Student Information System User Forum
Notes of a meeting held on 29 November 2011
Present:
Please see attached list
Part 1 – items for discussion
Introductory remarks
1.
Wendy Appleby welcomed those present to the first meeting of the SIS User Forum
and reported the following points:
[a] The SIS Project was complete and the Forum would be part of the steady state
arrangements.
[b] There was a restructuring underway in ARCS which would result in better clarity
between record keeping issues and systems support issues as many of the queries
and requests sent to the SIS Team related to record keeping.
[c] The HESA return was very important and most data was accurate but there were
some areas where a lack of engagement with the SIS had caused poor data
quality.
Update on SIS developments
2.
Jason Bunning and Trudy Mason reported on recent and future developments of the
student information system (SIS). The following points were noted in discussion:
[a] The core functionality to support the student lifecycle had been developed and
delivered.
[b] A list of planned developments that had not been completed had been circulated to
the Forum. A further list of requests made to the helpdesk had also been
circulated.
[c] At present IT resources were largely tied to meeting new statutory requirements,
including accommodating £9K fees, Key Information Sets, and the National Student
Scholarship Scheme. HESA was also a priority to avoid clawbacks.
[d] Marlon Gomes was taking forward a ‘paperless office/process’ for undergraduate
admissions.
[e] In response to a question about resources in the SIS Team, Wendy said that a bid
had been made to QMSE to look for resources for further development.
[f] SIS was a combination of malleable bespoke software and rigid packaged
1
software. Bespoke alternatives to packaged software were possible but potentially
expensive to develop.
[g] Jason Bunning requested volunteers to test new SIS functionality. It was agreed
that SIS enhancement plans should be mapped for thorough testing. However a
timescale for testing could not be devised at this stage due to shifting statutory
requirements.
[h] In response to concerns about the potential futility of new requests to the SIS team,
Jason Bunning reassured that the team wanted to hear all problems and
suggestions.
Form of the Forum
3.
Wendy Appleby raised options for the size and format of SIS Forums:
[a] Forums were to be held once per semester.
[b] Jenny Gault spoke in favour of a dual system of a large group and small focus
groups.
[c] Wendy Appleby wanted the discussion to remain flexible and inclusive.
[d] The forum was largely content with its present structure.
[e] A steering group would be set up to prioritise and direct decisions. These should
contain an administrator and an academic from each faculty.
Module selection system
4.
Wendy Appleby noted difficulties with the module selection procedure and opened a
discussion on the reformation of the process which noted the following:
[a] Current module selection dates were broadly popular despite a suggestion that
students should choose at a later point in light of their exam results to avoid
retracting modules from underperforming students.
[b] Reports should be developed so that schools can see how many students have
selected modules, like the one produced for Mathematics. Also English & Drama
and Sports & Exercise Medicine used paper based systems.
[c] Academic advisers must have an active role in module selection.
[d] MAA need not be scrapped as it grows easier to use over time and was useful for
some schools.
[e] The ARCS calendar provides key diet generation dates. There was a request for
separate programme specification forms, one external for prospective students and
one internal for SIS.
[f] The forum agreed to keep to the existing format, with some enhancements for the
current academic year, and then review it again.
2
Module selection for new students
5.
The forum discussed the problems presented by students selecting their first semester
modules and noted the following:
[a] Module selection should continue to remain open for the first two weeks of
teaching.
[b] LLM ran trials of all available modules for over 500 students in the first two weeks.
Implementing the LLM system in other schools would be beneficial for students but
logistically unfeasible.
[c] Composing the first semester of compulsory modules would resolve the issue but is
not viable for all programmes, particularly for single year postgrad programmes.
[d] Mysis remained unlocked after the two week deadline. Trudy Mason confirmed
that this was an intentional response to pleas from staff for more time to confirm
selections.
[e] The main concern was the availability of module selection to new students once
they had pre-enrolled as this meant that students were not guided by academic
advisers; often selections needed to be undone or amended and this was
confusing and time-consuming. There were examples of schools with large student
numbers that were able to organise a meeting with the academic adviser in
induction week to select modules. The forum agreed that this was a preferred
approach. Therefore, for 1012, it was agreed that module selection would open for
new students at the start of week zero and that schools/institutes would organise
meetings with advisers for new students to choose modules in week zero.
Results notification process
6.
The following suggestions for improving the results notification process were noted:
[a] There should be a centralised College policy on releasing results.
[b] Assessment results from previous years should remain accessible to students.
