The University of Edinburgh

Transcription

1 A. Introduction The University of Edinburgh Postgraduate Programme Review Report 2014/15 Online Distance Learning Postgraduate Taught Programmes in the College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine 1. The Postgraduate Programme Review (PPR) of Online Distance Learning Postgraduate Taught programmes in the College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine (CMVM) at the University of Edinburgh is part of the University s Quality Assurance procedures, and is complemented by the Senatus and College Quality Assurance Committees monitoring and reporting, and by the External Examiner system. 2. The review covered four Online Distance Learning (OLDL) Postgraduate Taught (PGT) programmes. These programmes are delivered by Schools or The College, as detailed below, and were selected for this pilot review of OLDL programmes because they represented a range of provision across the College. Programme Clinical Education Surgical Sciences Clinical Trials Conservation Medicine College / School College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine School of Clinical Sciences School of Molecular, Genetic, and Population Health Sciences Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies The PPR consisted of: The University s standard remit for internal review The subject specific remit for the review, consisting of the following items: o o o o University remit item: Reflection on the theme of community College remit item: Personal Tutors how effective is the area s provision of student support? Subject area remit items: Employability and career progression IT tools, e-learning platforms and University Information Services infrastructure: how are they supported and how compatible are they with the needs of OLDL students and programmes? Student remit items: Personal Tutor system: how can this be better adapted to the needs of OLDL students? Student representation for OLDL students The analytical report prepared by CMVM and additional material provided in advance of the review (additional material listed in Appendix 1) The visit by the review team to CMVM The PPR report produced by the review team Following the review, action by the subject area/school and others to whom recommendations were remitted Membership of review team: Page 1 of 22

2 o o o o o o Convener : Dr Antony Maciocia, School of Mathematics External member: Dr Nigel Bruce, University of Liverpool External member: Mr Eric Clarke, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland Internal member Ms Erin Jackson, School of Law Student: Ms Camilla Lukas, School of Languages, Literatures and Cultures Administrator: Dr Kathryn Nicol, College of Science and Engineering 3. The four programmes considered in this review are located in subject areas across CMVM. The programmes were selected for this pilot review of OLDL PGT provision by CMVM in agreement with University Academic Services, as representative of a range of current provision across the College. One aim of this pilot review was to assess how appropriate the University s current internal review procedures are to reviewing the student learning experience on OLDL programmes. The review therefore focused on a relatively small number of programmes. A timetable for the review of the remaining OLDL programmes in CMVM will be developed, in line with University Quality Assurance requirements. CMVM is made up of four Schools: the School of Clinical Sciences (SCS), the School of Molecular, Genetic, and Population Health Sciences (MGPHS), the School of Biomedical Sciences, and the Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies (R(D)SVS). These Schools provide undergraduate, postgraduate taught, and postgraduate research programmes. In addition, some programmes are owned by the College rather than by an individual School. The programmes considered in this review are located in three of the Schools, with one owned by the College, as noted at 2, above. Each programme is managed by a Steering Group or Programme Development Team, led by a Programme Director. At School level, oversight is provided by the Head of School, supported, in SCS, by the School Postgraduate Manager. At College level, oversight is provided by the PGT Director and Deputy Director, supported by the College Postgraduate Manager, and reporting to the Head of College. The College level committee with oversight of these programmes is the College Postgraduate Taught Committee. It was noted during the review that the College is in a period of structural transition, and some proposed changes to this structure are discussed in the report below. 4. The programmes are formally located in a number of sites across the University. The review visit took place in the University Main Library, George Square. The review team were given access to a range of the websites and online tools used by these OLDL programmes. 5. Date of previous review: this is a pilot review. 6. The Analytical Report was prepared by Dr Sarah Henderson, Deputy PGT Director CMVM, and Ms Sharon Pearson, PG Administrative Office, CMVM, with input from the Programme Directors. The Programme Directors gathered information from programme teams and students, which was fed into their contributions to the Analytical Report. B. Main body of report 1. Management of the student learning experience Page 2 of 22

3 1.1 Effectiveness of the review area s approach to the management and resourcing of learning and teaching experience The review team recognised that this was a time of change for the College. Restructuring of Schools within the College is taking place later in 2015 and this may have implications for communication mechanisms, lines of responsibility and oversight for some of the programmes under review. The review team felt that this will provide a valuable opportunity to review lines of communication vertically within the College as this relates to strategic planning, resource allocation, and change management. This restructuring will also provide an opportunity to enhance communication horizontally across programmes and Schools, creating valuable opportunities to share good practice and promote appropriate consistency in the student experience. The review team did not feel that lines of responsibility and oversight for the programmes under review, particularly at School level, were particularly clear, and felt that a positive outcome of restructuring would be clearer lines of responsibility and oversight, and in particular clearer mechanisms for feeding back to programme teams and sharing information across programmes A College and School strategic aim is to increase student numbers on these programmes where possible. The review team noted comments by senior School staff that the programmes under review had developed in silos to some extent, and the review team agreed that this was a critical period in the development of these programmes, and that plans for expansion must be managed carefully to ensure that the quality of the student experience is maintained and that opportunities to enhance the student experience are identified and acted upon. The review team felt it was critical that any expansion in student numbers was supported appropriately and that the particular needs of OLDL students and OLDL learning and teaching were fully recognised and responded to, at College, School and programme level. Effective communication with the programme teams will be vital in this process. Therefore, the review team strongly recommend that the College pursue their plans to improve communication around strategic plans and the implementation of such, across College, and between College, Schools and programme teams. Due to the restructuring of the College, a full organisational plan was not available to the review team. It will be important that the new organisational plan clearly indicates the location of these programmes in relation to Schools and College The review team recognised current plans to improve communication across College: these are detailed below The review team felt that the current work being undertaken by the College Head of Academic Administration to investigate development of a cross-college Graduate School would be of particular value in providing a forum for academic and administrative staff on these programmes to share experiences and good practice. This forum also has the potential to play a valuable role in supporting programme teams in managing increases in student numbers. The review team commend the initiative to establish a College Graduate School, and encourage the College to pursue this plan The review team also commend the desire of the College senior management to raise the profile and recognition of teaching within the College. This has been identified by the College as a means to engage with and make more effective use of the teaching potential within the College. In particular, the review team felt that efforts to enhance the standing of teaching in the culture of the College were crucial to addressing issues of staff resources and programme sustainability: these are discussed in more detail at The review team also commend the creation of the College Learning and Teaching IT Committee and the development of a College IT roadmap, by the Head of College IT. The review team felt these will be valuable tools in addressing current and emerging issues relating to IT provision and support for OLDL programmes. Current challenges relating to IT provision and support are discussed in more detail at 1.6. Page 3 of 22

