FACULTY OF SCIENCE
Annual Faculty Academic Quality ASSURANCE and Enhancement Report
FOR SESSION 2008/09
The Annual Faculty Academic Quality Assurance and Enhancement Reports are the mechanism for providing the Quality Monitoring Committee with assurance that good quality assurance and enhancement procedures are in place in each of the faculties. The information provided in these reports informs reports to Senate and Court as well as the Quality Assurance Agency and the Scottish Funding Council. The Reports also form part of the documentation provided for Enhancement-led Institutional Review. The revised template for session 2008/09 has been restructured into four sections: Section A seeking responses for which information can be gathered early in session 2009/10, Section B seeking responses that will be dependent on information from the Planning Office and the Careers Service, Sections C and D to give an opportunity for the Faculty to provide more up-to-date information and Section E for the conclusion.
SECTION a
1 Introduction
1.1 Please provide an overview of the Quality Assurance structure at Faculty Level.
1.1.1 In the Faculty of Science, responsibility for overseeing Quality Assurance and the Enhancement of the Faculty’s Teaching and Learning provision rests with the Vice-Dean (Academic), acting on behalf of the Dean. This officer attends Senate (if not an elected member) and is a member of the various University committees and groups charged with promoting learning and teaching.
1.1.2 The Vice-Dean is assisted by a Faculty committee structure, at the centre of which is the Academic Administration Committee (AAC), to which the Faculty’s Board of Study has delegated the following functions. The Committee:
1 considers and makes recommendations to the Board of Study on all matters pertaining to learning and teaching, and student administration;
2 ensures quality assurance in the design and delivery of courses at all levels, scrutinising programme specifications, curriculum content, regulations and annual course reviews and scrutinising also the outcomes of external assessments including accreditation visits by professional bodies;
3 monitors and where necessary takes action to enhance the effectiveness of the various processes that affect the student life cycle, whether undergraduate or postgraduate, including the admissions selection process, counselling, the advisers of study system, registration, timetabling, credit-based degree structures, the arrangement of semesters, postgraduate supervision, student-staff committees and all aspects of student feedback;
5 receives reports from all Boards of Examiners and Appeals Committees on matters relating to student progress and the conduct of degree examinations and where necessary takes action aimed at their enhancement;
6 receives reports from Faculty Review Groups on matters pertinent to its remit, and advises the Board of Study thereon.
1.1.3 AAC is served by a small number of sub-committees and reports to the Faculty’s Board of Study. Where necessary, recommendations from AAC and the Board on matters pertaining to teaching and learning are forwarded to the University Senate. Annex 1 shows the committee structure in diagrammatic form.
1.2 Please comment on how the actions identified in the Faculty’s last Academic Quality Assurance and Enhancement Report have been carried forward and on the impact these have had on the academic quality of the Faculty’s programmes.
At the conclusion of the Faculty’s report for session 2007/08, the following quality assurance and enhancement issues were flagged.
The restructuring of curricula and the preparation of revised regulations to meet the requirements of the Undergraduate and Integrated Masters Framework.
As predicted, academic administration in session 2008/09 was dominated by this process. The opportunity was taken, wherever possible, to promote curriculum renewal and a review of both the extent and the mode of assessment. It is anticipated that the new system will have a generally positive impact on quality.
The desirability of looking at wider access and the retention performance of students admitted through the GOALS initiative.
Little action was taken in this regard. This general issue remains a project worth pursuing with help of Schools and Colleges Liaison. Associated with it is the Faculty’s Natural Sciences degree which in the past has functioned, inter alia, as one that favours wider access in the sense that it admitted candidates with non-standard entry qualifications. During 2008/09, concerns about the quality of this degree’s outputs led to a decision to review its future. The review took place at the end of semester one session 2009/10. The report is anticipated to include recommendations that will tend to diminish the degree’s ‘wider access’ profile, though that theme will still be pursued through the Summer School and departments’ discretion in administering their recruitment.
The comments in the Student Barometer about the need for a better welcome and induction package for overseas students will require consideration.
