Academic Approval Record (Reference 1174)Academic Approval Record (Reference 1174) ... Tam Ikram,...

C:\DOCUME~1\in5799\LOCALS~1\Temp\FrontPageTempDir\LLDip_CPE.doc of 44

UNIVERSITY QUALITY COMMITTEE

BUSINESS AND LAW STANDING PANEL 2000/2001

Academic Approval Record (Reference 1174)

Recommendation to University Quality Committee The Standing Panel was asked to Review and Revalidate the School of Legal Studies Diploma in Law and the Diploma in Law franchise to Holborn College and is pleased to recommend to University Quality Committee approval of the following provision: -

Diploma in Law (LLDip) in full time and part time modes Diploma in Law (LLDip), Holborn College, in part-time mode

In support of this recommendation, the Standing Panel provides the following report of its considerations, and is aware that the recommendation remains provisional until received, considered and ratified by the University Quality Committee. Summary of proposal Existing Award Title(s): Diploma in Law (LLDip) Nature of Collaborative Link: The Diploma in Law (LLDip), in part-time, Saturday only mode is franchised to Holborn College, 200 Greyhound Road, London. New modules for validation: LW3061 Constitutional and Administrative Law 20 credits LW3062 Law of Contract 20 Credits LW3063 Criminal Law 20 Credits LW3064 Equity and Trusts 20 Credits LW3065 The Law of the European Union 20 Credits LW3066 Land Law 20 Credits LW3067 Project Module 20 Credits LW3068 Law of Torts 20 Credits Modules to be deleted: LW4034 Public Law September 2001 LW4039 Obligations 1 September 2001 LW4035 Criminal Law September 2001 LW4036 The Foundations of Equity and the Law of Trust September 2001 LW4038 The Law of the European Union September 2001 LW4037 Land Law September 2001 LW4033 Obligations 2 September 2001


Date of Review The next review of the LLDip and LLDip franchise to Holborn College are scheduled to take place by the end of the 2006 - 2007 academic year. Details of Panel and Participants Standing Panel: Business and Law Academic Year: 2000 - 2001 Chair: Kathryn Southworth Officer: Jenny Newlyn Standing Panel Membership: Kathryn Southworth HLSS Jenny Newlyn QASD Paul Buszard WBS William Mott WBS Gill Sower SLS Linda Thomas Learning Resources Sharon Hasluck Registry Martin Cartwright SLS Seth Crofts SNM Jill Gollins WBS Marc Scholes HLSS John Traxler SCIT Standing Panel members designated to review the provision: William Mott Sharon Hasluck Jill Gollins Subject/Award Team Representative(s): For the LLDip: Bob Clarke, Dean of SLS Brian Mitchell, Associate Dean of SLS Rowland Hughes, LLDip Award Leader Marion Pope, Subject Librarian Judith Evans, SLS Chris Vallely, SLS Paula d’Prez, SLS Jo Coles, SLS Tony Finucane, SLS For the LLDip, Holborn College: Cederic Bell, Chief Executive, HC Bob Clark, Dean of SLS, UW Stuart Williams, Director of Legal Studies, HC and Principal Lecturer, UW Pamela Sellman, Award Leader, HC Rowland Hughes, Award Leader, UW Stephen Bishop, Workshop Tutor, HC Ian Brown, Lecturer and Workshop Tutor, HC Alison Hough, Lecturer and Workshop Tutor, HC Tam Ikram, Lecturer and Workshop Tutor, HC John Koo, Lecturer and Workshop Tutor, HC Vic-Kneswaren Krishnan, Lecturer and Workshop Tutor, HC Paul Bridges, Workshop Tutor, HC Edwin Lictenstein, Lecturer and Workshop Tutor, HC Catherine Bennett, PA to Chief Executive, HC


Mike Brooks, Librarian, HC Professional Body: CPE Board, Law Society CPE Board Members For all joint CPE Board and SP meetings: Bron Council, Education and Training Officer for Quality, Law Society,. For the joint CPE Board and SP re-validation meeting for the LLDip. Peter Williamson, Chair of CPE Board and practising solicitor, For the joint CPE Board and SP re-validation meeting for the LLDip, Holborn College. Tony Dugdale, Member of CPE Board, academic member of staff, University of Keele External Advisor: Given the involvement of the CPE Board members in the review and re-validation, no further external advisors were sought. Details of Process Undertaken Summary of process: 31/10/00 Meeting held between the Business and Law Standing Officer, William Mott, SP Member and

SLS Proposer, Rowland Hughes to discuss documentation, Law Society involvement and time-scales. Notes attached as Appendix 1

13/11/00 SP Meeting. Minute attached as Appendix 2 5/12/00 SP Meeting, Programme Specification and MVTs received. Minute attached as Appendix 3 20/12/00 SP Sub-group meeting, Review document for University programme received. Minute attached

as Appendix 4. 3/1/01 Revised documentation submitted to SP Officer and reviewed with SH. Verbal comments fed

back to Associate Dean SLS, for inclusion and amendment before dispatch to CPE Board. Business was carried out in this way owing to the deadlines for submission to the CPE Board, as greed by SLS.

30/1/01 Joint validation meeting of CPE Board and the SP. Minutes attached as Appendix 5 14/2/01 SP sub-group meeting to review the revised award guide and to consider the Holborn submission

documentation. Minutes attached as Appendix 6. 19/2/01 SP members SH and JG re-convened to examine the Holborn submission document. Verbal

feedback given directly to the Associate Dean, SLS, along with a copy of the document with suggested changes. Business was carried out in this way owing to the deadlines for submission to the CPE Board, as greed by SLS.

23/2/01 Joint validation meeting of CPE Board and the SP. Minutes attached as Appendix 7. 15/3/01 Joint validation meeting of CPE Board and the SP at Holborn College to re-validate the

franchised LLDip. Minutes attached as Appendix 8 Documentation: − Review Document for the LLDip. − Programme Specification − Module Validation Templates − Award Guide for the LLDip − Review Document for the LLDip, Holborn College. − Award Guide for the LLDip, Holborn College


Adequacy of Documentation: − The initial version of the Critical Review for the LLDip approved by SLS SQC required some re-work by

the School following the SP’s consideration. The SP felt that in parts the Review document needed some additional evidence of a more analytical nature, with some parts requiring further amplification. The final version of the Critical Review was much improved.

− The Critical Review for the LLDip Holborn College underwent a thorough examination at SLS SQC and required minimal re-work. The Panel found that, the revised approach to the production of the Critical Review document for the franchised provision, demonstrated the School’s commitment to improving the standard and content of the documentation required by the Panel.

− Initially the Award Guide also gave the Panel cause for concern and several versions had to be submitted by the School and Holborn College. The Panel had some concerns about the School’s process for document control, as on occasion, different members of the Panel and the CPE Board were in receipt of different versions of the Award Guide. The final versions of the Award Guides for both the University and the Holborn College awards were much improved and considered to be appropriate.

Attachments: Appendix 1: Notes of Meeting held between the Business and Law Standing Panel Officer, member and

proposer for Review and Re-validation of LLDip, 31/10/00 Appendix 2: Relevant Minute from Business and Law Standing Panel, 13/11/00 Appendix 3: Relevant Minute from Business and Law Standing Panel, 5/12/00 Appendix 4: Relevant Minute from the sub-group of the Business and Law Standing Panel, 20/12/00 Appendix 5: Minutes from the joint meeting of the CPE Board and the SP, 30/1/01. Appendix 6: Minutes from the sub-group of the Business and Law Standing Panel, 14/2/01. Appendix 7: Minutes from the joint meeting of the CPE Board and the SP, 23/2/01. Appendix 8: Minutes from the joint meeting of the CPE Board and the SP, held at Holborn College

15/3/01. 1. Background to the Proposal • The LLDip has been offered by the School of Legal Studies (SLS) in full and part-time modes and

approved by the CPE Board of the Law Society since 1981. • Since 1992, the programme has also been offered under a franchise agreement by Holborn College, as a

part-time Saturday only programme. The franchised provision has also attracted the approval of the CPE Board of the Law Society.

• The LLDip award is subject to the Law Society’s professional body requirements and on successful completion students gain the Law Society’s Common Professional Examination (CPE) award. As such the awards have had to take into account, not only change required by the University, for example the production of programme specifications and reference to Law benchmark statements, but also specific changes to curriculum required by the CPE Board of the Law Society.

• There has been a decline in student numbers following the programme at the University, felt to be as a result of declining popularity, alongside increased provision in the sector. The course does however provide a valuable feeder route to the Legal Practice Certificate offered by SLS, but it is accepted that its viability would have to be questioned, if numbers on either mode dropped below 10 per cohort.

• Student numbers on the Holborn franchise are more buoyant, attributable to the London market factors and the programme being run on Saturdays.

2. Collaborative Arrangements • The collaboration has been a long-standing one, and as a result, a close, positive and productive relationship

exists between SLS and Holborn College. The review process acknowledged that a considerable amount of time is put into maintaining the partnership.

• The provision offered by the college provides an affordable and important access route for students wishing to study the LLDip on a part-time basis at weekends, and contributes to the university’s widening access mission.

• The students questioned, clearly found the experience of studying the LLDip at Holborn College, a rewarding and positive one.

• The franchise has been subjected to the same monitoring and review activities as the university’s programme.


• The Memorandum of Co-operation will remain as the current one, except for the module changes. A revised memorandum, to reflect the curriculum changes is currently being drafted.

• SLS SQC will monitor the progress made in achieving compliance with the university’s statements and action plans on the QAA’s Code of Practice, specifically the section on Collaborative Links.

3. Professional Body Involvement • Members of the CPE Board of the Law Society have been involved in three joint meetings, two with SLS

and the third at Holborn College. These joint meetings took the form of a more traditional validation event. • The CPE Board of the Law Society’s requirements have been addressed and accommodated in full. • The Panel had concerns that the skills components of the award would not be assessed, but had to accept

that the CPE Board requirements did not allow for the assessment of skills. 4. Aims and Outcomes

4.1 Aims • These are clearly stated in the programme specification.

4.2 Outcomes • These are clearly stated in the programme specification and relate to the intended learning

outcomes of the programme.

5. Curriculum Design, Content and Organisation • The aim of the programme is to provide the non-law graduate with equivalent knowledge and

understanding of a student following a law degree and to prepare them for entry onto the vocational stage of legal education and training. Given the QAA’s National Qualifications Framework, the Panel decided that as a conversion programme, it had to be re-validated at Level 3 in terms of knowledge and understanding, rather than remain at Level 4. The Panel recognised however that the teaching and learning on the programme expects students of a Level 4 ability.

• The award curriculum is designed to meet the requirements of the professional body, i.e. the study of seven law subjects, plus a project to explore a new area of law. It has also been designed with reference to the subject benchmark statement for law.

• The Panel believes the re-designed award meets the intended learning outcomes, as described in the programme specification and module validation templates.

• The timing of the research methods study days and the European Union module were discussed and resolved satisfactorily.

• The Panel reached a compromise with SLS over the project word length, in the context of the CPE Board requirements. The proposal to extend the length of the project to 8000 words was replaced with a word length of 4000 to 6000 words.

6. Teaching, Learning and Assessment • The Panel engaged in considerable discussion about the assessment of the skills components included in the

programme. Skills development is as an integral part of the award, but unlike other university programmes, this is not assessed. This is due to the assessment regulations of the professional body, which only allow for the assessment of knowledge and understanding via coursework (30%) and examination (70%). In order to ensure conformity with the professional body requirements, assessment of skills could not be included in the programme, although it was accepted that the learning and teaching methods used on the programme facilitate students’ skills development.

• SLS teaching and learning strategy has been designed to develop all the necessary skills, irrespective of whether or not they are assessed.

• Following discussion with the proposal team the schedule for completing assignments was amended to provide a more staggered set of hand-in deadlines.

• SLS was commended by the Panel on its development of technology supported learning (TSL) materials. Steps are to be taken during the coming year to make Holborn College students aware of their existence and more fully induct them into their use.


• The learning materials provided and the lecture / workshop approach adopted by Holborn College to deliver the award, encourage group work, independent learning and are considered to meet the programme and module learning outcomes. The scope for other kinds of learning and teaching methods is limited, given the concentrated and intensive delivery pattern.

7. Student Progression and Achievement • The awards were considered to be in good academic health based on the whole process of review. The

Panel would have liked to see a slightly more analytical approach to the processes of annual monitoring and review.

• The first year student drop-out rate on the franchise at Holborn College is considered to be a little high, but this is attributed to the highly pressurised nature of the course and Saturday attendance over a two year period. Students are counselled about the demands of the programme in advance of enrolment and the College intends to introduce a system of personal tutoring from the beginning of the next academic year, as an initiative to aid retention.

