QRWP/10/76

UNIVERSITY OF EXETER

PERIODIC SUBJECT REVIEW: MODERN LANGUAGES

FEBRUARY/MARCH 2008

Review Panel Report: Executive Summary

A Periodic Subject Review was undertaken in February and March 2008 of programmes of study (taught and research) offered by the Department of Modern Languages in the School of Arts, Languages and Literatures.

Programmes Reviewed:

Undergraduate Programmes

French
BA French

BA French with TESOL

BA CH Classical Studies and French

BA CH English and French

BA CH Film Studies and French

BA CH French and Arabic

BA CH French and German

BA CH French and Italian

BA CH French and Latin

BA CH French and Russian

BA CH French and Spanish

BA CH History and French

BA CH International Relations and French

BA CH Modern Languages with TESOL

BA CH Philosophy and French

BA CH Politics and French

BA CH Sociology and French

BSc CH French and Mathematics

German
BA German

BA German with TESOL

BA CH Classical Studies and German

BA CH English and German

BA CH Film Studies and German

BA CH German and Arabic

BA CH French and German

BA CH German and Italian

BA CH German and Russian

BA CH German and Spanish

BA CH History and German

BA CH International Relations and German

BA CH Modern Languages with TESOL

BA CH Philosophy and German

BA CH Politics and German

BA CH Sociology and German

BSc CH German and Mathematics

Hispanic Studies

BA Spanish

BA Spanish with TESOL

BA CH Classical Studies and Spanish

BA CH English and Spanish

BA CH Film Studies and Spanish

BA CH French and Spanish

BA CH German and Spanish

BA CH History and Spanish

BA CH International Relations and Spanish

BA CH Italian and Spanish

BA CH Modern Languages with TESOL

BA CH Philosophy and Spanish

BA CH Politics and Spanish

BA CH Russian and Spanish

BA CH Sociology and Spanish

BA CH Spanish and Arabic

BSc CH Spanish and Mathematics

Italian

BA CH Classical Studies and Italian

BA CH English and Italian

BA CH Film Studies and Italian

BA CH French and Italian

BA CH German and Italian

BA CH History and Italian

BA CH International Relations and Italian

BA CH Italian and Arabic

BA CH Italian and Russian

BA CH Italian and Spanish

BA CH Modern Languages with TESOL

BA CH Philosophy and Italian

BA CH Politics and Italian

BA CH Sociology and Italian

Russian

BA Russian

BA Russian with TESOL

BA CH Classical Studies and Russian

BA CH English and Russian

BA CH Film Studies and Russian

BA CH French and Russian

BA CH German and Russian

BA CH History and Russian

BA CH International Relations and Russian

BA CH Italian and Russian

BA CH Modern Languages with TESOL

BA CH Philosophy and Russian

BA CH Politics and Russia

BA CH Russian with Arabic

BA CH Russian and Spanish

BA CH Sociology and Russian

Film Studies

BA Film Studies (Cinema and Practice)

BA CH Film Studies and French

BA CH Film Studies and German

BA CH Film Studies and Italian

BA CH Film Studies and Russian

BA CH Film Studies and Spanish

Postgraduate Programmes

MA in Applied Translation Studies

MA in European Languages and Cultures

Masters by Research (MRes) in European Languages and Cultures

MA in Film Studies

MA in Literary Translation

MA in Medieval Studies

MA in Sexuality and Gender Studies

MRes in Sexuality and Gender Studies

Research Degrees

MPhil and PhD

Overview of Main Characteristics of Programmes

The Review noted as particular characteristics:

  • Therange and provision of the Year Abroad opportunities
  • Thedegree of choice across the whole spectrum of Modern Language studies securing and maintaining the Department’s strong position in recruitment
  • The excellent and well organised Film Studies provision

Conclusions on Innovation and Good Practice

The Panel observed many examples of innovation and good practice, especially the following (paras 62-71):

  • Staff engagement with the process of Review evidenced by the way in which the PSR Subject Review Commentary had been drawn up
  • The supportive learning and teaching environment created by both administrative and academic staff
  • The effective use of peer observation, including lectors, well managed and with the deliberate cross fertilisation between Language Units between observer and observed
  • Good staff development and induction and training processes, including mentoring schemes for staff and PG students
  • Well structured programmes and well planned and flexible UG language teaching with the ability to respond to students’ interests and requests regarding aspects of learning
  • The range and choice of provision of the Year Abroad and the level of student support
  • The excellent resources of the FLC and range of films available as well as the resource of the Bill Douglas Centre, together with the refurbished teaching rooms in Queen’s Building providing effective teaching and learning environments
  • The great strides made in improving NSS scores
  • The dedicated Study Skills sessions run by Film Studies
  • The user-friendly online UG Handbook and essay checklist allowing students to access all key information from the one source
  • An effective PG Research community with connections in research groupings across the School particularly in film and amongst PGRs.

