AAR template version 3 UNIVERSITY QUALITY ENHANCEMENT … Rel... · 2008-07-18 · AAR template...

AAR template version 3

UNIVERSITY QUALITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE HLSS SQC VALIDATION PANEL (2006-2007)

ACADEMIC APPROVAL RECORD REFERENCE – 1341 CONFIRMED

Recommendation to University Quality Enhancement Committee The HLSS SQC Validation Panel was asked to Review and revalidate Religious Studies and is pleased to recommend to the University Quality Enhancement Committee approval of the following proposals: REVIEW Pathway

Code Pathway Title Final

Award Intermediate

Awards Specialist

/Joint Modes of delivery

DJ/RL Religious Studies BA(Hons) BA, CertHE and DipHE

Joint FT, PTD, PTDE

REVALIDATION Pathway


Award Intermediate

Awards Specialist


DJ/RL Religious Studies BA(Hons) BA, CertHE and DipHE

Joint FT, PTD, PTDE

VALIDATION Pathway


Award Intermediate

Awards Specialist


NONE DELETION Pathway

Code Pathway Title List all

Awards to be

deleted

Modes of delivery

Specialist /Joint

Last recruitmen

t date

Final completion date for students

DS/RL Religious Studies

BA (Hons),

BA, DipHE, CertHE

FT PT Specialist 2005-2006 2007-2008 subject to resit and retake

arrangements for full and part time students

as applicable. MODULES Semeste

r New

Module ( ) Module

code Module Title Credit

s Core / Core

option or elective

Delivered by

2 RL1008 Religions in Wolverhampton 15 Core option University 2 RL1013 Judaism 15 Core option University 1 RL1015 The Study of Religion 15 Core University 1 RL2018 Christianity 15 Core University

1/2 RL2019 Independent Study in Religious Studies

15 Elective University

2 RL2022 Research Methods in Religious Studies

15 Core option University

2 RL2023 Sikhism 15 Core option University 1 RL2027 Religion and the Professions 15 Core option University 2 RL2028 Hinduism 15 Core University 2 RL3024 Buddhism 15 Core option University

of 28


1/2 RL3027 Independent Study in Religious Studies

15 Elective University

1 RL3028 Islam 15 Core option University 1 RL3029 New Religious Movements 15 Core option University

1/2 RL3030 Project in RS (15 credits) 15 Core option University 1 & 2 RL3031 Project in RS (30 credits) 30 Core option University

2 RL3037 Religious Landscape of Contemporary Britain

15 Core University

2 EL1003 Myth 15 Core option University 1 PH2004 It Shouldn’t Be Allowed 15 Core option University 2 PH2005 The Enlightenment 15 Core option University 2 WR1100 The Holocaust 15 Core option University

MODULES TO BE DELETED Module code Module Title Semester Credits Date to be

deleted RL1014 Religions in the West Midlands 2 15 July 2007 RL2026 Exploring Religion and Society 1 15 July 2008 In support of these recommendations, the Validating Panel provides appendices of supporting evidence including records of meetings, external and other reports and an action checklist The Validating Panel is aware that the University Quality Enhancement Committee reserves the right to review all decisions made by the Standing Panel, to ratify approvals and to follow up on any issues identified in the AAR as the Committee sees fit. DATE OF THE NEXT REVIEW The next review of BA(Hons) Religious Studies is scheduled to take place by the end of the 2012-2013 academic year. Summary of process: Date Activity See appendix 04/07/06 Initial planning meeting Appendix 1 27/11/06 Submission deadline for review document 13/12/06 Review document received 11/01/07 External adviser review comments received 12/01/07 Meeting with staff team to discuss review Appendix 2 12/01/07 Meeting with students (1) Appendix 2 05/02/07 External adviser report received Appendix 3 05/02/07 Submission deadline for amended review document 26/02/07 Submission deadline for revalidation documentation 09/03/07 Resubmitted review document received 09/03/07 Revalidation documentation received (incomplete) 20/03/07 Meeting with students (2) Appendix 2 20/03/07 Meeting with staff team to discuss revalidation Appendix 2 23/04/07 Submission deadline for amended revalidation documentation 09/05/07 Amended revalidation documentation received 21/08/07 All review and revalidation actions closed Appendix 4 Academic Approval Record Summary of findings The HLSS SQC Validation Panel undertook the six yearly review and revalidation of Religious Studies, opting to separate the review and revalidation stages. Recruitment to the specialist pathway had been suspended shortly after the last revalidation, so it was decided that the specialist pathway would not be reviewed and revalidated as part of this process but would be deleted instead.

of 28


Following the review meeting, the Panel’s ongoing concerns with regard to the review document were mainly issues of presentation not substance and because the incorrect template had been used, some areas of relevance to the review process had not been addressed. The team were asked to re-present the review document on the correct template adding in the previously missing sections and incorporating the missing data. In addition, no current students had been present at the student meeting, so the Panel asked for a further meeting to be arranged. Further to these points, the staff team were advised of some issues to consider when undertaking the revalidation process. As required, a meeting with current students was held prior to the revalidation meeting. A revised review document was also received, however the Panel still had some concerns over the retention and progression figures and analysis included in the report. Retention was raised during the revalidation meeting and a further action to produce a Religious Studies retention strategy was agreed. The revalidation meeting also highlighted some concerns over assessment in relation to both assessment type and feedback. The team were assigned a short term action to address these concerns and a longer term one to monitor assessment via annual monitoring throughout the life of the pathway. The staff team were also asked to provide all of the documentation originally requested and on the correct templates. The resubmitted documentation was felt to appropriately address the issues raised by the Panel and the pathway was revalidated for a further 6 year period. Professional, Statutory, Regulatory Body (PSRB) Involvement Not applicable. Collaborative Arrangements Not applicable. Good Practice / Enhancement The Panel wish to highlight the following areas of good practice and/or quality enhancement. • The revalidation documentation contained lots of examples of good practice and innovation in teaching,

learning and assessment and the way in which personal research enriches teaching was evident. • The revalidation meeting identified some very good practices in Religious Studies in relation to the use of

locality and technology supported learning. • External (English Heritage / University of Chester) and internal (Religion, Media and Cyberspace module)

collaboration. • The Religion in the West Midlands module (replaced by Religions in Wolverhampton as part of this

revalidation) which links the subject with the religious profile of the local area. Issues that have institutional implications for consideration by the University Not all documentation (review document and pathway specification in this case) was submitted on the correct versions of the templates provided. Processes and training, both central and school based, need to ensure that staff are aware of the need to use the latest versions of templates. Action checklist for ongoing monitoring throughout the lifetime of the pathway(s)

Responsibility Action Date Action to be closed by Staff team To continue to review assessment Ongoing through SQEC

of 28


through annual monitoring

throughout the lifetime of the pathway. annual monitoring

Date the draft AAR was approved for submission to the AAR Sub Group for ratification by the Standing / Validation Panel Chair.