• Assurance given that annual monitoring for the current year, going through SQC at the time of the Review, had adopted a much more analytical approach. The Panel felt it would be beneficial to carry out regular analysis of performance between the LLDip cohorts, as part of annual monitoring. Recommendations for future practice have been made under point 11, with a report to be provided to the Panel by Easter 2002.

8. Student Support and Guidance • Good informal support mechanisms and relationships exist between students and academic staff. In revising

the Award Guides for both programmes, the roles and responsibilities of different members of staff have been more formally clarified.

• SLS, following the advice of the Panel will be introducing a more distributed systems of personal tutoring for students from the beginning of the next academic year, i.e. the duties of personal tutor will be spread amongst the team, rather than being invested with the Award Leader alone. It is suggested under point 11 that this be monitored and reported on by Easter 2002.

• Holborn College is due to introduce a system of personal tutoring during the next academic period. It is suggested under point 11 that this be monitored and reported on by Easter 2002. The College is also making progress with the use of email contact with tutors to better support students only attending the College once a week. This has been particularly useful during project supervision.

• Well structured induction procedures are in place in SLS and at Holborn College, although it is suggested under point 11 that Holborn may wish to consider student feedback on induction, possibly by extending it to more than one day over a weekend.

• Students in both institutions felt that academic staff were always available for support and guidance, they were fully aware of the procedures for extensions and the universities policies on academic misconduct. There has been some staff turnover of administrative support at Holborn College, but the College has been asked, under point 11 to monitor students’ experience of administrative support services.

• Assignment and examination feedback to students seems to vary depending on the staff member concerned, fuller feedback was preferred by students, as it had a greater influence on their future work. Feedback to Holborn College students was coming very late, after external examiner scrutiny, just in case there were any changes to marks. The Panel felt this was unacceptable and the School agreed there were processes it could follow which made it clear to students that marks were subject to ratification. Recommendations have been made under point 11, which the SLS and Holborn College agreed to address and implement ready for the new academic year. This be monitored and reported on to the Panel by Easter 2002.

9. Learning Resources • The Panel found the university programme to have access to excellent learning resources and good IT

support, with excellent opening hours. • The learning materials provided as part of the course enrolment to students at Holborn College were

considered to be an essential in enabling the students to follow the programme and meet the intended learning outcomes.

• Additional resources and IT provision at Holborn College were considered to be adequate. The Panel asked the College to ensure the resources available to students following the LLDip, would continue to be in line with the number of FTE students on the programme, and would be kept under continuous review, should student numbers increase. This undertaking was given by the College’s Chief Executive.


10. Quality Management and Enhancement • The Panel felt that the small cohort numbers enabled the award to run well and enabled the establishment of

good student staff relationships. However the Panel felt that this informality had perhaps lulled the School into a situation where systems and processes are not as sound and tight as they should be. A number of actions have been suggested under point 11, which should lead to this situation being remedied, with a report to be provided to the Panel by Easter 2002.

• By the end of the review and re-validation process the SLS agreed to second mark projects, which brought it in line with custom and practice elsewhere in the university and met the requirements of the professional body.

• Student feedback is gathered via questionnaire and through course meetings. Mechanisms for reporting back outcomes to students need to be strengthened and this will be addressed and reported on to the Panel by Easter 2002.

• The Panel commended the proposed introduction of peer teaching observation at Holborn College and asked that its introduction be monitored and reported on to the Panel by Easter 2002.

• Holborn College informed the Panel that it is working towards fundamentally re-positioning itself from a quality perspective. It now has its own Academic Board, which meets twice per year, which has been set up with the specific purpose of advising the company directors on quality issues and to make recommendations to close or amend courses where quality issues had been identified.

11. Issues for further consideration or ongoing monitoring • The Standing Panel would like a progress report on the following points by Easter 2002, which it will

consider and forward to the CPE Board for information by the end of the next academic year. − The Panel strongly recommends that the Dean of SLS and the Chief Executive at Holborn College

ensure that a more rigorous system of document control be implemented, with the bare minimum being the inclusion of version numbers and dates on documents produced.

− The Panel wished to encourage the Dean of School and the Chief Executive at Holborn College to consider ways of spreading the award management workloads. For example by delegating some of the award management functions more widely across the LLDip teams. This would provide staff with development opportunities and remove some of the management and co-ordination load from the individual Award Leaders.

− Both of the Award Teams, via SLS SQC, to ensure that better and more analytical use is made of statistics as part of the regular review and annual monitoring processes.

− External Examiners be asked to report explicitly on the comparable performance and achievement of the cohorts at Holborn College and the university. SLS to ensure the outcomes are discussed at SLS SQC as a standing item, and with Holborn College.

− Holborn College to investigate how they can obtain final destination information about students completing the course.

− Holborn College and SLS to monitor changes in student numbers to ensure learning resources are matched accordingly.

− Position re: access to university learning resources by Holborn College students, to be pursued by SLS. − The changes made to the word length of the Project Module to be monitored closely via SLS SQC. − Holborn College in collaboration with SLS to review the system of student feedback, to ensure students

receive feedback on their assignments / examinations at the earliest possible opportunity. − Exam scripts, assignments and projects from the university and Holborn College to be sent to the

external examiner as a joint consignment. SLS to ensure that two external examiners are always used. − Ensure that the Holborn College annual monitoring report specifically looks at the effectiveness of the

proposed personal tutor scheme and the introduction of peer teaching observation. − Holborn College to monitor the students’ experiences of the administrative support. − SLS SQC should incorporate into its regular monitoring of the collaborative link with Holborn College,

the progress made in achieving compliance with the university’s statements and action plans on the QAA’s Code of Practice, specifically the section on Collaborative Links.

− Consideration should be given at Holborn College to a suggestion made by one of the students to improve student retention, that a more intensive induction block be given prior to the course starting, e.g. a Saturday plus, a Friday evening or Sunday. The purpose of such a session would be looking at study skills, returning to learning, team building and perhaps early careers advice.


− Consideration to be given at Holborn College to the introduction of a Course Buddy Scheme. This might take the form of either a member of staff employed specifically to answer questions and support students on the LLDip, or could be achieved via linking second year students up with first years, during the initial stages of the award.

• That if and when Holborn College moves to different premises, the CPE Board would wish to re-visit to inspect teaching accommodation and library resources.

12. Identification of good practice • The Panel wished to record how much they were impressed by the TSL materials being developed by SLS

in support of legal education and training. 13. Identification of issues that have institutional implications • There appears to be no continuity or agreed understanding across the University on what constitutes key,

practical and intellectual skills. The Panel feels that both they and proposers are being left to interpret these for themselves, with very little guidance. The Panel would like to recommend that the issue of differentiation between the skill groupings be clarified.

Signed (Standing Panel Chair) .........................................................………… Date .................................


Appendix 1 Notes of Meeting held between the Business and Law Standing Panel Officer, member and proposer for Review and Re-validation of LLDip, 31/10/00 Present: Jenny Newlyn, William Mott, Rowland Hughes Purpose: The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the review and re-validation of the LLDip, CPE programme in SLS, especially in respect of the Standing Panel (SP) process, time-scales and agreement on deadlines. Notes: • Noted SP members identified to work on this proposal as follows: William Mott, Jill Gollins and Sharon

Hasluck. • Noted that RH / JN to follow up with the CPE Board, what kind of interaction they wish to have with the

Holborn staff and students, given their report on the Holborn franchise two years ago. JN also to raise at SP, how the SP wishes to deal with the Holborn franchise.

• Noted that the Review amongst all its other purposes, must draw out the comparable experience of the Holborn franchise students.

• Noted that following the discussion with RH and having gone through the University’s Review Guidelines and the requirements of the CPE Board for re-validation, RH is proposing to produce three sets of documents. A Review Document, with appropriate appendices, a revised Award Handbook and full set of information as listed in the Table 1, which is to be lodged in a base room in SLS for SP members to consult and to be sent to the CPE Board as part of the submission for review and re-validation.

• Noted the SLS has to submit their documentation to the CPE Board a month in advance of 30/1/01, therefore is proposing to complete all work on this by Christmas.

• Noted that the base room is to be established by Christmas and that the SP members will have to focus their efforts during the first two weeks of January.

• Noted that all documentation needs to be approved by SLS SQC before being submitted to SP and CPE Board. Two additional SLS SQC meetings were identified to deal with this business, in association with the Associate Dean SLS. Schedule of activities given in Table 2.

• Noted that the final Critical Review Document may not be available to the SP before it has been considered by SLS SQC in December, or before it is submitted to the CPE Board. Suggested that given the tight time-scales involved, RH to present the draft review to the SP at its meeting on 5/12/00. SP Chair and SLS Associate Dean to be asked to agree to this suggestion. Noted also that this may be the only opportunity for the proposal team to engage with the SP before the CPE Board attend the university in January.

• Noted that a draft Programme Specification has been prepared by RH, ready for discussion within SLS. Noted the draft was not ready for the wider consumption by the SP, however agreed that WM would copy it to SP members working on the LLDip Review.

• Noted that RH did not have a copy of the CPE Board report (from their visit in 1998), which was received at the SP in May last year. JN to supply one, plus copies of the previous UW Validation reports for CPE. JN to also circulate these documents to SP members WM, JG and SH for background information.

• Question to be raised at SP, whether any other External Advisor required from another HEI, or whether CPE Board involvement sufficient?


Table 1: Review of LLDip / CPE: Documentation Documentary Evidence For the Standing Panel For the CPE Board by 22/12/00

Critical Review Draft on 5/12/00

Final Version circulated post approval at SLS SQC on 14/12/00.

Submission Document

Programme Specification SQC approved version on 5/12/00

Submission Document

MVTs SQC approved version on 5/12/00

Submission Document

Award Handbook Base Room by 22/12/00 Submission Document External Examiners Reports and Course Teams’ responses

Base Room by 22/12/00 Supplementary documentation

Course Committee Meeting Minutes


Annual Monitoring Base Room by 22/12/00 Supplementary documentation Student assignment and feedback Base Room by 22/12/00 Supplementary documentation Staff CVs and staff development plans.


Record of complaints Base Room by 22/12/00 Supplementary documentation Details of library holdings, computer / IT facilities, staff / student ratios etc.


Student feedback from the UMEP survey. (Contact Anne Essex in Planning Statistics and Records Unit in the Registry, x 1803 or IN5259)

Base Room by 22/12/00

First Destination information, from survey carried out for HESA from Careers Service (Contact Peter Smart)


Previous UW reports on re-validation.


Last QAA / HEQC Subject Review Report.


CPE Board Reports. Base Room by 22/12/00 SLS Learning and Teaching Strategy.


SLS Assessment Strategy Base Room by 22/12/00 Law Society Assessment Strategy Base Room by 22/12/00 SLS Research Strategy Base Room by 22/12/00 ICT Supported Course Materials Base Room by 22/12/00 CPE Visit, 30/1/01 Meeting with students SP Meeting / CPE Visit

30/1/01 CPE Visit, 30/1/01

Meeting with Course Team SP Meeting / CPE Visit 30/1/01

CPE Visit, 30/1/01

Possible visits to Learning Centre, teaching rooms, IT / Computing facilities.

SP Meeting / CPE Visit 30/1/01

CPE Visit, 30/1/01


Table 2 Review of LLDip / CPE: Summary of Activities, Process and Deadlines DEADLINE ACTIVITY CPE INVOLVEMENT 13/11/00 SP Meeting

To receive these notes and discuss any outstanding issues.

23/11/00 Note date initially 28/11/00, brought forward by BM.

SLS SQC To consider and approve Programme Specification and MVTs, in preparation for consideration at SP on 5/12/00. If approved, SLS to distribute copies to SP Members: KS, JN, WM, JG, SH.

5/12/00 AM SP Meeting To consider the Programme Specification, MVTs and if agreed by SLS and SP Chair first draft of the Critical Review Document.

14/12/00 SLS SQC To consider and approve the Critical Review Document.

w/c 18/12/00 SLS to distribute copies of the final Critical Review Document to SP members (KS, JN, WM, JG, SH) and CPE Board.

CPE receive review documentation

22/12/00 SLS Base Room to be complete.

2/1/01 to 15/1/01

SP Team Members to visit SLS and Base Room, to follow up any issues identified by SP from Review Document, to carry out their evaluation of Base Room information and to identify which student groups they will wish to see. Will SP members need to visit Holborn?

16/1/01 SP Meeting SP members to feedback to SP meeting and agree the final agenda for the SP Meeting / CPE Board visit on 30/1/01

CPE Board to be sent final copy of agenda, directions etc.

30/1/01 SP / CPE Board Meeting Discussion of progress to date, meetings with students and course team, (possible visits to Learning Centre, teaching rooms, student labs, still to be finalised). CPE Board members give feedback to SLS. If SP in a position to do so, University re-validation approved.

CPE Board in attendance.

w/c 26/2/01 SP Meeting SLS response on any issues OR consideration of Draft Academic Approval Record (AAR)

If possible Draft Academic Approval Record (AAR) approved by SP Chair sent to CPE Board.

