11 October 2010Duncan Reeder & Claire Eustance

Improving the experience of students on “flexible” programmes –

the problem & possible solutions

Improve & formalise year round registration

Enable in-year progression & reassessment

Investigate options for supporting modular curriculum structures

School Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

A&C 262 7 3 9 1215 6

Bus 252 365 12 41 2 1 67 1823 183 64 48

CMS

882 2 4 1 13 25 936 12

Edu 214 17 16 7 18 13 6 1 1447 32 1

Eng 189 2 5 2 5 580 54 8

HSC 228 17 168 87 1 2 1153 8 8

Hums 23 1 101 15 873 16 2

IG 17

Pharm 41 21 54 23 53 29 20 88 115 64 44 24

NRI 16 18

PD 27 37 40 16 2 83 83 11 731 3 16 91

Science 174 11 93 18 4 4 984 136 1

Total 2308 470 129 361 185 142 212 227 9892 514 135 172

2008-09 New Entrant Data: ◦ September intake = 9892

◦ January intake = 2308

37% of Jan intake are Masters students (853)

80% of Jan Masters students taught on campus (683)

◦ May intake = 185

47% of May intake are Health students (87) all taught on campus.

Scrutinised current systems and processes used to manage January & May starters

Analysed methods to enable multiple registration point

focussed on full time funded students

focussed on campus-based provision

recognition of local practice in schools

1. Introduce multiple registration points, with corresponding progression points: Sept – Jan –May (& build system capacity for potentially up to 12

registration points)

2. Annual (single) registration cycle;

3. Remove manual handling of records of students who straddle two academic years (on same stage)

◦ Clear benefit to students on under-graduate programmes specifically designed to run from Sept/Jan/May start points

◦ Limited benefit to students on post-graduate taught programmes that currently run for more than 12 months.

◦ No benefit for post-graduate students on “infill” taught programme (e.g. Jan start Masters)

All the evidence so far shows that our systems and processes are set up to service the Sept-July, 3 term undergraduate schedule.

Systems changes in themselves will not deliver a more agile flexible curriculum.

A study of the academic calendars of more than 100 UK universities shows:

◦ Around 50% use the model of teaching over two semesters with an associated assessment period

◦ Just over 25% use a three term schedule with an examination period in the third term.

◦ Just over 20% adopt alternative, hybrid / bespoke models (trimesters - quadmesters – differentiation based on level of study)

Project makes recommendation to Executive that the University look again at the academic calendar;

Recommend review is conducted in the context of academic requirements and not systems requirements