psychology

1







QUALITY ASSURANCE COMMITTEE



REPORT OF THE INTERNAL PANEL VISIT TO PSYCHOLOGY



Friday 11th July 2008



Introductory section

An internal panel of the Quality Assurance Committee visited the School of Psychology on 11th July

2008 with the aim of evaluating the systems for monitoring the quality and standards of the programmes

and identifying innovative and effective practices and procedures.



The review process represents one of the College's key internal quality assurance mechanisms by

which it may have confidence in the quality of the programmes on offer, in the academic standards of

the awards, and in the information it publishes. This was conducted under the College’s ‘Full Internal

Review’ procedure.



Panel members were: Dr. Glenn Baggott, (Chair) School of Biological and Chemical Sciences

Professor Koen Lamberts, (External Subject Specialist), Department of

Psychology, University of Warwick

Dr. Keith Mannock, School of Computer Science and Information Systems*

Dr. Linda Trenberth, School of Management and Organisational Psychology



* Unable to participate in review meetings due to ill health



The range of provision explored included: BSc Psychology

MSc Cognitive Neuropsychology

MSc Cognitive and Decision Sciences

MSc Psychology

MSc Psychological Research Methods

MRes Psychology

Mphil/PhD Research



General comments

The panel emphasised to the School the developmental nature of the review in which the Panel will

advise and guide the School in enhancing their practices by highlighting the strengths of the

programmes as well as any possible areas for further development.



The remit of the panel, convened on behalf of the Quality Assurance Committee, was to evaluate

"student achievement of the appropriate academic standards and of the learning opportunities offered to

students to support their achievements" (QAA Handbook for institutional audit: England, 2002). This

evaluation included the identification of the strengths of the subject area and any developments taking

place and was conducted under the headings taken from the QAA procedure for discipline audit trails.



The panel commended the excellent Self-Evaluation Document (SED) and thanked the School for

providing such a useful, thorough and well structured document which gave a clear summary of what

was happening within the School and provided an excellent starting point for the Review.

2







The panel thanked the School for their involvement in the review process and noted that the student

meeting had been very positive with the students being highly appreciative of the research-led teaching

provided by the School.

The panel noted the very open and friendly manner in which the review discussions had taken place.

The School clearly operated very robust systems with excellent administrative support which benefited

the students greatly.



The panel used the College’s Quality Assurance Code of Practice 2007/08, Postgraduate Training and

Research for the MPhil and PhD Degrees College Code of Practice, Learning and Teaching Strategy

2005-2008 and key reference points employed by the QAA during Institutional Audit including relevant

sections of the following: Code of practice; Framework for Higher Education Qualifications.



The panel consisted of two academics, drawn from different Schools, plus an external subject specialist.

One of the members chaired the panel and the Secretary was drawn from the Registry.



The process of review was initiated by a planning meeting, attended by members of the panel, at which

the items to be raised for discussion were identified from the documentation presented. The context for

the review, timetable, full agenda and any further documentation required were also established at this

time. The review was held over one day and was based upon the indicative timetable provided. The

review involved a meeting between the panel and representative academic staff from the School as well

as meeting with a group of 8 students (representing the BSc programme, Postgraduate taught

programmes and research students) prior to the day of the review itself.



The panel drew on the following evidence base covering the previous four years: Self-Evaluation

Document (including appendices) based on the standard template provided by the College; minutes of

the Student-Staff Liaison Committee (SSLC); minutes of the Learning and Teaching Committee; minutes

of the Research Committee; minutes of Postgraduate Committee; minutes of Staff Meetings; course unit

feedback forms; annual programme reports and the School responses; Visiting Examiners’ reports and

the School responses; electronic links to Programme Specifications; QAA Subject Benchmark Statement

for ‘Psychology’; the report of the previous Internal Review of Psychology in July 2004 and the School’s

response.



Meeting with Undergraduate, Postgraduate and Research Students.

The Panel discussed with the students how their views were sought and how the issues raised were

addressed by the School. The students highlighted the student-staff liaison committee (SSLC), and that

students could raise matters with their representative who would take the issue to the SSLC for

discussion. The students also mentioned the student feedback forms which they complete for each

module. The students confirmed that they did not receive any feedback on the forms and did not receive

any information on what might have been actioned as a result of them. The students confirmed that the

feedback forms were not discussed at the SSLC.



