Recommendation to University Quality Committee Studies IDEE.pdf · The provision has exhibited...

of 10

UNIVERSITY QUALITY COMMITTEE

SCHOOL OF EDUCATION AND SCHOOL OF HEALTH STANDING PANEL 2002/2003 (Reference 1043)

CONFIRMED Recommendation to University Quality Committee The Standing Panel was asked to review and revalidate BA (Hons) English and Education Studies (International Degree offered in collaboration with EFA, Holland) as a promoted joint pathway and Education Studies as a joint pathway through Combined Awards for the School of Education and is pleased to recommend to University Quality Committee approval of the following proposals: REVIEW Specialist Pathways: None Joint Pathways: BA (Hons) English and Education Studies BA (Hons) Education Studies Full and part time Interim: BA Education Studies Diploma in Higher Education in Education Studies Certificate in Higher Education in Education Studies Full and part time REVALIDATION Specialist Pathways: None Joint Pathways: BA (Hons) English and Education Studies

BA (Hons) Education Studies Full and part time

Interim: BA Education Studies

Diploma in Higher Education in Education Certificate in Higher Education in Education Studies

Full and part time DELETION AND VALIDATION None MODULES For information on modules, see Appendix One. DATE OF THE NEXT REVIEW The next review of Education Studies and Education Studies and English (IDEE) is scheduled to take place by the end of the 2008/09 academic year. In support of these recommendations, the Standing Panel provides the following reports of its considerations: − The Academic Approval Record (AAR), which provides an evaluative summary of significant issues and

outcomes − The Standing Panel Record (SPR), which provides a detailed account of the process undertaken and

evidence to support the statements made in the AAR. The Standing Panel is aware that the University Quality Committee reserves the right to review all decisions made by the Standing Panel, to ratify approvals and to follow up on any issues identified in the AAR as the Committee sees fit.

Academic Approval Record

of 50

Academic Approval Record 1. Background to the Proposal

Provide a brief context. Education Studies is a distinct subject within the School of Education, which focuses on key theoretical questions and current debates regarding the philosophical, psychological and social aspects of education. It is offered as a joint pathway through Combined Awards in Education and is most commonly combined with the specialist subjects offered by the School, namely Early Childhood Studies and Special Needs and Inclusion Studies. The provision has exhibited healthy recruitment during its period of validation and high levels of achievement in the context of Combined Awards. It is now due for cyclical review. BA English and Education Studies popularly referred to as IDEE (the title by which it is known in Holland), has been offered as a promoted combination with an international dimension for the past ten years. The provision is delivered in collaboration with the Educatieve Faculteit Amsterdam (EFA), the teacher training arm of the ‘Hogeschool in Holland’ and the Hogeschool van Amsterdam and recruits in both Holland and the UK. Students undertaking the programme split their time between Holland and the UK and study a combination of Education Studies, English Language and Literature and teacher training. Students undertaking the programme have the opportunity to achieve a joint degree from the University of Wolverhampton, a qualification in TESOL and a Dutch teaching qualification with which they can apply for Qualified Teacher Status in Britain. The English subject component of the programme is not due for review at this time, but it was agreed that a representative of the English team was invited to the meeting with the Panel, Education Subject team and external adviser in order to discuss the programme in its entirety.

2. Level of Scrutiny

Provide brief details about the level of scrutiny exercised by the Panel. The Panel determined its overall level of scrutiny and areas for focus by conducting a preliminary mini-audit of the School, based on existing documentation. This audit and the Panel’s experience of working with the School of Education provided reassurance of the rigour of the School’s quality processes and of its experience in establishing and managing placements. The interim report for the IDEE provision highlighted the following avenues for enquiry: recruitment, the monitoring of student performance, communications with the English team and the location of the programme within the taxonomy of collaborative links. The Panel moreover dedicated particular scrutiny to compliance with the Code of Practice on Collaboration. The external adviser was requested to concentrate on curriculum design, organisation and content and on teaching, learning and assessment.

3. Summary of findings

Provide a brief summary of the Panel’s conclusions. The Panel and external adviser were pleased to commend the Education Studies team on the good health of the provision presented for review and revalidation. The curriculum was considered to be up-to-date and relevant and to offer, in the opinion of the external adviser, a good range of modules within a flexible learner-centred approach. Students benefit from an excellent range of contemporary teaching learning and assessment strategies and a high, and much appreciated, level of support from lecturers and personal tutors. The combination of these approaches has led to a high progression rate and to extremely commendable achievement compared with the overall figures for subjects within Combined Awards. The only recommendations the Panel would make is that staff ensure that different criteria are applied when modules (namely research and independent study) are delivered at different levels and that the experience and achievement of students undertaking independent studies modules is monitored. The external adviser commended the IDEE team on an innovative programme that offers excellent opportunities for enhanced student experiences in cross-cultural learning and for progression to QTS. The Panel was moreover pleased to recognise the great strides that have been effected with regard to the


of 50

management and quality assurance of the programme and commended, in particular, the central role of the programme leader in developing the effective management of the programme as it now operates. It was noted that the recommendations from the interim review, in terms of the close collaboration between institutions and cross-institutional moderation, have been taken onboard. Moreover, the targeting of practical/organisational problems and considerable improvements in student support have been produced good levels of student satisfaction and in considerably improved progression and achievement. The Panel was concerned however, that there was insufficient contribution of the English subject team to the moderation and quality monitoring of the provision. In order to further assure the quality overview of the programme, it will be recommended that the three parties involved in the delivery of the programme (Education Studies, English and EFA) work collaboratively on a joint action plan to ensure that external evaluation at the level of both the subject and the programme meets the requirements of the Code of Practice on Collaborative Links. 4. Professional, Statutory, Regulatory Body Involvement

Was a professional, statutory or regulatory body (PSRB) involved in the process?

No*

Which PSRB was involved?

Give details of accreditation / recognition processes and the PSRB’s conclusions * Although no professional body was involved in the revalidation of either the Education Studies or IDEE provision, students undertaking the IDEE programme have the facility to pursue two forms of accredited qualification in addition to their honours degree:

1. At EFA (Holland) the national teaching standards set by the Dutch government for the second grade teaching diploma (HBO 2) are incorporated in the programme undertaken by IDEE students and are met by successful students in the course of their studies. The diploma confers QTS for teaching English in lower secondary schools in Holland and provides students with the opportunity to apply for English QTS through the DfES.

2. Verification arrangements are also in place between the University of Wolverhampton and OCR for students to pursue the OCR TESOL certificate or diploma. Around two thirds of third year students opt to study for the certificate.

5. Collaborative Arrangements

Are any collaborative partners involved with the programme? Yes If yes, what is the nature of the relationship? Please make reference to the Typology of Collaborative Academic Provision. It was confirmed that the BA (Hons) English and Education Studies is offered as a joint programme with the Educatieve Faculteit Amsterdam (EFA), Holland. The collaboration involves a combination of credit-rating and franchise based on the location of expertise. The team defended this arrangement on the grounds that it is indicative of the way in which a collaborative relationship can develop over time, with an increasing number of modules now falling into the credit-rated category. Were any significant concerns about collaborative partner, the relationship or the management of the programmes raised by the Panel or the External Adviser?

Yes

If yes, please briefly note the areas of concern here and provide the specific detail in the appropriate section(s) below. The Panel concluded that overall, great strides have been taken towards the better management, co-ordination and quality assurance of what is a complex programme to administer. The UK programme leader is recognised to have been instrumental in these improvements and further details can be found under both the good practice sections below and in section 9 where additional recommendations are made.


of 50

Concern was however raised by student dissatisfaction with the management of the Dutch placement. The Panel learned that this is not attributable to IDEE staff, who make every effort to help, since EFA uses a central agency to organise the placements. Start dates are delayed for many students and the agency has tended to overlook the fact that the IDEE cohort includes non-Dutch speakers when sending out literature and assigning students to schools (e.g. non-international schools). The staff acknowledged these problems and informed the Panel that EFA has now appointed a new placement officer who, with effect from the 2003/04 academic year, will liaise with Dutch schools and students direct. If desired, please add any further comments about the collaborative arrangement, including any examples of good practice. The Panel was happy to note close contact between the Dutch and UK programme co-ordinators and the designation of registry staff in each institution to the IDEE provision. As an example of the improved co-ordination of the programme, the Panel observed that the previous problems related to the return of student work once they move to the other institution had been resolved.

6. Programme Aims and Outcomes

Are the programme aims clearly specified? Yes Are the programme learning outcomes clearly described? Yes Do the programme learning outcomes relate to the programme aims? Yes Were any significant concerns about the programme aims and outcomes raised by the Panel or the External Adviser?

No

If yes, please describe below the concerns and the actions taken and the Panel’s final decision. If desired, please add any further comments about programme aims and outcomes, including any examples of good practice. The Education Studies team was congratulated on an exemplary PST. The meeting with students moreover revealed considerable praise for the clarity with which the aims, learning outcomes and assessment for Education Studies modules are articulated. The Panel was however disappointed that the PST for English and Education did not attempt to better integrate the different elements of the programme and initially recommended that the three teams work towards a revised document that better reflects the integration of the subject areas. The Panel was advised that this integration is articulated in the Pathway Guide and on receipt of this document acceded that this was sufficient.

Is the assessment strategy appropriate for the programme aims and outcomes? Yes Were any significant concerns about the assessment strategy raised by the Panel or the External Adviser?

No

If yes, please describe below the concerns, the action taken and the Panel’s decision. If desired, please add any further comments about the assessment strategy, including any examples of good practice. The external adviser commended the teams on an impressive range of assessment strategies and an imaginative approach to addressing the issue of over-assessment. The current practice in the School is to have one non-assessed formative assignment and one summative assignment per 15 credit module.

7. Curricula and Assessment a. Curriculum Design, Content and Organisation

If a periodic review has been undertaken, is there evidence that the curriculum has been kept up-to-date?

Yes

Were any significant concerns about the currency of the curriculum raised by the Panel No


of 50

or the External Adviser? If yes, please describe below the concerns, the action taken and the Panel’s decision. If desired, please add any further comments about the currency of the curriculum, including any examples of good practice. The external adviser commented that the content of both programmes is up to date, relevant and responsive to evaluative comments. Cross-institutional curricular development on the IDEE programme was noted as good practice.

Is the curriculum design of the provision appropriate to the programme’s aims and outcomes?

Yes

Is the curriculum organisation of the provision appropriate to the programme’s aims and outcomes?

Yes

Is the curriculum content of the provision appropriate to the programme’s aims and outcomes?

Yes

Is the provision in line with the subject benchmark or equivalent? Yes Where appropriate, is the provision consistent with the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications (FHEQ)?

Yes

Were any significant concerns about the curriculum design, organisation or content of the provision, or on the way in which the proposal addressed the subject benchmark or FHEQ raised by the Panel or the External Adviser?

