LEEDS BECKETT UNIVERSITY BOARD OF … BECKETT UNIVERSITY ... 12:10 Paper Part E: Academic Quality...

BOARD OF GOVERNORS

Friday 25 November 2016

at 09:30 in Room G07, Old Broadcasting House,

City Campus

LEEDS BECKETT UNIVERSITY

Governance and Legal Affairs Leeds Beckett University, Old Broadcasting House, City Campus, Leeds LS2 9EN T: 0113 812 7542 F: 0113 812 7522 E: [email protected]

BOARD OF GOVERNORS

AGENDA for the meeting on Friday 25 November 2016

The 137th meeting of the Board of Governors will be held at 09:30 in Room G07 Old Broadcasting House, City Campus.

09:30 Part A: Preliminary Items Paper Led by A1 Chair’s Welcome and Introductions Oral Chair A2 Apologies Oral Chair A3 Declarations of interest Oral Clerk

A4 Minutes HEC-2016-001 CONFIDENTIAL

Chair

A5 Matters arising HEC-2016-002 CONFIDENTIAL

Clerk

A6* Chair’s Action - National Pay Award HEC-2016-003

CONFIDENTIAL Clerk

09:40 Part B: Strategic Matters Paper Led by

B1 Chair’s Report on Board Priorities HEC-2016-004

CONFIDENTIAL Chair

B2 Vice Chancellor’s Report HEC-2016-005

CONFIDENTIAL Vice Chancellor

B3 Strategic Plan KPI progress update HEC-2016-006

CONFIDENTIAL Vice Chancellor

B4 Campus Masterplan HEC-2016-007

CONFIDENTIAL P Smith

B5 Student Recruitment Planning Presentation T Lancaster

11:15 Part C: Finance and Risk Paper Led by

C1 Financial Update Report HEC-2016-008

CONFIDENTIAL P Harrison

C2 Annual Sustainability Assurance Report HEC-2016-009

CONFIDENTIAL P Harrison

11:35 BREAK

11:50 Part D: Financial Statements Paper Led by

D1 Audit Committee Annual Report and

Opinion 2015/16 HEC-2016-010 CONFIDENTIAL

J Dent

D2 External Auditor’s Report for the year

ended 31 July 2016 HEC-2016-011 CONFIDENTIAL

PwC

D3 Financial Statements for the year ended 31

July 2016 HEC-2016-012 CONFIDENTIAL

P Harrison

12:10 Part E: Academic Quality and the Student Experience

Paper Led by

E1 Students’ Union Report HEC-2016-013 J Murray E2 Academic Assurance Report HEC-2016-014 Phil Cardew

12:35 Part F: Governance & Compliance Matters Paper Led by

F1 Annual review and remuneration of the

Chair of the Board HEC-2016-015 CONFIDENTIAL APPENDICES

P Marsh

F2 Annual review and remuneration of

Committee Chairs HEC-2016-016 CONFIDENTIAL APPENDICES

Chair

F3 Annual HEFCE Accountability return

2015/16 HEC-2016-017 CONFIDENTIAL

Clerk

F4 Prevent duty annual report HEC-2016-018

CONFIDENTIAL S Harper

F5 HEFCE Assurance Review HEC-2016-019

CONFIDENTIAL Clerk

F6 UK Visas & Immigration (UKVI) Compliance HEC-2016-020

CONFIDENTIAL S Harper

F7 Health and Safety Update HEC-2016-021

CONFIDENTIAL J Maughan

13:10 Part G: Reports from Committees Paper Led by

G1 Report of the Audit Committee HEC-2016-022

CONFIDENTIAL J Dent

G2 Report of the Finance, Staffing &

Resources Committee HEC-2016-023 CONFIDENTIAL

L Everett

G3 Report of the Governance and Nominations

Committee HEC-2016-024 CONFIDENTIAL

P Marsh

13:25 Part H: Items for Information Paper Led by H1 Schedule of Business 2016/17 HEC-2016-025 Clerk

Shaded items indicate that the Board / Committee is being asked to make a decision. *Starred items will be taken without discussion unless a member notifies the Chair or Secretary in advance that she or he wishes the item to be open for debate Date of the next meeting:

Friday 03 March 2017, at 10:00 in Room G07 Old Broadcasting House, City Campus.

Ms J Share Governance & Legal Affairs Secretary & Registrar

BOARD OF GOVERNORS

25 November 2016

HEC-2015-013 OPEN

Students’ Union Report

Executive Summary

This report is to summarize the work undertaken by the Students’ Union and inform the board of any key issues or developments.

Action Requested

The report is for information. Board of Governors is invited to note the report.

Appendices

Author

Name:

Job title:

Date:

Jess Balme

Student Voice Coordinator (Academic Representation)

07.11.16

Approval Route

10 October 2016 Joe Murray, President – Students’ Union

10 October 2016 Megan Robinson, Vice President Education – Students’ Union

Students’ Union Report Introduction

1. This report explains any key developments within the Union’s activities since the Board last met in September as well as introducing plans for the period leading up to Christmas.

Union Update 2. Fresher’s week was a great success, as well as the various evening events that the Union

hosted, there was also the Tea Party and both the City and Headingley Freshers fairs that were well attended by students.

3. The Students’ Union also delivered over fifty induction talks speaking to over 2700 students in the process.

4. All sabbatical officer attended the relevant NUS Zones Conference with President Joe Murray being elected onto the Union Development Zone Committee.

NUS Delegate and Student Council Elections 5. In October the NUS Delegate and Student Council by-elections took place. The results were

as follows:

NUS Delegates: o Meg Robinson o Maddy Andrews o Kelly-Anne Watson o James Starnes o Harriet Smith o Jack Harrison

Student Council: o First Year Representative: Aisha Bapu & Emily Riach o LGBTQ* Representative: Rosie Sewell o Student with Disabilities Representative: Alix Doran

School Representative: o Education & Childhood: Toyah Bainbridge o Sport: Katy Graham o Cultural Studies & Humanities: Lizzy Cartwright o Built Environment & Engineering: Mikey Barrett o Film, Music & Performing Arts: Cat Smith

Officer Objectives

6. The Students’ Union’s sabbatical officers’ objectives are as follows:

SU President - Joe Murray o Keep Wednesday Afternoon’s Free – Extending the existing timetabling

programme beyond Headingley campus to ensure a similar experience

for all students allowing them opportunities to partake in extracurricular

activities.

o Library Fines – To reduce library fines for students who do not return a

book before the deadline examining the automatic renewal system, and

promote that student fines can be erased in mitigating circumstances.

o Exam Accessibility – To push back the start time of exams to 9:30am, to

reduce exam lateness and increase student satisfaction.

o Single fare bus service – An established and reliable bus service running

between both campuses and student accommodation.

VP Education - Meg Robinson

o Lecture Capture – To work in conjunction with the University to ensure

all lectures are recorded.

o More Power on Campus – To ensure all new lecture theatre builds have

an increased number of power outlets and increase the number of

power outlets in the Union bar also.

o Whose £9k – A campaign to create more transparency around student

fees, emphasising where fees are spent and how it benefits students.

VP Welfare - Kelly-Anne Watson o Mental Health Support – To establish and promote a post-counselling

service with the University.

o Links with Leeds City Council – To strengthen current working

relationships between the Union and the local council authority.

o Rate Your Landlord – Promotion of the ‘Rate Your Landlord’ website,

encouraging students to use it to review their landlord, making letting

more transparent and accountable.

VP Equality & Diversity - Maddy Andrews o Gender Neutral Toilets – To liaise with the University to create at least

one gender neutral toilet on each campus.

o 24-Hour Faith Space – To have a 24 hour provision of a faith space –

suiting the needs of students at the University.

o Disabled Sports Team – To work with the Athletic Union to develop a

sports team for disabled students.

VP Activities - Harry Walters

o Improved Students’ Union & Athletic Union Relations - To strengthen the working relationship between the Students’ Union and Athletic Union, aiding engagement in both.

o Beckett Award – To further develop and promote the Beckett Award. o Society Reward Scheme – The creation of a new reward scheme for

societies, to encourage student involvement. Write Right Campaign

7. The ‘Write Right’ campaign has rolled out this semester to raise awareness amongst students of the frequent occurrence and implications of being caller to investigatory meetings for suspected academic misconduct.

8. This was very successful this year, with over 1000 students engaging and receiving a free copy of Quote Unquote. The Students’ Union were pleased with how they could collaborate with the library service on this campaign.

9. Due to the success of this campaign it is something the Students’ Union is hoping to continue.

Know Your Course Rep Week 10. Towards the middle of October it became apparent that Course Representative recruitment

was falling way behind the forecast and where it should expectedly be at that stage in the Semester. The Union is unclear as to the reason for this.

11. Comprehensive, updated guidance for Course Representation, including the election of Course Representatives was circulated by the Union and QAS, to all known Course Leaders with QAS also creating an online training module for staff to complete on the process of electing Course Representatives.

12. The Students’ Union has had to cancel the large Course Rep Conference style/size training event that was planned for the end of October as it became apparent that it was no longer feasible to hold an event of this style. The Union has since organised face-to-face sessions as has been held previously, however these had been held later that training had been planned and a large number of catch-up sessions had to be arranged also.

13. The Union refocused the scheduled Know Your Course Rep week to concentrate on identifying those courses that did not have representation at that stage. The Union then tried to actively work with the course team to facilitate the election of Course Reps. During the week we spoke to over 300 students about the importance of Course Representatives and to identified courses that did not have representatives

14. Following the reporting of this matter at the most recent meeting of the Academic Board both the Students’ Union and Quality Assurances have seen a marked increase of Course Representatives on record and it is forecast that we will be back on target by the end of the semester.

Annual Student Meeting

15. The Student Union’s Annual Student Meeting took place on the 8th November 2016, in order to hold the Students’ Union & Sabbatical Officers to account on their policies.

16. Though attendance wasn’t as high as hoped, effective and constructive discussions were had. A review of the meeting has been held to assess the success of the meeting and discuss best practices for encouraging attendance.

National Student Demonstration

17. The Students’ Union are organising a coach for twenty five students to attend the National Union of Students’ demonstration United for Education in London on the 19th November 2016.

18. Students will attend the demo alongside current Sabbatical Officers and Students’ Union staff to march for free education.

19. Full safety briefings will be provided for all students attending, organised by the Students’ Union.

Conclusions and recommendations The board is invited to note this report and discuss its content.

BOARD OF GOVERNORS 25 November 2016

HEC-2016-014 OPEN

Academic Assurance Report Executive Summary 1. This Academic Assurance Report provides the Board with evidence to inform assurances

relating to academic standards, quality and continuous improvement of our awards for the 2015/16 academic year and up to the period of review by the Board.

2. The Assurance Report provides evidence and data to support the Board’s deliberations and the affirmative annual assurance statement to the Higher Education Funding Council (HEFCE) under the new Annual Provider Review process that

a) The governing body has received and discussed a report and accompanying action plan

relating to the continuous improvement of the student academic experience and student outcomes. Evidence is provided that our own periodic review processes have fully involved students and include embedded external peer or professional review;

b) The methodologies used as a basis to improve the student academic experience and student outcomes are, to the best of our knowledge, robust and appropriate; and that

c) The standards of awards for which we are responsible have been appropriately set and maintained.

3. The detailed evidence for this assurance has been considered via our deliberative structures

through annual cycle reporting. A summary of these processes is provided for the Board in this report and in detail in Appendix 1.

4. Our University’s approach to the assurance of the academic standards, quality and continuous improvement of our taught awards is undertaken through a range of mechanisms which in 2015/16 included:

a) institutional regulatory frameworks and Academic Principles and Regulations and their

effective implementation which is required to meet national and European expectations; b) our institutional oversight via our deliberative and executive governance structures and

our strategic approach to systematic enhancement informed by student feedback and their involvement in validation processes;

c) externality embedded through external examiners and external panel members or professional, statutory and regulatory body accreditation within our course validation and review processes; and

d) our strategies and investments in our people and our learning environment that enable and support the provision of an excellent education and experience for our students.

5. This is supplemented through annual reporting and HEFCE’s oversight of institutional quality

performance data including student access and success, student satisfaction, employability,

2

and completion/achievement indicators. Fundamentally, assurance derives from common, or centralised, processes, which enable reporting and analysis of outcomes which can then be verified, discussed, and responded to, facilitating evidenced action planning which, itself, can be monitored and reported upon.

6. This Academic Assurance Report provides the Board with a composite review of this evidence,

outcomes and assurance for 2015/16, and a summary of progress in completing the University action plan for continuous improvement (Appendix 2). These were discussed and endorsed by Academic Quality and Standards Committee on 7 October 2016. It was noted the action plan was substantially completed.

7. The Annual Academic Assurance Report was considered and endorsed by Academic Board on

2 November 2016 together with the Annual Research and Enterprise Activity Report which included evidence relating to research awards. This Academic Assurance Report provides assurance relating to research awards which are overseen by the University’s Research and Enterprise Committee and Research Degrees Sub-Committee and of ongoing continuous improvements undertaken in 2015/16.

8. Academic Board received and endorsed the Annual Academic Assurance Report on 2

November 2016 and provided the following Quality Guarantee for the Board:

Quality Guarantee: The Academic Board of the University hereby confirms that it has properly exercised the powers conferred upon it in safeguarding the standards of academic awards and the quality of student learning opportunities within Leeds Beckett University. In particular, the Board affirms that in 2015/16 all validation and review procedures were properly carried out (with appropriate levels of external engagement, as defined by the UK Quality Code), and that all External Examiners ͛ reports were received and properly acted upon and that no systemic issues identified that might call into question the standards of the University.

9. The Academic Assurance Report provides comprehensive evidence and information for the

Board to support deliberation and assurance of the 2015/16 cycle and outcomes relating to our University’s Research Awards and the Assurance of Academic Standards, Quality and Enhancement of taught awards (including collaborative provision).

Action Requested 10. The Board of Governors can be assured of our compliance with sector expectations and of the

effectiveness of our institutional oversight and management of academic quality and standards for taught provision. The Board of Governors is invited to: a) receive and discuss this report; b) note the assurances and Quality Guarantee provided by Academic Board; and c) be assured of our University’s confirmation for 2015/16 academic year and up to the

date of signing the HEFCE return that (i) The governing body has received and discussed a report and accompanying action

plan relating to the continuous improvement of the student academic experience

3

and student outcomes. This includes evidence from our University’s own periodic review processes, which fully involve students and include embedded external peer or professional review;

(ii) The methodologies used as a basis to improve the student academic experience and student outcomes are, to the best of our knowledge, robust and appropriate; and that

(iii) The standards of awards for which we are responsible have been appropriately set and maintained.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Assurance Process: Annual Quality Monitoring and Assurance Process Appendix 2: University action plan (undertaken in 2015/16 and up to the date of this report). Appendix 3: 2015/16 assurance cycle reports considered by our University’s deliberative structure and by the Board Appendix 4: NSS 2016: Leeds Beckett University and sector comparison Appendix 5: HESA Non Continuation Performance Indicator Report April 2016 Appendix 6: Teaching Excellence Framework Year 2 Briefing Paper and Metrics Appendix 7: European Standards and Guidelines 2015: Part 1: Standards and guidelines for internal quality assurance Extract

Author

Name: Job title: Date:

Barbara Colledge Dean of Quality 11 November 2016

Approval Route

15 November 2016 Professor Phil Cardew, Deputy Vice-Chancellor

4

ACADEMIC ASSURANCE REPORT Introduction 1. This Academic Assurance Report provides the Board with evidence to inform assurances relating

to academic standards, quality and continuous improvement of our awards for the 2015/16 academic year and up to the period of review by the Board. The detailed evidence for this assurance has been considered via our deliberative structures through annual cycle review and reporting. A summary of these processes is provided for the Board in this report and in detail in Appendix 1.

2. The Academic Assurance Report provides a composite review of this evidence and assurance for 2015/16, and a summary of progress in completing the University action plan for continuous improvement (Appendix 2). These were discussed and endorsed by Academic Quality and Standards Committee (AQSC) on 7 October 2016. It was noted the action plan was substantially completed. The Annual Academic Assurance Report was considered and endorsed by Academic Board on 2 November 2016 together with the Annual Research and Enterprise Activity Report which included evidence relating to research awards. This Academic Assurance Report provides assurance relating to research awards which are overseen by the University’s Research and Enterprise Committee and Research Degrees Sub-Committee and of ongoing continuous improvements undertaken in 2015/16.

3. This Assurance Report provides evidence and data to support the Board’s deliberations and their

affirmative annual assurance statement to the Higher Education Funding Council (HEFCE) under the new Annual Provider Review process that

a) The governing body has received and discussed a report and accompanying action plan

relating to the continuous improvement of the student academic experience and student outcomes. Evidence is provided that our own periodic review processes have fully involved students and include embedded external peer or professional review;

b) The methodologies used as a basis to improve the student academic experience and student outcomes are, to the best of our knowledge, robust and appropriate; and that

c) The standards of awards for which we are responsible have been appropriately set and maintained.

4. Academic Board received and endorsed the Annual Academic Assurance Report on 2 November

2016 and provided the following Quality Guarantee for the Board:

Quality Guarantee: The Academic Board of the University hereby confirms that it has properly exercised the powers conferred upon it in safeguarding the standards of academic awards and the quality of student learning opportunities within Leeds Beckett University. In particular, the Board affirms that in 2015/16 all validation and review procedures were properly carried out (with appropriate levels of external engagement, as defined by the UK Quality Code), and that all External Examiners ͛reports were received and properly acted upon and that no systemic issues identified that might call into question the standards of the University.

5

The Assurance Process 5. Our University’s approach to the assurance of the academic standards, quality and continuous

improvement of our taught awards is undertaken through a range of mechanisms which in 2015/16 included:

a) institutional regulatory frameworks and Academic Principles and Regulations and their

effective implementation which is required to meet national and European expectations (e.g. the UK Quality Code; The Frameworks for Higher Education Qualifications; Part 1 of the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area 2015 -ESG) and the Higher Education Funding Council for England’s (HEFCE) Revised Operating Model for Quality Assessment. The Quality Assurance Agency’s Higher Education Review of our University in 2014 confirmed that we fully meet expectations in relation to these mechanisms and our action plan was fully completed in 2015. Our academic regulations continue to align with these frameworks. Following the completion of the review of our academic regulations in 2016/17, we will update our mapping against the UK Quality Code and the European Standards and Guidelines (ESG) for consideration by AQSC. The relevant sections of the ESG is Part 1: Standards and guidelines for internal quality assurance. Further information is provided on this section as background for the Board in Appendix 7.

b) our institutional oversight via our deliberative and executive governance structures and our strategic approach to systematic enhancement informed by student feedback and their involvement in validation processes;

c) externality embedded through external examiners and within our course approval and review processes; and

d) our strategies and investments in our people and our learning environment that enable and support the provision of an excellent education and experience for our students.

