Teaching and Learning Forum 15 February 2016 Pauline Kneale Pro-Vice-Chancellor Teaching and Learning

Agenda NSS SPQ - please encourage completion CEP update QAA HER update Green paper TEF GPA – starting to think about marking

CEP Plymouth Plus Final Year students Becky Turner - Evaluation

Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education Higher Education Review

Timescale for QAA HE Review - 52 weeks Date for visit announced -26 Review team membership announced November -16 Preparatory meeting 11 January -12 SED Document upload; analysis begins 1-16 Feb -9 Request for additional evidence March -6 Provider uploads additional evidence asap -4 First team meeting early April 0 Review visit w/c 9 May +2 Key findings letter late May +6 Draft report mid July +9 Provider comments on draft report August +12 Report published September +22 Provider publishes action plan December

Review team NameInstitutionRole Mr Anthony Bagshaw London School of Economics and Political Science Reviewer Professor Mary Malcolm University of BedfordshireReviewer Dr Clare Milson Liverpool John Moores University Reviewer Ms Christine WilmoreUniversity of BristolReviewer Mr Craig BestBrunel University Student Reviewer Mrs Maureen Mclaughlin QAAReview Manager

HER Process : two stages Initial desk appraisal by the team:  SED and some supporting evidence  Student submission (prepared and submitted by UPSU)  Primary evidence as specified by QAA (e.g. external examiner reports / responses, periodic review reports)  Ask for additional evidence Review visit:  Meet with selected groups of staff and students

Green Paper Implications of the Teaching Excellence Framework

TEF: Context Reducing complexity and bureaucracy in research The higher education sector Simplifying the higher education architecture Teaching Excellence, Quality and Social Mobility

Provide an excellent (measurable) teaching experience Ensure teaching has equal status with research - staff promotion Provide students with the information they need to judge teaching quality Social mobility - WP, better retention and progression to further study or a graduate job Move to clearer outcome-focused criteria and metrics. TEF – What it is hoping to achieve

Implications Continue to build and deliver on Teaching, Learning and Student Experience Strategy Revisit Strategy to align to TEF (with KPIs?) Whole institution understanding of TEF –Changes to DSA –Learning Gain –GPA –Teaching excellence / enhancement evidenced through University School Programme Module Action Plans TEF – Providing an excellent (measurable) teaching experience

Issues Recognising and rewarding teaching excellence Not defined but will probably align to UKPSF Implications Build on NTFs Build up TDF for HE Academy F/SF/PF HEA Ensure staff qualification HESA data is correct Ensure all new and current staff are qualified, including the Associate Lecturers. TEF – Teaching staff recognition

Grade Point average (GPA) Early group thinking opportunity today GPA is a measure of student achievement used both during and on completion of a programme of study. (HEA 2015) There are different GPA systems in use across and within countries, with different scales (Soh 2011; Holland 2012). Potential implications for marking

Do we have consistent marking approaches? A quick trawl of programme handbooks on DLE for 17 schools and 27 programmes shows 10 / 27 programmes have detailed marking information e.g: levels, classification, types of marks, marking schemes and assessment criteria that was easily accessible on the DLE Lots of variation in information style

PU NSS 2015 PU SPQ 2015 Dental School NSS 2015 Theatre & Performance NSS 2015 Assessment %% Clear marking criteria Assessment is fair Feedback Feedback is prompt Provides detailed comments Clarifies student queries Perspectives on feedback

Fast communication, fast marking of work. The assessments were vague and unclear leaving me puzzled and confused- I have no idea what makes an A, B or C I think there needs to be more of a consistency of marking in core modules but there have been cases where I've been too leniently marked and got higher marks than I deserved. The disparity in grades was vast: some being penalised for grammatical, spelling or referencing errors, whilst others were not! Undergraduate - perspectives on marking NSS 2015

GPA background Reservations of ‘fitness for purpose’ of Honours Degree Classification Dearing Report into higher education (1997) Burgess Reports (2004, 2007, 2012) Group of interested universities meet Leading to a proposed GPA model (2012) Oxford Brookes white paper (Oxford Brookes 2012) HEA scoping work, and GPA pilot group ( )

GPA –perceived benefits greater granularity in reporting achievement encourages and rewards consistent student effort throughout their programme (UCL 2013) increases transparency in how an award is calculated globally understood and international comparability review of compensation, condonement and resits (Levy 2014) UK Universities report both GPA and HDC (higher degree classification)

Bangor University University of Birmingham University of Edinburgh Hull College Kingston University University of Leeds University of Leicester City College Norwich Northumbria University University of Nottingham The Open University, Oxford Brookes University Richmond American International University in London University of Sheffield University of Southampton South West College (Northern Ireland) University College London University of the West of England University of the West of Scotland University of Winchester York St John University HEA: GPA Pilot institutions

HEA: GPA Project findings Increased student motivation and engagement Student access to their GPA scores offered ongoing view of their performance GPA does not foster grade inflation GPA offers greater transparency in marking Increased granularity beneficial to employers for effective selection Need for a single scheme across the whole HEI sector

GradeMarkGrade A+> A A B B B C C C D D D F F F-<290.0 HEA Report UK GPA Scale

Managing the transition to GPA Teaching and Degree classification considerations Which scale to adopt? Are changes needed to our long established marking culture) Staff and student induction required? New quality assurance processes Changes to way we mark? Weighting of modules, by year and level Compensation, condonement and resit implications

NUS marking benchmark Marking is consistent across every student’s programme of study. Use of the full range of marks is regularly reviewed including students in the process, and support is provided for staff to ensure it happens Guidance and clear grade/classification descriptors are provided.

Developing greater consistency in marking. Does it matter that we have grades, % and... on the marking guidance sheets? Are we ensuring that we as staff mark consistently? How do we best introduce new academic staff to marking systems in modules and programmes? How do we better introduce students to marking? – Visibility of information on the DLE? – Sessions where students marking of past scripts/ own course work. Followed by a discussion about standards and requirements etc. – Induction to marking needed in each year.

Thanks