SWS: Education Committee Response to University Action Plan

STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION

EDUCATION COMMITTEE RESPONSE

TO UNIVERSITY ACTION PLAN

Student Recommendation Further Context from

University

University Action 2015/16 Educational Committee Commentary Committee

Verdict

1. External Examiners:

For the University to more widely

engage students with external

examiner reports, including an

explanation of the role and an up to

date area on the website.

Our existing practice

provides students with

access to External Examiner

reports via a link from the

NILE homepage (post-login).

This link already includes an

overview of the External

Examiner role. If additional

information is required,

students can access the

External Examiners

Handbook from the public

website pages on

Information for External

Examiners.

In addition to this, consideration of both the

External Examiner report and the response

from the Programme/Subject Team will be a

standard item on the SSLC agenda.

The Students’ Union will also include an

overview of the External Examiner role in

their induction programme for Course Reps.

it’s unacceptable to use school and course

reps as a delivery system to filter

information

All the information needs to be in one place

on the university website

External examiners reports are hidden by

default on Nile.

http://tundrasearch.northampton.ac.uk/results/searchresult.aspx?Search=&Title=&Description=External+Examiner+Handbook+2013%2F14&submit=Search

http://tundrasearch.northampton.ac.uk/results/searchresult.aspx?Search=&Title=&Description=External+Examiner+Handbook+2013%2F14&submit=Search

http://www.northampton.ac.uk/about-us/governance-and-management/quality-and-standards/external-examiners-information

http://www.northampton.ac.uk/about-us/governance-and-management/quality-and-standards/external-examiners-information


University


Verdict

2. Assessment Feedback:

That the University ensures

students have feedback within the

4-week turnaround, as specified in

the assessment policy, and if this is

not possible for students to be

made aware of the reasoning and

when they can expect this feedback

to manage their expectations.

Our existing practice

provides for monitoring of

assessment in RAP meetings

by module, programme and

subject teams and also

through SSLC meetings.

QSECs monitor RAPs on

behalf of schools.

Information on the overall

University performance is

available for 2014-15 and

SaGE Steering group has

been exploring a technical

solution to reporting at

subject and module level.

The Assessment and

Feedback Policy was

enhanced and updated in

June 2015 to ensure

students are provided with

access to annual assessment

schedule at

Programme/Subject Level to

ensure that there is a

balanced assessment load

and appropriate time for

reflection between

assessments (sections 5.3

and 5.4).

In addition to this, QSECs are requested to

explicitly report on the monitoring of

‘turnaround’ times in the meeting minutes.

Paper on the University mechanism to

monitor ‘assessment turnaround’ to SEC in

October 2015 in relation to current and

interim arrangements in advance of a fully

technical solution as part of the ongoing

development of SaGE.

SaGE Steering Group to continue to explore

a technical solution.

BIMI to explore an additional dashboard

feature.

Tutors will be asked to make it clear on

NILE when they announce to students that

their grades have been released that this has

been done within the required turnaround

period of 4 working weeks.

If tutors know that this deadline is not going

to be met, then they are requested to make

an announcement on NILE to the following

effect: (1) to apologise that the feedback and

grades will not be provided within the

stipulated time period; (2) to provide a

reason for the delay; and (3) to give an

indication when the students can expect

their grades and feedback to be released.

The wording around indication needs to be

clearer, it needs to be specific.

What disciplinary does the lecturer get?

Students need clear times of when they can

expect feedback.

Needs to be consistent for all courses.

JV: if students get voted on their reports at

council then so should lecturers be voted on

There needs to be clear reasons as to why

feedback is going to be late.

University policy on managing students

expectations

Pleased to see that the automatic flagging is

in place

The policy also introduced a

protocol to be implemented

when there are legitimate

reasons to change

submission and return dates

(section 5.5), again for the

purposes of ensuring a

balanced assessment load.

The SU will liaise with Programme Leaders

where there are hard-to-reach student

groups in order to better facilitate student

engagement.


University


Verdict

3. Waterside Campus:

For the University to be more

transparent and involve current

students in the process of the move

to Waterside Campus.