March 2001 Approval at UQC and amendments to records on SAM.

Appendix 2


University of Wolverhampton University Quality Committee Notes of the Business and Law Standing Panel Meeting, held at the Wolverhampton Science Park on 13 November 2000. Present: Kathryn Southworth (Chair) Jenny Newlyn (Officer) William Mott Sharon Hasluck Seth Crofts Martin Cartwright John Traxler Gill Sower Linda Thomas In Attendance: Jonathon Phillips 1. Apologies

Apologies were received from Paul Buszard, Marc Scholes and Jill Gollins 4. SLS Proposals for 2000 – 2001

ii. LLDip: Review and Re-validation − Notes from meeting held on 31/1000 were received. − Noted the proposed contents of the base room. SP suggested that it should also contain student

evaluation collected via the School. − MC reported to the Panel that it had been decided to re-validate this programme as an UG Level 3

programme. However noted the intention to teach the LLDip cohorts separately. Noted that split nationally re: level of LLDip is 50/50 Level 3 / 4.

− SP Officer reported on communication with both Bron Council and Bernadette Griffin of the Law Society, who felt concerned that the Standing Panel process may not allow them to carry out a traditional style validation event, and that the reporting from the process may not meet their needs. Following the discussion with the SP Officer both were reassured that the Law Society process and that of the Standing Panel could work in tandem and meet the needs of both parties. Law Society to propose a provisional date for the meeting at Holborn. Also noted that the meeting SP / Law Society meeting on 30/1/01 would include the elements required by the Law Society, i.e. meetings with staff, students, visits to the Learning Centre, teaching rooms, student facilities etc.

− Noted also from these phone discussions that the Law Society required a separate event for the Holborn franchise, with separate submission documents and final AARs. This seemed surprising to the SP, as the last review of the Holborn franchise two years ago, the initial recommendation for re-approval was for seven years, only being brought forward to come in line with the University’s home programme. SP Chair undertook to discuss this with Brian Mitchell.

− Noted that SLS had set up to additional SQC meetings to accommodate consideration of the MVTs and Programme Specification on 23/11/00 and the Critical Review document on 14/12/00. Given the tight time-scales involved, and the need to submit the review document to the Law Society before Christmas, the SP felt it would be helpful if it could see the draft review document at its meeting on 5/12/00. Noted Chair of SP to raise with Brian Mitchell, the issue of the SP seeing documentation in advance of it being considered and approved by SLS SQC. The SP also felt it would be helpful to invite Rowland Hughes to the meeting to give him an opportunity to meet with the SP in advance of the Law Society visit, discuss the draft review document and go over both the SP and the Law Society processes.

− Question raised about the use of an External Advisor in this process. Noted that even though the Law Society represented an external view, it may be helpful to have an external view from another


academic institution. Noted this exercise could be carried out via correspondence. SP Chair to discuss the issue and seek nominations from Brian Mitchell.

Action − SP Officer to invite Rowland Hughes to the next meeting of the Standing Panel. − SP Chair to discuss with Brian Mitchell the position regarding the Holborn franchise, the early sight of the

draft review document and the use of an External Advisor to the Panel.


Appendix 3 University of Wolverhampton University Quality Committee Notes of the Business and Law Standing Panel Meeting, held at the Wolverhampton Science Park on 5 December 2000. Present: Kathryn Southworth (Chair) Jenny Newlyn (Officer) William Mott Sharon Hasluck Seth Crofts Martin Cartwright John Traxler Gill Sower Linda Thomas Jill Gollins Observer : Maggie Jones, QASD In Attendance for level discussion Item 3 and for Item 4: Jonathon Phillips In Attendance for Item 3: Rowland Hughes, SLS 1. Apologies

Apologies were received from Paul Buszard and Marc Scholes. 2. Minutes from meeting held on 13 November 2000

The minutes were received as an accurate record of the meeting held on 13 November 2000, with the following amendment: 4.ii LLDip: Review and Re-validation, third bullet point, first sentence.

Remove “using UG modules” from the end of the sentence, as this implies the same modules are used as those on the UG programme, this is not the case

3. LLDip: Review and Re-validation − Noted that the joint SP / CPE Board visit to Holborn to review the provision there, will take place on

15 March 2001. Noted the difficulties the SP chair may experience in covering her teaching commitments that day, but agreed that if she is unable to attend the Holborn visit, the session will have to be chaired by another visiting SP member, possibly WM.

− Noted the SP, in considering the minutes from the last meeting, felt that it had perhaps been too scrupulous in seeking further externality for the LLDip Review, given the involvement of the CPE Board. It was agreed that the SP Officer would seek permission from the Chair of UQC not to involve further External Advisors in this process.

− Rowland Hughes was in attendance for this item and apologised for not being able to get a draft of the Review document to the SP meeting, he informed the Panel that this would be going to SLS SQC on 14/12/00. SP noted that it would like to receive and consider the Review document, before it was sent to the Law Society, and therefore an additional meeting of those SP members working with SLS on the Review was arranged to take place on 20/12/00, at 2.30 Compton. It was noted that when RH circulates the Review document for SLS SQC, it should also be sent to KS, WM, JG, SH and JN.

− SP received copies of the Programme Specification and the MVTs, which it noted had been approved at SLS SQC. The following issues were raised and discussed:

− The SP was interested to know why only half of the Programme Specification Template had been completed, it wanted to understand more about the relationship between the modules and the


programme and explore the concerns it had about the apparent homogeneity of the programme, i.e. the only areas of differentiation in the programme seemed to relate to knowledge and understanding.

− RH reported that it was an oversight not to have fully completed the programme specification template. The programme was designed in the homogenous way it had been, to accommodate several things. Most students following the programme are expected to complete all of it, however some students only do part of the programme, where their UG programmes did not cover all areas required to gain the Qualifying Law Degree (QLD) status. Exemptions from certain modules are granted from the Law Society, this also covers students, who have previously followed the Legal Executive route, with the successful completion of the FILEX professional exams. Therefore the proposal team decided that all students should have the same experience, whether they pick up one module, or follow the whole programme. Noted that in order to get the Diploma, at least 4 modules are needed.

− It was also pointed out that the only outcomes, which are tested or count in the programme are knowledge and understanding, although the CPE Board does prescribe the skills it expects successful students to be able to demonstrate having followed it. Note SP had some concern that the research, problem solving and communication skills were not clearly demonstrated.

− Noted that the CPE Board also prescribes the nature of the assessment, 30% assignment and 70% exam. The proposal team discussed the desirability of assessing oral or group work, but noted that the CPE Board would not countenance a student’s failure on these grounds. Therefore it was decided not to assess these skills, as certain students only do certain modules, so it was felt better not to differentiate between the modules. It was also noted that the course team do use marking schemes, which assess all of the outcomes. It was suggested that perhaps the outcomes listed elsewhere in the Programme Specification could be assessed as elements within the components. Noted this may be possible, as although the CPE Board does not allow for compensation between components, it may be possible to look at assessment and compensation of elements within the components.

− Question raised about the impact on student performance, when they know they are not being assessed on certain skills, and how the proposal team can demonstrate students’ abilities in these areas, when no evidence can be provided by assessment. RH reported that attendance is a requirement of the Law Society and is stated in Module Guides and that generally all students following this programme are committed, motivated and are investing a lot in financial terms. Teaching is done via workshops, which involve all students in oral presentations, group work etc. Noted that the SLS Learning and Teaching strategy has been designed to develop all the skills of students across the school, irrespective of whether they are assessed or not.

− Question raised about the phasing of assignments, the vast majority being in week 15. RH reported that the teaching team had also noted and discussed this issue and had made a proposal to stagger assignment hand in dates. Following consultation with the students, they requested that the position remain as it is, as the hand-in dates generally fall after a holiday period, Christmas or Easter, which gives them additional time to complete assignments. SP wished to follow the issue of flexibility of hand-in dates when it met with students on 30/1/01.

− Question also raised about whether non-taught coursework is ever assessed via exams, reported that this does happen occasionally. Some concern about the vast majority of outcomes being assessed via exam, with only some by coursework. Noted that the Review Document needs to make the parallel assessment strategies for taught and non-taught course work, exam and non-exam explicit.

− Question raised about the way in which the practical, intellectual and key skills had been divided up on the Programme Specification Template. Noted the early stages of development in the use of Programme Specifications, and the sometimes unclear differentiation of these skill groupings. But SP noted it would like to see the Practical Skills articulated in a more subject specific way, whereas the Intellectual Skills were more likely to be expressed generically.

− SP recognise that given the structure and nature of the programme, completing all of the Programme Specification may not add value. Therefore SP proposes that SLS should use Section 12 to clearly articulate the knowledge and understanding gained on the programme and use a grid from Section 13 to articulate assessment of the intellectual, practical and key skills.

− Jonathon Phillips joined the meeting at the point when the level of the programme was being discussed, i.e. whether it should be at Level 3 or 4. RH reported that students generally do not worry about the level, as it is a means to pursuing a career in law, but are concerned that the programme is commensurate with their ability. The knowledge and understanding gained is equivalent to Level 3, whilst the learning and teaching on the conversion programme expects students to be of Level 4 ability. JP provided a useful overview by observing that the programme replicates what an UG law student would have achieved by Level 3, but the fast track nature of the programme and its teaching methods, is enabled by students previous UG experience. SP felt this clarified that the programme is at Level 3,


but also clearly articulated the Law Society’s criterion that the programme should take account of students’ previous UG experience.

Action: − SP Officer to write to Chair of UQC to seek permission not to involve any other Externals, other than

the Law Society, in reviewing the LLDip. − SLS to revisit the Programme Specification, to make the intellectual skills section more generic and the

practical skills section more subject specific. Grid 12 to be completed to articulate the knowledge and understanding skills, grid 13 to be completed to demonstrate assessment of intellectual, practical and key skills.

− SLS to consider assessing the different skills identified in the Programme Specification, via the elements within the components of modules.

− SLS to clearly articulate the assessment strategies for the LLDip in the review document. − SLS to take on board the discussion had with the SP in the production of the Review Document. − SLS to circulate copies of the Review document to the following SP members KS, WM, JG, SH and

JN, preferably at the same time as circulating it to SLS SQC members and definitely in advance of the extra SP meeting to be held on 20/12/00.

− SP to notify SLS immediately of any issues arising at its meeting on 20/12/00.


Appendix 4 University of Wolverhampton University Quality Committee Notes of the Business and Law Standing Panel, Sub-group Meeting, held at Compton Park on 20 December 2000. Present: Jenny Newlyn (Officer) William Mott Sharon Hasluck Jill Gollins In Attendance for latter part of the meeting: Brian Mitchell, SLS 1. LLDip: Review and Re-validation

− SP members received the following documentation from SLS: Critical Review Document, Course Guide and a draft Critical Review document for the Holborn franchise on 19/12/00.

− Given the tight time scales involved, i.e. the document needs to be with the CPE Board of the Law Society by 8/1/01, the SP members focussed their attention on evaluating the Critical Review document, in order to provide constructive criticism and comment for the SLS to act on. The panel members felt that in parts the Review document needed some additional evidence and some of the points made, needed further amplification.

− During the course of the meeting the Associate Dean of SLS (Brian Mitchell) was contacted to work out the best way forward, given the time scales involved. This resulted in Brian Mitchell attending the Sub-Group meeting to receive direct feedback, which he agreed SLS would undertake to do.

− BM also noted the SP would like to see the revised Programme Specification before it was submitted as part of the documentation to the Law Society.

− SP members also felt that the proposed change to run the programme at Level 3 rather than Level 4 should be clearly articulated, and it was noted that the SP Minute from 5/12/01, provided a useful account of the change, which could be integrated into the Critical Review.

− SP members identified they would wish to visit the Base Room on 10/1/01 and would like to have access to the following documents from the previous two years: SQC Minutes; Course Committee Minutes; Annual Monitoring; External Examiner’s Reports; complaints file; and examples of students’ work. Action:

− SLS to provide the evidence and amplification suggested, to be fed back to the School by BM. − SLS to email the revised version of the Critical Review document to the SP Chair, Officer, WM, JG

and SH by the afternoon of 22/12/00, if at all possible. − WM and JG to provide SP Officer with any further comments by email by 2/1/01. − SP Officer and SH to meet on 3/1/01 to review the revised document, any comments from SP members,

and provide feedback to SLS. − SLS to send the Review documentation to CPE Board on 4/1/01. − SP Members (WM, JG, SH) to visit the School Base Room, in preparation for the meeting on 30/1/01,

during the afternoon of 10/1/01. − SLS to make documentation available on 10/1/01.


