quality assurance report to college · year core courses, ‘theoretical archaeology’ and...

SHCA Quality Report for 2009-10 1

COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCE

SCHOOL OF HISTORY, CLASSICS AND ARCHAEOLOGY

Quality Assurance Report to College Academic Session 2009-10

INTRODUCTION

1. This Report aims to summarise concisely learning and teaching matters of School-wide

significance arising from the annual Quality reports of the School’s three undergraduate subject

areas – Archaeology, Classics and History – and its Graduate School. In addition, it aims to update

matters raised in previous reports and to draw College’s attention to key problems and issues, as

well as good practices and areas of active enhancement of provision.

2. Review of audit procedures. Every course is subject to internal and external review, the

results of which are encapsulated in a Course Monitoring Form (CMF). Each undergraduate subject

area produces an annual report on its course and programme monitoring, using a template based

on College’s template for the present Report. For the first time in 2009-10, the Graduate School

produced a further annual report on graduate course and programme monitoring. The Director of

Quality oversees these and other Quality matters by sitting on the undergraduate and

postgraduate committees; by consulting occasionally with the School Management Committee; by

overseeing the Quality Roundtable (see Item 4); and by writing the present Report.

3. This Report has been approved by the Head of School and will subsequently be tabled before

the Management Committee.

PARTICIPATION IN QUALITY PROCESSES 4. Annual Quality procedures. The relevant course secretary completes the statistical section of

each CMF after the examiners’ meetings and distributes them to course organisers for completion

by September. These are analysed and discussed, along with programme-related matters, by


meetings of each subject area in September (UG) and October (PG). Each subject area submits its

undergraduate report to the School at the end of October, and its postgraduate report at the end

of November.

Of 234 undergraduate CMFs 223 were completed and returned (95.3 per cent), the missing

forms being owed by two colleagues who left the university over the summer and two on

maternity leave since before the end of the session. Despite return rates rising above 90 per cent

in the Graduate School in recent years, there was a noticeable lapse in 2009-10 (to 73 per cent).

The cause of this problem is thought to be disruption and distraction caused by (a) administrative

staffing changes in the Graduate School, and (b) School relocation to new accommodation,

spearheaded by the Graduate School in August-September, in the crucial period of August-

October.

In the interests of enhancement, the three postgraduate reports are scrutinised and

discussed by the postgraduate committee, whereas the undergraduate reports are discussed at the

annual Quality Roundtable at which (on the College model) they are exchanged and discussed by

their authors. The Graduate School produces a report of its audit findings and subsequent

discussions in early January, and these, along with the findings of the three undergraduate

reports, are summarised in the present Report to College.

5. Student and support-staff participation. Student participation features at virtually every

stage of these procedures. Student feedback questionnaires are evaluated as part of the audit

process for each course, and Masters students additionally complete an end-of-programme

questionnaire, distributed and completed at the time of Dissertation submission. Semesterly staff-

student liaison committees (SSLCs) are convened by each subject area at undergraduate level to

assist in programme monitoring; and there are School-wide SSLCs at both undergraduate and

graduate levels at which subject-area reps can compare notes. Graduate student reps from each

subject area sit on the postgraduate committee which evaluates audit findings at that level.

Formal support-staff participation features principally at the SSLCs, with the School

Undergraduate Administrator, Academic Liaison Librarian and IT and E-Learning Officer included

as members of the School-wide SSLCs.

ACTION ON 2008-9 REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

6. Quality Roundtable. The envisaged first-ever meeting did not take place in advance of the

2008-9 Report due to the very late submission of one report, nor afterwards, due to the

prioritisation of work on the School Learning and Teaching Strategy. Very late submission has

again prevented a meeting in advance of the present Report, but the meeting will take place as

soon as possible.


7. PG course/programme monitoring. Very significant steps were taken by the Graduate School in

2009-10, in conjunction with the Director of Quality, to ensure that course monitoring findings will

forthwith be a regular item of the business of the postgraduate committee (see Items 2 and 4).

8. NSS matters. The Directory of Quality produced and reported to College a substantial analysis

of the results of NSS 2010. These were largely gratifying, with top-quartile ratings in some key

strategic areas, as well as notable improvement in others. The School continues to place special

emphasis on the “open comments” provided by students as the key to understanding NSS

responses and finding genuine solutions.

