Academic Board Consultation & Dissemination

Academic Board Consultation & Dissemination

Autumn 2006

Introduction

This document contains a number of proposed new policy developments as well as an invitation to bring forward further issues, along with information on new policies that have already been agreed and implemented.

1.Papers for Discussion

School representatives on Academic Boards are asked to gain the views of their School on the proposed new development papers and present these comments at the October 2006 meetings of the Academic Boards. A School Teaching Committee or equivalent is thought to be the likely means by which School representatives would carry out this action.

1.1 / Consultation by the University's Teaching Committee regarding recommendations from its Efficiency, Effectiveness & Enhancement Working Group / p2
1.2 / Learning Teaching Strategy / p25

Members of Academic Board other than School representatives are also receiving this document for information and so that they also have the opportunity to consider the proposed new policy developments.

2.Papers for information

School representatives on Academic Boards are asked to arrange for information about new policy developments to be appropriately disseminated within their School.

2.1 / Summary of recent changes to the Quality Manual / p30

3.Schools’ Issues

Schools are also invited to bring forward discussion items for the Academic Board. Any such items (preferably in the form of a short discussion paper with concrete proposals) should be sent to the Board Secretary by no later than ten days before the meeting.

Secretaries to Academic Boards:

Humanities Academic Board

Rob Pearson
CoursesOffice
Ext. 15753
/

Science & Engineering Academic Board

Rob Pearson
Courses Office
Ext. 15753 /

Medicine & Health Sciences Faculty Board

Chris Farrell
MedicalSchool Faculty Office
Ext. 41381

1.1Consultation by the University's Teaching Committee regarding recommendations from its Efficiency, Effectiveness & Enhancement Working Group

Summary

This paper requests views from Academic Boards on a number of proposals being put forward by the University's Teaching Committee. These proposals, which are listed in Appendix C, deal with the interconnected issues of the structure of the academic year, the volume of 'academic activity' (e.g. the number of formal examinations), and feedback to students on their examination performance.

In broad terms, the recommendations of Teaching Committee are to:

• Reshape the academic year so that teaching finishes at Easter, thus reserving the summer term for revision, examinations, marking, processing, and feedback.

• Retain a (shortened) January examination period.

• Introduce a set of measures designed to limit the overall volume of academic activity (assessment, teaching, modules, courses).

• Guarantee a minimum level of feedback to students in regard to written examinations, while at the same time promoting development work to enhance practice in this area.

Introduction

1.The Efficiency, Effectiveness & Enhancement Working Group was established by Teaching Committee in the autumn term of 2005/06. The suggestion of forming such a group was in response to concerns from academic staff and External Examiners regarding examination congestion. Teaching Committee decided, though, to widen substantially the remit of the Working Group so as to look at a much fuller range of interconnected issues affecting the design and delivery of learning and teaching. The terms of reference and membership of the Group is at Appendix A.

2.One of the first actions of the Group was to recommend revisions to the course approval process that would focus attention on the viability of new course proposals and allow worthwhile new initiatives to be launched more quickly. These recommendations have been agreed in detail by Taught Courses Committee and by Deans and are being put in place this summer.

3.This recommendations in this paper are in the following areas upon which the Working Group has concentrated during the session:

A.The structure of the academic year

B.The volume and complexity of academic activity

C.Examination[1] feedback

4.These topics have been considered together because of the close inter-relationship between them. A major aim of reshaping the academic year is to allow for a reduction in the volume of examinations; while limiting the volume and complexity of academic activity facilitates restructuring the academic year and provides scope for increased examination feedback, as well as providing other benefits.

5.The following activities have taken place during the formulation of the recommendations in this paper:

• The Working Group consulted with Schools and Academic Boards on the

issues of examination congestion and examination feedback.

• The Students' Union surveyed students on their preferences between increased examination feedback and the retention of a January examination period.

• A visit took place to the University of Birmingham to consider issues relating to their academic year structure (where, formally, January examinations do not take place).

• The University's Management Board was provided with an interim report from the Working Group, mainly related to the volume and complexity of academic activity. The need for firm action in this area was strongly endorsed by Management Board.

• The finalised report was considered by Teaching Committee and its recommendations (as amended by the Committee) were endorsed

6.Teaching Committee is now asking Academic Boards for views on the recommendations below (and listed separately at Appendix C) which it has endorsed.

A.The Structure of the Academic Year

7.The Working Group considered three separate academic year patterns during its deliberations. These were as follows:

Pattern 1 (The current pattern)

Autumn Term:11 weeks of teaching for the Autumn Semester

Spring Term:1 week of teaching/revision for the Autumn Semester

2 weeks of examinations for the Autumn Semester

8 weeks of teaching for the Spring Semester

Summer Term:3 weeks of teaching for the Spring Semester

1 week of teaching/revision/examinations for the Spring Semester

2 weeks of examinations for the Spring Semester

Pattern 2 (The year-long pattern)

Autumn Term:11 weeks of teaching for the Autumn Semester.

Spring Term:11 weeks of teaching for the Spring Semester.

Summer Term: Revision and examinations for both Autumn and Spring Semester modules and for year-long modules.

