Newcastle University, Learning and Teaching Review of Archaeology 3 December 2018 Introduction 1. On 3 December 2018, a Learning and Teaching Review (LTR) of the subject area of Archaeology,

part of the School of History Classics and Archaeology, was undertaken in accordance with the University’s Policy and Procedures for Learning and Teaching Review. The review covered the following programmes:

BA Hons Archaeology (V400)

BA Hons History and Archaeology (VV41)

BA Hons Ancient History and Archaeology (VV14)

MA Archaeology (4089F/P) Following Programme Codes now subsumed within 4089F/P

o MA Prehistoric Archaeology (4160F/P) o MA Greek Archaeology (4161F/P) o MA Roman Archaeology (4162F/P) o MA Roman Frontier Studies (4100F/P) o MA Late Antique, Medieval and Byzantine Archaeology (4164F/P)

2. The purpose of the review was to provide the subject area and School with an opportunity to

reflect on whether its programmes remain current and are effectively taught, and to identify opportunities for their further enhancement; and to enable the University to assure itself of the academic quality and standards of provision, and decide whether to re-approve the programmes for a further period.

3. The review team comprised:

Dr Tracy Scurry, Associate Dean (Learning and Teaching) in Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences (Chair).

Dr Hella Eckardt, University of Reading (external subject specialist).

Dr Kirsten MacLeod, School English Literature Language and Linguistics (cross-Faculty Representative)

Dr Alison Graham, School of Natural and Environmental Sciences (cross-Faculty representative)

Mr James Prowse, MBBS (student representative)

Mrs Sarah Levison, Learning and Teaching Development Service (LTDS) (Secretary) 4. The review team was provided with a SWOT analysis compiled by the subject area, and a wide

range of supporting documentation relating to the programmes under review. The Team was given access to selected Blackboard modules. The review team was also provided with a Quality Assurance (QA) summary (attached as Appendix 1) and a Quality Enhancement and Technology Enhanced Learning (QE) summary (attached as Appendix 2), both compiled from documentation gathered centrally, from the Faculty, and from the School.

5. The purpose of the QA summary was to inform the review team and ultimately assure the

University that institutional quality management procedures were being implemented appropriately; the purpose of the QE summary was to inform the review team of any innovative and effective practices in the School and to identify usage of available technologies for teaching and student support. The summaries were considered by the review team, alongside the SWOT

Learning and Teaching Review of Archaeology, 3 December 2018

Learning and Teaching Development Service Page 2 of 9

analysis, at a briefing meeting on 9 November 2018, and the team used its discussion of the findings as the basis for questions asked during the review visit.

6. During the review visits, meetings were held with academic and administrative staff, and with

current students. Overall judgment 7. The documentation supplied, and the discussions that took place during the review visit,

demonstrated that the University’s policies for assuring academic standards, and assuring and enhancing the quality of learning opportunities, were being implemented effectively. It was also clear from the consideration of the programme documentation, and from the reports of external examiners, that appropriate academic standards were being set and maintained for the subject provider’s taught programmes.

8. On this basis the team was therefore able to place confidence in the security of standards (including their alignment with the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications and relevant subject benchmark statements), and in the quality of student learning opportunities that enable students to attain such standards. The team therefore recommends that all of the programmes reviewed be approved for a further six years.

Exemplary practice commendations 9. The review team commends the following examples of exemplary practice within the subject

area: 9.1. The WriteRight content embedded into Stage 1 curriculum to support academic transition

from School to Higher Education (ref 42). 9.2. The Subject invests significant time in engagement beyond the institution to raise

awareness of the discipline. Their work with the Hadrian’s Wall MOOC and Schools are examples of this (ref 50, 52).

9.3. The provision of typed feedback for all assessments which has brought some strong student satisfaction scores (ref Appendix 1, pg. 1).

9.4. The School’s Technology Enhanced Learning working group is a positive step to providing a space for colleagues to strategically consider TEL (ref 21).

Effective practice commendations 10. The review team commends the following examples of effective practice within subject area:

10.1. The Subjects approach to responses to module feedback which are uploaded to Blackboard (ref 20).

10.2. The Subject has built a strong community which positively affects both staff and students. There were some concerns regarding the scalability of practices but currently activities such as staff shadowing, succession planning, weekly staff meetings, a ‘first name’ approach, strong peer mentoring activity and a student coffee morning have built a strong collegiate team and a positive staff and student culture (ref 16).

10.3. Good levels of engagement with regional partners to maximise opportunity for students (e.g. Great North Museum and Hadrian’s Wall) (ref 55).

10.4. A strong practice of using formative assessments of different assessment types both to work towards the final assessment and to develop graduate skills (ref 38).

Learning and Teaching Review of Archaeology, 3 December 2018

Learning and Teaching Development Service Page 3 of 9

10.5. The subject makes use of OLAF (Online Assessment and Feedback) functionality offering as alternative assessment type to students supporting efficiencies in terms of staff time (ref 24 and Appendix 2, para 2.1).

Recommendations for enhancement by the subject provider 11. The review team recommends that subject area should:

11.1. Review the approach to fieldwork and consider the potential for fieldwork to be incorporated into credit-bearing modules (ref 35).

11.2. Develop a clear strategy for international recruitment to the programmes, building on encouraging initiatives and to co-ordinate existing activities with Faculty and University Marketing Teams (ref 53).

11.3. Work with student representatives regarding engagement with SVCs to encourage stronger attendance and engagement (ref 19).

11.4. Work with colleagues in Student Health and Wellbeing Services to identify if the level of mental health issues experienced are disproportionate to other units and for the School to consider an appropriate additional staff role to support student transition (ref 18).

11.5. At a programme level, the subject/School should work with students to identify what the issues are with bunching of assessment deadlines and provide clarity in module handbooks regarding deadlines in a consistent manner (ref 36).

11.6. Strategically consider the possible opportunities noted such as accreditation and branching out into Degree Apprenticeships (ref 49).

