Following the Enhancement-led Institutional Review (ELIR) of the University in November 2009, and the report of the review issued by the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) in April 2010, an Action Plan has been drawn up. The actions are derived from recommendations included in the ELIR report, and also the University’s own actions which were identified in the concluding section of the Reflective Analysis document presented to the ELIR Panel.

The ELIR Action Plan was presented at the University’s recent Learning and Teaching Conference held in September and at that point actions were grouped. The attached paper has drawn out all actions which have been identified as involving ‘Quality Process’. These have then been divided as follows:

A Actions for which ASC is directly responsible

B Actions which involve some ASC process

C Actions which require noting by ASC.

ASC is required to review the actions, and for those falling in section A identify the appropriate action to be taken forward. It is proposed that reports on progress with actions identified under section B, and any relevant recommendations for ASC, are submitted to the Committee on a regular basis.

ASC is invited to consider for approval the following proposals regarding section A actions:

Action 2: Exam Board discretion

The Convener of ASC proposes that a Short-Life Working Group composed of the four College Deans of Learning & Teaching (or their nominees) is formed to take forward this recommendation and therefore consider the introduction of University guidance (or regulation) on how Boards of Examiners may exercise discretion in borderline cases to ensure consistent application of existing good practice. The SLWG would be asked to report its conclusions and recommendations to ASC in February 2010.

Action 6: Setting and Maintaining Academic Standards

Since the ELIR visits, the Academic Regulations Sub-Committee (ARSC) has made further progress in harmonising undergraduate degree regulations, with the expansion of the Generic Undergraduate Regulation in the 2010-11 Calendar to cover more aspects e.g. requirements for entry to Honours and Honours assessment weightings. ASC is asked to identify any further areas of undergraduate regulation which could be streamlined.

ARSC is currently undertaking work to review PGR Masters regulations and consider the development of a generic PGR Masters regulation.

The assessment and plagiarism software policies have been developed by other committees.

Action 32: Consistency of programme scrutiny

This will be taken forward by the Programme and Course Approval Working Group (PCAWG) – the Convener will meet with College Deans of Learning & Teaching to discuss consistency of the scrutiny process at College level.

Action 33: External input to programme development/scrutiny

The ELIR report encouraged the University to review its guidance (and therefore process) on the role of external contributions in the programme approval process. The matter of external input to programme development and scrutiny was considered in detail at the time when the QAA issued a consultation on its redraft of Section 7 of the Code of Practice. The University’s view then was that external examiners were suitable individuals to approach in the process of external consultation in the development and approval of new or existing courses and programmes. The final publication of Section 7 of the Code of Practice retained its cautionary advice about the use of external examiners¹.

It is recommended that PCAWG undertakes a review of this aspect of the programme approval process and submits proposals to ASC at its meeting on 18 February 2010.

As identified above and in the report.

Significant staff time will be required to take forward actions. No specific items identified which require ASC approval or recommendation.

The University is due to provide an annual progress report to QAA in April 2011. Timescales for reporting specific items to ASC are provided above.

Actions 21 and 25 are of direct relevance and should support the University’s Equality and Diversity agenda.

¹Under Precept 3 of Section 7 of the Code of Practice the following text is included: "It is important that institutions ensure they make use of external contributions of an appropriate kind when developing, approving and reviewing programmes. External examiners may provide useful contributions at various stages of approval and review processes but, for the purpose of demonstrating impartiality, they are unlikely to be appropriate members of formal approval and review panels." - see

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/codeOfPractice/section7/default.asp#approval