Yes

If yes, please describe below the concerns, the action taken and the Panel’s decision. The Panel was concerned that the outcomes for certain Education Studies modules available at different levels in the portfolio, (e.g. research and independent study) were insufficiently differentiated to denote progression. The team acknowledged that there had been a mistake with the range statement included for the research modules, but argued for the difficulties of setting specific outcomes for independent study since it is negotiated on an individual basis. The Panel was moreover assured that generic skills appropriate to level are used in assessment and that level-related expectations are clearly articulated to students. Although the Panel accepted this account, it agreed that SQC would be recommended to monitor the criteria applied to written work when modules are offered at different levels. The Panel thanked the team for submitting revised MSTs for the independent study modules following this discussion to further clarify the differentiation between outcomes. If desired, please add any further comments about the curriculum design, organisation and content of the provision, or the use made of subject or qualification benchmarks, including any examples of good practice. In addition to meeting the benchmarks for Education Studies and English, the IDEE programme meets the rigorous professional standards defined by the Dutch government for Dutch QTS.

b. Assessment

Is the assessment design and practice appropriate for the programme aims and outcomes?

Yes

Were any significant concerns about assessment design and practice raised by the Panel or the External Adviser?

No

If yes, please describe below the concerns, the action taken and the Panel’s decision. If desired, please add any further comments about assessment design and practice, including any examples of good practice. The Panel noted that the portfolio is assessed by a wide range of methods which appropriately reflect the varied learning approaches of a diverse student group and the practical and theoretical elements of the programme. The external examiner has commented that the tasks are well fit for purpose.


of 50

8. Learning Opportunities a. Learning and Teaching

Is the learning and teaching strategy appropriate to the programme aims and outcomes? Yes Are the learning and learning activities appropriate to the programme aims and outcomes?

Yes

Were any significant concerns about the learning and teaching strategy or activities raised by the Panel or the External Adviser?

No

If yes, please describe below the concerns, the action taken and the Panel’s decision. If desired, please add any further comments about learning and teaching strategy or activities, including any examples of good practice. Student feedback both direct to the Panel and through the module evaluation questionnaires, revealed highly favourable comment on the quality of teaching, the level of support offered by subject staff and the wide range of teaching and learning strategies employed on both programmes. Education Studies students were especially complimentary about the clarity and informative nature of the module guides. The Panel noted as good practice the widespread use of WOLF to support the two programmes.

b. Student Progression and Achievement

If a validation has been undertaken, are the entry qualifications appropriate? Yes If a periodic review has been undertaken, is profile of the students’ entry qualifications in line with the specified requirements?

Yes

Were any significant concerns about entry qualifications or their profile raised by the Panel or the External Adviser?

No

If yes, please describe below the concerns, the action taken and the Panel’s decision. If desired, please add any further comments about entry qualifications or profile, including any examples of good practice. The Dutch system requires its students to complete a foundation year prior to commencement on the IDEE programme. Since the programme is taught in English, Dutch students must hold the IELTs level required by the University of Wolverhampton, but UK students are not required to have Dutch language competence. However since this lack of Dutch has caused problems to some students, the programme co-ordinators have agreed to provide language tutoring on an optional basis.

If a validation has been undertaken, are the rates of and trends in student progression satisfactory?

Yes

If a validation has been undertaken, are the rates of and trends in student completion satisfactory?

Yes

Were any significant concerns about the rates of and trends in student progression and completion raised by the Panel or the External Adviser?

No

If yes, please describe below the concerns, the action taken and the Panel’s decision. If desired, please add any further comments about rates of and trends in student progression and completion, including any examples of good practice. Commendable progression was noted for Education Studies. The Panel was pleased to observe that since the interim review, student numbers have revealed IDEE to be in increasingly good health with a total of around a hundred students currently on the programme. UK recruitment, historically the most problematic of the two, saw considerable improvement in 2002 following an active promotional campaign. The Panel also commended the team on a marked improvement in student progression from a position where it had been a cause for concern in 1998/9. This development is attributed to improvements in student support and academic counselling effected in large part by the appointment and continuous efforts of the Dutch-speaking UK co-ordinator.


of 50

If a periodic review has been undertaken, is the level of student achievement satisfactory?

Yes

Were any significant concerns about the level of student achievement raised by the Panel or the External Adviser?

No

If yes, please describe below the concerns, the action taken and the Panel’s decision. If desired, please add any further comments about qualifications awarded or the level of student achievement, including any examples of good practice. Against the figures for combined degrees overall, the results for students graduating with Education Studies as part of their programme are extremely commendable. In common with progression, considerable improvements in IDEE achievement have been observed from a poor position in 1998/9. The external examiner has now commented that IDEE students’ achievement is indistinguishable from other University students’ whilst degree classifications for 2002 actually compare more favourably.

c. Student Support and Guidance

Are the arrangements for admission and student induction satisfactory? Yes Were any significant concerns about admission and student induction raised by the Panel or the External Adviser?

No

If yes, please describe below the concerns, the action taken and the Panel’s decision. If desired, please add any further comments about admission and student induction, including any examples of good practice. The use of tailored inductions at each institution involving students from higher levels has been well received by students on the IDEE programme.

Are the arrangements for student support and guidance satisfactory? Yes Were any significant concerns about student support and guidance raised by the Panel or the External Adviser?

No

If yes, please describe below the concerns, the action taken and the Panel’s decision. If desired, please add any further comments about student support and guidance, including any examples of good practice. The students were extremely positive about the level of support they receive on the Education Studies programme, informing the Panel that tutors are very approachable and accessible, the personal tutoring system operates effectively and the quality of written support is excellent. To further assure the support for students undertaking independent study at Level One, the Panel would however like SQC to monitor their experience and achievement. The Panel was equally confident that the appointment of the UK IDEE co-ordinator and the subsequent collaboration with his Dutch counterpart has resulted in the consolidation of appropriate support frameworks for students on the international degree. The combination of personal tutoring, on-line support and reciprocal visits has produced a high level of student satisfaction.

d. Learning Resources

Is the overall availability of learning resources satisfactory, e.g. learning materials, teaching accommodation, specialist equipment ICT and learning centres?

Yes

Were any significant concerns about learning resources raised by the Panel or the External Adviser?

No

If yes, please describe below the concerns, the action taken and the Panel’s decision.


of 50

If desired, please add any further comments about learning resources, including any examples of good practice. In light of discussions held with Early Childhood Studies and Special Needs students as part of the review of Combined Awards in Education, the Panel was surprised not to encounter similar complaints about insufficient book stocks in the Walsall Learning Centre, since it was the common perception that the problem stemmed from overlap between reading lists. This discrepancy might be partly attributable to the fact that Education Studies tutors encourage students to buy key texts, although the absence of a bookshop from the Walsall campus was noted as a problem. The external adviser commended the teams on the very good use of e-learning and support systems but suggested that the learning centre might additionally develop greater access to e-books.

9. Quality

Are suitable procedures in place for monitoring and evaluating the programme? Yes Has appropriate regard been paid to relevant sections of the QAA’s Code of Practice? Yes Were any significant concerns about monitoring and evaluation procedures or regard to relevant sections of the Code of Practice raised by the Panel or the External Adviser?

Yes

If yes, please describe below the concerns, the action taken and the Panel’s decision. The Panel commended the IDEE team and in particular the UK programme co-ordinator for the considerable progress that had been made towards the effective management and quality assurance of the programme. It was noted that in line with the recommendations of the interim review, a rolling programme of cross-institutional moderation has been established involving the exchange and moderation of IDEE students’ each semester. Subject external examiners receive samples of IDEE work and comparison of IDEE and non-IDEE performance is conducted at the relevant board. The Panel was concerned however, by the apparent lack of involvement by the English team in the moderation and quality monitoring of the programme. There was no evidence that English had made a contribution to the programme action plan and it was confirmed that a representative of the English Department does not attend the award board. The Panel was also of the opinion that a programme of IDEE’s complexity is buried within the Combined Awards system and might be better quality assured as an award in its own right. The School pointed out that IDEE is considered separately at the Combined Awards Board and was of the firm opinion that it remains best situated as a programme within the Combined Awards portfolio. The Panel agreed to accept this view, but will recommend that Education Studies and English teams work in collaboration with EFA to produce a joint action plan that will ensure external evaluation at the level of the subject and the programme meets the Code of Practice on Collaborative Links. If desired, please add any further comments about monitoring and evaluation procedures or the regard paid to relevant sections of the Code of Practice, including any examples of good practice. The School of Education’s approach to annual monitoring and in particular, its method of monitoring action plans is considered exemplary. The Panel was satisfied that the School is working towards meeting the requirements of the Code of Practice on Placements. (For discussion of Dutch management of the IDEE placement see Section 5)

Is there evidence of the role played by External Examiners in curriculum development and quality enhancement?

Yes

Were any significant concerns arising from External Examiners or their reports raised by the Panel or the External Adviser?

No

If yes, please describe below the concerns, the action taken and the Panel’s decision. If desired, please add any further comments about the contribution from External Examiners, including any examples of good practice.


of 50

Is there evidence of the role played by student feedback in curriculum development and quality enhancement?

Yes

Were any significant concerns about the contribution and content of student feedback raised by the Panel or the External Adviser?

No

If yes, please describe below the concerns, the action taken and the Panel’s decision. If desired, please add any further comments about student feedback, including any examples of good practice. It was noted that staff/student consultative meetings are held in Holland and England for IDEE students each semester.

Is there evidence of the role played by staff development in curriculum development and quality enhancement?

Yes

Is there evidence of the role played by peer review in curriculum development and quality enhancement?

Yes

Were any significant concerns about staff development or peer review raised by the Panel or the External Adviser?

No

If yes, please describe below the concerns, the action taken and the Panel’s decision. If desired, please add any further comments about staff development or peer review, including any examples of good practice. The School operates a peer review teaching observation policy. Project supervision has been targeted for staff development during the period of validation and will remain an ongoing area for attention.

10. Identification of issues that have institutional implications

Are there any issues, which have institutional implications?

Yes

If yes, please list these below: The absence of a bookshop on the Walsall campus is considered to be a severe disadvantage for students.

11. Action checklist for ongoing monitoring

Are there any issues the Panel feels should be considered further, developed or monitored?

Yes

If yes, please list these below, allocating for each issue the person or body responsible for closing out the issue, the date by which it must be done and the mechanism for closure. Action Required By Whom By When To be closed out by Education Studies The Panel recommends two areas for ongoing monitoring:

1. That different criteria are applied to students’ written work when the same module is offered at different levels (e.g. research and independent study modules)

2. The experience and achievement of

students undertaking independent study at Level 1.

SQC

Commencing with the next round of annual monitoring.

SQC Annual Monitoring Report


of 50

IDEE The Panel recommends that a joint action plan is developed to ensure that external evaluation and overview at the level of both the subject and the programme meets the Code of Practice on Collaborative Links.

Education Studies and English teams in collaboration with EFA

To be produced as part of the next (2003/04) annual monitoring cycle and incorporated in the annual monitoring report.

Relevant section to be received by SEd and HLSS SQCs and the Standing Panel.

