Paper ULTQC 13/14 - 13
University Learning & Teaching Quality Committee
September 24, 2013
2012/13 SSLC Annual Reports Overview
1.
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1
The purpose of this report is to identify cross-institutional themes raised in the Annual
Student/Staff Liaison Committee (SSLC) Reports, to recognise good practice, and to
request the Committee to consider recommendations to address any on-going issues.
2.
BACKGROUND
2.1
Under the Quality Assurance Code of Practice QA48: Student/Staff Liaison Committees,
Section 7, each SSLC is required to write an annual report outlining the work carried out,
the key themes explored and the actions that have been taken as a result. Each SSLC is
subsequently required to submit its annual report to the Students’ Union (SU) by the
beginning of August in order for information concerning cross institutional themes to be
drawn out and reported to the Committee for discussion and consideration.
2.2
The information and data contained herein has been compiled from a total of 50 SSLC
Annual Reports for the 2012/13 academic year. Reports were not received from the SSLCs
listed below:
Faculty of Engineering and Design:
Chemical Engineering – all UG programmes*
Electronic and Electrical Engineering – PGT Electrical Power Systems
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences:
Faculty-wide PGR SSLC
Education – UG Childhood, Youth and Education Studies
Education – all PGT programmes* (apart from PGCE)
Health – all PGT programmes* (apart from the suite of Sport and Exercise Medicine /
Sports Physiotherapy programmes)
Faculty of Science:
Natural Science*
Pharmacy and Pharmacology – PGT*
Learning Partnerships:
Bridgewater College – UG Engineering systems programmes
Wiltshire College – UG Motorsport Engineering programmes
Wiltshire College – UG Social Work programmes
2.3
The Departments marked with the asterisk (*) indicates that they have failed to submit their
SSLC Annual Reports for two consecutive years.
2.4
Although QA48 requires the production of a short (one page) summary, most SSLCs take
advantage of the templates provided to complete their reports. Additionally, the level of
detail the SSLC reports go into varies between individual SSLCs and across Departments
Page 1 of 10
and Faculties/Schools. There were several cases where a report indicated that a topic was
discussed, but without giving any detail.
3.
SSLC STATISTICS
3.1
In the SSLC Annual Reports, departments are required to indicate the number of student
representatives and staff that sit on each committee. Ordinance 26 states that the number
of students should not be less than the number of staff. There were five committees which
during the 2012/13 academic year had more staff members than student members and four
committees where this total was equal.
3.2
QA48 section 4.4 outlines a number of topics that SSLCs should discuss annually, such as
External Examiners’ Reports, Departmental Feedback Policies, NSS Action Plans and other
issues. The current outline of the voluntary template does mention some of these core
topics as an item to report on, but it does not do so in a manner that indicates them as
mandatory fields to report on. This culminates in the following problem: even if the topic is
considered during the academic year, if it is not specifically mentioned in the SSLC Annual
Report that discussions, reviews, or other communications have taken place, then it seems
like no consultations have taken place.
3.3
The number of SSLC Annual Reports that explicitly state discussing, reviewing, publicising,
or updating their Departmental Feedback Policies, External Examiners’ Reports, or NSS
Action Plans total to 19, 20, and 9, respectively. The figure for Departmental Feedback
Policies has had an increase from the 2011/12 academic year, where only 9 of the 37 on
campus SSLCs covered this item. It is important to note that although this topic might not
have been mentioned in the SSLC Annual Reports it does not mean that it was not
discussed during the SSLC meetings. Without having received minutes from many SSLC
meetings it is impossible to discern.
3.4
Copies of SSLC minutes should be forwarded to the Students’ Union, as indicated in QA48
section 4.11. Of the submitted reports, it was calculated that only 30 SSLCs actually
complied with this requirement. The aim of this activity is to allow the Students’ Union to
pick up on any University-wide key areas of concern or good practice as they arise rather
than waiting until the end of the academic year when the SSLC Annual Reports are
submitted. This activity is essential for ensuring that both the Students’ Union Officers and
the Faculty Representatives are kept up to date with the developments that occur within the
Faculty they represent to enable them to be effective in their Faculty meetings.