Recent Student Barometer results have shown Science to be the Faculty most likely to be recommended by its existing overseas students. Within the Faculty, induction arrangements for these students are conducted at departmental level and departments continue to strive to improve their processes. The collaborative MPharm programme with the International Medical University (IMU) in Kuala Lumpur produces over two-thirds of the Faculty’s annual intake of overseas undergraduates and the Strathclyde Institute of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences (SIPBS), the host department, takes pains to ensure that the induction process begins even before the students arrive in Glasgow. This includes talks delivered at the IMU on developments in pharmacy practice in the UK (much of which is built into the teaching in any case), a talk entitled ‘Living and Working with the NHS’ delivered by the Strathclyde Director, presentations by the British Council and a representative of the Strathclyde International and Graduate Office about living in the UK, and about Glasgow and life at Strathclyde. In the future, more reference will be made to wider career and possible research opportunities for students with the MPharm degree. Graduates (‘seniors’) from previous years are also invited by IMU to pass on their own experiences of living as a student on campus at Strathclyde.
Monitoring the introduction of the new University-wide compensation scheme in 2009/10 and the phasing-out of the Faculty’s own compensation scheme
In Science, the University scheme will be phased in over three years, with first years in 2009/10, first and second years in 2010/11 and years 1-3 in 2011/12 while, in parallel, the Faculty’s Average Mark Scheme (FoSAMS) will be phased out, applying to years 2-4 in 2009/10, years 3-4 in 2010/11 and Integrated masters year 4 in 2011/12. The impact of the new scheme will not be known for sure until the June 2010 general exam boards. Some modelling has been carried out that suggests that progression may suffer, as the University scheme is less generous than FoSAMS. However, it is hoped that revisions to assessment regimes introduced along with the curricula restructuring may counterbalance that effect.
1.3 Please provide details of the course and class approval and renewal procedures operated by the Faculty
In the Faculty, courses are designed by subject specialists within Departments and therefore Course and class approval requests originate in Departments and then proceed to the Faculty’s Academic Administration Committee (AAC).
The Faculty’s intranet provides the necessary forms which are based on those used in the University’s procedures. Thus, Course approval requires a rationale for the course (including evidence of need and demand, consonance with Faculty and University strategic plans) academic issues (including aims and objectives, content and curriculum, modes of delivery, modes of assessment, benchmarked standards) student-centric issues (from admissions policy to career prospects) external influences, resource implications, likely competition, any articulation or collaboration implications, and a risk assessment. Regulations for the course are required together with a Programme Specification and Class Descriptors for any new classes.
Class approval/amendment follows the above very closely and should be accompanied by course regulations and Class Descriptors.
Assuming approval at AAC, the proposals proceed to the Board and then onto the University Senate and Ordinances & Regulations Committee for ratification. Following the Board stage, the Programme Specification and Class Descriptors are stripped out, so that the University-level committees see the rationale and regulations only. The Programme Specification and Class Descriptors are available from the Faculty Office if required.
Throughout the above, the Vice-Dean (Academic) is frequently involved in refining proposals, and also has delegated authority to act between AAC meetings to expedite business, powers that are often used during the summer vacation. Similarly, the Dean occasionally exercises his delegated authority on behalf of the Board of Study.
1.4 Please provide details of the link between quality assurance at departmental and faculty levels.
The link between quality assurance at departmental and Faculty levels is provided by the Vice-Dean (Academic) and the membership of the Academic Administration Committee. The AAC comprises one representative from each department (except SIPBS, which is allowed two) and the Course Director for Natural Sciences. This is the ‘front-line’ quality assurance link, but it is important to remember that the Dean and the Heads of Departments have a responsibility for quality assurance and it is on their behalf that the Vice-Dean and the AAC members act.
The departmental representatives, for instance, compile the annual course reports that allow the Faculty to scrutinise quality assurance at departmental level. Initially light touch, these reports are now more detailed and separate returns are required on undergraduate and postgraduate teaching activities. These reports and other information provided by the departmental representatives on AAC contribute significantly in providing the departmental examples that appear in this report.
