University of East Anglia and University of Essex
UNIVERSITY CAMPUS SUFFOLK JOINT ACADEMIC COMMITTEE
10 June 2010
MINUTES
Chair / Erica Towner
Present / Dr Leon Burnett; Dr Wayne Campbell; Dr Pam Cox; Christine Dobson; Professor Andy Downton; Chrissie Harrington; Professor Roland Kaye; Richard Lister; Jen Mackness; Dr Brendan Noble; Professor Nigel Norris; Diane Palmer; Professor Mike Saks; Carol Smith; Andy Speed; Susan Spencer; Phil Thirkettle
Apologies / Phillip Belden; Angela Carter; Wendy Clifton-Sprigg; Rob Evans; Dr Aulay Mackenzie; Claire Nixon; Dr Lucy O’Driscoll; Marilyn Watsham
Secretary / Dr Kay Thompson
In attendance / Jed Bultitude (deputising for Angela Carter); Fiona Fisk; Catherine Forsdike (deputising for Marilyn Watsham); Ruth Harrison (deputising for Phillip Belden); Dr Ron Impey; Sally Walker; Jackie Wright
Introduction and announcements
10/44 / New members were welcomed to the Committee.
Minutes of the previous meeting
10/45 / The minutes of the meeting held on 11 March 2010 were agreed to be an accurate record of proceedings.
Matters arising from the minutes
10/46 / Minutes 09/107-110 – UCS Staff Development Strategy. It was noted that the UCS staff development strategy was the only outstanding action from the QA Review of 2008. The policy was in draft form and was being further enhanced by the UCS Director of Human Resources. The final version would be brought to the next meeting of the Committee for approval.
10/47 / Minute 10/19 – Core responsibilities of Learning Network Centres in delivering Higher Education. Summaries of the approach at each Centre would be presented at the next meeting.
10/48 / Minutes 10/25-26 – Academic Communities. The UCS Academic Registrar provided an update on progress with the establishment of the communities. Conveners of each community were meeting on a regular basis and mechanisms for communities to liaise through Wolsey had been established. Each community had met and schedules of activities were being developed. UCS staff could be members of more than one community, and the communities were regarded as permeable with opportunities for academic staff from the validating universities to become involved where appropriate.
Chairs’ Report
10/49 / Members noted a range of items for information outlined in Paper JAC/10/32. UCS members were thanked for their involvement and input into the UEA Learning and Teaching Day.
New course and revalidation proposals
PGCert/PGDip/MA Clinical Practice, UCS Ipswich (revalidation)
10/50 / Approved to proceed to revalidation.
BSc (Hons) Criminology, UCS Ipswich (revalidation)
10/51 / Approved to proceed to revalidation. It was noted that an embedded CertHE climb-out award had not been included because of the inter-disciplinary nature of the curriculum at Level 4. Students exiting the course at this stage would however be eligible for an unnamed CertHE award.
CertHE/FdSc Arboriculture and CertHE Fishery Management / FdSc Fishery Management and Sustainable Aquaculture, UCS Otley
10/52 / Approved to proceed to publicity and validation. It was confirmed that the proposed starting date for both courses would now be September 2011. The validating universities would liaise in terms of academic links to support the new course development process.
10/53 / Members discussed the general issue of target intake figures in CAT 1/2 forms. There was scope to take a retrospective look at the accuracy of these figures, to determine whether mechanisms for market analysis were working effectively. The UCS Provost confirmed that the UCS Academic Strategy Group and the UCS Executive team were giving careful consideration to academic planning mechanisms to ensure that all new course developments were supported by a strong business case, and that successfully recruiting programmes were prioritised.
Validations and revalidations 2009/10
Analysis of validation and revalidation outcomes
10/54 / Members discussed an analysis of (re)validation outcomes provided by the UCS Head of Quality. While recognising that conditions, requirements and recommendations could vary in magnitude, common areas highlighted by panels for further action were identified as learning outcomes (including mapping of module learning outcomes against programme learning outcomes), assessment details and assessment criteria, placement learning, reading lists and student handbooks. There was also scope for improved proof-reading of documentation prior to submission. Future workshops for course teams on preparing for the (re)validation process would address these recurring themes, and the UCS Head of Quality and UCS Educational Developer would provide additional guidance through individual meetings with course teams and support material on Wolsey.