07/11/07

of 28


VALIDATING PANEL RECORD Details of Panel and Participants Chair: Ms Jenny Rice (to March 07) Officer: Ms Rachel Ford

Ms Judith Holt (from April 07) Panel members designated to Review and Revalidate the provision: • Ms Jenny Rice • Dr Rob Baron (HLSS) • Ms Wendy Bastable (Learning Centre) • Dr Jon Bernardes (HLSS) • Dr Andy Cooper (HLSS) • Dr Paul Johnson (SSPAL) Independent External Adviser for the Review and Revalidation : • Dr Sarah Lewis, University of Wales Lampeter Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Body representatives: Not applicable Religious Studies Subject/Pathway Team Representatives from HLSS for the Review and Revalidation: • Dr George Chryssides (Key Proposer) • Dr Deirdre Burke • Dr Steve Jacobs

of 28

Appendix 1 NOTES OF INITIAL PLANNING MEETING


School Quality Committee for School of Humanities, Languages and Social Sciences (HLSS) – 2006/2007 The review of the BA(Hons) Religious Studies pathways (DJ/RL and DS/RL) has been devolved to HLSS SQC for completion during the academic year 2006-2007. On behalf of SQC, Ms Jenny Rice and Ms Rachel Ford met with the Key Proposer, Dr George Chryssides on 4th July 2006 at 11 a.m., to discuss submission documentation requirements and deadlines. Introduction Ms Rice gave Dr Chryssides some background information on the review and revalidation process and how, as part of the devolvement of responsibility to SQC, the decision was made to separate the review and revalidation stages Dr Chryssides noted that he was due to retire in the next few years and that there were some issues around staffing the pathway in the next academic year. Ms Rice advised Dr Chryssides to raise this with Dr Andy Cooper, who would feed this into senior management discussions. Dr Chryssides also noted that when Religious Studies was validated in 2000, both joint and specialist pathways had been validated. Subsequently, the school had decided not to enrol to the specialist pathway. It was agreed that Dr Chryssides and Ms Rice would confirm outside of the meeting whether the joint and specialist or just the joint pathways would be revalidated. Checklist of Documentation A list of the core and other documentation to be provided to the SQC Validation Panel, either through submission or via the school archive, is included with these notes. Submission of documentation Draft copies of the review document will be submitted to the critical reader by 13th November 2006. The revised copy of the review document will be submitted to the school by 27th November 2006. The school will then circulate copies to SQC Validation Panel members. A meeting to discuss the review document for Religious Studies will be held, the feedback from which should be incorporated into the revalidation documentation. If there are any actions to follow up from the review meeting, the deadline for resubmission and/or responses will be 12th January 2007. Draft copies of the revalidation documentation will be submitted to the critical reader by 12th February 2007. The revised copies of the revalidation documentation will be submitted to the school by 26th February 2007. The school will then circulate copies to SQC Validation Panel members. A meeting to discuss the revalidation documentation for Religious Studies will be held. If there are any actions to follow up from the revalidation meeting, the deadline for resubmission and/or responses will be 10th April 2007. Meeting arrangements The Validation Panel will meet with the Religious Studies staff team in w/c 11th December 2006 to discuss the review document. On the same day, the Panel will also meet with a group of Religious Studies students. The external adviser will be invited to comment by correspondence on the review document. The Validation Panel will meet again with the Religious Studies staff team in w/c 19th March 2007 to discuss the revalidation documentation. The external adviser will be invited to attend this meeting. The Panel will also look to hold a resources visit on this day. The school will liaise with the Key Proposer, external adviser and Panel members to arrange these meetings.

of 28


External Adviser The Key Proposer will identify a nomination for an academic external adviser and forward this to the Officer by 2nd October 2006. SITS Information The Key Proposer will need to submit Module Definition Forms for any proposed new modules to the SQC Officer by 1st November 2006. ACTION CHECKLIST Action arising

from Responsibility Action Deadline

date Outcome

Initial meeting 04/07/06

Key Proposer To submit a draft review document to the school.

13/11/06


Key Proposer To submit the final review document to the school.

27/11/06


Key Proposer To submit draft revalidation documentation to the school.

12/02/07


Key Proposer To submit final revalidation documentation to the school.

26/02/07


Key Proposer To identify an academic nomination for the external adviser and forward this to the Officer.

02/10/06


Key Proposer To forward module definition forms for proposed new modules to the Officer.

01/11/06

CHECKLIST OF DOCUMENTATION Documentation required for the review and revalidation of Religious Studies as agreed with the SQC Validation Panel Chair and Officer. For further details, see the review and validation handbook. Core Documents First drafts

Submission Date

Submission to Validation

Panel

Comments

1. Proposal plan approved by the Academic Development Panel

Not applicable Not applicable

2. Review Document 13/11/06 27/11/06 1 electronic and 6 hard copies of the final document to be submitted to the school

3. Revalidation Document 12/02/07 26/02/07 1 electronic and 6 hard copies to be submitted to the school

4. Pathway specifications 12/02/07 26/02/07 1 electronic and 6 hard copies to be submitted to the school

5. Module specifications for all Religious Studies modules contributing the pathway

12/02/07 26/02/07 1 electronic and 6 hard copies to be submitted to the school

6. Module specifications or module guides for any non- Religious Studies modules contributing the pathway

12/02/07 26/02/07 1 electronic and 6 hard copies to be submitted to the school

7. Draft pathway guide 12/02/07 26/02/07 1 electronic and 6 hard copies to be

of 28

http://asp2.wlv.ac.uk/registry/qasd/HPGandT/HandG/validation.pdf

http://asp2.wlv.ac.uk/registry/qasd/HPGandT/templates/proposal%20template.dot

http://asp2.wlv.ac.uk/registry/qasd/HPGandT/templates/Review%20temp.dot

http://asp2.wlv.ac.uk/registry/qasd/HPGandT/templates/Revalidation%20temp.dot

http://asp2.wlv.ac.uk/registry/qasd/HPGandT/templates/PST.dot

http://asp2.wlv.ac.uk/registry/qasd/HPGandT/templates/MST.dot


submitted to the school

8. Staff CV 12/02/07 26/02/07 1 electronic and 6 hard copies to be submitted to the school

9. Draft revised Memorandum of Co-operation

Not applicable Not applicable

Other Documents as applicable, these should be available in the school archive

Comments

10. School annual monitoring report to UQC

11. UQC annual monitoring audit reports

12. Assessment handbook

13. Handbooks for students with disabilities

14. Induction and welcome week documents

15. Information about any school policies relevant to the Race Relations Amendment Act (RRAA), Special Education Needs Disability Act (SENDA) and the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA)

16. Placement guides

17. Project guides

18. Relevant professional, statutory or regulatory body reports and correspondence

19. School strategy documents

20. Staff development programmes

21. Study skills support documents

Rachel Ford

HLSS SQC Officer Other Useful links for Key Proposer Previous Academic Approval Record – Religious Studies was validated in 2000. Staff and student question grids for use at meetings.

of 28

http://asp2.wlv.ac.uk/registry/qasd/RandV/hlss/AAR/00-01/Religious%20Studies+AT.PDF

http://asp2.wlv.ac.uk/registry/qasd/toolkit/documents/word/Proposing%20Team%20questions%20for%20review%20and%20revalidation.doc

http://asp2.wlv.ac.uk/registry/qasd/toolkit/documents/word/student%20question%20grid%2004.dot

Appendix 2 NOTES OF MEETING WITH STAFF AND STUDENTS

Appendix 2 NOTES OF MEETING WITH STAFF AND STUDENTS SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES, LANGUAGES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES VALIDATION PANEL

Approved by Chair RECORD OF VALIDATION PANEL DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF Proposal Review of Religious

Studies Date / Time

Friday 12th January 2007 from 9 a.m.

