TQI: Periodic Review

Title of report

/ Report of the Periodic Review Panel of the Board of the Faculty of Social Studies on the Undergraduate and Postgraduate Degrees of the Centre for English Language Teacher Education

Date of report

/

Review date 28/01/05

Report date 26/03/05

JACS codes

/

X162, Q110

Departments

(optional)

/ Centre for English Language Teacher Education

Instructions

The information above if for your reference only, and is not used in any way by the TQI system.
Please complete the following template, typing your text into the box beneath each heading, as indicated.
Please only type into the spaces provided, using simple text formatting such as bold & italic. A list of supported formatting can be found at the end of this template.

Objectives of review

The Periodic Review procedures have been designed to encourage departments to consider the long term development of a course of study, stimulate new initiatives and enhance the quality of education for students in that department. The system allows the University to assure itself of the quality of its courses of study and is based around the submission by a department of a self evaluation document.

Conduct of review

The Review Panel, appointed by the Board of the Faculty of Social Studies, met on 28 January 2005.
It met firstly with the Chair of the Department and the Course Co-ordinator for Undergraduate Studies, then with students on the four-year BA in English Language, Translation and Cultural Studies.
The Panel then moved to postgraduate matters with the Chair of the Department, Postgraduate Course Leaders, the EdD Co-ordinator, and the Chair of the Research Forum and the Head of the English Teaching Unit. After this a meeting with a group of postgraduate students took place.

Evidence base

The Panel considered the following documentation supplied by the Department:
(a)Self-evaluation document
(b)Previous Periodic Review reports and Departmental responses
(c)QAA subject review report from November 2000
(d)Statistical information
(e)Course Specifications
(f)Annual Course Review reports
(g)External Examiners’ Reports and Departmental responses
(h)SSLC Annual Reports
(i)Course brochures and handouts
(j)Student handbooks and promotional literature
(k)Minutes or programmes for meetings such as the Research Circle and Course meetings
(l)A selection of teaching resources for English for Academic Purposes

External peer contributors to process

One of the Panel members was Dr Teresa O’Brienfrom the School of Language and Literacy Studies, University of Manchester. She examined the documentation supplied by the Department in advance of the review and participated in the review itself.

Overview of the main characteristics of the programmes covered by the review

Undergraduate:
The four-year BA in English Language, Translation and Cultural Studies organised in conjunction with BeijingForeignStudiesUniversity and the Centre for Translation and Comparative Cultural Studies
Postgraduate:
MA in English Language Teaching
MA in English Language Teaching for Specific Purposes
MA in English Language Teaching for Young Learners
MA in English Language Studies and Methods
MA in English Language Teaching and Multimedia
MA in British Cultural Studies and English Language Teaching
MPhil/ PhD in Applied Linguistics/ English Language Teaching
EdD (Applied Linguistics and English Language Teaching)
The four-year BA in English Language, Translation and Cultural Studies organised in conjunction with BeijingForeignStudiesUniversity and the Centre for Translation and Comparative Cultural Studies