10/55 / Members noted the improvement in outcomes over the last three years, although there was still work to do in order to reduce the number of conditions and requirements in some areas. A decline in the number of new courses coming forward for validation now that UCS was in a more steady state was regarded as beneficial in terms of managing the workload within UCS centres.
10/56 / Members discussed the number of conditions and requirements relating to staffing resources, and agreed that confirmation of the availability of sufficient human resource should take place within Schools and Centres prior to validation, as part of the initial planning process and the CAT 1/2 stage.
10/57 / Members were reminded of the procedure for signing off conditions, requirements and recommendations. It was agreed that it would be helpful for this stage of the process to be more transparent in formal committee minutes.
10/58 / The UCS Head of Quality was thanked for his helpful report, and it was agreed that it would be useful to include commendations in future to facilitate sharing of good practice.
Summary of feedback on the (re)validation process
10/59 / Members received a report from the Essex Academic Partnerships Manager summarising feedback from staff and students on the (re)validation process. It was reassuring to note that course teams were now feeling better prepared for (re)validation events, and that several panel chairs had commented favourably on the improvement in the quality of validation documentation over the past few years, although (as noted above) there was still scope for improvement in some areas.
10/60 / It was agreed that the inclusion of student representatives on revalidation panels had been a successful new development, with student respondents agreeing that the experience had been an interesting and valuable one, if rather daunting. Further discussions would take place regarding the mechanisms for selecting and training student representatives, in liaison with UCS Students’ Union.
10/61 / Members discussed the use of the term ‘revalidation’, and whether an approach that placed more emphasis on review and ongoing development would be more appropriate. It was noted that both UEA and Essex operated a system of periodic review on a five-yearly cycle for internal courses, and it was agreed that there was scope to adopt a similar approach within UCS. Courses could be reviewed in cognate groups, building on the process of course convergence across UCS centres which was already underway (see minute 10/30). There was general support for such an approach, although it was agreed that the scope of the review should be carefully defined to ensure that it was sufficiently broad and that significant changes to courses were subject to appropriate internal and external scrutiny.
10/62 / Members supported the proposed action plan, which would be taken forward by the Partnership Management Team.
UCS at Suffolk New College institutional review report
10/63 / Members received the report of the institutional review of UCS at Suffolk New College which had taken place on 30 March 2010. It was recommended to the Senates of the validating universities that the UCS centre be re-approved at institutional level for a further period of five years commencing September 2010, subject to the recommendations outlined in the report being responded to by agreed deadlines.
10/64 / It was confirmed that while initial approval of Suffolk New College in 2007 had been subject to the condition that academic programmes be confined to the built environment and initial teacher training subject areas, this limitation had now been removed.
Ofsted inspection – PGCE SCITT programmes
10/65 / Members received a verbal update on the Ofsted inspection of the two PGCE SCITT programmes for Suffolk and Norfolk. While UCS had yet to receive the final report, indications were that the outcome would be very positive at both primary and secondary level. The North East Essex consortium SCITT was also currently undergoing an Ofsted inspection, and a further update would be provided at the next meeting.
Verbal update on National Student Survey 2010 response rates
10/66 / The UCS Head of Quality reported that the overall NSS response rate had increased slightly in 2010 from 58% to 59%, again sufficient for publication on the Unistats website. Most subject areas acquired the minimum 50% response rate for publication, with engineering falling below this level. Telephone surveys again proved to be the most popular method of eliciting a response (42%), with 40% responding online and 18% by post. The results were expected in late July, and an analysis of the survey outcomes would be provided at the next meeting.
Student entry questionnaire outcomes 2009/10
10/67 / The Committee received a summary of student entry questionnaire outcomes, following the survey of new entrants in October 2009. The improvement in satisfaction since the previous survey was noted, particularly in respect of enrolment where there had been some initial difficulties associated with the launch of a new online system. There was still further work to do in this respect, but satisfaction levels had increased by 16%.