4 1.1.7 There was significant variation in the management structures of the programmes, the roles played by members of programme teams, and the use made of central University services support versus local support teams. The review team commend the development of the Academic e-facilitator role and similar roles, and would suggest that other programmes consider this as an example of good practice. The review team also commend the College s current activity to develop a staff workload model, but recommend that the College engage specifically with OLDL programme teams in the development of the workload model, to ensure that any resource issues specific to OLDL programmes are captured in the model. The review team felt that an effective workload model would be crucial tool in developing recognition of teaching, and managing workloads and roles across the OLDL programme teams. This will be further discussed at 1.2 in relation to programme sustainability. It was noted that R(D)SVS already have a workload model in place, in part as a result of their engagement with the Athena SWAN project, and that this may provide a useful example. Personal Tutoring responsibilities, discussed in more detail in 1.4, should also be considered in developing the workload model The value of improving communications and the flow of information between programmes is highlighted above, and one area identified for improvement in the review meetings was on sharing information on programme administration. Administrative staff expressed frustration at a lack of administrative guidance or templates, and the experience of reinventing the wheel when new OLDL programmes were developed, with the result that multiple different local solutions were produced to issues that may be common across programmes and where a common School- or College-wide solution may be more effective. It was not clear whether this indicated a gap at School or College level. Recent initiatives such as the establishment of a PG Administrators network, led by the PG Manager in SCS, are a positive response to this issue, and the establishment of a College Graduate School would also be expected to help to address this issue. In the shorter term, the review team recommend that the College Postgraduate Office engage with programme support staff to investigate any support needs in relation to OLDL programmes, to minimise the development of multiple local solutions to common issues. The review team also suggest that the development of a College-wide OLDL Administrators forum would provide an effective means of sharing knowledge and good practice. 1.2 Key features of the learning and teaching/research experience The review team were impressed by the quality of provision on the four programmes that were reviewed in detail and the large majority of students who gave feedback to the review team were extremely positive about the quality of provision, the academic opportunities provided by the programmes, and the support provided by programme teams and administrative staff. Students and staff identified the opportunity to engage academically with students and staff from around the world, and the vibrancy of debate and breadth of experience brought to discussions, as key strengths of these programmes. The review team felt that the level of engagement with students on all programme under review was extremely high. The review team commend the administrative support staff on their commitment to open communication with their students As noted above, the College intends to continue to develop its provision of OLDL programmes. The review team felt that while the current OLDL programmes are clearly very successful and providing a high quality experience for students, programme teams and the College must ensure that the specific needs of OLDL students and programmes are identified and supported. The review team came across a number of examples were more could be done to investigate and address the needs of OLDL students. These examples include the challenges the College has faced in adapting the Personal Tutor system for OLDL students, issues in scheduling tutorials for students in different time Page 4 of 22

5 zones in some programmes, issues with the engagement of external teaching staff, and challenges relating to IT provision and support. By recognising the need to build OLDLcentric models rather than working from on-campus provision as the dominant model, then adapted where necessarily to OLDL needs, the College will have an opportunity to further strengthen their provision Most of the programmes under review have links with relevant professional bodies, either through formal accreditation or other relationships such as external teaching staff: the challenges of managing external teaching staff are discussed below in relation to programme sustainability, and at 1.4 and 1.8. These links with professional bodies are seen as key to the reputation of the programmes and the growth of the programmes The review team noted that some programme handbooks include benchmarking statements, and felt that this was provided useful information for students and staff. The review team suggest that programmes which do not include such benchmarking statements in their handbooks should consider whether these would be a useful addition Flexibility of study is also a key feature of these programmes. Students may leave the programmes at a range of exit points: Postgraduate Certificate (60 credits), Postgraduate Diploma (120 credits), or Postgraduate Masters (180 credits). Students also have the option to engage in intermittent study which allows students to extend their period of study up to six years. Given that most students on these programmes have significant work commitments, it is likely that a significant proportion of students may take this option, particularly as the programmes grow. Therefore it is important that the University is able to support these students effectively, and that central student management systems, such as the student records system, take account of these students in any systems development The review team felt that programme sustainability is a key emerging issue. The review team felt that there are well-structured and thorough programme approval processes and annual review processes in place, and commend this. One review process is the annual review of business plans for PGT Programmes, involving meetings between the Schools, Programme Directors and College Postgraduate Office representatives, and reporting any recommendations to the College Strategy Group. While there are clearly many strengths to this process, the review team recommend that College ensure that the process for annual review of business plans is fit for purpose for OLDL programmes, particularly in recognising the full resource requirements of OLDL programmes. Senior staff in the College are clearly committed to improving and enhancing the management of growth, and this will be important in ensuring the sustainability of the programmes under review, and maintaining the quality of the student experience. The review team felt that the programme teams are already under considerable strain, and College plans to grow these programmes will require careful consideration. Supporting and developing staff is discussed at 1.8. Managing support and provision for VLEs, discussed at 1.6, will be a key factor Recruitment of suitable expert external teaching staff (both external to the University and external to the programme team), and recruitment of suitable expert dissertation supervisors, are already current challenges for a number of programmes under review, and these challenges are likely to deepen as student numbers grow. In some cases, programmes have already struggled to recruit appropriate staff on occasion. Some relationships with external teaching staff are based on good will and personal contacts, which may not be sustainable in the longer term and as numbers grow. Engagement of University staff in teaching appears to be inhibited by a lack of recognition of teaching commitments, which means that any staff who take on additional teaching do this as well as rather than instead of other responsibilities. It is hoped that the developing College workload model (see 1.1) will help to address this issue. The review team noted the College s plan to increase PGR student numbers, which may feed through into additional suitable teaching staff and dissertation supervisors. However, this was felt to be an issue Page 5 of 22