Conclusion on innovation and good practice

The undergraduate students felt that the course exceeded their expectations, although they also found the change to more independent study at Warwick challenging. In particular one positive factor which the students recognised was the more open atmosphere at Warwick which they saw as good for self-development because they were encouraged to participate in societies and develop their critical skills. The Panel was pleased to note the high level of support for the BA students, with personal tutors and Chinese speaking tutors in both places. Students’ transition to Warwickis well supported with very regular communication and visits. Other elements of the support mechanism included a pro-active Staff Student Liaison Committee, a web forum that has been much used by students among themselves, to which staff and tutors contribute too, and an extensive use of Blogs.
Students following MA courses are encouraged to consider possible dissertationtopics from an early stage and students are strongly encouraged to relate work done in modules to their own professional experience, (especially the post-experience students). All students are taught qualitative research techniques. Those on research programmes are shown SPSS and may receive extra tuition in it if needed. In term three, there is a programme of distinguished guest speakers who are invited to talk about their own research.
The Panel was pleased to note that the PhD and EdD students’ Research Circle is very active and that the students have set up a web forum too. The EdD group have formed their own spin-off of the Research Circle. EdD students found the first year research methods course useful and PhD students valued being able to audit the research methods training course on the EdD.
Students’ expectations of the courses are met if not exceeded. Masters students found the teaching excellent and liked the structure of the course. They noted that the course was both challenging and supportive and was delivered by enthusiastic staff. They were very pleased with the exhaustive feedback they received on assignments and felt that the assignments prepared them well for the Dissertation. They indicated that feedback on the trial assignment was received promptly. All students understood clearly the penalties for late submission of work. Research students felt that having more contact time with staff at the beginning of the programme was helpful in building up group ethos and developing confidence.
In terms of pastoral support, the Centre provides dedicated in-sessional writing classes which start in week five and continue throughout the year. Students who attend these classes are offered some individual guidance at the dissertation stage through ‘writing surgeries’. The Centre is one of the departments piloting the use of Personal Development Planning (PDP). The Centre was using PDP with some students prior to the pilot and mapped what they were already doing into the pilot, adding the use of new technology such as Blogs. Masters students are organised into personal tutor groups and meet regularly with personal tutors in term one, less frequently in term two and in term three are allocated a dissertation tutor. Students are asked to complete a self-evaluation form with every assignment as well as being engaged in peer teaching in term two. The pilot project will be evaluated at the end of this year in the Centre and also across the University. Students found Personal Development Planning helpful and the Panel commends the Centre’s use of this as an example of good practice. MA and research students were pleased with the way their respective Staff Student Liaison Committees are run and feel that they can raise academic issues as well as issues relating to student life. EdD students have a co-ordinator and Masters students have a personal tutor. All felt that this system worked well. They are encouraged by their personal tutor or co-ordinator to make use of Blogs to track their personal development.
MA students are encouraged to do a trial assignment within the first three weeks of the course, allowing them to make errors without consequences for their marks. This is done within the personal tutor group and acts as an early warning system to detect those who need additional help. Students liked this system and the Panel commend it as an example of good practice.
(i)P Students following MA courses are encouraged to consider possible dissertationtopics from an early stage. Possible topics are discussed during the Research Methods module, and throughout modules in terms one and two possible issues are flagged up. and students are strongly encouraged to relate work done in modules to their own professional experience, (especially the post-experience students). All students are taught qualitative research techniques. Those on research programmes are shown SPSS and may receive extra tuition in it if needed. In term three, there is a programme of distinguished guest speakers who are invited to talk about their own research.
(ii)The Panel was pleased to note that the PhD and EdD students’ Research Circle is very active and that the students have set up a web forum too. The EdD group have formed their own spin-off of the Research Circle. EdD students found the first year research methods course useful and PhD students valued being able to audit the research methods training course on the EdD.
(iii)Students’ expectations of the courses are met if not exceeded. Masters students found the teaching excellent and liked the structure of the course. They noted that the course was both challenging and supportive and was delivered by enthusiastic staff. They were very pleased with the exhaustive feedback they received on assignments and felt that the assignments prepared them well for the Dissertation. They indicated that feedback on the trial assignment was received promptly but this was not always true of other assignments although they understood that this was due to blind marking procedures and staff illness. All students understood clearly the penalties for late submission of work. Research students felt that having more contact time with staff at the beginning of the programme was helpful in building up group ethos and developing confidence.
Conclusions on quality and standards
All students receive formal and detailed advice on the Centre’s policies for the auditing of taught courses and the granting of extensions for assessed work in the Handbook issued before they arrive at the University and further detailed advice is issued to students during the courses. Students are aware of mechanisms they could use to deal with problems in course delivery, should they arise, such as the Staff Student Liaison Committee and tutors, as well as the opportunity to fill out feedback forms for every module.
The Panel commended the Centre’s approach to tackling plagiarism: the Centre provides guidance on proper referencing in the handbook and on the web, through tutors and the English for Academic Purposes course. The trial assignment on the MA also provides a chance to explain plagiarism and test students’ understanding. Because of the wide cultural mix on the MAs, which can lead to misinterpretation of written guidelines, the Centre prefers to use these methods rather than giving extensive written advice in the postgraduate handbook.
The Panel noted that undergraduate work in Ren Min and Warwick is moderated between them so that standards are comparable between the two institutions. If, after two years in Ren Min, a student does not reach the required standard to come to Warwick then that student would either study for a further year at Ren Min or be advised to follow a different course.
Pre-sessional English courses are accredited by BALEAP (the British Association for Lecturers in English for Academic Purposes). As a condition of accreditation, the Centre is required to do long-term studies on a regular basis, so it plans to do in-depth visits on the WMG model to the main client departments (WBS, Law and Economics) over the next few years. Different types of staff meetings are held during the course. There are 35 tutors, divided up into clusters of 5 tutors. Each cluster runs 3 courses and there is one cluster co-ordinator. All the cluster co-ordinators meet at least once a week.
Conclusions on whether the programme(s) remain current and valid in the light of developing knowledge in the discipline, practice in its application and developments in teaching and learning
The Panel considered that all the courses remained current and valid in the light of developing knowledge.
Forward-looking recommendations for actions to remedy any identified shortcomings, and for further enhancement of quality and standards
To further enhance quality and standards, the Panel made the following recommendations to the Department:
a) The Centre may wish to consider the advisability of:
(i)Ensuring equity for undergraduate students in personal tutor support and ensuring training is provided for PhD students who are personal tutors
(ii)Making the course specifications available to students and including the aims as set out in the course specifications in the course handbooks.
(iii)Making the course specifications more transparent
(iv)Employing its own IT support technician in order to enhance the processes used for computer-based testing
(v)Supplementing the Faculty Assessment Criteria if appropriate
(vi)Using professional body requirements for pre-sessional courses as there are no relevant subject benchmarks
(vii)Keeping a written record of tutors’ meetings on the pre- sessional English language courses
b) The Centre may wish to consider the desirability of:
(i)Putting the pre-sessional English language courses into an FHEQ framework
(ii)Appointing an external examiner for the EdD
(iii)Maintaining surveillance of housekeeping arrangements on the pre-sessional English language courses in order to ensure a satisfactory wider student experience
(iv)Producing statistics on the progress of students during the pre-sessional courses
(v)Introducing a scheme of peer observation for non-probationary staff.