The Panel then discussed the BSc curriculum and whether it was what the students had expected. The

students stated that on the whole the programme had matched their expectations but that it certainly had

changed from when they first started the programme. The students stated that they felt that the “History

and Philosophy of Psychology” module would have been better placed earlier on in the programme. The

students also commented that the introduction of this new module had apparently resulted in fewer

options being available to them. They further stated that the programme was inflexible in terms of what

3







was offered to them. The students stated that in their view it was intended that the School place greater

emphasis on topics of a scientific nature; in addition the requirements of the British Psychological

Society (BPS) constrained the curriculum. However all the students did recognise the importance of

BPS accreditation as being essential and valued the GBR status it conferred.



The students commented that they believed the variety of options available was also vulnerable to staff

changes in the School. The students were disappointed of the loss of the “Psycho-analysis” module and

some students stated that they had entered the programme specifically to undertake the “Organisational

Psychology” module which had subsequently been withdrawn. Students stated that they had been

planning and looking forward to undertaking certain option modules and were therefore very

disappointed when they were withdrawn. The students stated that they believed that the School should

be facilitating what they wanted in terms of the range of options available to them.



The panel then discussed the feedback on assessments which they receive from the School. The

students confirmed that there was a feedback form used by lecturers but whilst some members of staff

provided excellent feedback others were very minimalist and that there was not a consistency between

staff in the feedback provided. Some students also commented that on occasion they had to chase staff

for feedback, having to wait 6-8 weeks to receive feedback in some cases.



The students also commented on the way in which essay titles were published and chosen. They stated

that the essay titles were published for one day on the website and that students had to reply on that day

to get the essay title they wanted as it was dealt with on a first come first served basis. The students

stated that this was not an acceptable way of organising it particularly for students who were at work all

day and unable to follow up such matters quickly whilst at work.



The students stated that there used to be very little structured coursework and that the programme

assessment was primarily terminal examination based. Students welcomed the prospect of more

coursework as long as it did not diminish the standard of the degree and they admitted that coursework

would always be difficult for those in full-time employment.



The taught students stated that there was not enough information given on careers. Importantly, the

School did not highlight sufficiently that voluntary experience might be necessary to pursue further study

after the BSc.



The Panel also discussed research student matters. The Research students present at the meeting

confirmed that they understood the role of the first and second supervisor and that they had one of each.

The students however had not heard of either the College Research School or the Bloomsbury Skills

Network. The research students also stated that there was no research student common room or any

room in which to socialise and meet other research students. There were some seminars but as they

became busier through the course of their research attendance became harder.



Conclusions on innovation and good practice

 Commend the SED as a good summary of the provision and an excellent starting point from

which to conduct the review.

 Commend the development of the MSc Psychology as a response to the ELQ issue.

 Commend the Learning Coordinator role, its implementation and the presentation of the co-

ordinator’s activities as an excellent example of enhancement.

 Commend the expansion of the range of assessment methods through the introduction of further

coursework.

 Commend the research student supervisory practices.

4







 Commend response to the previous review report through the introduction of the module

‘Qualitative Methods’.

 Commend the organisation of the supervision of the BSc mini-projects to ensure consistency.



Comments on Practice at School level

The panel expressed confidence in the academic standards set and achieved for the programmes and in

the quality of learning opportunities that support students in achieving the learning outcomes of the

awards.



The panel concluded that the programmes remained current and valid in the light of developing

knowledge in the discipline, practice in its application, and developments in teaching and learning.



Aims of the Provision

The Panel commented that some clinical programmes needed a BSc in Psychology for entry. The

School agreed that was the case for some programmes, although other programmes required further

experience and training in order to be accepted. The School stated that the BSc which they provide is

not designed primarily as a path for practioners/clinicians.



The School stated that psychology was a very “broad church”, with different theoretical and

methodological traditions. The division of the School into two separate schools (School of Psycho-social

Studies and the School of Psychology) was motivated in part by the RAE, in an attempt to align research

profiles with panel priorities. The difference between the two groups in the School was not restricted to

research but extended into teaching. Psycho-social studies staff had very little input into the

programmes under consideration in this review. The difference in contribution to the undergraduate

programme was in fact already there, and a split seemed therefore inevitable.



The Panel recommended that the School review the effects of the split in the School on the

narrowing of the curriculum and how this can be resolved, and the implications for research-led

teaching if the curriculum becomes further restricted (especially for the fourth year of the BSc

programme).



However, the Panel notes that whilst neuroscience may be a dominant and developing theme at

present, this may not persist. Neuroscience research is expensive, and sensitive to the funding climate.