Appendix 5 University of Wolverhampton University Quality Committee Notes of the Business and Law Standing Panel (SP) and CPE Board (Law Society) Joint Meeting, held on 30 January 2001, in MU310, Board Room, Midshires Building, Wolverhampton. Present: Kathryn Southworth (Chair) Jenny Newlyn (Officer) Peter Williamson, Chair of CPE Board and practising solicitor Bron Council, Education and Training Officer for Quality, Law Society Seth Crofts William Mott Sharon Hasluck Martin Cartwright John Traxler Jill Gollins Paul Buszard Apologies: − Apologies were received from SP members Linda Thomas, Marc Scholes and from Gill Sower for part of

the meeting. 1. Meeting with CPE Board

− SP and CPE Board members discussed the areas they wished to cover during the meeting with SLS staff. It was agreed that issues should be raised in a thematic way, under the following headings: • Curriculum • Assessment • Learning and Teaching • Student Progression • Quality • Student Support • Learning Resources

− Noted that the meeting with students would examine some of the key points through the student lifecycle, as well as raising any specific issues.

2. Meeting with SLS Staff

In Attendance: Bob Clark, Dean of SLS Rowland Hughes, Award Leader, Marion Pope, Subject Librarian Judith Evans, SLS Chris Vallely, SLS Paula d’Prez, SLS Jo Coles, SLS Tony Finucane, SLS

i. Study Days

Panel Issues: − Are students given sufficient warning about the study days? − Are PT students consulted about timing and value of the study days? − Are IT and Learning Centre facilities available on study days? − Are any team building activities included during the study day? − How do the study days relieve the pressure on the foundation programme?


− Does the Research Methods Study Day occur at the right time in the programme or would it be better to bring it forward to before the summer vacation. The benefits of this would be twofold: the students would have sufficient knowledge of research methods to inform the choice of project, therefore not find themselves with a topic that is difficult to research; and it would also give students longer to carry out their research, i.e. the period over the summer break.

SLS Response: − To date no market research has been carried out to see if the study days have been a welcomed

addition. − Noted that one of the reasons for introducing the study day at the beginning of the programmes

was to offset the difficulty of fulfilling all the induction objectives with the PT students during the initial stages of the programme. Note this problem does not occur with students following the FT programme. PT students attend the first two evening sessions, this is then followed by the Saturday study day. The study day focuses on return to learn skills, legal research skills and enables the group to get to know each other better. The day begins with an ice-breaking session “close encounters of the third kind” set within a legal context. The programme consists of a combination of tutor led and student led sessions, and is constructed to build up skills acquisition throughout the day. Noted that when the study day is run, the Learning Centre does not open on a Saturday morning. However this is not seen as a problem, as special access to the learning centre is arranged or the session is done during the afternoon slot. Note the law subject librarian is present.

− The team felt the timing of the research study day was right, as the students would already have had experience of writing well researched and referenced assignments. They also felt the timing was helpful to students as the project involved studying independently a new area of law, and the research study day provided a suitable kick-start for this study. The team noted they had experienced some dilemma about the timing of the day due to the intensity of the programme. Students had been offered drop-in sessions in the previous semester, to discuss the project, but owing to their workload there had been no take up, which contributed to the decision to run the day later rather than earlier.

ii. Electronic Pilot in Constitution and Administration (C&A)

Panel Issues: − Panel interested in what feedback the School has had on the use of electronic materials for the

C&A module. Do all students have access to technology to enable them to use the materials? Are students’ IT skills audited at the beginning of the course?

SLS Response: − RH checks with all the FT students about their IT abilities, but used the PT student representative

to check out the PT students. For any students who are encountering difficulties, there are sessions available with the School’s IT Technician. Noted that the majority of students entering the programme currently are IT literate. Higher level IT skills, e.g. database interrogation are covered as part of the legal research induction sessions.

− Noted that a demonstration had been organised for later in the meeting, to show the Panel some of the technology supported learning (TSL) materials, which the School has been developing. Noted that students were not required to have a specific IT kit to enable them to access these modules, as they could be used via the School or the Learning Centre PC labs.

iii. European Union Module

Panel Issues: − European law generally comes earlier in the LLDip programme and runs in parallel with C&A, the

Panel wondered what the rationale was for moving it to a later position and would anything be lost by putting it back. Would it not be possible to front load C&A in order to keep European Law in the earlier part of the course?

SLS Response: − The team believed that students needed to fully understand constitutional law at the earlier stage,

before they were able to apply it to the EU syllabus. The team feel this works better and the feedback received from students confirms this.

iv. Study Hours


Panel Issues: − Panel noted that there is no clear or consistent statement in the Course Guide about study patterns,

i.e. the number of class contact hours and the number of private study hours for each module. The information provided is confusing and inconsistent, for example, on page 15 of the Course Guide, it states 57 hours per module, each Module Validation Templates (MVT) states 51 hours per module, whereas when the hours are calculated using the number of teaching weeks, the number of hours would seem to be 48. It is difficult from this information to be assured, that the hours stated do meet the CPE Board’s requirements. It was also noted that MVTs are not usually included in the Course Guide, rather module guides, as some of the information contained within the MVTs is not required by students.

− Panel noted that the Modules referred to on page 5 of the Course Guide, do not match up with those listed in the Teaching Programme on page 13.

− Panel noted that the Teaching Programme details given on page 13 of the Course Guide were confusing. It was suggested that a key dates diary be included in the Course Guide for the whole year for FT and PT students, that includes hand out and hand in dates, dates for the return of work, study days and possibly when Boards will meet.

SLS Response: − The team noted the comments made.

v. Project Work Panel Issues: − The Panel wished to explore the rationale for increasing the word length of the Project from 4000

to 8000 words, especially as the normal expectations of the CPE Board, would be 4 – 5000 maximum.

− Had the students been consulted about this proposed change, would additional time be given for completion and what impact would this have on the students’ other work?

− Also it was noted that the documentation supplied identified 3 different word limits for the project, 4000, 5000 and 8000.

SLS Response: − The team noted that the documentation should contain consistent information on the project word

limit. − The team felt that the students do a lot of work on the project, and the word limit does not allow

them to do it justice. − The team also pointed out that 8000 words on an UG project was still significantly less on this

course than for other UW programmes, where the normal length of project is 10000 for a 15 credit module, 20000 for a 30 credit module.

− It was noted that word limits can sometimes be arbitrary, and that it is the nature of the research that is important.

− Team reported that student feedback had suggested that they feel constrained by the word limit, and the amount of research carried out does not get reflected. Equally the word limit requires the students to adopt a very narrow focus, which the team feels occupies a significant amount of time on the students’ behalf, and that the word limit would allow them wider scope.

vi. Assessment dates

Panel Issues: − Panel had some concerns that all the assignments were due to be submitted in Week 15, except for

one and felt the School should re-consider the timing of assessment. Noted also that Week 15 is very close to the examination weeks. Also had the students’ views been consulted on the timings?

− The following suggestion put forward for the Team to consider: bring Contract forward, Public and EU later on, and perhaps start a week earlier, with the introduction of a reading week in October.

SLS Response: − The team noted that the students seem to prefer hand-in dates following the major holidays,

Christmas and Easter, however, Panel noted that Easter dates do not remain static. The team also


pointed out that timing assignments in this way, tended to lead to better attendance throughout taught periods, noting that more staggered assignment deadlines often led to poorer attendance.

− The team also pointed out that they had not received unequivocal feedback either way from students on the timing of assignments.

vii. Skills Assessment

Panel Issues: − Panel had some concerns that all modules are differentiated in terms of knowledge, but not skills,

and despite the CPE requirement that the assessment balance be made up of 30% course work, 70% exam, the panel felt there was still scope to include assessment of skills elements within components of modules.

SLS Response: − The team recognised that there were no formalised assessment points for testing the skills

components of modules, but they believed that this was carried out as an integral part of assignments and exams. The assignment feedback sheets list all the skills separately, and staff use these to identify strengths and areas for improvement. Students can discuss with tutors any comments made of the feedback sheets.

− Noted that during presentation sessions, comments are passed onto the students directly during those sessions.

− The team generally felt that although they do not assess skills, they do develop them and give students feedback.

viii. Student Progression

Panel Issues: − Panel noted that from the information provided it was very difficult to get at student progression,

achievement and percentage drop-out rates. Noted that it would have been useful on wastage rates, to have this benchmarked against other courses, especially on the PT modes.

− Noted that the Panel would liked to have seen some average grades on individual modules, across both FT and PT modes.

SLS Response: − The team reported that drop-out rates were small, on average 2 on the FT programme, with a

slightly higher rate for PT, on average, 4, but this year had been slightly higher. The PT wastage is rarely attributable to academic reasons, but more often than not, financial or the balance between home commitments, work and study.

− In percentage terms, this was thought to contribute about 20% on FT, 30% on PT. Panel noted that when drop-out rates were turned into percentages on small cohorts, the picture could be easily skewed, however felt that the smallness of the cohorts, should have enabled a clearer picture of student progression to have been produced.

− The team reported that average grades on modules tended to be at the top end of the 50s, with 5 –6 commendations across the cohorts, and 1 distinction. The estimated pass rate at first sitting was 80%. Again the Panel felt that this kind of information would have been useful in the Critical Review document.

ix. Second Marking

Panel Issues: − Panel interested in the processes for internal moderation, consistency of marking and wondered

under what circumstance the School would use second marking. − Concern raised that School does not second mark all projects, and this out of step with the practice

in the rest of the University. SLS Response: − The team noted that double marking was used for the following categories: fail, borderline fail (38

to 42%), borderline 60 and borderline 70. Second marking was also done for all franchise students. − The team reported they have a set of Level 3 marking criteria for the project, which cover all

aspects, but do not second mark projects across the School, owing to the huge number of UG projects and the associated logistics.


x. Staff Development

Panel Issues: − Panel wished to know how staff development impacted on the delivery of the programme. SLS Response: − The team reported that new methods of delivery had been introduced, for example, interactive

lectures, tutor-led sessions, student-led sessions, diagnostic type sessions. The team discuss the methods to be used before implementation. One of the team is also the School’s Teaching and Learning Co-ordinator, who acts as a channel for information on good practice from across the University.

xi. Marketing and Recruitment

Panel Issues: − Panel wished to know how the programme was being marketed and interested to hear the School’s

views on declining student number base. − Would the School consider running the home programme every two years, if numbers fell below

an agreed threshold? − College of Law is to start running courses in Birmingham from October 2001, what impact does

the School feel this might have and how is this being planned for? SLS Response: − The Dean noted there had been a decline in student numbers, which he believed was due to a

decline in popularity of the programme, alongside an increase in provision in the sector. − Noted that the programme was seen as an important part of the School’s portfolio of awards, which

the staff very much enjoyed teaching. − The course also provided a valuable feeder route into the LPC offered at the University, but noted

that its viability would have to be considered, if cohorts dropped to less than 10 on each mode. − The programme is marketed internally, with open days aimed at current UW non-law students.

However noted that unusually this year, many of the students are non-UW graduates. − Noted that the competition for students locally will increase, but generally feel this will hit UCE

and Birmingham University harder. Noted also that the University still has a student base here, despite the number of courses available in Birmingham, however feel that the true impact can not be judged until later in the year.

− Noted that the numbers on the franchise programme were higher and more buoyant, but noted the London market factors at play.

xii. Assessment Regulations

Panel Issues: − Panel noted that the Assessment Regulations are not at all clear, inter-mingling references to FT

and PT regulations and referring to condonement rather than compensation. Panel felt there were too many issues within the Assessment Regulations, as described in the Course Guide, to be dealt with in the meeting. Therefore it was agreed that RH would submit a revised set to Bron Council, who would act in an advisory capacity, to ensure they were presented accurately and clearly.

− Noted that CPE Boards does allow for compensation of a minor fail in one subject, where the mark achieved was between 35 and 40%, but does not support condonement.

SLS Response: − Concerns noted and RH to submit revisions to BC for approval.

xiii. Extenuating Circumstances / Academic Misconduct

Panel Issues: − Panel noted that the Course Guide does not include clear information about extenuating

circumstances and wonders whether students understand what is presented. − The section on plagiarism is badly out of date. SLS Response:


− The team agreed to rewrite the appropriate sections, but also pointed out that students are given the University leaflets on extenuating circumstances, academic misconduct etc.

xiv. Study Groups

Panel Issues: − Panel interested to know how the School encourages study groups and how these are formed. SLS Response: − Study Groups probably occur more naturally on the FT programme, and the diary FT students kept

for a week, illustrated their use of study groups. − Noted that more work may have to be done to encourage study groups on the PT programme,

perhaps via electronic means, using the net.

xv. Counselling / Personal Tutors Panel Issues: − Panel was a little confused by the number of different titles used in respect of counselling /

personal tutors in the submission documents. They felt it did not provide a very clear picture for students, i.e. who to approach for what, or the processes involved.

− It was also suspected that the many different titles referred to, were all actually one person, RH. The Panel wondered how wise it was to invest all these duties in one person, and would it not provide staff development opportunities to have these duties spread across more staff?