9. Marker profiling/fairness and consistency of marking. Marking in History was not evaluated on

a sectional basis as recommended in the 2008-9 Report. However a course-marks examination

board was introduced in 2009-10, featuring the presentation and specific consideration of marking

data. These data will form the basis for action once they have been gathered over a significant

span of time. Planned reductions in the number of History external examiners are likely to help

the process of comparing profiles across as well as within sections. In the “open comments” of NSS

2010 students queried the fairness and consistency of marking much more frequently than either

the quality or the promptness of the feedback they receive, and the same issue arose in SSLCs in

Archaeology and History.

10. Assessment of non-written skills. The undergraduate committee continued to encourage

innovative assessment of non-written skills, holding workshops at which staff discussed

experiences of experimenting with new models (one presenter was subsequently awarded the

EUSA Teaching Award for Feedback). The number of staff moving in this direction has begun to

snowball, such that it will soon be the norm for undergraduates’ non-written skills to be assessed.

The same degree of enthusiasm is not yet apparent at graduate level.

11. Honours class sizes. The issue of large honours classes continued to present problems in

History. The enforcement of publicised class-size maxima and minima was more strictly enforced,

which proved effective in reducing the size of the most popular classes and achieving more

consistent class-sizes across the board. Great pressure was placed on the system, however, by a

very large number of History staff becoming unavailable for full teaching loads due to sabbaticals

and undertaking School administrative roles.

12. School Library needs. NSS 2010 once again identified library issues as a source of particular

discontent among the School’s students who, along with staff, had a high profile among those who

managed to force a climb-down from disturbing Library proposals relating to the next stage of the

MLRP. All three subject areas gave the Liaison Librarian space in lecture courses to talk about

research and bibliographic skills and draw student attention to the range of electronic and print

resources available in the Library, as well as to the search aids it offers.


13. ‘E-learning outcomes’. It remained an unresolved point whether the progressive development

of IT skills should feature in and affect the course and programme learning outcomes across the

School. Archaeology students requested in SSLC that IT-training specifically relevant to

archaeology (e.g. GIS) be integrated into the curriculum, but the trained personnel and suitable

equipment necessary to meet this desire are not currently available. Colleagues will continue to

reflect on the place of IT-related skills in course and programme learning outcomes.

14. Grade descriptors for exam answers. There was no movement on this issue, as wider

questions about the grade descriptors used in the School have led to discussions which are

ongoing.

15. Staff monitoring of tutors’ teaching. See Item 47.

16. Reaching POT targets. See Item 46.

COURSE MONITORING

17. Archaeology course monitoring. It was an unsettled year due to the introduction of 2 third-

year core courses, ‘Theoretical Archaeology’ and ‘Archaeology in Practice’, to replace existing

compulsory courses in the honours curriculum, and redesigned ‘Archaeology 2’ modules. The latter

had a less successful introduction than the (highly successful and well received) honours modules,

and refinements have been undertaken. Problems with maintaining ‘Archaeology of Scotland 1’,

the teaching of which relies heavily on guest lecturers, also came to the fore.

18. Classics course monitoring. No overview is possible in this Report due to the ongoing non-

submission of the subject area’s Quality report. When that report has been received, its course

monitoring findings will be discussed at the Quality Roundtable (see Item 4).

19. History course monitoring. The different assessment models now in place and reflections on

adopting and refining these (particularly in relation to the assessment of non-written skills) was a

dominant theme. There is no plan to insist on any single model; the objective is rather to foster a

climate where colleagues who wish to innovate or experiment can do so. Some of those who do

not currently assess non-written skills were frustrated by the enforced discontinuation (on the

advice of the Director of Quality) of mark-deductions from essays to penalise seminar non-

attendance.

The use of electronic material was another strong theme. Many colleagues are positive

about the impact of ‘e-reserve’, for example, whereas others worry that the e-reserve/e-journal

culture discourages adequate engagement with vital monographic and other print material.


20. Postgraduate course monitoring. The principle issue was student criticism of aspects of core

training courses in both History and Archaeology in line with previous years, which had already

occasioned the comprehensive review of skills training provision which took place (see Item 25).

In response to previous feedback a Dissertation handbook was introduced in History; student

concerns raised in Classics about essay-writing guidance will be addressed. More difficult issues

included student access to training in languages other than English and, in lab-based archaeology

programmes, to greater lab- and staff-time, matters which are not easily resolved within existing

resources.