Through the AAC, the Faculty-Department links work in both directions – such reports as noted above travelling from Department to AAC while the Vice-Dean is able to communicate latest developments at the Education Strategy and Quality Management Committees of the University to departments through the AAC.
2 CYCLICAL REVIEWS
2.1 Please confirm that the 5-year rolling plan of Departmental and other Reviews is accurate and provide an explanation for any drift in the proposed timetable.
The rolling plan (available on the Common Folder for Corporate Services) for reviews of Departments and Faculty-wide courses within the Science Faculty is accurate. There has been no slippage.
2.2 Please list the Departmental and other Reviews (e.g. Strategic and Excellence Reviews) carried out in session 2008/09 (Reports in full should be forwarded to GMAP, the Recommendations should be attached as an Annex to this Report).
Session 2008/09 saw the first Faculty review of SIPBS which was formed from the merger of 5 departments and began operating on 1 August 2006. It was reviewed over two days in February 2009. Annex 2 is the departmental response from SIPBS which addresses each recommendation of the review.
Session 2008/09 also saw a University/Faculty Strategic review of the Department of Physics and the Institute of Photonics (IoP), chaired by the Principal, prompted by concerns about the former’s showing in the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise and about the financial sustainability of both. The review was on 28 May 2009. Annex 3 sets out the recommendations only of this report. (Note: This could not be construed as a Faculty Review, involving an assessment of teaching and learning. Consequently a full quinquennial Faculty Review of Physics, including teaching and learning, was undertaken in October 2009 and will feature in next year’s report. The IoP is a research non-departmental unit and is not subject to quinquennial reviews).
Although strictly speaking not a review outcome, mention should, nonetheless, be made of the work of the Mathematics and Statistics & Modelling Science (STAMS) merger group during this session which culminated in their merger to become the Department of Mathematics and Statistics on 1 August 2009.
2.3 Please detail any significant developments or issues other than those in learning and teaching (which should be dealt with under section 5) arising out of Departmental Reviews or Excellence Reviews conducted in session 2008/09, including any follow up and the Faculty’s proposed response to these.
None to report.
2.4 Please list any accreditation visits/reviews by Professional and Statutory Bodies that took place during session 2008/09 and report the outcome. If these have made any recommendations in respect of improvements to learning and teaching, how are they to be addressed? If these have highlighted areas of good practice which might be applicable elsewhere in the University, please note these below. (Reports in full should be forwarded to GMAP).
The following accreditation reviews by Professional and Statutory Bodies took place in 2008/09.
Computer & Information Sciences
Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (for the Department’s Information Services degrees) in 2008 – re-accredited for 5 years.
Pure & Applied Chemistry
The Royal Society of Chemistry in 2009 for all degrees – re-accredited for 5 years.
The Forensic Science Society for the MSc in Forensic Science and the MChem in Forensic and Analytical Science in 2009 - accredited for 5 years.
Strathclyde Institute of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences
Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain for the new ‘2+2’ Collaborative MPharm degree with the International Medical University, Kuala Lumpur. Accredited for 5 years (without any conditions or recommendations).
None of the above accreditations involved anything other than minor recommendations. All Faculty departments can say that almost all of their principal degrees are accredited by the appropriate professional body (assuming that body exists).
3 University Guidelines, Policies and Procedures
3.1 Are there any areas in which Faculty practice was not consistent with the University’s Policies and Procedures for Teaching and Learning or with any of the supplementary Guides listed below? If so, please give details and the reasons for deviating from normal University practice in each instance.
q Academic Strategy 2006-09 (May 2006)
q Policy and Code of Practice for Collaborative Courses leading to Award or Joint Awards of the University and Flexible and Distributed Learning (including e-learning) (June 2005)
q Procedures and Guidelines for Course and Class Approval (December 2003)
q Dealing with Applications from Students with Criminal Convictions (November 1999)
q Dealing with Instances of Possible Academic Dishonesty (November 2001) (update approved by Senate in June 2009)