6. This is supplemented through annual reporting and HEFCE’s oversight of institutional quality

performance data including student access and success, student satisfaction, employability, and completion/achievement indicators. Fundamentally, assurance derives from common, or centralised, processes, which enable reporting and analysis of outcomes which can then be verified, discussed, and responded to, facilitating evidenced action planning which, itself, can be monitored and reported upon.

7. A detailed summary of the process of assurance is provided in Appendix 1 which includes the planned reporting cycle for the Board during 2016/17. The inclusion of relevant quality update reports for the Board this academic year is intended to better support the Board in their oversight and provision of assurance to HEFCE in December 2016 and December 2017. A summary of the 2015/16 assurance cycle reports considered by our deliberative structure and the Board is provided in Appendix 3.

8. A summary is provided below of the following main elements of assurance that informs this

report including specifically Assurance of Research Awards, Assurance of Academic Standards, Quality and Enhancement of taught awards (including collaborative provision).

6

Assurance of Academic Standards, Quality and Enhancement– Research Awards 9. Monitoring and review of academic standards and quality for research awards has been

overseen via our deliberative structures, specifically via the University Research and Enterprise Committee and its Research Degrees Sub-Committee reporting to Academic Board in 2015/16. The Research Degrees Sub-Committee reporting to the University Research and Enterprise Committee approves arrangements for examining of research awards and maintains oversight of the academic standards and quality of research awards.

10. An annual report on research degree examinations and a review of joint examiners’ reports is considered by the Research and Enterprise Committee in January each year. Research degree examinations always involve an independent Chair and an external examiner in addition to the internal examiner. The report received in January 2016 reviewed examinations and reports for 2014/15 academic year. During the academic year 2014/2015 there were 67 doctoral degrees and three masters level examinations. As part of our University’s feedback mechanism within the quality assurance process, an analysis of the Joint Examiners Reports of postgraduate research degrees 2014/2015 was conducted by the University Research Office (Academic Principles and Regulations, Section G: Regulations for Research Awards of the University, G4.1, Quality Manual for Research Degree Programmes, 2015). This indicated that 82% of responses to questions were responded to positively (i.e. 398 of 486 total responses excluding questions that were not applicable). Further analysis and actions for further improvement informed by any negative comments has been undertaken. The report for 2015/16 academic year will be received the Committee in January 2017.

11. An annual report was considered by the Research Degrees Sub-Committee on 20 October 2016 which provided oversight of student progression and completion with work underway to support the continuous improvement of the student academic experience and outcomes. Specific action and monitoring is overseeing the work of the Doctorate of Business Administration (DBA) to support improvements in student progression/completion. The sub-committee continues to receive a monthly update for the DBA programme on the progress made to address quality issues initially raised at the March 2015 sub-committee meeting. This included work to review the Research Degree Examination Outcomes over the last three years to identify any patterns, trends or further developments needed and to consider the provision of Professional Doctorates to explore a more integrated approach taking into consideration the recent Careers Research & Advisory Centre (CRAC) report.

12. This provides the Board with evidence of assurance of the academic standards and quality of

research awards and of actions for continuous improvement for 2015/16 academic year. This supports the Board’s assurance for HEFCE as set out in paragraphs 3 a, b and c above.

Assurance of Academic Standards, Quality and Enhancement – Taught Awards 13. Monitoring and review of academic standards, quality and enhancement for taught awards has

been overseen via our deliberative structures and specifically via Academic Quality and Standards Committee and Academic Board in 2015/16. Academic Quality and Standards Committee (AQSC) is responsible for maintaining oversight of academic quality and standards and the implementation of the University’s academic quality assurance framework under delegated responsibility reporting to Academic Board. The Committee makes a report annually to Academic Board on matters relating to academic standards and quality. The AQSC reviewed

7

this on 7 October and Academic Board received and endorsed the Annual Academic Assurance Report on 2 November 2016.

14. Reporting on key quality matters was provided for the Board of Governors during the year and

via the attendance by the chair of the board, at Academic Board meetings. Academic Board and its committees have maintained institutional oversight of academic standards and the quality of student learning opportunities receiving a range of reports relating to student satisfaction, performance, employability, appeals and complaints, course approval, annual monitoring and periodic review and external examining, as part of our annual cycle of review for 2015-2016. This has informed course and institutional action planning with targeted action and further enhancement introduced for 2016/17.

15. The implementation of our University action plan for improvement (Appendix 2) has been

monitored by AQSC throughout the year and was noted as largely completed at its meeting on 7 October 2016. An updated report will be received by AQSC in January 2016 which will include items agreed by AQSC in October as priorities for action in 2016/17 (e.g. audit feedback provided to students from examinations; enhanced course monitoring for 14 courses to support focused improvement of student satisfaction or outcomes; implementation of year 1 of Education Strategy). This supports the Board’s assurance for HEFCE as set out in paragraphs 3 a-b above.

16. An enhanced cycle for reporting to the Board of Governors has been introduced for 2016/17 to

provide further assurance and evidence in respect of academic quality and standards to inform the Board’s annual assurance to the Higher Education Funding Council (Appendix 1).

Academic Standards 17. Assurance of academic standards for taught awards in 2015/16 has been assured through the

following main mechanisms:

a) External Examining 18. The annual cycle of external oversight of the academic standards of assessment of our taught

awards is undertaken by External Examiners, who must be independent and are appointed against a set of standard criteria for all our taught awards. External Examiners’ are required to submit an annual report which includes standard questions on academic standards, comparability of student performance and on the conduct of processes for the determination of awards.

19. The submission of External Examiners’ Reports has been timely in the main with 96% (478

reports) of these reports submitted by 9 November 2016. As in previous years, external examiners’ reports relating to taught provision across our University provide a positive endorsement of the security of our university’s academic standards (see Table 1 below)

20. In the small number of instances where external examiners have provided a negative report the

majority of comments were related to differential levels of achievement in partner institutions. In each case our standard process has been instigated for an early response to be produced by the School with planned actions. This is overseen by the Quality Assurance Services.

8

21. All Externals Examiners receive a response to their reports from the School. As at the 9 November 2016, 82% (379) of responses have been completed.

Table 1 : External Examiner Report Outcomes

Report Questions

Reports received in 2015/16 for 2014/15 academic year (Taught Undergraduate and Postgraduate courses) % Agree

Reports received in 2016/17 for 2015/16 academic year (Total to date 478 for Taught Undergraduate courses as at 9 November 2016). Postgraduate will be reported to AQSC in January 2017) % Agree

The academic standards we set for our awards are appropriate.

99.8% 100%

The standards of student performance are comparable with similar courses in other UK institutions.

99.5% 99.36%

The processes for assessment, examination and the determination of awards are sound and fairly conducted.

100% 99%

b) Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies (PSRBs)

22. Professional, Statutory, and Regulatory Bodies (PSRBs) accredit our taught awards and confirm that our academic standards and course outcomes meet the requirements for the relevant professional body standards. This is an indicator of the academic standards of our awards.

23. As at October 2016, our University has 228 courses (on-campus (199) and collaborative provision (29) that are accredited or recognised/approved by a PSRB. A total of 82 PSRBs accredit or recognise/approve our University’s courses (on-campus (63) and collaborative provision (19)). This provides further evidence of the quality and standing of our provision. A total of 19 accreditations/reaccreditations (individual courses) took place during 2015-16 with all courses successful in their accreditation (two awaiting formal written confirmation). There was one new successful accreditation by the Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB) in relation to the BSc (Hons) Quantity Surveying & Commercial Management (L6-Top up) with Rushmore Business School.

c) International In-Country Approval

24. All taught awards which are subject to in-country approval to enable operational delivery at

overseas collaborative partners during 2015/16 have received the requisite government approval with oversight of these activities maintained by Partnerships and Collaborations Sub-

9

Committee in 2015/16. This is further evidence of the academic standards of our University’s awards. d) Validation and Review Process and Outcomes

25. The design, validation and review of our taught awards are undertaken in accordance with our University’s academic regulations and processes which are in alignment with the UK Quality Code. These mechanisms align with sector expectations and require proposals for courses to be validated or re-validated within our 6- year cycle to be tested against relevant threshold standards for course outcomes, such as the Frameworks for Higher Education Qualifications, Qualification Characteristics and Subject Benchmarks. As part of this process, independent external and internal panel members will scrutinise and consider the course team’s proposals and meet with relevant students and the course team. The process requires course teams to engage students, relevant employers and other stakeholders in the design of the courses and to address relevant sector benchmarks, frameworks and expectations. The Panel may validate with or without conditions or recommendations or may decide not to validate. This process is overseen by Quality Assurance Services with an annual report produced for AQSC on outcomes and areas for enhancement.

26. The outcomes from validation and review have been monitored by AQSC with confirmation of the outcomes of activity in the 2015-16 academic year received by AQSC on 23 May 2016 and on 17 October 2016. This has provided institutional oversight of the completion of course approval and periodic review, validation and re-validation of collaborative provision and institutional recognition of collaborative partners on behalf of Academic Board. This activity has been undertaken in accordance with our processes involving external scrutiny and students. Quality Assurance Services monitor completion of event outcomes to provide assurance that all provision has met any conditions to approval prior to course commencement and oversee the schedule of course validation and review providing assurance for AQSC that courses undergo re-validation within our University’s 6 year cycle.

27. The institutional recognition of partner organisations comprised one new partner for 2015-16 (Nanyang Institute of Management, Singapore). There were four Institutional Reviews completed successfully and all exit strategies have been overseen and managed effectively.

e) Academic Integrity

28. The University’s Academic Integrity Board determines penalty for admitted or found cases of

students seeking unfair advantage in assessment, for example cheating, plagiarism, self-plagiarism and collusion. The outcomes of the Academic Integrity Board are communicated to schools to enable Boards of Examiners to implement the outcomes in the context of the students’ overall profiles of achievement. An annual report on outcomes is made to AQSC which provide oversight of academic integrity.

29. There were a total of 676 admitted or found cases of unfair practice during 2015-16. This compares to a total of 590 admitted or found cases in 2014-15 and 675 in 2013-14. As a percentage of the total student population 2.30% of students committed an offence during 2015-16. The corresponding percentage in 2014-15 was 2.07% and in 2013-14 was 2.36%. There were a total of 112 repeat offences committed during 2015-16 which is a very small increase on the figure of 104 repeat offences committed during 2014-15. Enhancements introduced in

10

2015/16 were focused on supporting student awareness of Academic Integrity to foster good academic practice. Additional learning resources for all taught students were introduced from 2015-16 to complement existing information provided by course teams, Skills for Learning, the Academic Integrity Group and Quality Assurance Services. A detailed analysis has been undertaken by AQSC and further promotion has been undertaken in 2016/17 to continue the focus on prevention including an Academic Integrity awareness raising campaign with the Students’ Union and the promotion of the “Little Book of Academic Integrity” and “Quote, Unquote”. f) Academic Standards Recommendations

30. The evidence provided above in paragraphs 17-27 provides assurance that the academic standards of our taught awards are being appropriately set and maintained. External evidence received during 2015/16 and up to the date of this report, via external examiners’ reports, Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies (PSRBs), and externality through our course approval/validation and periodic review activity has provided assurance that across our on-campus and collaborative provision, academic standards are appropriate in light of relevant national expectations. The Board can be assured that we continue to meet national expectations for academic standards. This supports the Board’s assurance for HEFCE as set out in paragraphs 3 c above.

Academic Quality and Enhancement 31. As indicated in paragraph 18 above External Examiners have confirmed that the standards of

student performance are comparable with similar courses in other UK institutions and that processes for assessment, examination and the determination of awards are sound and fairly conducted. The quality of our provision is evidenced through a range of standard key performance indicators and metrics which include: student satisfaction, student progression, student achievement, and student employment. Reports on these outcomes were received and considered by AQSC during the academic year as these national data sets became available. These indicate that the quality of the student experience has improved and that action taken to support enhancements in satisfaction, progression, achievement and employability would appear to contributing to the improvements in overall outcomes from 2015/16.

32. Evidence of the main course quality indicators relating to student satisfaction, student progression, student achievement, graduate destination is summarised below. a) Student Satisfaction – National Student Survey

33. The National Student Survey (NSS) results for 2016 surveyed over 4500 of our final year

undergraduate students and achieved a response rate of 76%, above the sector response rate. There has been an overall increase in overall student satisfaction (Question 22) of 2 percentage points from 82% in 2015 to 84% in 2016. This means we have exceeded our key performance indicator (KPI) of 82% (Year 1 KPI) of our five-year strategic plan but remain below the sector average of 86%. Student satisfaction with teaching has increased by 1% to 85% and satisfaction with assessment also increased by 1 point to 71% in 2016. Satisfaction with resources remained

11

static at 90% which is in line with our University KPI for 2016. A summary of our University’s NSS 2016 outcomes against sector averages is provided in Appendix 4.

34. Of the courses included within the NSS published data set there are 59 courses that exceed our 2016/17 KPI (82%) for overall satisfaction and 52 courses that exceed our Year 1 KPI (84%) for teaching satisfaction. There are 23 courses falling below the year 1 KPI in these two measures of student satisfaction with action plans required through our course monitoring and review process. The School strategic plans developed in September 2016 provide detailed plans for improvements relating to our university’s KPIs. Enhanced course monitoring of 14 courses (including 5 large courses) is being undertaken to support these courses in continuous improvement this academic year. Information and data by course has been provided for Schools including comparisons with the sector subject averages to inform course action plans for improvement as part of our course monitoring and review process. Information and data by course has been provided for Schools including comparisons with the sector subject averages to inform course action plans for improvement as part of our course monitoring and review process.

b) Student Satisfaction – Student Barometer

35. The first combined International Student Barometer/Student Barometer survey was conducted

in November 2015 providing a holistic view of student experience across Undergraduate and Postgraduate International Students and All home students at levels 4 and 5 including Distance Learning and Masters students. The survey does not include students within the NSS population. 3009 (19%) Leeds Beckett students took part in the survey (2% points above the UK Modern Universities rate of 17%).

36. The outcomes showed some improvement with 93% of all respondents reported that they were satisfied or very satisfied with Leeds Beckett University (above the sector outcome of 92%). A total of 85% of all respondents reported that they would encourage others to apply to Leeds Beckett University (above the sector outcome of 84%). Overall satisfaction with learning amongst all respondents was good with 88% satisfied or very satisfied in line with the sector average. Areas with a positive variance from sector benchmark included assessment, course organisation and employability. Areas below the sector included expert lecture, research, learning support and multicultural. Some 88% of respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with services provided. A total of 87% of all respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement I feel part of a student community committed to learning and 85% of all respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement ‘Student feedback on my programme is taken seriously and acted upon’. c) Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey (PTES) 2016 Results

37. The PTES is the only sector-wide survey of the learning and teaching experiences of taught postgraduate students, which includes those studying for MA, MSc, MBA qualifications and other postgraduate certificates and diplomas; one hundred institutions took part in 2015. The survey ran between May-June 2015 achieving a response rate of 18.9% (699 respondents) which was a significant improvement on the previous year (9% response rate in 2015) but still below the average of 27.6% for post-92 institutions. All Schools achieved the threshold of 10 responses which we apply to published results.

12

38. Overall Satisfaction increased on 2015 with 81.7% of respondents satisfied with the quality of their course overall, an increase of 2.7% points (79%). The highest level of satisfaction on average was achieved in teaching and learning, learning resources and the course information banks of questions. The outcomes from this survey indicated that 82.1% of respondents were satisfied with teaching and learning; 75.5% of respondents were satisfied with assessment and feedback, 5.5 points higher than 2015 (70%) with feedback on progress increasing from 59% in 2015 to 76% in 2016; 73.3% of respondents agreed that organisation and management of their course was working well; and satisfaction with the learning resources and support services remained consistently high at 84.5%, an increase of 3.5 points on 2015 (81%). The library maintained a satisfaction score of 87%.

d) Student Progression/Non-Completion (HESA Performance Indicator)

39. Our University strategy is to achieve a progression rate of 95% after year one of study by 2021. (this equates to an overall non-continuation rate of 5%). The current (2013-14) HESA overall non-continuation rates for our university are: Full Time (all entrants): 10.2% (higher than the HESA benchmark of 9.4%); Part-time (all entrants): 8.7% (lower than the HESA benchmark of 18.4%). A detailed analysis of this HESA Performance Indicator was provided for the Board in April 2016 and is also summarised below in paragraph 51 (see Appendix 5).

e) Student Achievement

40. AQSC receives an annual summary in January each year which reports on first degree attainment for our graduating population. The number of graduating students in 2014-15 was 4557 with the number of good degrees (1st and 2:1) reported as 2890, representing 63.4% of the graduating population. This continues an upward year on year increase on the percentage of good degrees in 2013-14 (60%) and 2012-13 (59.1%). Early data on good degrees for 2015/16 (25/08/16) is reported at 59.4% which excludes resit opportunities. The final report on 2015/16 degree outcomes will be received by AQSC in January 2017.

41. Further analysis of good degrees attained by University Characteristic Profiles from 2013-14 and 2014-15 has identified that despite numbers of Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) students being relatively small (12%), there is a clear attainment gap. A University Deep Dive project is exploring home BME undergraduate students’ attainment and how the University can better support good degree attainment. BME students across the sector are more likely than their white peers to get a Third or 2:2. This has informed a number of actions to support improvements including the development of inclusive assessment guidance for staff, BME student access to longer placements, expanding academic staff development about unconscious bias and ways to enhance the BME students’ voice through course representation and projects exploring overly “white-focused” curricula and reading lists. Work streams are being taken forward in 2016-17 led by the Centre for Learning and Teaching through the Developing Excellent Academic Practice (DEAP) Fora, Curriculum Innovation Projects, academic staff development about inclusive practice, and direct pedagogic interventions working with Schools (and their identified courses).