ARCS have been discussing transcripts and interim progress reports on Mysis.
[c] A function to release results simultaneously instead of one by one could prevent
the storm of emails from panicked students worried about missing marks because
their friends have theirs. However the development cost would be considerable,
therefore this would be looked at alongside other priorities.
[d] The 22 clicks required to undo a mark is regrettably inefficient, but a bespoke
solution would be expensive to develop. Raising this issue with Tribal alongside
other universities could be an approach to finding a solution.
Provisional results notification process
7.
The timing of the release of provisional results to students caused some controversy
among Forum members. The following issues were noted:
3
[a] There was a complaint that changed coursework marks were released without
warning in the middle of exams, the worst possible time. It was more of that this
was a one off situation caused by the release of the new functionality.
[b] ARCS were surprised by the reaction to the publication of provisional marks as
they believed they were following QM policy.
[c] In discussion about the policy on the provision of assessment marks, some Forum
members did not want students to see any marks that were still subject to change.
Poor marks for heavily weighted assessments have caused students some despair
with a negative impact on their other work or to lobby supervisors for specific marks
based on their calculations. There was some disagreement as to the importance of
these factors. Waiting for the SEB could lead to postgrad results from May being
withheld until October.
[d] Generally, it was felt that it was appropriate to withhold dissertation/project and
examination marks until after the DEB. The Forum agreed students want
transparency and are frustrated by having to wait for results. Some forum
members wanted to release provisional results as soon as possible, some
expressing their trust in students to notice and understand a large red warning
saying ‘provisional: subject to change’. Also publishing results through MYSIS
meant they only had to be input once.
Final miscellaneous points
8.
The last few minutes of the meeting were opened up for discussion of miscellaneous
concerns related to SIS. The following points were noted in discussion:
[a] Problems with new staff accessing the system seemed to come how the feed from
Resource Links and their full details. HR, the SIS team and IT Services did not
claim responsibility. Someone needed to be made responsible in future.
[b] SIS inductions for new staff have not yet been taken forward, but ad hoc training is
available from the helpdesk and the restructuring will create roles with defined
training responsibility.
[c] Maintaining compliance with external requirements was a top priority.
[d] A plan of SIS developments would be published once the steering group is set up.
Benjamin Wakefield
9 December 2011
4
In Attendance
First Name
Wendy
Alice
Sharon
Shaheda
Katherine
Michele
Jason
Lynne
Simon
Tessa
Michelle
Rose
Stephanie
Vivien
Jill
Mark
Omar
Jenny
Hardeep
Marlon
Denise
Lauren
Simon
Heather
Z Heron
Brendan
Christopher
Aletar
Mark
Noshin
Matt
Brian
Trudy
Sam
Martin
Janine
Janine
Roger
Alistair
Surinder
Jane
Nina
Michelle
Sarah
Surname
Appleby
Austin
Averill
Batha
Bevan
Branscombe
Bunning
Campbell
Colcon
Cornlly
Dean
Dougall
Duggan
Easson
Evans
Ferris
Garcia
Gault
Gill
Gomez
Gordon
Ha
Hayter
Heiner
Heron
Hewitt
Hughes
Hussain
Jehninson
Khan
Latham
Littlechild
Mason
Matthew
Mcintosh
Morris
Morris
Nix
Owens
Pal
Pallant
Ravic
Resarick
Riley
Department
ARCS
SPIR
Blizzard
SBM
ARCS
Blizzard
Finance
SISPT
SMD
ARCS
CCLS
History
CCLS
SMS
SLLF
SISPT
SLLF
English & Drama
Finance Fees Dept
ARCS
IT Services
SISPT
ARCS
SLLF
SISPT
ARCS
Sports & Exercise Medicine
SBM
EECS
SMD
History
IT Services
ARCS
Blizzard
IT Services
SMS
SMS
SBCS
Geography
Blizzard
ARCS
WHRI
SBCS
SEF
5
Emma
Paul
Rosine
Victoria
Sue
Rhiannon
Helena
Sue
Guglielmo
Shapcott
Smith
Smyrl
Stokes
Sullivan
Thompson
Tleslez
Tracey
Volpe
Benjamin
Sandra
Victoria
Kaye
Wakefield
Wells
Wells
Yeung
Geography
Finance Fees Dept
LLU
ARCS
LLM/CCLS
ARCS
SISPT
Sports & Exercise Medicine
School of Economics &
Finance
ARCS
SEMS
Law
CANCER SMD
6