EXECUTIVE BOARD

OPEN AGENDA

Monday 15th February 2016 (Room 115)

I Minutes To approve: minutes of the meeting held on 8th February 2016

[Attached]

II Action Points

[Oral Updates]

III Matters Arising/Matters for Report

[Oral Updates]

IV Curriculum Review Principles To discuss: A paper from the Pro-Director, Learning & Teaching

[Appendix A]

20160208 Executive Board Open Minutes_Draft

These minutes are for information only. Any corrections to the minutes will be recorded in the minutes of the subsequent meeting of the committee.

SOAS, UNIVERSITY OF LONDON

EXECUTIVE BOARD

Monday 8th February 2016

OPEN MINUTES

Members: Baroness Valerie Amos (Chair) Mr Graeme Appleby Professor Richard Black Professor Chris Bramall Mrs Dalia Dasgupta Ms Laura Gibbs Dr Deborah Johnston Professor Lutz Marten Professor Gurharpal Singh

In attendance: Dr Chris Ince (Minutes) Apologies: 123. Minutes The minutes of the meeting on 1st February 2016 were approved. EB noted that it had welcomed Dr Deborah Johnston to her first meeting. 124. Action Points There were no actions due for report. 125. Matters Arising/Matters for Report There were no matters arising.

- 2 -

EXECUTIVE BOARD: Action Points

Minute Item Action 2014/15

Deadline for

report to EB

By

227 Monitoring recruitment on programmes

Agreed process for monitoring recruitment on existing and new programmes. To be agreed with new Head of Planning.

29/2/16 GA

Minute Item Action 2015/16 Deadline for

report to EB

By

75 SU Priorities Review progress, including detail on monitoring committee

and dates for actions

29/2/16 CI

111 Future EB items Discuss dates for items to come to EB with Director

15/2/16 CI

118 Risk Register Revision to format to allow for better use by staff and to

incorporate comments from minute

14/3/16 CI

118 Risk Register Reconvene League Table Working Group

4/4/16 RB

122 Building Access Control Policy

Prepare revised document for ISC

15/2/16 CI

Appendix A EB – 15.02.16

NATURE OF CURRICULUM REVIEW 2016

EB is asked to consider the principles, process and timelines underlying the Curriculum

Review paper to SSPB on 22nd February

Executive Summary In 2015, the Curriculum Review process was handed back to departments to undertake following dissatisfaction with the previous, centralised process. The result is, however, an uneven degree of activity and a lack of coordination across the School. Any revitalised Curriculum Review process must also make a convincing argument for academic governance at the level of the School while also coordinating with other key processes including the Strategy and Financial Sustainability agendas. Authors: Deborah Johnston

Recommendations EB sets out the principals for the paper to SSPB in order to reframe the curriculum review process.

Financial Impact It is intended that a strategic approach to curriculum review would improve student recruitment.

Risks Without making these changes there is a risk that we will have a fragmented and uneven set of changes to the curriculum which will undermine recruitment, the student experience and learning outcomes.

Equality implications None.

NATURE OF CURRICULUM REVIEW 2016

Background

In 2015, the response from the Module Performance document left momentum around curriculum

review with Departments. A proposed Curriculum Steering group was disbanded following pressure

from Heads. Two issues were key: the need for a School strategy to provide the anchor for a review;

and concern about the limited role for departments in academic governance. It was agreed that

Heads of Departments will work with their colleagues on reviewing their curriculum in accordance

with a defined strategy. Some departments had already undertaken curriculum reform at that stage

(e.g. School of Arts, Religions and South East Asia) and others have been engaging in reform since

then (e.g. Anthropology, History).

Curriculum reform has then progressed in some departments but not in others, while the financial

sustainability agenda and research leave planning may have dominated discussions about modules

and programmes. There seems to be unevenness in:

whether departments have worked on curriculum reform or not;

the principles that have governed any reform; and

the process of reform (e.g. the involvement of students; the kinds of evidence used).