42. Our student access and success strategy and findings from the two Deep Dive Projects exploring

disabled student support and BME students’ attainment will inform the support and engagement of diverse students and the development of the Student Support Framework in 2016/17. Progress on degree achievement data and the consideration of the outstanding

13

findings from the Deep Dive projects will be monitored through the new Recruitment Board from 2016-17. f) Graduate Employability and First Destination

43. Our university has introduced a range of initiatives to support and enhance the employability of

our graduates. The new in-place system and coordinated activity to support course teams has contributed to improvements in employability in the Destination of Leavers from Higher Education Survey (DLHE) 2014/15. The target population was 6685 graduates for the most recent DLHE (2014/15) with a 76.7% response rate achieved. All Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) response rate targets were met.

44. The outcomes improved with 97% of all UK students who had graduated from Leeds Beckett in work or further study, compared to 94.2% the year before, putting Leeds Beckett 4th in the UK (3rd in England and the highest in Yorkshire). We are the leading University in the Northern Powerhouse region. The figure is slightly higher for postgraduate UK students, with 97.5% being in work or further study compared to 96.9% last year. The employment figures for all UK and international students, both undergraduate and postgraduate, has also increased from 94.1% to 96.6%.

45. Professional and Managerial Graduate Employment or further study: HESA release a set of performance indicators based on the DLHE survey which also inform our institutional KPI for the professional and managerial Graduate Employment or further study. We have exceeded our KPI in the first year of our plan with 68.4% of our graduates employed in Professional or managerial jobs. This remains below the sector average of 76.1%. Some 72% of our graduates remained in the Northern Powerhouse region.

46. Graduate Salaries: 28.3% of graduates in full time employment reported salaries between

£20,000 and £24,999 and a further 28.7% reported salaries between £15,000 and £19,999. The median salary was £20,000 with the sector equivalent being £21,000.

47. Further targeted action and support is being implemented in 2016/17 to support specific courses

enhance their graduate employment performance.

g) Student Profile 2015/16

48. In the 2015/16 academic year, the majority of our students were in full time study. The following number of students (headcount) were enrolled (excluding withdrawn students):

2015/16 Enrolled students (excluding withdrawals) Full-Time

Part-Time Total

Non-Credit Bearing 4 414 418 Undergraduate 17472 3259 20731 Postgraduate Taught 1289 2999 4288 Postgraduate Research 221 295 516 Total 18986 6967 25953

14

h) HESA Performance Indicators 49. HESA Performance Indicators were considered at different stages in 2015/16 as these became

available. HESA released the 2014/15 HE performance indicators in three tranches. The data for these three tranches are summarised in paragraphs 50 – 52 below.

50. Widening Participation Indicators for 2014/15 were available in February 2016. These indicated that a) For young full-time first degree entrants, proportions from state schools and colleges was

95.4%, (94.3 % in 2013/14) compared to our location adjusted benchmark of 95.8%. This variation from the benchmark has reduced to 0.4 percentage points from 1.4.

b) Our proportion of mature full-time first degree entrants in this group has increased to 18.5% from 12.9% in 2013/14. We have also met our benchmark for this indicator. We are slightly below our benchmark for mature full-time all undergraduate entrants. The number of students included in this indicator who are not on a first degree is fewer than 20. Therefore, the under-performance is limited to a very small population.

c) The proportion of our part-time undergraduate entrants with no previous Higher Education and from Low Participation Neighbourhoods has increased for our mature entrants from 4.5% in 13/14 to 6.1% in 2014/15 - below the benchmark of 6.6%. This has decreased for young entrants from 16.1% to 14.3% compared to a benchmark of 15.1%.

d) Our reported proportion of students in receipt of Disabled Students’ Allowance has fallen, both for full-time first degree (3.5% down from 4.8%) and part-time undergraduates (4.9% down from 5.6%). Our HESA benchmark has increased steadily year on year. Our proportion of full time first degree students receiving DSA is 3.3 percentage points below the benchmark of 6.8%, which has widened the gap from 2013/14 (6.7%), where we were 1.9 percentage points below.

51. Non-continuation indicators for 2014/15 were available in March 2016. A summary of our non-continuation indicators is provided in paragraph 39 and Appendix 5. The benchmark is a measure of expected performance calculated by HESA based on the characteristics of an institution. The performance against the benchmark can be used to compare different institutions to one another. In measuring non-continuation, a higher percentage, or rate, denotes poorer performance. A non-continuation rate that is described as being above, or higher than, the HESA benchmark is not performing as well as HESA would expect. Our outcomes in summary for full time entrants comprise: a) Full time first degree young entrants: Our non-continuation rate has increased over the last

three years, from 8.3% for students starting in 2011/12 to 9.8% for students starting in 2013/14, and has remained above the HESA benchmark over this three-year period, indicating a higher rate of non-continuation than HESA would expect.

b) Full time first degree mature entrants: Our rate of non-continuation for 2013/14 mature entrants (11.8%) was less than the rate of 12.2% in 2012/13, but still higher than the rate of 10.7% 2011/12. Over the last three years we have performed below the HESA benchmark.

c) Young entrants from Low Participation Neighbourhoods (POLAR 3, Quintile 1) have a higher rate of non-continuation than those from other neighbourhoods. The rate of non-continuation for the Quintile 1 entrants has levelled over the last two years at 10.5%,

15

having decreased from 11.2% in 2011/12, whereas the rate of entrants from other neighbourhoods has increased over the last three years from 7.9% to 9.7%. Both groups perform with a higher rate than the expected HESA benchmark (10% Quintile 1 and 8.1% other), although the gap between the indicator and the benchmark for Quintile 1 entrants has narrowed. .

52. The HESA employment indicators for 2014/15 were available in July 2016 and are drawn from the results of the Destinations of Leavers in Higher Education (DLHE) survey. A summary of the outcomes of this survey is provided above in paragraphs 43-47. The benchmark is a measure of expected performance calculated by HESA based on the characteristics of an institution. The performance against the benchmark can be used to compare different institutions to one another. In measuring employment, a higher percentage, or rate, denotes improved performance. An employment rate that is described as being above, or higher than, the HESA benchmark is performing better than HESA would expect. Our 2014/15 outturn for full time first degree students for employment and further study was 96.7% above the HESA benchmark of 94%. Our employment / further study rate for part-time first degree students has increased from 95.7% in 2013/14 to 97.5% in 14/15. Whereas we fell below our HESA benchmark last year (which was set at 96.3%), we have exceeded this year’s benchmark of 95.5%. The population is small (circa 195 students), so the impact of small changes is greater. There are two other measures that are derived from the DLHE data and form part of the employment Performance Indicators: Employment / Further Study by Full-Time Other and Part-Time Other Undergraduates. Populations for these groups are small, but performance is generally high. i) Academic Quality Recommendations

53. Academic quality has been carefully managed to assure and enhance the student experience, with appropriate action taken to address any areas identified for further enhancement. The evidence and outcomes arising from 2015/16 above (paragraphs 31-52) support the Board’s assurance for HEFCE as set out in paragraphs 3 a-b above.

University Action Plan for Improvement 54. A copy of our University action plan for improvements undertaken during 2015/16 and through

to the date of this report is provided in Appendix 2. This action plan was developed following last year’s course monitoring and review process and annual quality report. This included course level monitoring and review processes and action planning, faculty review, reporting and action planning and culminated in our University’s Annual Quality Report and University action plan.

55. This University action plan (Appendix 2) has contributed to continuous improvement of the student experience and outcomes during 2015/16 with progress in implementation of this action plan monitored by AQSC throughout the year. This has prioritised the following main areas of activity to enhance the academic quality and outcomes of our awards:

a) Actions in relation to maintaining academic standards; b) Actions to support improvements in student outcomes and satisfaction. c) Actions to disseminate and embed excellent academic practice;

16

d) Actions to support updating and enhancement of our regulatory framework and processes.

56. ASQC noted that this action plan was largely completed at its meeting on 7 October 2016. An updated report will be received by AQSC in January 2016 which will include items agreed by AQSC in October as priorities for action in 2016/17 (e.g. audit of feedback provided to students from examinations; enhanced course monitoring for 14 courses to support focused improvement of student satisfaction or outcomes; implementation of year 1 of Education Strategy). The Research Degrees Sub Committee has undertaken further review and enhancement activity relating to research awards (see sections 9-12 above).

57. Investment and support for development of academic staff qualifications and Higher Education Academy (HEA) Fellowships has been a specific priority for our University over the last three years 2015/16. This supports the quality of teaching and research supervision. As at 1 November 2016, 52.4% of full time academic staff are qualified to doctoral level with a further 14.2% studying towards a doctorate. For fractional academic staff, 26.4% are qualified to doctoral level, with a further 7.5% studying towards a doctorate. Good progress has been made in supporting academic staff in obtaining teaching qualifications. As at the 1 November 2016, 81.2% of full time academic staff and 55.1% of fractional academic staff have an academic teaching qualification including HEA Fellowships. There are 68.9% of full time and 36.1% of academic staff who are members (recognised in one of four Fellowship categories) of the HEA.

58. The evidence and outcomes arising from 2015/16 above (paragraphs 54-57) support the Board’s

assurance for HEFCE as set out in paragraphs 3 c above. University Education Strategy 2016-2021 59. The Education Strategy 2016-2021 was approved by Academic Board in July 2016.

Implementation of priorities for 2016/17 is supporting further enhancements to the provision of an excellent education and experience for all students. The strategy includes particular focus on The Learning Pathway and The Student Support Framework to ensure that we put a structure around our students, and across academic and professional services, which supports all aspects of learning, personal and professional development. These developments will support improvements in key performance indicators relating to student satisfaction, progression and employability over the next five years. A report on progress with this implementation was considered by AQSC in October 2016. This will contribute to assurances relating to paragraph 3 a and b above in future years.

The Teaching Excellence Framework Year 2 60. The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and the Quality Assurance Agency

(QAA) will implement the Year 2 Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) process on behalf of the Department for Education in 2016/17. The TEF Year 2 Specification was published recently (Department for Education 2016) providing details of the TEF assessment for the Year 2 process this academic year (Department for Education, 2016). The TEF is an optional process in Year 2 with the focus of the assessment on excellence above threshold academic standards and quality of higher education provision. The latter assessment and scrutiny by HEFCE will be undertaken through the HEFCE Annual Provider process (APR) from 2016/17 with a satisfactory outcome being a pre-condition for eligibility for the TEF. Previously this was undertaken through QAA

17

Higher Education Review, which was a fully meets outcome for our University in 2014. This positive outcome means that we our eligible for TEF year 2.

61. The TEF process commenced on 31 October 2016, with the availability of institutional HEFCE metrics that will be used in the assessment. Our institutional submission will be developed informed by these metrics with a submission date of noon on the 26 January 2017. The assessment takes place in February/March 2017 with published outcomes in May 2017. A detailed briefing paper on TEF, which includes the relevant TEF core metrics for our University and assessment criteria is provided in Appendix 6. The metrics highlight an improving trajectory in line with our institutional KPIs over the three year period of the metrics (the most recent being the latest available data including 2016 NSS outcomes). The metrics highlight overall negative flags for Full time provision (i.e. below the TEF HEFCE provided institutional benchmark which is set based on the three years of data) in three areas (Teaching Satisfaction, Assessment and Feedback Satisfaction and Graduate Employment). This would lead to an initial assessment of a possible Bronze award outcome. However, the most recent improvements are evident in the year three core metrics which have no negative flags highlighted.

Conclusions and Recommendations 62. The Board of Governors can be assured of our compliance with sector expectations and of the

effectiveness of our institutional oversight and management of academic standards, quality and continuous improvement for taught provision. The Board of Governors is invited to:

a) receive and discuss this report; b) note the assurances and Quality Guarantee provided by Academic Board; and c) be assured of our University’s confirmation for 2015/16 academic year and up to the date

of signing the HEFCE return that i. The governing body has received and discussed a report and accompanying action

plan relating to the continuous improvement of the student academic experience and student outcomes. This includes evidence from our University’s own periodic review processes, which fully involve students and include embedded external peer or professional review;

ii. The methodologies used as a basis to improve the student academic experience and student outcomes are, to the best of our knowledge, robust and appropriate; and that

iii. The standards of awards for which we are responsible have been appropriately set and maintained.

References and further information Appendices Appendix 1: Assurance Process: Annual Quality Monitoring and Assurance Process Appendix 2: University action plan (undertaken in 2015/16 and up to the date of this report). Appendix 3: 2015/16 assurance cycle reports considered by our University’s deliberative structure and by the Board

18

Appendix 4: NSS 2016: Leeds Beckett University and sector comparison Appendix 5: HESA Non Continuation Performance Indicator Report April 2016 Appendix 6: Teaching Excellence Framework Year 2 Briefing Paper and Metrics Appendix 7: European Standards and Guidelines 2015: Part 1: Standards and guidelines for internal quality assurance Extract References Department for Education (2016) Teaching Excellence Framework: year 2 specification. Department for Education, September 2016. [Online]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/556355/TEF_Year_2_specification.pdf. [Accessed10 October 2016]. ENQA et al: European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA) European Students’ Union (ESU), European University Association (EUA), and European Association of Institutions in Higher Education (EURASHE) (2015) Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG). ENQA. Brussels, Belgium. [Online]. Available from: http://www.enqa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/ESG_2015.pdf. [Accessed 10/11/16] Author Barbara Colledge, Dean of Quality, 11 November 2016

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/556355/TEF_Year_2_specification.pdf


http://www.enqa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/ESG_2015.pdf

Appendix 1: Annual Quality Monitoring and Assurance

Context The Higher Education Funding Council for England’s (HEFCE) Revised Operating Model for Quality Assessment stipulates that not only should providers have in place quality processes that comply with Part 1 of the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area 2015 (ESG) but also a reporting mechanism that enables both the senior academic body within a provider (Academic Board) and the Board of Governors to be assured that those processes are effective, and that the provider is responding to any issues or concerns arising from the outcomes of those processes, or from the analysis of data informing them.

Essentially (and given that the ESG goes beyond the remit of the Quality Code and covers such aspects as the appointment and training of staff and student-centred learning) this assurance arises from the receipt of annual reports on a range of issues, which are deliberated upon at University level, within Academic Quality and Standards Committee. Academic Board then receives a summary of the outcomes of this deliberation. Currently (while the Board of Governors does receive some reports in parallel, particularly relating to the student experience) there is no formal process by which the Board of Governors is able to assure HEFCE that it has received assurance both on the efficacy of process and on the underlying data which support (in particular) an understanding of standards. This will become more pertinent as the next stages of the Teaching Excellence Framework develop (and move to subject-level analysis) and, in particular, focus upon such aspects as classification outcomes.

Developing a basis for assurance Fundamentally, assurance derives from common, or centralised, processes, which enable reporting and analysis of outcomes which can then be verified, discussed, and responded to, facilitating evidenced action planning which, itself, can be monitored and reported upon. These processes, and

Part 1 of the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area 2015

UK Quality Code / Framework for Higher Education Qualifications Standards Quality

Validation / Re-Validation of Courses External Examiners’ Annual Reports Student Progression and Achievement Data Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Body Reports/Activity Academic Integrity Report Admissions Standards Appointment of Academic Staff

National Student Survey Module Evaluation Student Barometer/International Student Barometer Academic Appeals Student Complaints Engagement with the Professional Standards Framework

Annual Monitoring Action Plans Teaching Excellence Framework Measures

HESA Performance Indicators Destinations of Leavers in Higher Education Survey

the data which emanate from them, must themselves reference the core guidance available to all providers:

The outcomes of these processes are reported at different times of the year, and to different cycles. These inform reports which form part of the cycle of business for Academic Quality and Standards Committee. Where processes have a wide-ranging significance (especially in their relationship to standards or to the student experience at institutional level) then these are also reported to Academic Board for wider discussion and deliberation.

Reporting Structure Academic Quality and Standards Committee (AQSC) receives regular reports, at each of its meeting, based on the outcomes of cyclical processes (external examining, annual monitoring, annual summary reports) and course validation and review event activity (validation, periodic review, visits by Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies). These promote discussion and deliberation, and, where necessary, action and response, which form the basis of action planning, located at a level appropriate to the action.

The cycle of reporting ensures that reports are dealt with as near to the point of closure of the process, as possible, and that discussion, sharing of good practice, and response is timely. The regular cycle of reporting to AQSC is as follows:

First Cycle – October Meeting

Annual Reports Annual Report of PSRB Activity Academic Integrity Annual Report

External Examiner Annual Report – Undergraduate Courses NSS & DLHE Annual Report Academic Assurance Report

Monitoring Validation and Re-validation Schedule Six year Plan Confirmation of completed Approval and Periodic Review 2015/16 (including Collaborative

Provision Register) Continuous Audit (include Outcomes 15/16, Schedule and Collaborative Audit) Exceptions to Admissions Criteria External Examiner Appointments AQSC Action Plan Module Evaluation Report – semester 2 outcomes (commencing from 2017/18)

Second Cycle – January Annual Reports

Annual Report of Academic Appeals Annual Report of Student Complaints Student Progressions and Achievement (inc Progression data & 1st Degree Classification

Data (with sector comparison) External Examiner Annual Report - PG

Monitoring Student Representation Report Mid Cycle Report Exemptions to Academic Regulations Exceptions to Admissions Criteria AQSC Action Plan External Examiner Appointments

Third Cycle – March Annual Reports Pearson (EdExcel HNC/HND) Institutional Review report

Monitoring Module Evaluation Report – semester 1 outcomes Validation and Re-validation Outcomes Exceptions to Admissions Criteria External Examiner Appointments AQSC Action Plan External Examiner Appointments

Fourth Cycle – June Annual Reports Annual Report of Progression data (HESA)

Annual Report from Academic planning and Collaborations group (new course proposals, Course proposals and Withdrawals Onsite & Collaborative – will inc Collab Provision Register)

Annual Report on Student Barometer and International Student Barometer Monitoring Validation and Re-validation Outcomes PSRB On Campus and Collaborative Register Exemptions to Academic Regulations Exceptions to Admissions Criteria External Examiner Appointments AQSC Action Plan

As a result of this monitoring activity, Academic Board will receive a number of cyclical annual reports on areas which have significant, or wide-ranging, impact across our University (National Student Survey, Destinations of Leavers in Higher Education, External Examiners’ Summary Report etc). Academic Board is also the final locus of authority in the appointment of external examiners, and will receive updates on the process of appointment (including an assurance that external examiners have been secured for all courses and modules). Our Board of Governors, who also monitor University Key Performance Indicators (which are, themselves, aligned with Teaching Excellence Framework data), will receive a cycle of summary reports which reflect upon this monitoring cycle.