3.5
For the information of the Committee, it was noticed that, during the 2012/13 academic
year, 31 SSLCs had student chairs and that five SSLCs had joint chairs.
Recommendation 1: Update the outline of the voluntary template by adding a section that
specifically relates to the discussion of these core topics in the SSLCs. Include a section for
a tick-box, which would easily indicate that these items have been discussed during the
academic year, and a comment box, where references can be provided to the minutes
when they were discussed. The voluntary template should keep the section under part 4
(Items, Issues and Good Practice) that it currently has, where an explanation of the
discussion and outcomes can be summarised.
Recommendation 2: Departments to send the minutes within two weeks of the meeting, so
that Faculty Representatives and Students’ Union Officers are aware of the items discussed
in the SSLCs within their Faculties.
Page 2 of 10
4.
SSLC FUNCTIONALITY
4.1
Attendance at SSLCs.
4.1.1 Unfortunately, attendance in some SSLCs was reported to have dropped as the academic
year progressed. This decrease in attendance was mainly noticed in the distance learning
courses, as some cancelled their final SSLC meeting due to students not being able to
attend. In total, nine committees did not meet the requirement of having four SSLC
meetings per year minimum. Some key factors affecting this were identified: students
feeling intimidated in meetings and changes to meeting dates and locations at short notice.
4.1.2
One SSLCs reported that they felt the number of staff present at the meetings intimidated
the student representatives. It was also reported that this might have limited the student
representatives’ effectiveness in raising issues or commenting on an agenda item. Raised
both through SSLC annual reports and anecdotally through the SU, some students have
reported feeling a little intimidated in meetings and have raised concerns on the potential
effect disagreements with staff members in their departments would cause, in their role as a
representative.
Recommendation 3: Introduction of anonymised marking would help mediate this.
Committee to discuss ways this could be addressed where students raise concerns.
Good Practice: Department of Physics provide their student representatives with a “SSLC
Procedure Flowchart”, which outlines to student representatives the actions they need to
take to raise and discuss an item at SSLC meetings.
Good Practice: BA Sport and Social Sciences reduced staff presence at the SSLC
meetings, as a result of an on-going issue from the last academic year, in order to allow for
a more “open and free dialogue” to occur.
4.1.3 Changing of the date and location of SSLC meetings was a more prominent issue for the
SSLCs where the student representatives were located off campus; e.g. LPO and Distance
Learners. That said, it is important to note that this also was an issue for “on-campus
students” as well. The main concern was the communication to students of the change,
which occurred too soon to the original meeting date, or, in some cases, the alternative
meeting date. This resulted in some students not having enough time to coordinate their
transportation and having to pay higher transport costs to be able to attend.
Recommendation 4: Set a minimum timeframe for meeting notifications that allows for
adequate time for each SSLC representative to be notified of meeting changes. QA48
currently states, “There should be at least 5 working days notice of additional meetings in
order to give student representatives time to consult with the wider cohort.”
Good Practice: Some departments in the Faculty of Science (Department of Mathematical
Science, Department of Chemistry, Department of Pharmacy & Pharmacology, and
Department of Physics) have an annual “Open SSLC Meeting”, which is open to all
students. Not only does this meeting promote the activities of an SSLC, but it also allows for
greater conversation between students of varying years of study. These sessions were
found to be very useful for gathering student opinion on topical issues, such as feedback,
and will be expanded for the next academic year. Maths has described these meetings as
“essential to the department” for gathering a “wealth of feedback from the students”.
5.
THE KEY ISSUES
5.1
Eduroam.
Page 3 of 10
5.1.1 It was also acknowledged that some locations within departments and others around
campus had very poor signal strength. The library was mentioned more than once as
having low signal strength, particularly in the silent areas. Work has been done over the
summer to address this issue and, as a result, access to eduroam from within the library
should no longer be an issue.
Recommendation 5: Departments to look into where eduroam signal strength is low within
the departments and to communicate this information to BUCS so that this can be
remedied. University to provide funding as required.
