Unapproved
Chair
Present
Apologies
Secretary
Professor Aletta Norval
Karen Bush, Adrian Chira, Osei Downes, Professor Hawkins, Ruairi Hipkin,
Profe ssor Fox O’Mahony (for Items 1-8), Dr Luther, Andrew McIntosh, Professor
Main, Dr Penman, Professor Pevalin, Professor Underwood, Cathy Walsh
Dr Andrews, Eigaude Bertasiute, Stephen McAuliffe, Dr Micklewright
Wendy Clifton-Sprigg
In attendance
Nadine Cottrell, Dr Stevenson, Claire Nixon, Paddy Reilly, Richard Stock, Marty
Jacobs (for Items 1-8), Dave Stanbury (for Items 1-8), Ben Steeples (for Item
12)
BUSINESS TAKEN WITHOUT DISCUSSION
Approved Without discussion, those items not already starred on the agenda or indicated at the meeting
MINUTES FROM THE MEETING HELD ON 11 FEBRUARY 2016 (EC/16/12)
Resolved That the minutes be approved.
EC/55/16
EC/56/16
MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES
Noted Minute EC/36/16
The Head of Equality and Diversity had met with the Director of
Employability to discuss making online equality and diversity training
EC/57/16 available to students. The views of the Faculty Employability Officers were being sought on the most appropriate way in which to progress this within their Faculty. A further update on progress would be provided.
1

Minute EC/45/16
The PGRE Dean had met Learning and Development to finalise the launch/publicity plans for rolling out online supervisory training for the
Summer term.
Incorporating supervisory training into the compulsory training statement for probationary academic staff was complicated as the new arrangements has only been finalised recently. However, Learning and Development was considering how the requirement could be included in a revised academic induction process. A further update on progress would be provided.
REPORT ON CHAIR’S ACTION (EC/16/13)
Noted The Committee agreed an amendment to the approved changes to t he Dean’s approval process under Regulation 1.8 to clarify that a report should be provided to Education Committee on students
Noted admitted under Regulation 1.8, reporting on their progress each year, starting from its meeting in December 2017.
The amended PGT Economics English language requirement for 2016 entry would be subject to review.
CHAIR’S VERBAL REPORT
Noted TEF Update
The Deputy Director of Academic Services (Quality and Development) provided an update on the recently published Hefce letter on the revised operating model for quality assessment. The new framework would be piloted in 2016-17 with institutions that were scheduled for review that year. This would not involve the University or any of its partners. The mooted central register of external examiners would not be taken forward, however, there would still be a consultation on training external examiners. A fuller briefing would be provided at the next meeting.
The Chair reported that the University had established a group to look at TEF preparations.
Update on Task and Finish Groups
The following areas were currently under review:
Academic Offences – Dr Luther reported that the Group was developing a revised list of offences and revised penalties. Work was progressing with Learning and Development on academic integrity resources, including online materials and tutorials. It was planned that these would be available to all students, and also that students could be required to attend where they had been found guilty of an offence.
Students who had been found not guilty of an offence could be recommended to attend a tutorial, and it was clarified that this would be a supportive action intended to benefit the student. The Group was
2
EC/58/16
EC/59/16
EC/60/16
EC/61/16
EC/62/16
EC/63/16
EC/64/16

also looking at how academic integrity training could be included as part of the curriculum. The Group would bring forward its recommendations to the next meeting.
Anonymous Marking – Dr Luther reported that research was being undertaken into practice at other institutions, which would inform a discussion paper, which would be circulated in the Summer term.
External Examiners – Dr Luther reported that initial planning for the work of this new group had started, which would be looking at the information provided to external examiners.
Integrated Masters – Dr Penman reported that the Group would hold its first meeting in the Summer term. In view of this, the Group would not be bringing forward recommendations to the Committee’s next meeting.
Module Optionality – Dr Penman reported that work was being undertaken to model different caps and that meetings had been held with individual departments to discuss concerns. Following this, the
Group’s recommendations would be updated and brought to the
Committee’s next meeting.
Attendance Monitoring Steering Group
The Attendance Monitoring Steering Group would be consulting departments and the Students’ Union on proposed changes to the
Progress Procedures at the beginning of the Summer term, and would report on its recommendations to the June meeting of Education
Committee.
TECHNOLOGY ENHANCED LEARNING: UPDATE (EC/16/14)
Received A paper prepared by Marty Jacobs (Senior Education Technologist), which provided an update on the activities of the Technology-
Enhanced Learning Team (TETL) and proposed a number of
Noted recommendations to increase the impact at institutional level and embed TEL in the curriculum.
The Chair noted that this was the beginning of an important discussion on technology enhanced learning and digital literacy, and noted the link to the next item on the agenda.
The recommendations needed to be considered in the wider context of University priorities and the vision for the Essex education offer. It was recognised that the University needed to offer a strong digital literacy experience to students. There were a number of dimensions to delivering this including electronic delivery of the curriculum; critical engagement with the digital world; practical opportunities to engage with digital technologies; and the necessary support for students and staff, and infrastructure issues.
3
EC/65/16
EC/66/16
EC/67/16
EC/68/16
EC/69/16
EC/70/16
EC/71/16
EC/72/16

