Annual Course Appraisal Report – Undergraduate 2010/11
ANNUAL COURSE APPRAISAL REPORT
UNDERGRADUATE
Session appraised:
2009/10
Host School:
Business, Technology and Social Care
Award Title*
BA (Hons) Finance
Mode(s) of delivery
Full Time On Campus
*
This is the name of the award a student will receive at the end of their course of study e.g. BA (Hons)
Accounting and Finance.
Completion of the Annual Course Appraisal Report: purpose and guidance
Each year a course appraisal must be completed for every award-bearing course
delivered by the University, including every collaborative course. Where courses are
organised into programmes an Annual Programme Appraisal Report will also be
completed, following receipt of all the component Annual Course Appraisal Reports.
Course appraisal is the annual mechanism whereby the University seeks to assure the
quality and standards of its award-bearing provision.
The Annual Appraisal Process requires critical analysis of a set of data, which allows
strengths, required developments and trends in performance to be identified.
The four key sources of information are:
 course performance data;
 student feedback;
 External Examiner Annual Reports, reports from professional, statutory and regulatory
bodies, and reports from any quality events;
 Course/Programme Management Teams’ own evaluations.
Commentary within the Annual Course Appraisal Report should be based on exceptional
reporting with a focus on significant achievements or issues requiring attention, along
with actions taken or proposed.
There should be an emphasis on the analysis of the student performance and experience
at each stage of the course including, where relevant, each of the modes of study.
The completed Annual Course Appraisal Report should provide a sound evidence base for
the School Academic Board to have confidence in, and be satisfied with, the quality and
standards of the course.
Revised: July 2013
Page 1 of 8
Printed: 28 July 2017
Annual Course Appraisal Report – Undergraduate 2010/11
Appraisal Data
Received and considered?
Student enrolment data
Yes
√
No
N/A
Tariff points on entry
Yes
√
No
N/A
Student Achievement Rates (including 2+2 data)
Yes
√
No
N/A
Honours classification profile
Yes
√
No
N/A
Module grade profile reports
Yes
√
No
N/A
Module achievement rates
Yes
√
No
N/A
Destination of Leavers
Yes
√
No
N/A
Student Experience Questionnaire results
Yes
√
No
N/A
National Student Survey results
Yes
√
No
N/A
Feedback from staff/student liaison
Yes
√
No
N/A
External Examiner Annual Report(s)
Yes
√
No
N/A
Feedback from professional, statutory and
regulatory bodies or University quality events
Yes
No
Moderator Report (applicable to collaborative courses only)
Yes
No
N/A
Annual Course Level Agreement and Review
Meeting Report (applicable to courses with FE
articulation agreements only)
Yes
√
No
N/A
Feedback from employer and industry liaison
Yes
√
No
N/A
√*
N/A
√
List any other sources of information/data considered as part of this appraisal:
None
* The course is accredited by the Institute for Business and Technology (IBT) but there
was no interaction in 2009/10
Sources of data and anticipated timescales for availability are outlined in Section 2 of the Academic Quality
Handbook http://www4.rgu.ac.uk/academicaffairs/quality_assurance/page.cfm?pge=20107
Revised: July 2013
Page 2 of 8
Printed: 28 July 2017
Annual Course Appraisal Report – Undergraduate 2010/11
Complete the following sections assigning comment, where relevant, to the
specific student group concerned, e.g. articulating students, part-time students.
SECTION 1
ANALYSIS OF COURSE PERFORMANCE
Section 1.1 Application, Enrolment and Entry Standard Data
Having analysed all the relevant data, in relation to applications, enrolments and entry
standards, highlight any significant achievements or issues requiring attention along with
actions taken or proposed.
Applications were at the highest over the last five years and the Grade Point Average of
the total intake for Session 2009/10 had increased to 323, the highest in the last four
years.
Enrolment was much closer to target than 2008/09 [2009/10 = intake 111: target 102;
2008/09 = intake 126: target 80]
Similar number of advanced entrants recruited compared to 2008/09 (n 33).
Scottish market position holding in terms of course % of subject group applications.
Section 1.2 Student Achievement
Having analysed all the relevant data - including module performance, articulation data
and relevant student feedback - highlight any significant achievements or issues
requiring attention along with actions taken or proposed. For Stage 4 of undergraduate
courses, include analysis/commentary on Honours Classification data.
