At its meeting on 25 May 2018, ASC received the six-month update report from the review of Central & East European Studies which detailed the responses and the progress made to date in implementing the recommendations. Overall, the responses were considered adequate, but it was agreed that further updates were required in relation to:

Recommendation 3: ASC had been notified in October 2017 that action had been taken to correct information on the website. However, no response had been provided in relation to the recommendation that a review should be undertaken of the long-term technical support for maintenance and updating of the Subject’s webpages.

Recommendation 5: This concerned the availability of training and development opportunities for GTAs and the response indicated that this was being reviewed at School level. No timescale was given for this review and ASC requested a further update when the review was complete. It was also noted that this should be drawn to the attention of Nathalie Sheridan in LEADS.

Recommendation 6: This concerned a clash between an examination and essay, and the response provided by CEES indicated that it had been a one-off and a review of feedback mechanisms would ensure that such a clash would not happen again. It was noted that this appeared to be the same response that had been provided to the Review Panel in relation to the specific issue and that the recommendation had indicated that further action was required. The relevant extract from the Review Report was as follows:

3.4.5 … The undergraduate students highlighted a clash in the scheduling of the essay due dates and examinations, which prevented feedback being available for use in the examination. The Head of School commented that this had been a one-off situation and had been the result of staff shortages; however, the Panel had noted this issue had appeared in a number of the SSLC minutes. The Review Panel had some concerns regarding the functionality of the SSLC in failing to address this issue and, therefore, recommends that the Subject review its SSLC feedback mechanisms to ensure that such issues are fully addressed and the feedback loop is closed.

ASC therefore requested a further more detailed response.

Recommendation 7 (b): The response addressed the issue of clarity regarding progression from Level 1 but did not address the question of highlighting the benefits of continued study of the subject.

Academic Standards Committee is asked to consider the adequacy of the updated responses and the progress made.

Not applicable.

No direct resource implications have been identified.

As outlined.

No specific implications identified, although the School should continue to embed consideration of equality and diversity in all its procedures and provision.