A strategic approach needed to be taken to determine what the
Universi ty’s digital offer should be and how to deliver it.
During discussion the following was noted and agreed:

It was recognised that module HS858 was atypical and that this could limit what could be extrapolated from the data. There was, however, further anecdotal evidence to support the argument that this approach to using Moodle did increase student engagement.
There would be further work looking at learner analytics from
Moodle engagement.

To date there had been no student consultation and this would need to be undertaken as part of taking forward the recommendations.

Electronic library resources should be included in the overall approach and Library staff should be involved in taking forward developments.

A better picture of the overall engagement of departments in TEL was needed, including information on the percentage of modules using Moodle.

It was important to ensure that resources were accessible to all students.

In relation to the curriculum, pedagogy should drive the approach and not technology.
T he Committee did not support the ‘online first’ approach to module design but did support ‘online at the same time’. There was also concern regarding the recommendation to establish Moodle as the single source for all learning materials, and it was agreed that there needed to be further consultation on this and a more phased approach.
The Committee wanted to see consultation with students on the proposal to turn the Moodle homepage into a lively ‘learning das hboard’ to replace the ‘Education’ tab in the My Essex student portal, and noted the link with the development of the University’s new website. With regard to the recommendation to repurpose Moodle X, the Committee agreed that the priority was current and new students, and that open access was not a current priority.
Resolved That a revised paper, with recommendations to Senate where appropriate, should be brought to the next meeting, addressing the comments above.
The Committee approved the following recommendations:
 Create a new visual identity for Moodle, taking the best features from existing themes and blending them together to make a new theme that improves the functionality, usability and aesthetic of our
Moodle installation.
EC/73/16
EC/74/16
EC/75/16
EC/76/16
EC/77/16
EC/78/16
EC/79/16
EC/80/16
EC/81/16
EC/82/16
EC/83/16
4

 Redesign Essex101 and create complimentary departmental
“taster modules” in Moodle X.
 Arrange departmental training that supports the curriculum review via Departmental Administrators.
 Run TEL mapping workshops for faculties, incorporating Dave
White’s work on the Visitors & Residents model (see Appendix B for details).
 Deliver Professional Digital Identity and Authentic Communication training to University members, including all members of the
University Steering Group (USG).
 Establish a distributed network of TEL contacts, with at least one in each department.
 Provide hands-on video production training to academic staff.
 Promote the use of Office 365 and Google Apps for Education.
REPORT ON DIGITAL SKILLS (EC/16/15)
Received A paper prepared by Dr Penman (Deputy Dean (Education)), which
Noted provided a report and recommendations from sub-groups on digital literacy and on intercalated degrees.
The Committee discussed the report from the sub-group on digital literacy, and noted the link with the previous discussion and the need to consider the wider issues associated with a digital capability framework for the University. It was reported that some departments were already taking forward the recommendations as part of
Curriculum Review and development of the interdisciplinary module was underway.
During discussion the following was noted and agreed:
 There was support for the development of a digital discovery tool for staff and students, and the Committee noted that the TELT could develop different tools that would work as ‘digital health checks’ for specific modules.
 Consideration should be given to embedding the digital discovery tool in employability modules.
 A progressive approach could be taken to supporting students with diagnostic and taster opportunities in the first year, leading to later opportunities to develop digital skills. It would be important to provide adequate and appropriate opportunities for students to develop their digital skills.
Resolved The Committee approved the following recommendations for recommendation to Senate:
 That the University adopt the Jisc definition of digital literacy.
 That departments and the Employability and Careers Centre consider how they can strengthen and emphasise more digital skills development in our education and employability provision.
Such greater emphasis should also be placed on digital literacy as part of the initiatives around the Big Essex Award, if not already
5
EC/84/16
EC/85/16
EC/86/16
EC/87/16
EC/88/16
EC/89/16
EC/90/16
EC/91/16
EC/92/16
EC/93/16
EC/94/16
EC/95/16
EC/96/16
EC/97/16