6 that requires further attention in the programme annual review and business case review processes to ensure that College are aware of these recruitment issues and any extent to which they may impact on the student experience. Induction, training and ongoing support for external staff is discussed in more detail at Effective communication between College, Schools, and programme teams, will be key to addressing sustainability. In particular, the review team noted an occasion on which targets for student numbers on a programme appeared to have been increased outwith the annual review process. Top-slicing of School budgets for scholarships was also noted as a decision that did not appear to have been communicated effectively within Schools. The review team commend the College s engagement with Schools in the planning and review process, but suggest that any changes made to plans agreed in this process should be managed in the same spirit, directly involving programme directors Senior staff in the College are clearly committed to improving and enhancing the management of growth, and this will be important in ensuring the sustainability of the programmes under review, and maintaining the quality of the student experience. The review team commend the appointment of a PG Marketing and Communications Manager, who has a positive relationships with programme teams and acts as a useful conduit for information across programmes, and the review team would support any plans to further develop this role. 1.3 Key features of (and trends in) the student population and implications for learning and teaching/research experience Including subject specific remit item: Reflection on the theme of community The programmes have a variety of arrangements for induction. The review team found these to be effective, and students who contributed to the review appeared to be satisfied with their experiences of induction. Effective induction to the VLEs is key to students making a successful start to their programme, and all programmes have specific inductions to their VLEs, either before or at the start of the first semester. Approaches varied across the programmes, and the review team felt there would be real value in sharing practice in this area to identify the most effective approaches. One example raised in discussion was an induction task where students are set a series of questions and have to locate the answers in the programme handbook The review team also commend the programmes and PG Marketing and Communications Manager s engagement with the University Virtual Open Days One programme team reported that IT issues had affected the provision of pre-semester induction: this is discussed in more detail in section It was not clear how effective induction to the University as a whole is for students on these programmes, although students did not identify this as a particular issue. Programme teams reported that they lacked clear information on what was being sent to these students by the central University Induction team. They also raised the possibility that on occasion students have been sent information relevant to on-campus study rather than OLDL study. The review team therefore recommend that the University Student Induction team ensure that they identify the different needs of OLDL students, and work with programme teams / Schools to ensure that communications sent to students about induction are coordinated as far as possible with communications sent by programme teams and Schools As well as studying part-time, students on these programme may also study on an intermittent basis. One issue highlighted to the review team was that students on Page 6 of 22

7 intermittent study are required to pay fees for 60 credit dissertation courses as a single payment, and are not given the option to pay in instalments: this option is available for students paying tuition fees, but not other fee types. This was felt to place a particular burden on students on intermittent study, and the review team suggest that the University Finance Department review their policy in this area: the College PGT Committee should be consulted for examples of students affected by this issue The Analytical Report noted increasing student diversity in some programmes, and the review team were impressed by the programme teams positive sense that increasing diversity was a strength. A number of students also identified the diversity of backgrounds and experience of students and staff as a key positive feature of their experience. Student diversity in relation to accessibility is further discussed at The Analytical Report also noted basic skills training as a requirement for some students entering the programmes. In discussions with the review team, academic writing, understanding the nature of different forms of assessment, and statistics were identified as key issues. The programme teams are addressing this through a combination of foundation skills modules, provision of clear information on assessment in programme handbooks, and referring students to the Institute for Academic Development (IAD). The review team felt that the programme handbooks were effective and a valuable resource for students, providing a clear expression of expectations and assessment requirements, and commend the programme teams on the quality of the handbooks. Again, the review team felt that there would be value in sharing good practice across the programmes on programme handbook development. Programme teams felt that the actions taken to address gaps in basic skills were effective, but it was not clear that this was being monitored in a systematic way. Issues in addressing basic skills gaps were identified as a lack of staff resources for pre-sessional courses during the summer, and lack of opportunity for late applicants to take pre-sessional courses. The review team recommend that the programme teams develop an effective means to assess whether students require basic skills training, and to monitor the effectiveness of any training offered in response. The review team suggest that this resource requirement should be included in annual business plan reviews and the developing College workload model. The review team also suggest that the programme teams consider developing generic skills training courses which could be shared across programmes Students who gave feedback to the review team were generally positive about the sense of community they experienced within their programme, and particularly within their year group. Group tasks, engagement with discussion boards, and the provision of live online meetings, were highlighted as valuable means of engaging students and encouraging exchanges between students and staff. The review team found that there were high levels of engagement between staff and students on all programmes. Students reported feeling less engaged with the wider University community, but also reported that this may be a reflection of their own needs and priorities. 1.4 Effectiveness of the review area s approach to supporting students in their learning Including subject-specific remit items: Personal Tutors how effective is the area s provision of student support? How can this be better adapted to the needs of OLDL students throughout their programme? The review team were impressed with the range of innovative teaching and learning practices, high levels of student support, and high levels of interaction between staff and students, and between student peer groups, on the programmes under review. The review team found students to be highly appreciative of the dedication and support of the programme teams, and programme leaders in particular. The review team commend the Page 7 of 22

8 programme teams commitment, enthusiasm and engagement with their programmes and students The review team commend the imaginative use of varied discussion forums and use of VLEs to maintain contact with students. These are used for assessed and non-assessed activities, as well as providing forums to report problems and raise issues, and for peer discussion among students. It was noted that maintaining quality of engagement on a large number of discussion boards and with a large number of students may be a strain on staff resources, and this is another area where sharing practice across programmes may enable further enable innovation and enhancement. For example, IT tools to automatically track student participation, to highlight non-engagement and allow staff to respond to this quickly, were used on some programmes and seemed valuable The review team also commend the efforts of the programme team to encourage peer engagement among students, through innovations such as the pilot for peer tutoring currently being undertaken by the Conservation Medicine programme Most programmes use a mixture of asynchronous and synchronous teaching, and while students and staff were very positive about using opportunities for live discussions, managing this for students in very different time zones is clearly a challenge. This is likely to be increasingly challenging if student numbers and diversity of geographical locations increase. Accessibility of live tutorials is discussed further in section The review team found that a high level of student support was provided across the programmes, and commend the programme teams on this. However, the Analytical Report and meetings with staff, students and the review team made it clear that these programmes are facing considerable challenges in implementing the University Personal Tutor scheme. Key challenges include the number of students on programme in relation to the number of staff able to take on Personal Tutor roles: it was noted that external staff cannot act as PTs, and this has a knock-on effect on the number of tutees assigned to programme directors. In some cases, the number of tutees assigned to programme staff far exceed norms in other areas of the University The review team found that support required under the Personal Tutor scheme was largely being effectively provided to students, but this support was bring provided by staff in a number of different roles, and that the division of responsibility for support differed from programme to programme. These different approaches may be appropriate in practice, but in many instances they do not align with the College Personal Tutoring Statement, which is reproduced in the programme handbooks. This creates significant confusion for students, and has the potential to create inappropriate expectations for students. It was not clear how the College Personal Tutoring Statement had been developed, or how the particular applicability of this for PGT OLDL programmes was considered. The review team therefore strongly recommended that the College PGT Committee review the implementation of the Personal Tutor system and College PT Statement as they apply to PGT OLDL programmes, and develop an appropriate model with input from SSIG (see recommendation below). This review should include: clarifying the needs and expectations of PGT OLDL students; consideration of whether Programme Directors acting as PTs represents a conflict of interest; a clear statement of the PT responsibilities of staff and any resource implications (the review team recognise that the PGT Deputy Director has begun some of this work); appropriate mechanisms for recording contact with students; clear mechanisms for monitoring and supporting progress, as this seemed to be an area where less support is provided currently on some programmes. The outcome of this review should be a clear statement of the support mechanisms in operation for PGT OLDL students in the College The review team recognised that on OLDL programmes staff-student communication does not function in the same way as for on-campus students, and the review team found that Page 8 of 22

