University of Essex s6

Approved Minutes

UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX

BOARD OF THE FACULTY OF HUMANITIES AND COMPARATIVE STUDIES

Wednesday 1 December 2010 (2.00pm – 5.00pm)

MINUTES UNRESERVED BUSINESS

Chair Dr Burnett, Dean of the Faculty of Humanities and Comparative Studies

Present Mr Cartwright, Professor Cox, Dr Freyenhagen, Mrs Lefley, Mr Lichtenstein, Miss Milne, Mr Mukherjee, Mr Poole, Dr Samson

Apologies Dr Gurney, Professor Hulme, Professor Rubin, Miss Silburn, Dr Venn

Absent Dr Fry, Miss Gubasheva

In Attendance Dr Karen Hulme, Ms Liz Laws

Secretary Ms Angela Turton, Assistant Registrar

STARRING OF AGENDA ITEMS

Noted Item 12 was additionally starred. The unstarred items on the agenda were then 45/10 deemed to have been received or noted and approved as appropriate.

MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING

Approved The minutes of the meeting held on 27 May 2010. 46/10

MATTERS ARISING

There were no matters arising. 47/10

MEMBERSHIP AND TERMS OF REFERENCE (FBHCS/10/11)

Approved There was an amendment; the International Academy sent one observer rather than 48/10 two members.

DEAN’S REPORT

Working Groups Reported The Task and Finish Group would meet to consider issues including diversity of 49/10 assessment methods, study skills and plagiarism, feedback, and contact hours. The Rules of Assessment Working Party was continuing, and would consider marking standards, using a wider range of marks, letter grades, the operation of examination boards (the use of module-level data at pre-boards), and electronic grids. The Faculty Administrative Review Group was ongoing. Virtual Matters Reported ESF and on-line forms were in use. In general the new processes were an 50/10 improvement. The use of Moodle rather than the CMR was being encouraged.

1 Buildings Reported The Teaching Centre was open; the facilities were impressive. The student centre 51/10 and library extension were still at the planning phase but an architect would be appointed soon. The building would be completed by September 2013.

Recruitment Reported A five percent increase in student numbers was planned for 2011-12. After that, the 52/10 position would remain unclear until more was known about the changes to fees for Home/EU undergraduates. Open days and visit days remained important, and indeed should be viewed as equally important as graduation. Income Generation Reported The University was considering offering CPD courses, summer schools, short 53/10 courses, part-time study, more interdisciplinary programmes, 3 + 1 schemes, premium-fee options, and the viability of modules with enrolments of fewer than 10 (both postgraduate and undergraduate). Student members commented that modules with small enrolments should run. Other members noted that the diversity of modules was what made a university attractive to students and that reducing this would harm recruitment, and that if departments had reached the required SSR, then teaching load should be a matter for departments. Others commented that new areas of interest often commenced with small numbers and that if this were not permitted, nothing new would ever develop. It was noted that small but interesting MA modules were often the decisive factor in students deciding a) to pursue a PhD and b) to do so at Essex. Student representatives raised the issue of uncapped module enrolment and indicated their desire to see the cap replaced. Members noted that there were both advantages and disadvantages to capping. PGT Resits Reported There were no PGT modules with examinations in the Faculty. The University was 54/10 considering holding some examinations in January because of the large volume of examinations in the Summer Term and the consequent strain upon staff and facilities. Student members stated that they were not in favour of January examinations, and that administrative problems should not be solved by placing a new burden on students.

ISSUES ARISING FROM UNDERGRADUATE EXTERNAL EXAMINERS’ REPORTS (Oral report)

Reported The BA Humanities external had praised the Dangerous Ideas module and noted 55/10 that it ‘produced imaginative interdisciplinary work of a high standard’. He congratulated the teaching staff involved. He disliked the use of learning outcomes and preferred to look at the educational development of students. He (and several other externals) indicated dissatisfaction with the limited powers of the external at Essex and felt that the role of the external had become too marginal. He made very positive comments about the detailed feedback provided on coursework (which the board noted appeared to contrast with the NSS/SSS data). One of the History externals also commented upon the diminishing role of the external examiner, and on the use of the full range of marks. The Art History external suggested that more use might be made of Turnitin and felt that students needed more guidance on avoiding plagiarism. One of the LiFTS externals stated that bolder use of fail marks should be made, and he also commented robustly on problems with grids and RPS. He suggested that the University should purchase commercial software. He did not believe that first-year marks should appear on grids in later years and thought that the grids contained too much information which made them difficult to interpret. He also felt that students who did not attend should be expelled at a much earlier stage, and thought that marks should be raised in some cases of extenuating

2 circumstances. The E15 external commented on the excellent feedback given to students. The Philosophy external noted the successful implementation of the dissertation scheme.