11.7. Work with the Learning and Teaching Development Service to enhance the subjects presence within the Casestudies site, to share good practice (ref 28 and Appendix 2, para 1.1).

Recommendations to the Faculty 12. The review team recommends that the faculty should:

12.1. Work with the Subject on interpreting and implementing the Policy regarding class sizes to ensure this is practically helpful alongside supporting a strong educational experience (ref 30).

12.2. Consider and work with the subject regarding what support the subject needs to assist its marketing and recruitment strategy, in particular for international students (ref 53).

Recommendations to the University 13. The review team recommends that University should:

13.1. Consider the interaction of the Personal Extenuating Circumstances process with external agencies (e.g. delay in getting medical evidence) (ref 17).

13.2. Consider the resourcing of OLAF to enable broader engagement and to consider the challenges that arise with regards to resits and OLAF (ref 24).

Student Support 14. The RT met with a range of students, although only 50% of those invited attended on the day.

The students represented postgraduate and undergraduate, part and full time, single and joint honours, varying stages, mature students and both home and international. Overall students were highly positive about their experience within the School and felt they were receiving strong support and quality learning and teaching. The students constructively engaged in discussions,

Learning and Teaching Review of Archaeology, 3 December 2018

Learning and Teaching Development Service Page 4 of 9

and the review team wishes to record its thanks to these students for their contribution to the review.

15. Students spoke positively about the support received from personal tutors and mentors. There is a culture of staff being available and students felt they could just knock on someone’s door, they acknowledged that the small size of the unit supported this culture and provided opportunities such as the ½ hour informal coffee for MA students with the DPD.

16. In the 2018 NSS results the percentage of students agreeing that the NUSU effectively represented student academic interests dropped to 38% agree. Whilst this relates to NUSU the subject were aware that students may not recognise the link between the Archaeology society and NUSU and that the work carried out via Student Voice Committees and the representation system is supported by NUSU, this view was affirmed in the student meeting. The School will ensure NUSU related activity is more clearly communicated.

17. The SWOT written by the subject notes a concern regarding an increase in the number of student mental health issues. The provision that Student Health and Wellbeing Services provide has been increased but staff and particularly personal tutors are dealing with an increasing number of issues. The external member of the RT did note that this was an issue at her institution and queried if there may be a subject link. In addition the Subject have noted this is potentially a School wide issue. The subject noted challenges in supporting the PEC process and expressed concerns regarding a possible disconnect between internal processes and the external environment (such as requirements for medical evidence) creating pressure on students.

Student Opinion/Voice 18. In 2017/18 the subject area and students selected to change Student Staff Committees to

Student Voice Committees (SVCs) and have split the SVCs down to subject level. This was noted as positive by the students that the RT met with as it supports the Representative role. The engagement with this in 2017/18 was however patchy and it is something the subject area should monitor.

19. The students met with commented that response to student feedback is improving with new initiatives such as the responses to module feedback being saved within module information on Blackboard. The RT did note that this was not however consistently applied and the subject area agreed it would aim to achieve this.

Teaching provision, assessment and feedback, quality management and enhancement.

20. The Subject has engaged with Blackboard Baseline to provide consistent quality information via Blackboard. Students commented that their main experience of TEL solutions are Blackboard and ePortfolio for tutoring.

21. The School has established a TEL working group, wishing to engage with this element of the Education Strategy, Archaeology staff are engaging with this. Staff value contact with students and so do not wish to delegate this to technology however are thinking about how technology can enhance and support L&T, such as a video about referencing, having identified this as a common area of query. An add-on to the University online induction is being considered to support subject induction as well as something to support students transitioning through the stages. The School will continue to consider and seek TEL solutions to increase efficiencies and

Learning and Teaching Review of Archaeology, 3 December 2018

Learning and Teaching Development Service Page 5 of 9

support a strong educational experience and further recognised the need to train staff in new and existing solutions (such as online marking). The History part of the School have adopted podcasts to augment lecture content, this could be a helpful TEL development within Archaeology.

22. The subject area has a policy regarding recap and have selected to not engage with this. The reasons for this seem to have been accepted by students but students did say that some staff in other parts of the School do use it and as such students do not know whether to look for the recap recording. Module leaders should be encouraged to clearly indicate to students whether Recap is being used for a lecture or not in order to provide clarity for students, given the differing practices across the School.

23. TEL solutions could be used to support diversification of delivery to postgraduate part time

students via distance learning, could perhaps support Degree Apprenticeship delivery and increase online presence to support the recruitment strategy.

24. OLAF is utilised by the subject area however issues were noted in that the module size is sometimes just under the threshold for central support for an OLAF assessment. The subject have had issues with using a Blackboard assessment in place of OLAF but it was felt that this could be improved with training. The subject also noted the University policy of not using OLAF for resit assessments where the original assessment was on OLAF – this was due to cohort size for resit assessments and resource centrally.

25. The administrative support provided by Professional Service staff is under pressure and manages this through economies of scale. Should the subject area progress with a more diverse portfolio (such as Degree Apprenticeships) PS resource will need consideration.

26. The Workload Allocation Model for the subject shows a number of staff with over 100% workload and some staff with high administrative workloads. The subject aims that all staff will contribute to teaching. Workload is discussed alongside career progression or direction and staff are responsive to working to support colleagues. The student to staff numbers have improved from a headcount of eight staff in 2012 to fourteen staff in 2018. The subject commented that the last year had been challenging with a number of staff changes and role changes but that these are positive and are being embedded.

27. The subject have a strong approach to supporting staff as they take on new roles with practices such as shadowing a module, good lead-in times to role changes and time given to develop new content. There is a strong collegiate culture with a respect of colleague’s specialisms and awareness of the impact of change. The team have a weekly meeting which is part of the commendable culture. Peer Dialogue is carried out including dialogue with PhD students delivering teaching.