Currently, there is student

representation on all

academic committees where

Waterside is discussed,

including the SU President

sitting on the Board of

Governors.

There is a Waterside

Exhibition on permanent

display in the Library foyer

at Park.

Conversations about the

Waterside development are

already a core feature of

our Applicant Visit Days and

Open Days for prospective

2016-17 students, who will

spend their third year at the

new campus.

As part of their HE Schools

Engagement project, UCEE

staff are engaging local

schools in the Waterside

project on the basis that

their students are

potentially our students in

the future.

In addition, the Director of Student and

Academic Services will attend SU Executive

and Council meetings with other relevant

members of the project team in order to

ensure a more formalised link is in

operation.

The Students Union to consider the

University’s offer of extending the

‘Waterside Roadshows’ initiative to include

the general student population.

Reports on this project will be submitted to

SEC during the autumn of 2015.

Nothing at avenue campus to do with

waterside, the only things people know is

that there are no car parking spaces and

lectures will be more remote.

School Reps not happy with University staff

attending Executive meetings, information

should be sent in an email to Executive

Team

School Reps are not keen on the idea of

road show as the road show is going to be

more of a display of what is on offer rather

than a forum for discussion and debate.

Any interaction with the people in charge is

a token gesture to a group of people they

don’t care about.

School Reps want to be listened to.

School Reps not happy with student car park

not being considered for Waterside.

School reps wants to know the breakdown

of how many students have been engaged in

Waterside, what they were engaged in and

where they can still be involved?

The Institute for Learning

and Teaching also explored

notions of learning and

teaching in Higher Education

with local schools as part of

their Programme Design for

21st Century Learning and

Teaching initiative.

There is also a

comprehensive section on

the public website devoted

to the Waterside Campus.

Further than the President being on a rubber

stamp committee within the university, the

executive committee is not enough. All

students need the opportunity to get

involved in decision making.

Students not willing to do masters here as

they are not happy with Waterside.

http://www.northamptonilt.com/21st-century-learning



http://www.watersidecampus.info/


University


Verdict

4. NILE:

For the University to more widely

publicise Panopto, create a policy

around lecture capture, and to

include this in the plans for

Waterside

The University already has a

Learning and Teaching

strategy in place enabling

staff to move towards a

blended delivery mode that

makes full use of

technology-enhanced

learning in preparation for

the move to Waterside. All

staff have access to the

Panopto software, it is

available on all classroom

PCs and staff are beginning

to make good use of this as

they transition to blended

modes of delivery. It should

be noted that Panopto is

not the only software

available for lecture capture

and that additional guidance

on the most appropriate

technologies for learning

should be sought from the

Learning Technology team,

depending on pedagogical

need.

A discussion paper will go to SSECs in the

autumn term to explore in principle their

request for lecture capture to be the norm

rather than the exception during the period

of transition to the new learning and

teaching strategy. The paper will also

consider any operational and IT related

issues.

Following discussion at SSECs a second

paper will be submitted to SEC during the

late autumn/early spring period.

Comments pending until paper going to

School SECS is viewed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOwbqaoJUoc#t=82


University


Verdict

5. Wi-Fi:

For the University to increase

wireless network capacity in

identified high-traffic areas,

particularly the library and other

common study space, and

communicate this clearly to

students.

Over the summer of 2015,

the University made a

considerable investment in

campus infrastructure

(£1.5m) including Wi-Fi

(£0.25m) in learning and

teaching spaces, common

study spaces.

Improvements can be

summarised as;

New Access Points -

Over 200 Wi-Fi Access

Points have been replaced

with the latest technology

which will provide increased

performance both in terms

of speed and coverage in

these areas of high use.

Guest Wi-Fi - Through

the replacement of the core

Wi-Fi controllers we can

now provide Guest Wi-Fi

(UoN_Guest) for any

visitor through a self-service

portal. This will benefit

prospective students and

their families at Open and

Applicant Visit days.

We will continue to research and trial the

latest Wi-Fi technology to provide the best

user experience possible. Focus will be on

provision to residential rooms with trials

around “personal hot-spots” being planned.