9 there were high levels of communication between staff and students on all programmes under review. The programme teams felt that the needs of PGT OLDL students were different to those of undergraduate on-campus students, in terms of student autonomy and maturity, and that the Personal Tutor scheme in its current form is oriented strongly to the needs of UG on-campus students. It was acknowledged that students may require significant support on occasion, but it was not clear whether this was best provided ondemand, or to what lengths PTs should go to ensure meetings take place if students do not take up the offer of a meeting. The review team recommend that SSIG provides a steer for the College review as a matter of urgency, including identifying existing good practice in supporting OLDL students from its review of PT statements for the forthcoming year. SSIG is also asked to identify any University-wide principles that can be derived from current good practice, and to disseminate these for use by Schools in reviewing their PT statement. The review team suggest that this could be supported by ensuring that PGT student issues are represented at Senior Tutor Network meetings: a sub-forum for PGT issues may be useful Student experience of feedback on assessments appeared to be mixed. Some reported very positive experiences, while others reported significant delays in receiving feedback, or feedback which was felt to provide limited information or guidance. Programme teams do not currently systematically monitor the return of feedback to students, and mechanisms for acting on delayed feedback appear to be largely informal. The review team recommend that programme teams develop a scheme to formally monitor the return of feedback to students, in line with current practice elsewhere in the university and conforming to current regulations. There also need to be mechanisms to address cases where feedback is delayed. Engaging external teaching staff with University feedback policies and guidance appeared to be a potential issue, particularly where contributions to teaching where felt to be based on the goodwill of external teaching staff. The training and support of external teaching staff will be discussed in more detail in section 1.8. The Analytical Report suggested that the provision of timely formative feedback may be a significant challenge for courses with external staff; however, this was not the view of programme teams. The most recent College Quality Assurance Report notes that a review of formative feedback for OLDL programmes was planned, but not yet carried out. The review team suggest that the College PGT Learning and Teaching Committee carry out the planned review, and take action to address any issues found The review team found that student support for year 3 students may be less effective than in other years, primarily because dissertation students have fewer opportunities to engage through course activities. It was noted that in some cases tutorials were offered to year 3 students, but that uptake was poor. Feedback from students suggested that in some cases, external priorities and pressure of work meant that they did not participate, so any additional activities would have to have clear purposes and benefits for students. Students suggested that they would particularly value opportunities for group work and engaging with other students. In order to address possible disengagement from studies and isolation in the dissertation phase, the review team recommend that the programme teams review support for year 3 students to ensure ongoing support. However, the review team noted a number of examples of good practice in engaging students with their dissertation and encouraging progress, and the review team commend this. The Surgical Sciences model of assessment activities staged throughout the dissertation year, which act as progression milestones for students, may be a useful example for other programmes to consider. Examples of good practice on other programmes included assessment activities designed to encourage students to engage early with their dissertations The review team found that the College Senior Liaison Librarian provides an excellent source of support for dissertation students (including for the important area of systematic reviews), but noted that this support could come under strain as student numbers increase, and that the one-to-one support currently available is not obviously scalable. Some gaps in support for dissertations requiring specialist statistical knowledge were Page 9 of 22

10 reported by some programme teams, and the review team suggest that the programme teams engage with other areas of the University such as the School of Mathematics to address this The review team noted plans in the MSc Clinical Education for students to be invited to submit dissertation work early to gain additional feedback before the final submission date. Although the review team supported this student-centred approach, the programme team should ensure that there is no conflict of interest between staff reviewing dissertations before submission and being involved in assessment. 1.5 Effectiveness of the review area s approach to promoting the development of graduate attributes Including subject-specific remit item: Employability and career progression Graduate attributes are incorporated into the process for course proposal and validation, and are referenced in the programme handbooks. The Analytical Report clearly maps the programmes against the graduate attributes and demonstrates many effective links between course content, learning and teaching methods, assessments, and graduate attributes. The programmes under review also have direct links with professional bodies and meet the key professional and competency skills of the relevant professional bodies. The review team found that the programmes effectively promote the development of graduate attributes, and noted that many students on these programmes are clearly motivated to study for professional development The review team suggest that University Development and Alumni team should continue to work to improve tracking of graduates after graduation, to gain fuller information on graduate career paths that can be used to inform programme planning and recruitment. The review team noted that the PG Marketing and Communications Manager has recently done some work in this area, and felt this was a positive development. 1.6 Effectiveness of the review area s approach to managing the learning environment Including subject-specific remit item: IT tools, e-learning platforms and University IS infrastructure: how are they supported and how compatible are they with the needs of OLDL students and programmes? Effective and well-supported Virtual Learning Environments are key to the successful delivery of OLDL programmes and a high quality experience for students on these programmes. The review team felt that sustaining and developing the VLEs for the programmes under review is a key current challenge for the programme teams, Schools, College and University Information Services. The review team were conscious that this review covered only a selection of PGT OLDL provision, and recognised that this is a period of change for IT support and provision within the College. The review team s recommendations are intended to feed into this period of development, to highlight issues identified during the review, and encourage a positive alignment of learning and teaching needs and IT provision and support. As stated in section 1.4, the review team were impressed by the programme teams current use of the VLEs to engage and support students As noted in section 1.1, the College have appointed a Head of College IT and have established a College Learning and Teaching IT Committee. Other recent changes have included moving IT support from a College-based IS team to the central Information Services team. The Head of College IT is in the process of developing a road map for College IT provision, and while the review team felt this was a very positive development, Page 10 of 22

