Staff-Student Liaison Committee Meeting (MSc in Applied & Forensic Psychology, Online) Monday 13 th October 2014, 2 pm UK Conference Call

Transcription

1 UoL Staff-Student Liaison Committee Meeting (MSc in Applied & Forensic Psychology, Online) Monday 13 th October 2014, 2 pm UK Conference Call Alex Forsythe [AF] Director of Studies (Applied) Roanne Ephithite [RE] Faculty Student Voice Coordinator (HLS), Liverpool Guild of Students Paul Catherall [PC] E-Learning Librarian Laureate Steve Merrifield [SM] Student Support Manager, Student Experience Alina Perez, [AP] Programme Director Shawnaa Hunter [SH] Student Representative (Applied) Thomas Skou Roer [TSR] - Student Representative (Forensic) In attendance Joanne Hollett [JH] Student Experience Administrator (Laureate) (Minutes) Apologies Sue Jones [SJ] - Director Online studies, MCR & MPH Programmes Lynn McClymont [LMc] - Senior Online Administrator/MOOCs Administrator, TQSD 1. Welcome and Apologies AF welcomed all attendees to the meeting. Apologies from SJ and LMc were recorded. 2. Minutes from last meeting The minutes from the meeting on the 6 th May 2014 were approved as being an accurate record of the meeting. 3. Matters arising Ongoing actions will be discussed under agenda points Page 1 of 8

2 Applied Psychology (MAP) 1.0 Programme Structure and Content Summary of feedback received: 1.1 A student sent an with regards to her dissertation phase and the challenges she had been facing. As student who had never done this form of research she suggested that in the future students who have never been exposed to or have prior knowledge of how to do a research on a large scale should be explained before starting the dissertation process. The student reported to experienced stress and was concerned about the negative consequences to her grades. Informed the student that this suggestion will be presented at the Staff-Student Liaison Committee Meeting 1.2 A student expressed concern about the module calendar for 2015 should be announced at least six months in advance because this would give students sufficient time to make personal plans. The student also cited her difficulty in understanding and calculating her grade point average. She mentioned that the grades are not changed every week and does not understand how the calculations are done. She also noted that when she conducts the calculation following the syllabus, the figures are different. Asked the student to provide further clarification It was AGREED that this seemed to be a personal concern and should be dealt with outside of the SSLC. AF reported that she had designed the programme and felt that the students received adequate support and so should be well prepared. AP was not familiar with the student but confirmed that all the students she was aware of had strong research skills so this could be a one off. It was AGREED that this student if she was still struggling should get in touch with her DA for additional support. SM confirmed that the module calendar comes out on a Thursday. At the moment it was not feasible to get this out any earlier as it depended on the number of students and the availability of tutors. AP confirmed that the calendar was fluid and therefore parts of it were subject to change or even cancellation. Regarding point 2. SM confirmed that there is information in the Centre for Student success on how the grades are calculated. If any student is still unsure they should get in touch with their SSM who will go through their grades on a 1 to 1 basis to explain how the grades have been calculated. AF felt that it might be useful for something to be put together for students to explain this process and give them further guidance. AF suggested that SH feed this back to the students to ask what information might be beneficial. SM will then discuss this with Christian to put SH/SM/CB Page 2 of 8

3 1.3 A student reported technical difficulties and also shared her satisfaction with Laureate and University of Liverpool programme. Thanked the student and directed the student to technical support for the challenges that she encountered. 2.0 Module Structure & content Summary of feedback received: 3.0 Resources (i.e. Blackboard/Library/Technical Support) Summary of feedback received: something together for the students. It was AGREED that insufficient information had been provided enable a thorough investigation. SM reported that during the transition period due to changes in addresses a number of technical problems had been reported. It was also reported that there were issues in the UoL systems used to process new student information which had caused delays with the automatic log in. PC reported that a working group which included LMc, had now been established to improve facilities across ALL programmes. 4.0 Communication (i.e. Blackboard/My OHE/eCampus/Laureate/UoL) Summary of feedback received: 4.1 A student is seeking a letter certifying that she has complied and AF confirmed that she would be happy to provide a completed first year at UOL MSc in Applied Psychology which is to be progress letter and that students should contact her addressed to the HPCSA (Professional Board for Psychology) within direct if they required one. AP confirmed that they South Africa, in order for her to start with her psychology internship. should speak to their SSM in the first instance and then if they also required one from the UoL to contact AF. The student was informed that the matter will be looked into. 4.2 A student her concern regarding a member of the UOL staff. The student reported her concern about the dissertation advisor and module instructor. The student reported that in a module, the instructor was unclear and lack direction. Having been assigned as her dissertation advisor, the student reported negative experiences (criticized every idea the student suggested, disregarded the student's input and argued). The student cited an example stating that her dissertation approval was delayed for five months, however after the SM confirmed that this was something that the student needed to discuss with their SSM. AP reported that 3 DAs were no longer active. SM confirmed that he was the SSM in question and that the issue had been resolved with a new DA. SH will send the name of the DA to AP. Page 3 of 8 SH/AP

