UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX
SCHOOL OF SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
9 November 2005
(2:15pm – 5pm)
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
(UNRESERVED BUSINESS)
Chair
The Dean
Present
Ms Blair, Dr Fantini, Dr Ford, Dr Harrison, Professor Henson, Professor Higgins,
Dr Lyne, Dr Morison, Mr Noakes, Professor Pretty, Dr Sangwine,
Professor R Russo, Mr Tofts, Dr A Vickers, Professor Ward
Apologies
Dr Bailey, Mr Waite
Secretary
Miss Middleburgh
In attendance
Dr Heath (for mins ), Mrs Walker
Starring of Agenda Items
Noted
Items starred for discussion in addition to those already starred on the agenda:
Item 7 Dean’s Action
Item 8 Appointment of Members of School Panels
Item 14 Student Matters
83/05
Minutes of the Meeting Held on 16 February 2005
Approved
The minutes of the meeting held on 18 May 2005.
84/05
Matters Arising from the Minutes
Noted
There were no matters arising that were not otherwise items on the agenda.
85/05
Dean’s Report
(a) Feedback from Academic Standards Committee
Reported
The Dean reported that there had been feedback from several of the ASC
Working Parties. In particular, the Working Party on Rules of Assessment had
discussed the practice of having optional coursework as an assessment method,
which was used by a few departments including the Department of Psychology.
The Working Party indicated that they would be recommending the withdrawal
of this practice.
86/05
The Board also heard that there had been wide discussion on the topic of the new
zero tolerance and extenuating circumstances policies and procedures, and that a
number of issues had being referred to the Advisory Group for consideration.
The Advisory Group would provide advice and oversight for the new policies.
87/05
(b) Admissions (SE/05/23)
Noted
It was noted that the significant reduction in the number of international students
recruited in October 05 had resulted in considerable financial implications for
the University as a whole. A Working Group had been formed to review the
University’s position in relation to overseas recruitment, and to consider
different forms of initiatives to address this issue. In particular, departments
were asked to review their own recruitment strategies and consider other
curriculum developments; such as new scheme provision (particularly at
postgraduate level) and other types of non-standard provision.
88/05
It was also noted that a high number of students with firm offers for
postgraduate study at the University had not arrived for registration. It was
reported that UCAS were planning a similar postgraduate applications system to
that currently used for all undergraduates.
89/05
The Board was aware that a number of issues had impacted the overseas market
at a national level; such as changes to Visa requirements in the UK. It was
stated that there was anecdotal evidence to suggest that grant-funded students
encountered far fewer problems when applying for student visas than selffunded students, as the latter group of students often found it difficult to
evidence their financial stability. One suggestion was that the university could
help to provide evidence of a student’s financial wellbeing by requesting partial
payment of fees before the student arrived and verifying this payment with the
Home Office. This might also act as a deposit to secure firm offers. It was
noted that this issue had been considered by the Graduate School in recent years,
and that the Graduate School would be the appropriate forum for further
discussions on this topic.
90/05
Report of Dean’s Action Taken on Behalf of the Board (SE/05/24)
Noted
A correction was made to paper relating to the Department of Biological
Sciences (c) (i); the title for BS223 is ‘Immunity in Health and Disease’ and not
‘Molecular Genetics and Genetic Engineering’ as stated in the report.
91/05
Appointment of Members of School Panels (SE/05/25)
Noted
The student representatives questioned why student representatives were not
appointed members of the School Progress Committee or Academic Offences
Committee. It was explained that this issue had been debated in previous years,
and the University believed that it was inappropriate for students to make
decisions affecting another student’s progress. However it was clarified that
students were entitled to representation at these Committees.
92/05
Issues Arising from External Examiners Reports (SE/05/26)
Noted
The first two issues arising from the External Examiners report (the treatment of
x9s in the second year and scaling) would be discussed elsewhere on the agenda.
The third issue that had been highlighted was whether the marks translation
scheme for students who had studied in the US was giving a fair reflection of
their abilities. It was reported that a sub-group of the School would be
considering this issue and would report back to a future meeting of the Board.
93/05
An External Examiner from ESE had praised the Department for introducing a
standardised format for examination papers within the department. The Dean
encouraged departments to think about the use of standardised examination
formats, and asked the Board to consider whether there could be a standardised
format across all departments. Not all members of the Board were in favour of
this practice because of the difference in curricula and assessment methods
between different departments.