Venue MA Board Room, City Campus

Present • For the SQC Validation Panel – Ms Jenny Rice (Chair- HLSS), Ms Wendy Bastable (Learning Centre), Dr Rob Baron (HLSS), Dr Jon Bernardes (HLSS), Dr Paul Johnson (SSPAL) and Ms Rachel Ford (Officer)

• For Religious Studies – Dr George Chryssides (Key Proposer)

Apologies Dr Deirdre Burke was supervising an examination.

Introduction Representatives of the Validation Panel met before the staff meeting to discuss issues arising from the review document and perusal of the Religious Studies school archive material. Prior to the meeting, written comments had been received from the external adviser Dr Sarah Lewis. Meeting with staff team Ms Rice opened the meeting by asking about the extent of staff contribution to the Religious Studies pathway. Dr Chryssides noted he would be the only staff member attending today, but that in addition to Dr Deirdre Burke, Rev. Prebendary Geoffrey Wynne and Dr Stephen Jacobs had contributed to one module each. Historically, visiting lecturers had also been contracted. Ms Rice noted that the review document had not been submitted on the required template and as a result some information required by the Panel had not been available. The Panel would be asking detailed questions on the missing sections during the course of the meeting, however, it was also likely that the missing sections would need to be submitted in writing following the meeting. Review Process Ms Rice asked about the review process undertaken by the subject team. Dr Chryssides noted that while no formal meetings had been held, he and Dr Burke had worked through annual monitoring reports and student evaluation and considered what changes had been made and for what reasons. They next looked at where the subject should go in the future. Students were aware that the review was taking place, but they had not been consulted or contributed to the review process. Characteristics and development of the pathway Ms Rice added that the review document was expected to be a self critical analysis of the delivery of a subject area since the last review. To address this, Ms Rice asked what the aims of the joint Religious Studies pathway at Wolverhampton are and what graduates leave with. Dr Chryssides explained that the study of Religious Studies at Wolverhampton aims to show students a way of understanding people. Theology study is more text based and prepares students for the priesthood, whereas Religious Studies looks at people’s religious views and how these influence how people behave or how they would wish to behave. Religious Studies can be a different way of understanding society. The pathway also looks at multi-faith / multi-cultural Wolverhampton and Britain and offers students opportunities to observe and take part in worship with different faiths. Ms Rice asked how this affected students’ choice of their joint pathway. Dr Chryssides noted that the study of Religious Studies can put students’ career plans and choice of study in context. Students can take a broad view of the subject by looking at how people and communities operate or can be specialised with students progressing to teaching Religious Studies.

of 28


The Panel had noted that the review document submitted gave the pathway aims and outcomes purely in terms of the knowledge gained and wondered what students got from their studies besides information. Dr Chryssides noted they gained understanding and were able to analyse. They had the opportunity to consider different points of view and were expected to recognise and defend others’ points of view. Recent areas which had required students to consider different viewpoints had been during the study of Islamophobia and the criticism of New Religious Movements (sometimes referred to as cults). Students often work on topical issues from the news. The Key Proposer was asked if all the modules listed in the review document were currently being offered. Dr Chryssides noted that the pathway was validated as a joint and specialist at the last review, but that recruitment to the specialist was suspended quite soon afterwards. As a result, some of the modules listed had never run. Of the modules listed on pages 2 and 3 of the document, all of these are currently on offer; however Dr Chryssides could not recall any students opting for the Student Link modules or the 30 credit project. Dr Chryssides was asked how levelness was built into the organisation of the curriculum and responded that feedback had indicated that students like to study modules on individual religions. As New Religious Movements draws on a wide range of religions, it was obvious that this should be set at level 3. Some religions derive from others, e.g. Judaism and Christianity, so it was logical to study them in a particular order. Likewise for Hinduism and Buddhism; also student feedback suggested that they find Buddhism more difficult, so this was set at level 3. Islam derives from Judaeo-Christianity, so the study of this religion was also set at level 3. Since the last review, Hinduism has been moved from level 1 to level 2. During this pathway modification, the staff team considered the appropriateness of the level of the revised module. Research is important across all modules, so methodology is introduced at level 1, with research methods at level 2 in preparation for the project module at level 3. Intended Developments/Changes That Will Be Presented For Revalidation It is the intention of the subject team to delete the specialist pathway. With the current staff a specialist pathway cannot be supported. The Officer agreed to find out if any students were still enrolled on the specialist pathway. With regard to the contributing modules, there is not much scope for change. Students have commented that there is some overlap between the Religious Landscapes and Exploring Religion and Society modules, so the staff team will be looking at possibly merging the two modules and introducing a new module. Dr Chryssides was asked what the subject’s strategy was for including pooled modules in the future and how these were currently working. Pooled modules which currently contribute include Myth, The Holocaust, The Enlightenment, Being Bad and It Shouldn’t be Allowed. Recently a timetable clash prevented students doing ‘Being Bad’. This was replaced with Myth which includes a consideration of biblical issues. Dr Baron asked about the difference between interdisciplinary and multi-disciplinary modules. Dr Baron considered interdisciplinary modules to be those that were wholly relevant to all students, regardless of their subject specialisation. With multi-disciplinary modules, students can feel that only part of the module is relevant to them and that the assessment they do will be in relation to their subject area only. No student feedback had been sought on pooled modules for the purposes of this review. A good example of an interdisciplinary module is The Enlightenment. Students draw on the whole module content and even when, for example, Politics lecturers are delivering lectures, the students can still see the relevance to their Religious Studies pathway. This, and modules like it, allow students to reflect on other philosophies and enables students to put into context issues such as the backlash to fundamentalism. Operation of the pathway over the review period The Key Proposer was asked if the student body had changed since the last review. Dr Chryssides noted the subject had identified a decline in literary skills. Subject knowledge can also be an issue; at a recent lecture, some students did not know anything about Martin Luther.