Conclusions on Quality and Standards

The Panel concluded that the University can have confidence in the quality and standards of undergraduate and postgraduate provision in the Department of Modern Languages. Staff and students work well together to create a teaching and learning environment that supports very effectively the programmes offered.

Continuing Currency and Validity of Programmes

The Panel’s External Assessorsconfirmed that the programmes offered by the Department of Modern Languages were in accord with the relevant benchmark statements and other national indicators and that the quality of learning opportunities available to students was appropriate for the intended academic level.

Recommendations to Remedy Shortcomings or for Further Enhancement

The Panel made the following recommendations for further enhancement:

To the Department:

  • that it embrace into its remit the need for longer-term planning and the identification of possible threats to the integrity and popularity of its programmes, especially at the undergraduate level and that the Departmental Executive Committee take a pro-active stance in ensuring the medium- to long-term viability of its programmes in a rapidly changing environment (para 7)
  • to consider ways in which current examples of formative assessment within content modules (written work, essay plans, student presentations) might be extended to give students more feedback prior to undertaking summative assessments (para 11)
  • that it reviews its internal procedures for the return of student feedback; sets its turnaround policy at 4 term time weeks, in line with University policy (para 13)
  • that it reviews its procedures for feedback from examinations and brings them in line with University policy (para 14)
  • in the case of the remaining example of ab initio learning at Level 3 (Catalan), to liaise with the EEU in revising the module aims and assessment regime to emphasise the reflective element appropriate to ‘ab initio’ language learning at that level (para17)
  • that the Department adheres to the School policy relating to frequency of supervision in Modern Languages for PGR students and ensures as part of its review of PGR supervision that this is more consistently implemented through more active monitoring (para 27)
  • that the Department reviews its policy on the agreed outcomes of supervisions and ensures consistency of practice in line with University policy (para 28)
  • that the Department ensures that the role of mentors for PGR students is clearly understood, with its inclusion in a more detailed and accessible PG Handbook, setting out what students can expect (para 29)
  • to address the library issues raised by postgraduates and staff (paras 37 and 40)
  • more consistent integration of WebCT across the Department through the sharing of best practice which the Panel identified as being in Russian and Film Studies(para 39)
  • implementation of a consistent practice across the Department for personal tutors in line with University guidelines communicating the process clearly to students (paras 44, 45)
  • to have a dialogue with the EEU about how the University’s requirement of PDP for all students can be honoured given high levels of student disinterest (para 46)
  • further development of the PG Handbook and its existence communicated to students (paras 50, 58)
  • that the Department considers a more positive response to SSLC issues and that it looks at promoting SSLCs more positively in the year (para 53)
  • that the Department avoids relying on email as the major means of communication and encourages a variety of different media (para 54)

To the University:

  • that it responds to the Department’s request that its efforts to improve NSS performance be assisted by the provision of more precise information on the performance of all its units, specific information on Italian and Russian not being currently supplied (para 19)
  • that it considers how ‘fit for purpose’ the current library provision is for PGR students (para 34)
  • that it ensures it communicates with students in a timely manner with clear rationales for changes in provision (most notably in the Library, technical support services and the Family Centre) to ensure that student expectation is effectively managed(paras 35, 52)
  • that there is liaison between the Disability Resource Centre and the School’s Disability Representative to ensure that students with disabilities are appropriately supported.

Review Panel Report

Introduction

1This report forms part of a Periodic Subject Review (PSR), which replaces the University’s previous Subject and Programme Quality Review (SPQR) process. The scheme is directed at undergraduate, postgraduate taught and postgraduate research students.

2The Review aims to promote enhancement of the quality of provision, both within the subject(s)under review and other subjects in the University, through the identification and dissemination of good practice. The process draws on evidence at four levels of monitoring:

  • Annual procedures at module level
  • Annual procedures at programme level
  • Annual procedures at School level
  • Four-yearly periodic review

3The PSR process requires the School to prepare an action plan, with timescales, for building on any strengths and addressing any weaknesses identified in the Panel’s report. Both the report and the action plan are then submitted to the University’s Faculty Boards and Education Committee.

4The Review Panel for the Departmentof Modern Languages comprised the following members:

Professor Anne Barlow (Chair)

Dr Paul Street

Dr Richard Winsley

Ms Ashley Petrons, Guild Education Officer

Dr Dilly Fung(in attendance)

Professor David Gillespie from theUniversity of Bathserved as the Panel’s External Assessor for Film Studies.

Professor John Green from the University of Bradford served as the Panel’s External Assessor for Modern Languages.

Dr Lindy Ford served as Secretary.