94/05
The Board agreed that it would be good practice to continue to publish exam
rubrics before the exams so that students knew what to expect, and suggested
that in cases where the format of an exam changed from the previous year,
students were informed and mock papers in the new format were made available.
95/05
Consultation on Academic Decision Making Structures (SE/05/27)
Noted
Recommended
to ASC
Although the Board was generally content with the proposals contained in the
paper, there was unanimous support for the recommendation that the title
‘Faculty of Science and Technology’ should be changed to ‘Faculty of Science
and Engineering’. It was thought that the existing ‘Science and Engineering’
title already suitably encompassed the academic disciplines/departments that
would form the faculty.
96/05
It was clarified to members that, although Faculty Boards would consider all
taught scheme provision for UG and PGT, the proposed School Boards would
consider UG and PG matters separately; the Undergraduate School Board
would consider all UG matters and the Postgraduate School Board would
consider all PGT and PGR matters.
97/05
The Board agreed that the new proposals would solve part of the problem of
issues being over-debated at Senate, as a result of the current practice of most
Heads of Department not attending the Graduate School Board (with Graduate
Directors in attendance instead), because Heads of Department would be
members of both School Boards. However, it was agreed that Graduate
Directors should retain membership on the Graduate School Board too.
98/05
Clarification was sought regarding which of the proposed School Boards would
consider Postgraduate awards from Writtle College. Currently, Undergraduate
awards were considered by the Board of Learning Partnerships but Postgraduate
awards were considered by the Graduate School. Based upon the consultation
paper, it appeared that this arrangement would remain.
99/05
(i)
that the title ‘Faculty of Science and Technology’ be changed to
‘Faculty of Science and Engineering’
100/05
(ii)
that arrangements relating to the consideration of Writtle schemes
should be clarified.
101/05
Assessment Matters
(a) Progression Rates - Outcomes from September Resit Boards (SE/05/28)
Noted
The Board discussed the increased numbers of students not progressing to their
next year of study. The table of results in paper SE/05/28 had been referred to
ASC, which had tasked the Deans with an analysis of the figures within their
respective Schools which they should feedback to ASC in the Spring. The PVC
(AS) had already suggested that the university should consider making changes
to attendance monitoring and find ways of increasing student engagement.
102/05
The Board agreed that more effort was needed to be put into student retention
and pre-exam support. It was further noted that many of the students who did
not progress failed to do so because they had passed all but one module, and
were therefore required to resit the exam out of residence. Although many of
these students subsequently requested permission to repeat the year instead, this
was not permissible because the marks for repeat years were not capped,
whereas resits were. The Board noted that departments would need to ensure
that they had methods of providing academic support to students who were
resitting out of residence.
103/05
Although the number of students in the School not progressing to their next year
of study, was higher than in the other Schools of study, it was borne in mind that
not all Schools required passes in individual 2nd year modules and held
September resits. The School considered the issue of whether students should
be permitted to trail failed modules into their final year, but members concluded
that that they did not wish to see trailing permitted within the School because
this would lead to overloading of work in the third year. Moreover, in many
cases, students need a proven understanding of a second year module in order to
undertake a related third year module. It was noted that the Working Party on
Rules of Assessment would be considering issues relating to progress rules for
the whole University during the course of next term.
104/05
(b) Progression Rules (SE/05/29)
Noted
At the last meeting of the Board it was resolved that the issue of whether the
School could raise the second year progression requirement from 35% to 40%,
for those departments that were still operating 35% (Psychology, Biological
Sciences & Mathematical Sciences), would be further discussed at departmental
meetings and conclusions would be reported back to the Board.
105/05
The Department of Biological Sciences had agreed that the required year mark
for progression from year two should be raised from 35% to 40%.
The Department of Psychology already required students to pass each course
with an aggregate of 40% so it seemed logical that the required year mark
should be 40%, as this was already implied by the course aggregate
requirement. Moreover, with effect from 2006-07, the British Psychological
Society (BPS) would be stipulating that BPS accreditation could only be
granted to students who obtained a 2:2 degree or higher. Therefore, the
department would like to stipulate the higher required year mark.
106/05
Resolved
Recommended
to ASC
Although some members of the Board were content to recommend a Schoolwide second year progression requirement of 40%, the Head of Department of
Mathematical Sciences expressed strong objections to the imposition of such.