It might be strategically beneficial to maintain strength and mass in other areas as well.



Curriculum

The Panel explored the curriculum for the BSc Psychology programme which is accredited by the British

Psychological Society (BPS). The Panel commented that the programme was rather predictable as it

followed the BPS requirements but that it covers the essentials required. The Panel commented that the

new module “History and Philosophy of Psychology” was a fourth year module and asked the reasoning

behind this.



The School commented that historical and philosophical issues were dealt with throughout the

programme and not just through this one module in the 4th year. The introduction of this module was

largely due to a requirement from the BPS, but also to organisational problems with final year option

modules. By providing the module in the final year, the content can be approached at a higher level.



Range of Options

5







The panel commented on the narrow range of options available for the programme, particularly in the 4th

year.



The School stated that the reduction in final year options had only occurred this year. In previous years

options were run on both Tuesday and Friday evening. Students would previously do four options over

the year as opposed to two options this year. The Friday evening options had always been unpopular

with students due to their timing. In addition students dropping out of modules resulted in fewer options

to choose from. By introducing a compulsory module on Friday (History and Philosophy of Psychology),

the School is able to provide 3, 4, or even 5 options on the Tuesday evening. The School accepted that

the range of options was relatively limited, compared to typical full-time programmes at other institutions.



The School further stated that there was an intellectual trend generally towards the more scientific

approach of psychology, but that many students were still interested in the clinical and counselling areas

of the subject. It was therefore very important to address how to deal with the loss of that type of option

following the split in the School.



The School stated that the split in the school would not have a significant effect on the BSc programme.

Following a recommendation from the School Teaching Committee they were already implementing new

modules such as “Forensic Psychology”. The take up of options was fairly evenly split and in fact the

School felt that they had so many final year students that they could offer any module and there would

be sufficient interest to run it. However, the School admitted that the “Psycho-analysis” module (now

part of the School of Psycho-social Studies and no longer offered on the BSc programme) was very

popular and had received good feedback from students.



The Panel recommended that the School considers offering option modules from other

appropriate Schools including the School of Psycho-social Studies, especially as the CAS is

intended to facilitate such arrangements.



The Panel asked if there were any plans to change the BSc curriculum. The School stated that it was

always under review, for instance “History and Philosophy of Psychology” had its deadlines changed,

and “Psychobiology” had been extensively revamped incorporating new areas into the module. The

Panel also stated that some of the module names were uninformative as to what material they actually

contained. The School agreed that some of the course titles could be re-considered.



The Panel recommended that the School keep the range of final year options under review with a

view to ensuring that a sufficiently broad range of options is available on the programme.



The Panel then explored the new MSc in Psychology. The School stated that one third of their students

were ELQ students. The MSc would be similar to the BSc in order to get accredited by the BPS

(hopefully in November 2008 at the next BPS visit) and they hoped that the MSc would later be

accredited by the ESRC.



The Panel commend the development of the MSc in Psychology in response to the ELQ issue.



The School confirmed that the MSc in Psychology would have more seminars, presentations and

different types of assessment. The programme would cover the basic components but at a higher level.

The School stated that they believe that the most able students would be on the MSc programme, as

opposed to the BSc.

6







The Panel suggested that if one consequence of the new MSc programme were that there would be a

greater number of less able students on the BSc they would need to amend their teaching methods.

The School stated that this may be the case but would more likely be a case of increasing their

supported learning. The School already had students who struggle with the BSc programme and

therefore received supported learning and so this trend would continue. The Panel emphasised that if

modules were jointly taught for these two programmes then the School should consider carefully the

appropriateness of their learning, teaching and assessment methods.



The Panel asked if the School would retain the MSc programme if the rules on ELQ changed in the

future. The School stated that they would be very keen to keep the programme as it was an attractive

course but due to its length, funding for some students would always be an issue.



The Panel considered career development. The School stated that BSc students receive a career

lecture in the 1st year which was introduced in response to feedback. The lecture did give guidance and

explained to students the need to acquire experience in order to pursue psychology post BSc. However

the School did state that this could be reinforced by repeating the lecture in the 3rd year of the

programme.



The Panel agreed and recommended that the need for BSc students to acquire voluntary work

experience in order to pursue some further types of study in Psychology should be highlighted

throughout the BSc programme and not just in the first year.