Stage 1 (University Benchmark – course: 85%, module: 90%)
Course and modules all above threshold
Module Grade Profile Reports showed a low number of students achieving A grades for
module BC1234 People and Organisations The module appeared to be out of line with
other modules and was preventing students from achieving A grades. The SEQ
qualitative feedback also highlighted students do not always understand the relevance
and place of the non-finance modules in the curriculum. There was also negative
feedback relating to module delivery. Action: the Module Team have reviewed the
module delivery and, as a result, have reduced the number of lectures and replaced
them with interactive workshops and other activities. Furthermore, the Course Team
revised the Stage 1 induction for this year to include greater emphasis on the
importance and relevance of the non-finance modules on the course. It is hoped this will
have a positive impact on SARs for Session 2010/11.
6 withdrawals in Stage 1 were a concern and reasons given for the withdrawals
predominantly related to poor course choice. Action: The Team would ensure that preentry materials were more explicit about what the course involved.
Stage 2 (University Benchmark – course: 90%, module: 95%)
Course SARs were below the threshold [88%] but showed an improvement on the
previous session [86.3%].
Three modules fell below the threshold. BC2345 Management and Statistics was
significantly below [88%] Students reported informally that they found the Management
aspects difficult. Action: Additional tutorial sessions have been built into the module
plus there is an increased focus on formative assessment.
Revised: July 2013
Page 3 of 8
Printed: 28 July 2017
Annual Course Appraisal Report – Undergraduate 2010/11
Stage 3 (University Benchmark – course: 90%, module: 95%)
Course SARs were below the threshold [83.9%] but an improvement on the previous
session [79.5%]. Most of students who were referred were on the 2 + 2 Degree Link
Programme. These students were given additional academic support but unfortunately
continued to be unable to meet the required standard. Course SARs for articulating
students were 46%. This was commensurate with previous Sessions. Action: Continue
liaison with FE partners to better prepare students coming into Stage 3.
Stage 4 (University Benchmark – course: 95%, module: 95%)
The course SAR at 93.8% was just below threshold but marginally better than previous
session. However, the proportion of firsts awarded dropped markedly, and the number of
lower seconds and thirds rose compared with 2008/09 (27.1% with first class honours in
2008/09 compared with 9.4% of the 2009/10 graduates).
The previous cohort which completed in 2008/09 had been an outstanding group of
students whose SARs were high throughout their course. Honours results for the cohort
of 2009/10 graduates, although having a lower profile than the preceding year, were in
line with their previous performance and similar to national benchmarks for preceding
years (current, directly comparable, year not yet available). Although results were thus
as expected, this situation required action for individual modules where SARs fell below
threshold. Action: In the case of two modules with poor SARs, the assessment plan had
been revised; one option module with poor SARs had been replaced with a more finance
oriented option.
Stage 5 (if applicable) (University Benchmark – course: 95%, module: 95%)
N/A
Stage 6 (if applicable) (University Benchmark – course: 95%, module: 95%)
N/A
Section 1.3 Employability
Highlight any significant issues raised from the analysis of Destination of Leavers data.
Explain actions taken or proposed to address issues of concern.
Employability continued to be exceptionally high despite the economic downturn.
Revised: July 2013
Page 4 of 8
Printed: 28 July 2017
Annual Course Appraisal Report – Undergraduate 2010/11
SECTION 2
EXTERNAL BENCHMARKS
Section 2.1 External Examiner Annual Reports
Highlight any significant issues raised in External Examiner Annual Reports and explain
any actions taken or proposed.
External Examiners Reports were positive. The only issue raised related to consideration
of component marks in relation to the grade profile for Honours classifications and this
has been addressed through the Programme Management Team response: the
component marks will receive greater attention at pre-Boards in future.
Section 2.2 Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies
Where relevant, highlight any significant achievements or issues of concern raised by
professional, statutory and regulatory bodies. Explain any related actions taken or
proposed.
No issues or achievements to report.
SECTION 3
STUDENT EXPERIENCE
Highlight any significant positive issues or areas requiring attention, not already raised,
in relation to the student experience. Explain actions taken or proposed where relevant.
Student experience draws on data from Staff Student Liaison meetings, Student
Experience Questionnaires, and the National Student Survey. Overall the feedback on
the course and its constituent modules was positive. There was only one Overseas
student respondent and this student’s feedback was similar to Home/EU students at the
same stage. There were distinct differences in satisfaction expressed by articulating
students into Stage 3 in comparison with non-articulating students [discussed below as
an area requiring attention]. The following summarises the key issues.
