Approved
Professor Aletta Norval
Dr Andrews, Professor Landman, Ms Le Carpentier, Dr Luther, Professor Main,
Mr McAuliffe, Dr Micklewright, Professor Pevalin, Mr Spencer, Mr Thomas,
Professor Underwood
Ms Berntsen, Professor Fox O’Mahony, Dr Penman, Mr Petcu
Mr Stock
Ms Earle, Mrs Nixon
Approved Without discussion, those items not already starred on the agenda or indicated at the meeting
Approved
Noted
Noted
Noted New Member
The Chair welcomed Professor David Pevalin as a new member of the
Committee. Professor Pevalin took up the post of Dean of
Postgraduate Research and Education in January 2015.
01/15
02/15
03/15
04/15
05/15
1

Students from China
The Committee noted that it had been agreed that oversight of the experience of students from China would be undertaken by the
Education Committee. The Committee would consider relevant issues and provide an annual report to the University Steering Group as appropriate.
PVC (Education) Fund
The Committee noted that the call for applications for projects and initiatives that would benefit from support from the PVC (Education)
Fund would be circulated soon. Applications would need to be related to initiatives linked to the delivery of the Education Strategy and
Education Action Plan.
Received A paper prepared by Mr Stephen McAuliffe to provide an update on progress with the Education Action Plan (EAP) 2014-15.
Noted The Committee noted that all EAP initiatives were under way and on track. In relation to technology enhanced learning, three learning technologists had been appointed and would be working with
Departments on the priorities for improvement. Action and communication plans would be developed during February 2015.
During discussion, it was reported that the Data Archive had not been listed in the 2016 undergraduate prospectus. It was suggested that it may be possible for amendments to be made to the electronic version to ensure its inclusion. The Committee acknowledged the important links between the Data Archive and research-led education. The
Admissions team would take it forward with the relevant team in the
Communications and External Relations Section.
Received A paper from Mrs Claire Nixon (Deputy Academic Registrar, Academic
Standards and Partnerships) providing an update on the outcome of the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) Higher Education Review
(HER), which was undertaken in 2014.
Noted The Committee noted that the outcome of the HER had been very successful and had concluded that the setting and maintenance of the academic standards of the awards offered by the University met UK expectations, the quality of student learning opportunities met UK expectations , the quality of the University’s information about learning opportunities met UK expectations, and the enhancement of student learning opportunities were to be commended.
Six areas of good practice had been highlighted by the QAA: the development of the Education Strategy, opportunities for students to study abroad, oversight of taught programmes delivered by the
University’s UK partners, the environment and professional
06/15
07/15
08/15
09/15
10/15
11/15
12/15
13/15
2

development opportunities for postgraduate research students, the work on graduate employability and the University’s use of management information. The four areas highlighted for recommendation were noted as being far narrower than those identified as good practice. Areas for recommendation covered periodic review procedures, policy around changes to modules, oversight in the committee structure of overseas partnerships and postgraduate research degrees delivered by University partners.
The next step would be for the University to provide feedback to the
QAA on the draft report, which was due to be published on the QAA website on 27 February 2015. A draft action plan would be submitted to the Education Committee on 25 March 2015 and considered by
Senate on 22 April 2015.
Received A paper prepared by Dr Richard Martin (Planning Analyst, Strategic
Planning and Change Section), Mr Clive Currey (Marketing and
Admissions Officer, Communications and External Relations) and
Bettina Mills (Deputy Director, Strategic Planning and Change
Section) providing analysis of data relating to equality and diversity matters.
Noted The Committee considered the paper in detail and welcomed the revised method for presenting the data in response to previous feedback from the Committee. The Committee reaffirmed its request for multivariate analysis when considering these data.
During discussion, the following was noted and agreed:
 In relation to the admissions data on gender, it was agreed that the wording of the report should be amended at the top of each table from ‘Those subjects exhibiting a bias of over 70% towards either gender for 2014’ to ‘Those subjects exhibiting a gender split by subject where the balance exceeds a 70/30% split’.
 It was suggested that the high admissions rejection rate for the
International Academy was related to the high number of applications received through UCAS, which was not the correct
 admissions system for these applicants and resulted in automatic rejection. It was agreed that clarification would be sought from the Admissions team and reported back as necessary.
In future analysis, ethnicity data should be presented in a more granular way by specific ethnic group rather than the three groups presented in the paper.
3
14/15
15/15
19/15
16/15
17/15
18/15

Committee in relation to equality and diversity.
Received A paper prepared by Mr Stephen McAuliffe and Mrs Laura Ruddick 26/15
Noted