PROGRAMME MONITORING

21. Archaeology programmes. Discussions began concerning the future of the six Archaeology

pre-honours modules, and are likely to result in a reduced number of modules whose content is

more carefully linked-up and whose learning outcomes harmonise more closely with national

benchmarks.

22. Classics programmes. See Item 18.

23. History programmes. Pre-honours recruitment continued to be strong. A very large cohort

was admitted to History and to the wider College, which had a significant impact on these courses

(as very popular outside courses). Internal re-organisation and innovation continued to produce

new pre-honours courses, including ‘The Making of the Modern Body’ as the second-semester

second-year Social history module, whilst other recent creations/repackagings seemed to have a

positive effect on recruitment.

At honours level the progress of the core courses ‘History in Theory’ and ‘History in

Practice’ continues to be monitored. Overall, student responses indicate their success, but there

are some issues to be addressed and resolved. For example, HiP’s operation as a 20-credit course

over two semesters creates curricular imbalances for some students. The issue of progression

from third to fourth year was examined in the Economic and Social History curricula, which unlike

the others do not include a 40-credit ‘special subject’ course exclusive to the fourth year.

24. Postgraduate programmes. There was significant growth (by 28 per cent) in student numbers

in the Graduate School, and much needed relief was brought to the very popular MSc programmes

in Osteoarchaeology and Forensic Anthropology with the arrival of a new member of staff.

Programme monitoring was aided by an end-of-programme questionnaire for taught and research

students (95 per cent response), which will be extended to doctoral students from 2010-11. It is

clear these that provision is highly satisfactory from the student viewpoint. Library provision,

however, generated a high level of concern across the School (30 per cent dissatisfied),


particularly in subjects where crucial printed material is not published in the UK (and thus not

available in the NLS). Similar issues were raised by undergraduates in the NSS and elsewhere (see

Item 12).

Students also completed the university questionnaire, but the response rate was only 23

per cent. The Graduate School will seek to increase the response rate by employing some of the

techniques used to encourage NSS responses (although here too response rates tend to be

disappointing).

25. Taught elements of PGR programmes. A cycle of reviews of graduate training (both taught

and research programmes) was instituted, with History the first subject area to be reviewed.

These reviews were in response to concerns of variable seriousness raised by both staff and

students about different aspects of the existing courses. An external assessor, Prof. Colin Jones,

currently President of the Royal Historical Society, was involved, along with student and staff

reps. Significant innovation arising out of the review included changes to the core courses for the

taught programmes and the introduction of a two-semester training and dissemination seminar for

first-year doctoral students. 2010-11 will see similar reviews in Archaeology and Classics, after

which a cycle of reviews will be maintained.

26. Supervised elements of PGR programmes. The policy document circulated by the College

Postgraduate Dean was circulated to all colleagues and research students by the School Graduate

Director on 10 January 2011, with instructions for putting appropriate monitoring systems in place

with immediate effect. Review of the situation properly belongs in next year’s Report. However,

it may be noted that many features of the policy were already in place in 2009-10, the principal

innovation being a student-led approach to the recording of supervisory meetings.

ANALYSIS OF UNDERGRADUATE AND GRADUATE STATISTICS

27. Archaeology: pre-honours course statistics. The principal feature of the data is the more

attenuated profiles for ‘Archaeology 1’/1A/1B in the past two years, as compared with the

previous two years. From 2006-8 an average of 62.8 per cent of students gained Bs, as compared

with 46.8 since 2008-9. The average number of As has risen from 9.1 per cent to 12.2, whilst the

average number of Cs has also risen from 19.8 per cent to 23.5. These more attenuated profiles

may reflect careful adherence to the new marking scale. On the other hand, the ‘Archaeology 2’

profile has remained remarkably stable, with a very slight increase in the proportion of Cs and Ds.

The profiles for the non-degree course ‘Archaeology of Scotland 1’ are also remarkably

stable over the same period, but notable for the fact that Cs predominate rather than Bs,

amounting to more than 40 per cent of the total marks on average, with Ds also being more

common than in the degree courses. This course is mainly taken by Visiting and outside-subject


students whose aptitude and commitment may be rather less than is common for the degree

courses.

