HSS QAE COMMITTEE PAPER 07/08
For information
Teaching Programme Reviews and Quinquennial Reviews in 2006-07
and 2007-08
The paper updates the Committee on the TPRs and Quinquennial Reviews conducted
in 2006-07, and sets out the schedule for 2007-08.
Background
In addition to the annual quality reporting processes, the University also conducts the
following forms of internal reviews programmes: a six-year rolling programme of
Teaching Programme Reviews of undergraduate provision; and five-yearly internal
reviews of postgraduate provision (Quinquennial reviews).
Reviews in 2006-07
The following TPRs were held in CHSS in 2006-07:
Subject area
Classics
Economics
History of Art
Philosophy
School
School of History and Classics
Management School and Economics
School of Arts, Culture and Environment
School of Philosophy, Psychology and
Language Sciences
The Committee was provided with the recommendations and commendations for
Classics at its 7 May 2007 meeting. The recommendations and commendations from
the other three TPRs are attached for information. The full reports can be found at:
http://www.ed.ac.uk/qahandbook/tpr/reports.html
Committee members are invited to note the commendations and recommendations
and to consider whether any of them raise issues for the Committee. In line with the
arrangements following the review of the TPR process, which recommended that the
College UG Studies Committee also consider TPR reports, CUGSC will consider the
TPR outcomes at its meeting on 8 November 2007.
The following Quinquennial Review was held in CHSS in 2006-07:
School
School of Literatures, Languages
and Cultures
Outcome
Panel was impressed overall with the
commitment and dedication of the School
staff and the high quality of their courses
and students. The Panel made a wide
range of recommendations for the School
to consider.
The College Postgraduate Studies Committee will be considering the outcome of this
QQR at its next meeting.
The Committee should note that they should append their Schools’ formal responses
to these TPRs and Quinquennial Reviews to their annual quality reports.
Reviews scheduled for 2007-08
The following TPRs are scheduled to be held in CHSS in 2007-08:
Subject area
Business Studies and
Accounting
Divinity
Law
Politics
Social Policy
School
Management School and Economics
School of Divinity
School of Law
School of Social and Political Studies
School of Social and Political Studies
The following Quinquennial reviews are scheduled to be held in CHSS in 2007-08



School of Social and Political Studies
Moray House School of Education
School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences
Tom Ward
November 2007
Teaching Programme Review of Economics, November 2006
Commendations
7.1 The Team commends the use of student help-desks for first and second year
students, and in particular the organisation and staffing of these by more senior
students. [paragraph 4.3]
7.2 The Team commends the subject area's innovative use of e-learning software, in
particular the use of online exercises in first year. [paragraph 4.5]
7.3 Many students explained that they enjoyed and benefited from the team-work
exercises introduced early in the first year course. The Review Team commends this
type of research-related teaching and the development of transferable skills at such an
early stage of the programme. [paragraph 4.9]
7.4 The Review Team commends the subject area's efforts in encouraging sustained
student study through online formative assessment, particularly noting that this
development and those out-lined in 7.4 above reflect key aims of the College
Learning & Teaching Strategy. [paragraph 4.12]
7.5 The Review Team commends the attempt by first and second year Course
Organisers to make the transition between first and second year less demanding.
[paragraph 4.14]
7.6 The subject area is commended for the active involvement of Graduate Teaching
Assistants in, and their integration into, the undergraduate teaching programme.