The Department maintained that the current 35% progression requirement
complied with the requirement of attainment of learning outcomes because
students could achieve designated learning outcomes by passing (at 40%) both
the MA205 and MA206 courses (with the opportunity to resit if failed the first
time). Therefore, students could attain the 35% required year mark and satisfy
the designated learning outcomes, whilst still reasonably expecting to gain good
degrees if their performance in the final year compensated for their lower
second year mark.
107/05
It was stated that because of the shortage of staff in the Department of
Mathematical Sciences, the entire second year course provision was
compulsory; and students had no options in the second year of their degree.
Consequently students were required to take courses that spanned the three full
RAE disciplines of Pure Mathematics, Applied Mathematics, and Statistics &
Operational Research. Inevitably, a few students did particularly badly at one
or two courses, which in maths courses could lead to an outcome of a very low
year mark. The Head of Department noted that this was to be expected and was
even explained at length in the MSOR Subject Benchmark. However, each
year the department had one or two students who, even though they obtained an
aggregate mark below 40% in their second year, went on to earn their degree
(typically a 2.2 or 3rd). The Board heard of the example of a student who
graduated last year, and had gone on to further study, who would have been
prevented from progressing if this proposed new rule had been in play. The
department therefore concluded that raising the progression requirement to 40%
would unnecessarily hinder the progression of students in the department.
108/05
that the Board would not insist upon having a School-wide requirement that the
pass mark for the second year should be 40%. The Board therefore decided to
recommend to ASC that the required year mark for progression from year two
for all Biological Sciences and Psychology degree schemes should be raised
from 35% to 40%. The Board also asked for ASC to be made aware of the
strong objection from the Department of Mathematical Sciences of this
requirement being imposed upon the department.
109/05
The Board acknowledged that ASC may decide to pass on any
recommendations made by the Board to the Working Party on Rules of
Assessment which was considering the standardisation of rules within the
University.
110/05
that with effect from 06/07 the required year mark for progression from year
two should be raised from 35% to 40% for all Biological Sciences and
Psychology degree schemes, and that ASC should be asked to note the strong
objection on this matter from the Department of Mathematical Sciences.
111/05
(c) Weightings Between Years (SE/05/30)
Noted
Members were asked to note a change to the totals columns in the table
displaying the changes to degree classifications as a result of using the different
weightings currently used within the School.
112/05
After analysing the results displayed in the table, many Board members thought
that the results did not demonstrate that changing to a common year weighting
would be more beneficial to students because the outcomes were not
significantly different. The largest changes occurred where a weighting of 50:50
was adopted, but this was not a favoured option, and the only department which
had been using this weighting (Computer Science) had recently changed to
40%:60%.
113/05
114/05
Although the Board noted the value of consistency within the School, there were
also arguments that it was equally as important for departments to ensure that
their year weightings were in line with national practice in their subjects. Often
External Examiners would have strong views on this matter and would urge
departments to change their weightings. Psychology, for example, had recently
changed its year weighting as a result of an External Examiner’s
recommendation.
115/05
The School noted that the Working Party on Rules of Assessment was going to
consider this issue and might well introduce a University-wide ruling. Therefore
the School decided that there seemed little worth in recommending any changes
to the weightings within the School at this time.
(d) Marks Scaling (SE/05/31)
Noted
Resolved
Board members noted the paper on marks scaling, which included an
explanation of issues that occurred during the exam period. Members of the
Board suggested that the formula provided by Dr Branson might not
accommodate all marks scaling situations that could be foreseen, although it was
acknowledged that no departments had trialled its use in 04/05.
116/05
The Head of Department from the Department of Computer Science reported
that the department now had a policy on dealing with aberrant MCQ marks, and
had decided that they did not wish to adjust for bad predictors. The Board
agreed that MCQ questions should not be removed to adjust for bad predictors;
rather, the question should be review or removed for subsequent years.
117/05
that during the summer examination period in 05/06 in situations where scaling
was required, the algorithm provided by Dr Branson must be trialled in addition
to the department’s own algorithm. Departments must then report back to the
School Board in the Autumn Term.
118/05
(e) Confirming x9 marks in the Second Year (SE/05/32)
Noted
The Board discussed how best to ensure that x9 marks did not affect the final
year degree classification. It was suggested that departments should look at ways
of either avoiding or confirming x9 marks. The Department of Psychology
reported that it used a categorical marking system whereby only a fixed number
of agreed marks could be given, and in practice this limited the possibility of
finishing with an x9 result.
119/05
Resolved
that during the Spring Term Departments should consider the paper and then
report back on how they thought it best to confirm x9 marks before the final
meeting of the Board of Examiners.
