The Robert Gordon University

FQESC(H&SC)/13/3 ROBERT GORDON UNIVERSITY FACULTY QUALITY ENHANCEMENT SUB-COMMITTEE (HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE) Minute of Meeting held on 17 April 2013. Present: Professor V Maehle (Convener), Mrs H Bain, Dr S Cunningham, Ms D Banks, Professor A Davidson, Mrs E Hancock, Dr S Joseph, Ms L Leishman, Ms S Lennie, Mr M Shepherd, Ms D Spence and Dr H Vosper. Apologies: Mr B Addison, Mr O Andoh-Kesson, Ms K Brown, Ms C Cassidy, Dr W Eboh, Ms K Goodhand, Ms J Mackenzie, Ms F Roberts, and Dr S Maxwell. In Attendance: Mr N Ferguson (for item 14), Ms L Jack and Dr C Parks (Secretary). Action 1. WELCOME The Convener welcomed everyone to the meeting, particularly Mr Nicol Ferguson from DELTA. 2. MINUTE The Minute of Meeting held on 6 February 2013, reference FQESC(H&SC)/13/2, was approved subject to adding Ms Kirsty Brown to the list of attendees. There Ms Jack were no matters arising. 3. CONVENER’S REPORT Professor Maehle reported on four items, as undernoted. SPSO’s Complaints Handling Procedure Like all other HEIs, the university was required to adopt the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman’s (SPSO’s) Complaints Handling Procedure (CHP). To date, considerable work had been undertaken on this matter by the Academic Regulations Sub-Committee and further consideration had been given to this by the Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee and Academic Council. Going forward, the key challenge would be in training staff across the university on this new process, which would replace all existing complaints processes/procedures. Some staff would require training as Complaints Investigators. The university would have to implement the CHP by August/September 2013 and so training would need to take place before then. Ms Jack and Ms McLean Whyte were attending an external event on 18 April 2013 about the CHP so it was anticipated that more information on training might be available at that point. A new group had been established to take the CHP forward within the university and would be meeting for the first time on 19 April. The group comprised representatives from Student Services and the student body. The group would consider issues such as training, logging, recording and reporting of complaints. Professional Studies Framework The Professional Studies Programme had been replaced by the Professional Studies Framework. A primary difference regarding operation of the Framework Prof V was that students would only enrol when they were ready to “cash in” their Maehle/Mrs credits. Ms Alison Smart had taken over, from Ms Lucy Jack, the administration of A Smart the Framework. A seminar would be organised to inform key staff. Clinical Skills Conference The above would take place on 27 May 2013. The conference would provide a forum for launching the clinical skills strategy, allow staff to share good practice and discuss future direction/moving forwards. FQESC(H&SC)/13/3 2 Action 4. STUDENT REPRESENTATIVES There were no student representatives at the meeting. Mr O Andoh-Kesson had raised an issue concerning the student body about transport to Garthdee, particularly bus travel, once the new building was occupied. Members noted that the university had had considerable discussion with Firstbus on such issues, which included possible new routes/services. It was noted that the School of Pharmacy and Life Sciences had created, and was about to launch an area within CampusMoodle about the new build, which would provide information to students. 5. TEACHING, LEARNING AND ASSESSMENT STRATEGY As part of the MPharm’s re-accreditation by the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPC), the School had to produce a Teaching, Learning and Assessment Strategy document. The document had been commended by the Council and the university’s Deputy Principal had recommended that this be discussed at the FQESC. Dr Vosper reported that the document had been developed by a team of staff within the School. In developing the document, practice at other institutions had been reviewed and the approach taken was to audit current practice and identify where enhancements might be made. A key focus of the document was in showcasing good practice and the DELTA snapshot approach was used to good effect in the document in this respect. The document was very much produced through a “bottom-up” approach and the input and ownership of the document across staff was evidenced at the accreditation visit and commended by the GPhC. In addition to achieving good staff engagement, the document also provided a focus for reviewing key areas, such as assessment loading. It was intended to produce a student-friendly version of the document and it was suggested that the same approach could be used to develop a School-wide teaching, learning and assessment strategy document. The document was valuable in showing alignment with the university’s quality processes. Members noted that the snapshots were easily accessible within the document and this might prove a beneficial approach in producing future