11 it is also important that colleagues across the College are engaged with this roadmap and have appropriate opportunities to contribute to its development. At present it is not clear that OLDL programme teams are effectively represented in this process. The review team therefore recommend that the College Learning and Teaching IT Committee find effective means to engage with PGT OLDL programme teams, and review its communication strategy to ensure that colleagues across the College are effectively engaged wherever possible The programmes under review currently use a variety of VLEs. All VLEs are currently supported by central IS, and support and development for VLEs is led centrally by the Director of Learning, Teaching and Web Services. It was noted that providing support for bespoke platforms can be challenging if they are not well documented, that ad hoc development of VLEs may present risks in terms of providing appropriate support and maintenance, and that centrally-supported VLEs may be more resource-effective, allowing more resources and effort to be put into enhancements. Conversely, however, programme teams clearly felt that bespoke platforms can offer advantages in learning and teaching, and that locally-developed VLEs can be more easily adapted to the specific needs of a programme. The review team did not take a view on the appropriateness of any of the platforms in use. However, effective support and development for all VLEs was identified as a critical factor in providing a high quality student experience, and effective communication between programme teams, the Head of College IT, and Information Services, was key in achieving this. The review team therefore strongly recommend that Information Services engage in constructive and effective dialogue with all programme teams to explore their needs. This should include a review of the current use, sustainability and development requirements of all VLEs across the suite of programmes, and should draw on external expertise where necessary Alongside support and sustainability, the review team also felt that the future development and enhancement of VLEs is a key current challenge. It appeared that previously a great deal of the development and design of VLEs had been managed by Schools or specific programme teams. The review team felt it was important that the College find an effective balance between managing growth and development more centrally, thereby benefitting from pooled expertise and resources, and ensuring that programme teams continue to have opportunities to innovate and make enhancements. The review team felt that constructive engagement with programme teams will be key. Possible future enhancements identified by students included making VLEs fully accessible on smartphones and tablets, addressing access issues caused by NHS firewalls, ensuring that students receive timely help on technical issues, and improving the experience of live tutorials and meetings, which students particularly valued A number of more specific issues were raised to the review team. These included connection issues experienced in using Adobe Connect for live tutorials, connection and reliability issues for programmes using Moodle, the timing of software upgrades which have impacted on plans for summer schools, and comments about the speed of response from support teams. Programme teams reported that in some instances they felt these issues were impacting on the student experience. The review team felt that the key issue was that it was unclear who had oversight of common issues experienced by different programmes and to what extent there are processes to support the effective communication of issues and particularly the capacity to aggregate recurrent issues and provide appropriate support for recurrent / larger-scale issues, rather than support on a case-by-case basis. The review team therefore recommend that the Head of College IT and IS work with programmes teams to clarify immediate support requirements and provision of support for VLEs. The review team also recommend that the Head of College IT and IS work with programme teams to address immediate support issues in relation to Adobe Connect. More broadly, it is hoped that effective engagement between the College Learning and Teaching IT Committee and programme teams will support identification of recurrent / larger scale issues in future. Page 11 of 22

12 1.7 Effectiveness of the review area s approach to promoting an accessible and inclusive learning environment for all students The programmes under review have effective processes to manage the implementation of student learning profiles. This is largely managed by administrative support staff, though arrangements differ across programmes Access to discussion boards and online tutorials is effectively addressed through induction arrangements and ongoing support, which include guidance on online etiquette and recognise potential cultural differences in communication styles Most programmes have highly geographically diverse student groups, and this is likely to increase if programmes grow. This may present a growing challenge in terms of accessibility, both in relation to the timing of synchronous events for students across different time zones, and variations in internet connections and broadband speed One programme currently uses Doodle polls to schedule synchronous tutorials. This was felt to be effective currently and may be good practice for other programmes to consider, but this approach may not be scalable as student numbers grow. Students on one programme were particularly concerned about the timing of synchronous tutorials in the second year of their programme: only one tutorial time was offered, and the time chosen was not felt to be useful to students in some non-uk time zones, or to UK students with caring responsibilities. It appeared that one factor in the timing of the tutorials was the availability of external staff, particularly in cases where their teaching was felt to be partially on a goodwill basis. The use of external teaching staff will be further discussed in section Internet connection speeds in some countries appeared to affect students ability to fully participate in some synchronous events. Although ensuring that adequate internet connections are available falls under the responsibility of the student, the review team felt that it was important that the programme teams and University do what they can to mitigate the impact of slower connection speeds Programmes who wish to use synchronous lectures and tutorials need to be particularly aware of the issues of timing and connection speed. These issues, and the resources required to address them, should also be included in programme planning and resource allocation processes One programme has had to work extensively to address the needs of a cohort of students in Australia. It appears that this challenge has been very effectively managed. However, the programme team highlighted that there may be a cohort effect, where the needs of a large group of students from a single non-uk time zone may be more effectively recognised and addressed than the needs of individuals from different time zones. This is something for all programme teams to consider. Most of the programmes currently have a significant proportion of UK-based students, and as the programmes develop it will be important to balance the needs and expectations of this cohort with the needs and expectations of students based outside the UK. 1.8 Effectiveness of the review area s approach to supporting and developing staff to promote effective learning for students The Analytical Report notes that there is a recognised need to increase staff resources on the programmes under review, in terms of both academic and administrative staff, but that in practice this has been slow to materialise. The review team felt that staff appeared to be Page 12 of 22