28. The staff share good practice through the weekly meetings and the annual learning and teaching away day, the School Education Committee, through moderating and marking practices and simply through asking. The subject have shared good practice outside the team through the LTDS Case studies but the subject noted that some of these seem to be missing. LTDS coordinate these Case Studies and have recently relocated these to a new web location and so it would be timely for the subject to touch base with LTDS as well as reflecting on further case studies to submit. These forums are also a mechanism for enhancement of the subject offering, focusing

Learning and Teaching Review of Archaeology, 3 December 2018

Learning and Teaching Development Service Page 6 of 9

on areas such as marking criteria or feedback on assessment at the away day. Efforts are made to standardise and share practice where appropriate.

29. Staff have strong external links through conference attendance, contribution to teaching at other HEPs and have had external examiners take away best practice.

30. The subject utilise a flexible approach through cross programme modules and team teaching. The HASS policy requiring some smaller class sizes was noted as a causing some inefficiencies when larger classes are split down. The subject area are encouraged to consult the policy and contact the Faculty Learning and Teaching team to review their practice.

31. The Subject had previously been required to combine separate programmes into a Single MA. There was a drop in numbers as a result of the loss of visibility of subjects however this was rectified through the introduction of MA Pathways which have been successful. The RT noted that the Subject could consider more flexibility within the pathways, making them less firm.

32. Curriculum review is considered annually (to an appropriate level) and every three or so years in more depth, for example the introduction of the BSc programme.

33. The subject’s approach to considering the viability of modules and not running modules where not practical, after consultation with appropriate students, seems robust from a regulation, workload and student choice point of view. The subject have created an independent study module at the postgraduate level which is supported through use of ePortfolio.

34. The students noted the team taught ‘Introduction to Archaeology’ module as being particularly useful as it provides education in basic archaeology skills. They also valued the opportunity to learn GIS technology.

35. Fieldwork and opportunities for placements or voluntary work is something that students would like more of to increase networking opportunities and develop their employability through opportunities to engage in varied types of work. They were keen for stronger promotion of opportunities not delivered by the staff in the subject and a broader communication of placements offered as a result of staff research. Additionally some students wish to carry out year-long placements but this is less usual and is another area the subject are considering.

36. Staff discussed the challenges relating to fieldwork. It is a compulsory part of the programmes, is in programme regulations, but is not credit bearing. The subject is considering whether to bring the fieldwork placement offer into the curriculum as a credit bearing element and is considering what form of assessment may be appropriate. Students are supported financially (with a cap) and practically through a member of staff coordinating securing placements. There are challenges however that locating the number of placements needed is a challenge and the School can’t cover the full cost. The subject intend to work with Faculty colleagues to better understand the financial structure for placements.

37. The students raised an issue regarding the bunching of assessment deadlines which has been raised with the subject previously and mentioned issues with exams having not been explained well in handbooks.

38. The subject use a range of assessments with more variety within formative assessment. This is intentional to support students through effective formative assessment leading to the final

Learning and Teaching Review of Archaeology, 3 December 2018

Learning and Teaching Development Service Page 7 of 9

assessment. Student engagement with formative assessment is mixed however and so some may not be experiencing that range in assessment types. The subject area are encouraged to reflect on this during the upcoming curriculum review.

39. The subject uses double marking for all postgraduate assessments. There are many good reasons for this that add value to both staff and students however the RT feel that this is a practice that the team should keep under review given resourcing implications.

40. NSS scores relating to the quality of and timeliness of feedback are strong. This is in part due to fact that feedback is typed. The subject have piloted moving to online feedback through the Feedback Studio but it was not deemed to be successful and for some assessments that are image based, not appropriate. Staff training in online marking solutions was discussed as a means to attempting this move again.

41. Exit awards are strong at the final stages however the review team noted that this was not the case in stages 1 and 2. The subject felt that this is due to students adjusting to higher education and improving as the stages progress but will continue to monitor this. Now that Archaeology is no longer taught at A’ Level or GSCE, stage 1 is also time for students to adjust to the subject.

42. The subject have developed module content to support students in developing academic writing skills, called WriteRight. The module often receives mixed feedback when taken but is also often referred back to in later stages as having been very helpful. The RT considered this to be exemplary practice.

43. Laboratory space is listed as a weakness in the subjects SWOT. The subject did discuss some approaches to maximising this space. The RT would like to see more innovation in this area.

44. The subject would like to note thanks to the Library Liaison and Careers Liaison.

Links between teaching and research

45. The Fieldwork element of the programmes is linked to individual staff member’s active research providing significant access to direct experience of the research process.

46. There are a number of extra-curricular activities such as research seminars in the early evening (4-5pm). These are blocked out in the timetable to enable attendance. The subject area may wish to consider a varied pattern of scheduling of these to allow for wider participation.

47. Thought is given to moving administrative roles to new staff to enable staff to ensure research time is provided, and as such, ensure teaching remains research-led. The subject area is paying particular attention to succession planning and preparation of staff to take on roles.

Recruitment, admissions, induction, employability 48. The subject is considering accreditation by the Chartered Institute of Archaeologists (CIFA) and

University Archaeology UK (UAUK) (a joint accreditation) and are awaiting information about the requirements of the accreditation to establish suitability or adjustments required.

49. The subject is considering Degree Apprenticeships, the Standard had now been approved but they are awaiting information about the End Point Assessment. The subject said that they would

Learning and Teaching Review of Archaeology, 3 December 2018

Learning and Teaching Development Service Page 8 of 9

like to offer an apprenticeship but are conscious of resource. This will be included in the School Strategic Plan. The RT asked the students whether they would have valued accreditation when selecting a university or indeed as part of the course. The response was fairly neutral in that they wouldn’t have understood what accreditation was when applying but could recognise the opportunities it could bring to the programmes (e.g. increased summer opportunities). The current skills passport was valued however noted that this is limited to commercial archaeology.