Education Studies/IDEE teams In line with the recommendation made to all of the subject teams contributing to Combined Awards in Education, it is advised that the teams take into account concurrent demands on learning resources when ordering texts.

Subject team in conjunction with subject specific learning centre staff.

Ongoing Monitored on an ongoing basis by SQC through annual monitoring.

Signed (Standing Panel Chair) .........................................................………… Date .................................

Standing Panel Record

of 50

Standing Panel Record Details of Panel and Participants Standing Panel: Education and Health Academic Year: 2002 - 2003 Chair: Diane Peacock Officer: Debbie Hodson

Supporting Officer: Ian Jones Standing Panel members designated to review and re-validate the provision: Kathryn Southworth (HLSS) Lead for the Combined Awards in Education Proposals. Ann Cysewski (SoH) Shaukat Ali (WBS) Independent External Adviser for the Re-validation: Dr Diana Burton, Dean of Faculty of Education, Community and Leisure, Liverpool John Moores University. Professional Body: None involved in the Standing Panel process. Subject/Award Team Representative(s) from School for the Review and Re-validation: Dr Chris Wakeman (Key Proposer for Education Studies) Mr Brendan Bartram (Key Proposer for IDEE) Ms Anne Hollinshead (Senior Lecturer Education studies) Dr Gill Richards (Principal Lecturer for Education Studies) Mr Hugh Somervell (Principal Lecturer for IDEE) Details of Process Undertaken Summary of process: Date Action/meeting 24/10/02 Initial meeting between Standing Panel Chair and School of Education representatives to

discuss the overall provisional schedule of review and validation within the School of Education.

11/11/02 Meeting with G Hurd and A Cooper to discuss the provisional schedule of Standing Panel review and validation work for the 2002/03

15, 24, 28 & 31/01/03 & 04/02/03

Baseroom visits for Combined Awards in Education reviews.

17/02/03 14/03/03

Documentation and external adviser nominations received. Further external adviser nominations requested.

26/03/03 Meetings with students held. 08/04/03 14/04/03

Further external adviser nominations received. Diana Burton, Liverpool John Moores selected.

20/06/03 Meeting with staff and external advisers for Education Studies and IDEE. 08/07/03 IDEE Pathway Guide received. Panel recommendation for revision of the IDEE PST

closed out on the basis of information in the Guide. 15/07/03 External adviser report received from D Burton.


of 50

Documentation: Self Evaluation Document for Education Studies Self Evaluation Document for IDEE Revalidation Document for Education Studies Revalidation Document for IDEE QAA Benchmark Statement Programme Specification Template for Education Studies Programme Specification Document for IDEE Module Specification Templates Memorandum of Co-operation for the IDEE programme IDEE Pathway Guide Adequacy of Documentation: The School expressed a preference to submit a combined review and revalidation document which the Panel accepted on reservation of the right to seek further clarification from the School if necessary. On receipt, it was agreed that the documentation was more than adequate to the purpose and the external adviser commented that it was clear and easy to follow. Attachments: Appendix 1: Module Details Appendix 2: Initial meeting between Standing Panel chair and School of Education representatives to discuss

the overall provisional schedule of review and validation within the School of Education. Appendix 3: Meeting with G Hurd and A Cooper to discuss the provisional schedule of Standing Panel

review and validation work for 2002/03. Appendix 4: Extract from Standing Panel minutes. Appendix 5: Notes from meeting with Education Studies students. Appendix 6: Notes from meeting with IDEE Students Appendix 7: Notes from meeting with the Education Studies staff and external adviser. Appendix 8: Notes from meeting with IDEE staff and external adviser. Appendix 9: Notes from feedback to Award Team. Appendix 10: External adviser report from D Burton, Liverpool John Moores.


of 50

APPENDIX ONE

For BA (Hons) Education Studies New modules validated as part of the revalidation: Module Code Module Title Level Credits Semeste

r Core/Option

ED1002 Comparative Approaches to Education

1 15 1 and 2 Core Option

ED1005 Independent Study 1 15 1 and 2 Core Option ED 2008 Independent Study 2 15 1 and 2 Core Option ED3014 Education, Employment and

Training: Policy and Practice 3 15 2

Core Option

ED3016 Independent Study 3 15 1 and 2 Core Option Existing modules on the award: Module Code Module Title Level Credits Semeste

r Core/Option

ED1113 Introduction to Education 1 15 1 and 2 Core ED1158 Introduction to Education and

Training 1 30 Year

Long Core

ED2001 Achievement in Education: Social Issues

2 15 2 Core Option

ED2005 Individual Achievement in Education

2 15 1 Core Option

ED2252 Beliefs, Values, Politics and the Curriculum


ED2280 Research Methods in Education 2 15 1 and 2 Core Option *Not with ED3843

ED3006 Learning and Teaching 3 15 1 and 2 Core Option ED3007 Educational Professionals and

Organisations 3 15 1 Core Option

ED3843 Practitioner Research Methods in Education

3 15 1 and 2 Core Option *Not with ED2280

ED3860 Project 3 15 1 and 2 Core Option* Not with ED3870

ED3870 Project 3 30 Year Long

Core Option* Not with ED3860

ED3878 Comparative Education 3 15 1 and 2 Core Option Example electives Module Code Module Title Level Credits Semester ED1001 Learning with IT 1 15 1 and 2 ED1161 Learning for Success 1 30 Year Long ED2006 Tutoring Scheme * Not with ED3008 2 15 1 and 2 ED3008 Tutoring Scheme *Not with ED2006 3 15 1 and 2 Deleted modules: Module Code Module Title Level Credits Replaced by IS2244 Independent Study 2 15 ED2008 IS3349 Independent Study 3 15 ED3016


of 50

BA (Hons) English and Education Studies New modules validated as part of the revalidation: Module Code Module Title Level Credits Semeste

r Core/Option

ED1002 Comparative Approaches to Education


ED1003 TESOL 1 1 15 1 and 2 Core ED1004 Introduction to Language

Learning 1 15 1 and 2 Core

ED 2007 TESOL 2 2 15 1 and 2 Core ED 2008 Independent Study 2 15 1 and 2 Core ED3015 TESOL 3 3 30 1 and 2 Core Existing School of Education modules contributing to the programme: N.B. The English modules provided by HLSS are not subject to review and revalidation at this time and are not therefore, listed below. Module Code Module Title Level Credits Semeste

r Core/Option

ED1001 Learning with IT 1 15 1 and 2 Core Option ED1113 Introduction to Education 1 15 1 and 2 Core ED 2001 Social Issues in education 2 15 2 Core Option ED 2005 Individual Achievement 2 15 1 Core Option ED 2006 Tutoring Scheme 2 15 1 and 2 Core Option ED 2252 Beliefs, Values, Politics and the

Curriculum 2 15 1 and 2 Core Option

ED2280 Research Methods 2 15 1 and 2 Core Option ED3860 Education Studies Project 3 15 1 and 2 Core Option Deleted modules: Module Code Module Title Level Credits Replaced by TS1003 TESOL 1 1 15 ED1003 TS1100 Introduction to Language Learning 1 15 ED1004 IS2244 Independent Study 2 15 ED2008 TS3301 TESOL 3 3 15 TS3004 TESOL 4 3 15

30 credit module ED3015


of 50

APPENDIX TWO STANDING PANEL: EDUCATION AND HEALTH CONFIRMED EDUCATION PLANNING MEETING – 24/10/02 Present: Ms Diane Peacock (Chair – Standing Panel) Ms Kathryn Southworth (Deputy Chair – Standing Panel) Dr John Mathias (SEd) Dr Jo Allan (SEd) Miss Debbie Hodson (Standing Panel Officer) Mr Ian Jones (Standing Panel Officer)

Combined Awards

Noted Dr Mathias and Dr Allan indicated that the following five proposals are all part of the Combined Awards programme, and should therefore be considered together. The key proposing team is indicated in brackets: a. Validation of Foundation Degree in Early Childhood Studies (Mr Hugh Somervell, Dr Gill

Richards, Ms Karen Clarke, Mr Paul Wiseman, Ms Jenny French, Ms Sue Fawson.) b. Review and Revalidation of Early Childhood Studies

(Mr Hugh Somervell, Dr Gill Richards, Ms Karen Clarke, Mr Paul Wiseman, Ms Jenny French, Ms Sue Fawson.)

c. Review and Revalidation of Education Studies (Dr Chris Wakeman, Mr Hugh Somervell,

Dr Gill Richards, Ms Anne Hollinshead (on sabbatical semester one) Mr Brendan Bartram.) d. Review and Revalidation of Special Needs and Inclusion (Dr Gill Richards, Mr Hugh

Somervell, Dr Neil Duncan, Mr Steve Prowse.)

e. Review and Revalidation of Education Studies and English (Joint with Education Faculty, Amsterdam) (Dr Gill Richards, Mr Hugh Somervell, Mr Brendan Bartram, Mr Chris Wakeman.)

The name of the Key Proposer for each proposal has been underlined above. Gill Richards is the Principal Lecturer for b, c, d – as these are subjects and Hugh Somervell is the PL for a, and e as these are awards.

Noted Ms Peacock informed Dr Mathias and Dr Allan that the new methodology proposes that the review and revalidation documentation is separated, with a Self Evaluation Document now required for review. The School expressed a desire to present the documentation for review and revalidation together. Dr Mathias informed the group that the School procedure is for documentation to be presented to the School’s Curriculum Development Sub-Committee for consideration five weeks prior to the submission date set by the Standing Panel.

Proposed The School proposed to present a single review and revalidation document to the School’s Curriculum Development Sub-Committee in early January 2003, following which it will be submitted to the Standing Panel in mid-February 2003. The new memorandum of co-operation will be appended to this documentation.

Action Ms D Peacock to confirm this approach is acceptable with the Chair of UQC.


of 50

Noted Given the commonality between these five awards, the Standing Panel will need to give

consideration to what format the Academic Approval Records should take. Dr Mathias suggested that certain sections (e.g. Quality Management & Enhancement, Student Support & Guidance) could be common throughout. Other sections (e.g. Student Achievement, Learning & Teaching, Curriculum Development, Content & Organisation) will be different in each AAR.

Representatives of the Standing Panel are to meet Prof. G. Hurd on 11th November 2002 to discuss

the most appropriate way of administering and documenting the review and re-validation of Combined Awards and the structure of the AARs. It was agreed that, following the meeting, feedback will be given to the School. Advice will also be sought from the Chair and Officer of the Standing Panel for the School of Legal Studies and Wolverhampton Business School, which had a proposal of a similar nature during the 2001/2002 academic year.

Agreed Key proposers from the School to be invited to give a presentation to the full Standing Panel at

10am on Friday 13th December 2002. Included in this will be an explanation from Dr Allan of the roles of subject leaders, subject co-ordinators and award leaders, and how these relate to the Key Proposer.