[paragraph 4.19]
7.7 The Review Team commends the University's recent refurbishment of the
centrally booked teaching spaces in Appleton Tower, and the subject area for its early
use of these facilities to provide innovative teaching. [paragraph 4.22]
7.8 The Review Team commends the highly collegiate working atmosphere within
the department, and in particular the hard work and dedication of the Head of subject
area. [paragraph 4.26]
7.9 The Team considered the subject area's Director of Studies Administrator post to
be a highly useful innovation, particularly commending the valuable resource that
this role provides to both academic staff and students. [paragraph 5.1]
Recommendations
7.10 The Review Team recommends that the subject area reflects on the purpose of
feedback, the form that it might usefully take, and whether feedback delivery might
be improved. [paragraph 4.7]
7.11 The Review Team recommends that, in view of the importance of enhancing the
student learning experience, the subject area reflects on whether it would be feasible
and/or desirable to enhance the essay element of the first year course. [paragraph 4.8]
7.12 The Review Team recommends that, given the substantial mathematical content
of the course from year one, the subject area considers seriously whether maths at
Higher or A level should be an entry requirement, and if appropriate that it should
liaise with the College on this issue. [paragraph 4.18]
7.13 The Review Team recommends that the subject area liaises closely with the
TLA about the possibility of making use of the subject specific online resources, and
that it continues to make use of existing Higher Education Academy training
programmes for Graduate Teaching Assistants. [paragraph 4.20]
7.14 The Review Team also recommends that the subject area considers how it can
most effectively mentor Teaching Assistants, possibly including the introduction of a
teaching observation system. [paragraph 4.21]
7.15 The Team recommends that the University, in designing and implementing its
estates strategy, should give proper consideration to the subject area's undergraduate
teaching needs and its desire to exercise control over some common space [paragraph
4.23]
7.16 The Review Team was very impressed by the adoption of DoS Administrator
post and strongly recommends that the College consider the rolling out of this
example of good practice in its current review of the DoS system. [paragraph 5.1]
7.17 The Review Team recommends that the College explore, in liaison with TLA,
whether courses designed to help students with their essay writing and similar study
aids for students might be made available at different points throughout the year.
[paragraph 5.2]
7.18 The Review Team recommends that the College reviews whether it is
appropriate that work done by students on a third year exchange programme should
have no direct bearing on their final degree accreditation, whilst recognising the
difficulties of transferring study abroad marks to the Edinburgh marking scale.
[paragraph 5.3]
7.19 The Review Team recommends that the subject area reviews how exchange
students are informed of, and fully integrated within, the arrangements for choice of
dissertation and the selection of supervisor to ensure that these students are not
disadvantaged. [paragraph 5.4]
7.20 The Team recommends that first and second year students are made aware of
the competitive entry system to the third year exchange programme. [paragraph 5.5]
Responsibility for Recommendations:
7.10 Economics subject area
7.11 Economics subject area
7.12 Economics subject area, possibly in liaison with the HSS College Admissions
Office
7.13 Economics subject area, in liaison with the Centre for Teaching, Learning and
Assessment.
7.14 Economics subject area
7.15 Policy & Planning, University of Edinburgh
7.16 College of Humanities & Social Science
7.17 College of Humanities & Social Science in liaison with the Centre for Teaching,
Learning and Assessment
7.18 College of Humanities & Social Science
7.19 Economics subject area Teaching Programme Review Report Economics
November 2006 14
7.20 Economics subject area
Teaching Programme Review of History of Art, February 2007
Commendations
6.1 The review area is commended for the quality of its analytical report, which
reflected clearly and honestly on current issues, and provided the review team with an
informative basis for its discussions. [3.1]
6.2 The review area is commended for its innovative approach to the structure of the
undergraduate curriculum. [3.2]
6.3 The review area is commended for the unique MA in Fine Art degree
programme. [3.3]
6.4 The review area is commended for the very high quality of its academic staff.
[3.4]
6.5 The review area is commended for its undergraduate curriculum, underpinned by
an impressive range and quality of staff research interests. [3.4]
6.6 The Head of School is commended for his enthusiastic support for the
development of interdisciplinary teaching. [3.6]
6.7 The review area is commended for its Critical Thinking course in first and second
year. [3.16]
6.8 The review area is commended for providing students with the opportunity of
experiencing important works of art “in the flesh”. [3.17]
6.9 The review area is commended for the steps taken to integrate MA Fine Art
students into the wider cohort. [3.20]