Significant Positive Issues
Quality of Teaching
There were a number of very positive comments on the quality of teaching both in SEQ
and NSS qualitative feedback.
Professional Relevance/Placement
The professional relevance of the course and the placement experience were well
regarded in NSS feedback.
Overall Satisfaction
% satisfaction overall was high for all four years.
Areas of requiring attention
Timetables
Issues about timetabling were raised at all stages, in particular with regard to too many
large gaps between classes which were considered inconvenient and time wasting. The
Course Team would continue to ask the School to consider ways of improving the
Revised: July 2013
Page 5 of 8
Printed: 28 July 2017
Annual Course Appraisal Report – Undergraduate 2010/11
student-friendliness of timetables.
Assessment and Feedback
In Stage 1, there was very low % agreement (30% range) to the questions on
assessment and feedback. There was also some negative comment on feedback in the
NSS qualitative data. Staff will discuss assessment and feedback with students to
identify their concerns. In addition, Stage 1 students will be given more information
about staff expectations, the level of work required for assessments and the grade
criteria will be explained in more detail.
Relevance of Content to Award
In Stages 1 and 2 there were some negative comments on individual modules related to
relevance to the award. For accreditation and exemptions, the BTI require non-finance
subjects to be included in the degree and this requirement is already explained to
students on several occasions in Stages 1 & 2 and will continue to be emphasised by
staff. Module Co-ordinators will also explain the relevance of these subjects in more
detail.
Developing Writing Skills
Direct Entry students articulating into Stage 3 had a lower % satisfaction related to
helping develop writing clearly and effectively (49% DE v 73% whole Stage 3). This had
been identified as an area of concern during the Session and Grampian College have now
included a module on communication in the HND course which should help students. In
addition, more support will be given to students in this area in the Stage 3 modules.
Experience of DE Students
In 8/18 SEQ questions, Direct Entry students were less satisfied than the comparable
group of non-Direct Entry students. This was particularly evident for the questions on
feedback, knowing what was expected in terms of assessment and writing clearly and
effectively (see above). The Course Leader is currently reviewing the support provided
for articulating students to identify how to improve the experience of Direct Entry
students.
SECTION 4
DISSEMINATION OF GOOD PRACTICE
Identify any examples from the course of good practice/innovation which are worthy of
wider dissemination.
The use of videoconferencing for placement support; initial informal feedback appeared
to be positive and a further trial of this would go ahead in the forthcoming session.
SECTION 5
RISK ASSESSMENT
Highlight issues which could put the future academic quality or the standards of the
course at risk which should be brought to the attention of the School, Faculty or
University. This would include issues highlighted in the previous sections of this report
for which the Course Management Team feel they are not able to fully mitigate or future
changes which they are aware of which, in turn, could have a negative impact on the
course.
Revised: July 2013
Page 6 of 8
Printed: 28 July 2017
Annual Course Appraisal Report – Undergraduate 2010/11
For the attention of the School:
 One key member of staff may retire during next Session and two will be away on
maternity leave.
 Consider ways of improving the student-friendliness of timetables.
For the attention of the Faculty:
For the attention of the University:
Signed by Course Leader
Date
Jane Smith
4/10/10
If the course is part of a programme, this Annual Course Appraisal Report
should now be sent to the relevant Programme Leader.
If the course is not part of a programme, complete the section below.
Revised: July 2013
Page 7 of 8
Printed: 28 July 2017
Annual Course Appraisal Report – Undergraduate 2010/11
Only complete this section if the Course is not part of a programme
If the course is not part of a programme, it should be considered by a meeting of the
Course Management Team, and after completion of the following boxes, it should be sent
to the School Academic Board.
Draft Course Management Team response for consideration by the School
Academic Board
Names of External Examiners responsible for the award:
Report
received?
If there was no report received, indicate what actions have been taken:
Is the draft Course Management Team Response(s) to the External
Yes / No
Examiner Annual Report(s) attached as an appendix to this report?
If there is no Course Management Team Response appended, indicate why and what
actions have been taken:
Any comments from the Course Management Team Meeting supplementary to
this Annual Course Appraisal Report:
The above Annual Course Appraisal Report was endorsed by a meeting of the
Course Management Team
Signed by Convener
Date
Revised: July 2013
Page 8 of 8
Printed: 28 July 2017