Chem Eng
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)
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)
(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).
(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
deadlines of all submitted work and to
establish a submission calendar; e.g. for
courseworks and lab reports.
(Recommendation 17 from SSLC annual
report).
Most deadlines occur during the last few weeks
Department feedback
We are not convinced that there is any statistical
evidence to support the claim that feedback is not
being returned within 3 weeks. If there is evidence,
then Chemical Engineering will consider formulating
a management plan.
QA 16 does not demand individual written feedback
on examinations, and Chemical Engineering does
not intend to produce such feedback.
However, students meet individually with their
personal tutors following the release of exams marks
on SAMIS. Feedback on performance is discussed
during these tutorial meetings.
In January 2014 the DLTQC recommended that
SAMIS generated statistics on each unit could be
provided to student in future, uploaded onto Moodle.
This will enable students to benchmark their
individual performance for a unit against the whole
class.
Dr Tim Mays, the HoD for Chemical Engineering,
has decided that Chemical Engineering will not
routinely release exam scripts to students.
However, upon request, exam scripts of failed units
have been, and will continue, to be made available
to students taking resit examinations.
Chemical Engineering currently spreads course work
deadlines effectively, so there no evidence that a
Submissions Calendar is required.
Chemical Engineering introduced a Submissions
Calendar in the 1990’s, and it failed spectacularly.
As soon the delivery of material was delayed (for
Recommendation
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.
5
University to investigate where anonymous
marking can be implemented and to
implement procedures to ensure this occurs.
(Recommendation 21 from SSLC annual
report).
This recommendation will also be considered by
ULTQC.
6
Department feedback
example due illness of academic staff, or the
weather), then the course work piled up and the
whole timetable became useless.
The department fully complies with anonymous
marking of exam scripts.
All projects are double blind marked, but not
anonymously. As most of the assessed work in
Chemical Engineering is carried out in very small
groups (laboratories or design / research projects),
the supervisor will know who the students are in any
case.
Develop policies on fairer group work
marking. (SU 2013/14 Top Ten issue)
There is no evidence that current group marking
practices within Chem Eng are unfair.
Departments are requested to provide
information on mechanisms they have in place
to ensure fair group work marking.
Year 1, 2, and Design Projects: students sign sheets
to indicate that the contribution from all group
members in equitable.
(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)
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)
We already comply
Feedback policy is clearly stated in the Handbook.
To pick out a section and artificially highlight
diminished the importance of other key areas such
as Health and Safety, plagiarism etc etc.
All recommendations relating to the provision of
information to students will be considered
centrally by the Public Information
Subcommittee. The effectiveness of Feedback
1
Recommendation
Policies is also being reviewed by the SU and
the LTEO.
Department feedback
At present it is QA CoP requirement that
Feedback Policies are included in Programme
Handbooks. Departments are asked to
comment specifically on what they consider to
be the best mechanism(s) to communicate
feedback policies to both staff and students.
9
Investigate the potential to create marking
sheets to be used across all programmes as
standard. (Recommendation 8, SU Feedback
Campaign)
This is already done for major projects
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
timetabled where possible and in accordance This is already done for all years in chem eng.
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
12
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)
Broadly speaking, this happens widely across the
programme.
Module managers will be instructed to manage this
as part of their normal responsibilities.
Reading lists to be sent at least 10 weeks
before the start of semester one to students
and to the Departmental Librarian, so that
It is preferable that students sit down with their tutors
in week 1 and discuss the books that they should
2
Recommendation
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).
Department feedback
consider buying.
Rushing out 10 weeks before the start of the
teaching period and buying every book on a list is
not sensible.
The Library has indicated that it would prefer to
receive reading lists prior to students so that
they have sufficient time to order materials.
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
into recording lecture samples for
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.
3
Under English law, individuals own the copyright to
their own image. Therefore any participation by
academic staff in having their lectures recorded
would need to be completely voluntary.
Most academics do not feel the need for lectures to
be recorded currently, as they feel that this would
affect physical attendance at lectures.