Recommendation 6: Library to monitor the strength of the new system and to liaise with
BUCS should any issues arise.
5.2
Personal tutors.
5.2.1 Student representatives have communicated that some of their peers have not yet met their
personal tutors. QA33 states that, “For all models, it is expected that Personal Tutors will
meet with their tutees at least three times during the student’s first semester after entry to
the University, and will offer at least one tutorial per semester at other times. This is a
minimum requirement, and Personal Tutors may increase the number of meetings as
appropriate to reflect contextual aspects such as after a tutee’s return from placement.” On
the other hand, other SSLCs have commended the improvements and the high standards
of personal tutoring in their departments. That said, there have been communications that
the standard of personal tutoring can vary significantly between departments; e.g. students
report a two week wait to meet with some personal tutors, whilst other tutors operate an
open door policy.
Recommendation 7: Meetings with personal tutors should be timetabled where possible
and in accordance with QA33.
5.2.2 One SSLC specifically communicated that “the role of the personal tutors in unclear” and
three others that tutor meetings were “inefficient”.
5.2.3 Current work is being undertaken to further enhance the personal tutorial system through
monitoring of programme evaluation scores and staff development support. It is hoped that
many of these issues raised by students will be addressed through this process.
Recommendation 8: Monitor student understanding and views through programme
evaluation responses. Senior Tutors Forum and Student Experience Officers (SEOs) to
prepare information on personal tutors for Departmental Moodle pages. Information to
include the list of personal tutors and the role of personal tutors within the department.
5.3
Short notices for timetable changes.
5.3.1 The root of the problem seemed to lie in the fact that sometimes changes to lecture or
seminar timings or venues were communicated to students too late. Student dissatisfaction
was noticed when students were told that their early morning lectures; i.e. 8:15, 9:15 or
10:15, had been cancelled or postponed – particularly when these were their only lectures
for the day, or when they had a big gap until their next lecture. It is important to mention that
students were understanding of lecture cancellations due to unforeseen circumstances,
such as teaching staff illness, despite the initial annoyance it fostered. Students have
reported finding a minimum notification period for alterations to the original timetable very
helpful.
Recommendation 9: Action to Director of Studies/Teaching and Head of Departments to
discuss, with student consultation, and determine a minimum notification period that is
reasonable for staff and accepted by students.
Page 4 of 10
Recommendation 10: University to investigate the use of technology to communicate
unforeseen lecture cancellations; e.g. text messaging.
5.4
Feedback.
5.4.1 Feedback has been a constant item in SSLC Annual Reports over the past few years.
Additionally, it has been in the Students’ Union “Top Ten Issues” for the past few years as
well. One reoccurring theme in the SSLC Annual Reports this year was around the time in
which feedback was returned to the students. The University has adopted a three week
turnaround time for feedback on work during semester time, as stated in QA16. Student
representatives from seven different SSLCs communicated that they were not receiving
their feedback within this agreed timeframe, which does not allow the students sufficient
time to actively reflect on their past work prior to submitting any future work.
Recommendation 11: 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.
5.4.2 Feedback around exams was also frequently discussed. QA16 states, “Continuing students
should receive feedback on their academic performance in formal written examinations, but
this need not necessarily be individual feedback. 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 eg in cases of substantial concern about individual
performance, a tutor may give detailed feedback to the individual student which may
include reviewing the examination script.” At an Academic Council meeting in the 2012/13
academic year Academic Representatives were asked questions about what type of exam
feedback they had received. It was reported that 24% of the Representatives had received
no exam feedback whatsoever.
Recommendation 12: Departments to look into providing general exam feedback via
Moodle. Departments to promote the availability of this feedback once it has been up
loaded.
5.4.3 The type of feedback that students receive was also commented on. While students
appreciated receiving general feedback, it was noted that this method is not ideal for
communicating their own personal area of potential improvement. Academic
Representatives have asked for more 1:1 feedback with the unit convenor. Bearing this in
mind, they realise that teaching staff might not have sufficient time available to do this with
every student, so this item has been put as something to be looked into for the next
academic year.