At this meeting, it should be possible for the Panel to confirm the dates of meetings with staff. It is

anticipated that students meetings will take place the same day as the staff meetings. Noted: As Dr Richards and Mr Somervell are involved in all five awards, the School feel that it would be appropriate for all meetings to take place on the same day so as to best utilise their time. Noted The School stressed that Early Childhood Studies, Education Studies and Special Needs &

Inclusion will need separate external advisors. Ms Peacock informed the School that the external advisors will be asked to raise all issues at the

re/validation meeting. This should prevent the problems that have occurred with a minority of previous validations, where External Advisers raise issues in their reports which had not been raised in the meeting with the team.

Noted In addition to discussing the general issues around these five proposals, the group also discussed

the specific issues around the Foundation Degree in Early Childhood Studies and Education Studies & English in more detail.

Education Studies and English Noted Students begin this programme by studying at Level 0 in the Netherlands, after which is it

determined whether they can progress to the degree. Each year, one semester is studied in the United Kingdom and the other in the Netherlands. The

cohort is approximately half UK-recruited and half Dutch-recruited, and recruitment is buoyant. The entire programme is taught in English.

Successful students on this award will receive a joint degree of BA Education Studies and English

from the University of Wolverhampton. They will also receive an OCR certificate or diploma in TESOL, and HBO Grade 2. Students with the qualification can apply directly to the DfES for British Qualified Teacher Status.

As this award matures there is an increasing level of credit rating and less franchising, resulting in

a truly ‘joint’ award. It was therefore acknowledged by all those present that the Panel team which looks at this proposal should include someone with a sound understanding of credit rating.

Dr Mathias and Dr Allan made clear that the proposal is not to validate the English modules, but to

validate the contribution of English to the programme. The Panel will therefore need to look at English documentation, and Ms. U. Clarke (HLSS) should be present when English is considered.


of 50

Noted There was uncertainty over whether this proposal should be considered by the Overseas Standing

Panel. Action Mr I. Jones to check with Ms. A. Cooper whether the Overseas Standing Panel will be

considering this proposal, or whether it is the responsibility of the SEd/SH Standing Panel.


of 50

APPENDIX THREE

Confirmed STANDING PANEL: EDUCATION AND HEALTH Notes of the meeting between G Hurd, A Cooper and representatives of the SoH/SEd Standing Panel Meeting held on Monday 11th November 2002, at 2pm in MC304 to discuss the provisional schedule of review and validation work for the 2002/03 session. Standing Panel Methodology Noted: G Hurd endorsed the Panel’s efforts to develop more effective methods of workload

management and advised the representatives that the new Validation Handbook will incorporate a section on working flexibly and efficiently.

Discussed: How the Panel might pilot a new, more efficient methodology focussed on critical issues. Agreed: Where a set of indicators from past years convey a reasonable sense of confidence in the

School’s management of its provision, certain areas of enquiry need not be re-visited for every proposal unless indications to the contrary arise from student meetings.

• This approach would involve conducting a mini preliminary audit of the School before moving onto the unique aspects of the proposal. Evidence for this preliminary audit could comprise annual monitoring, external examiners reports/summary report for UQC, AARs, evidence from the retention project and professional body audits.

• The Standing Panel audit would generate a pool of evidence on quality management and student support within the School and the Panel could then concentrate on matters particular to the proposal i.e. curriculum, teaching, learning and assessment and progression. The School might moreover be asked to produce a generic statement on set issues.

• The Panel would need to make the focus for external advisor involvement clear and use discretion on when to follow up in greater detail points of criticism. • It was noted that specific areas for attention would vary from School to School. • Placement learning is a particular issue for both of the Panel’s Schools. • Given the increasing confidence in SQCs, Standing Panels can consider delegating smaller

proposals to them. Any work formally delegated by a Standing Panel is not counted towards the 45 credit allowance.

Proposals for the 2002/03 session

Considered: The proposal groupings and suggested schedules as drawn up at the preliminary meetings with the Schools on the 24th and 28th October.

School Of Education Proposal Group One

Review and Revalidation of: Combined Awards, incorporating Early Childhood Studies, Education Studies, Special Needs and Inclusion and Education Studies and English (Joint with Education Faculty, Amsterdam)

Validation of: Foundation Degree in Early Childhood Studies Agreed: These proposals fit together because of the way in which the subjects are managed in the

School and the fact that they share common modules. However in order to conform to


of 50

the new regulations and academic framework, they will need to be presented as joint/specialist awards.

• Joint programme with Amsterdam to be considered by this Panel rather than the Overseas Panel.

• It was confirmed that separate review and revalidation documents are not necessary. However, if the School presents a combined review and revalidation document, the Standing Panel reserves the right to go back to the team for further information and clarification at a later date.

• A single Self Evaluation Document could be produced explaining issues for the review of all of the subjects involved. Revalidation documentation would then comprise a rationale and separate PSTs for the four proposals outlining the new programme structures.

• Standing Panel will apply the new methodology as agreed at the beginning of the meeting i.e. conduct a preliminary mini School audit based on annual monitoring, external examiners reports, external agencies. Revalidation to focus on curriculum, teaching, learning and assessment and any areas of concern raised by the audit.

• Where existing modules are involved, module guides will be acceptable as submission documents. MSTs must be developed for new or revised modules.

• The Panel may determine the number of external advisors required. The School has stated that separate advisors will be needed for Early Childhood Studies, Education Studies and Special Needs. Subject Leader for the English element of the joint programme with Amsterdam should be invited to the meeting with staff.

• Officer to speak to other members of QASD about the best means to record this process.


of 50

APPENDIX FOUR

Confirmed STANDING PANEL: EDUCATION AND HEALTH Minutes of the meeting held on Friday 25th October 2002 in the Seminar Room, Boundary House, Walsall. 13. Schedule of Work for 2002/03 Received: For information and discussion, the list of proposals for the 2002/03 session forwarded to

Standing Panel by ADP. Noted: An initial planning meeting has been held with senior representatives of SEd on 24th October

and a similar meeting is arranged with SoH for 28th October. The purpose of these meetings is to discuss the proposals coming forward, their scheduling over the year and the documentation required.

School of Education Noted: Issues arising from the meeting with SEd:

• Officer has agreed to check whether the proposed Foundation Degree in Early Childhood Studies should be considered by a special panel and whether the Review and Revalidation of Education Studies and English (Joint with Education Faculty, Amsterdam) should be referred to the Overseas Panel.

• It was agreed that the reviews of the three subjects within Combined Awards (plus the two proposals noted above if referred to the Panel) should be handled collectively by a group of three Panel members. In light of the connection between the five proposals, the School would prefer that the Foundation Degree and Joint Award with Amsterdam be considered by the SEd/SoH Standing Panel.

• The School informed the Panel representatives that it had modified the programme and module

templates for use by its staff. D Peacock agreed to speak to G Hurd about these modifications and also about the best approach towards AAR reportage for the interlinked proposals above. Documentation would be decided following the meeting with G Hurd.

Major Developments in Combined Awards Noted: The Panel had requested a presentation on the key developments in Combined Awards in

preparation for the review and revalidation work for the 2002/03 session. H Somervell agreed to provide this presentation.

Tabled: An accompanying summary paper providing background information on Combined Awards,

details of development and a SWOT analysis. Noted: There are two awards within Combined Awards in the School of Education: B.A. / B.A. (Hons) based on the University’s modular scheme. B.A. / B.A. (Hons) Education Studies and English offered in collaboration with the

Education Faculty Amsterdam (EFA). This is known as the IDEE programme in Holland and the term is used in the University although officially the award does not carry this name.


of 50

Although the two awards are considered at the same award board, they have separate course codes and generate separate award reports. This is as a result of a previous validation in which the School was asked to identify the IDEE students as a discrete group.

(N.B. following confirmation at the 13/12/02 Standing Panel meeting, the minutes were circulated to the senior managers of the two Schools for information. J Allan (SEd) asked the Panel to note ‘that the BA/BA Hons Education Studies and English is part of combined awards based on the University modular scheme - it is NOT a separate award but rather a promoted combination.’ In future, minutes will be sent to the two Schools in draft form so that any factual corrections can be taken to the next meeting. )

Noted: Four subjects managed by the School feed into Combined Awards: Conductive Education Available as specialist only Early Childhood Studies Specialist or combined (joint) Education Studies Combined (joint) only Special Needs and Inclusion in Society Specialist or combined (joint) All subjects are part of the University’s standard undergraduate modular scheme. Noted: Issues with the B.A. / B.A. (Hons) Education Studies and English delivered jointly with

Amsterdam. • Potential future problems with grading and compensation due to new academic

regulations. • Students will be allowed compensation for the UoW modules since these are not

core to the Dutch side of the programme. Students may choose not to re-sit elements of the Dutch award and forfeit the HBO qualification associated with it.

• Half of the UoW modules contributing to the award are owned by HLSS and will need to go through their structures. Review therefore involves a three way process.

Noted: Combined Awards in Education attracts a lot of non-standard non-A Level entry. Noted: The majority of students combine within the School. English and Psychology are favoured

options from outside. Of the School’s Combined Awards subjects, Early Childhood Studies has been especially popular over the past two years. There are currently 400 full-time FTEs managed by SEd on the combined awards programme. Part-time provision has been a further area of considerable growth. Resourcing and staffing should be a key area of Panel concern when conducting the review and revalidation

Action: The documentation to include statistics on the configuration of students across

Combined Awards. Noted: Extension of collaborative links provision of the PCE Cert Ed programme is anticipated. Discussed: The impact on Combined Awards across the institution if subject combinations are to become

more restricted and pathways more coherent. Noted: The Chair thanked H Somervell for his comprehensive briefing.


of 50

Confirmed STANDING PANEL: EDUCATION AND HEALTH Minutes of the meeting held on Friday 13th December 2002 in the Board Room, Boundary House, Walsall. 21. Revised Methodology for Review and (Re)Validation 21.1 Verbal update from Panel Chair and Deputies following meeting with G Hurd. Noted: Both Schools have been given a certain amount of choice in how/ whether they group

particular proposals and whether they produce combined or separate sets of documentation. Noted: Key change for the Panel is the shift towards an audit process that tracks issues through to

their resolution. This will have implications for the AARs, which must increasingly identify key issues in the main body and refer back to supporting evidence in the appendices. There will be no substantial changes to the way in which meetings are arranged, but external advisors must be alerted to the need to raise at the meeting all issues that they wish to discuss in their report.

21.2 Schedule of proposals revised to reflect the new methodology. SEd Proposal Group One: Combined Awards: Early Childhood Studies Education Studies Review and Revalidation: Special Needs & Inclusion

Education Studies & English (Joint with Education Faculty, Amsterdam)

Validation: Foundation Degree in Early Childhood Studies Noted: School to decide how many separate documents and PSTs will be produced.

• K Southworth as lead Panel member to determine the number of external advisors required. The School has however stipulated that separate advisors will be needed for the three subject areas. • It is useful for Panel members to conduct joint baseroom visits wherever possible.

