To All Members of Quality and Standards Committee

UNIVERSITY OF EAST LONDON

Confirmed minutes of the meeting held on 14 March 2011, 2pm, ED 4.02, Stratford Campus

Present: Steve Brant, Roger Carpenter, Ruth Carter, Stefano Casalotti, Pete Cobb, Julie Baldry Currens, Graham Curtis (Chair), Mark Davies, Nesrin Gokcen, Anne Griffiths, Iain Macrury, Martin Marriott, Helen Masterton, Helen Murphy, John Sparrowhawk, Louis Taussig and Alan White

In Attendance: Alison Coates, Toby Grainger

Officer: Amy de Campos

46 APOLOGIES

46.1 NOTED: that apologies had been received from Sarah Frame, Minna Kantonen and Joy Needham.

46.1 NOTED: that Stefano Casalotti was attending in place of Joy Needham.

47 BUSINESS OF THE MEETING

47.1 NOTED: that no notices of intention to speak to starred items were received.

48 TERMS OF REFERENCE AND MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMITTEE

48.1 NOTED: the terms of reference and constitution of the Quality and Standards Committee (QSC) for the academic year 2010/11.

49 MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING

49.1 RECEIVED and CONFIRMED: the unconfirmed minutes of the last meeting of the Quality and Standards Committee held on 29 November 2010 as an accurate record.

50 ACTIONS ARISING FROM THE QSC MEETING OF 29 NOVEMBER 2010

50.1 REVIEWED: progress on the action plan from the meeting of the QSC of 29 November 2010.

50.1.1 NOTED [minute 34.1.3 refers] that the Student Appeals Liaison Officer had amended the report to clarify its scope in relation to PGR student appeals, although the issue of who would be responsible for reporting on PGR appeals was still under discussion.

50.1.2 NOTED [minute 35.1.3 refers] that the Complaints Liaison Officer had spoken to the Assistant University Secretary regarding the possibility of complaints resolution training for schools, but that the Assistant University Secretary had decided that such training would not be necessary.

50.1.3 NOTED: that all other actions had been completed or were covered elsewhere on the agenda.

51 MATTERS ARISING FROM THE QSC MEETING OF 29 NOVEMBER 2010

51.1 NOTED: that there were no matters arising not covered elsewhere on the agenda.

52 RDSC TERMS OF REFERENCE

52.1 NOTE and APPROVED: the revised terms of reference for the Research Degrees Sub-Committee, subject to the following amendment:

52.1.1 School Research Degrees Sub-Committees should not be listed as sub-committees of RDSC, as they reported to school boards.

[Action: Servicing Officer for RDSC]

53 REVIEW AND ENHANCEMENT PROCESS 2009/10

53.1 RECEIVED and CONSIDERED: a report from the Validation and Review Sub-Committee on the completion of the Review and Enhancement Process (REP) for 2009/10.

53.1.1 NOTED: that the report contained a number of positive comments and examples of good practice, as well as some suggestions about how schools could make their REP action plans smarter.

53.1.2 NOTED: that the purpose of the school overview REP was to reflect on the total review and enhancement activity for each school, and that the resulting action plans were owned by the school and should be monitored by SMT and School Board, as well as SQSCs.

53.1.3 NOTED: that a process was needed to respond to the issues for consideration at institutional level, identified in part 3 of the report, in a concise and focused way.

53.1.4 AGREED: that the Head of QAE would present a short reflection and commentary on these issues to the next meeting of QSC.

[Action: Head of QAE]

54 REPORT ON THE COMPLETION OF THE COLLABORATIVE REVIEW AND ENHANCEMENT PROCESS

54.1 RECEIVED and CONSIDERED: a report from the Collaborations Monitoring Sub-Committee on the completion of Collaborative Review and Enhancement Process (REP) for 2009/10.

54.1.1 NOTED: that non-submission or very late submission of REPS by collaborative partners had been a significant problem in the 2009/10 cycle.

54.1.2 NOTED: that the REPs needed to be raised to higher level of priority for link tutors, and that schools could set earlier deadlines for partners, and start chasing the REPs at an earlier date. It was further suggested that the importance of the REPs could be emphasised at the collaborative partnership conference, and at partner enhancement visits.

54.1.3 AGREED: that QAE would prepare a template letter to remind partners to write their REPs, which could be sent to partners by Deans of School, and copied to link tutors.

[Action: QAE]

55 ANNUAL AUDIT OF DELEGATED QUALITY ASSURANCE AND ENHANCEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES AND UEL POLICIES 2011

55.1 RECEIVED and CONSIDERED: a paper from the Quality Manager (Validation and Review) outlining the proposed process for conducting the annual audit.

55.1.1 NOTED: that module guides and end of module questionnaire would be requested from schools as evidence that the relevant student charter statements were being met. It was suggested that programme handbooks would also be a useful source of information.

55.1.2 DISCUSSED: it was advised that end of module feedback forms would not provide suitable evidence of a lecturer’s professional standards, and should not be used for this purpose. It was suggested that auditing the number of FHEA members in these schools would provide a better indication of professional standards. The Committee suggested that the Quality Manager might review the inclusion of these statements from the charter within the audit process.

55.1.3 NOTED: colleagues were reminded that teaching staff were required to display their office hours on their office doors.

55.1.4 NOTED: that QAE had consulted the student liaison officers and Student representatives in designing the audit. It was suggested that QAE also consult with UELSU.