28. Classics: pre-honours course statistics. See Item 18. One matter does demand comment

here. 2009-10 saw the introduction of four new first-year courses, ‘The Greek World’ 1A/B and

‘The Roman World’ 1A/B, replacing a total of six modules, two each in ‘Ancient History’,

‘Classical Archaeology’ and ‘Classical Literature’, by integrating them into a more compact and

interdisciplinary suite of courses. The profiles of the new courses closely resembled those from

the final three years of ‘Classical Literature’, the most buoyant of the three pre-existing courses,

diverging pretty sharply from the final three profiles for ‘Classical Archaeology’ and (especially)

‘Ancient History’. In ‘The Greek World’, 58.4 per cent of students gained As or Bs, as compared

with the following averages from 2006-9: ‘Ancient History: Greek’ (44.5 per cent); ‘Classical

Archaeology: Greek’ (43.7 per cent); ‘Classical Literature’ (55.9 per cent). The parallel figures

for the Roman-themed modules were 58.9 for the new courses and averages of 25.2 per cent

(History), 52.7 per cent (Archaeology) and 55.9 per cent (Literature). These much-more-buoyant

profiles for the new courses are difficult to explain without input from the subject area and

further experience of these courses.

29. History: honours course statistics. 20 honours courses ran at 40 credits and 67 at 20 credits.

Among the former type, where fourth-year finalists predominate, the overall mean mark was

63.25, with means for individual courses ranging from 59 to 68. The range and standard deviation

tended to be low, suggesting a certain clustering of marks in the 2.1 bracket. For 20-credit

courses the overall mean mark was slightly lower at 62.78; and the two core courses, ‘History in

Theory’ and ‘History in Practice’, both had means of 61.

A contrast is provided by the Dissertation ‘courses’, which are taken by all single honours

students and many combined honours students in their fourth year. For example, in the History

Dissertation (112 students) the mean was 65 and 34.8 per cent of students gained a first-class

mark (compared to 20.3 per cent gaining first-class degrees); in addition, the range (50) was very

high and the standard deviation (16) was also quite high. The significant point here is that the 40-

credit Dissertation, where the marking scale appears to have been used particularly fully, carries

considerable weight in the final classification. This is especially the case for students who took

their third year abroad (31.25 per cent of whom gained first-class degrees), for whom the

Dissertation provides one-third of the marks which make up their arithmetical mean. Among the

conclusions which could be drawn from this evidence is that students do their best work in the

Dissertation, which is the culmination of the four years of study and involves detailed research on

a topic of their own choice. A further point is that staff seem particularly willing to use the upper

reaches of the marking scale to assess a detailed piece of research which can be judged according

to criteria closer to professional standards, such as peer review for publication.


30. History: pre-honours course statistics. The principal feature of the data is the relatively

small proportion of students who gain As: in only a small number of courses is the proportion close

to that of final-year students who gain first-class degrees in History. Of first-year courses only

‘British Economic and Environmental History’ has a profile of this kind: this is a relatively small

(c.70 students) course taken by relatively few History students, but a large number of students

from other Schools whose familiarity with social science methodologies may be a factor in the

distinctive profile. Of the courses notable in 2008-9 for relatively low numbers of As there has

been a pleasing increase in the performance of students on ‘Medieval Scottish History’, although

the other first-year course in Scottish history had a very low proportion of As.

Of the second-year courses ‘Africa, Asia, Australasia’ (available from 2010-11 as a pair of

20-credit courses) and ‘Introduction to Medieval Europe’ (ditto) had relatively high numbers of

students gaining As. Other second-year courses have relatively low numbers of As. Although there

are variations in the constituencies of students on each course the variation in performance

continues to be a cause for concern (see Item 9).

31. Archaeology: degree outcome statistics. Just 17 students graduated, the first time in four

years that this number fell below 20. Five gained first-class degrees, amounting to 29.4 per cent

of the cohort, but it is normal for 4-5 firsts to be awarded, and this anomalously-high proportion is

probably a function of the small size of the cohort. The profile of results since 2006-7 continues to

share with Classics a much more attenuated character than that for the History degrees, with a

significant proportion of the cohort gaining 2.2 classifications.

32. Classics: degree outcome statistics. With an average of 56 finalists per annum distributed

among 11 degree programmes internal to the School, it is difficult to find statistical merit in close

analysis of the data relating to single programmes. Taking all programmes together, the figures

for 2009-10 show a sharp fall in the proportion of first-class degrees at 14.3 per cent – the first

time in four years that this figure has fallen below 20 per cent – with a correspondingly sharp rise

in the proportion of 2.1s (66.1 per cent) from the previous year (56.7 per cent). 17.9 per cent of

students received a 2.2 classification, in line with recent results in Classics but strikingly

attenuated (as in Archaeology) as compared with History.