Action: H Somervell to take the draft schedule back to the School, discuss it with the proposers

and return the annotated updated version to D Hodson. Feedback also to be given on the format of the documentation (i.e. how many separate documents) and the timescale for its receipt

Confirmed STANDING PANEL: EDUCATION AND HEALTH Minutes of the meeting held on Friday 7th February 2003 in the Video Conference Room, Boundary House, Walsall. 33. School of Education Group One: Combined Awards


of 50

Received: Verbal update and tabled summary reports on baseroom visits. Written summary report from K Southworth presented to Panel by D Peacock in K Southworth’s absence.

Noted: The Panel team divided the Combined Awards subjects between themselves with some

overlap and agreed to pursue different parts of the baseroom documentation. The following key points emerged:

Education Studies

• Revalidation to address arrangement of developing numeracy in 5 modules but only assessing it in one.

• Imbalanced student numbers on modules with multiple iterations. • High failure rate in some modules. • Apparent disparity between workload and credit volume between modules.

Kathryn Southworth: Visits: 15th January & 4th February. Education Studies and IDEE

General • Low student achievement in SEd Combined Awards manifested in high module

failure rates and numbers of certs/dips awarded. • Seminar class sizes. • Attendance problems.

IDEE • Student achievement very variable from year to year.

Noted: By SEd staff present at the meeting, that a big improvement in recruitment to IDEE could skew these statistics. However if fluctuating numbers are affecting quality and standards then this is clearly an issue for the Panel.

• Competition in light of new EFA collaboration with Strathclyde. • Recruitment and retention of English students • Participation of English in the monitoring of the Award.

Noted: Each of the reports identified follow-up required. Action: S Ali to e-mail his summary report to D Hodson and D Hodson to then forward all three

reports to H Somervell as the team’s initial observations.

Confirmed STANDING PANEL: EDUCATION AND HEALTH Minutes of the meeting held on Friday 14th March 2003 in WA030 Boardroom, Walsall. Matters Arising

Preliminary audit of the Schools of Education and Health conducted from the 2001/02 AARs.

Noted: D Peacock had agreed to analyse the information extracted by the officers and to work towards a bullet-pointed summary statement for each School. On reflection, the nature of the information did not lend itself to the production of definitive statements. It was noted that many strengths in student guidance, learning resources and quality management and


of 50

enhancement were identified in the AARs for both Schools. The following minor themes did however emerge and will need careful ongoing scrutiny:

• Placements • Careers guidance • Tutorial support for Open Learning provision (SoH in particular) • The use of WOLF

It was also noted that certain subject areas covered by the audit reappear on the current schedule eg. Early Childhood Studies and Health Studies. Any issues raised should be borne in mind by the designated Panel teams.

Noted: The Panel was additionally reminded to bear in mind the requirements of the SENDA and

Race Equality Amendment Act when considering proposals, especially when looking at student support and guidance and progression and achievement.

Agreed: To close out the action relating to the audit of AARs on the basis of this update. 51. School of Education Group One: Combined Awards Received: A verbal update on progress since the last meeting. Noted: The designated Panel members have conducted six baseroom visits in total, but there has been

little opportunity to collate and discuss the findings. The summary notes from the baseroom were forwarded to the School and a response provided to the issues identified.

• A full set of review and revalidation documentation has been forwarded to the Panel for each of the subjects within Combined Awards, plus validation documentation for the Foundation Degree in Early Childhood Studies.

• Three external advisor nominations have been submitted, but since the School has stipulated that three advisors are needed in order to provide subject expertise in Education Studies, Early Childhood Studies and Special Needs & Inclusion, the nominations provide the Panel with no choice.

Action: H Somervell to go back to the School and request additional nominees. Noted: Meetings with students have been arranged for 26th March.

Confirmed STANDING PANEL: EDUCATION AND HEALTH Minutes of the meeting held on Friday 2nd May 2003 in WA030 Boardroom, Walsall. 61. Update on outstanding actions and those closed out during or since the meeting of 14/03/03.

51. School of Education Group One:Combined Awards K Southworth’s advice on additional external adviser nominations forwarded to G Richards 25/03/03 and additional nominations received. Selected by Chair’s action 14/04/03. Action closed.

67. School of Education Group One: Combined Awards 67.1 Student meetings held on 26th March


of 50

Received: For information, the notes from four separate meetings held with students from Education Studies, Early Childhood Studies, Special Needs & Inclusion and IDEE. Education Studies and Early Childhood Studies Meetings led by A Cysewski. Noted: The following points emerged:

• The students interviewed were found to be open and positive about their experiences of the two courses.

• The only negative issue to emerge from Early Childhood Studies was the availability of learning texts. Education Studies students had no problems with learning resources and felt that the availability of Education Studies texts compared favourably with modules they were taking in other Schools.

• Both groups of students were extremely positive about the level of support received from teaching staff. Support extends to the reading of drafts for assessed work. Students are aware of study skills support available from the Learning Centre and although Early Childhood Studies students do not make use of this, an Education Studies student had found it very useful in developing writing skills.

• Both groups confirmed that they are well-supported on practice placements. • The quality and clarity of written information (e.g. modules guides) was regarded as good by

the Education Studies students. • No major issues of concern for the Panel emerged.

Special Needs & Inclusion and IDEE Meetings led by K Southworth:

• Both groups of students were very pleased with their courses and with the level of support received from lecturers, in particular. The Panel representatives were however concerned that staff read drafts of Special Needs & Inclusion work at Level 3.

• The accessibility of the Walsall campus to staff and students with disabilities was noted as an issue of concern. Improvements are taking time to implement and only two rooms on the whole campus are accessible. There are also problems with access to the Learning Centre.

• Both groups were broadly supportive of the curriculum and approaches to learning and teaching, but Special Needs & Inclusion students are perhaps not as well prepared for the research component as they might be.

• It was noted that although numbers of texts per student appear to be good, this does not take into account the fact that students from different years and courses are competing for them. The same point emerged from the Early Childhood Studies students. P Collins agreed to take this point back to the Learning Centre, but it was also suggested that tutors might help to alleviate the problem by recommending alternative texts.

• Management of placements for the IDEE programme was identified as a problem, but responsibility rests with a central agency, rather than academic staff or EFA. Start dates are delayed for many students and there is an assumption that all students speak Dutch. The issue of language competency could be overcome by assigning English students to international schools.

• The Panel queried whether a course of IDEE’s complexity is buried in Combined Awards and needs more complex arrangements for quality assurance.

67.2 Selection of external advisers. Noted: Following the receipt of additional nominations, three external advisers have been selected by

Chair’s action: Education Studies and IDEE: Diana Burton, Liverpool John Moores University

Special Needs and Inclusion in Society: Lesley Dee, University of Cambridge. Early Childhood Studies: Maggie Stephenson, University of Sunderland

67.3 Update on progress with arrangements for the re-validation meeting.


of 50

Noted: The officer is attempting to secure a date in early June. If it is not possible to find a common date for all involved, two separate revalidation events may be arranged.

Confirmed

STANDING PANEL: EDUCATION AND HEALTH. Minutes of the meeting held on 18th July 2003 in the WA Board Room, Walsall Campus. 92 School of Education Group One: Combined Awards 92.1 Meeting with Education Studies staff and External Advisor Received The draft notes of the meeting held with the Education Studies staff and External Advisor on

20th June 2003 were received for information. 92.2 Meeting with IDEE staff and External Advisor Received The draft notes of the meeting held with IDEE staff and the External Advisor on 20th June

2003. Notes The Panel feel that the IDEE programme is innovative and students are very satisfied with the

programme overall, with the exception of the management of placements. As a result of concerns expressed, a member of IFA staff in Amsterdam will take direct responsibility for placements.

It was noted by the Panel that this award is offered by two universities in separate countries, and between two schools (SEd and HLSS) within the University of Wolverhampton. In order to ensure that appropriate moderation is carried out at the level of both the subject and the programme, the Standing Panel have asked the Education Studies and English teams in collaboration with EFA to draw up a joint action plan. The IDEE team has supplied the Panel with an IDEE Handbook which gives more detailed information than the programme specification. The Panel felt that the Handbook is a very useful document. The Handbook includes details on the criteria of requiring students to have A’ level English and gives useful information on Harvard referencing. The Panel felt it important to note that Harvard referencing is not used in English Literature.


of 50

APPENDIX FIVE

Confirmed STANDING PANEL SCHOOL OF EDUCATION AND HEALTH 2002/2003

Record of Standing Panel discussions with students in School of Education

Proposal Education studies review/revalidation Present Ann Cysewski and Shaukat Ali- student:- 3 year 1, 3 year 2, 1 year 1 Purpose Student interviews Venue Video conference room, Boundary house, Walsall Date/Time 26 March 2003/3.45

STANDING PANEL QUESTIONS

RESPONSES MADE

Curriculum Design, Content & Organisation: 1. Did the course meet your expectations? (e.g. flexibility/choice/content) 2. Do you have any comments on the timetable or workload arrangements? 3. How do you feel the workload compares between different modules of the same credit volume?

• Most students were from combined studies, and were mainly from SSPAL and HLSS. Their choice of combing education is linked to career aspirations • The majority of students found the course met their expectations and favourably disposed towards the provision.

• The workload was thought to be balanced across modules and manageable and gets better in later years. • SED modules were praised for being clear in their aims, learning outcomes and assessment. Students felt they knew exactly what was expected of them, and could plan their studies accordingly. • Guides were very good, clear and informative; a welcome contrast to some


of 50


RESPONSES MADE

Teaching, Learning & Assessment: 4. Can you outline the support systems in place to assist you with your studies? (What help is available and how are you made aware of it?) 5. Do you have formative assessment during your programme? 6. What are your thoughts about assignments that have pass/fail criteria? 7. What technology is used to support learning? Do you access any support on WOLF? Are whiteboards/powerpoint etc used?

other schools. • Tutors provide one-to-one tutorials, and offer to read drafts of work for

assessment. • Tutors tell students what help is available. • Students can make appointments to see tutors. They can call in to see them whenever they are in their office. The tutors are very approachable and

accessible. • Students have personal teachers • There is also help in the learning centres from study skills advisors. One

student, who had been advised by the tutors to use this service, found this very helpful in improving writing skills.

• Extensive feedback is received on assignments • Students can hand in draft work and receive feedback. • Feedback is also received on work that is presented in class.

• Not many assessments have pass/fail, those that do are mostly practice

placements for which students gain a signature for having attended. Students felt it was appropriate for this to be assessed on a pass/fail basis and thought it would be difficult to grade.

• Students found the IT module helpful. • WOLF is widely used across modules for lecture notes and handouts.

Students found this very useful, as they could go over the content of the lesson in their own time.

• Some staff use powerpoint, other not. • Students were satisfied with the quality of teaching.


of 50


RESPONSES MADE

8. Do you have any placements as part of your programme? What preparation did you receive for the placement? Student Progression & Achievement: 9. Are there any modules that are particularly easy/difficult? Student Support & Guidance: 10. Do students have a personal teacher? 11. What support is there over the summer if you have to retrieve assessments? Learning Resources:

12. What are your thoughts about the availability of texts to support your studies?

Are you recommended to purchase any texts?