Board of Governors Quality Reporting Cycle

Date Report Topics that contribute to the report November Academic Assurance

Report • Annual Report of PSRB Activity • Academic Integrity Annual Report • External Examiner Annual Report process

assurance and – UG outcomes • NSS & DLHE Annual Report • Module Evaluation Report – semester 2

outcomes (commencing from 2017/18) • Validation processes assurance • TEF process update

February Quality Report • Annual Report of Academic Appeals • Annual Report of Student Complaints • Student Progression and Achievement (inc

Progression data & 1st Degree Classification Data (with sector comparison)

• External Examiner Annual Report – PG outcomes • TEF submission

May Quality Report • Module Evaluation Report – semester 1 outcomes

• Annual Report of Progression data (HESA) • Annual Report on Student Barometer and

International Student Barometer

July Quality Report • Annual Report from Academic Planning and Collaborations group (new course proposals, Course proposals and Withdrawals Onsite & Collaborative – will inc Collab Provision Register)

Via VB 3-4 times per year

Quality Connections newsletter

• General update on current matters

Annual Assurance Report to the Board of Governors As a result of this activity, under the HEFCE Revised Operating Model for Quality Assurance, our Board of Governors will be required, through the HEFCE Annual Return, to assure the Funding Council that it has oversight of the processes that assure standards, and awareness of the outcomes of those processes (including action taken to address any issues of concern emanating from discussion of the data informing, and emerging from, those processes).

The Board will be informed, in providing this assurance, by an Annual Assurance Report (together with a recommendation from Academic Board that the report has been fully discussed, and provides appropriate and secure assurance upon which the Board can rely). Due to the timing of the HEFCE assurance process (which informs Board deliberation at the November meeting) this assurance report will be informed by a balance of ‘live’ data (undergraduate external examiner reports, NSS, DLHE) and more ‘historic’ information (HESA performance indicators, postgraduate external examiner reports) which emerge in the Spring cycle and therefore do not fit neatly with a November reporting point.

The Board report will cover a calendar, rather than an academic, year, picking up the range of reports relating chiefly to standards and reflecting upon an analysis of relevant data, and a monitoring of action planning. The report, which will first be presented to the preceding Academic Board, will include a ‘Quality Assurance Guarantee’ statement from the Academic Board, to the effect that all processes have been carried out with full reference to University regulations and procedures, which are, themselves, informed by the Part 1 of the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area 2015.

Other aspects of University activity which relate to the ESG (admissions standards and processes and the appointment of staff) will have been the subject of other reports to the Board, or activity through the Finance, Staffing and Resources Sub-Committee.

Phil Cardew September 2016

Appendix 2: University Action Plan for continuous improvements in 2015/16 University Annual Quality Report Operational Action Plan following review of 2014/15 cycle for taught provision delivered by our University and provision delivered in collaboration and partnership.

Action Required Outcome Scope Source of Action By whom By when Completed/progress at 31 October 2016

1 Disseminate good practice from AQR through DEAP and Excellence in HE Conferences.

Dissemination across our University and adoption of good practice arising from AQR

Relevant to all provision

Good practice identified for wider dissemination from

AQR, AET FQR, HSS FQR, FBL FQR, CAF FQR

Dean of Quality, Associate Director, Quality Assurance Frameworks & Processes, QAS

Director of CLT, Head of Curriculum Development and Review

with Associate Deans

July 2016 COMPLETED

Good practice dissemination mechanisms agreed by AQSC in March 2016.

Invitation to submit case studies distributed by Associate Deans in faculties and those submitted included in good practice publication.

Case studies produced and disseminated in June and July 2016 At DEAP and Delivering Excellence in Higher Education Conferences.

2 To develop University Inclusive Assessment Policy and Guidance including moderation and

Assessment, Regulations and guidance on Inclusive Assessment Practice updated and


BF: Review of regulations and staff guidance on marking and moderation of assessed student work New action from AQR:

Dean of Quality, Associate Director, Quality Assurance, QAS and Head of Curriculum Development and Review, CLT with Faculties

July 2016 COMPLETED

Guidance on moderation developed and updated. Work on inclusive assessment guidance developed. AQSC reviewed use of anonymous marking in March 2016 and


anonymous marking guidance.

available for use in 2016/17.

2014/15 External Examiners’ Reports (paras 20-21); Approval and review outcomes (para 46) CAF FQR Deep Dive Projects

recommended use for formal examinations for 2016/17 (as current position).

Inclusive Assessment Guide produced and published for use in 2016/17.

Regulations reviewed and new Education and Assessment Quality Code approved by Academic Board.

3 Review our Academic Regulations related to the Postgraduate pass mark of 40% in response to comments made by a small number of External Examiners.

Review of comment by external examiners’ completed.


FBL FQR DVC Academic January 2016

COMPLETED

The pass mark for PG awards was discussed at AQSC in January 2016 as presented in the Annual Report of External Examining. Members concluded that the pass mark itself did not diminish the standard required to meet the learning outcomes of modules at level 7. The pass mark would remain at 40%.

4 Monitor, evaluate and report on the introduction in 2015/16 of resources to support promotion of Academic Integrity (Epigeum and

Evaluation completed and enhancements introduced for 2016/17 to support staff and student engagement


Academic Integrity Group Annual Report to AQSC

Associate Director Quality Frameworks and Processes with Chair of Academic Integrity Group and Associate Director Libraries and Learning Innovation

July 2016 COMPLETED

Report presented to AQSC in June 2016.

Proposal considered and agreed by AQSC in June 2016 to review further the implementation plan for use of Turnitin in


Turnitin), staff development and the adoption of Turnitin policy at levels 4 and 7.

with Academic Integrity.

2016/17 in light of 2015/16 experience and to pause further roll out until this review.

5 Develop intranet and web site to provide enhanced accessibility to revised academic principles, regulations, related procedures and guidance.

Development of web site and intranet site completed to enhance accessibility of Academic Regulations, Procedures and related information resources.


BF: Enhance accessibility of online regulations, processes and procedures for internal and external stakeholders as part of regulatory review project due to report to AQSC in June and Academic Board in July 2016

Dean of Quality and Director of Corporate Marketing & Communications

August 2016

COMPLETED

A plan was agreed with Director of Corporate Marketing & Communications to enhance web site and intranet site for presentation of revised academic regulations, associated procedures and templates. This is part of our University’s wider move to the use of the Sitecore Content Management System. Stakeholder feedback and user journeys has been gathered and have informed the development phase.

The Student Hub and public information site have been updated to provide the updated academic regulations.

The institutional plan for this implementation has been revised and services web sites are scheduled for completion in November 2016.


The existing QAS intranet and the externally facing web site have been updated in the interim for provision of the updated regulations, procedures and templates. In tandem, a full revision and representation of guidance and supporting resources has been completed by QAS.

6 Convene a group to review and recommend further enhancements for our University’s student complaints process.

Regulations and processes relating to Student Complaints reviewed and enhancements introduced.


Appeals and Complaints Annual Report to AQSC

Associate Registrar September 2016

COMPLETED

Report presented to AGSC in April 2016 with revisions to regulations endorsed.

7 a) Enhance provision of data for use by Course Teams in course annual review, including data for comparative analysis.

b) Benchmark and trend data available at subject level for use by Heads of

a)-b) Data provision enhanced further for use in Annual Review process in 2016/17.

c) Increased participation of students in PTES


AQR

CAF FQR

AET FQR

and Student Survey reports

a)-b) Deputy Registrar, Director IT Services and Dean of Quality

September 2016

COMPLETED

a) – b)The StART project is underway to deliver improvements in data architecture in our student records system which will enable improvements in data reporting.

Revised data provision framework developed by


School and Course Teams.

c) Further develop and enhance strategy for increasing student participation in PTES and Student Barometer to support course annual review and enhancement.

and Student Barometer.

c) Director of Services for Students

Student Administration Services with IT Services and Quality Assurance Services for 2016/17 to provide enhanced data and trend analysis.

A new data dashboard report, specified by QAS in collaboration with ITS and SAS colleagues, was launched on 24 September 2016. The dashboard includes course performance, cohort profile and student survey data summaries (also aggregated at School and University level), and supports the monitoring of performance in line with strategic KPIs. Further development of course level quality indicator MI will be taken forward in 201617 to support discrete module analysis.

Guidance for definitions and use of data has been developed.

c) Revised strategy and plans in place for increased participation in student surveys.

8 Complete management action plan arising from

Enhanced support and training for staff


Internal Audit Report DVC Academic and Dean of Quality

By end of July 2016

COMPLETED


Internal Audit on Student Satisfaction.

and students resulted in effective implementation of regulations and processes.

for agreed plan.

By September 2016 for completion of actions.

Management response agreed and reported to Audit Committee. Agreed actions addressed in partnership with the Students’ Union.

New section of regulations developed on engagement and partnership with Students developed.

Specific responses to audit recommendations include i) the development and release by QAS of an online module for Course Leaders which supports an effective course representative election process, ii) the provision of revised guidance handbooks for both staff and students describing the Course Representative role/ election process iii) revised process for maintaining institutional oversight of course representatives register, iv) new ‘role agreement’ pro-forma for course representatives v) revised approach to monitoring and review which recognises and promotes a) flexibility of engagement methods/ schedules b) requirement for Course team to provide


engagement opportunities for the wider cohort at least once per semester c) requirement for Course leader to provide semesterised updates via Course VLE on actions prompted by Course Reps d) 16/17 pilot of embedded opportunities for Course Representative feedback within a revised Course Annual Review report template

9 Implement new system for module evaluation in 2016/17 including an equivalent expectation for collaborative provision.

Enhanced module evaluation process supports course enhancement and student satisfaction.

Relevant to all Provision

AQR 2014-15 Dean of Quality and Associate Director Collaborative Provision , with Heads of School and Collaborative Provision/ Partners

2016-17 COMPLETED

Pilot activity during 2015/16 completed. Procurement of Evasys secured with full implementation for on-campus and offshore provision for Semester 1 2016/17 onshore. Pilot in place for selected collaborative partners in 2016/17.

10 Improve functionality for recording and administering mitigation through Banner, including:

Improved systems and procedures for recording and administering mitigation decisions will better inform


AQR 2014-15 Deputy Registrar

and

Director of Information Technology Services

2016-17 IN PROGRESS

Measures to enhance recording and administration of mitigation will be taken forward through the StART Capability Group for Assessment which commenced its work in June 2016. This will enable recording of outcomes


a)Provide breakdown of statistics by school.

b) Adopt more granulated approach to recording illness to enhance understanding of extenuating circumstances and provision of appropriate support measures.

student support measures.

to be recorded in the banner system.

The technical solution is likely to be available in the second phase.

11 Implement and evaluate in 2015/16 a pilot system for monitoring student engagement in studies/attendance including early intervention strategies and extend for 2016/17.

New system provides early indicators of student non engagement and supports earlier intervention and support to enhance student completion.

Relevant to provision delivered by our University

FBL FQR DVC Academic with Director of IT Services

Pilot by end of July 2016

Review and embed where applicable by end of July 2017

COMPLETED

Pilot system in operation in Faculty of Business and Law with dissemination of evaluation of first phase completed.

System extended to other Schools for 2016/17 and in early phase of this implementation.

12 a)To provide a 2 hour session led by Services for Students on ‘transition to University life’ including resilience

Enhanced support for students in transition


HSS FQR Director of Services for Students

In 2016/17 COMPLETED

a) The development of

students’ resilience through specific support for


training for students’ studies.

b) Develop a website of advice and guidance for parents and a ‘chat now’ facility.

enables student completion.

Improved information for parents enables support for students.

students was piloted during 2015/16 through the use of Thomas psychometric testing software. This can support a self-assessment of skills and strengths and areas for development, with targeted support. Further development of support for students’ transition is included within our University’s Education Strategy. The translation of courses to align with the strategy will commence in 2016/17. A focus on level 4 and the first year experience will be undertaken in 2016/17.

COMPLETED.

b) A parent’s web site is in place: http://www.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/parents/ Parents can use our current admissions chat line and with the applicant’s permission may follow up with UCAS (for Undergraduate applications).

http://www.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/parents/

http://www.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/parents/


13 Extend use of online tutor support and access to support from Distance Learning Unit to enhance student and staff support

Pilot use of online tutors for large UG cohorts enhances student completion and satisfaction.


HSS FQR DVC Academic

Director of Distance Learning

In 2016/17 COMPLETED

DLU has a lead instructional designer allocated to the relevant Faculty (as a client) and this support will continue in 2016/17. Other instructional design resource can be brought in where needed.

Online tutor support. DLU sponsors an online learning tutor community, which will continue, to ensure shared best practice.

Faculties may support and fund online learning tutor support now that pilot (with 50% funding) has been completed with DLU in 2015/16.

Staff development: DLU will continue to offer guidebooks, face to face and online training, learning lunches, and one to one consultancy, to enhance the Faculty’s capability. There will be a November conference

Teaching approaches: DLU aims to share best practice from all DL courses: a conference in November on ‘Student


engagement in online education’ will be held.

DLU has in the past had a positive relationship with ‘champions’ in faculties. In 2016/17 the strategy is to continue engagement at all levels, especially course leader level, to ensure academic colleagues are supported and empowered in their development.

Research on effectiveness and efficacy will be piloted now courses have been running for a while. DLU/CLT intends to engage with course teams on this area.

DLU agrees that Online learning tutor approach could be beneficial where Schools are able to allocate funding to support this.

14 To undertake an review of timetabling and an investigation into the effect timetabling has on the experience of PT, UG, PGT, PG

Timetabling enhanced for 2016/17 leading to increased student satisfaction.


Ongoing action AQR Action Plan 2013-14

New 2014/15

CAF FQR

HSS FQR

Deputy Registrar, Deputy Vice-Chancellor Resources and President of SU

2016-17 INITIAL ACTIONS COMPLETED FOR 2016/17. FURTHER WORK WILL BE CONTINUED ON TIMETABLING FOR 2017/18.

A fundamental review of timetabling and space commenced in the autumn


Professional and large cohort students.

AET FQR

FBL FQR

BF: Promoting student engagement in learning through an appropriate timetable – a review of timetabling approach and requirements in progress

2015/16 led by our Deputy Vice-Chancellor. This has informed the timetable for 2016/17.

Further consideration will be given to timetabling for 2017/18 and as the planned strategic estates developments are implemented.

15 a) Enhance levels of student completion at level 4 in line with Education Strategy, LTEC action plan and Institutional KPIs.

Improvements made in student completion rates.


AQR

Education Strategy

Employability Strategy

a)DVC Academic, and Heads of School

b)DVC Academic, Heads of School, Associate Director Employability and Progression, Chair of Employability and Placements Board

2015-16 – 2019-20

IN PROGRESS AND ONGOING FOCUS FOR NEXT 5 YEARS AS KPI OF OUT EDUCATION STRATEGY 2016-2021

University KPIs and plans developed to support progression and employability.

Course level action plans focused on these areas in Annual Review. Education Strategy developed to support these aims with focus on an extended induction and student support frameworks.

Further development of support for students’ transition is included within our University’s Education Strategy. The


b) Enhancing Student Employment evidenced via DLHE performance

translation of courses to align with the strategy will commence in 2016/17. A focus on level 4 and the first year experience will be undertaken in 2016/17.

Employability and Placements Board in place and new Strategy agreed to enhance support for student employability and engagement in placements. An audit of employability opportunities has been completed.

Good progress has been made in DLHE and NSS outcomes in 2016.

16 Review and revise the collaborative taxonomy and regulations relating to recognition and validation taking account of QAA guidance.

Updated regulations in place for 2016/16.

Relevant to Collaborative provision

AQR

BF ongoing as part of our regulations review

Dean of Quality and

Associate Director Collaborative provision

End of July 2016

COMPLETED

Stage 2 regulations and taxonomy review commenced in January 2016 and reported to PCSC in May 2016. This included a report on the placements taxonomy which will be taken forward by Employability sub group.

Regulations proposals endorsed by AQSC in June 2016 and


approved by Academic Board in July 2016.

17 Undertake a University wide audit and review of collaborative provision admissions processes

Strengthened admission requirements.

Relevant to Collaborative Provision

AQR

BF: Collaborative Provision admissions audit: to complete and report to PCSC in May and AQSC in June 2016

Dean of Quality with Associate Director Collaborative Provision s QAS

End of July 2016

COMPLETED

This has led to a review and changes to our approach to admissions qualifications for in country collaborative provision.

18 Review the content of the University academic induction and staff development programme for collaborative partners (including reference to any external requirements).

Enhanced academic induction for collaborative partners.

Relevant for Collaborative provision

AQR Dean of Quality and Associate Director, QAS Collaborative Provision

2016-17 COMPLETED

Work has been completed on the production of staff handbooks relating to the management of collaborative provision.

A schedule of development activity sessions has been published as part of the wider QAS staff development programme.

The refreshing of the online staff development and induction materials for partner staff is completed.