50. The subject area invest in engagement with Schools from the Primary level upwards. Now that A’ Level Archaeology is no longer taught, the subject is working to develop an Extended Project Qualification, they now have their own strand within the PARTNERS scheme, work closely with Graduate Ambassadors to deliver popular sessions in Schools, engage with Bitesize Uni and run two branches of the Young Archaeologists club.

51. The subject are aware that the domestic market is now very competitive. The introduction of the BSc brings them in line with other Higher Education Providers and they expect it to attract a further 5 to 10 students annually and new facilities and colleagues have been recruited to support delivery. The A’ Level grades of students entering are improving and the subject could potentially take more students but there are issues with space and facilities. The student to staff ratio is now strong.

52. The subject have been working on their international presence. The Hadrian’s Wall MOOC is now viewed in over 100 countries and the team are encouraged to consider how they can build on the success of this.

53. The subject area have identified a target to improve recruitment from North America. Staff have attended key conferences such as the Archaeological Institute of America/Society for Classical Studies general meeting, and the Society for American Archaeology. The subject has been listed in US version of UCAS by the University and new promotional material has been developed for this market. The staff have an awareness of employability regarding commercial archaeology and are seeking to meet the needs of employers.

54. The students that the RT met on the day were asked about their career direction. Many were heading towards further study.

55. The Subject works hard to capitalise on its external links and the students that the RT met commented on the opportunities available to network and gain experiences. Links with the Great North Museum, evening guest lectures and the commercial experience of staff were all mentioned by students. In addition in-course opportunities were noted such as opportunity to practice presentation skills and a module that enables role playing real world commercial archaeology practicalities. Students did say that many of the opportunities link with commercial archaeology and that not all peers wished to progress in that direction. The RT felt that the evening lectures could be made more widely accessible by bringing these into the curriculum.

56. The students that the RT met with spoke positively regarding their induction into the subject. Students are contacted prior to arrival by their peer mentor. Whilst this is standard policy is not always standard practice given pressure on academic units at the start of term. The subject organises events to enable mentors and mentees to get to know each other and mentors know the process when a student is not engaging with mentoring.

Learning and Teaching Review of Archaeology, 3 December 2018

Learning and Teaching Development Service Page 9 of 9

57. The liaison with the Careers Service is strong and the subject would like to thank Careers Service staff for their ongoing support in delivery of the Employability Action Plan. This includes positive activities such as an alumni event and opportunities to engage with a mix of professionals via ‘speed dating’ events. A possible area to improve here is the diversity of career pathways such as inclusion of the heritage area.

1

Learning and Teaching Review: Archaeology Quality Assurance Summary, based on Central, Faculty and Unit Documentation

Recommendations/Commendations This section can be used to highlight any areas to the panel and subject area.

Commendations • NSS overall satisfaction has been high for the last three years with scores of 98% in 2016, 97% in 2017 and 95% in 2018. BA Hons Ancient History

and Archaeology achieved a 100% satisfaction score in 2018, moving from 81% in 2016 (last data available at programme level).

• The practices regarding feedback, both in terms of timeliness and content and format (typed), seem to be strong. The figures for the 20 dayturnaround have been positive and External Examiners consistently comment very positively regarding this. The BA Hons History and Archaeologyachieved a 100% agree in the 2018 NSS regarding the helpfulness of comments on student work from a 75% response rate, within a School rate of87% agree.

Recommendations for discussion • To consider stronger links between Student Voice Committees and Boards of Studies. There are elements missing from SVCs such as sharing with

students the responses to external examiner reports, appropriate information about results from national, module and stage surveys or action taken in response. Student Representatives do attend BoS. Personal Tutoring is also not discussed at either forum consistently. The SVC business schedule is not currently being observed https://www.ncl.ac.uk/ltds/assets/documents/qsh-studentrep-ssc-bs.pdf.

• Use of ReCap. Whilst the position is made clear by the subject area it may be timely to review this. No modules make use of ReCap currently. SeeQE report section 6.

• It may be useful to consider the approach to Peer Dialogue. The PG AMR for 2016-17 states that no dialogues took place regarding PGT teachingin 16/17, however the Peer Dialogue report sent to be included in the LTR does list three. The AMR mentions that Peer Dialogue takes place everytwo years, which is not in line with the University’s policy https://www.ncl.ac.uk/ltds/assets/documents/qsh-peerdialogue-pol.pdf. In addition theapproach notes that the ‘reviewer’ initiates the event and reports completion. The policy references commitment from both parties and usesdifferent language, ‘reviewer’ is now ‘observer’. It may be that this is working well as a two-way dialogue, it would be positive to note this inAMRs.

Appendix 1

2

Evidence Confirm evidence checked

Comments

Quality Management and Enhancement 1. Annual Monitoring and ReviewReports

Are AMR forms fully completed for all programmes? Have actions from any national surveys, module evaluations or PSRB been included? Have previous actions been completed?

YES

2. External Examiner Reports Check reports for confirmation from examiners that the quality and standards of the programmes are appropriate. Are any substantial issues raised and have these been addressed by the BoS? Has the external examiner raised any concerns about assessment procedures, and if so, how have these been addressed?

YES Commendations regarding quality of feedback is consistent in reports.

Better use of the 70+ marking range or the breadth of the marking range is also a consistent theme.

3. National Student Survey results Are there any significant fluctuations in NSS results around teaching and learning? Are any concerns being appropriately addressed in the AMR action plans? Are students being notified how their responses have been or will be used?

YES Overall many positive and steady results. Overall Satisfaction at subject level is 98%-97%-95% (2016-2018). There is an action in the 2016/17 AMR to look at areas of below average performance. It is not possible to see what the specific actions are.

NSS information is not fed to SVCs. Reps are present in BoS and consulted about NSS information.

4. PTES results Are there any significant fluctuations in PTES results around teaching and learning? Are any concerns appropriately addressed in the action plans? Are students being notified how their responses have been or will be used?