provided elsewhere.
 That the Technology-Enhanced Learning Team should continue to develop a digital discovery tool for students, connected to digital training resources curated by them. This tool should, in a secondwave, be complemented by more discipline-specific ones, created in collaboration with staff from the relevant departments. Use of the tool(s) should be strongly encouraged (including with the help of the Students’ Union and Personal Tutors), but not be required.
 Develop interdisciplinary modules (for example the module on navigating the digital world to be housed in CISH), showcasing some of the research from across the University and equipping students with the critical and broader awareness required for digital literacy.
 That a Task and Finish Group on Digital Literacy be established to consider the wider policy, strategy and infrastructure issues in the reports on Technology-Enhanced Learning and Digital Literacy.
Resolved Following consultation, that Chair’s Action be taken to approve the membership and terms of reference of the Task and Finish Group on
Digital Literacy.
Noted The Committee discussed the report from the sub-group on intercalated degrees. The Group had found enthusiasm for the basic concept but had identified significant issues around how to deliver an intercalated year, and little current evidence of demand. It had recommended that the University did not pursue the idea of an intercalated year at present.
In discussion, and outside the Committee, there remained enthusiasm for the idea and a wish to find a workable model that would deliver the educational benefits and provide an innovative degree offering. The
Committee noted the detailed issues that the sub-group had already considered regarding entry requirements to the intercalated year; accessibility to international students; and the constraints for courses with PSRB requirements. It also noted that some of the benefits that students sought from an intercalated year could be delivered by including a project and/or work-based learning element in the year.
Resolved The Committee approved the following recommendations for recommendation to Senate:
 That further work and consultation should be undertaken on the development of intercalated years, with a view to having an initial offering available in 2017-18.
 That the University continues to reflect on the most appropriate steps it can take to enable its students to acquire skills complementary to their degree subjects, bearing in mind that these will not necessarily fit well into degree level courses, and establishes a further task and finish subgroup to pursue this possibility.
6
EC/98/16
EC/99/16
EC/100/16
EC/101/16
EC/102/16
EC/103/16
EC/104/16
EC/105/16

 That the University continues to reflect on how students become aware of the full range of skills they are gaining automatically in the course of their studies here.
RESEARCH DEGREE REGULATIONS (EC/16/16)
Received A paper prepared by Professor Pevalin (Dean PGR&E), Dr Balsdon
Noted
(PGRE Manager) and Dr Dollard (Quality and Policy Manager), which proposed revisions to the Principal Regulations for Research Degrees.
The proposed revisions to the Regulations addressed a number of structural issues as well as introducing greater internal and external consistency. There was broad support for the proposed revisions and the Committee focused its discussion on the proposal to require an independent chair for all vivas.
In discussion there was concern that the resource requirement to provide an independent chair for all vivas was disproportionate to the potential benefits. There was also a concern that a large pool of chairs, who had little experience of the role, might not deliver the benefit expected.
It had been argued that the measure would reduce appeals, however, it was estimated that the current number of appeals was low. Other good practice benefits, however, were noted. The option of recording vivas was considered but dismissed owing to the number of practical concerns.
It was agreed that the University move to the risk-based option that had been put forward in the paper, which would increase the number of vivas that had an independent chair, and that this should be reviewed at the end of the first year.
During discussion the following was also noted and agreed:
 That consideration be given to including a minimum word count for thesis in the regulations.
 That the requirements (including word lengths) for different types of thesis (e.g. traditional, and thesis by paper) be covered in guidelines, which should be referred to in the Regulations.
 That the section on Study Away be amended to cover any research undertaken away from the University and not just outside the UK.
 A number of detailed corrections had been identified, which would be forwarded to the report’s authors for inclusion in the final recommendations to Senate.
EC/106/16
EC/107/16
Resolved That a revised paper, with recommendations to Senate, should be brought to the next meeting, addressing the comments above.
EC/108/16
EC/111/16
EC/112/16
EC/113/16
EC/114/16
EC/115/16
EC/116/16
EC/109/16
EC/110/16
7

