APR Template for Taught Programmes
April 2016
University of Bristol
ANNUAL PROGRAMME REVIEW FOR TAUGHT PROGRAMMES
Notes on use of this APR report template:
(i) This template should be used in conjunction with the Policy on APR(T), which gives further detail on how to complete each section of the report template below; available at: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/academic-quality/facultyadvice/progreview/
(ii) Actions arising should be allocated to a named individual.
(iii) For programmes that are teaching out, please use the separate report template provided: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/esu/facultyadvice/progreview/templates.html
(iv) The report should be submitted to AQPO by email at
APR REVIEW INFORMATION
Academic year covered e.g. 2015-16 / 2015-16School / Chemistry
1. Programme(s) being reviewed
Ref: APR (T) Policy Section 1, including: 1.3 For programmes delivered through external partnership/ collaborative arrangements and distance learning programmes and 1.6 For joint honours programmes
All Chemistry programmes (F100/3/4/5/7) and chemistry units for Chemical Physics programmes (F320, F322, F323)
2. Date of meeting / 15/09/2016 and 19/09/2016
3. Attendees of meeting
Ref: APR (T) Policy 3.7
Professor NC Norman (Chair), Professor DM Smith, Professor RB Bedford, Professor AJ Mulholland, Dr Russell, Dr Charmant, Professor AP Davis and note taker Mrs RA Crosby
Apologies from Mr Jonny Turner.
4. Actions and successes from previous APR report
Ref: APR (T) Policy 3.3
How have the outcomes and actions from the previous year’s APR been addressed?
Comments on completed actions
· SHs were charged with enforcing the procedure for checking resit papers are appropriate (SHs) – completed.
· General paper – questions setters to be identified (SHs) – completed.
· Substitute marker for Dr Laura Broad for any marking that falls outside term-time, mainly August/September resit marking (CLW) – completed.
· The suggestion to move progress assessment of CHEM10900 will be discussed by TLAC (TLAC) – completed.
· CHEM30011 Advanced Organic Chemistry: exam question issues and general discussion about this unit will be carried out at Section level (CLW) – completed.
· CHEMM0012 Core Special Chemistry: introduction of this unit as a January exam and introduction of “must pass” units will be discussed at TLAC (TLAC) – completed.
· Discussion at TLAC about the number of questions in multiple choice assessment. A final year report which analyses this issue will be circulated to committee members (RAC/TLAC) – completed.
· External Examiners reports and responses to be received by Section Heads, Senior Tutor, Head of School and Exams Officer (RAC) – completed.
· UG feedback comments to demonstrators. PJW to discuss with CJA (PJW/CJA) – completed.
· School to discuss Pathway 2 staff who teach and carry out key academic administrative roles (DMS) – completed.
· Extenuating Circumstances for postgraduate research students: trial documenting the procedure on the DLM. RAC to relay to APR (RAC) – completed.
· SLP received a number of positive comments, which will be fed back to her (RAC) – completed.
· PJW to complete NSS Action Plan and submit by deadline (PJW) – completed.
· APR outcomes to be circulated in advance of the SSLC meeting (LC) – completed.
Ongoing actions (what, who, when)
· Reinstate F107 prize. NCN to find a sponsor (NCN). Was not reinstated in 2015-16. Add to the prize list.
· Teaching and Learning prize will be implemented – UG students doing Schools projects. NCN to discuss with LSB (NCN/LSB). Was not awarded in 2015-16.
· Postgraduate teaching prize should not be forgotten.
· University have implemented a requirement to map existing practice against institutional principles of assessment and feedback. DMS suggested including students in the process. PJW to convene a group (PJW). Designed to encourage schools to think about the amount of assessment. No evidence of actions being implemented so far.
Areas of good practice/enhancement you wish to highlight
From Student Survey Action Plan Meeting:
Weekly newsletter sent out every Friday from the Head of School which includes information on local and external news. Controlled communications sent out from the School.
Changing assessment to oral presentation instead of a written formal report in direct response to student feedback in 2nd year lab. Two sessions this year.
PART A: ASSURING ACADEMIC STANDARDS AND QUALITY
5. Programme Structure, Content, Specification and Learning OutcomesRef: APR (T) Policy 4.2
· How has the school assured that all the programme aims and learning outcomes continue to be met by the mandatory units?
· How has the school assured that the summative and formative assessment load and methods continue to be appropriate across the programme?
· Has the ongoing relevance of the programme content been reviewed and is the school satisfied with its relevance?
· If the programme has a year abroad or year in industry, how does the school monitor the content of this and are the outcomes satisfactory?
· Is there sufficient opportunity for students to take open units (at UG level)?
· Have you made ANY changes to the programme (Yes/No)?
If YES:
· Have any incremental changes had a cumulative effect on the programme? Has the programme Specification been revised and approved to take account of these changes?
· Have you reviewed your Programme Specification(s), as shown in the Programme Catalogue, to ensure they are up to date and complete, and have all changes been approved by the faculty board(s)?
Review/Comments
CAR as the new Director of Education has been charged with reviewing all teaching and assessment, including specifications on the Unit and Programme Catalogue, on an on-going basis.
