Approved
Professor Aletta Norval
Dr Andrews, Professor Fox O’Mahony, Ms Sian Johnson-James, Professor
Landman, Dr Luther, Professor Main, Dr Micklewright, Dr Penman, Mr Petcu, Mr
Spencer, Professor Underwood
Ms Le Carpentier, Mr McAuliffe, Professor Pevalin, Mr Thomas
Mr Stock
Ms Earle, Mrs Nixon
Approved Without discussion, those items not already starred on the agenda or indicated at the meeting
52/15
Approved
Noted
Noted
Noted Academic Infrastructure Task and Finish Group
The Chair reported that, following the discussion at the February 2015 meeting, the membership and terms of reference for the Task and
Finish Group had been revised in line with what had been agreed by the Committee. There had been wider discussion about the proposed review of the undergraduate credit framework and it had been agreed
53/15
54/15
55/15
56/15
1

that the undergraduate framework would not be included as part of the
G roup’s work, which would focus predominantly on areas such as volume and mode of assessment, module optionality, the shape of the academic year and volume of work per credit. The postgraduate credit framework would also be w ithin the scope of the Group’s remit. The
Group would report to the June 2015 Education Committee and July
2015 Senate. During discussion, there was some concern expressed about the decision not to review the undergraduate credit framework.
It was noted that the members of the Faculty Education Committees would be included as part of the consultation on any proposals resulting from the Group’s work, although this would take place outside the standard meeting structure. It was acknowledged that some areas under consideration would require a longer lead in time for implementation so could not be effective immediately or in 2015-
16.
Education Enhancement Fund
The Committee noted that the fund applications that had been submitted were currently under consideration. There had only been one submission from an academic department. The Chair encouraged more applications from individual departments and asked the
Executive Deans to encourage more departmental submissions at the next meetings of the Faculty Education Committees.
Received A paper prepared by Mr Stephen McAuliffe (Academic Registrar), which provided an update on progress with the Education Action Plan
(EAP) 2014-15.
Noted The Committee noted that all EAP initiatives continued to be on track.
Updates in relation to most of the initiatives were elsewhere on the agenda for consideration at this meeting or were scheduled for consideration in June 2015.
Received A paper from Mrs Claire Nixon (Deputy Academic Registrar, Academic
Standards and Partnerships), which set out details of the proposed action plan following the outcome of the Quality Assurance Agency
(QAA) Higher Education Review (HER), which was undertaken in
Noted
2014.
The Committee noted that there had been two areas included in the action plan that were not subject to formal recommendation by the
QAA. These related to consistency on the length and breadth of external reports on new course proposals and consistency on the use of technology. While acknowledging that these were important institutional issues, which would be embedded in work being undertaken elsewhere, it was agreed that they should not be included in the action plan submitted to the QAA. In particular, members also discussed the QAA recommendations (i) to ensure that all periodic
57/15
58/15
59/15
60/15
61/15

review reports confirmed how UK threshold standards were achieved and (ii) to strengthen the committee structure for oversight of overseas partnerships. A final version of the action plan would be submitted to the April 2015 Senate. The Committee noted that the action plan in relation to the student submission was complete, although it did not need to be submitted to the QAA.
Resolved That the proposed action plan be recommended to Senate for approval and submission to the QAA as set out in paper EC/15/19, subject to the discussion noted above.
Received A paper prepared by Marty Jacobs (Senior Education
Noted
Technologist), which provided an update on the Technology
Enhanced Learning project, including the three year action plan that had been agreed.
The Committee noted that the core themes were Listen Again, Moodle and FASER. Activities to enable staff development on the use of IT in support of learning were being prepared. Departments with the largest cohort groups had been prioritised for overall development in relation to technology enhanced learning, which meant that there was only one Humanities department included in the priority departments. It was proposed that the three year action plan should be made available openly online to anyone with a University login.
During discussion, it was noted that there were plans to consult the
Directors of Education to support prioritisation for development within the priority departments, while student teams would be appointed to determine student priorities. Concern was expressed about the low priority being given to the Humanities departments and it was suggested that the Department of Literature, Film and Theatre Studies
(LiFTS) should be made a higher priority and moved from 11 th to 7 th in the priority list. It was acknowledged that departments that were not advanced in the development of technology enhanced learning were not necessarily resistant to its development and was suggested that, where possible, preparatory work could be undertaken with departments not in the priority list to enable the sharing of good practice as early as possible.
The Committee endorsed the proposed approach to prioritisation but agreed that LiFTS should be moved to 7 th on the list. It was also agreed that the plan should be made available openly online as proposed but that some of the language should be tidied before publication. Any comments from Committee members on the language should be submitted directly to Marty Jacobs.
62/15
63/15
64/15
65/15
66/15

