From:
Associate Dean (Learning & Teaching)
To:
Directors of Studies
9 February 2016
MEMORANDUM
___________________________________________________________________
Two reports from the Students’ Union were discussed recently at University Learning,
Teaching and Quality Committee (ULTQC):
The Students’ Union Feedback Campaign
Summary of SSLC annual reports
Both reports included a number of recommendations for the University to consider
and an action plan has been agreed by ULTQC to take the recommendations
forward.
The reports and action plan are provided in appendix 2. Please would you share
these with your SSLCs so that students can see how the issues that they are raising
are being addressed.
As you will see in the action plan, there are a number of recommendations for which
ULTQC would like feedback specifically from departments. These recommendations
have been provided separately in a grid in appendix 1. Please would you discuss
these recommendations with both staff and students in your department and provide
a response, using the grid, if possible, by Friday 21 February 2014.
The department responses will be considered by ULTQC at its meeting on 25 March
2014.
A number of the recommendations would suggest that, in some instances,
departments are not meeting the expectations of the QA Code of Practice. Where
this is the case, please indicate the reason for this and any measures that might be
put in place to ensure compliance in future.
Appendix 1: Recommendations for consideration by departments
Appendix 2: 2.1 Summary of SSLC annual reports
2.2 Report on Feedback Campaign
2.3 Action plan to address recommendations in SSLC annual reports
and SU Feedback Campaign
Appendix 1
Recommendations from the Students’ Union Feedback Campaign, the summary of SSLC
annual reports, and SU Top Ten for consideration by departments
Departments are asked to comment (if possible using the grid below) on the following
recommendations arising from SSLC annual reports and the Students’ Union Feedback
Campaign. The recommendations are in bold. Text in italics has been provided for clarification
and did not form part of the original recommendation. A number of the recommendations would
suggest that, in some instances, departments are not meeting the expectations of the QA Code
of Practice. Where this is the case, please indicate the reason for this and any measures that
might be put in place to ensure compliance in future.
1
2
Recommendation
Investigate why feedback isn’t being
returned in the three week timeframe set out
by the QA Code of Practice. Attempt to
discern whether there are any potential
systems that could be rendered more
efficient. (Recommendation 11 from SSLC
annual report, Recommendation 1 from
Feedback Campaign)
Department feedback
Some unit convenors do this but felt that marking
and providing feedback to each student within the
time-frame was unrealistic.
Departments to look into providing general
exam feedback via Moodle. Departments to
promote the availability of this feedback
once it has been up loaded.
(Recommendation 12 from SSLC annual
report)
Doing already.
(QA16 states “Continuing students should
receive feedback on their academic
performance in formal written examinations, but
this need not necessarily be individual
feedback.”)
3
Explore opportunities to give students
greater access to their exam scripts.
(Recommendation 20 from SSLC annual
report).
This would be discussed at the All Staff meeting on
14th January 2014.
(QA16 states “At the discretion of the Head of
Department and in alignment with departmental
policies on feedback, students may be given
access to their examination scripts …”)
4
Departments to consider spreading
This would be considered and incorporated as part
deadlines of all submitted work and to
of the new MPharm degree.
establish a submission calendar; e.g. for
courseworks and lab reports.
This is already being done in PG Taught.
(Recommendation 17 from SSLC annual
report).
Most deadlines occur during the last few weeks
of term. It would appear that students are not
always receiving their assignments far enough in
advance which contributes to the problems with
deadlines for coursework.
1
5
Recommendation
University to investigate where anonymous
marking can be implemented and to
implement procedures to ensure this occurs.
(Recommendation 21 from SSLC annual
report).
Department feedback
Doing already.
This recommendation will also be considered by
ULTQC.
6
Develop policies on fairer group work
marking. (SU 2013/14 Top Ten issue)
Doing already.
Departments are requested to provide
information on mechanisms they have in place
to ensure fair group work marking.
(QA16 states “Where a unit is assessed by
groupwork and makes a significant contribution
(7% or more) to the final classification, the Unit
Convenor must ensure that the assessment is
devised in such a way that includes an element
of individual assessment and the boundary
between cooperation and collusion is made
clear to students at the outset. Setting an
assessment which only entails a mean mark
being awarded to all members of the group will
not normally be appropriate. Similarly individual
feedback should be provided where
appropriate.”)
7
Develop and utilise feedback sheets that
encourage constructive feedback and meet
the feedback requirements of students.
(Recommendation 2 from the SU Feedback
Campaign)
Doing already.
8
Departmental Feedback Policies, and any
subsequent updated versions, to be put on
the department Moodle pages in an easily
accessible manner so that they are readily
available to all students of that department.
(Recommendation 5 from the SU Feedback
Campaign)
The Department feedback policy is in the student
handbook which is available electronically via
Moodle.
All recommendations relating to the provision of
information to students will be considered
centrally by the Public Information
Subcommittee. The effectiveness of Feedback
Policies is also being reviewed by the SU and
the LTEO.
At present it is QA CoP requirement that
Feedback Policies are included in Programme
Handbooks. Departments are asked to
2
9
Recommendation
comment specifically on what they consider to
be the best mechanism(s) to communicate
feedback policies to both staff and students.
Investigate the potential to create marking
sheets to be used across all programmes as
standard. (Recommendation 8, SU Feedback
Campaign)
Department feedback
This is being done where it can.
Marking sheets = marking schemes, marking
grids providing detailed assessment and grading
criteria.
In relation to coursework QA16 states that inter
alia students should “receive the assessment
criteria and any relevant grading criteria.”
10
Meetings with personal tutors should be
Doing already.
timetabled where possible and in accordance
with QA33. (Recommendation 7 from SSLC
annual report)
Timetabled = in the timetable at the beginning of
the semester, and not arranged on an ad hoc
basis by the personal tutor.
This recommendation has also been referred to
the Senior Tutors Forum for consideration.
Departments are specifically asked to consider
whether QA33 be revised to make it a
requirement that personal tutorials be
timetabled.
11
Action on Departments organising the OUEs
for modules provided by multiple
departments to share with all relevant
departments. Action plans from the hosting
department to be communicated to the
relevant departments. (Recommendation 15,
SSLC annual report)
Would be made available to other departments
where it applies.
12
Reading lists to be sent at least 10 weeks
before the start of semester one to students
and to the Departmental Librarian, so that
the students can have sufficient time to
analyse the list and so that the Departmental
Librarians have adequate time to update
their collection. (Recommendation 18, SSLC
annual report).
Doing already.
The Library has indicated that it would prefer to
3
Recommendation
receive reading lists prior to students so that
they have sufficient time to order materials.
Department feedback
Library would also like reading lists to make
clear which books are core / supplementary etc.
Departments to consider specifically making it a
requirement of the QA Code of Practice that
reading lists are provided to the Library 10
weeks before the start of semester 1(with
reading lists being made available to students
shortly after this deadline) and that the
importance of the reading materials (core or
supplementary) be indicated.
This recommendation will also be considered by
the Public Information Subcommittee.
13
Departments with optional modules to look
The lectures vary considerably in content and
into recording lecture samples for
members felt this would be difficult to implement.
publication with optional module
information, so that future students can
make a more informed decision. Use of
Panopto should be encouraged as a teaching
resource. (Recommendation 19 from SSLC
annual report).
This recommendation is also being considered
by the Public Information Subcommittee.
4