POSTGRADUATE TAUGHT CREDIT FRAMEWORK (EC/16/17)
Received A paper prepared by Dr Penman (Deputy Dean (Education)) and
Jenny Wilders (Executive Officer) on the review of the postgraduate taught credit framework.
Noted There had been wide consultation and extensive research on the issues that the Task and Finish Group had been asked to address.
The Group had not found a case to move to a single credit framework, which would cause significant work with little added benefit.
Notwithstanding this, the Group had made a number of recommendations to address issues that arose from operating two options within the overall credit framework.
Resolved That the recommendations on the Postgraduate Taught Credit
Framework, contained in paper EC/16/17, be recommended to Senate for approval.
MENTORING UPDATE (EC/16/18)
Received A paper prepared by Rachel Fletcher (Head of Student Engagement) on the review of mentoring.
Noted The Committee noted that the review of mentoring continued work that was started under the previous year’s Education Action Plan and formed action A4 of the current EAP. Progress had been made on embedding and developing existing mentoring arrangements, including the procurement of a new mentoring system. The Task and
Finish Group had also considered future postgraduate coaching/mentoring arrangements beyond the Postgraduate Support
Scheme (PSS).
Resolved The Committee approved the following recommendations:
 Further embedding and development of existing mentoring arrangements for 2016-17 (excluding PSS) making use of the new
Noted e-mentoring software.
 That no replacement for the mentoring strand of PSS is offered during 2016-17, but that plans for a scheme starting in 2017-18 be considered and costed in time for the budget-setting process for that year.
That following consultation, the Chair be notified of who would be leading the development of a postgraduate coaching/mentoring scheme.
The Committee noted that this was the final update mentoring.
8
EC/117/16
EC/118/16
EC/119/16
EC/120/16
EC/121/16
EC/122/16
EC/123/16
EC/124/16
EC/125/16

FASER UPDATE (EC/16/1807)
Received A paper prepared by Ben Steeples (Development Manager, Learning
Technologies), which provided an update on FASER developments and usage in 2015-16.
Noted The report included an updated on Phase 3 of the Making Electronic
Feedback (MEFE) project, which would deliver three new features. It had been decided not to deliver information on past feedback to academic staff via FASER, because of the risk of unconscious bias when marking new work, and this would be taken forward as part of the personal tutor role/system. The Committee was pleased to note the increased use of FASER by departments. Updated information on usage would be circulated to members outside the meeting.
During discussion the following was noted and agreed:

Consideration should be given to accessibility issues when making feedback available to students in all formats.

The process for submitting a coversheet with coursework would be reviewed and clarified with Student Support, and the Faculty
Convenor for Humanities offered to support this review
REPORTS FROM EDUCATION COMMITTEE SUB-COMMITTEES
FACULTY EDUCATION COMMITTEE (HUMANITIES) (EC/16/20)
Noted
FACULTY EDUCATION COMMITTEE (SCIENCE AND HEALTH) (EC/16/21)
Noted
FACULTY EDUCATION COMMITTEE (SOCIAL SCIENCES) (EC/16/22)
Noted
PARTNERSHIP EDUCATION COMMITTEE (EC/16/23)
Noted
ACADEMIC QUALITY AND STANDARDS COMMITTEE (EC/16/24)
Noted
STUDENT EXPERIENCE COMMITTEE (EC/16/25)
Noted
EC/126/16
EC/130/16
EC/127/16
EC/128/16
EC/129/16
EC/131/16
EC/132/16
EC/133/16
EC/134/16
EC/135/16
9

UNIVERSITY CAMPUS SUFFOLK JOINT ACADEMIC COMMITTEE (EC/16/26)
Noted
Resolved That the recommendations for course suspensions and discontinuations, contained in paper EC/16/26, be approved.
PROPOSED VARIATIONS TO THE RULES OF ASSESSMENT (EC/16/27)
Noted The Committee noted that summer school modules were subject to the University’s quality assurance processes and framework.
Resolved That the proposed variations to the Rules of Assessment, as set out in paper EC/16/27, be recommended to Senate for approval.
PROPOSED CHANGES TO LIBRARY RULES AND REGULATIONS (EC/16/28)
Noted
Noted
Resolved That the revised Library Regulations, as set out in paper EC/16/28, be recommended to Senate for approval.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
None
Wendy Clifton-Sprigg
Secretary, Education Committee
Academic Section
April 2016
EC/136/16
EC/137/16
EC/138/16
EC/139/16
EC/140/16
EC/141/16
EC/142/16
10