All degree programmes were recently accredited by the RSC; several programmes include a sandwich year (F104/5/7 and F323). We reviewed all course content prior to the submissions to the RSC and the accreditation confirmed the content was up-to-date and relevant. We continually review such matters but we are satisfied with its relevance.
There are relatively limited opportunities to take open units but we are satisfied that this represents sufficient opportunity.
There have been no changes on any programme. Some unit changes have been implemented and these are discussed below. / Action (what, who, when)
CAR to review all teaching and assessment through TLAC (continuous action thoughout TLAC meetings over the academic year)
6. Unit Changes and Learning Outcomes and Assessment
Ref: APR (T) Policy 4.3, refer also to Report on Unit Changes provided by AQPO
· How do the assessments show that all unit aims and intended learning outcomes (ILOs) are being met?
· Are there any issues arising from staff feedback?
· For joint honours programmes, given any unit changes, is the programme as a whole still appropriately integrated, with learning outcomes distinct from those of each single honours programme?
· Please ensure that any inter-disciplinary units (UNIV/FAC units, which are not connected to the programme(s) but where the unit director is a member of the School) have been reviewed.
· Have you made ANY unit changes (Yes/No)?
If YES:
· Have you revised your Unit Specification(s), as shown in the Unit Catalogue, to ensure they are up to date and complete, and have all changes been approved at faculty level?
· For relevant units has the KIS data also been updated?
Review/Comments
CHEM10002 is a new unit this year. Review of the unit completed in June by Drs Adams, Charmant, Russell, Professor Smith and Mrs Crosby. Teaching will be exclusively delivered through workshops and peer-to-peer learning. The Unit Specification and KIS data has been updated.
2nd year students indicate the marking criteria isn’t clear or made available to them before assessment, particularly for labs.
Timeline for final year projects was approved by the meeting.
Comments on exams:
Average marks for CHEM10600 and CHEM10700 were very high this year. Why do they start out this way in year 1 and don’t follow through in later years? Level of questions should be made more discriminating.
High failure rate for CHEM10900. This unit requires a high-level of independent study and students shouldn’t leave engaging with the unit until the end of the year. Mid-term assessments take place but students don’t take up the offer of feedback - these sessions will not be scheduled again this year. Non-attendance cases in this unit are followed up. It was noted that resit marks are always high, which suggests that the level is appropriate but that students choose to concentrate on assessment during the resit period.
CHEM20180 January marks were low but students were able to turn this around by the summer exams.
CHEM20480 marks look very good this year.
CHEM30011 Problems are most acute in this unit but there are problems in all 3rd year units. It was evident that the paper for CHEM30011was too long - 11 students were unable to attempt all questions in the exam.
3rd year teaching – teaching should get harder throughout the programme but the marks should remain flat as students rise to the challenge. The lack of attendance at 3rd year workshops was noted.
CHEM30018/CHEMM0007 workshops may not be required because they are very descriptive. / Action (what, who, when)
JPHC will present a document about marking criterial to SPARC (by Dec 2016)
CAR to communicate concerns with question setters on these courses (by Nov 2016)
SHs: Content across all 3rd year units needs reviewing (before WDC opens, i.e., by Feb 2017). Is it necessary to deliver all the material currently on offer?
All: Seek student feedback to find out the reasons underpinning poor 3rd year workshop attendance (by Easter 2017)
Pilot coffee-shop style workshops where small groups work through questions then they present to the other groups.
AJM to discuss C&I lectures with FRM.
7. Response to External Examiner Reports / Feedback
Ref: APR (T) Policy 4.4
· Include the full school response that was sent to the external, covering all comments and recommendations including any that the school may be unable to implement or disagrees with. Review progress on any actions arising from the school’s response, and identify outstanding issues.
· Has the external examiner(s) confirmed that the programme is meeting threshold academic standards?
· Have any comments from the external examiner(s) required you to make changes to the programme?
Review/Comments
Externals would like to see annotations on projects. Staff will be encouraged to do this.
Concern over CHEM30018/CHEMM0007 that the distinction between H-Level and M-Level assessment is not enough. Given the small number of students and problems with assessment, should CHEMM0007 be removed from the unit catalogue? / Action (what, who, when)
NCN to communicate this to staff (by Easter 2017)
Review the content of C&I. CAR to attend C&I exam setting meeting to ensure assessment at M-Level needs to be discerning (by Feb 2017)
TLAC: Consider dropping the CHEMM0007 for 2017-18. Consider at TLAC to bring to SPARC (by Feb 2017)
8. Review of Student Progress and Attainment
Ref: APR (T) Policy 4.5
· How is the school responding to any apparent trends in student progress??
· Are the drop-out and re-assessment rates sufficiently low?
· Are there any trends for particular programmes or student groups?
· Are the proportions of degree classifications (for UG programmes) / the proportions of distinctions, merits and passes (for taught PG programmes) what you would expect? Have these changed significantly?