of 28


Dr Chryssides was asked if this had affected the curriculum. He responded that while no changes had been made at the module level, staff have had to reassess the assumptions they make about the students’ general knowledge. It was also noted that student numbers have also declined in recent years although the number of students taking A level Religious Studies is on the increase. Dr Chryssides was asked about the subject team’s assessment strategy and responded that assessment tasks are aligned to module learning outcomes and also tied into the assessment of key skills. The Panel asked what the staff team were trying to get out of the students during assessments. Group work tends to generate enthusiasm and students encourage each other and some interesting group dynamics can be created. The assessment for Research Methods directly prepares students for completing their level 3 project. The module assessments aim to encourage thinking and the use of fieldwork and research from a variety of sources. The staff team also consider the comments of external examiners on assessments. For the revalidation, the staff team are considering more integration of IT, but they want to have further discussion on this before making a decision given the mixed success to date of using IT in formative assessment. The Key Proposer was asked about Technology Supported Learning on the pathway. Religious Studies have used WOLF for some time now; the materials for the Buddhism module being particularly well developed. Staff and students use PowerPoint in the classroom and students have recently been using Pebble Pad on the Judaism module. Dr Burke has received mixed feedback on this. Learning Resources for the Delivery of the Pathway The review report did not include a section on resources, so Ms Bastable began by asking how Religious Studies staff work with the Learning Centre. Dr Chryssides noted that the librarian, Pamela, works with staff on the level 1 and level 2 research modules. Students undertake a session on using learning resources for each module, which the staff also find useful as Pamela updates staff and students on what is available. Dr Chryssides has been very impressed by Pamela, who often purchases materials before they are requested and who is able to obtain materials quite quickly once asked for. Most journal subscriptions have been cancelled as on-line provision is now available. While these resources are adequate for students, they are less helpful for staff, but there are mechanisms in place whereby further materials can be obtained through the Learning Centre. Useful web links are made available on WOLF, with students being encouraged to critically evaluate the relevance and accuracy of sites. Students are directed to the Learning Centre for study skills advice. While the staff team are satisfied that the support needed is available, they are less sure that students actually take up the help they need. Staffing, Staff Development, Subject And Pedagogic Research Underpinning Dr Chryssides noted that Dr Burke will continue to work half time for Religious Studies until at least the end of the year. The amount of support the Chaplaincy will contribute in the near future is still being discussed, but it is likely that Rev Wynne will continue to teach on Religious Landscapes while Dr Jacobs will teach Hinduism during its next iteration. The success of visiting lecturers has been mixed. They are usually used to deliver one module per semester, although in semester one this year none have been used. Recruitment, Retention, Progression and achievement, First destinations With regard to student progression, Dr Chryssides noted there was an average intake of 35 students onto year one modules. This includes students on elective and pooled modules. At level 3, there are usually around 15 students taking the joint pathway.

of 28


There have been some issues around the Research Methods module which has, in most years, presented the largest number of failures. So far, the staff team have struggled to explain the reason for this. Across all modules, the staff team are monitoring performance and responding to a range of situations which arise. From first destination data, it is apparent that a number of students go on to take a PGCE. These students are more likely than others to stay in touch with the staff team. Typically other graduates have gone into local government, English Heritage, caring professions, post graduate study and a number now work at the University of Wolverhampton. The Panel asked if Religious Studies had a retention strategy. Dr Chryssides noted that retention is picked up at subject boards and followed up by looking at where the problem is coming from and seeking to address it. The Panel asked how resit data compares to that for first sit; for example, do the staff see the same issues arising in resit assessments. Dr Chryssides noted that students are provided with a lot of assessment preparation including specimen questions and answers and in-class discussions around the aims and objectives of assessments. One difficulty seems to be that students need to demonstrate background information and discussion of other ideas and not just their own views. There is a tendency for students not to avail themselves of the resit sessions provided. The data suggests that students attempt resits but do not pass them. Quality assurance and enhancement processes Feedback is gathered through end of module questionnaires and mid module evaluation. Student representatives are in place but rarely raise issues. Religious Studies does not have a staff student liaison committee, but given the size of the student group, students feel more able to provide informal feedback. Feedback is given to students; in the case of mid module evaluation this is provided at the next available session, especially where staff are able to give quick fix solutions. Ms Rice closed by thanking Dr Chryssides for attending the meeting. The Panel would consider the issues discussed and consider any matters raised by the students, who were due to attend a meeting from 12 noon. Dr Chryssides would then re-join the Panel for feedback. Conclusions Ms Rice welcomed Dr Chryssides back to the meeting and began by feeding back on the items of good practice identified from the review. Items of good practice

• The subject obviously runs well. • The Panel members, especially those external to the school, had found the discussions fascinating. • The graduates who had met with the Panel had given a good report of their experience on the Religious

Studies pathway. ISSUES AND ACTIONS ARISING FROM THE RELIGIOUS STUDIES STAFF AND STUDENT MEETINGS

• The main concerns around the review document had mainly been issues of presentation not substance. The staff team were therefore asked to re-present the review document on the correct template adding in the previously missing sections and incorporating the missing data. The team is to approach this task by being analytical in terms of the data presented and strategic in the way the data is considered. The notes of this meeting may be used to address the areas of interest and concern raised by the Panel. The deadline for resubmitting the review document is 5th February 2007.

• The Panel noted that no current students had been present at the student meeting; only graduates had attended. A meeting with current students will need to be arranged and Ms Rice will liaise with Dr Chryssides outside of the meeting to arrange this. Any feedback arising from the meeting with students will be provided to the staff team at a later date.

of 28

http://asp2.wlv.ac.uk/registry/qasd/HPGandT/templates/Review%20temp.doc


ISSUES TO FEED INTO REVALIDATION

• A meeting date for the revalidation needs to be arranged as soon as possible. The external adviser has already indicated her availability and the Panel would expect all staff who contribute to Religious Studies to attend the meeting.

• The Panel will be looking for evidence of a more team approach to the revalidation. Also the Panel will want the staff team to consider the nature of joint students, who they are and how they develop into Religious Studies graduates.

• The Panel asked the staff team to consider the strategic use of pooled modules in the pathway proposed for revalidation.

• The revalidation submission should include a statement on how visiting lecturers are used. Also, how the staff team work together given the mostly part-time nature of the staff, plus any contingency plans the team have in place.

• The revalidation documentation should discuss the subject’s strategies for addressing recruitment, retention, progression and achievement. These do not need to be included in great detail, but can be a paragraph each or a bulleted list. In relation to retention, the staff team are advised to contact the school’s retention officer either directly or via Ms G Steinke.

Rachel Ford

HLSS SQC Officer

of 28


SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES, LANGUAGES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES VALIDATION PANEL RECORD OF VALIDATION PANEL DISCUSSIONS WITH STUDENTS Proposal Review of Religious

Studies Date / Time

Friday 12th January 2007 from 12 noon

Venue MA Board Room, City Campus

Present • For the SQC Validation Panel – Ms Jenny Rice (Chair- HLSS), Ms Wendy Bastable (Learning Centre), Dr Rob Baron (HLSS), Dr Jon Bernardes (HLSS), Dr Paul Johnson (SSPAL) and Ms Rachel Ford (Officer)

• For Religious Studies – Three graduates, two who graduated around three years ago and

one who graduated in 98/99

Apologies None

Introduction Three Religious Studies graduates attended the meeting. One graduated from the specialist pathway three years ago. This graduate had gone on to take a PGCE Religious Education (with QTS) and was currently taking a year out. A second person graduated from the specialist pathway eight years ago and was currently undertaking a PhD. The third graduate also left the University three years earlier and had taken the specialist pathway. They had gone on to post graduate study and were currently working in County Council administration. Meeting with staff team

• Pathway Aims and Outcomes Ms Rice opened by asking the graduates why they had chosen Wolverhampton to study Religious Studies and what they had gained from their studies. The first graduate who responded noted that Wolverhampton was their local university. They had wanted to take Religious Studies as a specialist and at the time, this was one of the few universities that offered it. At the start this graduate had felt that they knew a lot about local communities, but studying on the pathway had expanded their horizons. They welcomed the hands-on approach, rather than purely theoretical, and had been amazed by the diversity. A second graduate agreed. There had not been any opportunities for visits at O/A level stage study and it had been fantastic to meet different people. This graduate had also been local to the University, although they had experienced their teaching at Dudley for part of the pathway. They found Wolverhampton a good place to learn and noted that this was their preferred place of study compared to other institutions they had experienced. The third respondent noted that cost had been a consideration for them during their studies, so this had been a driver for their decision to study at their local university. They had experienced teaching at the Walsall campus. They had enjoyed the opportunity to see the sharing of living faith as opposed to a solely theoretical approach. Their experience of other universities was that they had not been as welcoming. Ms Rice asked if the graduates had found their studies to be as they expected. It was noted that course publicity indicated there were links with local faith communities and that visits would take place; but while this was expected, in reality the visits had exceeded their expectations. There had been opportunities to visit a range of places, not just those for mainstream religions.