120/05
Action
Departments should report back on departmental discussions relating to
confirming x9 marks by sending this information to the School Administrator by
the end of the Spring Term so that a report could be compiled for consideration
at the School Board in the Summer Term.
121/05
Learning and Teaching Matters
(a) Report of the School’s Pilot Year on the Talif Threshold Testing Project (SE/05/33)
Reported
The Board heard reports from representatives of both the Department of
Biological Sciences and the Department of Electronic Systems Engineering who
had been involved in the pilot year of the Talif Threshold Testing Project in
2004-05.
122/05
Noted
The Department of Biological Sciences considered the pilot to have worked
well, with students generally responding positively to it. There was anecdotal
evidence to suggest that achieving high marks in threshold tests had helped to
raise students’ confidence. Originally the Department had been concerned that
students might concentrate their efforts on passing the modules which contained
the requirement to pass the threshold test at 80% to the detriment of their other
modules. However there was no evidence of weaker performance in the other
modules, and indeed there was evidence that students were generally achieving
higher marks in the exams than previous cohorts had done.
123/05
The department was aware that students’ study patterns were often poor, but the
formative tests enabled them to examine how students interacted with the online
materials. In the majority of cases students were not accessing the formative
tests until shortly before the main tests.
124/05
It was agreed within the department that, although the amount of staff time
invested in the provision of questions and meaningful feedback for formative
testing was large, it was a worthwhile endeavour.
125/05
One of the student representatives had taken part in the pilot year in 2004-05 and
found the project to be a very beneficial experience in terms of learning and
feedback, and suggested that it should be extended to a larger number of courses.
The department reported that it had extended the use of formative tests to some
more courses, but had dropped the requirement to achieve 80% in the tests.
126/05
Resolved
The Department of Electronic Systems Engineering also reported its experience
of the project to the Board. The department included all courses in threshold
testing in 2004-05, which meant that each course had at least one formative test
and feedback. Exam papers were also organised differently; papers were split
into Part A which tested at threshold level, and Part B which tested for graded
level. Staff in the department had reviewed the syllabi and assessment formats
to establish how to test for threshold and how to test for grading.
127/05
The Department had anticipated that all students would achieve the 40%
threshold level, but this did not occur. Many students were failing to pick up all
the necessary marks from the threshold sections, but producing a satisfactory
number of marks from the graded sections. This showed that the two types of
mark needed to be aggregated, which is why the formal requirement to pass the
threshold elements had been dropped.
128/05
The Department was asked whether it was confident that the design of the
assessment was considered to be reasonable for all students. In reply the
Department reported that it was going to look into whether Part A of the exams
was genuinely testing threshold knowledge. It was also noted that there had
been a problem with engagement of weaker students, but the formative tests
were considered to be valuable in assisting both able and weaker students. The
Department was going to continue with the assessment of threshold and graded
elements for Year 1 during 2005-06, with a view to looking at other methods to
engage students, particularly weaker students, in study skills.
129/05
i) That the reports of the School’s pilot test on the Talif Threshold Testing
Project be passed to the Learning and Teaching Committee for consideration.
130/05
ii) That the Departments of ESE and Biological Sciences should provide a
further report to the Autumn Term meeting of the School Board (Faculty) on the
way that threshold testing had operated in their departments during 05/06.
131/05
Report of the Periodic Review of Psychology Schemes (SE/05/34)
Noted
Student Matters
Noted
The Student Representatives informed the Board that the SU would be bringing
the issue of anonymous marking of coursework back to Committee agendas for
2005-06.
132/05
A Student Representative enquired about the planned publicity for the new zero
tolerance model for the submission of late coursework and the new extenuating
circumstances policies. The Board heard that the University had sent an e-mail
to all students drawing their attention to the new policies and guidelines on the
web. MyEssex had also been used to publicise the new policies and hold links
to the relevant information. Departments had also been tasked with ensuring
that they adequately publicised the new policies to their students through
Student Handbooks and their WebPages. The SU were heavily involved in the
publicity for the new policies and had produced a flyer campaign which would
take place in week 6 and had published articles in both the SU newspaper and on
their WebPages.
133/05
Any Other Business
Noted
The Board heard that Laura Middleburgh would be changing roles from January
2006, and would be moving to the Graduate School to provide maternity cover.
She was thanked for her work in the School.
Laura Middleburgh
Administrative Officer
November 2005
134/05