5The Panel met on 25 February 2008 and 11and 12March 2008. During its meetings in March 2008, the Panel held discussions with undergraduate and postgraduate representatives of the Department and also with members of staff. A facilitator from the Department of Modern Languages attended certain meetings of the Panel to assist in its deliberations.

Quality Management: Context and Background

6Since the last review in February 2004, Modern Languages has experienced a period of substantial change both in terms of personnel and management structures. As a School, Modern Languages and the Foreign Language Centre had undergone significant changes in response to two external reviews in 2006 with external appointments of Heads of Department and of Spanish and Director of the FLCand a number of new permanent staff. The creation of the School of Arts, Languages and Literatures in August 2006 comprising Modern Languages, Drama and English has created opportunities for interdisciplinary research and teaching. Furthermore the centralisation of support services in the new School has significantly changed management and administrative structures and practices.

7As the new School was less than 18 months old, and with focus on the RAE at School level, the School had allowed Departments to evolve, and strategic direction was undertaken within each Unit of DML. Unit Heads met formally as part of the DML Executive once a term. The Panel was informed that there was scheduled to be a School Review of its structures at the end of the current academic year. In spite of the newness of the School and its Departments’ internal arrangements, the Panel was not convinced that the Department of Modern Languages had an overall strategy for replacing key personnel who were to retire. Also Unit Heads seemed unaware of any need for strategic planning in a discipline that was vulnerable to market shifts and recommended that it embrace into its remit the need for longer-term planning and the identification of possible threats to the integrity and popularity of its programmes, especially at the undergraduate level. The Panel recommended that the Departmental Executive Committee take a pro-active stance in ensuring the medium- to long-term viability of its programmes in a rapidly changing environment.

8Support staff had experienced the greatest change with the centralisation of services and they reported positively on the benefits of the merger.Administrative staff said the merger had brought with it only benefits;two communal offices had helped communication and a supportive working environment.

9The process by which the PSR Subject Review Commentary had been drawn up was evidence not only of collegiality but also that staff had engaged well with the process of quality review.

Academic Standards

Assessment Policies and Regulations

10All students seen by the Panel were familiar with the processes for assessment including the submission, setting and marking of assessments. Undergraduate students receive clear documentation in the student handbook which sets out the assessment regulations, marking criteria and marking strategy. Overall, students seen by the Panel felt that there were clear links between the feedback they received and the assessment criteria provided.

11The Panel noted that for content modules, in contrast to language modules, including those for PGT programmes, there is currently farless formative assessment. Under the University’s new Assessment Strategy this would be a requirement.It encouraged the Department to consider ways in which current examples of formative assessment within content modules (written work, essay plans, student presentations) might be extended to give students more feedback prior to undertaking summative assessments.

12The Panel noted from the documentation provided that the Department had increased the variety of assessment used within its programmes, particularly in Film Studies. However, it appeared that in some of the substantive content modules provided by Modern Language programmes there was not always a great variety of assessments, some students commenting that they were driven by the mode of assessment rather than the content of a module. The Panel noted that the development of a School Assessment and Feedback Strategy would help the Department to develop a consistent approach to the diversity of assessment used within programmes.

13There appeared to be a lack of clarity among students of the Department’s policy regarding the return of assessed work and variation in practice between language units. Whilst the Panel was aware that the Department had recently introduced measures to address this issue, with handback dates now displayed on the notice boards, and the emailing of students if dates could not be met, students need to be clear when they can expect to receive their marks. The Panel recommends to the Department that it reviews its internal procedures for the return of student feedback; sets its turnaround policy at 4 term time weeks, in line with University policy; and works with staff in all language units to ensure that this policy is consistently adhered to, auditing the return of assessed work.

14In discussion with students an issue arose of examination results taken in January not being returned until Easter. The Panel recommended that the Department ensures that it reviews its procedures and brings them in line with University policy which requires feedback from examinations within the same time-span as for assessed work.

15The Panel noted the practice of allowing support staff to grant extensions to the submission of undergraduate students’ assessed work but it was satisfied that this practice was limited to a week at the most on production of a medical certificate.

16The Department was working towards increased harmonisation between the five language unitsin approaches to assessment and had recently introduced a single coversheet for the provision of feedback on all assessed coursework. All students confirmed that they received the feedback sheets for assessed work (but not non-assessed) and whilst most students appeared content with the quality of feedback, particularly German and Russian, some did say that the quality was variable.

17The Panel noted that External Examiners’ reports had raised a concern about final year students taking level one modules: beginners’ language in the final year.The Panel is confident that this concern could be addressed through a revision of the module aims and assessment regime to emphasise the reflective element appropriate to ‘ab initio’ language learning at Level 3. An appropriately revised module descriptor could be used to promote these courses outside the School.