STUDENT PROGRESSION AND AWARDS (FBHCS/10/12)

Reported This data was available on-line; members queried the value of producing such a 56/10 significant amount of paper. Members also felt that too much data had been presented, and would have preferred the ability to select certain items. The Board noted that some first-year students were inadequately prepared for university, or were not entirely committed to it, which explained why failure rates were somewhat higher in year one than in subsequent years. It was noted that although the number of fails had risen slightly, the number of earlier withdrawals had declined. CISH students were more likely than average to transfer to other courses, but this was expected given the interdisciplinary nature of the programmes as well as the language requirements on several of the courses. Art History and CISH had both had small cohorts in recent years but had larger intakes this year. All of the reported increases and decreases were based upon fluctuations in a single year and so were not particularly meaningful. Members felt that longer-term trends would be more significant. The comprehensibility of the data would have been enhanced by the provision of headings at the top of each page. The E15 data was skewed by students who moved from a foundation degree to a top-up year, which created the impression that zero percent of students had remained on the course concerned.

PLAGIARISM AND THE USE OF TURNITIN

Reported Departments used Turnitin differently and felt that this was appropriate. There was 57/10 no support for a university-wide (or even faculty-wide) policy on this issue. Members commented that Turnitin was time-consuming to use and that quicker, more user-friendly software would be very welcome. There was also no support for encouraging students to use Turnitin on their own work; Turnitin was not an appropriate tool for this purpose.

FACULTY RESTRUCTURING PROPOSAL (FBHCS/10/13)

Reported Postgraduate students in the Department of Philosophy submitted a written 58/10 statement which was considered. SSLCs in both Philosophy and Art History had discussed the merger proposal. The departments concerned were small and it was felt that the merger would create a stronger unit. Single-honours degrees would continue, and there would still be two RAE units of assessment. Student members indicated that at times they felt that information had not been provided and that they had not always had opportunities to comment. However, there had been meetings with students in both departments as from the Summer Term and student input had been solicited and received. There had been one meeting which student representatives had not been permitted to attend because it consisted largely of reserved business such as discussion of individual staff members’ salaries. The student members felt that the merger was driven by financial exigency, particularly in the wake of the recently announced funding cuts for HE. It was noted that the restructuring issue had been minuted at the previous meeting in May, some time before the funding cuts had been revealed. All of the student priorities submitted by the SU had been accepted, for example, not merging the entire faculty into a single school and not cutting ‘front-line’ services in small departments. There was concern about devaluing the humanities nationally, and the student members called upon the senior management of the University to support humanities disciplines. It was noted that both the VC and the Faculty PVC had publically done so. Students were not in favour of a suite of compulsory interdisciplinary modules. Staff opinion was divided on the matter.

3 NSS/SSS DATA (FBHCS/10/14)

Reported The data had been presented in the same format as the previous year, and the Board 59/10 reiterated its comments: ‘the emphasis on increases and decreases of 5% or more was not particularly useful, because a department might for instance increase its score by 5% but still be performing badly in that area if the previous year's rating had been low. Similarly, a decline from, eg, 98 to 93 still would represent a very high level of satisfaction. Members were more interested in overall trends, long- term trends, a more in-depth narrative summary, and areas in which a department's score was anomalous compared with its general performance’. It was noted that the Faculty had an above average performance for teaching and assessment. There were few signs of problems. The data samples were very small.

STUDENT MATTERS

Reported Student members enquired as to whether the Faculty employability and skills group 60/10 was continuing to meet. The group had concluded. Departments would be conducting their own careers activities, though there would be a careers week for second-year students in the spring. Student members stated that it would be beneficial if coursework submission deadlines were staggered. This would facilitate receipt of feedback prior to completing the next item of coursework, and also would encourage students to work throughout the academic year rather than in short bursts at the end of term. Other members noted that this was the previous system, but that the SU had instigated a change to single deadlines within departments because students had been confused by multiple deadlines and because it had been considered unfair that some students had more time than others to complete coursework. However, departments were not unsympathetic to the request to stagger deadlines and would discuss the matter further at SSLCs.

REPORT OF DEAN’S ACTION (FBHCS/10/15)

Received 61/10

MEMBERSHIP OF ACADEMIC OFFENCES AND PROGRESS PANEL (FBHCS/10/16)

Approved 62/10

CREATION OF CENTRE FOR LATIN AMERICAN & CARIBBEAN STUDIES (FBHCS/10/17)

Received 63/10

Angela Turton Assistant Registrar December 2010