Received A paper prepared by Liz Austin (Director of Taught Programmes,
Talent Development Centre) and Dr Maxwell Stevenson (Learning and
Development Manager), which set out details of the planned extension
Noted to current English Language and Academic Skills provision and made recommendations in relation to English Language study.
The Committee noted that the approach of the Talent Development
Centre to date had been to respond to student and departmental need in relation to language support. The next step was to ensure that the language provision was made available as widely as possible.
Although a zero tolerance approach was expected on language test absenteeism, it was envisaged that student engagement would be embedded as part of individual departmental expectations, which would remove the need for sanctions for non-engagement. In order to support the work of the TDC, it was agreed that departments should be required to have an appropriate named contact or contacts with whom the TDC could liaise. The Committee also discussed and approved the proposals in relation to the extension of the provision of on-arrival English Language test.
Resolved That the following proposals be recommended to Senate for approval: academic skills workshops, the strategy for raising student awareness and the threshold requirement for international students regarding the
 The principle that academic skills provision to departments should take the form of a total of five, free one hour sessions on core academic skills for first-year students, delivered in small groups in line with appropriate first year modules and assessments. Provision should be extended to all students in all departments with effect from 2016-17 following a pilot with a limited number of departments in 2015-16.
 The threshold requirement for international students in relation to the on-arrival English Language test should be raised to include all students holding language grades up to and including IELTS 7.0 or equivalent.
 In consultation with the Head of Department and Director of
Education, each department should be required to appoint an appropriate, dedicated member or members of staff to liaise with the TDC in order to raise awareness among international students of the need to continue with additional English language study.
Received A paper prepared by Dr Maxwell Stevenson, which provided an update on progress with the Challenge Essex project, which aimed to provide an extra-curricular programme to reinforce connections
67/15
68/15
69/15
70/15
71/15
72/15

Noted between student experiences of research and education at an early stage of study.
The Committee noted that Challenge Essex would take place in the
Teaching Centre in week 37 (8-10 June 2015). The first research challenge theme would focus on the relationship between food and study. An update on the project would be provided to the July 2015
Senate meeting.
73/15
Received A paper prepared by Ms Hannah Gott (Head of the Essex Experience
Project), which provided an update on progress and set out the phase
1 and phase 2 priorities.
Noted The Committee was supportive of the proposed phases and noted the potential breadth of the scope of the project. Phase 1 would include development of an institution-wide approach to the student journey, preparation of a tailored ‘What's On’ Guide and enhanced communication channels. Phase 2 would focus on the themes of global community and the concept of a lifelong 'culture of membership'. ‘Social entrepreneurship’ should be considered as a further theme to develop in collaboration with CISH. It was agreed that the project should not be considered an add-on but be integrated into the overall student experience. An update on progress would be provided to the July 2015 Senate meeting.
74/15
75/15
Received A paper prepared by Mr Dave Stanbury (Director of Employability) and 76/15
Noted
Ivan Hutchins (Head of Global Mobility), which set out proposals and options in relation to the progression rules for the year abroad and placement year.
The Committee noted the key issues requiring consideration: the threshold for permitting students to progress to the year abroad or placement year, preparatory training for students undertaking a year abroad or placement year and reassessment requirements for students undertaking a year abroad or placement year.
During lengthy discussion, the Committee agreed that there was no clear basis for the current 53% threshold for the year abroad, which was set in the middle of a degree classification band and was confusing. The Committee agreed that the threshold should be changed to a level with a clearer rationale and that it should be based on the principle of maximising student opportunity. It was important to note that students were bound by the thresholds set by hosting institutions so, regardless of the University’s threshold for progression, it was crucial for applicants and students to be aware that achievement in the years preceding the year abroad would have an impact on which host institution they would be able to attend during
77/15
78/15