55.1.4 NOTED: that the report on the audit would be completed for the July meeting.

56 ACTION PLAN IN RESPONSE TO THE ANNUAL AUDIT 2010

56.1 RECEIVED and CONSIDERED: an updated version of the action plan developed in response to the recommendations made following the Annual Audit of delegated Quality Assurance and Enhancement responsibilities and UEL policies 2010.

56.1.1 NOTED: that several actions had been completed since the previous meeting.

56.1.2 AGREED: that an updated version of the action plan should be submitted to the next QSC.

[Action: Quality Manager (Validation and Review)]

57 ACTION PLAN IN RESPONSE TO INSTITUTIONAL AUDIT 2010

57.1 RECEIVED and CONSIDERED: an action plan developed in response to the recommendations made by the QAA following the Institutional Audit in 2010.

57.1.1 NOTED: that the action plan tracked the actions that had been formulated in response to the audit report (28 September, minute 7.1.3 refers).

57.1.2 AGREED: that an updated version of the action plan should be submitted to the next QSC.

[Action: Head of QAE]

58 ANNUAL REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OFFENCES REPORTED IN 2009/10

58.1 RECEIVED and CONSIDERED: the Annual Report on assessment offences reported during the academic year 2009/10.

58.1.1 NOTED: that the overall number of assessment offences had dropped for the first time since monitoring had begun in 2000. The Head of Student Compliance welcomed this positive outcome, while noting that it was too early to see if the figures indicated the start of a new downward trend.

58.1.2 NOTED: that the restructuring of assessment offences and introduction of misconduct warnings would lead to a smaller number of penalties recorded in next year’s report. It was suggested that the Head of Student Compliance liaise with Corporate Marketing to discuss the best way to present data to the media should further requests arise.

58.1.3 DISCUSSED: it was suggested that future reports disaggregate home and international students, examine whether there are any trends for Combined Honours students, and explore correlations with particular subject areas.

58.1.4 NOTED: that the disproportionate number of black students involved in allegations of assessment offences was still a matter of acute concern. Although the research which had been undertaken following the publication of last year’s report appeared to show some correlation with entry qualifications, it was agreed that further qualitative research was urgently needed.

58.1.5 AGREED: that this research should be carried out and completed as soon as possible.

[Action: Director of Academic Practice and Student Experience]

59 ANNUAL AUDIT OF PGR ACTIVITIES 2010

59.1 RECEIVED and CONSIDERED: a paper from the Quality Manager (Research Degrees) outlining the proposed process for the annual audit of PGR Activities 2009/10.

59.1.1 NOTED: that this proposal was presented in response to the discussion on PGR audit that took place at the QSC meeting of 06 July 2011 [minute 98.1.7 refers].

59.1.2 NOTED: that audit would examine the areas of postgraduate research supervision and transfer from MPhil to PhD in three selected schools. Information would be requested from the School Research Degree Sub-Committee leader, and would be audited by three RDSC leaders whose schools were not involved in the sample.

59.1.3 NOTED: that the timescale for the audit was somewhat ambitious. It was suggested that July would be a more achievable deadline than May.

60 COMPLETION RATES OF PGR STUDENTS

60.1 RECEIVED and CONSIDERED: an analysis of completion rates of three cohorts of postgraduate research students prepared by the Director of the Graduate School.

60.1.1 NOTED: that the three cohorts of students included those studying in both full-time and part-time mode. PGR students who had not progressed from MPhil to PhD, or who withdrew in their first year after enrolment did not count towards the university’s KPIs. Students who had taken in excess of 7 years from first enrolment to complete their PGR programme counted against the university’s KPIs.

60.1.2 NOTED: that the completion rate for the most recent cohort of students showed a marked improvement on previous years with over 30% of the students completing in good time, indicating that the procedural changes introduced by the Graduate School in recent years were proving successful.

60.1.3 NOTED: the Quality Leader for the Tavistock requested that the figures for the Professional Doctorate in Child Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy be checked for accuracy.

60.1.4 NOTED: the paper made four recommendations: that where a student withdraws or transfers, the reason should be recorded on his or her DELTA record; that the documentation for the annual review should be revised to emphasise the importance of the first annual review in respect of completion; that School Research Degree Leaders monitor data on professional doctorates at school RDSC meetings and produce action plans where improvement s were needed; and that there should be an annual review of completion and withdrawal rates for PGR programmes in Sem A each year.

60.1.5 AGREED: the committee approved these recommendations and referred them to the RDSC for actioning.

61 EXTERNAL EXAMINER OVERVIEW REPORT ACTION PLAN

61.1 RECEIVED and CONSIDERED: an action plan prepared in response to the External Examiner Overview Report for the academic year 2009/10.

61.1.1 NOTED: that although several actions had not yet been completed, the deadline dates were still quite far off.

61.1.2 AGREED: that an updated version of the action plan should be submitted to the next QSC.

[Action: Quality Manager (Validation and Review)]

62 EXTERNAL EXAMINER REPORTS AND ACTION PLANS

Academic Year 2009/10

62.1 LLB (ICS)

62.1.1 NOTED: that an action plan had been submitted for the LLB (ICS), but would need to be amended as the revalidation of the programme would not be going ahead in April as planned.

62.1.2 AGREED: that an amended version of the action plan should be submitted to the next QSC.