Nottingham Trent University Quality Handbook Supplement
University Research Degrees Committee Annual Report template
University Research Degrees Committee: Annual Report
Committee Chair:Reporting year:
Research degree areas covered by the report:
Sign off: / Please provide the ‘sign off’ process, including date of sign off: For example, Considered at the University Research Degrees Committee (URDC) meeting and approved on 31 January 2015.
PART A
Executive summary / This section is used to summarise for the reader the content of the report and any specific issues that need drawing attention to. This section is one that is written with the external reader in mind. The audience of the remainder of the document is primarily the URDC and University Research Committee (URC). This section should include reference to the University’s Strategic Plan.Reflections on currency and health of doctoral degrees across University: / This section requires URDC to confirm that research degrees provision as a whole remains current and in good health. This section will draw on a range of possible evidence presented in Course Standards and Quality Reports (CSQRs), CRDC annual reports, Research Excellence Framework (REF) outcomes, staff development activity, researcher training, etc.
URDC should take a strategic overview of the provision and evaluate how the evidence demonstrates currency and subject health. It should not repeat what is already provided in CRDC annual reports and CSQRs.
The URDC should reflect on any activity in the reporting year that demonstrates that research degrees provision across the University remains current and in good health.
This section should also reflect on whether the resource base generally remains adequate for delivery of NTU research ambitions, as highlighted in the current University Strategic Plan. / Ref. rolling action plan
Developments and initiatives: / Details of any significant initiatives which may be shareable and which have taken place during the reporting year.
Here URDC should reflect on any developments or initiatives identified in CRDC annual reports and Professional Doctorate CSQRsthat have led to, or have the potential to lead to, practice or process enhancements. URDC should consider how such developments might be shared more widely across the full range of research degrees provision.
This section should also reflect on University level development or initiatives rolled out in the reporting year, and consider how effective or otherwise these were. / Ref. rolling action plan
Student Satisfaction and Engagement (issues raised by students, and CRDC response): / This will be informed by feedback from students (also refer to PRES data when applicable)
URDC should reflect on the ways in which student feedback is sought across the University and how it has been responded to in the reporting year. The report should indicate how effectively student feedback is being responded to in general. Where CRDCs/ProfD CSQRs have indicated that student feedback is unable to be addressed at local level, this report should consider any action taken, or intended to be taken by the University in response.
This section should include analysis of the efficacy of the Doctoral School Student Forum.
The report should highlight any general themes emerging from student feedback, and indicate how these will be addressed or shared more widely. / Ref. rolling action plan
Consideration of Collaborative Arrangements (including DTPs and DTAs): / Reflects on collaborative arrangements across the board, and where applicable, the comparability of standards and quality of the provision.
In this section the report should list all current collaborative arrangements and detail what stage they are at (e.g. first cohort, teach out, etc.). Identify any issues raised and actions to be taken. Comment on the parity of standards and quality generally across the full range of collaborations and NTU provision.
The report should reflect on:
- University verifier reports;
- Annual reports from partners;
- Professional Doctorate CSQRs and CRDC annual reports;
- Quality management processes;
- Links to academic Schools and Departments at NTU (if appropriate);
- Staff or student development provided in-house, or in collaboration with NTU.
Analysis of the Postgraduate Research Environment: / This should provide a commentary on the parity of provision across the University, and benchmark to the current NTU Postgraduate Research Environment Statement.
The report should consider the impact of the research environment (physical and cultural) on the postgraduate provision as a whole, e.g. currency, the student experience and research health. Refer to the benchmarks for expected levels of provision described within the current NTU Postgraduate Research Environment Statement. / Ref. rolling action plan
Part B
Reflection on examiner(s) reports: / This section serves to assure the University that standards are being maintained and that issues raised by examiners are being reflected/acted upon across the provision as a whole.URDC should reflect on what the full range ofexaminer reports indicate about the standards and quality of research degrees across the University. The report should utilize the full range of data to identify recurring themes requiring further attention.
Where examiners have made recommendations or raised concerns that cannot be addressed at College or course level, these should be explicitly responded to in the report.
Where there is an action resulting from this then it should be included in the rolling action plan and cross referenced appropriately.Where something raised is not going to be taken further, the rationale behind this decision should be provided in this response. / Ref. rolling action plan
Part C
Appeals and Complaints: / This section provides commentary on consideration given to the number and nature of any complaints or appeals, and any other issues raised, their resolution, and actions taken to improve future service levels where appropriate.The report should include details of all complaints and appeals made in the reporting year, and action that was taken in response.
It should identify any emerging themes arising from the data, and how these will be addressed.