Reflective Analysis documents for ILSR, which might facilitate Panel members in reviewing good practice. The snapshots of good practice had been forwarded to DELTA. The process of developing the document had been as valuable, if not more so, than the document itself and had been a rewarding process for those involved. There was an acknowledgement that information on teaching, learning and assessment methods, particularly that held within the Course Information Database, was not particularly helpful and was often a negative factor at validation events and in meeting other requirements (for example, information for PSRBs). This issue had been discussed at the Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee and Professor Harper was keen that the Mpharm’s approach be more widely adopted. Professor Davidson noted that there was a parallel with this and the current Strategic Implementation Plan (SIP) project on ODL. There was consensus that it was crucial that students knew: what to expect of staff and what staff expected of students. 6. SHARING GOOD PRACTICE EVENTS The Sub-Committee considered a Sharing Good Practice paper, prepared by Professor A Davidson, and an extract from the minute of the meeting of QAEC held on 27 February 2013. Professor Davidson reported on the two activities that were covered in the paper. 3 FQESC(H&SC)/13/3 Action The first activity was concerned with a learning and teaching conference for sharing good practice. QAEC had agreed that there should be an annual spring conference with a thematic focus that would relate to the university’s strategic priorities. The first of these would take place in the spring of Session 2013/14 with the theme of online learning. Professor Ian Allison was convening the conference Steering Group, which would comprise, among others, Teaching Fellows. Funding was being offered to staff (envisaged to be up to a maximum of £5k for any project) to undertake development projects related to the conference theme. The project proposal would require endorsement by the Head of School/Associate Dean/Dean of Faculty. Acceptance of the funding would require presentation at the learning and teaching conference. The conference would be open to all staff and it was suggested that it might be useful to invite key external stakeholders (for Prof example from the secondary and further education sectors). Davidson The second activity was around enhancement trails, which had originated from the 2012 ELIR process. Enhancement trails were about documenting case studies and for ELIR the QAA template had been populated by using extant documentation (committee and project paperwork). The two examples documented for ELIR were Health Sciences’ work on assessment feedback and Nursing and Midwifery’s work on the first year experience. There had been some discussion at QAEC about whether the university should be undertaking routinely enhancement trails with the suggestion that this activity might lead to a further conference. There was a lack of clarity around whether the enhancement trails should be undertaken as they could be completed retrospectively. The suggestion of a second conference was rejected. It was agreed that in developing new initiatives, some form of impact evaluation would be preferable and that this way of working should be embedded in practice. The use of a cover sheet was suggested, which could be used in a range of contexts, for example, good practice identified through the Members Annual Appraisal process. Members queried whether there was a commonly used definition of blended learning within the university. Professor Davidson confirmed that there was not a Prof strict university definition of this term but could supply the Convener with a Davidson definition that he had found helpful in a previous project on this topic. 7. QUALITY ENHANCEMENT PRIORITIES, THEMES AND ACTIVITIES The following updates were provided by LECs and other key staff working on intra- Faculty enhancement initiatives. School of Pharmacy and Life Sciences (Reported by Dr H Vosper) • Recently, most staff effort had been directed in production of the School’s teaching and learning strategy document (refer section 5.). • The School was working with the GPhC on a project that was developing simulation and alternative forms of placement for pharmacy students. The HEA had agreed to provide matched funding for this initiative and the development was featured in a recent HEA publication. • An enhancement module was being developed, which would be a repository for good practice. School of Applied Social Studies (Reported by Mr M Shepherd) • The School was preparing for its forthcoming ILSR event. • The BA (Hons) Applied Social Science Course Team was developing an interesting portfolio approach in module SS1050 Understanding The Past, Informing The Present. The aim was to encourage students to engage in learning about social history. FQESC(H&SC)/13/3 4 Action Interprofessional Education (IPE) (Reported by Dr S Joseph) • Preparations were underway for the IPE Review event which was scheduled for May 2013.

Load more