Recommendation 13: Students’ Union to liaise with Academic Representatives and collect
examples of good practice taking place in departments. Students’ Union Education Officer
to write a paper on the findings.
Recommendation 14: SU to promote departmental feedback policies to all students and
work with Academic Representatives to ascertain where these were being met.
Departments to provide SU with feedback policy at the start of the academic year.
Education Officer to report back to ULTQC on findings.
Good Practice: Mechanical Engineering currently provides generic examination feedback
on the MECH Moodle Page. The Department of Politics, Languages, and International
Studies (PoLIS) trialled the return of feedback via Moodle this past academic year, which
was supported by the student representatives.
Page 5 of 10
Good Practice: Wiltshire College have developed a feedback form that was well received by
students.
5.5
Online Unit Evaluation (OUE).
5.5.1 OUE scores are one of the core topics that should be reviewed annually at SSLC meetings.
A lot of work has been invested in previous academic years to try and communicate the
scores and the outcomes to the students. The ULTQC (minute number 240 31/05/12)
stated, “The University QA Code of Practice should be revised to reflect the expectation
that Online Unit Evaluation outcomes and unit convenors feedback (strengths identified,
areas for development, proposed actions) should be provided for each unit on Moodle. The
Committee proposed that Directors of Studies would be responsible for this requirement.” It
was reported that some SSLCs were only just looking to accomplish this.
5.5.2 It was reported that some departments did not have access to the OUE results from
modules in other departments. This made it impossible to close the feedback loop to the
students within those departments. Consequently, the students were unable to follow the
outcomes and ensuing action plans. Currently, there is an online resource with all the unit
evaluation action plans from every department, but unless you already have access, or the
enrolment key to permit you access, to that specific course on Moodle you cannot access
the outcomes.
Recommendation 15: 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.
5.5.3 There were some comments from staff members regarding the response rates for the
OUEs. Comments centred on the fact that some response rates were low and therefore
unrepresentative of the student cohort.
Recommendation 16: University to investigate the opportunity of accessing the OUEs from
a mobile friendly platform in order to increase accessibility to the questionnaires.
Good Practice: Four departments mentioned in their SSLC Annual Reports that they share
the OUE results with all students via Moodle in order to close the feedback loop.
Mechanical Engineering already do this, while PoLIS and Pharmacy & Pharmacology have
put an action on themselves to accomplish this in the next academic year. Pharmacy &
Pharmacology have taken this a further step and have stated that they are also going to
publicise the resultant action plans on Moodle.
5.6
Course information.
5.6.1 Student representatives asked for more information to be provided about modules prior to
the start of the academic year. It was suggested in one SSLC that lecture information on
Moodle be available to students over the summer, so that students have the option of
accessing these resources and preparing for the year ahead. It seemed that difficulties in
allowing this were centred around the capacity of Moodle to be able to permit this and for
module membership complications on Moodle. This item has been raised as an on-going
issue for the next academic year in the respective SSLCs. This discussion also ties in with
the provision of accurate information for students selecting their optional modules. The
removal of the unit choice period, or the “add/drop period”, was agreed by the Students’
Union Academic Council on the basis that students receive accurate and sufficient
information elsewhere.
5.6.2 Information on coursework deadlines was also requested to allow students to better plan
their semesters. Staff members in one SSLC communicated that this would also help staff
to plan their semester, but more communication between staff would be needed before
Page 6 of 10
implementing this. Student Representatives in one SSLC also requested to not bunch
submissions and to spread them out over the course of the academic year.
Recommendation 17: Departments to consider spreading deadlines of all submitted work
and to establish a submission calendar; e.g. for courseworks and lab reports.
5.6.3 Opinions on reading lists varied per department; one reported the list as being outdated and
unclear, whilst another reported them as being very thorough. The concern with the
thorough lists was that not all the recommended resources were necessary, useful or
available in the Library. It is stated in QA38 that “up-to-date reading lists will be available to
students” with Departments being “encouraged to make reading lists available to students
pre-arrival”. Moreover, QA38 mentions that the Director of Studies is responsible for
“ensuring that reading lists are available to students and submitted to the Library”. Student
representatives mentioned that they would prefer if reading lists were sent out before the
start of the academic year, rather than receiving them upon arrival.