YES Data is limited to School level due to number of respondents being too small to drill further down. 2017 PTES data shows overall satisfaction of 82% which has dropped to 79% in 2018.

Appendix 1

3

Evidence Confirm evidence checked

Comments

BoS minutes from Dec 17 note that scores are overall close to University and Faculty averages and that lower scoring questions have a higher neutral response or the questions are not relevant.

2017 – some stronger scores such as staff are enthusiastic about what they are teaching (above University and Faculty average). There were some pairings however where the agree% is low and the Disagree% is higher. These may have warranted a further look. See Q 16.6.a., 16.2.a., 6.1.a., 4.4.a. Acknowledging this is School information – was noted in AMR and an action assigned.

2018 – Whilst overall is lower, agree % seem to be higher and the pairing issue noted above seems to be resolved.

These results are not noted in SSC minutes. Student Representatives do attend BoS. Are they communicated (and actions in response) to students in another way?

5. Module and Stage Evaluationresults

Are any concerns being raised and are actions being identified.

YES UG BoS consider modules in detail. PGT may do this too but minutes often reflect ‘no issues’ so it is not possible to see.

6. Accreditation Reports fromProfessional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies (PSRB)

Have any PSRB reports been considered by the BoS and a response prepared. Are actions arising from a PSRB report included in the AMR action log?

N/A N/A

Appendix 1

4

Evidence Confirm evidence checked

Comments

7. Boards of Studies Minutes Review the BoS minutes: • Are key issues, programme data, SSC minutes,

contact hours, PSRB/industry liaison, AMR review being considered

• How are the views of students being consideredand action taken in response? Is there feed through and feedback with SSC/BoS

• Are national surveys and stage and moduleevaluations being discussed and actions identified?

• Are External Examiners reports reviewed? Isthere evidence of actions recommended by EE being considered and actions identified?

• Are student progression, completion statisticsand distribution of degree classifications being monitored

• Check the frequency of meetings, the BoS mustmeet at least once per term.

• Check attendance levels of studentrepresentatives? Is the subject area complying with the student representation policy?

https://www.ncl.ac.uk/ltds/assets/documents/qsh-bos-schedule.pdf

YES BoS seem to have good student engagement. UG SSC Annual Reports and Minutes are discussed. Although for the LTR we don’t have SVC minutes from 2017/18 beyond the 1st meeting. (NOTE these were provided after the QA doc was written). PG SSC minutes are discussed. Not much seems to be referred between BoS and SVCs. Could there be a stronger link between activities at committees?

PTES/NSS/Module/Stage surveys are discussed. MLs asked to put responses to Module Surveys in Blackboard. Responses to External Examiner reports are read in meetings, identifying key areas

UG module reviews (annual review of module content/assessment etc.) are reported at the Feb meeting but do not seem to be discussed, discussed elsewhere?

PGT minutes are less ‘full’ in comparison to UG minutes with a number of items recording no further information than the submission of a document. May be entirely appropriate.

From the schedule for BoS majority of items are covered. Missing a review of Personal

Appendix 1

5

Evidence Confirm evidence checked

Comments

Tutoring for UG and PGT and noting the Chair and Secretary for BoE.

8. Student-Staff Committee Minutes

Ensure that the SSC have considered: • External Examiners’ reports • Student opinion surveys • Module evaluation questionnaires

Ensure that the SSC have been consulted on the following: • Issues the BoS have requested input from

student representative • Students’ views on teaching, learning and

assessment, support and guidance, learning resources etc.

• Students’ experience of placement and study abroad

• Feedback on Personal Tutoring • Student support, wellbeing, facilities etc.

Check the SSC has received responses from the BoS on matters referred by the SSC. Is the subject area complying with University student representation policy? Check attendance levels. https://www.ncl.ac.uk/ltds/student/representation/

YES SSC Minutes do not show that students receive External Examiner reports, information on student surveys or module evaluation. We received one (incomplete) set of UG SSC minutes for 17/18. NOTE: these were the wrong minutes. Received correct Nov 17 minutes after this report finished. Student Engagement regarding a new programme is evident via UG BoS minutes – (May 18). Learning resources such as Recap, Blackboard module information and Library resource is discussed at UG SSCs. Personal Tutoring has not been discussed at an SSC. It was at BoS (UG Nov 16). SSCs seem to have actions for follow up but these are for individuals. Items are not routinely referred to BoS. A stronger link may be beneficial to utilise the function of the BoS. Many issues raised are responded to directly in the meetings.

Appendix 1

6

Evidence Confirm evidence checked

Comments

Actions are reviewed. 9. Boards of Examiners and Module Moderation Minutes

Do the minutes demonstrate compliance with University Regulations and Guidance for Boards of Examiners? Do the reviews of discretion seem appropriate and comply with University regulations? Check attendance levels. Guidance for BoE

YES Note the hard work carried out by colleagues to respond to industrial action such as establishing Module Impact ratings. UG – Minutes contain transparency regarding approach to application of regulations. 2017/18 was a difficult year and two UG Externals were unable to attend the Board. The third EE commented that he was confident that no student had suffered as a result of industrial action. No minutes for PGT were provided.

10. School Management Board Minutes

Review the minutes are any learning and teaching matters being considered and addressed

YES The DELT has a section on the School Executive Board meeting as do subject heads. This enables discussion for example of areas like Student Number Planning, FLTSEC information, introduction of Placements, admissions and strategy. Further allowing discussion around staffing.

11. Staff Meeting Minutes Review the minutes are any learning and teaching matters being considered and addressed

YES The School’s Learning and Teaching School Experience Committee meets three times a year and links with BoS and what was FLTSEC.

12. Diagram of unit’s committee structure

YES A dotted line from BoE to BoS would be useful as PEC stats, use of discretion, classifications are reported there.