APPENDIX 3

Appendix 3: 2015/16 assurance cycle reports considered by our University’s deliberative structure and by the Board

Deliberative Structures

Annual Report Theme

Annual Report Title Committee or Board

Report Reference Number

Date considered

University AQR Action Plan

Annual Quality Report – Action Plan Update AMR Faculty/Institutional reporting arrangements Annual Quality Report (including Faculty and Collaborative Provision Quality Reports) Assurance Report AQSC Action Plan Continuous Audit Report 2014/15 Continuous Audit Schedule 2015/16 Admissions Audit Audit Activity 2016/17 Annual Quality Report 2014/15 On campus and Collaborative Provision

AQSC AQSC AQSC AQSC AQSC AQSC AQSC AQSC AQSC ACB

AQSC-2015-024 AQSC-2015-056 AQSC-2015-026 AQSC-2015-064 WS1 AQSC-2016-006 AQSC-2016-007 AQSC-2015-005a AQSC-2015-005b AQSC-2015-059 AQSC-2016-005 ACB-2015-048

18/01/2015 06/06/2016 18/01/2015 06/06/2016 21/03/2016 17/10/2016 17/10/2016 19/10/2015 19/10/2015 06/06/2016 17/10/2016 20/04/2016

Student Satisfaction

Student Surveys Report (NSS & DLHE) Student Survey Outcomes National Student Survey

AQSC ACB ACB

AQS-2015-005a AQSC-2016-0012 ACB-2015-007 ACB-2015-028

16/10/2015 17/10/2016 04/11/2015 10/02/2016

APPENDIX 3

Student Employability

University Academic Strategy: DLHE – Themes for Development

LTEC LTE-2015-006 13/10/2015

Student Progression and Achievement

Overview of Engagement with Partners Mutual Review Activity

Data Analysis for Course Enhancement First Degree Classifications Academic Appeals and Student Complaints

Report on Student Progression Annual Report on Student Non-Continuation Edexcel Institutional Review Report Annual Review of External Examiner’s Report External Examiner Undergraduate Awards Annual Report External Examiner Appointments Leeds Beckett University Access Agreement 2017/18 Review of the Student Complaint procedure and the student code of discipline

PCSC AQSC AQSC AQSC AQSC AQSC AQSC AQSC AQSC AQSC ACB ACB

PSC-2015-008/09 AQS-2015-010 AQSC-2015-022a AQSC-2015-022b AQSC-2015-022c AQSC-2015-055a AQSC-2015-040 AQSC-2015-023 AQSC-2016-010 AQSC-2016-011 ACB-2015-047 ACB-2015-073

01/10/2015 19/10/2015 18/01/2016 18/01/2016 18/01/2016 06/06/2016 21/03/2016 18/01/2016 17/10/2016 17/10/2016 20/04/2016 06/07/2016

Student Engagement

Course Monitoring, Review and Representation

Student Engagement & Representation Report

AQSC

AQSC

AQS-2015-009

AQSC-2015-041

19/10/2015

21/03/2016

APPENDIX 3

Post HE Review – draft plan for institutional approach to student engagement

Cheating Plagiarism and Unfair Practice Annual Report

Cheating Plagiarism and Unfair Practice Annual Report – Collaborative Provision

Student Consultation Framework

LTEC

AQSC

PCSC

ACB

AQSC-2015-065

LTE-2014-013

AQS-2015-007

PSC-2015-025d

ACB-2015-074

06/06/2016

03/10/2015

19/10/2015

14/12/2015

06/07/2016

Education Strategy

Validation, revalidation and Periodic Review

PSRB accreditation

New Course Proposals PSRB On Campus and Collaborative Register Education Strategy Developments Report on Approval and Review Activity 2014/15 Planned Approval and Periodic Review Schedule 2015/16 Validation and Periodic Review Report on Outcomes 2015/16 Validation & Revalidation Six Year Plan Annual report on PSRB Activity

AQSC AQSC AQSC AQSC AQSC AQSC AQSC AQSC AQSC

AQS-2015-004a AQS-2015-021 AQSC-2015-058 AQS-2015-039 AQSC-2015-060 AQSC-2015-062 AQSC-2016-013 AQSC-20150004b AQSC-2015-004c AQSC-2015-063 AQSC-2015-057 AQSC-2016-004a AQSC-2016-004b AQSC-2015-006 AQSC-2016-008

19/10/2015 18/01/2016 06/06/2016 21/03/2016 06/06/2016 06/06/2016 17/10/2016 19/10/2015 19/10/2015 06/06/2016 06/06/2016 17/10/2016 17/10/2016 19/10/2015 17/10/2016

APPENDIX 3

Summative Health Check: Outcomes from 2014/15 and Schedule for 2015/16 Event Outcomes 2013/14 and 2014/15 Report on Approval and Review Activity 2014/15 Development of an Education Strategy Development of our University Education Strategy Strategic Planning Framework: Education Strategy Register of Collaborations and Partnerships

PCSC PCSC AQSC ACB ACB ACB ACB

PSC-2015-007a PSC-2015007c AQS-2015-004b ACB-2015-008 ACB-2015-046 ACB-2015-066 ACB-2015-075

01/10/2015 01/10/2015 19/10/2015 04/11/2016 20/04/2016 06/07/2016 06/07/2016

Annual Report on Appeals and Complaints

Academic Appeals and Student Complaints

AQSC AQSC-2015-022b

18/01/2016

Annual Report on Academic Integrity

Academic Integrity Group Annual Report of Academic Integrity

AQSC AQSC

AQSC-2015-055b AQSC-2016-009

06/06/2016 17/10/2016

Academic Regulations

Regulatory and Procedural Review 2015/16 Regulatory and Procedural Review Update Regulatory and Procedural Review Proposed Regulatory and Procedural Changes for 2016/17 Development of Academic Principles and Regulations in 2015/16 Academic Principles & Regulations

AQSC AQSC AQSC AQSC ACB ACB ACB

AQS-2015-008 AQSC-2015-025 AQSC-2015-041 AQSC-2015-061 ACB-2015-009 ACB-2015-030 ACB-2015-068

19/10/2016 18/01/2016 21/03/2016 06/06/2016 04/11/2015 10/02/2016 06/07/2016

APPENDIX 3

The Board of Governors

Report Board Report Reference Number

Date considered

Education Strategy and Quality Governance National Student Survey results and likely implications

HED Away Day September 2015

- -

28/09/15

B1 Strategic Plan 2010-2015 – Review of Institutional Performance B5 Annual Sustainability Assurance Report 2014/15 C4 Annual HEFCE Accountability return 2014/15 C5 Governance Effectiveness Review – Final Report and Draft Action Plan D1 Students’ Union Report D2 HEFCE Assurance – Addressing early signs of student concerns or complaints 2014/15

HEC November 2015

HEC-2015-003 HEC-2015-006 HEC-2015-010 HEC-2015-011 HEC-2015-014 HEC-2015-015

20/11/15

E1 Board Oversight of Academic Matters E2 Students’ Union Report

HEC February 2016

HEC-2015-031 HEC-2015-032

26/02/16

D2 Access Agreement/Strategy for Access and Student Success E1 Students’ Union Report

HEC May 2016 HEC-2015-049 HEC-2015-053

06/05/16

B5 Education Strategy B7 Proposed Dashboard for Measuring Performance D1 Students’ Union Report E1 Changes to Academic Board Structures E3 Annual Review of Committee terms of reference and Committee memberships

HEC July 2016 HEC-2015-068 HEC-2015-070 HEC-2015-078 HEC-2015-079 HEC-2015-081

15/07/16

APPENDIX 4 Appendix 4: Leeds Beckett University NSS 2016 Sector Comparison NSS Category University Sector Variance %

points Population 4573 397096 Responses 3474 289329 Response Rate % 76 73 3 NSS 2016 Outcome % Agree The teaching on my course 85 87 (2) 1. Staff are good at explaining things. 90 90 - 2. Staff have made the subject interesting. 82 83 (1) 3. Staff are enthusiastic about what they are teaching.

86 88 (2)

4. The course is intellectually stimulating. 83 86 (3) Assessment and feedback 71 73 (2) 5. The criteria used in marking have been clear in advance.

82 78 4

6. Assessment arrangements and marking have been fair.

77 77 -

7. Feedback on my work has been prompt. 63 71 (8) 8. I have received detailed comments on my work.

67 72 (5)

9. Feedback on my work has helped me clarify things I did not understand.

65 68 (3)

Academic Support 82 82 - 10. I have received sufficient advice and support with my studies.

81 80 1

11. I have been able to contact staff when I needed to.

85 87 (2)

12. Good advice was available when I needed to make study choices.

79 78 1

Organisation and management 78 79 (1) 13. The timetable works efficiently as far as my activities are concerned.

80 81 (1)

14. Any changes in the course or teaching have been communicated effectively.

79 80 (1)

15. The course is well organised and is running smoothly.

76 78 (2)

Learning resources 90 87 3 16. The library resources and services are good enough for my needs.

90 88 2

17. I have been able to access general IT resources when I needed to.

92 90 2

18. I have been able to access specialised equipment, facilities or rooms when I needed to.

87 83 4

Personal development 83 83 - 19. The course has helped me to present myself with confidence.

81 81 -

20. My communication skills have improved. 85 84 1 21. As a result of the course, I feel confident in tackling unfamiliar problems.

83 82 1

Overall Satisfaction 84 86 (2) I am satisfied with the Students' Union (Association or Guild) at my institution

70 69 1

APPENDIX 5

Appendix 5: HESA Non Continuation Performance Indicator Report April 2016

BOARD OF GOVERNORS Quality Matters Briefing

Introduction

Student Non-Continuation 2014/15

Review of our University’s Academic Principles and Regulations

Northern Universities’ Consortium (NUCCAT) Seminar and Research Project

Barbara Colledge, 8 April 2016

http://www.nuc.ac.uk/workshop-programme-2012-2013/managing-risk-in-collaborative-arrangements/

http://www.nuc.ac.uk/workshop-programme-2012-2013/managing-risk-in-collaborative-arrangements/

APPENDIX 6

1

APPENDIX 6: BRIEFING ON THE TEACHING EXCELLENCE FRAMEWORK YEAR 2 Introduction 1. The Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) has been introduced by the UK Conservative

Government to recognise and reward excellent teaching, and to provide information for students and employers about Higher Education institutions to inform decisions about where to study and to better meet business needs. This briefing note provides a summary of the Year 2 TEF process in 2016/17 and sets out our approach to developing our University submission.

The TEF Year 2 Process 2. The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and the Quality Assurance

Agency (QAA) will implement the Year 2 TEF process on behalf of the Department for Education in 2016/17. The TEF Year 2 Specification was published recently (Department for Education 2016) providing details of the TEF assessment for the Year 2 process this academic year (Department for Education, 2016).

3. The TEF process commenced on 31 October 2016, with the availability of institutional HEFCE metrics used in the assessment. Our institutional submission will be developed informed by these metrics with a submission date of noon on the 26 January 2017. The assessment takes place in February/March with published outcomes in May 2017. The detailed timeline for the TEF process is provided in Table 1 at Appendix 2.

4. The Year 2 Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) process will be focused at institutional

level on undergraduate provision in all modes of delivery. Franchised provision delivered by partners and collaborative provision overseas is excluded.

5. The outcome of the assessment in May 2017 may result in one of three possible levels of

excellence:

Gold: The Panel will award a provider a rating of Gold if it appears likely, based on the evidence available to the Panel, that provision is consistently outstanding and of the highest quality found in the UK Higher Education sector. Silver: The Panel will award a provider a rating of Silver if it appears likely, based on the evidence available to the Panel, that provision is of high quality, and significantly and consistently exceeds the baseline quality threshold expected of UK Higher Education. Bronze: The Panel will award a provider a rating of Bronze if it appears likely, based on the evidence available to the Panel, that provision is of satisfactory quality.

6. The outcomes from this Year 2 TEF assessment will not result in differential fees. All those

receiving a rating of Bronze, Silver and Gold will receive the full inflationary uplift to fees. These ratings will be used to inform differentiated fees from Year 3 (2017/18) onwards

APPENDIX 6

2

unless a provider elects to re-enter the TEF process to be reassessed at which point the most recent TEF rating would be used to inform fees.

The TEF Assessment Framework 7. The TEF assessment aims to recognise “diverse forms of excellence and to avoid

constraining innovation” (Department for Education, 2016, p20). The focus is on teaching quality in the context of students’ learning and outcomes, determined by the

• quality of teaching students’ experience; • additional support for learning provided and; • the students’ engagement with learning, supported and facilitated by the provider.

8. The TEF assessment framework for teaching excellence includes three main components:

Teaching Quality (TQ), Learning Environment (LE), and Student Outcomes and Learning Gain (SO). The TEF Year 2 Specification (Department for Education, 2016, pp19-20) explains these as follows:

Teaching Quality

Teaching Quality includes different forms of structured learning that can involve teachers and academic or specialist support staff. This includes seminars, tutorials, project supervision, laboratory sessions, studio time, placements, supervised on-line learning, workshops, fieldwork and site visits. The emphasis is on teaching that provides an appropriate level of contact, stimulation and challenge, and which encourages student engagement and effort. The effectiveness of course design, and assessment and feedback, in developing students’ knowledge, skills and understanding are also considered. The extent to which a provider recognises, encourages and rewards excellent teaching is also included within this aspect.

Learning Environment

Learning Environment includes the effectiveness of resources such as libraries, laboratories and design studios, work experience, opportunities for peer-to-peer interaction and extra-curricular activities in supporting students’ learning and the development of independent study and research skills. The emphasis is on a personalised academic experience which maximises retention, progression and attainment. The extent to which beneficial linkages are made for students between teaching and learning, and scholarship, research or professional practice (one or more of these) is also considered.

Student Outcomes and Learning Gain

Student Outcomes and Learning Gain is focused on the achievement of positive outcomes. The extent to which positive outcomes are achieved for all students, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds, is a key feature. Positive outcomes are taken to include: • acquisition of attributes such as lifelong learning skills and others that allow a graduate to make

a strong contribution to society, economy and the environment; • progression to further study, acquisition of knowledge, skills and attributes necessary to compete

for a graduate level job that requires the high level of skills arising from higher education; • The distance travelled by students (‘learning gain’). Until new learning gain measures become available HEFCE anticipate providers will refer to their own approaches to identifying and assessing students’ learning gain. There is no prescriptive about what those measures might be.

APPENDIX 6

3

The TEF Assessment Criteria 9. The TEF assessment will be based on a range of TEF core and split metrics (over three years

where available) supplemented by additional evidence, including our institutional submission, against the criteria for the three assessment framework elements. The criteria for the TEF assessment are provided in Appendix 2. In summary this comprises:

Aspect of Quality: Areas of teaching and learning quality

Teaching Quality (TQ)

Learning Environment (LE)

Student Outcomes and Learning Gain (SO)

Criteria: Statements against which assessors will make judgements

Teaching Quality criteria

Learning Environment criteria

Student Outcomes and Learning Gain criteria

Evidence and Core metrics: • Teaching on my course (NSS Scale 1: NSS Q1-4) • Assessment and feedback (NSS scale 2: NSS Q 5-9)

• Academic support (NSS scale 3: NSS Q 10-12) • Non-continuation (HESA and ILR data)

• Employment/ further study (DLHE activity 6 months after graduation) • Highly-skilled employment/further study (DLHE activity 6 months after graduation)

Split metrics (e.g. including FT, PT, Ethnicity, Disability, Context Additional evidence (provider submission): Statement of findings Why a particular rating was awarded

Brief description of why a particular rating was awarded including particular strengths

Overall outcome TEF rating

The level awarded

10. The assessment metrics include provider benchmarking and detailed core and split data

(e.g. by student groups and widening participating characteristics). The assessment includes specific criterion on outcomes achieved by all students including those from disadvantaged backgrounds. In our submission we are expected to make the case against the criteria and show how the experiences, development, progression and attainment of all students is supported and how we are addressing any differences in outcomes achieved by specific groups (e.g. age, POLAR, ethnicity, sex, disability, entry qualifications, mode of study). Each core and split metric is calculated using three years of student data with Full time and part time students reported separately.

11. The TEF assessors will be provided with contextual data on our University to inform their understanding of the nature and operating context (including size, location and student population). This context enables assessors to take into account the specific context of our

APPENDIX 6

4

University’s provision such as employment/destination outcomes in the context of employment statistics for the geographical area or widening participation in the context of the student population studying at the provider. Details of contextual data is available in the HEFCE Year 2 Specification (Department for Education, 2016, pp 24-26) and a full technical description of each metric (Department for Education, 2016, Annex E). Assessors will receive full contextual data and maps.

12. HEFCE uses unique benchmarks for our University to inform a comparison between

providers which takes account of the different mix of students. These are calculated for each provider’s core and split metrics. This is a weighted sector average with weightings based on the characteristics of the students at our University. The UK Performance Indicators and NSS outcomes already use this methodology.

13. HEFCE highlight results which are significantly and materially different from benchmark via

flags to inform initial TEF judgements. A z score is used to indicate the number of standard deviations that the indicator is from the benchmark with metrics with a core of +/- 1.96 considered significantly different i.e. a 95% confidence level. Differences of less than 2 percentage points are not considered material where this is due to a narrow distribution of the metric. The materiality test will not be applied where the benchmark is above 97% (or below 3% for non-continuation) and the provider’s indicator is above this, but the significance test will apply. Flags will be applied where the indicator is at least +/-2 percentage points from the benchmark AND the Z-score is at least +/-2 (1.96).

14. Our University’s metrics were received on 31 October 2016 (core metrics summary provide

in Appendix 3). We have three overall negative flags for full time student groups (Teaching, Assessment & Feedback and Highly Skilled Employment/further study). We have two overall positive flags for Part time student groups (Non Continuation and Highly Skilled Employment/further study). The details by year of data and split metrics is provided below in sections 15-16.

15. The metrics indicate that that our Full Time position is improving with the most recent

metrics from 2015/16 with negative flags for Teaching, Assessment and Feedback and Highly Skilled Employment in earlier years. The position is similar for the split metrics. For the Assessment and Feedback indicator, the negative flag is higher (--) for other undergraduate and disadvantaged groups. The Highly skilled employment or further study negative flag is lower for Disabled students. There is a negative flag for other undergraduate students in relation to the academic support metric but no overall flag for this metric. The positive flag for Employment or Further study is also positive for male student groups with other student groups unflagged.

16. Our University’s Part –Time position metrics have no negative flags and two positive above

benchmark indicators for non-continuation, and highly skilled employment/further study indicators. There are positive flags highlighted for Employment or further study in years 1 and 3 and other undergraduate, mature, white, BME, and disabled student groups (but no overall flag for this metric). The positive flags for non-continuation is lower for young, disabled or male student groups. The Highly skilled employment /further study metric is also positively flagged for mature, white, non-disabled or male student groups.

APPENDIX 6

5

Full Time

Metrics by Mode Below Benchmark No flags Above benchmark Full Time Teaching Year 1 (--) Years 2 and 3 Assessment & Feedback

Years 1 and 2 (-;-) Year 3

Academic Support Years 1-3 Non-Continuation Years 1-3 Employment or Further Study

Years 1 and 2 Year 3 (+)

Highly Skilled Employment or Further Study

Years 1 and 2 (--;--) Year 3

Part Time

Metrics by Mode Below Benchmark No flags Above benchmark Part Time Teaching Years 1 - 3 Assessment & Feedback

Years 1- 3

Academic Support Years 1-3 Non-Continuation Years 1-3 (+;++; +) Employment or Further Study

Year 2 Year 1 and 3 (+;+)

Highly Skilled Employment or Further Study

Year 2 Year 1 and 3 (+;++)

Our University Submission 17. Our University case for TEF will be prepared with input from colleagues across our

University. Academic Quality and Standards Committee will be involved in supporting this. We are required to submit our case for excellence (evidence based) by noon on the 26 January 2017. This submission will be used by assessors alongside performance against the core and split metrics. Submissions will be no longer than 15 pages each and there will be no minimum length. HEFCE have provided a single page template but the precise format is not prescribed in detail. We are encouraged to show how students have been involved in the preparation of our TEF institutional submission. Additional evidence provided by students will have the same weight as the other forms of “additional” evidence. HEFCE suggests that

APPENDIX 6

6

“this could take a variety of forms, including, but not limited to, use of surveys, representative structures, focus groups, student membership of relevant committees, consultation events, online discussion fora, or facilitating the Student Union or other representative body to draft a section of the provider submission. Students can only provide input via their provider’s submission. Separate student submissions will not be accepted. No provider will be disadvantaged in the event of non-cooperation by their students or Student Union.” (Department for Education, 2016, p37).