At the same time, there are issues that can only be resolved at the level of the School:

unified principles that will underpin curriculum development across the School and in

relation to the wider environment (e.g. interpreting national and global trends and

requirements);

structural constraints on the mode or delivery model of teaching (e.g. the infrastructure for

placements; technological requirements for changed delivery);

administration of the curriculum (e.g. timetabling, room suitability);

duplication and proliferation of courses (e.g. looking across departments and faculties); and

the provision of a critical academic governance function.

Agreeing Overarching Principles

A curriculum review needs to be informed by the School strategy and with broad clarity and

agreement about the review’s goals. It should draw on a review of the external and internal context,

and be cognisant of our plans for financial sustainability and research excellence.

In the light of above, we need to gain clarity and agreement on the following underlying principles of

any curriculum reform:

enhance curriculum attractiveness and relevance to: secure healthy recruitment, promote

inclusivity and reflect the SOAS mission;

develop further the student experience, including through improvement of curriculum

delivery;

improve learning gains for students, defined broadly as improvements in knowledge, skills,

employability and personal development.

Decisions about process

To avoid reputational harm and staff concern, it is clear that any process at SOAS:

must be department –led, with staff engagement at all phases;

must have student engagement and involvement at all levels, and through all phases;

must also re-establish a role for School-level governance and for cross-institutional

interventions;

should consider how we evaluate its process and outcomes, and establish an evaluation plan;

connect to interventions to encourage curriculum innovation – including staff development

activities etc. and link to programmes such as the PG Certificate in Teaching and Learning in

Higher Education and HEA accreditation; and

should work to strengthen the on-going processes of curriculum review and development.

The timeline in the present SSPB suggests the following:

An updated draft strategy to SSPB by 22nd February

Updated strategy to AB by 9th March (for circulation, 2nd March)

Determine ToR for Curriculum Review group, including membership, scope and plan 10th

March to 21st March

Undertake curriculum review to deliver new/revised curriculum by 2018

Decision-making points

A series of issues are listed below but there is an underlying tension between the need to move this

agenda forward given our significant lead time on changes to programmes, with the need to engage

academic staff and students at a time when they may face significant constraints.

Other detailed issues are:

Do we have clarity over the principles of the review and means of evaluating it?

o Are there other aspects that should be included in the key principles?

o If our goals are around recruitment, experience and outcomes, we would want data

on these to evaluate it (e.g. SEC, DLHE). However, this leaves other areas

unmonitored -how do measure reduction in timetable clashes from better

management of the curriculum, or improved personal development from

international placement etc?

When should the curriculum review be completed?

o If in time for marketing for 2019/20 (ie by April 2017), curriculum review would need

be completed by end of this academic year to allow for changes to programme and

module specifications in Term 1 2016/17.

How to ensure department involvement:

o If we work to the timeframe above, we will need to set deadlines for completion of

reviews in term 3, but are departments going to have capacity if they are also

responding to other initiatives (e.g. financial sustainability, common credit

framework)? How much work is normally undertaken for a periodic programme

review?

o Should we prioritise in order to make it manageable: ie only undergraduate

programmes or only programmes in departments that had not worked in the

previous pilot?

How to ensure departments are fully briefed with relevant information:

o Will SOAS strategy and research excellence plans be finalised?

o Will be able to provide market/competitor data?

o Will we be able to provide staff with material around innovative curriculum design

within this time frame?

How to ensure student engagement at every level:

o we will have to ensure that student reps are involved at both central and

departmental levels, but if this takes place in Term 3, both undergraduates and

postgraduates may not be able to participate due to exam pressures.

How to carry out school-level review work:

o we could use the working-group format to initiate work on issues such as

international placement.

o we may need a ‘star-chamber’ committee for central oversight on issues of

duplication and the proliferation of courses (Pro-director Learning and Teaching,

Registrar, Deans, ADLTs).

How will our work fit into committee structure and meetings:

o we will need to consider how ADC and LTQC might approve curriculum review reports,

given timing issues (possibly this could only happen in term 1, 2016/17).

How the work will help improve the process for ongoing review:

o a working group could be established to look at the periodic programme review

process and how effective it is.

How to communicate about the review both internally and externally:

o make early decisions about briefings on the motivation and goals of the review.

Deborah Johnston

February 2016