ASSESSMENT AND FEEDBACK

Appendix 1

7

Evidence Confirm evidence checked

Comments

13. Assessment procedures and exemptions

Review information on assessment provided to students on BB sites and in handbooks. Does the information reflect institutional guidance on assessment principles, late submission of work, and scaling & moderation? https://www.ncl.ac.uk/ltds/assets/documents/qsh-assmt-modscal-pol.pdf Have any exemptions to assessment regulations been approved?

YES Information on what is ‘late’ and what the consequences would be is clear in programme handbooks and adheres to University Policy. The PG Marking and Moderation policy notes that all PGT assessments are double marked which is more than the University policy requires.

14. Feedback Review how the unit monitors return of feedback on assessed work within the 20 working day period and how often this has not been met. Has this been recorded in the AMR form? How is feedback returned to students (e.g., through BB, through NESS, physically, etc.)? https://www.ncl.ac.uk/ltds/assets/documents/qsh-assmt-assessedwork-policy.pdf

YES I am unsure of the internal process for recording 20 day turnaround. The AMRs for UG and PGT record the number of exams and coursework assessments returned on time. UG AMR 2016-17 has 100% for exams for both semesters. For coursework this is 77% Sem 1 and 100% Sem 2. The AMR notes that the 77% was due to a marker from one module returning marks a day late and the programme have noted this in ‘threats’ in the AMR evidencing that this is taken seriously. PGT AMR 2016-17 has 100% for exams and 89% for coursework for Sem 2&3. For coursework this is 85% for Sem 1 and 95% for Sem 2&3.

Appendix 1

8

Evidence Confirm evidence checked

Comments

The AMR notes for Sem 1 that 2 modules that were returned late by markers but not why. A third was due to staff Illness. For Sem 2, a set of exam marks were late due to calibration issues, one essay was late from both markers and a final essay was late due to admin workload. Again, reasons for lateness not noted.

15. Submission of work Have submission dates been clearly communicated to students?

YES Programme handbooks say dates available via BB Community section (I couldn’t see this?), also in module handbooks and a list would be displayed in lobby area. Dates could be made easier to locate within module information on BB. These are sometimes deep within Module Handbooks and not grouped. An example where this is presented clearly on BB is module ARA3021. The subject has a standard submission time of 12pm which is recommended by the policy and good to see.

16. Assessment Criteria How does the subject area make students aware of assessment criteria? Are criteria clear and applied consistently?

YES BoS UG Oct 17 decided MLs should include marking criteria in BB. See QE report, being done but not consistently. Those modules that do have the information may not be consistent in presentation (e.g. ARA1026 and 1027). Criteria provided in Programme Handbooks.

STUDENT SUPPORT

Appendix 1

9

Evidence Confirm evidence checked

Comments

17. Degree Programme Handbooks Review contents against the University guidelines focusing on assessment criteria, feedback, contact hours, scaling and moderation, good academic practice, information on module choice and programme structure, personal tutoring, induction, plagiarism. https://www.ncl.ac.uk/ltds/governance/modules/dph/

YES

18. Placement or Year Abroad Handbooks

Review placement or year abroad handbooks and check compliance with relevant section of the Quality and Standards Handbook https://www.ncl.ac.uk/ltds/student/placements/

N/A

19. Ethics policy and examples of paperwork used for UG and PGT research project

Review any examples submitted YES The Faculty has a Good Practice document and from this Schools should develop a policy.

RECRUITMENT, RETENTION AND ACHIEVEMENT 20. Admission figures Are they being monitored by relevant committees,

and/or have they been noted in recent AMRs? YES Figures are monitored at BoS level and

reported up to School Executive Board level. 21. Achievement/DLHE data Have there been any significant changes in the

performance of graduating students? Have any comments been made by the External Examiner?

YES There has been a drop in the average salary for V400 and in graduates working in the NE. There have been very few PG respondents.

22. Degree Classification information

Have there been any significant changes in the degree classifications? Have any comments been made by the external examiner(s) and/or accrediting bodies?

YES

23. Peer Dialogue Have staff engaged with the process? Which approach have the academic unit taken? Have any examples of good practice been identified?

YES UG AMRs – same text used describing the approach of a four year model looking at with UG teaching year 1 and PG in year 3. The document submitted within the Peer

Appendix 1

10

Evidence Confirm evidence checked

Comments

Dialogue Section explains the fuller approach (see below). The subject uses the CASAP form to record observations. Staff figures noted as 5 of 9 in 14/15 and in 15/16. No numbers noted in 16/17. No comments on good practice evident. AMRs for PGT note that Peer Dialogue is less strong at that level with no teaching being observed in 2016-17. It also notes University policy ‘takes place every two years’ which is not the case. Peer Dialogue document submitted as part of LTR covers approach to peer dialogue, how best practice is shared and list of events completed which does include PG Peer Dialogue for 16/17. Would be good to see some of that information in AMRs.

24. Student:Academic Staff Ratio YES 25. Staffing Workload Model Have the External Examiner raised any concerns about

workload? YES

CURRICULUM 26. Programme Specifications Are they up to date and complete and do they match

the programme regulations? Do they match the versions published on the web?

YES

27. Programme Regulations Do programmes conform with University’s credit arrangements (unless they have approved exemptions)

YES

Appendix 1

11

Evidence Confirm evidence checked

Comments

28. Module Outline Forms Review a sample: do these appear complete and up to date? Do assessment loads conform to the University Assessment Tariff (unless exemptions apply) https://www.ncl.ac.uk/ltds/assets/documents/qsh-assmt-tariff.pdf

YES The majority of modules are up to date and looking at a small sample assessments loads conform. There are two modules awaiting Faculty approval. Both Sem 2 and both new. Stage 3 and PGT (same title). Unsure if this is due to the assessment in the ARA8132 as is 500 words over the university tariff. Looking at ARA modules offered in 2018-19 it is possible to see a number of oral presentations (although most are formative) across stages to support developing those skills. There are three poster presentations. Recognising that this is BA, consideration could be given to more breadth in assessment types.