the year abroad. The Committee agreed that further information and consideration was required before recommendations on the threshold for either the year abroad or the placement year could be made to
Senate. It was also suggested that there should be no requirement for the proposed preparatory training to be included as part of the standard course structure and that further information was needed on when the requirement would be effective and what it would entail before a recommendation could be made. The Committee supported the proposal to bring the reassessment requirements for the year abroad and placement year in line with other programmes of study and requested that the recommendation form part of a set of recommendations submitted for consideration by the Committee at its next meeting in June 2015 with a view to recommendation to Senate in July 2015.
Resolved That the University should adopt a principle of ensuring as wide a range of opportunities as possible for students to study abroad and undertake placement years and should consider reducing the progression threshold to 40% in line with the standard progression threshold.
That the University should move away from the current 53% threshold for study abroad and it should be made clear to students the achievement required to secure a place at a student’s preferred institution abroad.
That undertaking appropriate preparatory training to support students before the year abroad or placement year was vitally important and that further information on when and how the requirement to undertake preparatory training would be introduced should be provided to the Committee.
That, for year abroad and placement year students, (i), the requirement to pass all Stage Two modules at the first attempt should be relaxed, so that a student with no more than 30 non-core failed credits (across Stage One and Stage Two) after the summer meeting of the Stage Two Board of Examiners, should be permitted to proceed to the year abroad or placement year; (ii) such students would still be required to undertake reassessment in failed Stage Two credits in the normal way and at the normal time, but they would be eligible to remain on the year abroad or placement year programme whether or not they were successful in this reassessment, in accordance with the normal operation of the Rules of Assessment; (iii) where it was not logistically possible for students to attend reassessment examinations in September due to the year abroad or placement year, the relevant
Deputy Dean (Education) should be authorised to approve an alternative method of assessment.
That, in light of the Committee’s discussion, the issue should be referred back to Mr Stanbury and Mr Hutchins for further consideration and consultation with others as appropriate, including the Admissions team and Registry, and a full set of recommendations should be
79/15
80/15
81/15
82/15
83/15

submitted for consideration and recommendation to Senate at the
Education Committee’s next meeting in June 2015, which should include all the issues described above.
Received A paper prepared by Mrs Carly Stanhope (Assistant Education
Noted
Manager, Registry), which provided the standard termly report from the Faculty Education Committee (Humanities).
Received A paper prepared by Mrs Kirstie Sceats (Faculty Education Manager,
Science and Health), which provided the standard termly report from
Noted the Faculty Education Committee (Science and Health).
Received A paper prepared by Mr Jonathan Wright (Executive Officer , Social
Noted
Noted
Sciences (Registry), which provided the standard termly report from the Faculty Education Committee (Social Sciences).
During discussion, concern was expressed about the attendance record at the Committee of members of the Department of Economics.
It was agreed that the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Education) would write to the Head of Department and the Director of Education to reiterate the importance of prioritising the attendance at meetings of Committees of
Senate over other meetings and to clarify that both the Head of
Department and Director Education were members of the Faculty
Education Committee for Social Sciences and were required to attend.
Noted
Resolved That the proposals contained in paper EC/15/29 be approved and recommended to Senate for approval as appropriate.
84/15
85/15
86/15
87/15
88/15
89/15
90/15
91/15
92/15

Noted
Resolved That the proposals contained in paper EC/15/30 be approved.
Noted
Resolved That the proposals contained in paper EC/15/31 be approved.
Noted
Resolved That the proposals contained in paper EC/15/32 be recommended to
Senate for approval.
Received A paper prepared by Mr Stephen McAuliffe, which set out a series of recommendations proposing changes to University regulations in relation to compliance with the University’s obligations as a Tier 4 sponsor with highly trusted sponsor status.
Noted The Committee supported the proposed changes. During discussion, it was noted that all students would continue to have the right to request a review of University decisions by the Office of the
Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA) but this would not affect the University’s operation of the revised regulations or Tier 4 obligations. As is the case for the operation of all University regulations, where action was taken in relation to Appendix One in paper EC/14/33, it was agreed that students would be permitted to seek advice from the Students’ Union Advice Centre but there was no need to amend the proposed wording to make this explicit. In response to proposed revised wording to paragraph 36 in Appendix
Three in paper EC/14/33, suggested by Mr Spencer, it was agreed that further discussion was required with the Academic Registrar as
Tier 4 Chief Authorising Officer. Any proposed significant changes to the existing wording would be managed via electronic circulation as appropriate before submission to Senate.
Resolved That the proposed changes to University regulations be recommended to Senate for approval, as set out in paper EC/15/33, subject to the discussion above.
93/15
94/15
95/15
96/15
97/15
98/15
99/15
100/15
101/15

Noted None
Richard Stock, Deputy Academic Registrar
Secretary, Education Committee
Academic Section
25 March 2015
102/15