The Panel noted that following the split in the School, the School of Psychology did not have many MSc

students. The School stated that whilst the split in the School had created a reduction in the number of

MSc students they were planning to extend MSc numbers. However, the ELQ issue had to be

addressed as a matter of priority. The School stated that taking on UG students made more economic

sense than increasing MSc numbers. The School did state that it might reconsider the withdrawal of the

MSc in Cognitive Neuropsychology and could reintroduce it as a “route”. The School could in fact have

many MSc routes, all sharing and leading off from a number of common core modules.



Collaborative Provision

The Panel also explored the collaborative provision in which the School is engaged with UCL.

The School confirmed that this was very definitely a jointly run programme and there was a great deal of

co-operation between the two institutions. The School stated that UCL was responsible for coursework,

with Birkbeck being responsible for research projects. The teaching was shared between the two

institutions.



The Panel asked how the School saw the MSc provision expanding. The School stated that this would

be through the development of different MSc routes from shared common modules. However, the

portfolio of programmes on offer would always be affected by staffing constraints. Particularly the

number of clinicians available would always restrict numbers, as clinicians were required for the

supervision of research projects.



Assessment

The panel also considered the transferable skills that students developed during the course of the BSc

programme. The Panel noted that the range of assessments for the programme was narrow and

concentrated mainly on examinations, but that other forms of assessment might allow students to

demonstrate their transferable skills more easily.

7







The School stated that there was a presentation in the 3rd year of the BSc programme and that in the

module “Individual Differences” there was also a poster exercise. The new “History and Philosophy of

Psychology” module was assessed through coursework and the “Brain and Cognition” option module

was partly assessed through coursework. The School also stated that some students were very keen on

continuous assessment, although many still preferred traditional examinations.



The Panel commend the expanding range of assessment methods through the introduction of

further coursework.



The Panel recommended that the School continue to explore using a greater range of

assessment methods in order to encourage greater development of students’ transferable skills.



However, with increasing reliance on summative coursework, processes for detection and management

of plagiarism would have to be extended. It might be desirable, for instance, to adopt anti-plagiarism

software. A pilot had been conducted this year and the School Teaching Committee had recommended

its use in the following year. Although the School stated that even without the use of the software they

were still able to pick out plagiarism, and that the consequences were very severe. The School also

stated that they tended to experience more cases of collusion between students than counts of

plagiarism. Collusion was sometimes a problem in the final year projects where students could collect

data in groups, but the report itself should be the individual’s own work.



The Panel agreed that the collection of data in groups did occur in other areas but that it was necessary

to always ensure that the students were made well aware of how far they can collaborate together in

assessment.



The School also stated that they had experienced problems with the move towards mitigating

circumstances as they felt they were not competent enough to determine whether work that was 2,6, 8

weeks late etc was acceptable or how much extra time certain mitigating circumstances should warrant.



The Panel also commented on the “Critical Analysis” 6 hour unseen examination paper and that this

length of an examination might be stressful for some students.



The School stated that it had always been commended by Visiting Examiners but with a rise in Special

Examination Arrangements there were more and more cases where the examination was extended to

eight hours to make a suitable adjustment. The School however stated that the students did not get the

questions in advance in the new form of the exam, only the paper to critique. The School also stated

that they had always received good feedback from students on this examination.



The Panel also explored the essay requirements on the BSc programme for formative purposes. Whilst

the School gave students an open ended opportunity to submit essays, if students did not submit them

they would be missing out on developing the transferable skills which essays are useful for. The School

stated that there was the “safety net” of the lab reports which are compulsory.



The Panel recommended that the School investigate further ways of encouraging students to

submit formative assessment, for example a requirement to submit two essays in every year, or

the submission of essays could be a requirement either for progression or entry to the

examinations. The Panel agreed that the transferable skills developed through coursework were

important and should be present throughout the programme.

8







The Panel explored the supervision available for the BSc mini-projects. The School stated that

supervision used to be shared around all staff and consequently students could get different levels of

supervision and support. In response to this the mini-projects were now all supervised by one member

of staff; however the 4th year dissertation continues to be supervised by appropriate members of staff

depending on the topic.



The Panel commended the supervision of the BSc mini-project as being an excellent way of

achieving consistency in the level of supervision provided by the school for this type of

assessment.



Teaching and Learning

The Panel explored the training and supervision given to both demonstrators and Sessional staff. The

School stated various areas of good practice, such as requiring demonstrators to sit in on all the lectures

for the module in which they would be demonstrating, using new demonstrators only in the 1st year, as

well as trying to retain demonstrators to ensure continuity. New demonstrators would also observe the

first few practicals before participating, and they would have a one to one session with the academic

staff responsible for the module. Academic staff would also observe some sessions. Sessional staff

were mainly used in the 1st year for seminars, with virtually no sessional staff in the second year. The

third year module “Individual Differences” did require sessional staff as the module needed clinicians

working in practice. The 4th year would usually see one or two professionals providing options from their

particular field of expertise in psychology.