13 under pressure, and that this was likely to impact on their ability to enhance the programmes, and may impact on their ability to deliver the current level of student experience if student numbers increase. The recommendations on developing a College workload model in consultation with OLDL programme staff, and ensuring business planning takes into account the full resource needs of OLDL programmes, both referred to in section 1.1, are intended to help to address this issue. In addition, the review team recommend the College review staff development, support and resourcing through the business planning process, particularly in the context of expanding student numbers on these programmes The programmes make significant use of external staff, whether UoE staff external to the programme teams, or external to UoE, as members of associated professional bodies or as subject experts. Recruitment, retention and training of external tutors was highlighted as a challenge in the Analytical Report and in meetings with the review team. External staff play a number of different roles, including tutoring, guest lecturing, running modules or courses, and supervising dissertations. External staff are important in supporting tutorials and discussion boards, providing breadth of knowledge in delivering lecturers and courses, and providing expert knowledge on specialist dissertation topics. The challenges in working with these staff include identifying appropriate external staff, ensuring that they have appropriate expectations about the work involved, inducting and supporting staff in delivering OLDL programmes, ensuring that they are fully aware of and compliant with UoE regulations and policies, and ensuring that there are appropriate and effective means to address any issues which do arise The review team were only able to meet with a very small number of external staff, and the challenges of involving these staff in quality assurance processes will be a matter for consideration in relation to future reviews. Feedback from external staff indicated that they were very appreciative of the support they received from the programme teams, and they highly valued the opportunity to be involved in the programmes and to work with students. Communications between the programme teams and external staff appeared to be effective, but some commented on having little access to formal student feedback and course monitoring processes, and indicated that they would value more access to student feedback. External staff were aware of University assessment requirements and marking schemes, but appeared to have less knowledge of Universities policies on feedback standards. In relation to induction, the review team felt that the e-tutor resources on the Surgical Sciences were particularly useful, and commend in particular the use of module leader videos which are lodged on the VLE and introduce students to each module leader. The programme team reported that these videos have been effective in engaging staff as well as students, and promoting ownership of the module by the module leader In some cases, engagement of external staff appeared to operate on the basis of personal contacts and professional goodwill. Although this has resulted in many positives for the programmes as they have developed so far, the review team did not feel this approach was sustainable. In most cases, programme teams provide teaching staff with information on training courses and training resources, but uptake and completion of training is not formally monitored The review team strongly recommend the College PGT Committee and programme teams review the use of external tutors, to identify and address challenges related to quality assurance, recruitment, retention, training and development Some programmes identified finding dissertation supervisors with appropriate expertise as a growing challenge, particularly as student numbers grow and the breadth of student project interests increases. The review team felt that programme teams recognised the challenges of matching student, project and supervisor, and were acting positively to address these challenges. Feedback from dissertation supervisors on their induction and training was somewhat mixed. The review team recommend that programme teams Page 13 of 22

14 review the training and support provided to dissertation supervisors, and ensure they receive a clear statement of responsibilities backed up by appropriate training and support. The review team noted that one programme arranges mentoring for new supervisors by more experienced supervisors, and felt that this was good practice Support and training for Personal Tutors appeared to be effective; the implementation of the Personal Tutor scheme more generally is discussed at 1.4. The administrative support provided to Senior Tutors was particularly praised, and the review team commend the effective administrative support provided to Senior Tutors Administrative support staff identified communications and sharing of experience and good practice as key areas for enhancement. The review team expect the recommendations in section 1.1 to address these areas. 2. Management of quality and standards 2.1 The effectiveness of the review area s approach to setting and maintaining academic standards The review team found that there were effective procedures in place for course and programme validation and approval, and that these processes included consideration of quality assurance benchmarks and SCQF guidance. The Clinical Education programme is accredited by the Higher Education Academy and the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, and the Surgical Sciences programme is accredited by the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh and has recently gained accreditation from the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. The review team felt that this was a very positive development and an effective way of expanding the programme while ensuring that standards are maintained Responsibility for admission lies primarily with programme directors. All admissions comply with broader University admissions policies. The review team felt that this worked effectively at present, but suggest that this may need to be reviewed if student numbers rise. The review team noted that programme directors did not feel that more central control of admissions procedures would be useful The review team noted that on programmes with students from a variety of academic backgrounds, it is important to provide very clear guidance on academic misconduct and plagiarism. The review team commend the effective approach to plagiarism education taken by the programme teams. This includes using Turnitin reports as a teaching tool for first assignments, referring students to Personal Tutors, clear information in programme handbooks and on VLEs, and early interventions on discussion boards to ensure students are aware of plagiarism guidance. The review team received feedback that some academic misconduct cases involving OLDL students have taken a considerable period of time to resolve, because of difficulties in arranging meetings with OLDL students. The review suggest that the College review their procedure for academic misconducts involving OLDL students, to ensure these are dealt with in a timely fashion The review team found that Board of Examiner processes were robust, and that External Examiners were fully involved, and in some cases also represented on programme steering committees. Board of Examiners also make progression decisions: the review team noted that programmes should ensure that their processes are in line with the most recent Universities policies in this area In addition to the oversight provided by Boards of Examiners, the review team suggest that the programme teams consider what additional data might be useful to consider in relation to setting and maintaining standards. The review team noted considerable Page 14 of 22

15 variation in the level of distinctions between programmes, including a (very) high level in some programmes, and recommend that the programme teams consider whether this may be influenced by the use of multiple choice question exams, and ensure that markers are aware of different marking scales in operation for UG and PGT programmes in CMVM. 2.2 Effectiveness of the review area s approach to monitoring and quality assurance Comments on annual review processes can be found in section 1.2, in relation to planning and sustainability. Annual course and programme review processes feed into the quality assurance process via the PGT representative on the College QA Committee, who receives reports from the programme teams which then feed into the College Annual Quality Assurance and Enhancement Report. The review team found that this was an effective process in identifying issues, but less effective in processing action to address the issues identified. A specific example of this, in relation to the Personal Tutoring system, can be found in section The review team noted that in the Analytical Report there was limited reference made to sources of evidence or existing documentation. Centrally-produced quality assurance data, produced by Student Systems and Academic Services, is circulated to Schools but it was not clear how this was used. The review team therefore recommend that programme teams, and the College PGT Committee, review the use made of evidence to support decision-making and quality assurance reviews. An example of an area where more detailed evidence of current issues would be valuable is the support for Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs): this will be discussed in more detail at 1.6. Consideration of more extensive use of benchmarking, noted at 1.2.4, may also be relevant here. 2.3 Effectiveness of the review area s approach to listening and responding to the student voice Including subject-specific remit item: Student representation for OLDL students The review team found that programmes make good use of student feedback at programme level, and students highlighted instances where student feedback has led to enhancements. The review team commend the engagement with student feedback at programme level, in particular the practice in some areas of teaching staff attending Student Staff Liaison Committees for courses other than their own, to share information and good practice Students reported some instances in which student representation appeared to be less well organised, and some Student Staff Liaison Committees did not appear to effectively encourage student engagement beyond the student representatives formally appointed, or have effective mechanisms for recording and following up on issues raised. The review team therefore recommend that the College PGT Committee review student representation structures for OLDL programmes, to support programmes in developing more effective procedures. It will be useful for the committee to engage with the outcomes of the Student Representation for Distance Learners Task Group, formed by the Quality Assurance Committee in 2014/15. Particular areas for attention include mechanisms for identifying student representatives, methods for compiling student comments to identify common or recurring issues, and effective means for managing SSLC meetings with OLDL students. The review team felt that current practice on the Conservation Medicine and Clinical Trials programmes may provide useful examples. 2.4 The effectiveness of the review area s approach to the management of assessment, progression and achievement Page 15 of 22