• Learning Opportunities Student Progression and Achievement The graduates were asked about module choice and progression. One graduate noted they had had a sense of progression. At the end of their pathway, they could see how their study of different religions and approaches to study joined together. There was a cohesive relationship between theory and practice.

of 28


One graduate noted they could see that the order of teaching on Judaism, Christianity and Islam was done in a logical order. The same applied to Hinduism, Sikhism and Buddhism. The very formative year one laid the foundations for years 2 and 3. Another graduate had failed an early essay, but staff had helped them to put this right and retrieve the assessment. One graduate would have preferred more choice of modules at levels 2 and 3, while another noted how much they had enjoyed taking a Deaf Studies module, also Religion and Landscape and Religion and Society. Another graduate enjoyed New Religious Movements which had included an opportunity to visit a Scientology church. The graduates welcomed a pathway which had one module dedicated to each of the religions studied.

• Curricula and Assessment Assessment The graduates were asked about the type of assessments they experienced and their relevance. One graduate noted they had experienced presentations (group and individual), essays, reports on a field visit (based on a question or enquiry), journals and research tasks. They could see the value of all of them. Presentations help to build confidence and the graduates were aware that all types of assessments helped them gain transferable skills.

• Learning Opportunities Student Support and Guidance One graduate had found their first semester a bit tricky. University study is very different to school and they needed to learn how to seek advice. They had experienced pretty much an open door policy from academic staff. The graduates had been aware that learning coordinators were in place, but regardless of this, they were always able to get support from Drs Burke or Chryssides either in person or via email or telephone. The subject staff also produced useful booklets on the study of religion, Christianity and biblical studies etc.

• Learning Opportunities Learning Resources The graduates recalled some difficulties in obtaining some key resources (at the time, there were 8 students in their cohort). One graduate did not enjoy using journals and preferred on-line resources and another noted how useful the Athens service had been. One graduate had not experienced any problems accessing materials.

• Quality One graduate welcomed the opportunity to give anonymous feedback through module evaluation questionnaires. Another was able to cite an example where students had felt a curriculum area was missing from a module. Staff had reacted to the feedback and this had resulted in an amendment to the curriculum. One graduate noted that they did not feel they needed to wait for formal feedback opportunities in order to comment. The graduates were aware that staff research fed into teaching. When asked, the graduates agreed they would recommend Religious Studies at Wolverhampton to others; however one noted they did not support the move to joint only delivery. It was further agreed that students may be encouraged to take the joint pathway if they were provided with examples of suitable and relevant joint combinations in the prospectus. The graduates were thanked for taking the time to come back to the University to meet with the Panel.

of 28


Conclusions The Panel enjoyed meeting with the graduates, however, none of them had experience of the pathway currently being considered. The Panel noted that as no current students had been present at the student meeting; a meeting with current students would need to be arranged. Ms Rice will liaise with Dr Chryssides outside of the meeting to arrange this. Any feedback arising from a meeting with students will be provided to the staff team at a later date.

Rachel Ford HLSS SQC Officer

of 28


SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES, LANGUAGES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES SCHOOL QUALITY COMMITTEE VALIDATION PANEL

Approved by Chair Record of SQC Validation Panel discussions with students Proposal Revalidation of

BA(Hons) Religious Studies

Date / Time

20th March 2007 from 12 noon.

Venue Council Room, City Campus

Present • For the Validation Panel – Dr Andy Cooper (Chair), Dr Rob Baron, Ms Wendy Bastable (Learning Centre), Dr Jon Bernardes, Dr Paul Johnson (SSPAL), Dr Sarah Lewis (External Adviser) and Ms Rachel Ford (Officer)

• For Religious Studies - One year 1 full time student, joint with History; one year 2 full

time student joint Combined Studies; one year 2 full time student joint with Philosophy and three year 3 full time students joint with Philosophy.

Apologies None

Dr Cooper welcomed the students to the meeting and Ms Bastable began by asking if the students had met the subject librarian and about Learning Centre resources in general. The students knew the subject librarian, Pamela, and had attended several sessions with her as part of taught modules, including one on research methods. Pamela was helpful in directing them to new materials. The students felt materials were easy to find and aware of the usefulness of inter library loans. Some of the students thought longer opening hours on Saturdays would be good (until midnight was suggested), but they did accept that some students preferred to work more during the week and less at weekends. The students had not experienced any issues around access to IT and group study rooms. One student noted they used single study rooms for revision, however another student felt they could be a bit claustrophobic. A student noted that sometimes, around assessment hand in times, some key texts could be hard to come by, but they didn’t blame the librarian for this situation. This situation had occurred recently for one student who mentioned it to Dr Chryssides. He had advised on some other sources of information the students could try which had worked out well. The students noted that a lot of information is provided on WOLF. WOLF is generally well-used by students. A student, who acted as student representative, noted that some students had complained that they could not access WOLF. The Panel noted that the usual reason students could not access WOLF was that they were in debt and were excluded from using this and other resources. One student, who was taking FD1000, Writing for Academic Success, noted that they had found a very useful study skills text in the Learning Centre. Another noted that more study skills at the start of the pathway would have been helpful. The student who was a student representative, noted that students complained about IT issues, in particular around projection equipment for presentations. • Dr Bernardes asked the students about teaching and learning issues in Religious Studies. One student noted they had found the teaching and learning materials to be interesting and they had never been bored in lectures. Another student noted that having to give presentations as part of assessments was a good thing because it required the students to learn, understand and convey information to others. It was noted that arranging group work can be difficult. Students are aware that group work is relevant to their future employment in that it tests their timing, communication skills and working with others, in some cases with people they do not know very well. The students felt doing presentations was good for their confidence.