6.10 The review area is commended for its successful Work Placement option. [3.21]
6.11 The work of the slide librarian is commended. [3.23]
6.12 The review area is commended for its use of Web CT in undergraduate teaching.
[3.25]
6.13 Administrative and secretarial staff are commended for their role in general
student support, and in particular for the valued level of initial pastoral support
provided to students. [3.26]
6.14 The review area is commended for its commitment to the Director of Studies
system. [4.1]
6.15 The review area is commended for the quality of its student handbooks and in
particular for its informative grade descriptors. [4.4 & 5.1]
6.16 The review area is commended for its monitoring mechanisms for the work
placement. [4.8]
6.17 The review area is commended for the high quality of its tutorial staff. [5.3]
6.18 Tutorial staff are commended for their commitment and reflection on the
teaching process. [5.3]
6.19 The review area is commended for its monitoring systems with regard to
marking of students’ work by tutorial assistants. [5.4]
Recommendations
6.20 The review team recommends that the review area consider the way in which
the political and social context of art history could and should influence the syllabus,
particularly with respect to the art of the past 50 years. [2.3]
6.21 The review team recommends that the review area explore how individual
research and teaching interests might cohere further in a collaborative vision for
History of Art, and as a platform for increased collaboration across disciplines in the
School and the wider University. [3.4]
6.22 The review team recommends that the review area explores further the potential
for a more fully interdisciplinary approach to joint degree provision and to appropriate
History of Art courses. [3.5]
6.23 It is recommended that the review area explore with Architecture opportunities
that might exist for collaborative teaching. [3.6]
6.24 It is recommended that the review area consider whether collaboration in
interdisciplinary teaching might deliver benefits in the context of planning for staff
succession. [3.6]
6.25 The review team recommends strongly that the review area consider
introducing an ‘Away Day’ to facilitate strategic thinking, the development of the
review area’s vision as a discipline and its planning for the medium to long term. [3.7]
6.26 It is recommended that relevant Edinburgh College of Art staff are included in
any Away Day, and that consideration is given to widening the scope of the event at
an appropriate point to achieve a School focus. [3.7]
6.27 From the baseline of its strong, innovative curriculum the review team
recommends that the review area incorporates in its forthcoming strategic review,
both internally and at School level, a consideration of potential new initiatives and
developments. [3.8]
6.28 It is recommended that the review area and the School consider new academic
appointments with a very strong focus on the maintenance of the range and diversity
of its teaching, and in particular on the review area’s vision for its academic direction.
[3.9]
6.29 It is recommended that the review area continue to make all possible efforts to
widen participation in courses, insofar as the design, delivery and content of courses
can affect this difficult issue. In doing so consideration should be given to broadening
the approach to teaching visual culture in such a way as to attract students with little
or no previous exposure to art history. [3.10]
6.30 It is recommended that the review area emphasise in its recruitment material
and in course handbooks and course descriptors its concentration on confronting the
original work of art in galleries and museums, and that it provide intellectual
justification for the importance of experiencing art fact to face within the larger
context of the fundamental importance of visuality in contemporary culture. In doing
so the review area should expand upon why a first-hand knowledge of visual objects,
images and spaces is useful to the understanding of the history of the visual arts.
[3.14]
6.31 It is recommended that the review area clarify the interrelationship of subjectspecific lectures, critical thinking lectures and tutorials. [3.16]
6.32 It is recommended that further consideration is given by the review area of
whether the integration of gallery and museum exposure with traditional lecture
material requires to be more fully justified in intellectual terms in promotional
material and in course handbooks. [3.16]
6.33 It is recommended that the review area consider including in its lists of
prescribed reading some of the more recent debates interrogating the discipline. [3.18]
6.34 It is recommended that the review area investigate opportunities for group work,
and in particular autonomous learning groups, offered by the Appleton Tower
workspace. [3.19]
6.35 It is recommended that the review area approach the digitisation of its slide
collection by defining a two-stage project, to include the physical and financial
resource required, and submitting its proposal to the appropriate budget-holder. [3.23]
6.36 It is recommended that the review area seeks to resolve the issue of quality of
projection equipment by defining its key requirements and presenting a proposal to
the relevant budget-holder. [3.24]
6.37 It is recommended that a reconsideration of student academic and pastoral
support at University level take into account the important potential contribution of
administrative and support staff in this area. [3.26]
6.38 It is recommended that the College of Humanities and Social Sciences consider
how to improve student induction in relation to choice of outside subject and
clarification of degree structures, and that good practice is shared via the relevant
University committees. [4.2]
6.39 It is recommended that the review area explore ways to spread the load of the
Director of Studies role as a matter of urgency. [4.3]
6.40 It is recommended that the review area consider the most appropriate means of
providing feedback to students with regard to support for the student learning
experience and effective use of staff time. [4.5]
6.41 It is recommended that the review area consider further how to recognise and
assess the acquisition and use of professional skills gained during placements,
drawing on good practice elsewhere in the University. [4.8]
6.42 It is recommended that the review area consider the feasibility of introducing a
School format of placement report, with School-level co-ordination of the placement
activity, and that consideration is given to the possibility of providing students with an
opportunity to observe and record their progress against key competencies. [4.8]
6.43 It is recommended that the review area consider whether the resources
committed to double marking are warranted by the outcome. [4.10]
6.44 It is recommended that in preparation for a likely closer relationship between
the two institutions, discussions are initiated by the College of Humanities and Social
Science on the difference in degree classification systems, along with other disparities
between the Edinburgh College of Art system and that of the University of Edinburgh.