4 student was reassigned to another advisor her original proposal was approved. The overall concern in this matter is that the student was dissatisfied with role of the instructor as an advisor and module instructor. The student reported that her experience at the UOL has been quite positive; however this situation has had a negative impact studying at the university. Expressed understanding and informed the student that this matter will be presented to the Staff-Student Liaison Committee Meeting 5.0 Other Issues - Summary of feedback received: 5.1 A student commended the university's response to feedback and suggestions such having a regular timed modules. The student reported that one area that she is concerned about is the rising tech fees. According to the student, her tech fees have doubled within one and half years. She has inquired about this but felt that there was no sufficient explanation was given. Another concern was the post time stamps on the discussion board. Given the different time zones, the student felt that instructors should be aware that students are in different time zones. An example the student cited was, whenever she post discussions on different days it appears on the same day on the discussion board. She has received feedback that she only post discussions on two days instead of three and had to rectify the situation. Another concern that was cited was the inconsistencies between documents. The student feels that information should be upto-date or revised. SM confirmed that fees (library and technology fees) did increase from time to time; however, there had been changes recently into how invoices were presented. Previously fees were levied 3 times/year but this had now changed to per module or per payment plan, and therefore charges might appear to be higher than what they actually were. AP reported that it is the responsibility of the students to state where they are posting from if different time zones may be involved to bring it to the tutor s attention. SM confirmed that the first step in this situation would be to go back to the Tutor who would rectify the problem. SH will feed this back to the student who raised the issue to ensure it is followed up. SH SH Informed the student that this suggestion will be presented at the Staff-Student Liaison Committee Meeting. 6.0 Recommendations/Other options (Opinions on how any issues above can be improved) Page 4 of 8

5 7.0 Any Other Business (i.e. areas which can be improved about the student rep process) SH reported that she could relate to the students feeling of loss, AF is looking at this to see if improvements can be made particularly when it involved dissertation extensions, and in cases regarding preparation for students without formal when the student had had no previous experience of research. SH felt research experience. that in general the student s conception of the DA was as a marker and not a person to whom they could go to for advice. AF and SM thanked Shawnaa for all her had work during the past 12 months and the valuable contributions she had made to the meetings. AF asked Shawnaa if she would prepare a short summary of her experiences good and bad during her study, and also about being a virtual student rep. 8.0 Date of Next Meeting 21 st January 2015, 14:00 (UK) SH confirmed that she had enjoyed the experience and that she hoped she would still be able to contribute in future. AF will send the link to the student blog to SH. AF Forensic Psychology & C.I. (MSY) Summary of feedback via Student Representative report: Summary of discussion within meeting: Action 1.0 Programme Structure and Content Summary of feedback received: 1.1 The approval process in the dissertation stage takes a very long time and it would be beneficial to give fair warning to students that such a process does indeed take a long time. Such information would elevate the students concern and help ease their stress levels. AP confirmed that the approval process takes 8-10 weeks at the proposal stage as the DA has to do a lot of work with the students to get it ready. The review process (2 reviewers) takes 4-5 days. 1.2 Similar the ethics approval process when the study involves human subjects takes a very long time and as such fair warning to the students choosing such an approach should be provided to help elevate the stress level. AF confirmed that there is no process for fast tracking of ethics approval. AP confirmed that she now sits on the Ethics Approval Board so is now able to advise. It was confirmed that some proposals take longer to approve depending on the topic. It was felt that further discussions at Faculty level were needed and AF will discuss this at a programme meeting next week with Kasia. Page 5 of 8 AF