The School stated its commitment to teaching as an invaluable skill for research students. However,

when finding people to take seminars they always looked for previous experience. If problems did arise

then they would discuss the issues with the seminar group and the seminar leader. However sometimes

when people took just one evening seminar, if they were not very good then the School would only find

out about it after the event through student feedback, by which time it would be too late to rectify.

However, those people would be unlikely to be invited back in later years. Where Sessional staff are

used in assessment, they are given an examiners’ handbook and the work is always second marked.

The second marker would always be an internal member of staff if the first marker was external to the

School.



Learning Resources

The Panel asked the School to comment on their development of learning resources, asking in particular

whether they would be pursuing a VLE route or a website approach. The School stated that they had

not yet made a final decision on this issue. The school had gone into WebCT only to find that it was to

be withdrawn. Whilst a policy decision had not yet been taken over Blackboard, it was felt that

Blackboard would be much easier to use and presented a number of opportunities for the staff and

students.



However, concern was expressed that Blackboard could allow students to not attend lectures through

simply getting material off the VLE. However, the Panel stated that access can be restricted if students

are not attending. The School also stated that there are issues regarding whether 3rd year students

undertaking their mini-projects would be able to see the 2nd year material which would be necessary.

The School stated that since the last review there was now more material available to students on-line.

9







The panel asked if the policy would apply to all lecturers and their modules. The School stated that at

the moment it would be up to the individual lecturer the extent to which they put material on-line whether

it is on the web or through a VLE.



The Panel stated that it is best to have one common approach either through a VLE or the use of a

website. The use of both methods can create duplication of material as well as confusion regarding

where material is and should be located for students.



The Panel recommended that the School should urgently make a decision on their involvement

with Bloomsbury Learning Environment, particularly if they wanted to apply for funding to assist

with its implementation within the School.



Quality Enhancement

The Panel then explored the student representation on the MSc programmes, stating that it was very

unclear from the SED and supporting documentation how MSc students were represented, because the

Student-Staff Liaison Committee (SSLC) appeared to involve undergraduates only. The School

confirmed that there is a postgraduate representative who is invited to the SSLC. However, as the SSLC

is dominated by undergraduate matters the PG representative tends not to attend.



The Panel asked about representation on collaborative programmes with UCL. The School confirmed

that there was no formal mechanism like an SSLC for students on the programme run jointly with UCL.

If an issue at UCL arose they would be advised to approach the appropriate member of staff at UCL or

the UCL Head of Department.



The Panel confirmed that the mechanism for student representation was clearly not documented at

postgraduate level in the review documentation.



The Panel recommended that all programmes (including those run jointly with another

institution) should have a formal student representation mechanism which should include a

student representative on each programme.



The Panel recommended that all Postgraduate Representatives should be invited to the existing

SSLC or the School should consider constituting a separate Postgraduate Student-Staff Liaison

Committee if postgraduate attendance at the existing committee was an issue.



The Panel then explored the student feedback forms for individual modules. The Panel stated that there

was no documentary evidence as to what actually happened to the forms once submitted, and what

information was relayed back to the students on issues raised and actions taken.



The School confirmed that the module organiser makes a report on the feedback forms which is

submitted to the School Learning and Teaching Committee, which then writes an overall report. The

School stated that in fact students themselves are often divided on many of the issues and that there are

very rarely any consistent problems arising.



The Panel agreed that the students needed to see the output of the feedback which they provide to the

School. Standing items on student feedback forms should be on both the Learning and Teaching

Committee agenda and the SSLC agenda.



The Panel recommended that standing items be placed on committee agendas in relation to

Quality Assurance and Enhancement. This should include an item on the SSLC and Learning

10







and Teaching Committee agenda for feedback from the School on student feedback forms and a

standing item on the Learning and Teaching Committee for the School QAC Representative to

report back on QA issues to the School.



Research

The Panel explored the opportunities for research students to meet each other and present their work to

the School.



The School stated that there is a departmental seminar series on Wednesday lunchtime, which research

students are encouraged to attend, as well as another seminar series on Tuesday (amongst others).