(and see below, 5.11) [4.11]
6.45 It is recommended that the College of Humanities and Social Science give
thought to appropriate phasing for its needs of teaching and examining within the
semester system, and engage with University debates on the subject. [4.12]
6.46 It is recommended that the review area seek clarification on the status of degree
classification rules. [5.8]
6.47 It is recommended that the review area initiate discussions with Edinburgh
College of Art on further articulation of quality assurance matters. [5.11]
Recommendation
6.20 - 6.36, 6.39 - 6.43, 6.46 – 6.47
6.28
6.37
6.38, 6.44 & 6.45
Responsibility of
Head of Review Area
Head of School (with Head of Review
Area)
Academic Registrar
College of Humanities and Social
Science
Teaching Programme Review of Philosophy, March 2007
Commendations
7.1 The review team commends the clear, strong commitment to high academic
standards displayed by the subject area. [3.1]
7.2 The subject area is to be commended for the commitment of many of its staff to
the provision of high quality teaching and to improving the quality of the
student learning experience of students at all levels. [3.1]
7.3 The review team wishes to commend the support staff for their high quality work
and their commitment to students and the student experience. [3.2]
7.4 The reviewers commend the strong links which exist between research and
teaching within the subject area. [3.3]
7.5 The review team commended plans to introduce a 40 credit, 10,000 word,
dissertation option. [4.1]
7.6 The review team commends the practice of having regular meetings between
course organisers and part-time tutors. [5.3]
7.7 The research-active nature of the staff ensures that research is embedded in
Philosophy’s teaching. The review team finds this to be commendable. [5.5]
7.8 The review team noted and wishes to commend the subject area’s policy to give
newly appointed staff a 30% reduction in teaching load. This is particularly
commendable given the high staff turnover in recent years and the high
number of relatively junior staff. [5.6]
7.9 The review team commends the existence of the staff-student liaison committee
and the way in which it provides a forum for issues to be discussed and
resolved. [5.7]
7.10 The review team commends the subject area’s support and funding for the
Student Philosophy Society and in particular the involvement of staff members
as speakers and in reading groups. [5.8]
Recommendations
7.11 The review team considers that the sub-honours courses may be overly ambitious
and recommends that the subject area reflects on this. The review team also
recommends that the subject area reflects on the accessibility of its course
materials, particularly at sub-honours level. [3.4]
7.12 The review team recommends that Philosophy reflects on the balance between
core and options courses at honours level and considers whether the
curriculum could be restructured to allow greater flexibility, particularly at
senior honours level. [3.5]
7.13 The review team recommends that Philosophy reflects on the balance of lectures
and tutorials in core courses at honours level. [3.6]
7.14 The review team recommends that Philosophy undertakes a review of both
physical and, in particular, electronic resources given student numbers and
subsequent pressure on key texts and journals. [3.7]
7.15 The review team recommends that teaching staff make themselves more
available to part-time tutors, providing additional support for tutorials where
necessary. [3.8]
7.16 The review team recommends that the subject area ensures that School policy is
being met and that course organisers meet regularly with part-time tutors.
[3.8]
7.17 The review team recommends that Philosophy considers limiting the hours
which part-time tutors are expected to devote to teaching, marking, and
tutorial preparation. [3.9]
7.18 The reviewers recommend that there should be a rigorous system for monitoring
and supporting the work of part-time tutors. [3.10]
7.19 The review team recommends that feedback from student review forms is
transmitted back to the part-time tutors. [3.10]
7.20 The reviewers recommend that Philosophy and the School should reflect on the
acceptability of some part-time tutors participating in the marking of some
degree examinations. [3.11]
7.21 The review team recommends that the subject area and the School should
consider whether part-time tutors are being fairly remunerated by comparison
with their peers in comparable disciplines. [3.12]
7.22 The review team recommends that the subject area reflects on whether another
assessment arrangement might better achieve the intended learning outcomes.