29. Exemptions from standard University policies

For information - highlight to the panel any exemptions

YES PGT programme (and routes) has an exemption ‘To permit students to study 40 credits of language modules at FHEQ level 5 or 6 to develop a key research skill’

30. Credit Transfer and the Recognition of Prior Learning

Does the subject area policy comply with the University policy? What information is provided to prospective and/or current students? What is the process for assessing and granting RPL? https://www.ncl.ac.uk/ltds/assets/documents/qsh-flexdistbtdlearning-pol.pdf

YES The process and evidence is made clear in the policy provided. Not sure where the policy is located for prospective students?

31. Examples of instances in which students have been granted RPL

Review any examples which have been submitted YES Policies are provided for information. No RPL has been granted.

Appendix 1

12

Evidence Confirm evidence checked

Comments

SPECIAL PROVISION 32. Joint Honours and Combined Studies programmes (where applicable)

Check programmes are being reviewed at BoS and in AMR, which external examiners’ comments and student feedback are being followed through.

YES They have 2 internal joint degrees (VV41 and VV14), ARA modules are also available to Y001 Combined Honours students.

33. Educational Partnership report (where applicable)

Check programmes are being reviewed at BoS, and in AMR, and that external examiners’ comments and student feedback are followed through. Are any concerns noted in the Educational Partnerships report?

N/A There are no Educational Partnerships (Partnership noted in PGT AMR is not Archaeology related)

34. Flexible and Distributed Learning

Check compliance with relevant section of the Quality and Standards Handbook https://www.ncl.ac.uk/ltds/assets/documents/qsh-flexdistbtdlearning-pol.pdf

N/A

35. CATS and CPD statement Are quality management procedures compliant with University Regulations governing CATS?

N/A

Appendix 1

1

QE and TEL Summary – Archeology LTR 2018-19

1. Recommendations

1.1 Effective practice and innovative learning and teaching activities identified by the review team should be considered for dissemination through the Case Studies of Teaching Practice database and at the annual Learning and Teaching Conference. (Ref 3.1-3.5)

1.2 Group learning materials together using content items instead of folders, and use a standard naming convention that includes a title or topic in addition to date or week number. (Ref 4.5)

1.3 The subject area should consider the use of ReCap and personal capture. Staff in Archeology may find it informative to discuss ReCap with colleagues in the wider school who make use of this technology as to the benefits they see for students’ learning and the pattern of student views of students in the school. (Ref 6.1-6.3)

1.4 The school and senior tutor should consider how the good practice demonstrated in the recording of meetings for postgraduate taught students’ in semester 1 can be continued into semester 2, and similarly how the recording of meetings for undergraduate stage one students could be increased to meet the KPI of 70%. (Ref 7.5)

2. Commendations

2.1 The use of an OLAF exam in a humanities subject to undertake a bibliography exercise (in ARA1027) is unusual, and makes effective use of an automatically marked assessment tool to test student’s learning. This approach may have wider applicability across the school and faculty. (Ref 5.2)

2.2 The ePortfolio statistics for postgraduate taught students’ personal tutor meetings are exemplary in semester 1 2017/18, with the requirement of an offer of a meeting being met or exceeded for 90.16% of students (against a KPI of 70%). (Ref 7.5)

3. Learning and Teaching Overview

3.1. There has been relatively little involvement from colleagues in Archeology in the teaching and learning landscape of the wider university. Some examples of involvement of these colleagues, that are recorded centrally, are noted below.

3.2. Activities and awards recorded here reflect only information that is centrally recorded. This section does not take account of projects that are internally organised within the School/Faculty.

3.3. Innovation Fund winners:

2013 - Jan Harding - Future Archaeologists: expanding student engagement in fieldwork

2012 - Jane Webster, Colin Bryson (CH) and Grace Barker (CH) - Supporting student researchers to identify and share HaSS practice in supporting student dissertations/projects.

3.4. Colleagues in the school could consider applying to the University Education Development Fund which has replaced the Innovation Fund from 2018-19 onwards, for funding to support development of new approaches to learning and teaching.

3.5. Learning and Teaching Conference contributions:

Appendix 2

2

2014 - James Gerrard - Getting the Romans Online: e-learning, student engagement and contextual knowledge in the humanities.

2013 – Katherine Brown (Student) - Supporting Student Communication: Working together to promote the importance of an effective representation system.

3.6. Recommendation: Effective practice and innovative learning and teaching activities identified by the review team should be considered for dissemination through the Case Studies of Teaching Practice database and at the annual Learning and Teaching Conference.

3.7. The school have noted additional projects and contributions to the wider teaching and learning landscape beyond the university. These include the Hadrian’s Wall MOOC (delivered through Futurelearn) which has run 7 times with over 52,000 learners from 120 countries, and showcases online learning and teaching innovation. Staff in the school have also developed a number of online teaching resources that are now used internationally. These include Identifact, interactive digital flash-cards for the study of Classical Architecture, Greek pottery and Roman; Inscripta, an e-learning resource to support students to transcribe and translate Romano-British inscriptions using the Great North Museum’s collections; educational videos hosted on YouTube; and high quality images and 3D models of inscriptions and sculptures from Hadrian’s Wall. In addition to these projects, staff in Archeology have been involved in education outreach in schools and collaborations with the Special Collections department of the Robinson Library.

4. Blackboard

4.1 A sample of modules from the subject area were reviewed in October 2018. Where these were semester two modules, the 2017-18 version of the courses were accessed for comparison.

4.2 The school have introduced a template for the 2018-19 academic year and this has greatly added to consistency and navigation across a number of modules. This standardization of structure and language makes it much easier from a student perspective, these modules are tidier and easier to move around and identify the relevant information.

4.3 Many elements of the Blackboard Baseline are being adhered to in the 2018-19 versions of the modules. A number of modules sampled made excellent use of the announcements tool to provide timely information to students, and staff contact information is provided consistently.