Pattern 3 (The recommended pattern)

Autumn Term:11 weeks of teaching for the Autumn Semester

Spring Term:One week of examinations for the Autumn Semester +

11 weeks of teaching for the Spring Semester

Summer Term:Revision and examinations for Spring Semester modules and year-long modules.

The rationale for recommending Pattern 3 is set out in paragraphs 8-14 below.

8.The Working Group identified the following difficulties with Pattern 1 (the current pattern of the Academic Year) which suggested the need for a revision of the present structure. These are:

(a)Staff and External Examiners have concerns regarding the short timescales for marking and for moderating and processing marks. It is felt that the severe constrictions in the time available for these activities impacts adversely on the assurance of marking standards, on the ability of Examination Boards to give full consideration to individual students (including degree finalists) and on the subsequent smooth processing of assessment outcomes.

(b)The pressure on the examinations timetable arising from the growth in the number of examinations being sat (up from 42,000 in May 1999 to over 64,000 scheduled in May 2006) has led to the summer examination period being extended at the expense of revision days (there is now just one day between the end of teaching and the beginning of the May examinations).

(c)The pressure on the examinations timetable also leads to widespread dissatisfaction amongst students regarding their individual examination schedules; particularly where they are required to take more than one examination in a day or a number of examinations over a short period.

(e)The division of the Spring Semester into 8 and 3-week blocks disrupts students' learning experience. Given the current absence of any real revision period, a significant number of students effectively write off the final three weeks of teaching in order to focus on revision. In doing so, they miss important learning opportunities.

(f)Many students at Nottingham currently have few or no examinations in January, and therefore have a fallow period of three weeks prior to the start of the Spring Semester in February. Student Services believes that for some students (particularly international students) the lack of direction after Christmas has an unsettling effect which can cause them considerable difficulties.[2]

9.The Working Group therefore considered the application of Pattern 2 above (currently existing at the University of Birmingham) to Nottingham. The following advantages were identified:

(a)It would be possible to reintroduce a proper revision period prior to the summer examinations (revision classes would need to be scheduled in order to ensure proper attendance and engagement by the students in the Summer Term before the examinations began).

(b)The extended examination period would allow more time for marking and moderation and thus provide greater assurance regarding marking standards, while also potentially giving relief to academic staff from the current excessive pressures of marking to tight deadlines. It would also give more time for Tutors to consider the cases of individual students prior to the Examination Boards.

(c)This pattern would facilitate a switch to year-long modules for those Schools who wished to move in that direction, and would remove the problem of the fallow period after Christmas for students in those Schools that have made such a change. Wider adoption of year-long modules would bring about a reduction in the volume of examinations (and, hopefully, in the volume of assessment generally) as well as enabling Schools to attain the pedagogic advantages of teaching subjects throughout the academic session.

(d)The extension of the examination period, coupled with a reduction in the overall number of examinations as a result of more year-long modules, would allow for individual student examination timetables which are more suited to the needs and wishes of students.

(e)Providing more time overall for marking and processing should make it more feasible for Schools to introduce items of good practice in regard to examination feedback (see C below).

(f)The provision of an 11-week uninterrupted period for the Spring Semester, bringing it into line with the Autumn Semester, would give a better structure to students' learning, particularly when combined with the extended revision period.

10.The Working Group did, however, identify a number of difficulties with introducing Pattern 2:

(a)Current students may be generally opposed to a change to Pattern 2. In a referendum of students in 2002, the overwhelming majority of respondents voted for retaining January examinations. The recent survey undertaken by the Students Union demonstrates that, even if change were to lead to more examination feedback, students would still prefer to retain the two examination periods (74% of those surveyed - 2,153 students out of 2,920 - were of this view).

(b)Some Schools prefer retaining the current structure, at least for part of their provision, either on pedagogic grounds or because they have courses which are firmly geared to this pattern of delivery. Experience at the University of Birmingham was of some Schools continuing to arrange January examinations outside of the University's examinations arrangements.

(c)Delaying examinations until the summer for students on Masters courses is particularly problematic, as these students are therefore given no official indication of their progress (and therefore of the pathways they might want to follow in the Spring Semester) until the end of the taught stage of their course. It would also present difficulties for those Masters course that have entry points in both September and January.

(d)Students taking the Qualifying Stage of undergraduate courses would also be deprived of feedback on progress until the summer which, for individuals new to higher education, could have unfortunate consequences.

(e)The revised structure would not provide a set period for undertaking formative assessment at the end of the Autumn Semester.

(f)Examining those exchange students (including students from the University's overseas campuses) who are here only for the autumn semester could prove difficult.

(g)Study leave arrangements would be rendered more complicated by the absence of January examinations.

11.The extent of the obstacles to implementing Pattern 2 led the Working Group to consider whether an alternative structure existed which would still largely provide the benefits listed in paragraph 9 above but, at the same time, would make some provision for January examinations. It therefore moved to looking at Pattern 3 in paragraph 7 above.