Actions taken by the institution in response to the review

The response of the Department is as follows:
The Department was pleased to receive commendations i. to vii, and to note the positive tone of the Report in general.
In relation to the recommendations we were invited to consider as advisable:
  1. Agreed: the appropriate training will be undertaken
  2. Agreed: this will be done for future handbooks.
  3. Agreed: as discussed with the Panel, we already attempt this and will continue to work on it.
  4. We agree that it would be extremely helpful to have access to more technical support for the Multimedia room, but the cost of employing a full-time technician would be too great. We would like to explore the possibility of hiring appropriate support when needed.
  5. We discussed with the Panel the fact that we already supplement Faculty assessment criteria when appropriate and we wish to continue to do so.
  6. It would be appropriate to extend this recommendation to In-sessional provision.
  7. Agreed: such records will be kept in future pre-sessionals.
In relation to the recommendations we were invited to consider as desirable:
  1. We consider this to be more desirable for In-sessional provision (see vi. Above), since the provision runs through the academic year, rather than preceding it.
  2. We discussed with the Panel the fact that we have already appointed an External Examiner for the EdD. The Panel were interested to note that this is not a formal requirement of the University for professional doctorates.
  3. Agreed: we shall continue our practice of doing so.
  4. Agreed: this would be useful in evaluating the impact of the pre-sessional course.
  5. There is already a great deal of peer observation amongst non-probationary staff which is not formally monitored or required. The Staff Development committee of the Centre will consider whether it would be helpful to formalise this further.

List of support features

Supported / NOT supported
  • Bold
  • Italic
  • Bullet points
  • Numbered lists
  • Web link & email addresses
  • Sub & super scripting
/
  • Underlining
  • Different fonts, sizes, colours, styles, effects, or animation
  • Highlighting
  • Line spacing
  • Hanging indents
  • Columns
  • Additional table cells
  • Images, drawings, or embedded objects

Last updated: 15/09/18Page 1 of 6