18. All submissions will be published and available freely for providers and stakeholders.

Guidance from HEFCE is provided for the institutional submission. Assessors will take this information into account when reaching their assessment of performance. Further guidance will be included in technical guidance from HEFCE. The key points are summarised below in sections 17-23.

Additional context further to the standard contextual data 19. We may add additional context to explain our mission and characteristics that is not fully

captured by the standardized contextual e.g. this could include aspects such as mission, collaborative provision or knowledge exchange activity.

Contextualising performance against the core and split metrics 20. We may support or explain our performance against the core and split metrics, particularly

where performance is not strong. These could be factors that have adversely affected performance against the core metrics which are not under the control of a provider, but which reflect decisions that have been made for good reason.

Evidence against the assessment criteria

21. We can put forward any additional evidence (qualitative and/or quantitative) against the

assessment criteria that best supports our case for excellence. This will be used alongside performance against the core and split metrics. Evidence should be current, within the time period covered by the core and split metrics i.e. from 2013/14 – 2015/16 to date. Criteria are not intended as a checklist and it is suggested by HEFCE that providers may wish to focus on areas of strength and areas where there are weaknesses in performance against the core and split metrics. This evidence will allow an assessor to form a view on how a provider has performed in respect of each of the three aspects, particularly where performance against the core and split metrics is not clear-cut.

22. The emphasis in the provider submission is to demonstrate the impact and effectiveness of teaching on the student experience and outcomes they achieve. The submission should avoid descriptions of strategies or approach but instead should focus on impact, where possible with empirical evidence. Links to primary evidence or copies of strategies, minutes should not be included. Assessors via TEF officers if needed may request clarification or verification of the information and evidence. We may wish to refer to evidence as part of broader quality assurance arrangements but do not need to duplicate it. Any findings from Quality Assurance Review (e.g. QAA HE Review) included in the submission should be

APPENDIX 6

7

timely, demonstrate performance above the baseline and be clearly related to the TEF assessment criteria.

23. Assessors and panelists will base their decisions on only the metrics and provider submission available, taking into account the contextual information provided. They will be making an assessment on how far we can evidence teaching and learning excellence across our entire provision so our evidence must support this rather than focus on highly localised practices with small number of students or in particular departments. Assessors will focus on identifying evidence of excellence above the baseline. The submission should therefore avoid focusing on successful but highly localised practices that affect a relatively small number of students studying on particular courses or in particular departments.

24. Indicative HEFCE guidance on the types of evidence that we may wish to consider to support

our case (not a checklist nor exhaustive) is provided in Appendix 4. HEFCE expect us to make our case using the strongest available evidence, using examples from this table and/or others.

Further explore performance for specific student groups 25. We may also use our submission to explore the contextual factors that adversely affect our

performance against the split metrics for specific student groups and any positive action we have taken in relation to this. This is taken into account by assessors when making their initial assessment of our performance, comparing it with their initial assessment of the provider’s performance against the split metrics.

The Assessment Process 26. The assessment process undertaken by Assessors comprises the following stages:

a) Review of core metrics and performance based on split metrics to inform initial hypothesis rating. Proportionately more weight is given to core metrics in the delivery mode in which providers teach the most students (i.e. full or part-time).

b) Review of the provider submission to test the initial hypothesis and consider evidence which may inform a different view

c) An overall judgement of teaching quality is undertaken holistically informed by the descriptors to determine whether the judgement remains or should be amended.

27. A range of possible scenarios will be indicated by the metrics:

a) A provider with three or more positive flags (either + or ++) and no negative flags (either – or - -) should be considered initially as Gold.

b) A provider with two or more negative flags should be considered initially as Bronze, regardless of the number of positive flags. Given the focus of the TEF on excellence above the baseline, it would not be reasonable to assign an initial rating above Bronze to a provider that is below benchmark in two or more areas.

c) All other providers, including those with no flags at all, should be considered initially as Silver.

28. HEFCE state that the initial hypothesis will be subject scrutiny and may change in the light

of additional evidence. This is particularly so for providers that have a mix of positive and

APPENDIX 6

8

negative flags (as with our University). HEFCE state, “…the more clear-cut performance is against the core metrics, the less likely it is that the initial hypothesis will change in either direction in light of the further evidence.” (Department for Education, 2016, p42). Any flags identified the split metrics will inform the final judgement made by assessors.

Preparing our submission and evidence

29. We have commenced gathering evidence for the TEF submission based initially on the indicative HEFCE evidence list. Relevant colleagues from whom support and evidence is required will be contacted. A detailed list of evidence sought for our institutional evidence base is under development and will be distributed, coordinated by Quality Assurance Services. Key points for supporting our submission will be developed and an initial template for our submission drafted by the end of November 2016.

30. Our initial assessment of our TEF “initial hypothesis” rating, based on based on the HEFCE is guidance, is an assessment of a Bronze award at best. If providers have two or more negative flags then the initial rating must be Bronze (see section 27 b). HEFCE indicate that it is possible that “a provider with one or more positive core flags could receive a rating of Bronze if it also had core negative flags” (Department of Education, 2016, p 44). HEFCE indicate that, “any negative flags in either mode of delivery for any core or split metric confers a rating of Bronze” (Department of Education, 2016, p 45). This is our current position.

31. Further analysis of the data is planned to evaluate learning gain and contextual evidence to

support our submission. Our outcomes have improved significantly in 2015/16 and we have a two green flags for part time students. Our submission will need to focus on evidence of factors that could have affected performance against the core and split metrics, which might lead assessors to adjust their initial hypothesis, based on performance against the core and split metrics. One example of this might be employment metrics given our improving position. A further factor might be the concentration of our students’ employment in the North of England which is a region affected significantly by the national economic imbalance. Similarly, our students come to us predominantly from the north of England, which has a disproportionately lower attainment gap in comparison to the national outcomes, and higher levels of poverty and lower prosperity. These factors can have a long-term impact influence mindset and learning cultures, which can lead to poorer attainment.

32. These types of factors and other relevant evidence will be evaluated to determine whether there is evidence relevant for our submission, to support our claim for a Bronze or Silver. This may be taken into account by assessors to amend the overall rating. Assessors would need to see clear, significant and well-supported evidence of performance above the baseline, directly relevant to the criteria. Without sufficient additional relevant evidence, assessors will place more reliance on the metrics. The descriptors used for these categories of award are provided in Appendix 5.

APPENDIX 6

9

Importance of HEFCE Annual Provider Review for TEF 33. The new process of HEFCE external quality assessment has been introduced from 2016/17

by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). This new process, Annual Provider Review (APR), is intended as a mechanism to ensure higher education providers offer a high quality student experience, delivers good student outcomes and protect the interests of students. It is informed by a range of metrics or indicators based on annual returns institutions provide to HEFCE together with assurances provided by our Board of Governors on academic standards, the quality of our provision and the processes we adopt to safeguard this. The involvement of students is an important element of the process and in 2016/17; national pilots are being introduced overseen by ‘The Student Engagement Partnership’ (TSEP) to inform the full implementation in 2017/18. Our University is working with the Students’ Union to participate in one of these pilots this academic year.

34. The new APR and the Board of Governor’s assurance statement to HEFCE (normally December annually) will be informed by the effective implementation of our regulations and processes, including robust validation and annual monitoring/review processes informed by externality, effective student engagement and good annual outcomes. This APR process is the foundation for the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) (and confirmed in the TEF guidance) and will draw on the same metrics used for this assessment. The APR is a wider review than TEF and focuses on whether quality and standards meet the relevant sector thresholds. Where risks are identified by HEFCE in an APR then this could affect the TEF award. Outcomes from the APR and TEF will appear on the new Register of HE Providers.

35. The TEF will change over subsequent years. In Year 4 TEF the process will move be at

subject level with pilots undertaken in Year 3 to test the subject level assessment framework and process. The latter will be developed by the Department for Education working with stakeholder groups and the existing TEF Delivery Group. Postgraduate taught provision will be included in the TEF from year 4 (i.e. 2018/19).

Barbara Colledge, Dean of Quality 2 November 2016

APPENDIX 6

10

Appendix 1: Table 1 Timeline for TEF Year 2 process

Date Activity End of October/early November 2016 • Additional procedural guidance on how to

participate in TEF published • Release of TEF metrics workbooks • TEF application window opens

Early November 2016 HEFCE webinar on the TEF metrics, aimed at TEF metrics contacts on • The function of metrics in TEF year 2 • Explanation of the types of information

contained in the workbook (including the indicators, flags, benchmarks and splits)

• The process for providers to request amendments to the data, in exceptional circumstances.

Mid November 2016 HEFCE briefing events for providers on how to participate in the TEF on • Key deadlines • Eligibility requirements • An overview of contextual data and metrics • Provider submissions • The assessment process • Systems and procedures for providers to

take part • How students can be involved in the

process. October - November 2016 University Briefings:

Quality Connections October 2016 Briefing for SMG early November 2016 Heads of Subject Briefing: 28 November 2016

November 2016 – January 2017 Development of TEF submission w/c 9 January 2017 Roundtable with Deans of School and Heads of

Subject to review TEF submission 16 January 2017 Academic Quality and Standards Committee

receives draft TEF submission 24 January 2017 University Executive Team review and sign off

of submission Noon on 26 January 2017 Submission of TEF

TEF Application window closes February 2017 Academic Board receives TEF submission for

information February –May 2017

Assessment takes place (17-24 February 2017) End of May 2017 TEF ratings are announced

June 2017 Appeals window

APPENDIX 6

11

Appendix 2: TEF Assessment Criteria

Aspect of Quality Areas of teaching and learning quality

Reference Criterion

Teaching Quality Student Engagement (TQ1)

Teaching provides effective stimulation, challenge and contact time that encourages students to engage and actively commit to their studies

Valuing Teaching (TQ2)

Institutional culture facilitates, recognises and rewards excellent teaching

Rigour and Stretch (TQ3)

Course design, development, standards and assessment are effective in stretching students to develop independence, knowledge, understanding and skills that reflect their full potential

Feedback (TQ4)

Assessment and feedback are used effectively in supporting students’ development, progression and attainment

Learning Environment

Resources (LE1)

Physical and digital resources are used effectively to aid students’ learning and the development of independent study and research skills

Scholarship, Research and Professional Practice (LE2)

The learning environment is enriched by student exposure to and involvement in provision at the forefront of scholarship, research and/or professional practice

Personalised Learning (LE3)

Students’ academic experiences are tailored to the individual, maximising rates of retention, attainment and progression

Student Outcomes and Learning Gain

Employment and Further Study (SO1)

Students achieve their educational and professional goals, in particular progression to further study or highly skilled employment

Employability and Transferrable Skills (SO2)

Students acquire knowledge, skills and attributes that are valued by employers and that enhance their personal and/or professional lives

Positive Outcomes for All (SO3)

Positive outcomes are achieved by its students from all backgrounds, in particular those from disadvantaged backgrounds or those who are at greater risk of not achieving positive outcomes

APPENDIX 6

12

Appendix 3: HEFCE Core Metrics Summary

1 2 3

Full-time headcount: 17,579The teaching on my course 83.6 85.8 -2.2 -6.4 - -- NoAssessment and feedback 69.4 71.7 -2.3 -5.1 - - - NoAcademic support 81.0 81.4 -0.4 -1.1 YesNon-continuation 9.3 8.9 -0.3 -1.7 YesEmployment or further study 94.7 93.2 1.5 6.7 + YesHighly skilled employment or further study 60.3 64.4 -4.1 -9.4 -- -- -- NoPart-time headcount: 3,924 0 0 0The teaching on my course 87.0 85.1 1.8 0.8 NoAssessment and feedback 72.4 74.6 -2.2 -0.8 NoAcademic support 77.8 80.0 -2.2 -0.8 NoNon-continuation 11.8 21.2 9.4 5.3 ++ + ++ + NoEmployment or further study 97.8 96.2 1.6 4.6 + + YesHighly skilled employment or further study 80.3 76.9 3.3 4.1 ++ + ++ No

Key++ The actual is above benchmark at the 3 standard deviation and 3 percentage point level+ The actual is above benchmark at the 1.96 standard deviation and 2 percentage point level- The actual is below benchmark at the 1.96 standard deviation and 2 percentage point level-- The actual is below benchmark at the 3 standard deviation and 3 percentage point level

The indicator is present but there are no flagsN Not reportable (fewer than 10 students in the population) R

SUP

N/A No students in population

* Difference is (b)-(a) for non-continuation because positive flags are for indicators below benchmark

Splits different to core metric?

Years

Not reportable (insufficient data to form the benchmarks. Sufficient benchmarking data would be at least 50% coverage for each factor. For example where entry qualifications are used as a benchmarking factor, at least 50% of the provider’s students included in the core or split metric must have appropriately recorded entry qualifications)

Not reportable (response rate is too low. For the NSS, this is 50%. For the DLHE, this is 85% of the target which is equivalent to 68% for full time students and 59.5% for part time students)

Indicator(a) %

Benchmark(b) %

Difference (a)-(b) *

Z-score Flag

APPENDIX 6

13

Appendix 4: Indicative Evidence Aspect Possible examples of evidence Teaching Quality (TQ)

• Impact and effectiveness of involving students in teaching evaluation e.g. collecting and acting on their feedback • Impact and effectiveness of schemes focused on monitoring and maximising students’ engagement with their studies such as the UK Engagement Survey (UKES) and others • Recognition of courses by professional, statutory and regulatory bodies (PSRBs) • How the provider is achieving positive outcomes for students, whilst also successfully identifying, addressing and preventing grade inflation • Quantitative information on teaching intensity, such as weighted contact hours22 • Impact and effectiveness of external examining • Impact and effectiveness of teaching observation schemes • Impact and effectiveness of innovative approaches, new technology or educational research • Recognition and reward schemes, and their impact and effectiveness, including progression and promotion opportunities for staff based on teaching commitment and performance • Quantitative information relating to the qualification, experience and contractual basis of staff who teach • Impact and effectiveness of feedback initiatives aimed at supporting students’ development, progression and achievement

Learning Environment (LE)

• Impact and effectiveness of initiatives aimed at supporting the transition into and through a higher education course • Quantitative information demonstrating proportional investment in teaching and learning infrastructure • Use and effectiveness of learner analytics in tracking and monitoring progress and development • Extent, nature and impact of employer engagement in course design and/or delivery, including degree apprenticeships • Extent and impact of student involvement in or exposure to the latest developments in research, scholarship or professional practice (one or more) • (For relevant providers) Evidence of Welsh medium provision contributing to students’ academic experiences • Impact and effectiveness of initiatives aimed at understanding, assessing and improving retention and completion

Student Outcomes and Learning Gain (SO)

• Learning gain and distance-travelled by all students including those entering higher education part-way through their professional lives • Career enhancement and progression for mature students • Evidence of longer-term employment outcomes and progression of graduates including into highly-skilled employment • Evidence and impact of initiatives aimed at preparing students for further study and research • Evidence and impact of initiatives aimed at graduate employability • Extent of student involvement in enterprise and entrepreneurship • Number, impact and success of graduate start-ups • Use and effectiveness of initiatives used to help measure and record student progress, such as Grade Point Average (GPA) • Impact of initiatives aimed at closing gaps in development, attainment and progression for students from different backgrounds, in particular those from disadvantaged backgrounds or those who are at greater risk of not achieving positive outcomes.

APPENDIX 6

14

Appendix 5: TEF Award Descriptors

Gold The Panel will award a provider a rating of Gold if it appears likely, based on the evidence available to the Panel, that provision is consistently outstanding and of the highest quality found in the UK Higher Education sector; that is: The provider achieves consistently outstanding outcomes for its students from all backgrounds, in particular with regards to retention and progression to highly skilled employment and further study. Course design and assessment practices provide scope for outstanding levels of stretch that ensures all students are significantly challenged to achieve their full potential, and acquire knowledge, skills and understanding that are most highly valued by employers. Optimum levels of contact time, including outstanding personalised provision secures the highest levels of engagement and active commitment to learning and study from students. Outstanding physical and digital resources are actively and consistently used by students to enhance learning. Students are consistently and frequently engaged with developments from the forefront of research, scholarship or practice, and are consistently and frequently involved in these activities. An institutional culture that facilitates, recognises and rewards excellent teaching is embedded across the provider.

Silver

The Panel will award a provider a rating of Silver if it appears likely, based on the evidence available to the Panel, that provision is of high quality, and significantly and consistently exceeds the baseline quality threshold expected of UK Higher Education; that is: The provider achieves excellent outcomes for its students, in particular with regards to retention and progression to highly skilled employment and further study. Course design and assessment practices provide scope for high levels of stretch that ensures all students are significantly challenged, and acquire knowledge, skills and understanding that are highly valued by employers. Appropriate levels of contact time, including personalised provision secures high levels of engagement and commitment to learning and study from students. High quality physical and digital resources are used by students to enhance learning. Students are engaged with developments from the forefront of research, scholarship or practice, and are sometimes involved in these activities. An institutional culture that facilitates, recognises and rewards excellent teaching has been implemented at the provider.

Bronze

The Panel will award a provider a rating of Bronze if it appears likely, based on the evidence available to the Panel, that provision is of satisfactory quality; that is: Most students achieve good outcomes; however, the provider is likely to be significantly below benchmark in one or more areas, in particular with regards to retention and progression to highly skilled employment and further study. Course design and assessment practices provide sufficient stretch that ensures most students make progress, and acquire knowledge, skills and understanding that are valued by employers. Sufficient levels of contact time, including personalised provision secures good engagement and commitment to learning and study from most students. Physical and digital resources are used by students to further learning. Students are occasionally engaged with developments from the forefront of research, scholarship or practice, and are occasionally involved in these activities. An institutional culture that facilitates, recognises and rewards excellent teaching has been introduced at the provider.

APPENDIX 6

15

References Department for Education (2016) Teaching Excellence Framework: year 2 specification. Department for Education, September 2016. [Online]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/556355/TEF_Year_2_specification.pdf. [Accessed10 October 2016].