33. History: degree outcome statistics. The principal feature of the data over the past three

years is the overwhelming dominance of the 2.1 degree classification; the number of first-class

degrees has risen modestly. This is most evident in the MA History, the only single-honours

programme with sufficiently large a cohort for proper analysis. A total of 113 students graduated,

nearly 90 per cent of whom gained a first-class or 2.1 classification. Given the very high quality of

the intake (c.17 applicants for every place), a high level of achievement is to be expected.

Nevertheless, the apparently greater willingness (see Item 29) to use the upper end of the

marking scale for Dissertations and long ‘History in Practice’ projects than for examination

answers (in particular) probably has a significant impact on classification by arithmetic mean.


A relatively small number of History students take combined degrees and for most of

these programmes the numbers are too small to make meaningful comments (and the situation is

much the same for Archaeology and Classics). The dominance of the 2.1 can be seen again in the

profiles of two of the larger ones – MA History and Politics and MA English Literature and History

(which tend to recruit around 20 students).

34. Postgraduate degree outcomes. A total number of 99 MSc students were admitted, of whom

28 (28.3 per cent) gained distinctions, a proportion which was remarkably similar across

Archaeology (30 per cent), Classics (28.6 per cent) and History (27.4 per cent). There were 2

Diploma students in Archaeology and 1 in Classics, thus mirroring the attenuated profiles

characteristic of both subject areas at undergraduate level (see Items 31-32). Now that the

Graduate School has robust QA procedures in place, it will be possible in future reports to analyse

annual patterns in these profiles more closely than is currently possible.

PROGRAMME REVIEWS

35. No programme reviews were conducted in the School in the year under review. A PPR is

scheduled for June 2011.

CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROVISION

36. The School had no responsibilities in the area of designing or delivering CPD provision.

COLLAB0RATIVE PROVISION

37. The Graduate School was successful in attracting collaborative doctoral funding from the

AHRC and from Historic Scotland which will allow for collaborative projects beginning in 2010-11.

The School is well placed to form such collaborative partnerships with heritage institutions and

repositories of historic material in Edinburgh, and three further applications for collaborative

doctoral funding are in the pipeline for 2011-12. Each collaborative project arises out of a unique

partnership and conforms to usual School practices regarding supervisory arrangements, annual

reviews of progress, and so on.

There were a small number of History taught Masters 10-week internships in local cultural

institutions (e.g. National Museums Scotland), co-supervised by School staff and examined

internally. Graduate teaching in Classics and in medieval programmes made fruitful use of some

collaborative core teaching input from across the College and from outside scholars.


EXTERNAL EXAMINERS

38. Archaeology. Concern was expressed by one external that the moderation process be made

more transparent to students via course materials, but otherwise there were no matters raised of

a general nature.

39. Classics. See Item 18.

40. History. Some externals raised the issue of establishing ‘marking profiles’ for staff, a matter

already under consideration (see Item 9). Some perceived overlap between the essays and exam answers written by students on a given course: from 2010-11 colleagues will have course essay

questions to hand when jointly scrutinising exam question-papers (a practice already in place in

some sections), and an additional check will be carried out by the Examinations Officer prior to

the papers being sent to externals for comment/approval. One external raised concerns about the

award of very high first-class marks by the section under his scrutiny, some of which were

Dissertation marks (see Item 29 for reflections). One external queried the progression built into

the structure of the History curricula, due to the fact that all first- and second-year History

courses are classified as SCQF Level 8 and honours courses at Level 10. This is of course a question

which the whole university faces. Progression is built into the History curricula in that all third-

year students take ‘History in Theory’ and ‘History in Practice’, and all fourth-year students

undertake the Dissertation and (in most cases) a ‘special subject’ exclusive to fourth-year

students. Exactly how best to express progression of this kind in terms of SCQF Levels requires

further thought.

41. Postgraduate. By mid-January 2011 only 4 of the expected 20 external examiner reports for

2009-10 had been received, which provides little basis upon which to comment.

ASSESSMENT AND FEEDBACK

42. The University Feedback Standards and Guiding Principles document having been introduced in

summer 2010, no actions for its implementation were undertaken in the session under review. NSS

2010 saw all three subject areas achieve satisfaction results at or near 60 per cent, representing

improvement over three years of 5 per cent for Archaeology, 8 per cent for Classics and 7 per

cent for History. Several students acknowledged favourably efforts made to improve in this area

(outlined in previous Reports) in their “open comments”, but specific and general criticisms

relating to assignments, marking and feedback outstripped all others in this part of the survey

(38.5 per cent of all respondents).