SLS Response: − The team noted that the Handbook needs revising. − The team reported that more staff had not been involved in personal tutoring, as the numbers on

the course were small. All staff were approachable and students often raised issues with staff across the board. Noted that all staff dealt with their subject related issues / queries.

− The team also pointed out that the names and roles of staff members were given in the staffing list.

xvi. Staff Student Ratios Panel Issues: − The Panel was interested to know what the staff student ratios were for the programme, and

wanted to have some idea of what other activities staff were involved in, other than teaching on this programme.

− Panel also interested to know what additional workload was placed on the staff, through the links with Holborn?

SLS Response: − The Dean reported that the SSR for the School was running at 25 FTEs to 1, but noted that a figure

had not been specifically calibrated for the LLDip, although the LPC operated at an SSR of 12:1. − A team member roughly outlined the activities she was involved in during an average week. These

consisted of mixed teaching responsibilities from Monday to Wednesday, with Thursday and Friday reserved for research, as she is a research active member of staff.

− Noted that all research active staff are given two days a week for research, whilst non-research active staff are given one day a week, which is free from teaching.

− Noted that the main Holborn related activities are the preparation of examinations and internal moderation.

3. Technology Supported Learning (TSL) Materials Demonstration

− MC gave a demonstration of some of the TSL materials, which have been developed to support modules. The materials are available for students to use either via floppy disks or on a CD. The materials give access to many full text documents, e.g. important cases, Acts of Parliament, the Magna Carta, the US Constitution etc. Noted that a lot of the information held is timeless, therefore the resources will be built up on a cumulative basis, it also helps with the currency of materials, i.e. most recent cases, new Acts etc.

− Noted that a lot of work has been done, but MC reported there is still a lot of development work to be done.


− Noted that there is no intention for the materials to be used in a distance learning format, but only as a support to the more traditional teaching and learning methods. What they do, is give the student more choices to the way in which they study.

− Panel wished to record how impressed they were with the developments presented. 4. Meeting with Students

In Attendance: Students from 2000 – 2001 cohort: Peter Collins, FT Edward Innocent, FT Paula Walters, PT Students from 1999 – 2000 cohort: Giles Kilvert, FT, (now studying LPC at UW) Rebecca Elstron, PT, (now studying LPC at UW) Student from 1998 – 1999 cohort: Daniel Morran, FT, (took a year out for financial reasons, now studying LPC at UW) A series of questions were posed to the students by the Panel. Following each question is a summary of the students’ responses. Why study the LLDip at UW? − Career change. − Wolverhampton chosen due to locality, and in some cases, enables students to live in parental home

more cheaply, even though first degree was done somewhere else. How did you find the application / enrolment processes? − All processes seemed to run smoothly. How did you find the Induction Programme? − Eye opening, revealed how focussed everything would have to be. − Pre-course reading had seemed very difficult, especially understanding references to cases. Following

induction, these difficulties just disappeared. If you need help with anything, who would you go to? − For subject related / academic issues would go to the subject lecturer. Noted that about 90% of

problems encountered are academic and these dealt with in this way. − Students have email addresses of all staff, and on many occasions problems / issues are dealt with in

this way. − PT students reported that they often deal with their issues by going to whichever academic member of

staff is there, or use email. − All students generally felt that staff were easily accessible. How do you find the current timing of assignments, do you like them bunched together, or would you prefer them to be more spread out? − Topics often flow into each other, so find it useful to have the background from the whole module and

cross fertilisation of ideas from other modules, before completing assignments. − Students felt that staggering the assignments more, may not be in their interests. Is clear guidance given on the criteria used for assessment? − Clear guidance is given and the academic staff are very helpful in giving guidance on how to carry out

research, how to write assignments, especially where new tasks are involved, e.g. reporting on judgements.

If you experience problems meeting the hand-in deadlines for assignments, do you know what to do? − Students did not seem to be aware of extenuating circumstances / extension procedures, although

information is made available. They reported that if they experienced any problems they would generally approach a member of academic staff.


− There was also a general consensus that they are committed to the course, meet the deadlines and therefore do not need to know about these procedures.

What kind of feedback do you get on assignments and how is it given? What would you do if you were unhappy with a mark? − Reported that generally assignments are returned within 2-3 weeks. − Feedback is given on a standard form and is either sent by post or given out in class. Students thought

posting was used, as staff could not always guarantee teaching the students again, so could not necessarily give feedback in class.

− The level of feedback seemed to depend on individual members of staff, and ranged from simple ticks, with nothing noted on the feedback form, to full reporting on the feedback form.

− Students felt fuller feedback was the most useful, as it influenced their future work. − Students also felt getting feedback in class meant that they could discuss comments made with

academic member of staff immediately or make an appointment there and then to see them, rather than having to seek them out at a later date.

− Students reported that staff are accessible and appointments could be made to discuss performance whether it was good or poor, and noted that some staff did individual feedback sessions as a matter of course.

− Noted that PT students did use email a lot to contact staff members for advice / guidance, especially near exam times and during dissertations, when drafts could be submitted and commented on from a distance, which avoided the need for students to attend the University.

− Students felt that if they were unhappy with a mark, they would approach the academic member of staff concerned about it. Note they were unaware of any right to request second marking.

How would you feel if the word limit of the project were extended to 8000 words? Does the 4000 word limit allow you to demonstrate the volume of research carried out? − Some concern that arguments could not be developed adequately in 4000 words. But there was a

general recognition amongst the students that some important skills are developed during the 4000 word project. These include the ability to identify what is relevant and important, to condense it into simple and readable arguments and to learn how to be selective.

− There was a feeling that the 4000 word project does not allow a great level of detail to be demonstrated, but 4000 words does show that you’ve understood your topic and distilled ideas from potentially large amounts of research. Panel noted that 4000 word project, plus a research log would enable students to demonstrate the level of research activity carried out.

What are your views of the Learning Resources available, the Learning Centre facilities and IT resources? − Feel on occasion that they are very much in competition with the UG law students for resources, but do

make use of inter-library loan and sometimes use other HE libraries in the region. − Noted that PT students had received two induction session into the Learning Centre, one held there, the

other not. The one held in the Learning Centre was of much more value, however the students felt that the half hour sessions was just not long enough.

− One major concern was raised in relation to the access to Learning Centre and timing of assignments in relation to those due in after Christmas. The Learning Centre closes over the Christmas period in line with the University closure, students found this closure difficult at the time they most needed to access resources for assignments.

− Noted that students often found noise levels an issue when using the Learning Centre, especially mobile phones. Reported that SLS staff had agreed to police the ban on mobile phones, this had been carried out, until a member of staff was threatened.

− Students felt there was some tension between the UG and the LLDip students, mainly due to the intensive nature of their programme. It was noted that the LPC students have their own room, which those students currently following the LPC, says is a significant improvement and helps them a lot. Question raised by the students about whether they could have such a resource?

− Students also reported using their initiative to help research projects, i.e. using web sites, contacting people who could help them in their research directly.

− Noted students generally use their own IT resources, rather than those provided by the university. Ideally in your programme, when would you like the Research Methods Study Day to take place?


− As early as possible in the course as it underpins all the work carried out, but definitely before the first time they have to undertake independent study.

Would you prefer a greater mix between the FT and PT students? − Ideally this would be good, as ideas and experiences could be shared. However realistically this may

not be practical, as they would all start off at the same point, but the FT students would be working through things at a far faster rate.

Have you had to complete module evaluation questionnaires and did you receive any feedback on the results? − Questionnaires were completed. No feedback on the results has been received, but generally the

students thought this would be interesting and would like to see the results of the surveys. Are you aware of the Course Committee? − Students reported they were aware of the Course Committee, but had been a little disappointed about

the poor attendance of academic staff at the committee meetings, with only RH, the committee secretary and the FT and PT reps present.

− Students noted however that issues could be raised on behalf of the student groups at the Course Committee meetings.

Do you consider this course to postgraduate? − The students generally thought it was a PG course, but recognised that the level of study achieved is

UG. It is a new subject, therefore the depth of study can not be comparable to that on other PG courses. How many of you have training contracts? − Only one student had a training contract. Would you like to raise any other issues with the Panel? − Students questioned the assessment procedure, which only involved assessment via the 30% course

assignment, 70% examination. They felt it might be helpful, especially for students who go onto to study the LPC, to assess some of the other skills used on the LLDip, for example, active participation, ability to research independently, presentation and speaking skills. Assessing these would acknowledge them as important elements of the LLDip, and would provide a useful transition for students going onto the LPC, where these practical skills are assessed.

− The environment for PT students was raised. For example, the comfort factors, only a drinks machine available in the evening, heating reduced, or none at all, caretakers on the door jangling keys.

5. Feedback from Tour of the Learning Centre

Following the tour to the Learning Centre the following comments were made: − Extremely impressive facilities, with a lot of private study space. − Impressive opening hours. − Book stock up to date, with new editions of certain texts. − Noted as a pleasant, efficient and good learning resource. Only one minor issue, which would be to see

how the Learning Centre resource copes at peak times. The tour of the School resources was not seen as necessary, owing to members of the Panel being familiar with the resources available.

6. Feedback to the School

− The Panel was very impressed with the commitment and dedication of the School and teaching team, who demonstrated a very positive approach to the programme and the students.

− The Panel found the students to be impressive and committed, demonstrating work of a good standard. − The Panel noted the excellent Learning Centre facilities and good IT support. − The Panel were impressed with the developments the School has been undertaking to develop

technology supported learning materials. − The Panel felt almost certain that the programme was in good academic health, as no evidence could be

found to the contrary, however the Panel felt the documentation provided, lacked the necessary level of critical evaluation and analysis, which would have allowed the Panel to make a more informed


judgement. As a result, it could be said the Panel were almost completely confident in the academic health of the programme.

− The Panel felt that the small cohort numbers enabled the course to run well and enabled the establishment of good student staff relationships. However the Panel felt that this informality had perhaps lulled the School into a false sense of security, leading to systems and processes not being as sound and tight as they should be. The Panel felt this was evidenced for example, by the Course Guide, which was not fit for purpose, containing omissions, factual inaccuracies, confusing information and at times serious mistakes. Examples include an inaccurate description of the assessment regulations, out of date advice on academic misconduct, confusing advice on extenuating circumstances, confusing key events calendar, omission of guidance on referencing non-paper based materials.

− The Joint Meeting therefore resolved that, if the School were to address the issues outlined below by the next meeting of the Standing Panel, which will also be attended by the CPE Board members, they will adjourn making a final decision until that date.

Actions Required: − School to produce an Award Handbook, following the standard University template, but to ensure the

following items are included: • A revised set of Assessment Regulations, on which Bron Council is prepared to advise the School

and approve in advance of the meeting. Proposed regulations to be emailed to BC for checking, advice and approval.

• Sections outlining the University procedures for: extensions; extenuating circumstances; plagiarism; the right to second marking; and appeals process.

• A key dates diary for FT and PT students, which includes in a clear presentation, handing out and in dates for assignments, return of work dates, and possibly dates for study days, module starts, award boards etc.

• A clearer statement on study hours, identifying the split between the expected class contact time and private study, to act as a guide for students, but also noting these should be reflected consistently throughout the Handbook and in all other documentation, i.e. the splits given on module guides and MVTs should all match up.

• A clearer explanation of the titles, roles and processes relating to personal tutoring / counselling needs to be incorporated.

It should be noted that the Award Guide should clearly and accurately lay out the University and the CPE Board’s expectations and requirements of the student, in a sense providing the basis on which a contract is formed with them.

− To reconsider the introduction of assessment of key skills at the element level within the components of modules. This was re-enforced by feedback from students, especially those who have progressed onto the LPC programme, where practical skills are assessed. If key / practical skills assessment were to be introduced at this level, it would answer the comments made by the students and prepare them more fully for the LPC. Noted also, that providing students did not fail the programme because of poor performance on skills elements, the CPE Board were happy for this to be considered.

− To reflect seriously on increasing the project word length to 8000 words, noting that the students did not necessarily support such a move and identified that part of the exercise was to demonstrate the ability to condense information succinctly and clearly. The Panel would suggest the School reflects on a revised word limit, and perhaps consider the maximum at 6000 words, the minimum 4000. To also consider including in the module learning outcomes, the skill of brevity and the ability to condense lengthy and complex information into clear and simple written documents. Also to reflect the volume of research carried out, through the compilation of a research log, which could accompany the project. That whatever changes are made, the School, via the SQC should monitor closely any changes made to the word length of the Project Module.

− To consider re-positioning the Research Methods Study Day to the earliest point possible in the programme, noting students’ feedback that they would have welcomed it sooner. The Panel felt it should at least be brought forward to before the summer vacation, as this would give students additional time to reflect and begin research on their projects over the summer vacation.

− To introduce a system of second marking of projects, which is standard practice across the rest of the University, irrespective of the additional workload.

− For SQC to consider and monitor closely the variable standard of tutor feedback to students, ranging from very full to just ticks and no comments.