of 28


They noted that sometimes staff assigned people to groups and other times students were able to make up the groups themselves. A further student noted that their assessment grades had gradually improved and they felt this was because of the useful feedback they had received. A typical teaching session involves a lecture, usually with accompanying notes, questions for discussion, use of multi media and an opportunity to look at articles or on-line databases. Assessment methods used include essays, learning logs and diaries. Students have used Pebble Pad, but some noted that they had experienced difficulties with it. It made some question if they were being tested on Religious Studies or IT as they felt the technology could get in the way. The students noted they would like to see all overheads put on WOLF. They had been advised that some overheads could not be put on WOLF for copyright reasons, but this puzzled the Panel as if materials was shown in classes, this suggested they were not copyright protected. One student noted that they liked to use the overheads on WOLF to prepare for lectures. • The students were asked about assessment feedback and whether it was useful. One student had asked for feedback on a timed essay, but they had not been allowed to see their marked script. It was felt by some that the feedback on WOLF was unhelpful, but students were aware that they could book a tutorial for further feedback. How useful feedback was tended to depend on the lecturer. Some gave helpful personal feedback, while others gave group feedback, which could be less helpful. With group feedback it is up to the students to identify which issues are relevant to their own work. The students confirmed that they are taught mainly by two staff members, with occasional input from a third member. • Dr Lewis asked why the students had chosen to take Religious Studies and if it had met their expectations. One student had planned to do Business Studies, but had enjoyed Religious Studies so much at school and college that they had chosen to pursue their interest. This student was interested in cultures and like the philosophical approach taken at Wolverhampton. Another student wished to go into teaching; they had studied Religious Studies at 6th form. In general, students felt their studies had exceeded their expectations. One student noted they though there was more scope with a joint pathway to explore philosophical issues. In general the students favoured a joint pathway to a specialist one. One of the students noted that Religious Studies was a vast area of study but they felt it was interesting to combine it with another subject in order to put a Religious Studies slant on the other subject. Another student liked the way it opened up the possibility of taking other subject modules in areas such as Sociology and Media Studies. • Dr Lewis asked if there were any additional areas the students would like to see included in the curriculum. The students noted there wasn’t currently a module on Sikhism and one student noted they would like to see a module linked to education. • The students were asked about student support and guidance. With regard to completing modules, student felt there could be more support for the project. Students felt there could be more help with study skills, project preparation and submission. On other modules, in general module guides were helpful, but depended on which lecturer produced them; sometimes module guides could contain too much information, but sometimes not enough.

of 28


If students experience academic difficulties, some lecturers welcome students just dropping in to see them, but this can be difficult in shared offices. Students noted it could be embarrassing to discuss some issues within earshot of other lecturers; they felt it would be good if there were more opportunities to meet lecturers in a more private meeting area. One student noted that they had asked for a meeting in private before and this had been accommodated. In general, the students felt the help was there if you are willing to seek it out. It is not uncommon for students to have financial issues, but to be too proud to ask for help. Students were aware that financial advice was available but that it could be advertised more prominently. One student noted they had sought counselling and found the support provided to be very helpful. Another student had been introduced to the services provided in the first year and made a visit to the counselling service with friends. The staff were very helpful, but the student had not felt the need to go back there since. The students thought it would be helpful if personal tutors were advised when students had re-sits or retakes, they could then contact students to advise them of the support available to them. One area in which a student felt they had not received adequate support was around noise in the halls of residence. Despite complaints to the caretaker and residential services, the noise persisted. • The Panel asked the students had chosen to study at the University of Wolverhampton. In general the students were local and this had played a part in their choice to study at Wolverhampton. One had applied to another university, but the pathway had been withdrawn and the student had to go into clearing. • The Panel asked how flexible students found the pathway. Two students felt there was not enough choice, usually due to modules not being delivered. Another student felt there was so much choice, it could be hard to choose which modules to take. It was noted that the inclusion of Independent Study modules also allows for a degree of choice. The students noted that some of the specific religion modules are not core modules. • The students were asked how they found the workload. It was noted that there was some bunching of assessments. The students welcomed some of the assessments being submitted earlier in the module. It was noted that one module has 50% of the marks assigned to one assessment which is submitted by week 5/6. With regard to the Hinduism module, the students who had taken it felt the lecturer assumed they had more background knowledge on the topic than they actually had. • The Panel asked the students about field trips. The students liked field trips and felt their main complaint was there just couldn’t be enough. They were thought to be very valuable and students were very disappointed if any had to be cancelled. Some of the students were looking forward to a visit the next day; they were going to visit a Buddhist temple in Birmingham. Students had also valued the opportunity to visit the Holocaust museum. The students felt it was valuable to get views first hand from religious leaders, especially as these could differ from written materials. • Dr Cooper thanked the students for their contribution to the meeting and said how much the Panel were

impressed with the thoughtfulness of their responses.

of 28


Record of SQC Validation Panel discussions with staff Proposal Revalidation of BA(Hons)

Religious Studies

Date / Time

20th March 2007 from 2 p.m.

Venue Council Room, City Campus

Present • For the Validation Panel – Dr Andy Cooper (Chair), Dr Rob Baron, Ms Wendy Bastable (Learning Centre), Dr Jon Bernardes, Dr Paul Johnson (SSPAL), Dr Sarah Lewis (External Adviser) and Ms Rachel Ford (Officer)

• For Religious Studies – Dr George Chryssides (Key Proposer), Dr Deirdre Burke and Dr

Steve Jacobs.

Apologies None

Introduction Representatives of the Validation Panel met before meeting with the staff team to discuss issues arising from the revalidation submission documentation and the students’ comments. Staff CVs and the Pathway Guide had not been submitted; in addition the pathway specification was presented on an out of date template.

Meeting with staff team Dr Cooper welcomed the staff team and began by acknowledging the work, thought and reflection which had gone into producing the documentation. It contained lots of examples of good practice and innovation in teaching, learning and assessment and the way in which personal research enriches teaching was evident. • Dr Cooper asked Dr Chryssides to set the scene for the revalidation including the strengths of Religious

Studies and to outline the changes proposed and their rationale. Dr Chryssides noted the staff team had chosen not to make radical changes. The existing curriculum covered the main religions and this remained the case in the updated pathway specification. Field trips and fieldwork remain a crucial part of the programme and there is still a great emphasis on religion in the locality. It is proposed that the Sikhism module is reinstated. Sikhism is harder to resource than other modules, but it is the most relevant religion in the local area besides Christianity. In addition, the staff team wish to amend the title of the module Religions in the West Midlands to Religions in Wolverhampton. There will be some minor change in the focus of the module content in addition to the title change. There are plans to delete the module Exploring Religion and Society and replace it with a module on religion and the professions, mainly because of its connection to employability. • Dr Baron asked the staff team to speak to the retention and progression data on page 10 of the review

document. Dr Chryssides noted that the table had been provided by his colleague, Ms Rachel Brooks; the table heading abbreviations were clarified for the benefit of the Panel. • Dr Baron noted that the data appeared to indicate there were a significant number students either repeating

modules or not progressing and this appeared to have increased over recent years. Dr Chryssides was unsure of the reasons for these problems in progression and agreed that the figures are worrying, however the staff team are wholly clear about the reasons for this. Dr Burke noted that some modules are found to be particularly difficult by students and some students struggle throughout on all of the modules. Student performance on Research Methods, for example, varies year on year. During this time, there had been a change in the lecturer leading the module, however this did not appear to have had any effect on student performance. • Dr Baron would have liked to see more in the revalidation submission document on the subject’s strategy

for addressing retention and progression concerns.

of 28


Dr C n expression and poor study skills as possible reasons r poor performance and noted that retention and progression was a school wide issue.

e to be published soon. his module encouraged students to look at their learner profile and directed them to sources of help. The

the external examiner had ome into the University to discuss the matter and actions have been instigated.

mentation. He felt it would have been better if how the team are addressing retention and progression had been articulated more

• t feedback.

and presentations. These are stored lectronically which enables staff to monitor student performance over time. Feedback on timed essays and

that a student had said that they had received derogatory comments in their feedback and added that this was not helpful for students trying to improve their performance.

• f they felt timed essays were the best way to assess students at level 1 of semester 1.