Recommendation 18: 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.
Good Practice: Mechanical Engineering publicise the assessment deadlines for units in the
previous year on Moodle in order for students to plan their assessment work load.
Good Practice: Staff in the Economics Department have continued to be encouraged to
Panopto sample lectures so that students can have a some insight into the nature of
courses and styles of presentation
5.7
Lecture recording.
5.7.1 There were two main focuses around this item: one was for revision purposes and the other
was to aid with making unit choices. Student representatives communicated that they would
like to see sample recordings of the optional unit lectures so that they can make a more
informed decision when selecting their modules for the next academic year. The use of
Panopto has been encouraged in order to achieve this.
5.7.2 This was also raised in the 2010/11 SSLC Annual Reports Overview, which asserted,
“Trials of lectures being recorded and put online have been undertaken in several
departments this year. Every mention of recorded lectures in SSLC annual reports made it
clear that where available, this was met with a very positive response from students, and in
several cases, there have been requests for more lecture recordings to be made available
online. It is expected that with the changing demographic of students, there will be a greater
expectation to provide support for different learning styles”.
5.7.3 This item has been discussed in previous academic years. In fact, one particular SSLC had
this as a reoccurring item from the 2011/12 academic year. When this topic has been
discussed the student opinion has generally been in favour of this enterprise, as students
see it as a valuable resource that could be especially useful for revision. Additionally,
recording lectures is also particularly convenient for international students, disabled
students and those with different learning styles.
5.7.4 The Students Written Submission for the Quality Assurance Agency’s Institutional Review
in 2013 affirmed that, “Recording of lectures has been taken up by some Departments, and
has been welcomed by students. The Students’ Union would encourage the use of tools
such as Panopto as a revision tool for students, helping to accommodate variations in
learning styles, as well as being a beneficial tool for both disabled and international
students”. Some of the departments mentioned in the references of the QAA SWS include,
Page 7 of 10
but are not limited to: Department of Chemistry, Department of Economics and School of
Management. Also, in one of the QAA SWS references (minutes of Faculty of Science
Taught Academic Council 15/11/12) it is mentioned that the Academic Representatives
from the Department of Psychology found the use of podcasts very helpful.
Recommendation 19: 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.
5.8
Examinations.
5.8.1 Of the comments around examinations there were two main themes. The first was in
regards to the release date of the winter exam results. Student representatives commented
that there was confusion around when their exam results were to be released. Additionally,
the fact that some departments communicated their set of exam results to their students
earlier than other departments caused some stress in students that were still awaiting their
exam results.
5.8.2 The second comment was around the fact that students would like to see their exam
papers, even if under supervised conditions. QA16 states that 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.” Departments that allowed students to see their
exam scripts reported that the activity “seemed to be a success” and that it was “positive
experience for both students and lecturers”.
Recommendation 20: Explore opportunities to give students greater access to their exam
scripts.
Good Practice: In the report submitted by Economics it was mentioned that students were
allowed to view their exam scripts under controlled conditions and that seeing the marked
exams appeared to be appreciated by students.
Good Practice: Students in Department of Sport and Social Sciences reported finding
access to exam papers as a useful activity.
5.9
Anonymous marking.
5.9.1 Anonymity in marking was discussed in a number of SSLCs throughout the 2012/13
academic year and was raised in 2011/12 SSLC Annual Report. The main request was that
work be marked anonymously to ensure that there is no bias in student results. This topic
has also been discussed across the sector over the past few years. Research into this
subject suggests that students from certain demographics achieve noticeable result
alterations when marked anonymously.
Recommendation 21: University to investigate where anonymous marking can be
implemented and to implement procedures to ensure this occurs.
Good Practice: Sport and Exercise Science have already anonymised coursework marking
where possible. Their programme policy has been updated and has been in action since
the 2012/13 academic year.
