Link Tutor Forum
File note of meeting held on 25th April 2012
1.
Present / Apologies
Bob Parker / Alan Dixon
Carla Solvason / Alex Radu
Chris Hughes / Briony Williams
Colin Wood / Frances Brett
David Broster / Gwenda Scriven
Deborah Hodson / Helen Corke
Gareth Dart / Huw Richards
Janet Harrison / Jan Quallington
John Keenan / Julie Smith
Karen Appleby / Madeline Burton
Karima Kadi-hanifi / Matthew Jellis
Louise Heath / Maureen Gamble
Maggie Andrews / Peter Unwin
Richard Woolley / Ruth Hewston
Sean Bracken / Scott Buckler
Stuart Currie / Sue Lilyman
Sue Cuthbert / Teresa Lehane
Sue Dutson / Wendy Messenger
Trevor Wright

Debbie Hodson welcomed everyone to the Forum.

2.Notes of the last meeting, 16thNovember 2011

The notes were approved as an accurate record.

3.Matters Arising

Digitisation processes with ILS;

Sue Cuthbert informed forum members that Ann Craig is running staff development sessions at the Hive for partner librarians on Thursday and will inform them of the digitisation processes. It was confirmed that members of the public will be able to access electronic resources whilst in the Hive and this will have implications for directly funded students.

Fees for 2012/13;

It was noted that the fees for diplomas in ESOL were missing from the website information.

Action: DH to contact finance to inform them of this discrepancy.

4.Developing policy related to progression from FD to Top-up

SC confirmed that the paper regarding progression from FD to Top-up went to ASQEC where it was recommended that SC write a full policy. A small working group has been convened and a draft will be shared with this forum upon completion. The key components will include the notion of guaranteed progression from FD,a clear statement of entry criteria for top-ups in FD programme specifications and explicit transitional support arrangements to be detailed in the course handbooks. It is likely that any agreed practice will be cascaded to HND provision.

5.Recommendation from Thematic Audit on the way in which the University’s APEL policy is implemented.

It was confirmed that following the Thematic Audit on APEL the previous year, one of the recommendations was to include a reminder of APL processes within the link tutor role since the majority of claims are referred back to the University for advice. It has been suggested that the link tutor induction will henceforth cover AP(E)L processes and the link tutor’s role within this, as part of the existing induction to regulations, processes and procedures. Also that the Annual Operational Checklist will be updated to include ‘ensuring familiarity with current UW AP(E)L processes’.It was confirmed that the principles and regulations of APEL have not changed, but practice needs to be strengthened.

Action: LH to re-circulate the changes to all Link Tutors including an updated Annual Operational Checklist.

6.Challenges for the Link Tutor Role, Case Study example

Maggie Andrews, Associate Head of Undergraduate Programmes, Institute of Humanities and Creative Arts joined the meeting to give examples of two particularly challenging situations in collaborative working. An interesting discussion took place and the following principles were agreed;

  • Communication between key staff members from both partners is paramount to preventing and resolving challenges
  • Managing expectations is important.
  • It is essentialthat the roles and responsibilities of key staff are clear.
  • Effective monitoring of the situation and support mechanisms are essential to resolution
  • It may be challenging to identify when the agreement is not been adhered to, but escalation at the appropriate point is paramount.

7.Consideration of changes to UW Academic year 2013-14 and potential impact for collaborative provision.

SC confirmed that a decision had yet to be made as to whether the full implications of the 2013 Curriculum review would apply to collaborative provision, consequently a paper considering the potential impact for collaborative provision is currently being written. SC distributed a discussion paper and the following comments were made:

  • It was reported that a number of partners are pleased at the prospect of 30 credit modules as they align with their academic year.
  • It was however noted that the implications for some courses would need to be thought through eg those with prescribed curricula or where provision is delivered 50:50 and the selection of electives might disturb the balance of the programme.
  • It was generally agreed that a broad interpretation of VANTAGE weeks would be beneficial for partners, since many already incorporate the proposed activities in their programmes.
  • It was agreed that flexibility and a phased approach should be used for collaborative provision.
  • It was noted that the expectations of FE must be taken into consideration, for example if the lecturers are not directly teaching students they are not fulfilling their contract of employment.
  • Concerns were raised around the increase in the teaching year for hourly paid partner staff as potentially they may have to work an added 3 weeks that would not be included in their contract of employment.
  • The short marking turn around was discussed and it was noted that with an increase in 30 credit modules there will be an expectation of a decrease in formative assessment.

8.Policy and Progress Updates

  • Associate Colleges

It was confirmed that the University is introducing the concept of Associate College Status for partners that meet certain criteria based on quality provision and strategic direction. Discussions with certain partners are currently taking place.

  • Recognition, Progression and Articulation Arrangements

This will be discussed at the next forum meeting.

Date of next meeting: TBC (November 2012)

1