12.The advantages of Pattern 3 were identified by the Working Group as being:

(a)All of those contained in Paragraph 9 above. Even where students have no examinations during the one week January examination period this need not be a fallow period, as those students can receive formative assessment regarding the autumn term component of year-long modules during that week.

(b)It allows for the examination of autumn semester modules where this was still felt to be beneficial by Schools and their students, particularly in regard to Masters programmes and the Qualifying Stage of undergraduate programmes.

(c)It allows for the examination of exchange students and facilitates study leave arrangements; including giving Schools the option of operating a term-based study leave system.

(d)In comparison with Pattern 2, it reduces the number of examinations (and volume of marking) that would need to take place in the summer term.

(e)It provides students with some measure of choice (on the basis of their personal preference) in deciding whether to select modules that are examined in either January or the summer.

(f)It allows for transitional arrangements where Schools are switching to year-long modules.

13.Pattern 3 requires a 12 week Spring Term (as opposed to the current 11 weeks) but Easter is sufficiently late in most years to allow this to occur, except in 2008 and 2016 (see paragraph 15 below). The fact that currently nearly two-thirds of January examinations take place in the first week of the two-week examination period, suggests that a change to just one week of examinations could be made possible by only a partial move to year-long modules. Measures to reduce the overall volume of examinations (see Section B below) should also facilitate the introduction of Pattern 3. Nevertheless, changes in the number of autumn semester examinations will need to be monitored prior to implementation of Pattern 3, in order to ensure that reducing the length of the January examination period without assessing autumn semester modules in the summer is feasible. This last measure appears to be especially unpopular with the student body, although it may be an option in particular cases with the agreement of the students affected.

14.Pattern 3 also removes the one-week teaching/revision period after Christmas and means that examinations will begin immediately after the vacation in the spring term. It is notable, though, that many other civic Russell Group universities (e.g. Leeds, Liverpool, Sheffield) already examine in that week.

15.Teaching Committee therefore recommends that the University's academic year structure is changed to that of Pattern 3 in Paragraph 9 above according to the following timescale:

2006/07No change

2007/08Examination period in January moved forward one week (so all teaching for the Autumn Semester is completed before Christmas) but still with two weeks of examinations in January. The Easter vacation also moved forward one week, thereby allowing one extra week for revision/examinations/marking in the Summer Term.

2008/09Full implementation of the new academic year structure (subject to a sufficient reduction in the overall number of Autumn Semester examinations).

This implementation schedule:

• Makes provision for the early Easter in 2008.

• Gives Schools time to change course structures and move to year-long modules (where they wish to do so).

• Allows time for the measures in the section below to take effect and so further reduce the number of examinations to be fitted into the reduced January examinations slot.

• Minimises the impact of the change on current students (and there may well be scope for putting in place transitional arrangements that remove all impact on these students).

• Enables monitoring of changes to the overall number of autumn semester examinations.

16.Assuming that there is no shortening of the Easter vacation, nor any extension of the overall length of the academic session, Pattern 3 will create a Summer Term lasting seven weeks. A one week revision period after Easter would leave six weeks for examinations, marking and processing (compared to four weeks and three days currently). The allocation of this additional time between examinations and processing will depend on the success in reducing the overall number of examinations - bearing in mind that a shift to year-long modules may increase the pressure on the summer examinations timetable, and therefore additional examination days are likely to be needed in order to produce individual examination schedules more suited to the needs of students. The views of Academic Boards on the appropriate apportioning of time to activities in the Summer Term would be welcomed.

B.Volume and Complexity of Academic Activity

17.Academic activity (setting and marking assessments and undertaking teaching) is, of course, a very significant part of what Schools do, but this activity has costs both direct and indirect. Teaching Committee's view is that for a variety of reasons there may well have been an unnecessary growth in activity (i.e. greater than is beneficial to the particular School or to the University overall). These reasons may include:

• Schools have misperceptions about the level of activity expected of them and may 'play safe' by setting examinations and undertaking other activities rather than risk criticism.

• There is considerable inertia in the system, with new staff following existing practices which are still to a considerable extent based on a time when SSRs and workloads were much lower. There may also have been a failure to reduce activity in areas of falling student recruitment.

• Some of the costs resulting from academic activity are not borne by the School creating the activity (i.e. there are 'social costs' which need to be recognised). Provision of centrally bookable teaching rooms and slots in the examinations timetable are currently 'free goods' for Schools - even though an unnecessarily large take-up of these rooms and slots by one School means that another School may have to bear the cost of teaching at the other end of campus, or the students of another School may have to take two examinations in a day.

• The University Budgetary System (UBS) incentivises Schools to create extra modules solely for the purpose of retaining FTEs, or taking FTEs from other Schools, without there being any overall increase to the University's intake or income. This behaviour may be particularly likely to occur in areas facing difficulty in recruiting new students to their courses.

Curbing or reducing the growth in academic activity would release staff time for other purposes (including providing feedback to students) without damaging quality and standards. Indeed, it could bring positive benefits for student learning. This paper contains data (see 19 below) which, at the very least, suggest Schools should look at their own pattern of activity - and in relation to that in cognate subject areas - and consider whether there might not be benefit both for staff and students in some rationalisation.