• Students access placements as part of the programme, and can usually chose

from a list of options to have a placement nearer to their home. • As noted under 3, expectations are made clear, and students know exactly what

is expected of them. Written guidance is issued before the placement. • The placement area also know what is expected • There is equity within modules at different levels, the workload is similar

across different modules. • One student stated that at level 3 she was starting to use journals to support her

work, and had used mostly textbooks in years one and two. • Several students felt that it would be too much to be expected to use journals

in years one and two, there was already enough to do learn. • The course was quite effective for those with clear career goals • Yes students have a personal teacher. They would be expected to them each

semester, but also had access to them more often if they wanted. • Students can contact teachers and make appointments to see them • There was ample stock of books for educations students, but not so good for

sports related books. • Students are recommended to buy one book, which has been well used and

helpful throughout education studies.


of 50


RESPONSES MADE

Quality Management & Enhancement: 13. In what way does the staff gather the views of students? 14. Can you tell me about student representation on Committees? Students were asked if they had any other comments or wished to raise anything else.

• There is an opportunity to evaluate sessions at the end of each session. • Students were initially unclear about other mechanisms for course evaluation

and student representation. As the students were on combined awards, they did not have a common peer group, and did not have a group representative, as they were had different peer groups for each module.

• When asked specifically about the student/staff consultative committee, students had heard of this and one had a copy of the most recent minutes, though the students in combined studies did not usually attend this.

• Staff welcome student comments. Students did not have any additional comments, and reiterated their satisfaction with the programme.


of 50

APPENDIX SIX


Record of Standing Panel discussions with students in School of Education

Proposal IDEE Present Kathryn Southworth (Standing Panel Deputy Chair), Debbie Hodson (Standing Panel Officer) 8 students (1 second year, 7 third years,

including 1 English, 1 Finnish and 6 Dutch students) Purpose Review and revalidate the IDEE programme as part of the review and revalidation of Combined Awards in Education Venue WLB02 Walsall Date/Time 26 March 2003 3.30-4.30


RESPONSES MADE

Curriculum Design, Content & Organisation: What were your reasons for choosing the course and/or the University? Did the course meet your expectations? (e.g. flexibility/choice/content)

• The English student had lacked the A Level vocational subject required for

Primary Teaching Training and been attracted by the well-laid out prospectus and the variety of the course. It was noted that IDEE is not listed in the UCAS handbook as an international programme. The Dutch students responded as follows:

• Identified the course from a book of programmes in the Netherlands. • Interested in studying English with another subject and had discovered course

on a CDRom provided by tutor. • Travelled to Ireland previously and attracted by the broad basis of the course. • Broadly, the response was yes. Students had been given the opportunity to

study abroad and to develop their knowledge of the language and culture as well as undergo self-development


of 50

How relevant is what you are doing to your future aspirations? (e.g. career or further study). Teaching, Learning & Assessment: What help is provided in modules to support study skills? Did any English students on the programme undertake the Dutch Language Competence training offered in Holland?

well as undergo self-development. • Many of the students agreed that the Education Studies, TESOL and English

elements of their programme had seemed separate at first, but were coming together during the current term.

• There was some divergence of opinion in the value of the foundation year in Holland. Being taught in English and the guidance on essay-writing and the HARVARD system were found to be good, but some students felt that a lot of the content wasn’t relevant. Others could see the links in retrospect and thus considered the year useful.

• The students complained of limited choice with the English modules and in particular, the reduction in the number of options. They acknowledged that all English students were affected by these changes. Literature modules were found to be difficult, especially since tutors tend to assume that everyone in the group is a literature specialist.

• Most of the students would appreciate the opportunity to access ECS or perhaps psychology modules, especially since many Education Studies modules are not included on the list from which they can choose.

N.B. The students would like the Panel to pursue the question of whether they could still graduate with a combined Education/English degree having taken, for example, an ECS module. • The majority thought that the course would be useful for their future plans.

Three of the group don’t want to teach. One of these was interested in the sociology of education, one possibly in translation and one has yet to decide.

• It is possible that the teaching qualification achieved through this course will not be recognised in Finland. This will be determined by the Finnish Ministry of Education.

• A mature student who hadn’t taken an access course had found support for

study skills good in both England and Holland. Learning for Success and Research Methods modules were identified as especially good.

• The one English student hadn’t taken this and felt that training needs to be


of 50

How would you describe the quality of teaching your receive? What sort of feedback do you receive for assessed work? Does this include formative feedback on drafts? Student Progression & Achievement: Student Support & Guidance: What support and sources of advice are available to students when at home in Holland over the summer? What sort of tutorial support and guidance was available?

available throughout the programme to be useful. The Dutch students agreed with this and noted that English is commonly used in Amsterdam. • Language skills can however cause problems with School placements because

students are sometimes told that they aren’t wanted if they can’t speak Dutch. The usual approach is to team a native English speaker with a Dutch student.

• Key differences were noted between arrangements in Holland, where groups

are smaller and composed solely of IDEE students and England, where IDEE students are part of much larger groups. The Dutch students did not appear to have any problems with this, however.

• The English student felt that academic support in Holland compared unfavourably with that in England. The Dutch students pointed out cutbacks in teaching staff and argued that staff are willing to help when they have the time.

• All of the students were quite clear that they neither expect nor want

comments on draft work. If they are really stuck, they would however expect some initial advice on the approach to a piece of work.

• The students were in general satisfied with the nature and speed of feedback. They generally receive feedback before the next assignment on a given module. It was however noted that students have to pay to have their marked work sent over to England from Holland, whereas B Bartram either sends or brings over work from England personally.

No questions asked under this section. • EFA is closed for five/six weeks over the summer, so no-one is available in

person. Dutch tutors do however give their phone numbers to students. • Most of the students felt either uncomfortable or unable to challenge marks

with which they were dissatisfied. Several of the students feared that this would affect the tutor’s views of them and would prefer a more formal


of 50

Placements To what extent were you satisfied with the quality of placements? Were placements arranged effectively? Did you receive sufficient support on your placements?

mechanism of seeking a second opinion. A couple of students said that they would challenge

• a mark and found this easier the better they knew the tutor. • It was noted that anonymous marking is not used in Holland but would have

little effect since the groups are so small and everyone knows one another and their work. Groups in England are larger and more anonymous.

• The students would also like feedback to be monitored as it can be strange on occasions.

• The students expressed dissatisfaction with the management of the placements,

but were keen to point out that this is not the fault of the IDEE tutors who do everything in their power to help. EFA organises the placements through a central agency which deals with placements for all students and appears to overlook the fact that IDEE includes non-Dutch students. For example, letters are sent out in Dutch and English students are not assigned to international schools. This is made worse by the misconception amongst some Dutch school tutors that non-Dutch speakers are of no use to them since pupils won’t be able to cope.

• It was clarified that whilst on placement, students have a link tutor in their allocated school, an EFA co-ordinator and an EFA tutor. There was concern that link teachers frequently fail to receive the placement handbook before students arrive, if at all. The students had never met their co-ordinators, but the EFA tutors are IDEE staff who go into the schools to assess them.

• One student had encountered significant problems with their placement and was dissatisfied to be told to make the best of it. Part of the problem seemed to be the fact that this had been referred to the EFA co-ordinator, rather than the EFA tutor.

• One student felt that given the heavy workload in the third year, a quality learning experience was compromised by the inclusion of a placement. Most of the students would however have liked the last placement of 5 weeks to be longer. Although they believed their skills to have developed, they were nervous to become teachers on the basis of the relatively small amount of teaching experience throughout the course as a whole. One recommendation was to start the term earlier (i.e. beginning of September) to align it better with the Dutch school year and make placement arrangements easier.


of 50

Learning Resources: What are your views on library provision (such as opening hours, user support and Book stocks)? Quality Management & Enhancement: In what ways do the staff gather the views of students? Are there any other points you would like to raise? Would you recommend this programme?

• When questioned, the students confirmed that there was no problem with the award having two leaders. Both are highly accessible by e-mail regardless of location and in constant contact with one another. • Resources were considered to be good in general, although some books are in

Dutch. Efforts are underway to enlarge the IDEE section in the library. • Although different borrowing arrangements are in place in Holland and

England e.g. red dot copy of most books in Holland and popular books on short loan in England, no access problems were reported. Students also have access to learning resources at the University of Amsterdam.

• Students have plenty of opportunities to give their opinions. • There is overlap between the content of some modules, for example, Social

Linguistics, Variety in English and Language and Power. Also between How Language Works and Textual Analysis.

• Problems with mail going to the wrong country. This is an administrative issue with EFA and not is not connected to the IDEE tutors. The students had found no communication problems between English and Education Studies staff.

• A unanimous YES.


of 50

APPENDIX SEVEN


Record of Standing Panel discussions with staff in School of Education

Proposal: Education Studies (Combined Awards in Education) Present: J Allan (SEd), J Avis (SEd), B Bartram (SEd), A Hollinshead (SEd), H Somervell (SEd), C Wakeman (SEd), D Burton (External Adviser), K

Southworth (Standing Panel), A Cysewski (Standing Panel), S Ali (Standing Panel) and D Hodson (Standing Panel Officer). Purpose: Revalidation Venue WT210, Walsall Campus Date/Time 2.30-3.30 20th June 2003


RESPONSES MADE

General Questions: Can you describe the specific qualities that characterise the course and state how these qualities are communicated to applicants? Please clarify whether there are any core modules at Levels 2 and 3.

• The programme provides a grounding in educational theory covering the

philosophy, psychology and sociology of education. The core modules at Level 1 provide an introduction and basic understanding of these three key areas.

• There are two core modules at Level 1: ED1113 a 15 credit module that runs

twice a year and ED1158 a year long 30 credit module. ED1113 is for IDEE students only, designed to provide them with the necessary prerequisites within the six months they spend in England. These are the only core modules in the programme.

• It was clarified that ED1001 and ED1161 are elective modules offered University-wide.

• ED3860 is a 15 credit core option project module available for IDEE students.


of 50


RESPONSES MADE

Curriculum Design, Content & Organisation: How is breadth and depth of study achieved within the Curriculum? How far do logistical considerations (timetabling, group size, accommodation, etc) limit choice and combination? To what extent does the curriculum take into account the different backgrounds of the students accessing the programme? Do Education Studies students possess a cohort identity? What evidence of progression is there between levels? (The outcomes, for instance, of the independent studies modules between levels 1,2 & 3 are not that different.) Where modules are actually delivered simultaneously, as with research methods at levels 2

• Breadth is achieved through the range of areas covered within the core

modules. Once students have gained the prerequisites, they diversify and become more specialised in their chosen areas of interest thereby achieving depth.

• The three key areas are also re-visited at a deeper level in years two and three. • A personal tutoring system is used to agree programmes of study with

individual students based on their proposed choices. • The team regards the diversity of student backgrounds as an asset rather than a

handicap, since it adds to the richness of the sessions. • Staff believe that they are good at supporting and engaging with students. In

addition to the taught sessions, subject activities are clearly identified which allow students access to necessary subject knowledge in instances where they do not meet the pre-requisites.