− For SQC to consider how it feeds back to students the results of module evaluation.


− For the SQC to monitor attendance by academic staff at course committee meetings. Note the students attending Course Committees were disappointed to find academic staff not in attendance.

− For SQC to ensure that the annual monitoring processes do provide an opportunity for critical review and analysis of the programme. Note data sets, including cohort analyses can be obtained from the Planning, Records and Statistics Unit in the Registry.

− To note the Panel will be highlighting in its final report, that University does not adequately support evening and weekend study.

− School to prepare revised documentation, which the SP members would be happy to consider before it is sent by courier to Bron Council at the Law Society and to Peter Williamson at his offices in London by no later than 16/2/01. To note that the revised documents are also circulated to the Standing Panel members on 16/2/01 also.

7. SLS Response

− Feedback given by the Dean, who expressed the School’s disappointment in the outcome, but recognises that the Course Guide needs further work.

− Some concern was expressed about ensuring that what was requested would meet both the needs of the University and the CPE Board. Panel confirmed the jointness of the meeting, the outcomes and subsequent requirements on the School.

− The Dean wished it to be noted that the issues relating to the Project had undergone considerable discussion in the School and the team would need to be consulted on any changes.


Appendix 6 University of Wolverhampton University Quality Committee Notes of the Business and Law Standing Panel, Sub-group Meeting, held at Compton Park on 14 February 2001. Present: Kathryn Southworth Jenny Newlyn (Officer) Sharon Hasluck Jill Gollins Observer: Rachel Ford, QASD In Attendance for latter part of the meeting: Brian Mitchell, SLS Rowland Hughes, SLS Pam Sellman, Holborn College 1. LLDip: Review and Re-validation

− SP members received the revised Award Guide for the LLDip programme, with a covering email from Rowland Hughes.

− Given the tight turn around time and the need to submit the revised Award Guide to the CPE Board on 16/2/01, a copy of the Award Guide was marked up with proposed amendments during the course of its discussion and was given to SLS during the meeting. A copy of this document is on the SP file and will act as a record of the changes proposed and is in lieu of detailed notes of the changes requested. The SP did raise one or two generic issues as follows:

− SP still had a few concerns about the perceived audience for the Award Guide. They felt it must be remembered that this is a document for students, and therefore does not necessarily need to include procedural / process type information, which may only be of interest to staff and not students.

− Noted that if the Project Co-ordinator is in fact Rowland Hughes, then details of this role should be included under the Award Leader heading, and the Project Co-ordinator role removed.

− SP felt the Guide should include details of where students hand their assignments in to and where they get their results from, i.e. the Registry.

− SP checked what the arrangements would be for personal tutoring? The Award Guide indicated personal tutors would be allocated, suggesting a change from the previous documentation and discussion on 30/1/01. SLS confirmed that it had taken the comments of the Panel and the CPE Board into account and would spread the work of personal tutoring across the staff members teaching on the programme. Therefore the statement in the Award Guide represents an accurate reflection of what the arrangements will be for 2001-2002.

− SP noted that the revised teaching programme was much improved and provided a clear statement for students.

− SP noted that RH had not yet been able to confirm the Assessment Regulations with Bron Council. − SP noted the School’s views on the timing of the Research Methods Study day, and their desire to leave

it in its current location, noting that students receive an introduction to research methods during the induction period. SP felt the case made by SLS was fair and the email, which accompanied the revised Award Guide, should be tabled at the meeting on 23/2/01.

− SP welcomed the changes made to include assessment of presentation skills. It also noted that the Programme specification and MVTs would have to be changed to reflect these changes. Noted once complete, these should be sent to the SP Officer, for the SP files and to ensure accurate records are created on the student record system.

− SP noted an issue arising from the consideration of the documents, which it does not expect the School to address at this stage, but wishes to have recorded in the final AAR. There appears to be no continuity or agreed understanding across the University on what constitutes key, practical and intellectual skills.


SPs and proposers are being left to interpret these for themselves, with very little guidance. The whole issue of differentiation between the skill groupings needs clarification.

Action: − SLS to make the changes identified by the SP and submit the revised Award Guide to the CPE Board

on 16/2/01, and at the same time provide copies for the SP members. − SLS to ensure that the changes made to the Award Guide for the UW programme are reflected in the

guide for the Holborn franchise of the award. − SLS to confirm the assessment regulations detail with Bron Council in advance of the meeting on

23/2/01, so that this can be signed off by the joint meeting on that date. − SLS to provide the SP Officer with a revised Programme Specification and revised MVTs to reflect the

changes made. − SP Officer to record the institutional issue raised in the AAR.

2. LLDip Holborn Franchise: Review and Re-validation − SP received the LLDip franchise submission documentation and the SQC minutes for 7/2/01, where the

documentation had first been considered. It was noted that as the papers were only received by SP members on 13/2/01 and owing to the majority of the SP’s time during this meeting, being used to look at the home programme’s Award Guide, the following approach was going to be taken. Comments from other SP members on the documentation to be forwarded to JG and SH, who agreed to meet on the morning of 19/2/01 to pull the feedback together. A marked up copy with comments / amendments etc would be provided to SLS, as well as Brian Mitchell receiving feedback directly on 19/2/01.

− It was also noted that in pulling the feedback and comments together for the School, that JG and SH could usefully identify, what documentary evidence they wished to see in the Base Room, in advance of the visit to Holborn in March.

− The following are the initial SP comments on what it managed to consider in the time available during this meeting:

− SP felt that the SQC Minutes demonstrated that the documentation had been thoroughly considered by the School, however felt that in the short time between that meeting and this one, not all comments had been acted upon. SP felt all the SQC’s requirements should be actioned in full.

− SP welcomed the appendix on QAA’s Code of Practice on Collaborative Links, but felt to state complete compliance was a little premature, given that UQC had only recently received the University’s report on this code. A form of words was proposed to indicate that progress was being made.

− SP expressed some concern about the poor retention rates, and wondered whether all the franchise students were interviewed before stating the programme and what guidance / counselling they were given about the intensity and demands of the programme. Given the poor retention rates, the SP felt some further account was required, and that the SP should investigate prior to the meeting in March, what the processes were and whether publicity material stressed the intensive and demanding nature of the course.

− SP spent some time looking at the BACs’s report, and although it noted it was an institutional visit of Holborn, SP felt that a little more attention should be given in the LLDip critical review, to addressing some of the critical comments made in the BAC’s report.

Action: − SP members involved with Holborn proposal to send comments on documentation to JG and SH before

19/2/01. − SLS to send revised Holborn Award Guide to JG and SH before 19/2/01. − JG and SH to review documents and provide feedback in the following ways to SLS: a marked up copy

of the documents and verbal feedback to Brian Mitchell on 19/2/01. − SLS to submit revised copies of all the documentation to the SP Officer at the same time as sending it

to the CPE Board. − SP Officer to send a draft agenda. SLS to provide the additional information required, so that the

agenda can be finalised by the SP Officer. Final agenda and location maps for Holborn to be sent by SLS with the submission documents to the CPE Board and the SP members involved in the Holborn visit.


Appendix 6 University of Wolverhampton University Quality Committee Notes of the Business and Law Standing Panel (SP) and CPE Board (Law Society) Joint Meeting, held on 23 February 2001, in the Armstrong Room, Wolverhampton Science Park, commencing at 1:45 p.m. Present: Kathryn Southworth (Chair) Jenny Newlyn (Officer) Peter Williamson, Chair of CPE Board and practising solicitor Bron Council, Education and Training Officer for Quality, Law Society Seth Crofts William Mott Sharon Hasluck Martin Cartwright John Traxler Jill Gollins Paul Buszard Gill Sower Observer: Rachel Ford Apologies: − Apologies were received from SP members Linda Thomas and Marc Scholes. 1. Meeting with CPE Board

− Noted that a great deal of work had been done on the Award Guide since the previous meeting, and the guide is now a completely different document. However considerable concern was expressed about the process of document control in the Law School, because different versions of the Award Guide existed around the table. This is not good practice and leads to confusion and frustration, even before the content is examined. SP strongly recommends that SLS implement a more rigorous system of document control, the bare minimum being the inclusion of version numbers and dates on the documents produced and submitted.

− The Assessment Regulations section of the Award Guide still needs further work. Bron Council agreed to continue working with the School to get this right, and will give RH, a marked up copy of the changes required. Once revisions have been made by SLS, she will approve them, so that they can be included in the Award Guide.

− Noted that following the changes requested by the SP regarding skills assessment, the programme was now in contravention of the CPE Board regulations. In theory it was now possible, all be it a very unlikely possibility, for a student to be failed, who did not achieve a high enough mark in the presentation component, coupled with a low mark in the coursework. SP noted with regret the need to withdraw the presentation component of assessment to ensure the programme could receive CPE approval.

− CPE Board still had some concerns about what the School is going to do to address some of the concerns about systems and processes, for example, things such as more devolution of course management, better and more analytical use and discussion of statistics.

− Clarification also needed on whether the School intends to adopt a double marking system. − Some suggestions were made by the CPE Board for minor alterations / amendments and additions to

the Award Guide, to assist in clarification, or to improve the guide in a few areas. These are included as an Appendix to the minutes. In addition the SP wished the School to look at the following: • Page 16, point 6 on cheating etc, could be deleted, as it comes up again on the next page. • Page 16, point 8, consider expanding this into a glossary of terms and remove it from this section,

perhaps place it earlier in the document, or turn it into an Appendix. • Note CPE Board requires two External Examiners • Note every incident of proven or admitted academic misconduct should be reported to the Law

Society, however big or small.


• Instead of putting maps into the Guide as suggested, put in the URL for the University map site. • Consider adding to the Appendices, the forms for AU33 for Extenuating Circumstances and AU34

for Extensions. − Noted that given the discussion and the changes already effected by the School, that the CPE Board

and the Standing Panel were prepared to re-validate the programme, providing the actions that have been identified are carried out.

− Note the SP will expect to see evidence of the changes agreed, before the re-validation can be finally approved, the Academic Approval Record written and submitted to both UQC and the CPE Board for final ratification.

2. Meeting with SLS Staff In Attendance: Brian Mitchell, Associate Dean of SLS Rowland Hughes, Award Leader, SLS Pamela Sellman, Holborn College − The SLS team members joined the meeting and were appraised of the position regarding validation. − The issues outlined in Point 1 above were discussed with the School, and the following responses were

noted. • SLS does not intend to introduce double-blind marking, as this is not the practice on other

undergraduate programmes. However the School’s Teaching and Learning Committee is currently developing a Teaching and Learning strategy and policy for moderation, which will be discussed at the School’s SQC. Note that CPE Board strongly recommends that projects be double marked and note should be taken that even though it is not university policy, the common practice elsewhere in the university is to double mark projects.

• SLS noted that a lot of the work for managing the course is still vested with the Award Leader. The suggestion made previously to spread the personal tutor and pastoral care were a very good idea, and this is being considered in the School. Equally the idea to identify another member of staff as the Project Co-ordinator was thought to be good and would also be considered. The Panel wished to encourage the School to consider ways of spreading the management of the programme, as much to offer staff development opportunities for the other team members, as to remove some of the management and co-ordination load from the Award Leader. For example, staff could be “experts” in certain things, such as assessment. Noted that the School Executive is already considering this issue, and noted also how important it is that all staff understand the structure and requirements of the course.

• SLS noted the importance of improving the statistics, the way they are collected and analysed, the need for common definitions, e.g. how are drop out rates defined and measured, who is and who is not included in these statistics? Reported that SQC is about to receive the annual monitoring report for 1999-2000 session, where these issues will be discussed.

− SLS raised the issue about the timing of the research methods day and whether the Panel wished to pursue this issue. The Panel noted that they were satisfied with justification provided by the School in advance of the meeting, which provided a robust case for keeping the day for FT students where it was, and the suggestions for moving the PT students’ day were welcomed. It was noted that the induction introduces students to basic skills in legal research and works well on the evidence of work submitted at the outset of the course. It is felt that to introduce what would be a higher level of research methodology at this stage would confuse students and possibly detract from what is done at that point in the course. The inter-semester break would be a time for reflection and would be a day free of other demands. It would also serve as a building block between the two semesters. It was noted that different considerations apply to PT students, and even though it may be sensible to have the day prior to the summer break, the course extends well into the final term, when there are exam boards, marking etc for staff. Noted that the School is considering re-positioning the day for PT students at the end of their first semester in year 1, again in the inter-semester break. This would then give the PT students the opportunity to maximise the study period during the summer break.

− SLS ended the meeting by giving thanks to the SP and the CPE Board for all the work they had done and time they had spent with the School on helping them to get the LLDip re-validated.

3. Actions


− The SP requires the following actions to be carried out by SLS, before the re-validation can be finally approved by the SP, the Academic Approval Record written and submitted to both UQC and the CPE Board for final ratification. • SLS to amend the Assessment Regulations in line with the comments made by the CPE Board.