SEC to receive update on Wi-Fi functionality

in October and November.

Survey should be done for students.

Plans for online lectures as a few crashed

already this year.

Should always have a feedback section on

NILE or work with the students union to

have a survey


University


Verdict

Team Based Learning

(TBL) Zones –a number

of TBL zones have been

identified and equipped with

additional W-Fi capacity to

cope with high density usage

to support Technology

Enhanced Learning

initiatives.

Increased Capacity and

Security - the new Wi-Fi

controllers can now cope

with 20,000 concurrent

users (increased from

3,000) and offer extended

security and access control

features that will better

support flexible working

These updates are

communicated to students

via the ‘You Said, We Did’

screens in the Library, as

well as elsewhere across

campus.


University


Verdict

6. Personal Academic Tutors:

That the University puts in place

mechanisms to ensure students in

all years are aware of their Personal

Academic Tutor and where to find

this information if they do not

know.

Extensive development of

PAT has taken place in

2013-14 and 2014-15

culminating in the PAT ILT

web area.

PAT allocation was part of

the School academic staff

briefing in September 2015.

A complete record of PAT allocation is to

be available on Programme NILE sites.

PAT allocation is to be included on the

agenda for the first RAP of 2015-16. This

will be monitored via SSECs and SEC.

An opportunity to verify this will occur

through inclusion of this item on the first

SSLC Agenda of the academic year.

School reps wish for a deadline for PAT

allocation.

7. PGR Teaching:

That the University adopts

innovative solutions to increase

teaching opportunities available to

PGR students, training in the role

and opportunities to share research,

to ensure their future employability.

There has been an

expansion in graduate

teaching opportunities this

year. However, the

opportunities that do exist

are ad hoc across all schools

and at present there is no

coherent picture across the

institution.

Paper to go to the Research Degrees

Committee on 19.10.15 to propose an

enhanced entitlement for training including

observation on teaching and subsequent

opportunities for paid teaching (subject to

normal HR processes and UKVI

requirements).

PGR rep to join Education Committee

8. PGR Representation:

For the head of the Graduate

School to work with the Students’

Union to establish a clear

representation structure which

aligns with both the University

committee structure and the

Students’ Union structure.

Head of Graduate School

and Research Student

Manager met SU President

and Student Voice Co-

ordinator (Academic) on

19.08.15. SU to co-ordinate

PGR representation and

training of representatives.

The Graduate School will work with the SU

to integrate their current student

representation structure into the SU

processes.

PGR rep to join Education Committee

http://www.northamptonilt.com/pat

http://www.northamptonilt.com/pat


University


Verdict

9. Module Evaluations:

To create a system for collating

module evaluations so as to

monitor their implementation and

analyse course based feedback

which students can access.

Completed April 2015. A

BIMI dashboard enabling

comparative analysis across

modules by subject area.

This will inform 2014-15

Annual Review.

Annual Review 2014-15 will report on

comparative module student satisfaction in

FRAPs. This will be monitored as part of

the School Quality Forum.

SSLC is the forum for staff/student

discussion

No feedback process as we’ve not heard

back

Forms were given out within one week; if

you were absent then you didn’t get the

opportunity to feedback.

Students were told to knock on the

lecturer’s door which then made it not

anonymous.


University


Verdict

10. Student Portal:

To create single sign on for the

webpages so that students and staff

do not have to sign in multiple times

for different aspects of the website

and to ensure information on these

sites are up to date.

The 2015/16 project

portfolio includes 2 key

projects.

Student Portal – this will

further develop the current

“Student Hub” to provide a

greater functionality and

access to individual student

information. The solution

will integrate with the

current Office 365

environment and look to

provide access to student

records, timetabling, library,

payments, attendance,

individual learning plans,

grade books and the virtual

learning environment.

Identity & Access

Management – will

replace current solutions

relating to system access

with a fully integrated

solution that will include

University wide Single Sign

On (SSO).

Deliver key projects identified for 2015/16.

Project progress to be reported through

SEC.

Concat the word ‘student\’ before the user

id on the student hub. Therefore the people

logging into a domain other than the student

domain don’t have to include that

themselves. There are no instructions out

there.