Dr C l sse

ave es much before the end of the module.

e Dr co induism module and this has proved to be more effective.

e mentored throughout their contract. The staff team lace to cover the remainder of Dr Burke’s teaching

d level.

d eli ts requires students to have background knowledge of other religions so again, this is

f religion, so there is an introductory module on this at level 1. Students are usually

hryssides noted the staff had identified weak writte

fo Dr Burke noted that she had last year piloted a PACE module, the results of which are duTfuture of this module is unclear at the moment, because it is not currently resourced. Dr Burke noted that where issues have been identified from statistical data at level 1,c • Dr Baron welcomed this, but noted it should have been included in the docu

strategically in the revalidation submission document.

The Panel asked how staff give and organise assessmen The subject has a structured standard feedback form for essays eexam questions is basically the same. Students are offered the opportunity to discuss results and the majority of students take this up. • Dr Cooper noted

Given the issues around retention and progression, Dr Bernardes asked the team i

hryssides noted that students are provided with lots of guidance and examples of specimen answers. Al

ssments are elements at level 1 and components at levels 2 and 3. a • Dr Bernardes asked if the team had considered the timing of the assessment hand in dates to avoid

bunching. Dr Chryssides responded that they had tried to stagger mid semester assessments, but accepted it was hard to

submission dath • The Panel asked about teaching on the pathway, noting that students appeared to be confident about the

expertise of the staff team. Th staff noted that two visiting lecturers had been used in the past who had not been very successful.

bs has now taken over the HJa • The Panel asked how visiting lecturers are inducted. Visiting lecturers are invited to an initial briefing and arre currently considering putting a fractional post in pa

fellowship. • Dr Lewis asked about the rationale for teaching the specific religion modules in the given order and at the

propose Bu dhism is generally felt to be the most inherently difficult religion to study, so this is pitched at level 3. New

gious MovemenRlogically taught at level 3. The other religions broadly derive from Judaism, so this is delivered at level 1. The staff team feel students

eed a basis for the study on

of 28


that the revalidation appeared to be fairly conservative and asked if the curriculum included anything on secularisation.

Dr C as threaded throughout the curriculum. The staff team liaised with the ducation subject area at the previous review to ensure the material being delivered was appropriate for those

anned to join the police and felt that Religious Studies gave her a good ackground on the study of different cultures. In the past students have also gone on to work for funeral

West Midlands to Religions in Wolverhampton. Students had spoken about a planned visit to a Buddhist temple in Birmingham and the

The staff team did not feel they were limiting students in any way. This module is allied to the development of

e religions in Wolverhampton website. If visits take place to other areas outside of Wolverhampton, these

odule choice for students, in particular around the Independent Study and Project modules.

The Independent Study is aimed at a particular few students who need flexibility within their module choice and sometimes tied in to overseas visits. In practice this module is rarely used.

s at the University of Wolverhampton and the national context.

The main a pathway in the School. The staff team also expect to ont re for Philosophy and Religious Studies.

on to employability. Dr to the pathway with A

owever, this downturn in applications seems to have seen an upturn. The staff expect

he subject had lost the links it had from being on e same site as education. The specialist pathway had also been withdrawn since the last validation. On a more

nts. They had raised, however, that there were

Dr C

or

familiar with Christianity, so this is taught at level 2, with the landscape module at level 3 to pull all of the other modules together. • Dr Cooper noted

hryssides noted that secularisation w

Estudents who want to progress to teaching. They are also aware of the need to provide material for students who wish to pursue other careers. Examples were given of a student who plbdirectors and have found the study of cultural practices very helpful in this. • The Panel asked about the change in title of the module Religions in the

Panel wondered if by limiting the study of religion to Wolverhampton, this would in turn limit students’ choice.

thwill be used comparatively. • Dr Johnson asked about m

is • The Panel asked the staff team to reflect on the future of Religious Studie

staff team expect Religious Studies to reinue to work closely with the Subject Centc

Whilst Religious Studies is not wholly vocational, it can make a significant contributi

hryssides noted that there had been increase in the number of applicants coming onClevel Religious Studies. Nationally, student numbers declined 2 or 3 years ago and some Religious Studies departments were forced to lose. More recently, hc

teaching in schools to improve over the next few years and for there to be more opportunities for stressing the relevance of Religious Studies into our multi-cultural society. Dr Burke noted that the move from the Walsall campus meant tthpositive note, Dr Burke noted the work being done locally with SACRA and the web resources produced for schools which have proved very valuable. • Ms Bastable noted that she was aware of the close links between the staff team and the subject librarian, not

least because of the comments made earlier by the studesome issues around text availability near to assessment hand-in deadlines. Ms Bastable wondered if there should be more copies in short loan and/or whether there could be more e-books included in the core texts.

hryssides agreed that recent enquiries suggested the Steve Bruce text probably needed to be added to thet loan facility. sh

of 28


Ms Bastable noted that students had noted they welcomed the study skills advice available at level 3,

he staff team found this hard to understand as they feel they are constantly making students aware of the

t this point, Dr Cooper thanked the team for attending and invited them to return for feedback shortly.

onclusions

hen the staff returned, Dr Cooper thanked the staff team for attending the meeting. The meeting had

he Panel confirmed the revalidation of BA(Hons) Religious Studies joint pathway subject to the following

To produce a Religious Studies retention strategy. This should include what the staff team are

sessment methods used across level 1 modules, with a particular focus on

continue to be reviewed throughout the lifetime of the pathway. d

l in g.

ction Checklist

x 4

• however they were less aware of the same kind of advice earlier in their studies.

Tsupport available. A C Widentified some very good practices in Religious Studies in relation to the use of locality and technology supported learning. Also the curriculum was fully supported by staff research and scholarly activity. The Panel commended the innovations made by such a small team. Tactions and recommendations being addressed.

currently doing and what they plan to do in future to address retention and progression issues. This could be added into the appropriate section of the revalidation submission document. The strategy should also include more relevant retention and progression data by module for the last two or three years. To reconsider the aslevel 1, semester 1 modules (this is likely to be informed by the actions listed in the retention strategy). In considering this, all module assessments should be of the type which result in personal feedback to students. Furthermore assessment should

The Panel noted that while the majority of feedback to students is very good, the staff team shoultake care to give helpful and supportive feedback in future as there was evidence that some feedback in the past has been overly negative. The staff team are asked to reassure the Panethe submission documentation, that the subject assessment policy is supportive of student learninThe staff team are also asked to address the housekeeping issues identified by the Panel (see Appendix below).

ASee AAR Appendi below for completed action checklist

ppendix of Housekeeping matters Outcome / Response

AIssue arising from Issue Religious Studies alist pathway was not reviewed and is not Revalidation document

As the specibeing revalidated, should it be included for deletion?

Religious Studies This has not been submitted on the current template. Pathway Specification

Religious Studies Pathway Specification

No core option pathway rules on page 5, 6 or 7.

Religious Studies Pathway Specification

Only section A learning outcomes have been labelled and included in section 12 mapping. Are intellectual and subject skills not assessed?

Religious Studies odule specs / guides for non RL modules have not been Pathway Specification

Msubmitted – EL1003, PH2004 and PH2005.

Religious Studies L3035 and RL3036, the two Student Link modules do Module Specification

Rnot contribute to the proposed revalidated pathway. Should they be included, or can they be deleted?