Once changed, SLS to re-submit them to Bron Council for approval. Once approved, they are to be incorporated into the Award Guide.

• SLS to consider for inclusion / amendment in the Award Guide, the suggestions made in these minutes. Final version of the Award Guide to be re-submitted to the SP for approval on 30/3/01, copies to be with SP Officer by 23/3/01.

• SLS to revise the MVTs to exclude the presentation component and re-submit a complete set of MVTs to the SP Officer for the SP file, and to enable the updating of the student record system. Copies to be with the officer by 30/3/01.

• Any revisions required to the Programme Specification to be made and re-submitted to the SP Officer for the SP file.

• SP Officer to send the final SP approved copy of the Award Guide to the CPE Board, along with copies of the Academic Approval Record (AAR), for consideration and ratification by the CPE Board.

− SLS to review its systems of document control. − SLS to seriously consider the introduction of double marking for the project module. − SLS to ensure that as part of the Annual Monitoring process, via SQC, there is better and more

analytical use made of statistics. − SLS to consider the delegation of some of the course management functions more widely across the

LLDip team.


Appendix

CPE VALIDATION AT UNIVERSITY OF WOLVERHAMPTON

I would like to make a few suggestions for minor alterations / amendments / additions to assist in clarifying issues in a few areas or make even better, without wanting to detract from the hard work that has gone into the new version. My suggestions would be as follows:

1. A little more explicit information on private study hours would be useful on page 7 of the Guide to spell out private study hours per subject per week as I think CPE students in particular need this very clear guidance on workload.

2 Could the Project Module submission of proposals date go in the key dates diary for both FT and PT as this seems to be an important deadline in the student calendar.

3. Who is the Careers Tutor identified for the CPE and referred to on Page 4 of the Guide? Could they be mentioned in the LLDip Staff list on Page 5 of the Guide?

4. Could Rowland be shown as Project Co-ordinator under Award Leader in the LLDip Staff list on Page 5 of the Guide?

5. It would be very useful for non-Wolverhampton University students to have a map or guide showing the university campus and buildings in the Guide at or around page 4 of the Guide, which deals with accommodation.

6. A copy of the Extension formAA033 could usefully be inserted in the Guide at or around Page 17 of the Guide dealing with extensions.

7. A copy of the form for extenuating circumstances referred to in 2a on Page 17 of the Guide would also be useful in the Guide in the same section + details of the number of the form.

8. Under Collusion on Page 17, there is a small typo on the second line “as the work of one student alone.”.

9. You might want to consider expanding the WARNING on Page 18 of the Guide at the top, that deals with serious academic misconduct, to mention that this is a matter of “character and suitability”. It can result in a person not being eligible to qualify as a solicitor. You should check what the position is for the bar as I cannot speak for them. Perhaps heading it WARNING! in bold print and capitals might be useful, as the consequences can be severe and very far-reaching.

10. Para 4 on Page 18 of the Guide there is a small typo , “The ONLY grounds for appeal…”

11. I think that it would be helpful to make it explicit in the Project Module Guide on Page 21 of the Guide and also on Page 7 that the Project Module must be studied in an additional area of law i.e. other than one of the 7 Foundation Modules already studied.

12. In the same sections it should make it clear that only Project Modules that fall within the subject expertise of the teaching team can be considered. To avoid disappointment it might be useful to provide an “indicative list” of such general areas and even more helpful to provide a few examples of actual project titles previously undertaken by students.

13. Page 21 of the Guide, the last line refers to the project being completed in week 37 of the course but this is for FT only and its is week 37 of year 2 for PT. I have no problems in using only 1 guide for both FT and PT students with these small numbers, but it does mean that you should deal with both FT and PT in parallel.


14. On Page 22 of the Guide, para 2 at the top of the page, the proposal submission date for the project is week 16 for FT but gives no clear indication for PT. It’s the same comment as 4.13 above – Don’t leave out PT students as they can sometimes feel little “hard done to” + these dates need to go in the key dates diary as 4.2 above.

15. What are the assessment/marking criteria for the project? You mention on Page 23 of the Guide under Assessment, that presentation, style, planning etc are all taken into account. Are specific marks allocated for each of the aspects mentioned? If so, you should tell the students how many marks are allocated for each aspect and generally let them know how the project is marked and what a 70% project looks like as compared to a 60% or 50%. I am not sure that your assessment criteria in Appendix 3 of the Guide really covers the Project as it seems to be written more with examinations and courseworks in mind. A short section in the Guide after the current Assessment paragraph on Page 23 would be very helpful.

16. In relation to the Foundation Module Descriptions set out from Page 33 of the Guide, it’s the FT PT issue again, with some modules showing the weeks for both FT and PT and others just showing FT. For consistency and inclusiveness, it should really show both FT and PT weeks for all modules.

17. There is no longer any indication of coursework length in the module descriptions although there was in the last guide and I think it should go back in.

18. There is no longer any indication of examination length in the module descriptions as there was in the original and I think it should go back in.

19. Are the examinations unseen? It should say so. 20. Are the examinations closed or open book? It should say so. 21. Are the courseworks 3000 words now? They were 2,500 before?


Appendix 8 University of Wolverhampton University Quality Committee Notes of the Business and Law Standing Panel and CPE Board (Law Society) Joint Meeting, held on 15 March 2001, at Holborn College, London. Present: Kathryn Southworth (Chair) Jenny Newlyn (Officer) Tony Dugdale, Member of CPE Board, Academic member of staff, University of Keele Bron Council, Education and Training Officer for Quality, Law Society William Mott Sharon Hasluck Jill Gollins 1. Meeting with CPE Board

− Standing Panel (Panel) and CPE Board members discussed the areas they wished to cover during the meeting with Holborn College (HC) and SLS staff. It was agreed that issues should be raised in a thematic way, under the following headings: • Teaching, Learning and Assessment • Student Progression and Achievement • Student Support and Guidance • Learning Resources • Quality Management and Enhancement

− Noted that issues relating to the curriculum, design, content and organisation had been dealt with at the UW re-validation event. As the HC provision represents a franchise of the UW programme, the Panel felt there was no need to discuss this aspect with the college. There were some issues relating to curriculum delivery, but agreed these would be dealt with under Teaching. Learning and Assessment.

− Noted that the meeting with students would examine some of the key points through the student lifecycle, as well as raising any specific issues.

2. Meeting with SLS and Holborn College Staff

In Attendance: Cederic Bell, Chief Executive, HC Bob Clark, Dean of SLS, UW Stuart Williams, Director of Legal Studies, HC and Principal Lecturer, UW Pamela Sellman, Award Leader, HC Rowland Hughes, Award Leader, UW Stephen Bishop, Workshop Tutor, HC Ian Brown, Lecturer and Workshop Tutor, HC Alison Hough, Lecturer and Workshop Tutor, HC Tam Ikram, Lecturer and Workshop Tutor, HC John Koo, Lecturer and Workshop Tutor, HC Vic-Kneswaren Krishnan, Lecturer and Workshop Tutor, HC Paul Bridges, Workshop Tutor, HC Edwin Lictenstein, Lecturer and Workshop Tutor, HC Catherine Bennett, PA to Chief Executive, HC i. Teaching Learning and Assessment

Panel Issues: − Panel interested to find out more about the workshop sessions, their size and how they work. − Panel also noted student comments and feedback about changing group membership. − Panel also interested to know how non-participation of students in workshop sessions is handled. − Panel wished to know the differences between tutorials and workshops and what the difference is

between a lecturer and workshop leader. − Panel interested to know what systems are operated by HC to give feedback on students’ work.


− Panel wondered what mechanisms HC employed to carry out peer observation of teaching. − Panel interested to know how the project process works, how students identify their projects and

titles and what resources they use to carry out their research? − Panel interested to know HC’s views on the research skills and methods days. HC / SLS Response: − Workshops are operated on the LLB as well as the LLDip and run well. Students in the cohort are

split into four groups of five. The groups are then divided between two rooms and are facilitated by a member of HC staff in each room. Students are expected to prepare a subject in advance, staff are there to encourage lines of enquiry, suggest cases, coax and facilitate.

− Noted that the strong students cope very well with this format, whilst the weaker ones require more support and encouragement, but the facilitators ensure that the more dominant students do not take over.

− Note HC staff felt that in most cases, the sessions covered all the necessary material. − Noted that the workshop sessions follow a 1½ hour lecture with all groups together, with ¾ hour

group discussion in the workshop, followed by ¾ hour feedback session with all the groups together again.

− Note within the module the Module team rotates between the groups, so that the different students get exposed to the different staff members.

− Noted that the students at the beginning of the course often asked for group moves. This has been tried out, but the students then express a desire to return to their original groupings.

− Noted that given the pressures faced by students, it is recognised that on occasions a student will not be prepared. If this happens on a more regular basis, although records of participation are not kept, the staff know who is and is not contributing. Where necessary the staff discuss the issue with the student concerned.

− Note also issues can be raised by students with staff and email communication between staff and students is becoming more common place.

− Noted that HC does not run tutorials and the roles of lecturer / workshop leader is interchangeable. − Noted that all assignments set by UW. Students collect the assignments from the Academic Office

at HC, along with an assignment feedback coversheet. When they submit the assignment the feedback coversheet is attached. Students receive copy of the coversheet and grade after the award boards have met and the end of each semester. Noted that the practice of giving feedback and grades later was to ensure the student received the confirmed grade and feedback following possible adjustment as a result of the award board or following the submission of example work to the external examiner.

− Panel noted this meant a student would be submitting further assignments before receiving feedback from the earlier ones. It was felt that students should be given the benefit of feedback as early as possible, in order to aid their development and progress. Noted that HC were prepared to give feedback on work in progress submitted by students.

− Noted that Stuart Williams is planning to introduce a system of peer observation of teaching, based on that used in SLS and approved by the School’s Teaching and Learning Committee.

− Cederic Bell wished the panel to note that a staff appraisal system is to be introduced in September 2001, part of which will involve teaching observation, and he wished to marry this in with the UW process.

− Noted also that the LLDip programme canvasses student opinion via UW module evaluation proformas, but also via HC evaluation forms, which are fed into their Academic Board. If students’ views consistently show their unhappiness with staff members, then the teaching team can be changed. This happened with Public Law, where student performance was poor and their feedback suggested problems with the teaching team, resulting in staff changes. In cases such as this the staff are also counselled. Noted also that if staff are not happy with the syllabus / module, they keep in touch with the module leaders at UW, and can make suggestions for changes.

− Noted that HC staff give talks on the project, informing students they must pick an area different to the 7 subjects studied as compulsory parts of the LLDip, and have informal discussions with students, many of whom wish to do a project related to their area of employment.

− Students submit proposals, at which further guidance is given, especially if a proposal is too broad. Project supervisors are allocated according to the staff’s specialist areas. To date no project has had to be turned down due to lack of staff expertise.


− When the students are studying the project, their timetable gives them Saturday afternoons free to use the IT lab and library. They also use their own PCs and work / other libraries. Panel noted that as UW students they should be able to gain access to other university libraries in London, although it was noted that some libraries charge. HC noted that when provided with a letter students can use other libraries, but Panel felt the arrangements were rather ad hoc, and students needed to be informed systematically.

− HC intend to involve a research skills day as part of the induction programme, which will involve staff from UW. As the research methods day, planned for later in the programme, is a new innovation, discussions are still ongoing about the delivery of this, with joint planning meetings taking place between HC and UW.

ii. Student Progression and Achievement

Panel Issues: − Panel interested to find out more about the HC application and admissions processes, for example,

are applications for entry turned down, if so on what grounds? − Panel wondered what consideration is given to the shelf life of qualifications, i.e. study over ten

years ago and whether the applicant was able to meet the study requirements? − Panel wondered whether there was any correlation between students entering with a Certificate of

Advanced Standing and their performance on the course, or any other categories of students identified as having difficulties or leaving the programme prematurely.

− Panel concerned about the drop out rate from the course. − Panel also wished to query higher failure rate at first sit on some modules in Semester 1, e.g.

Public Law, which students then complete successfully on re-sit. − Panel also wondered whether any use could be made of continuing students during the induction

period with the first years, and perhaps use a course buddy system, matching second years up with first years during the initial stages.

HC / SLS Response: − Students are counselled strongly about the demands of the course, i.e. giving up Saturdays for two

years. HC held an open day in the middle of August, which gave applicants the opportunity to have in depth discussions about a range of issues, including the nature of the course, and it is hoped to run a similar event this year. Following counselling, those who hold the appropriate entry requirements are admitted onto the course. Those who do not hold appropriate entry qualifications are counselled about what they need to do to reach entry standard, e.g. possibly apply to the Law Society for a Certificate of Advanced Standing, but at this stage they are refused entry onto the programme. If students with an appropriate entry profile identify issues which may prevent them from committing themselves immediately to such an intensive course, they often postpone their admission. Any student facing any difficulties or in need of further counselling at this stage, were dealt with by Pam Sellman, the Award Leader for the franchise.

