PROGRAMME/ MODULE REVIEW

1. PROGRAMME/ MODULE REVIEW Learning & Teaching Committee 16 May 2011

2. What/why? • Linked to Strategic Review • Primarily resource-driven, but with quality and student experience as clear parameters • Primary focus on modules and how they link to programmes • Challenge to Schools where appropriate • Identification of good practice • Identification of enablers for better practice

3. How? • Led by Paula Elliott and Catriona Blake • Under the direction of Jim McGeorge, Ian Leith, Rob Kennedy, Lorna Jones • Meetings with every School • Generally with Dean and School Secretary • Gathered information about programmes, modules, processes etc • Offered data from SITS and Syllabus+ • Other consultation

4. Who else did we speak to? • DUSA – Chris Browne • VP L&T – James Calderhead • College L&T leads – Carey Norman, David Coates, Lesley McLellan, [Jonathan Baldwin] • College Secretaries – Ilona Mair, Lesley Potter, Rob Ford, Peter Evans • Academic Affairs – Jonathan Weyers and Eric Monaghan

5. What did we find? • General efficiency at UG level • Some challenges at PG level • A lot of change already under way in Schools • Some exciting University initiatives • Numerous examples of best practice • Some (real or perceived) barriers at University level • Enthusiasm for change!

6. Recommendation 1 • Ensure that the new University L&T Strategy provides a compelling and distinctive vision for the institution.

7. Recommendation 2 • Refresh the standard module and semester structure across the University, including number of credits per module and semester start dates. This will facilitate flexibility and choice for students. Ensure compliance with confirmed standards. (Note: this may exclude certain programmes.)

8. Recommendation 3 • Prepare a business case for implementation of Business Process Manager (SITS module) to automate programme and module approval processes.

9. Recommendation 4 • Incorporate a standardised version of the TPG business planning template as a mandatory step in the approval process for new TPG programmes. Agree a process for review and approval at College level, informed by advice from Student Recruitment, Finance and Academic Affairs.

10. Recommendations 5 • Test the financial viability of all existing TPG programmes, using the TPG business planning template.

11. Recommendation 6 • Increase central planning/co-ordination of TPG provision, with focus on co-ordinated marketing, generic modules (where appropriate), alignment of intakes etc. The radical step of setting up a Graduate College is not seen as a viable option.

12. Recommendation 7 • Do the same with DL and/or CPD provision, paying particular attention to infrastructure issues.

13. Recommendation 8 • Develop a series of meaningful metrics for monitoring teaching efficiency, bearing in mind that one size does not fit all. These metrics might at some point be used to develop a comprehensive set of course costings.

14. Recommendation 9 • Prepare a business case for purchase and implementation of the Enterprise version of Syllabus + in order to achieve maximum benefits, including workload planning and full capture of all teaching activity, whether in centrally timetabled rooms or not.

15. Recommendation 10 • Keep under review the balance in teaching resource between permanent staff and external resources (for instance part-time lecturers, guest lecturers).

16. Recommendation 11 • At programme development stage, continue to explore the potential for one or more modules to be delivered in partnership with other institutions, where this would contribute to the quality of the student experience.

17. Recommendation 12 • Undertake a strategic review of non-controlled funded places with a view to creating an allocation of Priority and/or Non-Priority places to each programme, in consultation with Colleges and Schools.

18. Recommendation 13 • Move the Home/EU undergraduate student number allocation from a recruitment cap to a total number cap by programme, in order to align with external monitoring by SFC. Schools/Colleges would be responsible for planning the total population for each of their programmes, including assumptions around retention rates. They would then advise ASRS as to the following year intake for each of their programmes, rather than this being decided centrally.

19. Recommendation 14 • Examine the distinctive characteristics inherent in the MA degree and investigate the extent to which these may be transferred to other degree programmes: with a view to maximising student choice, removing artificial barriers and supporting a more flexible approach to learning and teaching.

20. Recommendation 15 • Where appropriate and within the context of programme review, assess whether the content of accredited degrees is consistent with the requirements of the accrediting bodies. In particular, consider whether there is scope for creating more space for enquiry-based learning. If any accrediting body’s requirements are seen as a barrier to widening the content, consider whether there is scope to influence these through engagement with it.

21. Recommendation 16 • Create a comprehensive and easily accessible/searchable on-line catalogue of modules and improve information about programme pathways. This should provide enough information about a module in order to ensure, as far as possible, that students from other schools make informed choices and therefore reduce failure rates.

22. Recommendation 17 • Review current arrangements across the university to ensure that appropriate advice about module choice is always provided to students (eg through Adviser of Studies).

23. Recommendation 18 • Through the above recommendations, minimise the number of students who find they need to switch modules after semester start as a result of poor module choice. As well as being better for the student, this would help schools maintain their minimum threshold for module viability.

24. Recommendation 19 • Consider whether module development should become more collaborative in nature, with a significant role for other schools to work with the delivery School. Expand the number of modules which are designed to be delivered in the home discipline and to others, either with modified content or a different assessment regime. An example might be a module on coastal erosion also being offered to architecture students.

25. Recommendation 20 • Compile an on-line portfolio containing examples of the good practice found, eg Psychology modeller, Humanities self-directed modules, EPM matrix.