43. The NSS results in this area remain puzzling, if encouraging in this instance. External

examiners continue to provide no evidence to suggest that colleagues’ written feedback on

assignments is substandard, and one History colleague won the EUSA Teaching Award for Feedback

in 2009-10. That colleague had adopted a ‘feedback-rich’ honours assessment model which

featured assessment of non-written skills and the provision of feedback at several points

throughout the course. The totality of the evidence thus suggests that student satisfaction may

hinge on the frequency of feedback they receive, rather than its quality or even quantity, as

such. For that reason, recent staff enthusiasm for introducing more ‘feedback rich’ honours

assessment models (see Item 10) may significantly repay the effort involved. Similarly

opportunities for student inspection of exam scripts will persist, despite disappointing take-up

figures.

At the same time, refinements of a qualitative nature continued, including to the

proformas attached to assessed coursework; and coursework moderators will in future be

expected to comment on feedback (and not merely marking) as an aspect of their role.

ACADEMIC AND PASTORAL SUPPORT

44. The University Academic and Pastoral Support document having been introduced in summer

2010, no particular actions for its implementation were undertaken in the session under review.

The School began its own internal review of its Director of Studies (DoS) system, which was

overtaken (to an extent) by the university’s movements.

Students are informed about the support system in place, including the roles of the

Student Support Office (SS0) and the DoS, at their Induction, and again at their entry to honours.

Supplementary guidance (e.g. seeking deadline extensions) is included in course materials. Most

members of staff are DoS’s and, like all teaching staff, advertise office ‘open consultation’ hours.

DoS’s have responsibility for up to thirty students each. The ongoing necessity of reallocating

students to new DoS’s in order to accommodate research and other forms of leave places strain on

the system for staff and students alike.

DoS’s have now mostly adapted to the introduction of the SSO and the division of

responsibilities between the two. The SSO plays an important role in supporting students,

particularly as a ‘drop-in centre’ for routine queries and an alternative source of support when

students require urgent assistance outside their DoS’s normal office hours. It also plays a vital role

in coordinating the work of Special Circumstances Committees. In recognition of its value, the SSO

is located immediately inside the main entrance of the School’s new accommodation.

45. It is curious that Archaeology, having adopted School models for Academic Support, earned a

top-quartile NSS 2010 satisfaction rating of 88 per cent (improving 13 per cent over three years),

as compared with 70 per cent for History (albeit with a 5 per cent improvement) and 75 per cent

for Classics. Archaeology’s results suggest that the School models are well-conceived, and it has


not gone unnoticed that the three subject areas performed in inverse proportion to their size in

this aspect of the NSS. In the “open comments”, dissatisfaction relating to the quality and

quantity of staff contact-time was pronounced, but the concerns raised tended to be quite

finalist-specific, relating to lack of formal contact time in the Dissertation year and to Dissertation

supervision itself.

Aspects of Dissertation supervision have also featured in SSLC meetings and external

examiners’ comments in Archaeology and History, particularly as regards improving consistency of

supervisory practice and provision of essential guidance. 2009-10 saw movement towards greater

consistency through the introduction of a Dissertation handbook for the Archaeology, History and

Scottish History Dissertations, modelled on the existing handbook for the separate Economic and

Social History Dissertation.

PEER OBSERVATION OF TEACHING

46. The School expects all full-time teaching staff, as a normal aspect of their duties, to

participate in Peer Observation of Teaching as a formal means of encouraging and facilitating

peer-to-peer discussion of methods and approaches to teaching. As in previous years, the scheme

was sporadically observed, prompted by a named member of the administrative team, in different

parts of the School. Other staff seemed to expect more active ‘management’ of the scheme by

some member of School management, and in its absence were not inclined to participate.

With the creation in 2008-9 of the office of “Deputy Head of School” with special

responsibility for staff support through such means as workload calculations and appraisals, it was

a recommendation of the 2008-9 QA Report that the responsibility for overseeing POT be assumed

as part of the Deputy Head’s brief. Due to a number of transitional factors relating to the bedding

down of this management role, as well as changes in the administrative structure, no active role

was played in POT by the Deputy Head of School in 2009-10. More robust participation in the

scheme is to be expected next year.