Review/Comments
Proportions of degree classifications are appropriate, but progression cases are of concern. The net loss of 1st year students in 2015-16 was 20. A number have transferred to economics and finance within the University. In one case the student gave his reason for transferring as he had heard how difficult the course was in years 2 & 3. Some students withdraw because they are not enjoying the course. Those 1st year students who miss their predicted grades by a far miss are, in general, a problem.
Tutorial groups have been allocated this year on the basis of predicted grades. Those who missed their predicted grades have been grouped together so they work at similar level as their peers.
It was noted that the interaction between students and staff is usually about achieving the right grades rather than the pastoral side of life. Personal tutors are key to turning this around. No action was deemed necessary on this point as the role of personal tutors has been thoroughly reviewed and stressed in the past year. / Action (what, who, when)
JPHC to monitor performance as a function of grades (continuous action over academic year)
9. Other Internal and External Review
Ref: APR (T) Policy 4.6 & 5.4
· Has there been an external review of any /all of the programmes this year e.g. school review or Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Body accreditation visit? If so, what issues/actions arose from this review?
· How has the school responded to the recommendations from the last FQT Report?
Review/Comments
FQT visit on 08/02/2016. Several comments/recommendations were made:
The all-you-can-eat feedback practice where students are encouraged to seek as much feedback as they feel they require was praised.
1. Feedback to students, including setting a date by which feedback has to go back to students. Teaching Lab Fellows to manage.
2. BSc project marking should be in line with MSci marking criteria.
3. Training PG demonstrators for 3rd year labs.
This is not seen as an issue. We believe only one or two may have fallen between the gaps.
4. Pathway 2 teaching staff. More action needed directly with individuals
It is not clear why further steps are required. Guidance is made available to Section Heads and they are charged with talking it through with Pathway 2 staff. Suggest providing a brief careers presentation to postdocs. / Action (what, who, when)
CAR to discuss with Teaching Lab Fellows – this needs to be done rapidly (before Introduction to Year 2 talk in Week 1)
TLAC to discuss BSc project marking – would they benefit from a 3rd assessor in the same way as MSci projects (by March 2017)
NCN to arrange careers presentation to postdocs (by Easter 2017)
PART B: STUDENT EXPERIENCE AND FEEDBACK
10. Student Experience and SupportRef: APR (T) Policy 4.7
· How has student support provision (including personal tutoring) worked during the year?
· Please comment on the quality of the student experience (e.g. as discussed in Staff Student Liaison Committees), any issues arising in relation to joint honours programmes or those delivered through external partnership /collaborative arrangements.
· Is the student experience on study abroad or work-based placements appropriate to the programme of study?
Review/Comments
Detailed guidance on personal tutoring has been generally well received, although it is recognised that training for, and dealing with, pastoral issues is ongoing. With a large school, there are some personal tutors who do not carry out the role properly. These individuals need to be identified and dealt with. / Action (what, who, when)
Students need to inform the Head of School of any detrimental experiences with personal tutors. CAR/NCN to speak to this during Introductory talks.
11. Review of Student Feedback
Ref: APR (T) Policy 4.8
· What does analysis of the student feedback (e.g. on units and programmes) show?
· What were the key issues discussed at the SSLC and what actions were identified? Did the SSLC structure enable issues arising from student feedback to be addressed and dealt with appropriately?
· How does student feedback collected by the school compare with feedback from the NSS or any other internal/external surveys?
· What action is being taken/will be taken as a result of student feedback?
· Are there mechanisms in place for the school to communicate to students what is being done as a result of their feedback, and are these working?
Review/Comments
NSS action plan meeting and Faculty meetings about NSS took place in August 2016.
Several key questions were identified:
CHEM10900. Issue over NLA workload. NCN has spoken to AJM about this.
CHEM10002. Some students don’t see the value of this unit. Effort must be put in to ensure these activities are practised throughout the course.
CHEM30018. High scores for JH, RPE, DNW.
CHEMM0003. High score for SAD. RBB has spoken to him about handouts, which seems to be the issue.
Discussion about Materials Chemistry and the overlap across IOP units and years. The proposal to teach across units/Sections where appropriate was well received.
Lecture handouts are printed for students. A review of this will take place alongside how much is being taught. If we are teaching too much, the size of the handouts will be reduced.
CHEMM0004. High score for CPR. NCN has spoken to AJM. Same content taught to same cohort in 2 consecutive years. CPR has be told this, but no improvement seen.
Distance Learning marks were very high. Risk material may become old and dated. This will fall within the review of teaching which CAR has been charged with carrying out.
Staff Teaching Prize. Propose Natalie Fey. / Action (what, who, when
RAC: NSS and Your Bristol comments to be sent to all staff for information with immediate effect. Comments from staff and feedback to CAR. Furthermore, TLAC to familiarise themselves with comments and feedback to CAR any issues that catch their attention.
DMS proposed radical rethink about feedback to students.
AJM to resolve with NLA (by Dec 2016)
CAR to discuss with CLW (by Nov 2016)
CAR to discuss with Section Heads (by Dec 2016)
FRM mentoring CPR. NCN to follow up with AJM.
CAR/TLAC to review distance learning material (by Easter 2017)
RAC to take proposal to SSLC.
PART C: CONTEXT OF PROGRAMME DELIVERY