University


Verdict

11. Hidden Costs:

To make costs such as printing,

materials and field trips clear to

students prior to application, to

avoid unexpected hidden costs.

This is part of existing

University work to ensure

CMA compliance. The

financial costs for the

courses have been included

in the description of the

course, rather than included

under a separate tab where

it is possible that they will

be missed. See Acting for

example.

There is no expectation or

requirement for students to

print their work as

assessments are required to

be submitted electronically

except in the limited case

where an exception has

been granted. All other

materials available via NILE

and tutors communicate via

NILE if printing is required.

Ensure communication to students of

approved exceptions to e-submission and

associated costs.

The printing of dissertations is still under

review.

Samantha Wright to encourage School and

Course Reps to speak up where there are

hidden course costs on programmes.

Samantha will then send these on to Julie

Martin who is investigating these across the

university.

http://www.northampton.ac.uk/study/courses/courses-by-subject/performing-arts/acting-ba-hons


University


Verdict

12. Changemaker:

For the University to ensure the

notion of Changemaker is more

widely understood by students, and

to improve the current

Employability Plus initiative.

The Student Union are

directly informing the

direction of Changemaker

Week in order to frame the

conversation with students

more generally.

UCEE supported the SU to

bid and successfully win the

hosting of the next

Changemaker Student

Conference in April 2016.

One focus of the ongoing

UMF development is further

integration of Changemaker

into the key skills in the

UMF. Paper 89/15 to SEC

on 16/06/15 -

Rationalisation and

Enhancement of Digital

Skills (now renamed

ChANGE – Changemaker

Attributes at Northampton

for Graduate Employability).

The SU have aligned their

internal job descriptions

with the Employability Plus

framework.

UCEE staff delivering workshops to SU clubs

and societies during the week of 12 October

2015 to explain ‘Changemaker’.

Additional workshops on what it means to

be a ‘Changemaker’ to be explored in

conjunction with UCEE.

The ChANGE Project seeks to align both

curricula and extra-curricular work around

Changemaker into one set of common

terminology centred around the

development of individual students

employability skills. The SU will be invited to

participate fully in this project.

UCEE to work with the SU to further

enhance Employability Plus in the context of

the independent evaluation.

Only the students involved in Changemaker

know what it means.


University


Verdict

UCEE commissioned an

independent evaluation of

the Employability Plus pilot

year. This report was

received by UCEE on

1.10.15 and will be reported

to SEC on 14 October as a

separate paper. The

evaluation attracted

responses from 178

students, making the

recommendations it

contains statistically

significant. These

recommendations will form

the basis of future

developments of the

scheme alongside any

further input from SU as to

the nature of the

improvements it would like

to see.

The Employability Plus

initiative re-launched at the

start of the new academic

session – rebranded and on

a new platform with an

enhanced user experience.


University


Verdict

13. HEAR:

For the University to create a

systematic approach for creating an

annual HEAR and student access to

a living HEAR.

UCEE’s Employability Plus

initiative feeds into Section

6.1 of the HEAR concerning

extra-curricular engagement.

This was piloted in February

2015 and a revised pilot

took place in July 2015. Data

from UCEE was populated

by the stipulated deadline.

UCEE send out ‘points

statements’ to students on a

bi-monthly basis to provide

an ongoing overview of their

engagement with UCEE.

Progress with HEAR

development was reported

to SEC on (12.06.14). The

previously identified

technical issues have been

resolved and the HEAR

should be distributed to

students by the end of

October 2015 for the July

graduates. SEC will be

updated regularly on

progress and an end of year

report will be submitted.

Findings from these pilots to feed into a

wider review of the institutional approach to

the HEAR.

Discussions with SU to continue re the

inclusion of information from clubs and

societies into the living HEAR.

Technical solutions to streamlining the

process of data entry into the HEAR are

continuing to be explored.

Victor demonstrating to the school reps

where they can propose to change things via

the website.

SWS: Education Committee Response to University Action Plan

Documents

Transcript of SWS: Education Committee Response to University Action Plan