6.
ADDITIONAL MENTIONS OF GOOD PRACTICE
6.1
Professional Doctorate in Health, MSc Research in Health Practice host online SSLC
meetings via Google+. This could be a particularly useful option of placement
representatives.
Page 8 of 10
6.2.
The Department of Mechanical Engineering publishes their assessment deadline calendar
on Moodle in order for students to plan their assessment workload.
6.3
The Department of Mathematical Sciences has mentioned the idea of an SSLC newsletter.
6.4
The Bath College Computing, in the Department of Mathematical Sciences, has an options
day where students in higher years discuss the optional modules with students in lower
years.
6.5
In the Department of Chemistry, all students receive the Departmental Feedback Policy.
6.6
In the Department of Chemistry, they have a mock exam in year one, which is marked,
annotated and then returned to students permanently as feedback. They also give a second
set of exam feedback on semester one exams.
6.7
In the Department of Physics, a sheet is distributed to students each semester outlining the
changes made to units by staff as a result of student feedback
6.8
Department of Education BSc (hons) Sport Therapy based at Swindon College, have
adopted the use of Facebook to aid communication.
7.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 1: Update the outline of the voluntary template by adding a section that
specifically relates to the discussion of these core topics in the SSLCs. Include a section for
a tick-box, which would easily indicate that these items have been discussed during the
academic year, and a comment box, where references can be provided to the minutes
when they were discussed. The voluntary template should keep the section under part 4
(Items, Issues and Good Practice) that it currently has, where an explanation of the
discussion and outcomes can be summarised.
Recommendation 2: Departments to send the minutes within two weeks of the meeting, so
that Faculty Representatives and Students’ Union Officers are aware of the items discussed
in the SSLCs within their Faculties.
Recommendation 3: Introduction of anonymised marking would help mediate this.
Committee to discuss ways this could be addressed where students raise concerns.
Recommendation 4: Set a minimum timeframe for meeting notifications that allows for
adequate time for each SSLC representative to be notified of meeting changes. QA48
currently states, “There should be at least 5 working days notice of additional meetings in
order to give student representatives time to consult with the wider cohort.”
Recommendation 5: Departments to look into where eduroam signal strength is low within
the departments and to communicate this information to BUCS so that this can be
remedied. University to provide funding as required.
Recommendation 6: Library to monitor the strength of the new system and to liaise with
BUCS should any issues arise.
Recommendation 7: Meetings with personal tutors should be timetabled where possible
and in accordance with QA33.
Recommendation 8: Monitor student understanding and views through programme
evaluation responses. Senior Tutors Forum and Student Experience Officers (SEOs) to
Page 9 of 10
prepare information on personal tutors for Departmental Moodle pages. Information to
include the list of personal tutors and the role of personal tutors within the department.
Recommendation 9: Action to Director of Studies/Teaching and Head of Departments to
discuss, with student consultation, and determine a minimum notification period that is
reasonable for staff and accepted by students.
Recommendation 10: University to investigate the use of technology to communicate
unforeseen lecture cancellations; e.g. text messaging.
Recommendation 11: 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 12: 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 13: Students’ Union to liaise with Academic Representatives and collect
examples of good practice taking place in departments. Students’ Union Education Officer
to write a paper on the findings.
Recommendation 14: SU to promote departmental feedback policies to all students and
work with Academic Representatives to ascertain where these were being met.
Departments to provide SU with feedback policy at the start of the academic year.
Education Officer to report back to ULTQC on findings.
Recommendation 15: 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 16: University to investigate the opportunity of accessing the OUEs from
a mobile friendly platform in order to increase accessibility to the questionnaires.
Recommendation 17: Departments to consider spreading deadlines of all submitted work
and to establish a submission calendar; e.g. for courseworks and lab reports.
Recommendation 18: 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 19: 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 20: Explore opportunities to give students greater access to their exam
scripts.
Recommendation 21: University to investigate where anonymous marking can be
implemented and to implement procedures to ensure this occurs.
Peter Hachfeld
Education Officer 2013/14
Page 10 of 10