APPENDIX 7

Appendix 7: European Standards and Guidelines 2015: Part 1: Standards and guidelines for internal quality assurance Extract (ENQUA et al, 2015, pp 9-16) Introduction to the European Standards and Guidelines The standards set out agreed and accepted practice for quality assurance in higher education in the EHEA and should, therefore, be taken account of and adhered to by those concerned, in all types of higher education provision. The guidelines explain why the standard is important and describe how standards might be implemented. They set out good practice in the relevant area for consideration by the actors involved in quality assurance. Implementation will vary depending on different contexts. 1.1 Policy for Quality Assurance

STANDARD: Institutions should have a policy for quality assurance that is made public and forms part of their strategic management. Internal stakeholders should develop and implement this policy through appropriate structures and processes, while involving external stakeholders. GUIDELINES: Policies and processes are the main pillars of a coherent institutional quality assurance system that forms a cycle for continuous improvement and contributes to the accountability of the institution. It supports the development of quality culture in which all internal stakeholders assume responsibility for quality and engage in quality assurance at all levels of the institution. In order to facilitate this, the policy has a formal status and is publicly available. Quality assurance policies are most effective when they reflect the relationship between research and learning & teaching and take account of both the national context in which the institution operates, the institutional context and its strategic approach. Such a policy supports

• the organisation of the quality assurance system; • departments, schools, faculties and other organisational units as well as those of

institutional leadership, individual staff members and students to take on their responsibilities in quality assurance;

• academic integrity and freedom and is vigilant against academic fraud; • guarding against intolerance of any kind or discrimination against the students or

staff; • the involvement of external stakeholders in quality assurance.

The policy translates into practice through a variety of internal quality assurance processes that allow participation across the institution. How the policy is implemented, monitored and revised is the institution’s decision.

APPENDIX 7

The quality assurance policy also covers any elements of an institution’s activities that are subcontracted to or carried out by other parties.

1.2 Design and Approval of Programmes STANDARD: Institutions should have processes for the design and approval of their programmes. The programmes should be designed so that they meet the objectives set for them, including the intended learning outcomes. The qualification resulting from a programme should be clearly specified and communicated, and refer to the correct level of the national qualifications framework for higher education and, consequently, to the Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area. GUIDELINES: Study programmes are at the core of the higher education institutions’ teaching mission. They provide students with both academic knowledge and skills including those that are transferable, which may influence their personal development and may be applied in their future careers. Programmes

• are designed with overall programme objectives that are in line with the institutional strategy and have explicit intended learning outcomes;

• are designed by involving students and other stakeholders in the work; • benefit from external expertise and reference points; • reflect the four purposes of higher education of the Council of Europe (cf. Scope and

Concepts); • are designed so that they enable smooth student progression; • define the expected student workload, e.g. in ECTS; • include well-structured placement opportunities where appropriate; • are subject to a formal institutional approval process.

1.3 Student Centred Learning, Teaching and Assessment STANDARD: Institutions should ensure that the programmes are delivered in a way that encourages students to take an active role in creating the learning process, and that the assessment of students reflects this approach. GUIDELINES: Student-centred learning and teaching plays an important role in stimulating students’ motivation, self-reflection and engagement in the learning process. This means careful consideration of the design and delivery of study programmes and the assessment of outcomes. The implementation of student-centred learning and teaching

• respects and attends to the diversity of students and their needs, enabling flexible learning paths;

APPENDIX 7

• considers and uses different modes of delivery, where appropriate; • flexibly uses a variety of pedagogical methods; • regularly evaluates and adjusts the modes of delivery and pedagogical methods; • encourages a sense of autonomy in the learner, while ensuring adequate guidance

and support from the teacher; • promotes mutual respect within the learner-teacher relationship; • has appropriate procedures for dealing with students’ complaints.

Considering the importance of assessment for the students’ progression and their future careers, quality assurance processes for assessment take into account the following:

• Assessors are familiar with existing testing and examination methods and receive support in developing their own skills in this field;

• The criteria for and method of assessment as well as criteria for marking are published in advance;

• The assessment allows students to demonstrate the extent to which the intended learning outcomes have been achieved. Students are given feedback, which, if necessary, is linked to advice on the learning process;

• Where possible, assessment is carried out by more than one examiner; • The regulations for assessment take into account mitigating circumstances; • Assessment is consistent, fairly applied to all students and carried out in accordance

with the stated procedures; • A formal procedure for student appeals is in place.

Placements include traineeships, internships and other periods of the programme that are not spent in the institution but that allow the student to gain experience in an area related to their studies.

1.4 Student Admission, Progression, Recognition, and Certification STANDARD: Institutions should consistently apply pre-defined and published regulations covering all phases of the student “life cycle”, e.g. student admission, progression, recognition and certification. GUIDELINES: Providing conditions and support that are necessary for students to make progress in their academic career is in the best interest of the individual students, programmes, institutions and systems. It is vital to have fit-for-purpose admission, recognition and completion procedures, particularly when students are mobile within and across higher education systems. It is important that access policies, admission processes and criteria are implemented consistently and in a transparent manner. Induction to the institution and the programme is provided. Institutions need to put in place both processes and tools to collect, monitor and act on information on student progression.

APPENDIX 7

Fair recognition of higher education qualifications, periods of study and prior learning, including the recognition of non-formal and informal learning, are essential components for ensuring the students’ progress in their studies, while promoting mobility. Appropriate recognition procedures rely on

• institutional practice for recognition being in line with the principles of the Lisbon Recognition Convention;

• cooperation with other institutions, quality assurance agencies and the national ENIC/NARIC centre with a view to ensuring coherent recognition across the country.

Graduation represents the culmination of the students’ period of study. Students need to receive documentation explaining the qualification gained, including achieved learning outcomes and the context, level, content and status of the studies that were pursued and successfully completed. 1.5 Teaching Staff STANDARD: Institutions should assure themselves of the competence of their teachers. They should apply fair and transparent processes for the recruitment and development of the staff. GUIDELINES: The teacher’s role is essential in creating a high quality student experience and enabling the acquisition of knowledge, competences and skills. The diversifying student population and stronger focus on learning outcomes require student-centred learning and teaching and the role of the teacher is, therefore, also changing (cf. Standard 1.3). Higher education institutions have primary responsibility for the quality of their staff and for providing them with a supportive environment that allows them to carry out their work effectively. Such an environment

• sets up and follows clear, transparent and fair processes for staff recruitment and conditions of employment that recognise the importance of teaching;

• offers opportunities for and promotes the professional development of teaching staff;

• encourages scholarly activity to strengthen the link between education and research; • encourages innovation in teaching methods and the use of new technologies.

1.6 Learning Resources and Student Support STANDARD: Institutions should have appropriate funding for learning and teaching activities and ensure that adequate and readily accessible learning resources and student support are provided. GUIDELINES: For a good higher education experience, institutions provide a range of resources to assist student learning. These vary from physical resources such as libraries, study facilities and IT infrastructure to human support in the form of tutors, counsellors and other advisers. The

APPENDIX 7

role of support services is of particular importance in facilitating the mobility of students within and across higher education systems. The needs of a diverse student population (such as mature, part-time, employed and international students as well as students with disabilities), and the shift towards student-centred learning and flexible modes of learning and teaching, are taken into account when allocating, planning and providing the learning resources and student support. Support activities and facilities may be organised in a variety of ways depending on the institutional context. However, the internal quality assurance ensures that all resources are fit for purpose, accessible, and that students are informed about the services available to them. In delivering support services the role of support and administrative staff is crucial and therefore they need to be qualified and have opportunities to develop their competences. 1.7 Information Management STANDARD: Institutions should ensure that they collect, analyse and use relevant information for the effective management of their programmes and other activities. GUIDELINES: Reliable data is crucial for informed decision-making and for knowing what is working well and what needs attention. Effective processes to collect and analyse information about study programmes and other activities feed into the internal quality assurance system. The information gathered depends, to some extent, on the type and mission of the institution. The following are of interest:

• Key performance indicators; • Profile of the student population; • Student progression, success and drop-out rates; • Students’ satisfaction with their programmes; • Learning resources and student support available; • Career paths of graduates.

Various methods of collecting information may be used. It is important that students and staff are involved in providing and analysing information and planning follow-up activities. 1.8 Public Information STANDARD: Institutions should publish information about their activities, including programmes, which is clear, accurate, objective, up-to date and readily accessible.

APPENDIX 7

GUIDELINES: Information on institutions’ activities is useful for prospective and current students as well as for graduates, other stakeholders and the public. Therefore, institutions provide information about their activities, including the programmes they offer and the selection criteria for them, the intended learning outcomes of these programmes, the qualifications they award, the teaching, learning and assessment procedures used, the pass rates and the learning opportunities available to their students as well as graduate employment information. 1.9 On-going Monitoring and Periodic Review of Programmes STANDARD: Institutions should monitor and periodically review their programmes to ensure that they achieve the objectives set for them and respond to the needs of students and society. These reviews should lead to continuous improvement of the programme. Any action planned or taken as a result should be communicated to all those concerned. GUIDELINES: Regular monitoring, review and revision of study programmes aim to ensure that the provision remains appropriate and to create a supportive and effective learning environment for students. They include the evaluation of:

• The content of the programme in the light of the latest research in the given discipline thus ensuring that the programme is up to date;

• The changing needs of society; • The students’ workload, progression and completion; • The effectiveness of procedures for assessment of students; • The student expectations, needs and satisfaction in relation to the programme; • The learning environment and support services and their fitness for purpose for the

programme. Programmes are reviewed and revised regularly involving students and other stakeholders. The information collected is analysed and the programme is adapted to ensure that it is up-to-date. Revised programme specifications are published. 1.10 Cyclical External Quality Assurance STANDARD: Institutions should undergo external quality assurance in line with the ESG on a cyclical basis. GUIDELINES: External quality assurance in its various forms can verify the effectiveness of institutions’ internal quality assurance, act as a catalyst for improvement and offer the institution new perspectives. It will also provide information to assure the institution and the public of the

APPENDIX 7

quality of the institution’s activities. Institutions participate in cyclical external quality assurance that takes account, where relevant, of the requirements of the legislative framework in which they operate. Therefore, depending on the framework, this external quality assurance may take different forms and focus at different organisational levels (such as programme, faculty or institution). Quality assurance is a continuous process that does not end with the external feedback or report or its follow-up process within the institution. Therefore, institutions ensure that the progress made since the last external quality assurance activity is taken into consideration when preparing for the next one.

THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS

25 NOVEMBER 2016

HEC-2016-014a OPEN

Academic Assurance Report: Additional Briefing Paper Executive Summary

Following discussion with some Board members, this additional briefing paper provides the Board with contextual and supporting information prior to the Board to provide further context for the Academic Assurance Report.

Action Requested

The Board is invited to note this additional information in support of the assurances in respect of academic standards, quality and continuous improvement.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Annex D: Relationship of APR outcomes to TEF eligibility and Home Office educationaloversight requirements for Tier 4 sponsorship Appendix 2: Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) Spatial analysis of graduates’ first destination for the period 2012/13 to 2014/15

Author

Name:

Job title:

Date:

Barbara Colledge Dean of Quality 21 November 2016

Approval Route

21 November 2016 Professor Phil Cardew

2

ACADEMIC ASSURANCE REPORT: ADDITIONAL BRIEFING PAPER

Introduction

1. This additional briefing paper provides the Board with contextual and supporting information to

clarify specific matters within the Academic Assurance Report. Academic Assurance in a Changing National Context 2. The changes being introduced in 2016 by the Higher Education Funding Council for England

(HEFCE) and the Conservative government are far reaching with significant implications for the sector. This national context for academic assurance is explained below (paragraphs 5‐10). These changes have been introduced to support a diverse world‐leading national higher education system and the assurance of excellent academic standards and quality.

3. The intention is to provide better information on the quality and standards of UK higher education to enable better informed decision‐making and choice by applicants, necessary in the context of the fees and student loan regime. New mechanisms introduced open up the higher education market to new providers, increasing competition and expanding choice for applicants. The outcomes from these new mechanisms will be linked to future funding levels and fee caps of providers.

4. Our University’s Academic Assurance is set within this changing national context. Our University’s strategic planning framework 2016‐2021, Key Performance Indicators and the Education Strategy 2016‐21 set our strategic response and direction within this evolving national context. These are key to our University’s success in raising our performance in the TEF metrics with the new Schools structures, Deans of School, Heads of Subject and Course Director roles central to delivering excellent course level outcomes.

HEFCE Annual Provider Review 5. The HEFCE Annual Provider Review is the new external higher education quality assessment

process which focuses on annual institutional assurance and outcomes based on HEFCE metrics and benchmarks. This involves annual scrutiny and oversight of higher education providers by HEFCE to assure baseline threshold performance, academic standards and quality. The Student Voice is intended as an important element of this process with pilots underway nationally (including our University) to test potential mechanisms for this. This forms the baseline and foundation for eligibility to make a submission to the Teaching Excellence Framework. The details of potential outcomes from this process are provided in Appendix 1. The key features defined by HEFCE (2016, pp. 3‐4) are:

a) “it will draw on existing data and information: there will be no new data requests nor a requirement for any annual APR submission

b) indicators and metrics will be used in a contextualised and rounded way c) existing risk processes will be used to make more consistent judgements about financial

sustainability and good management and governance d) judgements on quality and standards matters will be reached through peer review.”

3

6. This process requires new assurance statements relating to the governing body’s oversight of academic governance arrangements as set out in the Higher Education Code of Governance. HEFCE has stated that:

“it is their intention that the Board be drawn into quality management activities itself, but rather that it receives reports and challenges assurances from elsewhere in the provider. This is not intended to alter the well‐established relationships between governing bodies and senates or academic boards (or equivalent). The evidence on which an individual governing body’s assurances are based, and the way in which it chooses to receive and challenge information, will be shaped by the particular arrangements in that provider. Each governing body is, therefore, responsible for determining the approach that it will take. For example, there is no standard template for reports or action plans and each governing body will determine its own requirements.” (HEFCE, 2016, p 6).

HEFCE Assurance Review 7. An additional element of the external quality assessment process (paragraphs 5‐ 6 above) is the

five‐yearly HEFCE Assurance Review visit. This will test the reliability of the annual assurances and the evidence upon which they are based. Our University’s Review is due in 2020‐21.

Teaching Excellence Framework 8. The Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) has been introduced to recognise and reward

teaching excellence with eligible institutions being invited to participate and submit for a Teaching Excellence Framework award. Our University is eligible for Year 2 of TEF in 2016/17. Like the Research Excellence Framework, it is an institutional decision whether to submit for this TEF assessment and our University plans to make a submission. The TEF utilises a process of performance metrics and benchmarks alongside a University submission to inform peer review and Panel judgements for a Bronze, Silver or Gold award. The year 2 TEF assessment is based on undergraduate provision delivered by the provider and in future years will include also a focus on postgraduate provision and subjects (from 2018/19). Information used by assessors in arriving at TEF assessments and the outcomes from the process will be published and available publicly, including the metrics and our University’s submission. The intention of the Department for Education is to link future fee levels and caps to outcomes from the TEF.

The Higher Education and Research Bill 2016‐17 9. The Higher Education and Research Bill 2016‐17 is a Public Bill presented to Parliament by the

Conservative Government. It is proceeding through the parliamentary process and is expected to have its Report, Legislative Grand Committee and Third reading stages on 21 November 2016. This Bill brings forward measures relating to higher education and research to increase competition and choice in the higher education sector, raise standards and strengthen capabilities in UK research and innovation. Proposals include:

a) the formation of a new body to regulate the higher education sector (the Office for

Students); b) the introduction of a new single gateway into the higher education sector (an existing

process was introduced by HEFCE in 2016);

4

c) enabling the administration of the Teaching and Excellence Framework; d) the introduction of a new non‐interest bearing student finance product called an

alternative payment for higher and further education; and e) changes to the research infrastructure.

10. A number of drafting amendments were discussed at the Committee Stage with agreements on

the introduction of some technical amendments and new clauses relating to research infrastructure, making provision for the immediate suspension of providers from the register of higher education providers where public funds are at risk and to permit TEF ratings to be given to higher education institutions (HEIs) in the devolved regions. The Bill anticipates fee level limits for qualifying courses being informed by high level quality ratings (The Department for Business Innovation & Skills, 2016, Part 1, section 30).

Developing dialogue with the Board on academic quality and standards 11. In this changing national context for higher education the role of the governing body in

providing assurances relating to academic quality and standards is evolving. The Higher Education Funding Council for England’s (HEFCE) Revised Operating Model for Quality Assessment stipulates that not only should providers have in place quality processes that comply with Part 1 of the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area 2015 (ESG) but also a reporting mechanism that enables both the senior academic body within a provider (Academic Board) and the Board of Governors to be assured that those processes are effective, and that the provider is responding to any issues or concerns arising from the outcomes of those processes, or from the analysis of data informing them.

12. Under our deliberative structures the Academic Quality and Standards Committee, chaired by the DVC Academic undertakes detailed monitoring and scrutiny of the effectiveness of academic quality, academic standards and continuous improvement action plans reporting to Academic Board. Membership includes representation from Schools (including Deans) and key professional services including the Director of the Centre for Learning and Teaching, the Dean of Quality, the Director of Services for Students and the Director of Libraries and Learning Innovation. This Committee provides reports for Academic Board and is in alignment with the expectations of the ESG. Academic Board receives a summary of the outcomes of the Academic Quality and Standards Committee’s deliberation and annual reports on specific matters including a report on Academic Assurance.

13. Our University’s Quality Assurance Services, led by the Dean of Quality, provides institutional

oversight, monitoring, audit functions and support for our University and deliberative committees to ensure the effective implementation of our Academic Principles and Regulations and in the analysis of outcomes and data from these processes for institutional reporting and action planning (working closely with the Information and Intelligence Team for data production).

14. External review by independent external examiners, external research awards examiners and

external members of course validation panels provide external oversight of academic standards and quality of our taught and research awards.

5

15. This approach to institutional oversight and effective annual reporting was reflected in our successful Quality Assurance Agency’s Higher Education Review 2014. The QAA in their report arising from their visit in April 2014 confirmed that:

a) The setting and maintenance of the threshold academic standards of awards meet UK

expectations. b) The quality of student learning opportunities meets UK expectations. c) The quality of the information produced about its provision meets UK expectations. d) The enhancement of student learning opportunities meets UK expectations.