Religious Studies Module Specification

ection 3s throughout are only partially completed; and in some are not completed at all e.g. RL3029

S

of 28



ode. Religions in Wolverhampton needs a module c


Assessment tasks in 6 are not exactly the same as those in ection 7 - RL1013 s


Do any of the modules contribute to other pathways. None are listed in the MDF.


RL3024 has no educational aims in section 2 or any reference points in section 3.


RL3030 and RL3031 are listed as core options on the pathway specification, but electives on the module specification? This needs clarifying.

Religious Studies Pathway Guide

A draft pathway guide needs to be submitted.

of 28

Appendix 3 EXTERNAL ADVISER REPORT


Proforma for external adviser comments on the Review of Religious Studies

1. Review process I felt that this process was carried out properly and appropriately and with good organisation. 2. Characteristics and development of the pathway The pathway is no longer a specialist subject, presumably due to the decision by the University to reduce staff, and it appears to exist as managed contraction, making use of resources in the best way possible. The pathway offers five major religions, which is commendable, and students are required to study two. However, the various religions are offered on an unequal basis, with some at Level 1, some at Level 2 and some at Level 3. This clearly means that students receive more detail on some religions than others. I appreciate the lack of staff to cover these specialist areas, but it does mean that religions are not given equal treatment. I am pleased with the existence of core modules at each level. 3. Collaborative arrangements The collaboration with English Heritage (and resulting DVD) and with University of Chester’s trips to India are commendable. With the options available within Religious Studies being limited due to contraction from specialist to joint and the reduction in staff numbers, collaboration, both inside and outside the institution is to be encouraged. However, the difficulty for existing staff having enough time to arrange such events is acknowledged. I am pleased that there is collaboration within the institution through the Religion, Media and Cyberspace module, although I am concerned that an already stretched Religious Studies staff is teaching outside of Religious Studies. 4. Resources It is clear that Religious Studies staff are being stretched to the limit in providing a joint degree course. I have not viewed the Library or IT facilities, but evidence available on-line and in the written documentation suggests that this is adequate. 5. Operation of the pathway over the review period

a) Recruitment, Retention, Progression and achievement and First destinations b) Learning, teaching and assessment, Student support and guidance and Quality assurance and

enhancement processes a) Clearly recruitment has not been good as the pathway has been reduced from specialist to joint and this has remained. Has there been any evidence to suggest that the decline in interest in Religious Studies from potential students in 2001/2 that led to the contraction is still true? b) This appears to be good. Staff are clearly in a very difficult position but are working for the benefit of the students. Student support appears to be good. Assessment appears to take account of learning outcomes and to take note of the subject benchmarks, and the required word count for each module is appropriate. The Department is governed by the QA process in the School and this appears to be satisfactory. 6. Feedback There exists student feedback and feedback from External Examiners and these are obviously taken note of. There presumably also exists feedback from module tutors? If this is so, the opportunities for feedback are adequate and of the type that should be expected. 7. Other evidence Dr George Chryssides is very highly respected in academic circles on the basis of his research and general contribution to the subject. He is to commended for his success considering his isolation. 8. Good practice The module offered on Religion in the West Midlands is an attempt to link the subject with the religious profile of the local area, and this is to be commended. 9. Conclusions and future developments It is fairly evident that the future of the subject depends on Dr Chryssides and questions need to be asked relating to the situation after his retirement.

of 28


It is a great shame for the University not to take advantage of its location when a number of faiths are represented and where the problems posed by the need for different faith communities to coexist are sometimes presented in an acute form. 10. Any other comments I feel that some crucial modules were dropped when the reduced programme was created. The modules Religion and Social Action (RL2020), Religion, Social Values and Practice (RL2021) and Social Theory and Religious Thought (RL3034) I feel are key to a pathway that is contained within and fuelled by a geographical area of such religious diversity and that is typically chosen in combination with subjects such as Education Studies, Special Needs and Sociology and leads to graduates moving in to the kinds of professions outlined by the Review document (teaching, local government and the ‘caring’ professions). As the Review states, religion is a “…significant contributor to one’s understanding of society”. I realise that where topics are not available as taught modules, they may be researched as projects, but I feel that the three modules I note above are so important, that independent study in these areas, even if chosen, does not compensate for good solid specialist teaching. Linking to my point under 5a, it is the case that Religious Studies staff has discussed offering the pathway as a specialist subject again, but that the lack of staff makes this impossible. It needs to be discussed what the evidence is for the Department thinking a specialist pathway would be successful and what the evidence is for the University believing it would not be. 11. Recommendations The University should explore ways and means to continue teaching the subject at least at its present joint level. It should explore evidence that might suggest that the subject is ready to once again be a specialist subject and if evidence suggests that it is, the subject must be given the best opportunity possible to do this, namely through the creation of additional posts in a department that is already stretched to the limits in providing a joint pathway. Signed: ______________________________________ (External Adviser) Date: ___________________ PRINT NAME: SARAH LEWIS INSTITUTION: University of Wales Lampeter

of 28

Appendix 4 FINAL COMPLETED ACTION CHECKLIST

Appendix 4 Final completed action checklist Action arising from

Person(s) Responsible

Action Deadline date

Outcome

Revalidation meeting 20/03/07

Staff team To produce a Religious Studies retention strategy. This should include what the staff team are currently doing and what they plan to do in future to address retention and progression issues. This could be added into the appropriate section of the revalidation submission document. The strategy should also include more relevant retention and progression data by module for the last two or three years.

23/04/07 Amended documentation resubmitted to Officer / Ms Holt 09/05/07. Response approved by Ms Holt.

CLOSED 30/07/07


Staff team To reconsider the assessment methods used across level 1 modules, with a focus on level 1, semester 1 modules (this is likely to be informed by the actions listed in the retention strategy). In considering this, all module assessments should be of the type that result in personal feedback to students.


CLOSED 30/07/07


Staff team through annual monitoring

To continue to review assessment throughout the lifetime of the pathway.

Ongoing To be included as an action in the AAR.

CLOSED 24/03/07


Staff team To take care to give helpful and supportive feedback in future as there was evidence that some feedback in the past has been overly negative. The staff team are asked to reassure the Panel, in an appropriate place in the submission documentation, that the subject assessment policy is supportive of student learning.


CLOSED 30/07/07


Staff team To address the housekeeping issues identified by the Panel.


CLOSED 30/07/07

of 28

Appendix 4 FINAL COMPLETED ACTION CHECKLIST

Action arising from

Person(s) Responsible

Action Deadline date

Outcome


Staff team To resubmit any documentation amended as a result of addressing the actions to the Officer.

23/04/07 Amended documentation resubmitted to Officer / Ms Holt 09/05/07. The pathway specification was still on an old version of the template, so the Officer agreed to transfer the information onto the correct template. The Officer sent an updated pathway specification to Dr Chryssides on 02/08/07. Dr Chryssides confirmed the pathway specification was accurate on 21/08/07 and the Officer forwarded it to Programmes.

CLOSED 21/08/07

of 28

AAR template version 3 UNIVERSITY QUALITY ENHANCEMENT … Rel... · 2008-07-18 · AAR template...

Documents

Transcript of AAR template version 3 UNIVERSITY QUALITY ENHANCEMENT … Rel... · 2008-07-18 · AAR template...