Consideration should be given to the impact of language proficiency on student achievement, although it was acknowledged that it would be difficult to undertake analysis as part of the work in relation to equality and diversity data due to the availability of data. It was suggested that analysis could be undertaken using nationality data.
It was important to ensure that clear thresholds were established to ensure that incorrect conclusions were not drawn from data based on small samples sizes.
Although contained in a single School of Philosophy and Art
History, in order to ensure clarity, it was agreed that it was more appropriate for equality and diversity analysis to be undertaken separately for the disciplines of Art History and
Philosophy.
Where possible, it would be useful for future analysis to include national benchmarking to enable the Committee to identify and compare trends specific to the University and those that were in line with national trends.
Concern was expressed about the impact on the University’s graduate employability of research in the Department of
Economics indicating that students from ethnic minorities fared less well in the Economics graduate job market. It was agreed that the Academic Registrar would discuss the issue with the
Director of Employability with a view to identifying whether this was a broader problem, as well as to identify ways to address it by working with graduate employers.
As a matter of course, the Annual Review of Courses process should consider any relevant issues identified by the Education
(Head of Registry), which recommended the establishment of a Task and Finish Group to consider whether the University should move towards the establishment of a single credit framework.
Some members of the Committee expressed concern about the plans to review the credit framework and questioned whether a revised framework was the solution to the problems described in the paper.
Members noted the considerable work that would have to take place both before recommendations could be made to Senate and to implement a revised framework. The links with the curriculum review were also highlighted and concern was expressed that reviewing the framework may undermine the work already under way. The
Committee agreed that a Task and Finish Group should be
27/15
23/15
24/15
25/15
20/15
21/15
22/15
4

established but that (i) the proposed focus of the Group was too narrow and should be broadened to consider the wider issues and solutions, with a review of the credit framework being one element for consideration, and (ii) the membership should be extended to provide greater departmental representation.
Resolved That the Academic Registrar should prepare a revised paper for virtual circulation, comment and approval by the Committee.
That the terms of reference of the proposed Task and Finish Group be broadened in line with the discussion described above.
That the membership of the Task and Finish Group include one Head of Department and one Director of Education per Faculty.
That the Executive Deans and Dean of Academic Partnerships should report verbally on the establishment of the Task and Finish Group at the February 2015 meetings of the Faculty Education Committees and
Partnerships Education Committee.
That the Task and Finish Group should provide interim reports to the
March and April Education Committee and Senate meetings with the final report, recommendations and action plan submitted to Education
Committee in June 2015 and to Senate in July 2015.
Received A paper prepared by Ms Liz Laws (Senior Academic Standards and
Partnerships Manager), which provided a summary of the external
33/15
28/15
29/15
30/15
31/15
32/15
Noted examiner reports for 2013-14 and the key issues highlighted.
The Committee commended the summary, describing it as exactly what was needed in ensuring that University-wide issues emerging from external examiner reports were considered appropriately. In particular, the Committee considered the three issues identified for recommendation:
(1) The Committee approved the recommendation that the PVC
(Education), in liaison with the relevant Deputy Dean (Education), should respond to External Examiners where institution-wide issues were raised.
(2) The Committee approved the recommendation that the policy in relation to the moderation of x9 module marks should be extended to include postgraduate taught students and to level 4 undergraduate modules.
(3) The Committee agreed that the inclusion of level 5 modules in the final stage of undergraduate degrees should be kept under review.
The Academic Quality and Standards Committee would consider relevant data to monitor the impact on students and make
34/15
35/15
36/15
37/15
5

recommendations to the Education Committee as appropriate.
Resolved That recommendations 2.1(a) and 2.1(c) contained in paper EC/15/07 be approved, noting that in relation to 2.1(b), the Academic Quality and Standards Committee would maintain oversight and make recommendations as appropriate.
Received A paper prepared by Mrs Claire Nixon, which set out details of the review being undertaken by the Higher Education Funding Council for
England (HEFCE) in relation quality assessment in the UK.
Noted The Committee noted that there was a two stage consultation process under way, which constituted a broad review followed by more detailed proposals. An institutional response to the first stage of the review was currently being prepared. Members were invited to provide comments to Mrs Nixon by Monday 16 February 2015.
Received A paper prepared by Dr Jo Andrews (Assistant Director of Human
Resources (Organisational Development) and Head of Learning and
Development) and Dr Liz Austin (Talent Development Centre, Director of Taught Programmes), which provided a progress report in relation
Noted to the development of the Talent Development Centre prior to its full implementation in August 2015.
The Committee noted both the excellent progress with the establishment of the Talent Development Centre (TDC) and the key features of the planned work to develop it further during 2014-15 and beyond, particularly the embedding of academic skills modules, the offer of academic skills classes for all first year students and the extension of English Language support. During discussion, the
Committee noted the work that was underway to develop numeracy and mathematics support, including a peer-assisted scheme. This work would be led by staff in the TDC, which would minimise the impact on academic staff in the Department of Mathematical
Sciences, although the important links with the work of that
Department were acknowledged. The links between the work of the
TDC and other initiatives and developments were also acknowledged, such as work-based learning, embedding employability skills into the curriculum and the introduction of the Higher Education Achievement
Report. It was agreed that the term ‘non-native speakers of English’ should not be used within the context of the TDC’s work and would be replaced with ‘speakers of English as an additional language’.
In noting the significant plans for the development of the TDC, particularly where participation for students would become a requirement, the Committee agreed that relevant proposals would be submitted by Dr Andrews to the March 2015 Education Committee for
38/15
39/15
40/15
41/15
42/15
43/15
6

consideration and recommendation to Senate as appropriate.
Noted The Committee noted a minor amendment to the paper. Item 1 under items for decision should be read as follows (missing text underlined):
Exceptional variations could be approved by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor upon recommendation from the relevant Deputy Dean (Education).
Resolved That the proposals contained in paper EC/15/10 be recommended to
Senate.
44/15
45/15
Noted 46/15
Noted 47/15
Noted 48/15
Noted 49/15
Noted 50/15
Noted
Richard Stock
Deputy Academic Registrar
Secretary, Education Committee
Academic Section
11 February 2015
51/15
7