At its meeting on 29 May 2009, Academic Standards Committee received the Report of the Review of Departmental Programmes of Teaching Learning and Assessment of the Department of Mechanical Engineering held on 25 and 26 February 2009. Following consideration by the Committee, the recommendations were forwarded for action to the relevant staff. The attached report summarises the responses and confirms the progress to date.

The responses have been considered by the Convener of the Panel, who notes that while appropriate consideration has been given to the majority of recommendations, there are a number where follow up is required. The Convener of the Panel recommends that an update response on the recommendations noted below should be requested after a period of six months, for the November 2010 meeting of Academic Standards Committee.

Academic Standards Committee is asked to consider the adequacy of the responses and the progress made to the following recommendations, which the Convener of the Review Panel considers to be satisfactory.

1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18

Academic Standards Committee is also asked to consider the need for update responses in relation to:

• Recommendation 3 – a review of the Department’s management and committee structure, to promote two-way communication between leaders and staff, including consideration of widening the membership of the Teaching Committee and increasing its focus on strategy. The Convener recommends that ASC request an update to clarify how two-way communication has been promoted;
• Recommendation 4 – implementation of a full workload model in accordance with any available Faculty guidance in order to ensure that roles and workload are balanced for all staff including the Head of Department. The Convener notes that the formation of the School of Engineering includes plans to develop and implement a full workload model. She recommends that ASC requests an update to confirm a timescale to introduce a full workload model and report on current progress in addressing workload issues raised in the report;
• Recommendation 6 – consideration of how the experience of successful innovation in learning and teaching could be shared across the Department with a view to inspiring enthusiasm and wider uptake by staff members. The Convener notes the Department’s intention to utilise staff and teaching committee meetings to disseminate teaching innovation but was interested to know what activities had taken place in the current session. The Convener recommends that ASC requests an update to clarify progress in 2009-2010
• Recommendation 10 – a review and update of the Department’s programme specifications, to ensure a consistent format and in the way ILOs are expressed: programme specifications to be written in a style that is readily accessible to students and other stakeholders and a clear demonstration of how the ILOs aligned with the assessment of the programme. The Convener recommends that the ASC requests an update to confirm whether programme specifications have been reviewed and updated, in accordance with the recommendation;
• Recommendation 11 - ensuring that the information provided to students on ILOs explained clearly how assessment activities, both formative and summative, aligned with the ILOs. The Convener notes that this is linked to Recommendation 10 above and recommends that ASC requests an update to confirm if programme specifications have been updated;
• Recommendation 15 – consideration of implementing further additional or improved mechanisms for increasing student awareness and understanding of the opportunities to receive feedback that are offered by the Department. The Panel further suggested that the Department consulted students to determine the most valuable types of feedback. The Convener notes that the Department has agreed to update the current format of the course descriptor documents but was disappointed that details on how the Department consulted and engaged with students were not provided. She recommends that the ASC requests an update which would include details of student engagement as specified in the recommendation;
• Recommendation 16 - update of the Department’s annual Course Review forms in line with the standard proformas provided by the University as a matter of priority to ensure that comments are gathered on the relevant, current issues. The Convener notes that the Department is now using a standard form agreed across the Faculty of Engineering but sought confirmation that this is the University proforma. The Convener recommends that the ASC request an update to confirm that the University proforma annual Course Review form is adopted.

Head of Department (Recommendations 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 15).

The Head of Teaching/Chair of the Teaching Committee (Recommendation 16).

There are resource implications, mainly for the Department, related to some of the activities noted above.

Additional responses should be reported to the November 2010 meeting of ASC.

Not applicable.