16 2.4.1 The review team found that assessment, progression and achievement were managed effectively. Comments on the role of Boards of Examiners in assessment and on the proportion of distinctions awarded can be found in section Dissertations are double marked and clear guidance is provided to markers. The review team noted a suggestion that the Clinical Education programme team may introduce a new procedure to provide dissertation students with additional feedback before final submission of their dissertation: the review team supported this as a student-focused move, but the programme team must ensure that there is no conflict of interest between staff providing dissertation feedback and marking dissertations The review team did not identify any concerns in relation to progression, but the role of the Personal Tutor in reviewing students progression status should be considered in the College s review of the Personal Tutor scheme in relation to OLDL programmes: see recommendations in section 1.4. Recent changes to University policy on informing students of their progression status did not appear to have been clearly disseminated to programme staff, and the review team suggest that the College PGT Learning and Teaching Committee review how this has been disseminated and take action to ensure that this is communicated clearly to teaching staff. The review team noted that they saw no evidence that the programmes are not compliant with the policy. 3. Management of enhancement and sharing of good practice 3.1 Effectiveness of the review area s approach to the strategic enhancement of the student experience The review team found that there were effective mechanisms for examples of good practice to be gathered via annual review processes, and that these are highlighted at the College PGT Committee and via the College Annual Quality Assurance and Enhancement report. However, there was less evidence of effective means of sharing good practice with colleagues across programmes and across the College more generally. The comments and recommendations on effective communication strategies and the development of cross-programme and cross-college forums, in section 1.1, are intended to address this area Programme staff are clearly engaged in developing and enhancing their programmes, and many examples of innovative learning and teaching practice were highlighted in the Analytical Report and meetings with the review team. However, the Analytical Report suggested that in some areas, enhancement activity was negatively impacted by lack of staff time and resources, and the review team found evidence of this in their meetings with programme teams. Issues around IT provision were particularly highlighted: both in terms of staff time devoted to managing IT issues, and in accessing support for development and enhancement. The comments and recommendations on IT provision, in section 6, are intended to address this area. 3.2 Identification of areas of good practice for sharing outside the review area The programmes under review make effective and innovative use of a range of online discussion boards. These are used for academic work (assessed and non-assessed), peer support, and trouble-shooting IT and other issues. (All programmes). Use of online tools to monitor participation and engagement, and to facilitate identifying and quickly following up with students who are not participating as expected. (Surgical Sciences). Page 16 of 22

17 Nutshell videos these are videos in which module leaders introduce their course, made available to students online. These videos may enhance student engagement and understanding, and also module leaders engagement and sense of ownership of the modules. (Surgical Sciences). Peer tutoring a peer tutoring pilot is currently underway in Conservation Medicine. Students undertaking the peer tutor role will lead a seminar in their chosen week, supported by staff. Development of year 2 assessment specifically designed to prepare students for their year 3 dissertation project. (Clinical Education). The College has a detailed and well-structured programme proposal and validation process for PGT programmes (CMVM). Some programmes have an Academic e-facilitator role or similar role, and this appears to be highly valuable in co-ordinating student and staff support. The role of PG Marketing and Communications Manager appears to be highly valuable in supporting programmes in relation to virtual open days, student induction, and facilitating cross-programme communication. 4. Confidence statement The reviewers found that the College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine has effective management of the quality of the student learning experience, academic standards, and enhancement and good practice. 5. Summary in 4-6 paragraphs The programmes under review provide very high quality opportunities for students to undertake postgraduate study in specialist fields. The distance learning and part-time nature of the programmes, along with the opportunity to study on an intermittent basis, and multiple exit points, provide valuable flexibility and choice to students. The students on the programmes clearly value very highly the quality of the academic experience they receive, as well as the opportunity to undertake part-time distance learning. Strong links to professional bodies, through formal accreditation or through other forms of engagement such as guest lecturing, are also a key strength of the programmes. The delivery of distance learning on these programmes is currently very successful. A key factor in this is the commitment, enthusiasm and engagement of the programme teams. Students on the programmes in general receive impressive levels of contact and support, and the programme teams use tools such as online discussion boards and carefully planned assessment strategies to effectively engage students in their learning. Students are clearly highly appreciative of the efforts of Programme Directors and programme teams, and are very positive about the opportunities they receive to engage with staff and with their peers. This review took place during a period of transition, both in terms of the formal structure of the College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, and in terms of the growth and development of PGT OLDL programmes within the College. This is therefore also a period of opportunity, to review the resourcing and sustainability of these programmes, and the mechanisms for managing growth, both in relation to developing new programmes and increasing student numbers on existing programmes. Key areas for attention will include ensuring effective communication strategies, to ensure that programme teams, Schools and Colleges work together to manage Page 17 of 22