16. Our University’s approach is robust, effective and is aligned with the expectations of the UK

Quality Code and most elements of the ESG, providing significant assurance for the Board to provide HEFCE with the necessary assurances set out under paragraph 3 above.

17. However, to align fully with the ESG requirements, additional reporting to the Board of

Governors is necessary to enable the Board to provide full assurance to HEFCE (see paragraph 3 above) under the new arrangements for HEFCE’s Annual Provider Review. Currently (while the Board of Governors does receive some reports in parallel, particularly relating to the student experience) there is no formal process by which the Board of Governors is able to assure HEFCE that it has received assurance both on the efficacy of process and on the underlying data which support (in particular) an understanding of standards. This will become more pertinent as the next stages of the Teaching Excellence Framework develop (and move to subject‐level analysis) and, in particular, focus upon such aspects as classification outcomes.

18. These changes in the sector, with the introduction of the Higher Education Funding Council for

England’s Annual Provider Review process, which underpins and utilises similar metrics for the Teaching Excellence Framework, leads to a need for a different engagement by the Board with academic quality, academic standards and continuous improvement mechanisms.

19. As set out in detail in the Academic Assurance Report Appendix 1, it is proposed that we enable

regular dialogue with the Board on academic quality and standards matters, supported by the provision of continuously updated data reports and specific consideration of annual reports, such as for example on the handling of academic appeals and complaints by the Board's Governance and Nominations Committee. This is illustrated in the Figure 1 below. The proposals regarding the timing for these reports is set out in the Academic Assurance Report Appendix 1 and aligns with the academic cycle and availability of data and metrics. The Board’s views on this planned reporting cycle and dialogue is sought and views on any further support that might be provided.

20. Attendance at Academic Board by the Chair of the Board provides direct Board oversight and

dialogue with high level institutional reports of relevance to these matters. This includes the University’s deliberative governance structures and the development of our University’s Academic Principles and Regulations which provide the necessary framework and procedures which align with the UK Quality Code and the European Standards and Guidelines and set the approach to assurance of academic quality, standards and continuous improvement. Academic Board also receives and considers reports on the Education Strategy implementation and annual quality reports including student survey outcomes, Annual Academic Assurance Report and Appeals and Complaints.

6

Figure 1: Institutional oversight and assurance reporting

Developments relating to the transition to School Structures 21. Our University’s approach to institutional oversight and reporting to assure effectiveness is

important in the context of the changing sector quality requirements, metrics focused quality assurance and particularly in the recent transition to thirteen Schools (in place of 4 faculties) which results in increased devolution and distribution of the implementation of our Academic Regulations with new Dean of School, Course Directors and Heads of Subject roles. The need for institutional oversight of the effective implementation within Schools is an important feature of ESG compliant mechanisms to assure academic standards, quality and enhancement and any interventions necessary where provision is falling below satisfactory sector thresholds or University Key Performance Indicators.

22. Our University’s new validation and review process and cycle introduces revised course

monitoring, annual review and enhancement mechanisms from 2016/17 which enable a strengthened oversight and focus on course outcomes to inform enhanced monitoring and support where courses performance is less strong. This academic year fourteen courses, including five of our largest courses, have been identified for engagement with an enhanced mid cycle review process together with targeted support for courses where performance is below for a smaller number of metrics.

23. The new School structures provides greater line of sight, responsibility and accountability for

delivering an excellent education, experience and outcomes for our students at course and subject level. The Dean of School, Head of Subject and Course Director roles are key in this structure for leading and managing the provision of an excellent education, experience and outcomes and the continuous improvements at course level. This is overseen by the School Academic Committees chaired by Deans of School which then report to Academic Quality and Standards Committee. Enhanced provision of course performance data and analysis against our University’s Key Performance Indicators informs the course monitoring and annual review process and requirements for action plans. The institutional development of TEF focused subject

7

level analyses will be developed during 2016/17 to inform and support School action and improvements to inform future TEF assessments including at subject level from 2018/19.

24. Support and staff development for excellent academic practice and engagement with our

Education Strategy and academic principles and regulations is in place (delivered primarily by Quality Assurance Services and the Centre for Learning and Teaching) to foster and enable the development of excellent academic practice and culture. This is also a requirement for compliance with the UK Quality Code and the European Standards and Guidelines.

25. The professional services review underway this academic year will ensure that Schools have the necessary support in place in their School to support their effective operation. The review and reform of our Academic Principles and Regulations underway is already leading to more streamlined simplified processes and will support Schools and course teams in their effective implementation. The revised regulatory and procedural framework will be considered by Academic Board in July 2016 and will mapped against the UK Quality Code and the European Standards and Guidelines to ensure continued compliance.

Action and Oversight relating to the DBA 26. The Academic Assurance Report (page 6, paragraph 11) provides details of the work underway

by the Research Degrees Sub‐Committee to support the continuous improvement of research students’ academic experience and outcomes. In particular, specific action and monitoring is overseeing the work of the DBA to support improvements in student progression/completion. It was identified by the sub‐committee in March 2015 that student progress and completion of the DBA was in need of improvement. The most recent intake onto the DBA was February 2014 and further recruitment has ceased to ensure appropriate support for existing students to progress and complete the award. There is no active recruitment for the DBA programme at present. Any further recruitment to this award will require a proposal to be considered and agreed by the University Research Degrees Sub‐Committee.

27. The Research Degrees Sub‐Committee continues to receive a monthly update for the DBA

programme on the progress made to ensure institutional oversight of student progress and completion. DBA students have been provided with additional progression meetings as an extra support for their progress in addition to the standard annual progression meeting. For example, some DBA students are attending a meeting every three months to support them to make satisfactory progress.

28. Further support has been introduced for all DBA students prior to their final thesis submission.

Students who are ready to submit their thesis will go through an internal checking panel prior to examination to provide further feedback on their final submission. This panel reviews the quality of the submission and as a result of this may sometimes require students to make changes before it proceeds to examination. This ensures that the students’ thesis is ready for submission, meets the required academic standards and is fit for examination.

Update on External Examiners’ Reports 29. The Academic Assurance Report (page 7, paragraph 19) provides details of the percentage of

external examiner’s reports received. Where a report is not received by the due deadlines, External Examiners are contacted in writing and by phone to remind them of their

8

responsibilities and the need to complete their reports. Our approach is sensitive to rare extenuating circumstances that may have delayed the submission such as a serious illness which does happen in a small number of cases. If following these communications an External Examiner fails to provide their report, we give notice of termination of their appointment and make arrangements to replace them speedily. This is a very small number of instances. Since the Academic Assurance Report was drafted we have terminated two external examiners’ contracts and are in communication with two more external examiners regarding submission of their reports. All other reports that were due have been received.

Update on Employment in Region 30. The Academic Assurance Report (page 12, paragraph 13) refers to the Northern Powerhouse

as being a significant region for our graduates’ employment. The specific regions to which this refers comprise the North West, the North East and Yorkshire & Humber.

31. The contextual maps produced by Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) as

part of the Teaching Excellence Framework assessment provide a spatial analysis of our graduates’ first destination presenting a combined view for three years, from 2012/13 to 2014/15(Appendix 2). The first map in this Appendix provides information on our students’ domicile prior to studying with us showing a higher spatial concentration in northern and the midlands regions in addition to London. The second map in this Appendix indicates the high concentration of our graduates’ first destination into employment or further study in the northern economy consistent with our University’s vision. The third map shows the more diverse regional distribution of our graduates’ employment in professional and managerial jobs.

Student Achievement Sector Comparisons 32. The Academic Assurance Report (page 12, paragraph 40) provides details of students’ first

degree classifications. The number of good degrees (1st and 2:1) awarded in 2014‐15 was 2890, representing 63.4% of the graduating population. This continues an upward year on year increase on the percentage of good degrees in 2013‐14 (60%) and 2012‐13 (59.1%). For full time students the number of good degrees (1st and 2:1) attained in 2014‐15 represents 65.3% of the graduating population. Our changes introduced to increase UCAS admissions tariffs and changes may contribute to the impact on degree outcomes from 2014/15 onwards.

33. Analysis undertaken by HEFCE has identified that there are a range of factors that influence

degree classifications outcomes across the sector including entry qualifications, subject area, student characteristics and mode of study. The comparative figures for the sector for the percentage of firsts/2.1s classifications by gender and entry qualifications in 2013/14 (HEFCE 2016, p13) comprised:

9

34. Our University’s equivalent percentages for first and 2.1 degrees by gender in 2013/14 were

55.4% Male and 66.7% female. The student degree outcomes by student characteristics are provided below in Table 1 for 2013/14 and 2014/15.

35. The percentages support the premise that the higher number of UCAS tariff points upon entry

has a small but positive impact on the degree classification outcome. The 2014‐15 population indicates a small increase in the percentage of graduating students with more than 300 tariff points (31% in 2014/15 compared to 29% in 2013‐14).

Table 1: Percentage of good degrees attained by University Characteristic Profile 2013‐14 and 2014‐15

Characteristic profile category

Characteristics (pop proportion) Population Proportion (14‐15)

Good Degrees Attained 2013‐14

Good Degrees Attained 2014‐15

Gender Male 49% 55.4% 56.9%

Female 51% 66.7% 67.2%

Ethnicity White 74% 63.9% 67.8% Ethnic Minority 18% 49.7% 44.9% Not known/refused 8% 46.2% 40.5%

Disability Declared Disability 10% 60.0% 60.7% No known disability 90% 61.0% 63.6%

Tariff

300 points + 31% 72.0% 72.7% 240‐299 points 24% 62.0% 64.9% 180‐239 points 12% 54.6% 60.5% <180 points 6% 53.0% 55.0%

10

0 points or n/a 2% 54.0%

60.6% Not in standard tariff population 25% 49.3%

Socio‐Economic Classification (SEC)

Higher managerial & professional occupations 14% 66.0% 69.9%

Lower managerial & professional occupations 23% 64.0% 68.8%

Lower supervisory & technical occupations 9% 66.0% 62.9%

Intermediate occupations 5% 63.0% 64.3% Small employers & own account workers 4% 63.0% 69.1%

Routine occupations 9% 58.0% 58.3% Semi‐routine occupations 5% 61.0% 56.8% Never worked/ long‐term unemployed 1% 57.0% 75.9% Not classified 30% 55.0% 54.0%

Parental Education Attained 1st degree 33% 66.0% 67.4% Did not attain 1st degree 28% 17.0% 65.1% Unknown/Information refused 39% 56.0% 57.9%

Action Underway to address Student Non Continuation 36. The Academic Assurance Report (page 14, paragraph 51) provided information about our non‐

continuation outcomes. Information relating to action underway to improve non‐continuation in line with our institutional KPIs is summarised on page 16, paragraph 59 of the Academic Assurance Report and in Appendix 5, paragraph 7.

37. The Education Strategy 2016‐2021 will support improvements in student continuation. Level 4

is seen as key to the development of our students, their ultimate achievement and their employability, and so underpins the entire strategy which includes a particular emphasis on:

a) The Learning Pathway: an approach to course structure and delivery which seeks to

develop students as critical thinkers and independent learners b) The Student Support Framework: a way of ensuring that we put a structure around our

students, and across academic and professional services, which supports all aspects of learning, personal and professional development.

c) Level 4 Enhancements: Creating an environment which supports students in their transition into higher education and enables them to reach an end‐point which fully prepares them for higher levels of study. A key feature of the model would be a ‘front‐loading’ at level 4, (the ‘immersive induction’ concept) which might include the development of a wide support network for students.

38. Work is underway this academic year to commence the translation of the Education Strategy

into curriculum and course design supported by Developing Excellent Academic Practice sessions and tailored advice and guidance led by the Centre for Learning and Teaching.

39. The new School Structures with new Deans of Schools, Heads of Subject and Course Director

roles (when appointed by May 2017) are strengthened course identity, management and review to support delivery of our KPIs including student non‐completion/progression at course level.

11

40. The development of the Student Support Framework is underway led by Services for Students. This includes the development of new Academic Adviser roles to strengthen student academic guidance and support for 2017/18, the further implementation of the new I Beacon Application which will support monitoring of students’ attendance and the implementation of the StREAM student engagement system for use by all Schools to support closer monitoring of students’ engagement with their studies and proactive targeted follow up by course teams and administrators for students’ identified as in need of additional support. This system will also enable students to review their own personal engagement profile compared with their peers’ average profile of engagement development on their course. This system will be fully operational for 2017/18 with the 2016/17 implementation in place for all Schools and being used as a transition and testing year. This has, for example, enabled our University to follow up with students’ identified as having a lower profile of engagement on their course this term to provide additional support to improve their engagement and progression.

41. Following the analysis and discussion of the National Student Survey 2016 outcomes at its

meeting in October 2016, Academic Quality and Standards Committee have agreed an action to undertake an audit of examination feedback to inform the embedding of excellent academic practice in 2017/18.

Conclusions and recommendations 42. The Board is invited to note this additional information in support of the assurances in respect

of academic standards, quality and continuous improvement. References and further information Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) 2016 Higher education in England 2016, Key Facts. September 2016/20. HEFCE. [Online]. Available from: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/HEFCE,2014/Content/Pubs/2016/201620/HEFCE2016_20.pdf [Accessed 21 November 2016]. The Department for Business Innovation & Skills (2016) Higher Education and Research Bill (HC Bill 78). UK Parliament web site. [Online]. Available from: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2016‐2017/0078/cbill_2016‐20170078_en_3.htm. [Accessed 18 November 2016]. Author Barbara Colledge, Dean of Quality 21 November 2016

Appendix 1: Annex D: Relationship of APR outcomes to TEF eligibility and Home Office educational oversight requirements for Tier 4 sponsorship

1. The outcomes from the APR process in 2016-17 on quality and standards matters,

including from any Unsatisfactory Quality Scheme investigation, will determine the eligibility of a

provider to receive and retain a TEF Year Two award and to continue to meet the Home Office’s

requirements for educational oversight for Tier 4 sponsorship.

2. The Government has announced that it intends to consult in autumn 2016 on the

immigration rules for students from outside the European Economic Area (EEA). The table

below, therefore, sets out the Tier 4 sponsorship arrangements as they currently apply.

APR outcome TEF Year Two eligibility Educational oversight

requirement for Tier 4

Meets requirements Eligible for TEF Meets educational

oversight requirements

Meets requirements

with conditions

Eligible for TEF Meets educational


Pending – the APR

process for this

provider has not yet

been completed

Eligible for TEF, but the award

is subject to the outcome of

any Unsatisfactory Quality

Scheme investigation

Continues to meet

educational oversight

requirements while

‘pending’ status is resolved

Does not meet

requirements

Not eligible for TEF Does not meet educational

oversight requirements until

an action plan has been

implemented and signed off

Where a ‘pending’ APR status leads to an investigation under the Unsatisfactory

Quality Scheme (UQS):

No issues found as a

result of UQS

investigation

Eligible for TEF Year Two Meets educational


Minor issues found as

a result of UQS

investigation

Eligible for TEF Year Two Meets educational


Serious issues found

as a result of UQS

investigation, leading

to an overall ‘does not

meet requirements’

judgement

The TEF Year Two award will

be withdrawn

Does not meet educational

oversight requirements until

an action plan has been

implemented and signed off

APPENDIX 1

10003861Leeds Beckett University

Year TwoData maps

Contains

APPENDIX 2

Leeds Beckett UniversityStudent domicile prior to entry

Boundaries based on Nomenclature of Territorial Units level 3 (NUTS level 3).Highlands and Islands NUTS level 2 has been used over the respective NUTS level 3 areas in Scot-land due to small sample sizes.


Leeds Beckett UniversityGraduate employment locations

Sector wideProportions of employed graduates in high-skilled jobs

55% 90%


BOARD OF GOVERNORS

25 NOVEMBER 2016

HEC-2016-025 OPEN

Schedule of Business 2016/17 Executive Summary The Board of Governor’s schedule of business for 2016/17 is attached and will be considered at each meeting across the academic year and updated accordingly.

Action Requested

The report is for information. The Board is invited to receive and note the report. The Board is also invited to consider whether any additional items should be added to the 2016/17 schedule of business.

Appendices

Appendix 1 – Schedule of Business 2016/17

Author

Name: Job title: Date:

Stuart Morris Governance Officer 09 November 2016

Approval Route

Board of Governors – Schedule of Business 2016/17

23 September 2016 Away Day

25 November 2016

03 March 2017 TBC Away Day

5 May 2017 14 July 2016

Presentation by each of the newly appointed Deans of Schools, setting out their vision for their respective Schools.

Strategic Plan KPI progress update

Student recruitment update TBC Student applications 2017/18 - Update

Confirmation of National Pay Award 2016/17 (TBC)

Audit Committee Annual Report

Financial update and progress against financial KPIs

HEFCE’s annual assessment of institutional risk

Approval of Annual revenue and capital budgets 2017/18

External Auditors Management Letter 2015/16

Capital development programme

Access Agreement (to be circulated prior to deadline) / Strategy for Student Access & Success 2018/19

Approval of Three-year Financial Forecast

Annual Sustainability Assurance Report

Approval of Financial Regulations 2016

Approval of Tuition Fee Rates 2018/19

Approval of Annual Student Union Block Grant 2017/18

Financial statements 2015/16

Annual Health & Safety Report 2016

Equality & Diversity Annual Report 2016

Corporate Risk Register – Annual Review

Annual HEFCE Accountability return

Draft Schedule of Meetings 2017/18

Academic Quality Report Annual Appointment of External Auditor

Confirmation of National Pay Award 2015/16 (TBC)

Academic Quality Report Approval of Committee memberships 2017/18

Annual review and remuneration of Committee Chairs

Creative Arts building funding report

Committee terms of reference – annual review

Annual review and remuneration of the Chair of the Board

Safety, Health and Wellbeing Policy Review

Academic Assurance Report Academic Quality Report HEFCE Assurance Review Campus Masterplan National Pay Award Prevent annual report UKVI compliance update

Standing Items 1. Minutes of last meeting 2. Chair’s Report 3. Vice Chancellor’s Report 4. SU Report

5. Financial Update report 6. Health & Safety 7. Update reports from Finance, Staffing and Resources, Audit, Governance &

Nominations and Senior Staff Remuneration Committees 8. Schedule of Business 2016/17

LEEDS BECKETT UNIVERSITY BOARD OF … BECKETT UNIVERSITY ... 12:10 Paper Part E: Academic Quality...

Documents

Transcript of LEEDS BECKETT UNIVERSITY BOARD OF … BECKETT UNIVERSITY ... 12:10 Paper Part E: Academic Quality...