4.4 All modules include the standard automated overview page, which automatically populates key module information and links to the Library reading list system. A wide range of learning materials are provided, including slides, additional reading and video links. ARA1030 also provided additional materials designed to help students developing their academic skills.

4.5 In modules which provide lots of learning materials, thought could be given to grouping these as additional files linked to a single item in blackboard – this will prevent the list of content from getting very long, making it easier to identify items relating to an individual topic or week of teaching. Naming conventions, which use the week number and a descriptive title focused on the topic could be adopted across the subject area to further improve the ease of navigation.

4.6 Recommendation: Group learning materials together using content items instead of folders, and use a standard naming convention that includes a title or topic in addition to date or week number.

Appendix 2

3

4.7 Some modules provided additional assessment information, for example guidance on submission and links to the marking criteria. This was not, however, uniformly the case and in some instances these were not places in the Assessment information section, which would be advised.

4.8 Very few examples were found of modules going beyond the recommendation of the baseline, for example of using collaborative tools (e.g. discussion boards, blogs or wikis) to enhance student engagement. The single example of a discussion board were not being used as a discursive space.

4.9 The school template does include a section on Student Voice, used to highlight changes to the module made from student feedback to close the feedback loop. A number of modules provide a response to the previous year’s feedback as a document, other such as ARA1028 have provided the text in an manner that is immediately visible to students, which is a very user-friendly approach. A number of modules do not have any information in this section, though the empty section is visible to students. If there is no feedback on module evaluations then it is advisable to keep this section hidden (as a number of modules sampled have done) rather than visible but empty. This section can be used to provide responses to other forms of feedback from students received during the course of a module, and does not need to be confined to the responses to module surveys.

5. Electronic Management of Assessment

5.1 Turnitin is used for electronic submission of assessed work in all of the modules surveyed. Evidence of electronic marking through Turnitin Feedback Studio, however, was not found and it appears that no use is being made of this functionality in the subject area.

5.2 ARA1027 Introduction to Archaeology makes use of online exams through the OLAF service. These online exams utilise the tests functionality in blackboard, including multiple choice, ordering, true false and jumbled sentence questions to assess students understanding of effective practice with referencing.

5.3 Commendation: The use of an OLAF exam in a humanities subject to undertake a bibliography exercise (in ARA1027) is unusual and makes effective use of an automatically marked assessment tool to test student’s learning. This approach may have wider applicability across the school and faculty.

5.4 There was some limited evidence of feedback on assessment being provided through blackboard, but no consistent approach to this. Colleagues may consider how the online space of blackboard could be used to provide whole-cohort feedback, assessable alongside other learning material.

6. ReCap

6.1 No modules in the subject area make use of ReCap with these staff members choosing to opt out. This choice is up to the individual staff member, however, University policy does encourage the recording of appropriate lectures and we would ask them to consider using it for lectures where students would benefit from being able to revisit the content.

6.2 Personal capture provides these staff with the option of creating recordings of additional material to support student’s learning.

6.3 Research (http://teaching.ncl.ac.uk/recap/policyguidelines/howstudentsuserecap/ ) suggests that students use recordings to revisit topics they find difficult or complex and to aid revision. Most student users watching segments rather than the entire recording, and do not use recordings as a replacement for attending lectures.

Appendix 2

4

6.4 Recommendation: The subject area should consider the use of ReCap and personal capture. Staff in Archeology may find it informative to discuss ReCap with colleagues in the wider school who make use of this technology as to the benefits they see for students’ learning and the pattern of student views of students in the school.

7. ePortfolio

7.1. Note: it is only possible to report the ePortfolio statistics at School level. These statistics are for the School of History, Classics and Archaeology as a whole.

7.2. In the 2017-18 academic year, the minimum frequency of meetings as set out in the personal tutoring framework was: • For Stage 1 Semester 1 (UG) – One meeting in the first four weeks of the student arriving, and

then the offer of one meeting later that semester. • For undergraduates in all following stages – an offer of a meeting made in Semester 1 and

Semester 2.

The framework states that the initial meeting within the first four weeks of term must be recorded in ePortfolio. Subsequent offers of meetings for these students, and those at all following stages of study, can be made through the ePortfolio system. • For Stage 1 Semester 1 (PGT) – One offer of a meeting in the first four weeks of the student

arriving, and then one offer of a meeting for all subsequent semesters of study.

For PGTs the framework states that offers should be made in ePortfolio.

7.3. The KPI for the requirements for both UG stage 1 and PGT students 2017/18 was 70%.

7.4. The percentage below represents the proportion of Stage 1 undergraduate students who had a meeting recorded in ePortfolio in the first 4 weeks of Semester 1.

Total UG students

Students with the required meeting recorded

% students for whom requirement is met

Students without the required meeting recorded

% of students for whom requirement is not met

315 191 60.63% 124 39.37%

7.5. The percentages below represents the proportion of postgraduate students who had a meeting, or an offer of a meeting, in each semester of the academic year.

Total PGT students

% students for whom requirement is met or exceeded

Semester 1 Semester 2

61 90.16% 47.54%

7.6. ePortfolio is only one way in which personal tutoring is recorded and in which meetings can be offered to students on an ongoing basis and the record of a meeting or offer is not indicative of the quality of support that students are receiving holistically.

Appendix 2

5

7.7. Commendation: The ePortfolio statistics for postgraduate taught students’ personal tutor meetings are exemplary in semester 1 2017/18, with the requirement of an offer of a meeting being met or exceeded for 90.16% of students (against a KPI of 70%).

7.8. The requirements in the framework, however, are not being met for stage one undergraduate students or postgraduate taught students in semester 2.

7.9. Recommendation: The school and senior tutor should consider how the good practice demonstrated in the recording of meetings for postgraduate taught students’ in semester 1 can be continued into semester 2, and similarly how the recording of meetings for undergraduate stage one students could be increased to meet the KPI of 70%.

Appendix 2