47. It was further recommended in the 2008-9 Report that staff formally monitor the teaching of

postgraduate tutors, on the model of POT, as a means of providing them with additional support

and training. However, this remained a practice confined to Classics.

TEACHING AND LEARNING SPACES

48. The session was spent in great anticipation of the School’s relocation from four separate

buildings in the Central area to a single shared accommodation in the ‘west wing’ of the Old

Medical School, a move which began in August 2010 and was completed in December. This exciting

opportunity to make the most of ready access to new, state-of-the-art teaching and learning


spaces, including AV and IT equipment, an integrated student resource centre, and dedicated

spaces for School postgraduates (including allocated desks, computing labs, seminar rooms,

lockers and use of the senior common room) was avidly taken up by the School, but a full

consideration of the fruits of these efforts and investment properly belongs to next year’s Report.

This is also an issue at PGT level where new training courses for MSc and PhD students are being

developed.

ENHANCEMENT AND GOOD PRACTICE

49. Items in this Report which may particularly deserve notice include:

• the fact that each subject area is required to complete a report (and thus a thorough

internal review) to be shared and discussed internally at a Quality Roundtable

• the use of end-of-programme questionnaires by the Graduate School

• the stress placed on careful analysis of the “open comments” in the NSS, rather than

relying solely on its (higher-profile) statistical aspects, as a tool upon which to base action

• the ongoing experimentation with new assessment models, particularly in relation to non-

written skills: these do, however, raise certain concerns relating to Teachability which will

require ongoing reflection

• the introduction of a cycle of reviews of graduate training by the Graduate School

• the expectation on the part of coursework moderators to comment on feedback as well as

marks

• the formulation of a School Learning and Teaching Strategy

• the introduction of methods- and skills-based core courses in honours curricula to flag up

transferable skills, and the involvement of the Careers Service in developing these

TEACHABILITY

50. The School Teachability Officer advises the undergraduate and graduate committees on

Teachability matters and serves as Adjustments Coordinator, communicating with course

organisers and course secretaries concerning adjustments to be made for individual students. The

Undergraduate Administrator coordinates the efforts of course secretaries to ensure that course

materials conform to appropriate presentational standards. The School’s new accommodation has

the highest level of physical disability access, as well as enriched provision of IT teaching

resources that aid in the teaching of students with sight or hearing problems.

The School’s last Teachability audit having taken place in 2005-6, the question of when to

conduct another one has been raised with the Disability Office.


COLLEGE LEARNING AND TEACHING STRATEGY PRIORITIES

51. The School formulated its own Learning and Teaching Strategy in 2009-10 as a vehicle for,

among other things, the implementation of the College strategy. The School Strategy identifies

three broad areas for strategic attention: promoting and safeguarding academic standards; promoting and meeting student expectations and requirements; and promoting and nurturing a

model academic environment. Some of the more specific key objectives underneath these

broader headings include:

• promoting and supporting student independence and initiative (particularly above Level 8),

not least through effective induction at key progression thresholds

• supporting ‘Enhancement’ initiatives, thoroughly informed by student opinion, particularly in

relation to the use of IT, coursework feedback and modes of assessment

• encouraging research-led learning and teaching (and indeed teaching-led research)

• providing levels of intellectual and pastoral support to students appropriate to higher

education

• equipping students with the skills and attributes to succeed in the world of work or in further

study

• working closely with the University Library and other service providers to maximise support of

School students and staff

52. Oversight of this Strategy and its effective integration into the strategic planning of the

undergraduate and postgraduate committees falls under the brief of the Director of Quality. A

document of suggested means of transforming the Strategy into practical action has been

formulated for 2010-11, based on the related College document. Its ongoing effectiveness, as well

as its harmonisation with College priorities, will be monitored on a continuous basis through

subject area QA reporting and the Quality Roundtable.