10/68 / Members noted that satisfaction rates were generally very good, and commended the survey which provided useful management information on a critical phase of the student journey. It was noted that the survey complemented other methods of obtaining feedback on the enrolment and induction processes, such as the use of ‘mystery shoppers’ and focus groups of incoming students. UCS Academic Board had recently discussed whether there was scope for more pervasive student survey methods, including an annual student survey which mirrored the NSS.
10/69 / It was confirmed that the data would feed into the SARE process at course, School/Centre and institutional level.
Retention 2009/10
10/70 / Members received a report on in-year retention, which provided a snapshot of the situation as at 11 May 2010. It was noted that the data was derived from SITS, and was thus dependent upon withdrawals being recorded on the system in a timely manner. More accurate data would be available at the end of the academic year. The UCS Head of Quality reminded members of the categorisation system, which provided a mechanism for auditing courses with higher levels of withdrawal (where student numbers made the data sufficiently meaningful). The Committee were pleased to note that 84% of courses fell into the A or A* category and thus would not be subject to audit.
10/71 / The data would be analysed as part of the SARE process, along with accompanying completion and achievement data, in order to identify any overarching issues and to compare with relevant national benchmarks.
10/72 / Members noted that enrolled numbers on some courses were low, although it was recognised that in some cases this was because courses were pathways within an overarching programme. More careful analysis of the business case for new programmes in future would help to ensure that the student experience was not compromised by small cohort sizes and that courses remained financially viable.
Annual Academic Report 2008-09 action plan update
10/73 / Members received an update on the Quality Enhancement Plan for January 2010 to December 2010, arising from the 2008/09 UCS Annual Academic Report. While good progress had been made on most action points, there was still need for further work on action points 8 (audit of the use of Wolsey in learning) and 10 (improved use of external benchmarking data). These would be prioritised over the forthcoming months.
Quality Enhancement Strategy action plan 2010/11
10/74 / Following consideration of the Quality Enhancement Strategy at the previous meeting, members noted the associated action plan for the 2010-2011 academic year.
Student Engagement Strategy action plan 2010/11
10/75 / Following consideration of the Student Engagement Strategy at the previous meeting, members received the associated action plan for the 2010-2011 academic year.
Updated UCS Publicity Protocol
10/76 / Members approved the proposed updates to the UCS publicity protocol, which were designed to ensure that all publicity material accurately reflected the relationship between UCS and the validating universities. The UEA and Essex Partnerships offices would ensure that their respective marketing and communications teams were aware of the revised protocols.
10/77 / It was noted that the UCS prospectus and website, and the websites of the colleges forming part of the UCS Learning Network, were checked on a regular basis by the validating universities.
QAA Collaborative Provision Audit update
10/78 / Members received an update on the QAA Collaborative Provision Audit. The briefing visit had taken place in May, with the partner visit to UCS Ipswich due to take place the following day. The main audit visit would take place in late June, with initial outcomes expected in mid-July.
QAA Integrated Quality and Enhancement Review schedule
10/79 / Members received a summary of future activity in preparation for QAA Integrated Quality and Enhancement Review. Relevant staff from the UCS Learning Network Centres had received QAA reviewer training, and developmental engagements at each of the colleges were scheduled for spring 2011, with a focus on assessment.
Validation reports
10/80 / The Committee recommended to the Senates of the validating universities that the following courses be approved for delivery at the named UCS centres for a period of up to five years commencing September 2010, subject to the conditions, requirements and recommendations in the validation reports being responded to by agreed deadlines:
UCS Bury St Edmunds
BA (Hons) Counselling (Level 6 progression route) *
CertHE / FdSc Sports Development and Coaching
UCS Great Yarmouth
FdSc Sport, Health and Exercise
CertHE / FdA Commercial Art and Design Practice
UCS Ipswich
DipHE /BA (Hons) / PGCert / PGDip / MA Health and Social Care Practice
UCS Lowestoft
BA / BA (Hons) Inclusive Practice and Integrated Working (Level 6 progression route)
CertHE / FdA / BA / BA (Hons) Leadership and Management