This section should undertake comparative analysis of the different types of research degrees provision, and of provision undertaken at collaborative partners. / Ref. rolling action plan
Part D
Consideration of the student journey: / URDC should consider patterns and trends related to data for the full range of research degrees provision. Actions arising from this discussion should be added to the rolling action plan.Student enrolment, project approval, transfer, conferment, extensions and withdrawal data should be included as an appendix to the report. Data for a three year period (the reporting year and two previous years) should be provided.
The questions set out below are designed to aid URDC in analysing patterns and trends that are highlighted by the data. These questions are not exhaustive, and URDC may report on additional areas. This section should be presented as a narrative. Yes/no responses to these questions are not acceptable.
Enrolment
- Have enrolments remained stable over the last three years? If not why might this be the case? Are there any implications of this?
- Are there any enrolment trends across Colleges or different types of research degrees provision? If so, why might this be the case?
- Are any enrolment trends in line with the sector more generally? If not is there a reason why this might be the case?
- On the basis of this analysis is any action required?
- Are student project approvals generally falling within the expected timeframe? If not why might this be the case? Are there any implications of this?
- Are any project approval trends similar across Colleges? If not is there a reason why this might be the case?
- Are any project approval trends similar to those at collaborative partners? If not, is there a reason why this might be the case?
- On the basis of this analysis is any action required?
- Are the patterns of transfer generally similar across the last three years? If they are different, why might this be the case? Are there any implications of this?
- Are the patterns of transfer similar across Colleges? If not, is there a reason why this may be the case?
- Are the patterns of transfer similar to those at collaborative partners? If not, is here a reason why this might be the case?
- On the basis of this analysis is any action required?
- What is the current NTU RDQR (HEFCE)? How does this compare to the 7-year RDQR sector average. Are there any implications of this?
- Does the data suggest a change from previous years that concerns the team?
- Are the patterns in line across Colleges?
- Are patterns in line across different Professional Doctorates?
- Are patterns similar across different types of research degrees provision?
- Are patterns similar to those at collaborative partners?
- On the basis of this analysis is any action required?
- How many extensions beyond the expected registration periods have been
- Is this similar across Colleges, and across different types of research degrees provision? If not, is there a reason why this may be the case?
- Is this similar to provision at collaborative partners? If not, if there a reason why this might be the case?
- On the basis of this analysis is any further action required?
- Are patterns of withdrawal similar across the last three years? If they are different, why might this be the case? Are there any implications of this?
- Are patterns of withdrawal similar across Colleges, and across different types of research degrees provision?
- Are patterns of withdrawal similar to those at collaborative partners?
- On the basis of this analysis is any action required?
The report should also provide some information on graduate destinations / further study destinations. / Ref. rolling action plan
September 2016page1
Nottingham Trent University Quality Handbook Supplement
University Research Degrees Committee Annual Report template
Part E Rolling Action Plan:
URDC should firstly report on progress made with the previous year’s action plan and note any actions that are incomplete or are ongoing. Where actions are ongoing they should be incorporated into the action plan for the coming year. The action plan should explicitly state where actions are rolled over from the previous plan.
All actions should be cross-referenced to the main body of the report. Actions should be specific, have final dates for completion rather than be ‘ongoing’ and should specify the person/group or committee responsible for taking the action forward.
The rolling action plan is a separate document that can be easily considered at each committee meeting. The report should include the following kinds of information:
- what is the issue that needs addressing
- what do you anticipate being the final outcome
- what action(s) will need to be taken to reach this outcome
- when will these actions be aimed to be completed
- who will lead
- at which course committee will it be addressed/ discussed/reviewed
- the date when the issue gets closed down
No. / Action Point / Section in CRDC report: / Date to be completed: / To be completed by:
1. / Review the assessment on module XXXXX in line with feedback from the external examiner and verifier / C1 / Review to be completed 31 March 2013 / Supervisor, PGRT, Chair of CRDC, URDC, URC
Appendices
Appendix 1 – NTU Summary Statistics (for academic year 1 August to 31 July, provided by NTU Doctoral School during August)
- Current student numbers per year of study split by School, H/WEU and overseas, full-time and part-time
- RD1PA/RD2T by School
- Suspensions/extensions/withdrawals (Inc. transfers out)
- In examination on 31 July
- Conferments
Appendix 2 – Annual report from the Libraries and Learning Resources (LLR) on provision for PGR students
Appendix 3 – Annual report from Employability Team on provision and engagement of PGR students (e.g. events, training)
Policy ownerCADQ
Change history
Version: / Approval date: / Implementation date: / Nature of significant revisions:
Sept 2016 / 13.07.16 / 01.10.16 / Minor revision – clarification about the reflection on examiner(s) reports
Equality Impact Assessment
Version: / EIA date: / Completed by:
Sept 2016 / NA
September 2016page1