18 growth; carrying out the planned development of workload models; and continuing development of the current business planning and annual review processes. The review identified two further key areas for attention: the Personal Tutor scheme for PGT OLDL students, and IT provision and support for OLDL programmes. The review team recommend a College-level review of the College Personal Tutoring Statement, and review of the implementation of the Personal Tutor scheme for PGT OLDL students. The review team also recommend that the Student Support Implementation Group review the Personal Tutor system to ensure that it is appropriate to the needs and expectations of PGT OLDL students. Virtual Learning Environments and online communication more generally are a key factor in the student experience of OLDL provision, and a key risk factor in the successful delivery of these programmes. The review team found that the programmes under review are using online tools in innovative and effective ways. The review team also commended the recent efforts of the Head of College IT in developing a College IT roadmap and College Learning and Teaching IT Committee. However, the sustainability of the current VLEs, their capacity for growth and development, and clarifying support for IT issues currently experienced by programmes, require attention. The review team recommend that Information Services engage in a constructive dialogue with programmes on their support and development needs, that the Head of College IT ensures that effective communication mechanisms are in place between programmes teams and the College Learning and Teaching IT committee, and that the Head of College IT works with programmes to identify and address any significant current IT issues. 6. Prioritised list of commendations and recommendations 6.1 Key strengths The review team commend the programme teams commitment, enthusiasm and engagement with their programmes and students (1.4.1). The review team found that a high level of student support was provided across the programmes, and commend the programme teams on this (1.4.5). The review team commend the administrative support staff on their commitment to open communication with their students (1.2.1). The review team felt that programme sustainability is a key emerging issue. The review team felt that there are well-structured and thorough programme approval processes and annual review processes in place, and commend this. (1.2.6). The review team commend the College s engagement with Schools in the planning and review process, but suggest that any changes made to plans agreed in this process should be managed in the same spirit, directly involving programme directors (1.2.8). The review team commend the desire of the senior management to raise the profile and recognition of teaching within the College (1.1.5) The review team commend the initiative to establish a College Graduate School, and encourage the College to pursue this plan (1.1.4). The review team also commend the College s current activity to develop a staff workload model, but recommend that the College engage specifically with OLDL programme teams in the development of the workload model, to ensure that any resource issues specific to OLDL programmes are captured in the model (1.1.7). Page 18 of 22

19 The review team also commend the creation of the College Learning and Teaching IT Committee and the development of a College IT roadmap, by the Head of College IT. The review team felt these will be valuable tools in addressing current and emerging issues relating to IT provision and support for OLDL programmes (1.1.6). The review team felt that the programme handbooks were effective and a valuable resource for students, providing a clear expression of expectations and assessment requirements, and commend the programme teams on the quality of the handbooks (1.3.7). The review team commend the imaginative use of varied discussion forums and use of VLEs to maintain contact with students (1.4.2). The review team commend the efforts of the programme team to encourage peer engagement among students, through innovations such as the pilot for peer tutoring currently being undertaken by the Conservation Medicine programme (1.4.3). The review team commend the engagement with student feedback at programme level, in particular the practice of teaching staff attending Student Staff Liaison Committees for courses other than their own, to share information and good practice (2.3.1). The review team commend the development of the Academic e-facilitator role and similar roles, and would suggest that other programmes consider this as an example of good practice (1.1.7). In relation to induction, the review team felt that the e-tutor resources on the Surgical Sciences were particularly useful, and commend in particular the use of module leader videos which are lodged on the VLE and introduce students to each module leader. The programme team reported that these videos have been effective in engaging staff as well as students, and promoting ownership of the module by the module leader (1.8.3). The review team noted a number of examples of good practice in engaging students with their dissertation and encouraging progress, and the review team commend this. The Surgical Science model of assessment activities staged throughout the dissertation year, which act as progression milestones for students, may be a useful example for other programmes to consider. Examples of good practice on other programmes included assessment activities designed to encourage students to engage early with their dissertations (1.4.9). The review team commend the effective approach to plagiarism education taken by the programme teams (2.1.3). The review team commend the appointment of a PG Marketing and Communications Manager, who has a positive relationships with programme teams and acts as a useful conduit for information across programmes, and the review team would support any plans to further develop this role (1.2.9). The review team also commend the programmes and PG Marketing and Communications Manager s engagement with the University Virtual Open Days (1.3.2). The review team commend the effective administrative support provided to Senior Tutors (1.8.7). 6.2 Recommendations for enhancement / areas for further development 1. The review team strongly recommend that the College pursue their plans to improve communication around strategic plans and the implementation of such, across College, and between College, Schools and programme teams. Due to the restructuring of the College, a full organisational plan was not available to the review team. It will be important that the new Page 19 of 22

20 organisational plan clearly indicates the location of these programmes in relation to Schools and College (1.1.2). 2. The review team strongly recommended that the College PGT Committee review the implementation of the Personal Tutor system and College PT Statement as they apply to PGT OLDL programmes, and develop an appropriate model with input from SSIG [see recommendation below]. This review should include: clarifying the needs and expectations of PGT OLDL students; consideration of whether Programme Directors acting as PTs represents a conflict of interest; a clear statement of the PT responsibilities of staff and any resource implications (the review team recognise that the PGT Deputy Director has begun some of this work); appropriate mechanisms for recording contact with students; clear mechanisms for monitoring and supporting progress, as this seemed to be an area where less support is provided currently on some programmes. The outcome of this review should be a clear statement of the support mechanisms in operation for PGT OLDL students in the College (1.4.6). 3. The review team recommend that SSIG provides a steer for the College review as a matter of urgency, including identifying existing good practice in supporting OLDL students from its review of PT statements for the forthcoming year. SSIG is also asked to identify any University-wide principles that can be derived from current good practice, and to disseminate these for use by Schools in reviewing their PT statement (1.4.7). 4. The review team strongly recommend that Information Services engage in constructive and effective dialogue with all programme teams to explore their needs. This should include a review of the current use, sustainability and development requirements of all VLEs across the suite of programmes, and should draw on external expertise where necessary (1.6.3). 5. The review team strongly recommend the College PGT Committee and programme teams review the use of external tutors, to identify and address challenges related to quality assurance, recruitment, retention, training and development (1.8.5). 6. The review team recommend that the College Learning and Teaching IT Committee find effective means to engage with PGT OLDL programme teams, and review its communication strategy to ensure that colleagues across the College are effectively engaged wherever possible (1.6.2). 7. The review team recommend that the Head of College IT and IS work with programmes teams to clarify immediate support requirements and provision of support for VLEs (1.6.5). 8. The review team also recommend that the Head of College IT and IS work with programme teams to address immediate support issues in relation to Adobe Connect (1.6.5). 9. The review team commend the College s current activity to develop a staff workload model, but recommend that the College engage specifically with OLDL programme teams in the development of the workload model, to ensure that any resource issues specific to OLDL programmes are captured in the model (1.1.7). 10. The review team recommend that programme teams develop a scheme to formally monitor the return of feedback to students, in line with current practice elsewhere in the university and conforming to current regulations. There also need to be mechanisms to address cases where feedback is delayed (1.4.8). 11. In order to address possible disengagement from studies and isolation in the dissertation phase, the review team recommend that the programme teams review support for year 3 students to ensure ongoing support (1.4.9). Page 20 of 22