• The fact that Education Studies modules are accessed by students on programmes across the University is believed to have a beneficial effect in encouraging students to share opinions and question existing values.

• Although Education Studies is not offered as a specialist programme, its

students do have a sense of identity in studying a common subject. • Education Studies has a newsletter, staff/student consultative meetings and a

personal tutoring system all of which promote a cohort identity. • The personal tutoring system applies only to students owned by SEd, but all

students accessing Ed Studies modules have access to the other elements above.

• It was confirmed that although the module content may be similar between

certain modules, the outcomes are differentiated by level. In particular, greater h i d i i l l i i d l


of 50

& 3 the outcomes seem to be the same. The University at Academic Board, has said that synthesis and critical analysis is expected at Level 3. • On learning from the Panel that the range statements for two research modules


RESPONSES MADE

modules are validated at a unique level, unless there is good reason. How does this square with the current practice? Can you explain the distinction between the 15 and 30 credit project modules? Can you provide examples of how research and scholarship have informed Curriculum

ED2280 and ED3843 are the same, the module leader acknowledged that incorrect information had been included in the documentation for the Level 3 module. • It was argued that it is difficult to set down in a MST the specific outcomes for

an independent study module since these are negotiated on an individual basis with each student. The staff confirmed however, that they use the generic skills

appropriate to the level in assessment and explain clearly to students the level- related expectations when the work is negotiated. Independent study at level 1 provides greater breadth to the curriculum, whilst at levels 2 and 3 the depth of analysis and critical thinking is increased. • The 15 credit module is offered to meet the needs of IDEE students plus non-

IDEE students failing the September resit for whom the School is required to facilitate a project towards an honours degree.

• The 30 credit year-long module affords students the opportunity to collect meaningful data and undertake in-depth analysis. It also alleviates the problems of a limited timescale for data collection which stems from the non- synchronisation of the university and school year. (On the 15 credit module a research proposal is required in June of the second year to allow maximum time for data collection).

• It was noted that during the current academic year, students on the 30 credit module hve been asked to submit parts of their project along the way and undertake an informal viva four weeks in advance of submission. Some superb work has been produced and this has been linked to the introduction of the viva and the extension of the time period for the project as a whole.

• The School sought advice from K Price regarding the word length of a 15/30 credit project.


of 50

Development?

• Research and scholarship is consistently fed into the curriculum and underpins the work undertaken with students. There is evidence of the expertise of each


RESPONSES MADE

Teaching, Learning & Assessment: The problem of over-assessment identified by the self-evaluation document is an issue everywhere. How has this been addressed through the review? Graham Gibbs believes we have too many outcomes to our modules & therefore cannot assess them in reality. What is your response? If specific assessment criteria are over-ridden by the general criteria, why state them at all? How would you respond to the observation that numeracy and problem solving are not extensively covered compared with other key skills? Is there any flexibility in the weekly programme?

member of the programme team in the curriculum: comparative education (B Bartram), psychology (C Wakeman), social policy (A Hollinshead), professional studies (J Avis) plus generic framework from H Somervell. • Efforts have been made across the School to cut down on the volume of

assessment. Current practice for a 15 credit module is formative feedback halfway through a module and one summative assessment at the end. Staff have also tried to increase the range of assessment types so that no students are dis/advantaged.

• The team has tried to use as few module outcomes as is appropriate, but tied these into the programme outcomes and benchmarks.

• Feedback from students reveals that they are happy with the assessment strategy and can see the interlinking between modules and the coherence of the scheme.

• It was clarified that general criteria are written for the whole School as a

quality assurance mechanism to ensure consistency of requirement for a given level. They provide the framework and contextualisation into which the module/assignment-specific criteria fit.

• QCA key skills have been adopted recently. • It was noted that testing numeracy is difficult, but that it is probably assessed

more than the grid on page 63 of the submission document would suggest. For example, some students might have this skill tested through their project.

• There is a rider in the module guide which indicates that the weekly

programme is subject to change and students are happy with this arrangement. If a good interactive discussion develops, tutors have the flexibility to use the time allocated for study activity


of 50

time allocated for study activity.


RESPONSES MADE

Student Progression & Achievement: With reference to targets, please describe trends in recruitment and retention during the last 3 years. How does the ethnic mix of Education Studies students benchmark with other programmes in the University? What steps have been taken to improve the pass rate on the project module? Student Support & Guidance:

• It was acknowledged that Education Studies rides a little on the back of Early

Childhood Studies but that recruitment has nevertheless been very strong. It has met targets and had viable cohorts.

• Progression has been good at over 93%. Considerable effort has been invested in pastoral guidance to secure this low dropout rate.

• The ethnic mix is reflective of the demographic makeup of the West Midlands.

The area of weakness is the lack of men, especially afro-caribbean men but this is universal across the country.

• In addition to Dutch students, IDEE attracts applicants from a range of countries including Latvia, Lithuania and Canada.

• Improved support is now available to students. • In terms of general study skills support, the following is available: School pays for two study skills supporters in the learning centre. Staff ensure that students are aware of this support and monitor the take-up rate. • If a tutor notes problems in a student’s work, they will be advised verbally or

through the feedback sheet of available support. If this occurs across modules a cause for complaint form will be completed and the student directed to support mechanisms.

• Learning for Success module focuses on study skills. • For the project module specifically, there are pre-requisite modules and

themed workshops to develop skills. • It was noted that within the School as a whole, an holistic approach is used to

study skills development so that they are inherent to all programmes rather than bolt-on additions.

• The Panel considered that all relevant areas had been covered.


of 50


RESPONSES MADE

Learning Resources: What kind of overview is taken of LRs in the subject area? How is the funding distributed and monitored? How does the subject ensure that texts which may be required on several modules are available in sufficient quantities & at times of peak demand? Students have only identified one text which they were advised to purchase. What is your policy on the student purchase of texts? Quality Management & Enhancement: The Panel gained the impression that the students they interviewed did not have group reps or attend consultative meetings. Could the team please clarify the arrangements with regard to both student representation and feedback on MEQs. How does the subject ensure that it meets or will meet the requirements of the Code of Practice on Placements? What are the major challenges posed?

• There is a dedicated member of learning centre staff to whom reading lists are

submitted for the next semester. • The School adds a significant sum to its allocated allowance and ensures that

texts are purchased on a one to ten ratio of students registered on a module (rather than a ratio set against FTEs). It was noted that there are fewer complaints regarding access to texts than previously.

• Module leaders consistently encourage students to buy key texts and also to

sell them through the Education Studies newsletter. • The absence of a bookshop on campus is considered a severe disadvantage.

N.B. Panel to raise this as a University issue.

• There are student reps at each level and these are invited to attend both award

staff/student and subject staff/student consultative meetings. The latter are held twice a year and the second meeting provides responses to issues raised at the first.

• Students are also represented through the Education Studies newsletter. MEQs go through the standard University procedures. The team plans for the coming academic year to use the first staff/student consultative meeting to provide feedback on any issues emerging from the process. • The team was confident that it will have no problems in meeting the

requirements of the Code. The School has considerable experience in arranging and managing placements and its practice is deemed exemplary.

• A Hollinsworth is involved with the Active Community Fund and has worked on the development of a University-wide volunteer-based placement module. Through this, around 400 potential placements are available drawing on a wide range of providers from the Jenny Lee Centre to Wolverhampton F.C. It was agreed that a robust system of compulsory training is required to ensure that students are briefed in the health & safety and legislative requirements


of 50

students are briefed in the health & safety and legislative requirements associated with their placement.


RESPONSES MADE

It is good to see teaching observation procedures are in place – are they universally applied across programme teams? Does the team send the action plan to external examiners as a response to their comments?

• Two systems are currently in operation. 1. Formal bi-annual appraisal. 2. An

informal, voluntary system where staff pair up and feed back to one another on the other’ s performance based around criteria set out in a proforma. It was noted that the University is bringing in more structured procedures at the institutional level.

• Staff also engage in team teaching which is considered within the School to be a more effective means of professional development.

Yes


of 50

APPENDIX EIGHT


Record of Standing Panel discussions with staff in School of Health/Education

Proposal: IDEE Present: J Allan (SEd), B Bartram (SEd), H Somervell (SEd), C Wakeman (SEd), U Clark (HLSS), D Burton (External Adviser), K Southworth (Standin

Panel), A Cysewski (Standing Panel), S Ali (Standing Panel) and D Hodson (Standing Panel Officer). Purpose: Revalidation Venue WT210, Walsall Campus Date/Time 3.30-4.30 20th June 2003


RESPONSES MADE

General Questions: Are IDEE graduates in any way disadvantaged in the employment market compared with graduates from more conventional teaching degrees? The interim validation report asked for careful consideration of the cost/benefit of continuing the programme. Could you summarise the costs and benefits?

• All of the 29 or 30 students who finished last year were either employed or

pursuing further study by the end of September. • Graduates can automatically claim European QTS and are considered by staff

to be successful in seeking employment because they can bring a different perspective to their work. It was confirmed that schools do recognise the European qualification.

• The term cost was felt to be misleading. • Student numbers for the last academic year and indications for the next reveal

the award to be in increasingly good health. Recruitment from the Dutch side remains buoyant and there are 15 British students amongst the total figure of 90/100 currently on the programme.

• Financing staff visits overseas is an occasional cost and there is the logistical


of 50


RESPONSES MADE

Where does this programme sit in the Taxonomy of Collaborative Links? If it is a joint programme, why does it still franchise? This is a programme not an award. Is there an argument for it being an award with discrete award external? Curriculum Design, Content & Organisation: Given the fact that curriculum issues had already been covered in the Education Studies meeting and no areas of concern emerged from the student meeting, the Panel had no further questions under this section.

issue of returning feedback to students. • The School maintains a 15 credit project module largely for IDEE but this is

also accessed by part-time students and those unsuccessful at re-sit and is therefore of wider use within the School’s portfolio.

• One cost from the student perspective is the requirement to move every six months which challenges relationships and continuity. These drawbacks are however more than balanced by the benefits of their experiences overseas. The option of alternating countries on a yearly rather than a six monthly basis has

been considered, but the current model has been retained since it allows students to maintain parity between their levels of development in each. • The results of the course are excellent and independent, knowledgeable and

confident graduates are developed. • The logic is based on expertise i.e. where the team considers it appropriate to

credit-rate elements of the programme this occurs and where it feels it has expertise, a franchise arrangement is used. The arrangement is indicative of how a collaboration can develop and mature over time.

• IDEE is treated separately at the Combined Awards Board in the sense that the

external examiner looks at the results separately and makes separate comments on them. The team considered that the programme would be very small to have its own award board and argued for the coherence of the Combined Awards portfolio.


of 50


RESPONSES MADE

Teaching, Learning & Assessment: When, where, how long are the teaching placements? What are their aims? I see the placement outcomes are measured through the modules – are the lesson evaluations based on any particular competence prescriptions? How effectively is the system of returning student work now operating? Student Progression & Achievement: How do you explain the wide variation in student achievement achieved by different years of the programme?