Matters arising from 2009-10 reporting on Strategy-related issues include:

• reflections on the effectiveness of how students are inducted in the habits and practices of

intellectual autonomy and independence, from first year to fourth, which might be

flagged-up to students in more transparent ways in stock explanations of assignments

• ongoing efforts to communicate library needs to Information Services

• ongoing efforts by the Liaison Librarian to provide discipline-specific instruction in

bibliographical and library skills in many courses

• the growing emphasis on methods- and skills-based courses in the History and Archaeology

curricula, through core courses focused on theoretical/philosophical and practical/hands-

on aspects of these disciplines, which should be useful in flagging up transferable skills

• moving ahead with further innovations in the assessment of non-written skills, as well as

diversification of the more ‘traditional’ methods of assessment which remain very

important indicators of learning


• recognition that the record of graduates in the job market might be stronger, and that the

take-up of services from the Careers Service could also be better (although both ‘History

in Practice’ and ‘Archaeology in Practice’ include consideration of career options

developed in tandem with Careers Services)

• the presence of research-teaching linkages at all levels of each undergraduate curriculum • various case-studies of research-teaching linkages at graduate level, including

archive/museum internships (e.g. at the Royal College of Physicians, where a student

project gave rise to a web exhibition developing an area of staff research interest),

courses based on research for active funded research projects, and courses linked to

academic conferences to be hosted in Edinburgh

• recognition of the importance to be placed on helping students to feel a sense of belonging

and inclusion, and the relevant challenges associated with large units and classes, as well

as the potential blurring of distinctions arising from the co-location and physical

integration of units, accommodations and facilities which were formerly physically

separate

FORWARD LOOK

53. A number of the recommendations made in the previous Report (see Items 6-16) relate to

complex and/or weighty matters requiring ongoing attention. It may be noted in particular that

the School is reassured, to a degree, that the Library is taking steps to identify for retention

material which is used, as opposed to borrowed. It retains some residual dismay, however, at the

amount of student and staff effort that was required in 2009-10 to press senior Library

management to accept criticisms concerning plans for the future of vital resources for teaching,

research and research-teaching linkages in History, Classics and Archaeology. There is growing

concern (based on evidence discussed in Items 12 and 24) that dissatisfaction with the Library

may be exercising no small influence over the School’s NSS results and its efforts to grow its

graduate business. As such, Library-related matters are likely to continue to loom large in moving

forward.

54. From 2011-12, due to the arcane practises of Admissions, a very large cohort of students will

be entering third year, followed by a very small cohort and then, in all likelihood, a further larger

cohort. These fluctuations may require careful consideration and planning in relation to striking

the right balances of teaching provision at each level.

55. As the focus on practical skills, including IT skills, increases, teaching spaces where all

participants (not just the teacher) have access to a PC will become increasingly necessary. Some

spaces of this nature will be available in the new School building, but the relative shortage of such

spaces around the Central Area may very soon inhibit further development of this kind of


teaching. Certain aspects of practical training may also raise troublesome issues as regards

Teachability.

56. The changes to the academic year coming into effect in 2011-12 raise a number of questions

which are currently attracting attention and debate. They create serious difficulties for the

retention of Archaeology’s first-year practical week during the Easter vacation, which will have to

be discontinued, despite good pedagogic reasons for delivering practical skills and fieldwork

training in this format. An attempt will be made to salvage aspects of this training, but it is a pity

that such a meritorious aspect of our teaching must be sacrificed in order to accommodate

changes whose pedagogic benefits are less obvious.

57. The ‘Archaeological Fieldwork’ honours course continues to provide a solid grounding for those

interested in practical aspects of archaeology, but student numbers are increasingly disappointing.

The fieldwork demands over the summer vacation may be off-putting for a student body

increasingly reliant on summer work to remain financially capable of study: a reliance which may

become universal if very significant tuition fees become introduced in Scotland. It is difficult,

however, to see how the Archaeology curriculum could continue to meet its learning outcomes if

this course was discontinued.

58. The potential for making use of the money being released by the University for developing

distance and e-learning projects will be investigated. This could have particular benefit for

graduate teaching by creating on-line versions of our courses which could theoretically be

delivered in those years that they are not being taught on the ground.

59. The move to the new building has come with a range of short- and long-term challenges and

opportunities, both of which require careful attention in order to ensure that the challenges are

met and the opportunities (not least as regards the high quality of the teaching spaces and the

resource centre) are pursued with vigour.

60. The Director of Quality, having seen out the usual three-year tour of duty from 2007-8 to

2009-10, has agreed to remain in post until 2011-12 in order to act as ELIR Liaison. It is considered

that the Quality systems already in place for the collection, caching and review of data, and that

the administrative support already routinely provided, will provide the Director of Quality with a

sturdy platform upon which to carry out this liaison function.

Dr James Fraser Director of Quality [email protected]

28.1.2011

quality assurance report to college · year core courses, ‘theoretical archaeology’ and...

Documents