[3.13 & 3.14]
7.23 The review team recommends that Philosophy, along with the School and the
College, considers whether the practice of taking formative assessments into
account where special circumstances affect examination performance is in
keeping with the current assessment regulations. [3.15]
7.24 The reviewers recommend that Philosophy reflects on ways in which to improve
the provision of delivering timely, quality feedback to all students. [3.16]
7.25 The review team recommends that senior honours students are given written
feedback on their long essays with a provisional grade, subject to ratification
by the external examiner, to allow them to prepare for final examinations. The
review team recommends that this might be achieved through the use of
feedback sheets. [3.17]
7.26 The reviewers recommend that there should be a department-wide policy on
how long students should expect to wait before they get their marked essays
back. [3.18]
7.27 The review team recommends that the subject area, and the School, reflect on
how best to support students in Philosophy and overcome the gulf that clearly
exists between students and some members of staff. [3.19]
7.28 The review team recommends that Philosophy, in conjunction with the School,
seizes the opportunity presented by the College’s new approach to providing
pastoral support for students, to evaluate ways of spreading the DoS workload,
and indeed the overall administrative workload of the subject area. [3.20]
7.29 The review team recommends that the subject area collects student feedback on
degree programmes as well as on individual courses. [3.21]
7.30 The review team recommends that Philosophy devotes more time to
management of its joint honours programmes. [3.22]
7.31 The review team recommends that the Philosophy does not introduce the
dissertation unless it introduces changes to ensure that students do more
summatively assessed written work. [4.1]
7.32 The reviewers recommend that Philosophy ensures that honours students are
aware of progression between junior and senior honours in core courses and
recommend that Philosophy follows School and College practice in this area.
[4.2]
7.33 The review team recommends that the subject area, supported by the School,
reflects on its organisation and makes greater efforts to spread the
administrative load amongst colleagues. [5.1]
7.34 The reviewers recommend that senior members of staff should all play a role in
departmental administration and management. [5.1]
7.35 The review team recommends that Philosophy acts now to develop a planning
strategy and to establish a healthy culture. [5.2]
7.36 The review team recommends that the subject area and School take steps to
ensure that meetings between course organisers and part-time tutors regularly
take place. [5.3]
7.37 The team recommends that the subject area, with support from the School,
establishes a rigorous system of peer observation of teaching for all those
involved in teaching, including part-time tutors. [5.4]
7.38 The review team recommends that the School and subject area maintain the
commitment to a 30% reduction in teaching load for newly appointed staff, as
far as possible. [5.6]
7.39 The review team recommends that Philosophy establish procedures for regular
and systematic review of its activities. Periodic ‘away days’ could be of use in
this. [6.1]
Recommendation
7.11
7.12
7.13
7.14
7.15
7.16
7.17
7.18
7.19
7.20
7.21
7.22
7.23
7.24
7.25
7.26
7.27
7.28
7.29
7.30
7.31
7.32
7.33
7.34
7.35
7.36
7.37
7.38
Responsibility Of
Philosophy
Philosophy
Philosophy
Philosophy
Philosophy/ School of Philosophy,
Psychology and Language Sciences
Philosophy
Philosophy
Philosophy
Philosophy
Philosophy / School of Philosophy,
Psychology and Language Sciences
Philosophy / School of Philosophy,
Psychology and Language Sciences
Philosophy
Philosophy in conjunction with School
of Philosophy, Psychology and
Language Sciences and College of
Humanities and Social Science
Philosophy
Philosophy
Philosophy
Philosophy / School of Philosophy,
Psychology and Language Sciences
Philosophy / School of Philosophy,
Psychology and Language Sciences
Philosophy
Philosophy
Philosophy
Philosophy
Philosophy / School of Philosophy,
Psychology and Language Sciences
Philosophy
Philosophy
Philosophy / School of Philosophy,
Psychology and Language Sciences
Philosophy / School of Philosophy,
Psychology and Language Sciences
Philosophy / School of Philosophy,
Psychology and Language Sciences
7.39
Philosophy