• The placement modules in Holland are based on the Dutch Government’s

Teacher Training requirements. The placements were recently inspected against these criteria and received a good report.

• During year one, students undertake one day on placement per week, in year two this increases to a day and a half per week and in year three, they undertake an extended block of six weeks where they are responsible for developing the curriculum for a given class.

• The team does not use a formal competency system to assess the placements, but students are required to meet certain skills.

• It was confirmed that the system is now much improved. Students submit a

frontsheet with their assignments to identify that they are IDEE students and following marking, the module leader returns the scripts to B Bartram, the programme co-ordinator. B Bartram either posts the marked scripts to Holland or takes them over on a visit.

• E-mail has also helped to maintain the chain of communication when students are overseas.

• There was an issue with achievement three years previously, but this was

linked to a particularly weak cohort. • Mechanisms both in England and Holland have however been improved in

terms of pastoral support and reciprocal visits between the programme co-ordinators in England and Holland.

• An increasing number of international (and not just Dutch) students has moreover produced some extremely committed students who have achieved some excellent grades.


of 50


RESPONSES MADE

How was the resit failure in EN1009 last year handled? It appears student progressed with less than the required number of credits. Did that include the core module in English? How much of a problem is the English students' failure to develop proficiency in Dutch? Student Support & Guidance: Are there any study skills issues particular to these students? How are students with personal tutors in S.Ed. properly advised of programmes in English at Dudley/City? Are specific arrangements for their counselling made by English? Given recent failures in English literature projects, how are students counselled?

• It was clarified that two students failed the resit and when they returned to

England, they were excluded from the English modules. Staff identified substitute modules relevant to their programme which the students took in order to allow them to progress to the Level 2 English modules.

• This should not be a problem since language teaching in Holland is based on

the communicative approach where teachers should not speak in Dutch. However in practice, it can cause students some problems.

• Staff have therefore identified a scheme to provide English students with a basic functional grounding in the language. B Bartram and the Dutch co-ordinator will provide a voluntary course delivered on the basis of one and a half hours per week. It was noted that students last year received language tutoring on an informal basis before they went to Holland.

• None other than the language as noted above. • The Dutch students do a foundation degree prior to commencement which

deals with potential study skills problems. • B Bartram collaborates with U Clark in the English Department. U Clark sends

the timetable for English modules over to SEd and all IDEE students have English Pathway Guides.

• Staff/student liaison meetings in the English Department usually have an IDEE representative.

• It was clarified that the cited failures relate to the particularly weak cohort

already discussed. Some fantastic work has been produced by Dutch students and Dutch staff encourage their students to pursue literature options.

• Students are advised to achieve four B’s before they consider undertaking an English project.


of 50


RESPONSES MADE

Learning Resources: The Panel consider that generic issues relating to Learning Resources have been covered in the previous meetings conducted for the revalidation of subjects within Combined Awards in Education. . Are there any Dutch texts recommended to students? Quality Management & Enhancement: How is consistency of teaching quality and assessment approach assured on what must be a complex programme to administer? (N.B. students had confirmed that they encounter different approaches to teaching on the programme but did not consider this a problem.) What are the major areas for attention in relation to the Code of Practice on Placements?

• It was acknowledged that Dutch texts do not tend to be used for a number of

reasons. Firstly, this is a joint Education and English degree. Secondly, the Dutch academic community is aware that Dutch is not a widely-used language and regularly have their articles translated. There is also a debate as to whether English should become the language of instruction. Thirdly, since this is an international degree, there would be a bias against other languages if Dutch texts were advocated.

• B Bartram will however point out to anyone interested a couple of Dutch texts recently published and with relevance for the level 1 comparative module. It was also noted that Dutch students do cite Dutch authors in their assignments.

• It was noted that this is an ambitious programme and that it is naïve to expect

uniformity. The team does however strive towards consistency in moderation, monitoring and through the management committee. • Placements are arranged and administered by EFA rather than by the School

and as a consequence, the interests and particular requirements of IDEE students have been to an extent overlooked. The management of placements has evaluated badly with students.

• EFA is now looking into the problems. The proposed system for next year is to designate a member of EFA staff to the management of IDEE placements and give them responsibility for liaising with schools and students. Another suggestion is to bring forward the second and third year start dates to extend the lead-in time so that students can be teaching by early October.


of 50


RESPONSES MADE

There is no evidence of any English (HLSS) contribution to the award action plan. Was there any consultation? How often has an English rep attended the SEd Combined Studies Award Board? Have the recommendations of the interim review been effectively implemented? e.g. is there evidence of the rolling programme of monitoring of credit-rated modules by externals being implemented? Are the IDEE students compared with other Combined students at subject boards in the presence of externals? Are results for them presented separately? Are externals fully aware of their overall responsibilities including monitoring of standards at EFA? What specific steps have been taken to deal with problems on individual modules e.g. TESOL 2 last year (see student evaluations in AMR) Would a change to the programme’s status make it more visible & QA measures easier?

• It was confirmed that a representative of the English Department does not

attend the Award Board. The panel believed that the moderation of the award required more involvement of the English half of the team.

• The team has taken onboard the recommendations of the interim review. An

audit trail is available and there is a parallel auditing system in Holland. • Yes, achievement of IDEE and non-IDEE students is compared at the subject

level as evidenced at a recent board. • Moreover in September, B Bartram collates all the data to investigate

comparisons between IDEE and non-IDEE achievement. This is not done to the same extent in the English Department due to the greater student numbers.

• When packs of work are sent to the external examiner for moderation, work from IDEE students is indicated and there is space for examiners to make specific comments on IDEE in their reports.

• The problem related to a particular visiting lecturer. The issue was dealt with

in a professional manner and the lecturer in question is no longer employed by the University.

• The Associate Dean reiterated her opinion that IDEE remains best situated as a

programme within a coherent Combined Awards portfolio and should not be made into an award.


of 50

APPENDIX NINE Feedback session from the Standing Panel to the School representatives Held at 5.15 in WT210. The Chair thanked the School staff for their time and contribution to the meetings and provided the following feedback on the conclusions of the Panel and external adviser. Education Studies The Panel commended the team on its extremely robust account of the programme and an exemplary PST. Commendable progression rates were observed and the use of up to date learning /teaching and assessment strategies were identified as items of good practice. It was however recommended that the following two areas are monitored by SQC: 1. The different criteria applied to students’ written work when the same module is offered at different levels. 2. The experience and achievement of students undertaking independent study at Level 1. IDEE The Panel acknowledged the great strides taken since the course was first validated in terms of its management and associated quality mechanisms. The programme leader was commended for the central role he has played in achieving the effective management of the programme as it now operates. The external adviser commended the team on an innovative and exciting programme. Two recommendations have however been identified: 1. That a joint action plan is developed by the Education Studies and English teams in collaboration with EFA

to ensure that external evaluation and overview at the level of both the subject and the programme meets the requirements of the Code of Practice on Collaborative Links.

2. The Panel was disappointed that the PST did not attempt to better integrate the various elements of the

programme and would like the three teams to collaborate on a revised PST that reflects the integration of all the subject areas.

The joint action plan and revised PST should be produced as part of the next annual monitoring cycle and be incorporated in the annual monitoring report. The relevant sections should be received by both SEd and HLSS SQC and the Standing Panel. The team responded to the second recommendation by informing the Panel that the integration of the subject areas is articulated in the Pathway Guide. It was therefore agreed that the Pathway Guide should be submitted to D Hodson for scrutiny by the Panel Sub-group and that the sub-group would decide whether this satisfies their requirements before the full Panel meets on 17th July.


of 50

APPENDIX TEN Education Studies and IDEE Review Revalidation, University of Wolverhampton, 2003 Report from D. Burton, External Advisor. The review revalidation event was very thorough both in its preparation for and execution of the programmes’ scrutiny. Robust debate and appropriate levels of challenge characterised the event, with careful emphasis on maintaining and enhancing the quality and standards of the programmes. The documentation was very clear and easy to follow, the structures employed to organise the discussion with the programme team facilitated the event very well and the experience of the Chair and Quality Officer was invaluable in enabling the event to proceed smoothly. The programme team gave a very impressive account of the programmes, indicative of the substantial experience they have of offering this provision. Curriculum Content and Design: Both programmes include a good range of modules within a flexible learner centred approach to programme combinations. The content is up to date, relevant and responsive to evaluative comments. The team was confident that the popularity of the Education Studies programme means that logistical considerations of timetabling, group size, accommodation, etc do not unduly limit module choice and combination. IDEE is an innovative programme offering excellent opportunities for enhanced student experience in cross-cultural learning and for progression to QTS. Teaching, Learning and Assessment: The programmes demonstrate good use of contemporary teaching and learning approaches and employ an impressive range of assessment strategies. The problem of over-assessment identified by the self-evaluation document is an issue everywhere. It is clear that the team is addressing this issue imaginatively. Discussion about the IDEE teaching placements revealed that the placement outcomes are measured through the modules and the lesson evaluations are based on Dutch competence prescriptions. Given that English QTS is available to graduates of the programme, this likeness with the English system is beneficial. Student Progression and Achievement: The programmes boast commendable progression rates. The team acknowledged the need for project supervision to be monitored and improved since the external examiner's reports of 1998/99 and 2000/01 commented on its variability. Student Support and Guidance: A very clear personal tutor system is available to students. The team spoke lucidly and with considerable knowledge about the particular study skills needs of some student groups which have been brought into sharper focus by the widening access imperative. Efforts are being made to address these in a way that is integrated and meaningful rather than a bolt-on extra. The ethnic mix of Education Studies students benchmarks similarly with other programmes in the university. It was interesting to hear the team report a dearth of men on the programmes and encouraging to note that they have strategies in hand to address this gender imbalance. Learning Resources: There is very good use of e-learning and support systems. The library could perhaps develop greater access to e-books, e.g. the key texts. Given the focus on developing cross-cultural understanding of education systems, the IDEE programme is addressing the need to cite Dutch and other European authors in its reading lists. Maintenance and Enhancement of Standards and Quality: Good to see observation procedures are in place that appear to be well embedded within the culture of the School of Education. An effective action plan is drawn up in response to external examiners’ comments, which is copied to examiners thus closing the quality loop. Programme specifications: Well organised documents which gives a clear outline of appropriate learning outcomes, assessment strategies and key skills. Module Specification Templates: These are very clear and detailed, providing comprehensive learning outcomes, threshold standards of performance and a session by session breakdown of the module. Texts are up to date and appropriate and on-line resources are included. The modules demonstrate clear progression from levels one to three.

Recommendation to University Quality Committee Studies IDEE.pdf · The provision has exhibited...

Documents

Transcript of Recommendation to University Quality Committee Studies IDEE.pdf · The provision has exhibited...