6 1.3 Deadlines in the dissertation are unrealistic considering the long process of approval. To avoid applications of extension it is suggested that the students are to receive a five month time frame to complete the dissertation counting from the date of approval. 1.4 There have been some confusion on the invoices the UoL provides as some invoices are being send more than once even after the original payment have been made. 1.5 In the dissertation prep module the two psychology programs are being joined up but as they focus on very different aspects this fosters reluctance in students from each branch providing substantive commentary across branches. AF & AP both confirmed that if any submission delays were caused by waiting for Ethical Approval, extensions may be granted. SM reported that this could be due to the way in which invoices are processed; sometimes when a payment is made it takes a couple of days to reconcile the payment in the system. SM confirmed that there is a new process in the pipeline which should make this clearer. AF felt that this was an incorrect assumption & attitude because psychology is interdisciplinary, students learn from one another and it s all about sharing of knowledge, co-construction of learning and joining of experiences. AF reported that this works well on campus where there are joint classes, each individual class bringing something different to the process. 1.6 There have been many concerns from students in the dissertation stage on the quality and regularity of contact between them and their DA. This is something they believe should be more closely monitored AP felt that the research methods module was helpful even if it was not the students own discipline. It was AGREED that sharing experiences was beneficial especially when the students entered the working world. SH felt that although it had been difficult at times, the experience had been interesting as some of the methods used by Forensic had helped her with her own research proposal, it had helped to sharpen her critical thinking skills and also her writing skills and methods. TSR reported that some students had only given feedback which related to their own programme. It was AGREED that it might be beneficial to look at the opportunities throughout the programme for other modules which could become joined rather than just the dissertation prep modules as this would help the students become more familiar with it. AP confirmed that there had been issues in the past with 4 DAs who were no longer active so this issue should now be resolved. AF/AP will discuss this further outside of this Page 6 of 8

7 by the UoL. In addition there have been instances where the DA has left on vacation without informing their students. meeting. TSR confirmed that he would be happy to assist with further discussions if this was required. 2.0 Module Structure & content Summary of feedback received: 2.1 The students experience that feedback provided during modules AF felt that if this was happening then it could be a DA has an overemphasis on APA formatting instead of content when training issue, while she agreed that students should be grading. informed on the correct formatting it was not the main consideration when grading. AGREED that this should be 2.2 In addition it is felt that the depth required of students in their assignment does not seem adapted to the strict word count. It is suggested that content in modules are reviewed to more closely resemble what can reasonably be expected within the word limit. investigated further. AF asked TSR for clarification as to whether students would prefer a longer word count. TSR reported that some students felt they were required to go in depth on certain topics but were unable to do so due to the word limits. Some students felt restricted by this. AF felt that some revision to the types of questions might be advisable. AF/AP AF 3.0 Resources (i.e. Blackboard/Library/Technical Support) Summary of feedback received: 4.0 Communication (i.e. Blackboard/My OHE/eCampus/Laureate/UoL) Summary of feedback received: 4.1 Some students feel isolated and suggests that whole classes are AF asked about the Facebook page, SM confirmed that this being moved forwards simultaneously as this will help students was no longer very active. SM reported that various cohorts build relationships and potential study groups. were available which helped student progress through the programme together. SM also reported that there was a facility within LENS which would help with organising study groups but that this was not widely used by students. It was AGREED that students should be encouraged to use this. AF agreed that she would add this to the Agenda to be discussed at next weeks Programme Meeting with AP/Kasia. AF/AP 5.0 Other Issues - Summary of feedback received: 5.1 Some students would like to keep their access to the Liverpool online library after the study ends. Is this possible? PC reported that this has been looked into previously and limited access was available. Unfortunately the UoL were Page 7 of 8

8 unable to grant complete access due to licencing costs. PC confirmed that the Alumni site gives information about what library facilities were still available following the end of study, confirming there were several options e.g. JSTOR/Emerald which were free and others available on subscription. PC confirmed that this continued to be reviewed and options updated. PC also confirmed that students who were resident in the UK could register with the actual library and take books out on loan. This facility was not available to overseas students as books were not allowed to be taken out of the country. 6.0 Recommendations/Other options (Opinions on how any issues above can be improved) 7.0 Any Other Business (i.e. areas which can be improved about the student rep process) TSR reported that a student had been unable to find out the identity of their SSM. AF and SM thanked Thomas for all his hard work during the past 12 months and the valuable contributions he had made to the meetings. AF asked Thomas if he would also prepare a short summary of his experiences good and bad during his study, so they could be included in the student blog. 8.0 Date of Next Meeting 21 st January 2015, 14:00 (UK) SM confirmed that if the student clicks on the link to contact their SSM it would send an to the central location from where it would be relayed to the relevant SSM. If the SSM failed to respond, the student rep should contact the SSM Manager and they will be able to assist. Page 8 of 8