The School confirmed that there were lab meetings for research students to attend but the frequency of

these would vary depending on the topic of the laboratory. The School stated that final year research

students have to present a seminar. First-year research students are also required to make a

presentation on their research proposal in generic skills course. The panel felt that these arrangements

potentially produced a ‘gap’ in formal progression requirements during the second year of full-time study,



The Panel recommended that the School should consider implementing a presentation in the

second year of the research degree programme.



Supervisors are also expected to encourage their research students to attend conferences and present

their work whenever they can.



The School confirmed that the Bloomsbury Skills Network is mentioned to students in one of the lectures

as part of the generic skills course in the first year, and that they are sent reminders. However, it was

unclear how well they understood what the Network was actually for.



The panel explored the mechanisms for research students to progress. The School stated that there

was termly monitoring by the supervisor through a progress form; an annual self assessment and the

upgrade exercise itself and so there were multiple on-going mechanisms to monitor and manage

progression.



The Panel commended the arrangements for monitoring research student progress.



The panel asked whether its MSc provision fed students into research degrees within the School. The

School stated that this could fluctuate, but it did provide a feeder in to research. The School stated that

Birkbeck is not always well known for research among UK students, so the Masters programmes were

invaluable with this regard.



The Panel asked what representation in the committee structure there was for research students. The

school stated that there was a Research Student representative but that the first port of call would

usually be the first and second supervisor followed by the School’s Research Director.



The Panel asked whether the Research Representative was able to be representative of the whole

School research community, to which the School replied that the research students are a fairly cohesive

group. There are a number of social events organised so that they can get to know each other,

particularly as they were not very involved with the School’s Psychological Society which was

predominately undergraduate.



Peer Review and Staff Development

11







The Panel asked the School to explain their peer review method. The School stated that all new

members of staff have a review early on and that if issues arose this process would happen more

quickly. However, the School stated that whilst it was easy to peer review new and Sessional staff it

was difficult to determine how to do this for staff that had been at the College for a considerable amount

of time.



The Panel stated that it was clear that there was not a paper trail in place for this mechanism in the

School. Peer Review and Staff development activities need to be properly recorded and should be

clearly part of the School Staff Development Strategy. This was clearly a QAA requirement and that it

could easily be a point which would be scrutinised in an institutional audit. There were clearly things

which could be included in staff development such as attendance at conferences, acting as Visiting

Examiners at other institutions etc.



The School stated that following the split in the School the majority of staff were now at Professor or

Reader level and therefore any strategy must take into account the staff profile. The School also stated

that some courses that staff would have liked to have attended were not funded whilst other staff

development courses were of little use to them.



The Panel recommended that the School implement a Staff Development Strategy and ensure

that the Peer Review System is formally documented and recorded. The Panel recommended that

the School incorporate their current practice (e.g. conference attendance as part of Staff

Development activities) into an explicit, documented, Staff Development Strategy.



Example of Enhancement – Learning Co-ordinator.



The Panel received a brief presentation by Kirsty Rowan on her role as the Learning Co-ordinator

followed by the opportunity to ask questions regarding this role.



The role of the Learning Co-ordinator was set up in May 2007 with the aim of addressing study skills for

students with the aim of improving student retention. Key features of the role are:

Workshops aimed at specific skills areas

One to one meetings with students

E-mail and telephone contact with students

Exam skills sessions, including module specific sessions

Continuous academic support throughout the year

One term programme for 1st year students

Identifying at risk students (e.g. international students)

Drop in policy for one evening a week.

Attendance at assessment, and mitigating circumstances board and Teaching committee

Pre-enrolment contact including pre-Sessional courses

Continuing contact with Break in Study Students



It was stated that 70% of students have some form of contact with the Learning Co-ordinator, with the

majority through e-mail. However, the level of contact does not fall after the first year.



Students are asked to provide feedback on the Learning Co-coordinator. Feedback from both student

and staff has been very positive.

12







Students can be referred to the Learning Co-ordinator by academic staff. Feedback forms have a

referral section which the student can bring with them to the Learning Co-ordinator.



The drop in evening is changeable depending on the timetables of the students concerned.



The implementation of the role has created further demand for it and the role is often more accessible

than some members of academic staff. The role is doing an almost academic job, looking through

student’s essays and examinations with them and advising them on how they can improve.



The Panel commended the Learning Coordinator, Kirsty Rowan and her role and also as an

excellent example of good practice.



The Panel recommended that the School should collect data to demonstrate the effectiveness of

the Learning Coordinator role.









GB (Chair)

KL (External Subject Specialist)

LT