit exam papers. It was suggested that practical considerations should not override academic standards. While
Senate approved the adoption of final year reassessment in September, Senate asked that further consideration be given to the role of external examiners.
The Committee reviewed the material the UGSB had considered at both its
November and March meetings and the concerns expressed by Senate. While the committee noted that the proposal to Senate from the UGSB required external examiner engagement in the assessment and reassessment strategy and retrospective scrutiny of reassessment papers as part of this engagement, it was felt that external examiners should be consulted on resit papers for final year students in the same way that they would be for second year students.
It had been determined that, due to the need to clarify the role of external examiners, it would not be possible for departments to offer final year reassessment in 2009/10. The exception was the department of Philosophy, where steps to offer final year resits had already been undertaken and discussed with the student body. that external examiners should be required to approve final year resit papers, as detailed in the revised policy in respect of final year reassessment, presented as
Annex A.
Members expressed disappointment that UGSB had recommended that the volume of reassessment available to final year students be limited to that which was required for the achievement of the award for which they were registered.
The Undergraduate Directors meeting had originally endorsed the introduction of reassessment on the same basis as it was offered to second year students. It was pointed out that adopting that policy might have administrative repercussions regarding graduation events.
QAA CODE OF PRACTICE a) Section 3: Disabled students (QAEC/10/21)
Noted The committee thanked the Assistant Director (Disability) for the detailed mapping of the new section of the QAA Code of Practice in relation to
University practice and endorsed the actions identified within the report. b) Section 8: Career education, information, advice and guidance
(QAEC/10/22)
Noted
PROOF READING WORKING GROUP UPDATE (QAEC/10/23)
Noted The Working Group on Proofreading was convened in July 2009 to address the recommendations outlined in the report of the RPF-funded project on proofreading. A report was given to the Learning and Teaching Committed in
April 2008, and recommendations included working up proposals and guidelines. Documents had now been drafted and were being circulated for comment by the working party.
56/10
57/10
58/10
59/10
60/10
61/10
62/10
4

COLLABORATIVE PROVISION AUDIT UPDATE (QAEC/10/24)
Noted
REPORT OF THE SUB COMMITTEE FOR LEARNING AND TEACHING
INNOVATION (QAEC/10/25)
Noted Maths@Work, one of the projects in receipt of Teaching and Learning
Innovation funding, needed volunteers to assist in the project to be in place for
Resolved the beginning of the autumn term. that the PVC(L&T) should liaise with the Mathematics department to identify suitable volunteers.
QAA EVALUATION OF ACADEMIC INFRASTRUCTURE - RESPONSE FROM
UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX (QAEC/10/26)
Noted
DESTINATION OF LEAVERS FROM HIGHER EDUCATION (DLHE) SURVEY
STATISTICS 2007-08 (QAEC/10/27)
Noted In future the committee would wish to see longitudinal data in order that trends might be identified.
CAREERS CENTRE TERMLY REPORT (QAEC/10/28)
Noted
QAA NEW MASTER’S DEGREE CHARACTERISTICS REFERENCE POINT
Noted
Rachel Lucas
Assistant Registrar (Quality)
May 2010
63/10
64/10
65/10
66/10
67/10
68/10
69/10
5

6

Annex A
Reassessment of Final Year Undergraduate Students
1 Criteria for Reassessment a) Boards of Examiners will only offer reassessment to final year students who have not met the
2 minimum criteria for the award on which they are studying. b) Boards of Examiners will only offer reassessment in a sufficient number of modules to enable students to meet the minimum criteria for the award. For example, if a student has failed 60 credits’ worth of non-core modules in the final year s/he will only be offered reassessment in
30 credits. c) Where students must take reassessment in 30 out of 60 failed credits, the Board of Examiners should offer students the choice of module in which they are to be reassessed. However, the default position is that the compulsory reassessment will be suggested in the module for which students have the highest mark. d) Boards of Examiners will continue to check whether students have met the criteria for an exit award, and offer this as an alternative to reassessment. e) Students on the final stage of a Foundation Degree should be offered reassessment in more than the minimum credits required to obtain an award (nb - students can only fail 15 credits), since a number of students continue with their studies to achieve an honours degree, and it is therefore preferable to give them the chance to retrieve fails in all their level 5 modules, as is the case with students in Stage Two of an honours programme.
The Method of Reassessment a) The main Board of Examiners (at which the External Examiners are present) will decide on the form of reassessment based on what elements the student has failed, and the reassessment
3 strategy for the modules concerned. b) Students must confirm, within five working days of the publication of results, whether they are taking up the offer of reassessment and in which module(s). c) Departments will not be required to set resit exam papers for final year modules at the time they set the main exam paper. (Please note, where resit exams are being sat at the start of
September, the Department will need to provide the Exams Office with an exam paper by the normal resit paper deadline set by the Office. Departmental Administrators should confirm the arrangements for submitting papers for their department with the Exams Office in advance). d) Where students are being asked to submit coursework, they should be set the work within two weeks of the results being published.
Involvement of External Examiners a) The Department should discuss and confirm its assessment and reassessment strategy with the
External Examiner and agree the timing for the scrutiny and approval of resit papers.
However, there is no requirement that External Examiners must scrutinise or approve resit exam papers.
b) External Examiners will not normally be required to consider reassessed work, confirm overall results or attend Reassessment Boards of Examiners, since their involvement in the earlier examination board should have confirmed that marking standards and assessment practice were appropriate and that reassessment was being offered in line with the rules.
External Examiners can have more involvement in the reassessment process if they or the department wishes, and this should be discussed and agreed in advance.
7

c) The following year the External Examiners should be given access to the reassessment tools and the results. Part of the discussion with the External regarding the Department’s learning, teaching, assessment and reassessment strategy should include an evaluation of the success of the previous year’s reassessment process. d) Individual External Examiners can have more involvement in the reassessment process if they wish or the department wishes, and this should be discussed in advance.
Ratification of Results 4 a) Boards of Examiners will need to be held to consider the results, but each Faculty can decide on the most appropriate way of convening the boards. For example, the results could go to an existing Faculty-wide Second Year Reassessment Board of Examiners. Alternatively, departments could hold a separate Board of Examiners which could meet physically or virtually. b) Departments will need to consider extenuating circumstances in advance of the Board of
Examiners’ meeting. c)
Boards of Examiners’ meetings should normally take place by the end of the summer vacation. Dates should be scheduled in advance and published on the web in the same way as they are published for first and second year boards.
Conferral of Awards 5 a) The award will be conferred on students automatically, but they will still be invited to attend the Graduation Ceremony in the following year.
Deanna Walker & Rachel Lucas
8