− Panel informed that where entry qualifications were gained over 10 years ago, HC Admissions Staff are advised to consider the applicant closely. Applicants who had not studied for a period of time or whose qualification was gained some time ago, were again referred to the Award Leader.

− Note it was also confirmed that all students, whose first language is not English, are required to meet the university’s stated entry requirement, IELTS 6.00.

− HC noted that they had not spotted any specific trends in relation to performance, nor any specific types of students in difficulty or leaving the programme early. When this does happen, HC does what it can to help a student facing difficulties, guidance and support are given. HC also believes that when it introduces the personal tutoring system later in the year, this will help identify specific problem areas. Note that once students complete the first year, they see the light at the end of the tunnel and usually show great determination to complete the programme.

− Noted that students are given the opportunity to complete the course and it was felt that the drop-out rate was in line with the rest of the market and was not cause for concern. HC would only be worried if the teaching, learning and assessment practices did not give students the opportunity to succeed.

− HC acknowledged that the failure rates were a little high, and there were probably a number of reasons for this, including the pressurised nature of the course, lack of knowledge, but they also felt that students sometimes adopt a staged approach to their study, i.e. they do sufficient to allow them to progress, but carry a failure and do the re-sit, as this does not incur any penalties. Noted that some failures are genuine, as students do not submit work or, more commonly, sit exams.


− The Panel was assured that students have the opportunity to see previous exam papers, which some staff show them at the beginning of the module. Noted that mock exams had been tried, but the take up was small. Noted also that the questions asked in the workshops prepare the students for the exams and train students in analytical skills.

− Finally HC reported that they have maintained student numbers, when the CPE qualification is under pressure nationally. They recognise there may be downsides to offering Saturday only provision, but feel this is adequately offset by its uniqueness, not only in London, but nationally too.

iii. Student Support and Guidance

Panel Issues: − Panel asked about arrangements for communication between staff and students, whether staff have

email addresses and whether or not students are given the details, so they can have access to staff in this way?

− Panel interested to note that HC intends to introduce a personal tutoring scheme and was interested to understand the background to this decision.

− Panel interested to know what careers advice is given to students and what the careers destinations of students are.

HC / SLS Response: − Noted that students are given the email addresses of the Course Director (Stuart Williams) and the

Award Leader (Pam Sellman), and all staff can be contacted via HC email. Noted that some of the PT HC staff give an alternative email address to students, i.e. a work or private one, which has proved to be particularly helpful to students, especially those requiring project supervision.

− The personal tutoring scheme is being introduced as a direct result of feedback from students. Equally it is felt by HC that the introduction of the scheme will help improve performance and retention rates. The intention is for each staff member to have 6-7 tutees. Note a counsellor has been employed by HC, with services offered to students on Saturdays, but there has been no take up.

− A careers evening is held, to which all students are invited. There is also a new careers officer, who will be looking introducing the careers focus earlier in the course, during year one. Sessions are run on advancing to the LPC and completing the Bar forms, but unfortunately little information is available on students’ final destinations.

iv. Learning Resources

Panel Issues: − Panel wished to have clarification on the current staffing position and any proposed changes. − Panel noted that the BAC report raised various issues to do with resources, e.g. teaching

accommodation, lack of flexibility and pressures on space. − Panel wondered what use was made of UW learning resources and how students were inducted

into their use? − Panel noted that if the tour revealed further issues, these would be addressed later in the day. HC / SLS Response: − Noted that the staffing position at HC is in the process of change. The college currently employs

three categories of staff, full time (6), part time (2) and fractional contract staff (3), who work between 2 and 4 days per week and are required to take on other responsibilities besides teaching, e.g. administrative / management responsibilities, tutoring, committee participation. HC believes that the employment of more FT and fractional contract staff will provide the course with a better underpinning than previously.

− Noted that the staff student ratio on a Saturday is about 1:11.25. − Noted that some of the BAC Report criticism re: pressure on teaching space etc. does not apply to

the LLDip programme, as the College is used less on Saturdays, about 100 students. But also noted that the problems at other times have been caused in part by increasing numbers, alongside a third party occupancy agreement, which is to come to finish at the end of the year.

− Noted that OHPs can be used in classrooms and video recorders are available, but little use is made of them on the course.


− Noted that it is the intention to build into the induction programme for students, training in the use of UW resources.

v. Quality Management and Enhancement

Panel Issues: − Panel wished to know what role the external examiner played and whether or not double marking

was in operation, and especially in relation to projects. − Panel questioned whether any comparison was carried out between the two distinct cohorts, HC

and UW? − Panel sought some clarification on the titles and the roles of the key people involved. − Panel questioned to what extent links between HC and UW staff existed and how much input HC

staff have into the development of the programme? HC / SLS Response: − Noted there is a close working relationship between the HC staff and the UW team. All fails and

borderlines are double marked. All scripts are sent to UW for moderation and a sample sent to the external examiner for further moderation. Note the system of double marking is not blind.

− Note following the re-validation of the UW programme and the issue raised about the blind double marking of student projects, SLS assured the panel, that this practice would be introduced.

− The sampling for the external is done jointly by HC and UW. HC identify those to go in the sample, which UW, following moderation may add to.

− The external examiner or the CPE Board has the right to adjust the final grades, but this happens rarely and when it does it’s a matter of 5% change up or down at the most.

− The intention is to send both UW and HC scripts to the external examiner at the same time, but noted this was not always possible. Sometimes given the logistics the UW scripts were sent first. Noted that the external examiner awaits all work before sending back a report and has commented positively on the comparability of the HC and UW scripts. Noted discussion takes place at the award board regarding the comparability of the cohorts and any specific issues arising are followed up with further discussion and action after the award board.

− Noted that the CPE Board requires two external examiners, communication had been found by Panel members relating to Richard Clements, but nothing from the other one, Juliette Bellis. Panel informed that she has been involved and would make sure the appropriate evidence was provided for the Panel.

− Projects from HC and UW are submitted to the External together and are double marked, no concerns have been raised about the extent of research contained within or the calibre of the projects from HC.

− Noted the overall Award Manager for the LLDip is Rowland Hughes (referred in the Memorandum of Co-operation as the Programme Manager), Pam Sellman is the LLDip Award Leader at HC and Stuart Williams oversees the various aspects of all the UW courses and links with HC, i.e. the LLDip, LLB and the DL programme.

− Noted there is liaison between HC and UW staff on the module teams. Communication takes place by phone, email, conference calls. PS attends SQC and Award Board meetings. HC staff wishing to make suggestions to change module content, can do this via discussion with UW module leaders and via the minor modifications process. Noted there is also close liaison over situations involving appeals or misconduct.

− Panel noted that the relationship between HC and UW appears to be excellent, is long established and productive. Panel felt this strength had not been reflected in the most positive way in the critical review document, where it was referred to as “constructive.”

− HC wished to inform the Panel that it is working towards fundamentally re-positioning itself from a quality perspective. It now has its own Academic Board, which meets twice per year and has been set up with the specific purpose of advising the company directors on quality issues and to make recommendations to close or amend courses where issues had been identified.

Action: − SLS to ensure that two external examiners are in attendance at award boards and reports are

received from both. − SLS and HC to ensure that blind double marking of projects is introduced.


3. Meeting with Students

In Attendance: Sait Akgul Suzanne Phillingham Martin Hartingham A series of questions were posed to the students by the Panel. Following each question is a summary of the students’ responses. How did you find out about the course and how did you find the recruitment experience? − Looking to study PT, brought to an open day by a friend currently studying. Took up the place when

personal finances allowed. Student had not studied for 20 years, knew it would involve Saturdays and study in the evenings, but felt the open evening did not give sufficient warning of how intense it would be. On asking what could have been done to assist, it was suggested that it would have been helpful to have been given a list of pre-course reading, and perhaps have picked up the course books before enrolment. Noted student would have willingly come in more Sundays at the beginning of the course to help re-adjust to learning, if sessions had been arranged.

− Course chosen for its close proximity to home. Felt little help had been given in the learning techniques required for the course and that a pre-course on study skills may have helped. Also would have liked some pre-course reading. Noted additional Sundays may have helped, but recognise it’s not cost effective, but a two day induction may be more helpful.

− Graduate at another institution where the LLDip was withdrawn from the portfolio, so chose to do it at HC. The intensity of the course was a big culture shock and a good, motivating start was needed to get you over that. Students may have helped more in doing the initial assignment on English Legal System, if more preparation had been done with the students at the college first. Feels the course is good, professional and notes the workshops and seminars work very well. Also if notice had been given, would have taken leave from employment to attend a three day induction course. Felt they were “babies at induction”, needed more guidance, ended up learning the hard way. Note did not meet anyone from professional firms.

What feedback did you get on assignments? − Students reported that feedback, i.e. marks / comments on coursework and exams were given back

together and that it would have been very valuable to get the coursework back earlier to inform them about their performance, before taking the exams.

− Note some students had felt annoyed, when occasionally, assignments were not given out in line with the published timetable. Noted that given the intensity of the course, the timetable should be adhered to, so that students can plan their limited time to meet the requirements of the course.

Are you aware of the procedures for extenuating circumstances and extensions? − Students generally tried to hit all of their deadlines given the intensity of the course, as falling behind

had knock-on effects, but they were all aware of the procedures, as the Award Leader had outlined these clearly at the beginning of the course. Both procedures had been used, as and when necessary by the students, with difficulties.

How did you find the learning resources and what access have you made to resources elsewhere? − Note there was very mixed understanding and awareness about access to other libraries, and generally

they did not realise they could access libraries anywhere else. Noted that when this had been tried by one of the students, they had faced high charges, or had been asked for a letter specifying what access was required, with specific dates.

− Noted the projects undertaken by these students covered abortion law, human rights and magistrates courts.

What support and guidance did you receive on the course? − Noted that students felt that it was sometimes difficult to get to see someone (administrative or

academic), if you needed to. − Sometimes getting the books and materials on the day agreed was difficult, as they were not always

available. They felt this needed to be better. Also they relied on course colleagues for notes if they missed a session.


− There was a feeling that the administrative staff are young and inexperienced, most students would wait until the right person was in the office to answer their queries.

− They felt the technical support they received and guidance in the use of the library was fine, but were concerned about only being able to borrow two books on a one-week loan.

− They found it useful to be able to email staff, but preferred the personal contact. − Note two of the students were now studying for the LPC, the other retrieving a module on the LLDip.

4. Feedback from Tour of the College − Panel noted that the journal stock in the library was appropriate and up to date, but some texts were not

the current editions. − Panel initially concerned about learning resources and wished to investigate further with HC the

following: • the processes for reserving IT lab space • the arrangements being made for the use of other libraries in London • the availability of additional resources for supplementary reading • the policy of two book loan per student per week • the FTE budget per student, per programme • the library acquisitions policy • the use made of reservations and inter-library loans • strategies for access to IT resources and the library

− At this stage the Panel felt it may have to consider asking Linda Thomas, the Standing Panel’s Learning Resources representative and possibly Fiona Mill, UW Assistant Director of Learning Resources to make a visit to HC to investigate these issues further. It was decided to invite the HC team back in for further focussed discussions on Learning Resources to see what could be resolved at this point.

5. Further Discussion with HC Staff

In Attendance Cederic Bell, Chief Executive, HC Stuart Williams, Director of Legal Studies, HC and Principal Lecturer, UW Pamela Sellman, Award Leader, HC Alison Hough, Lecturer and Workshop Tutor, HC Mike Brooks, Librarian, HC The HC team were invited back into the meeting in order to address the issues raised in point 4 above. − Note a new IT lab is planned, which will represent a real increase in resources, currently the ratio of

PCs to students is 1:20, it is hoped to improve this to 1:10. The intention is to have one lab of 60 PCs for private study, another lab of 60 PCs for mixed use, private study and teaching, and a further lab of 20 PCs for use by the GSCE A’ Level students. This will enable easier booking / reserving of IT space. Noted also that HC is hoping to move buildings by 2002.

− It was noted that the LLDip runs on Saturdays, a time when the resources available were generally used less, therefore making access easier. Also noted that the LLDip students use the resources more intensively during the project period, especially the CD Roms.

− Noted that the inter-library loan system via the British Library is used, and the LLDip students are generally more aware of the services available. Panel noted that according to the memorandum of co-operation, the HC LLDip students should have access to UW learning resources as external borrowers, but the distance from Wolverhampton was obviously a barrier to use, although some students may be prepared to travel. HC and SLS stated that access to the HC students had not been made available.

− Noted that many students make use of libraries local to their own area, including University libraries, for which a standard letter of introduction is provided. The panel noted that the important difference between ease of access to libraries in the new universities, in contrast to the libraries of the constituent parts of old universities, e.g. University of London, where significant charges were made. Noted HC had tried to join the M25 Group of London Libraries, but had not been able to.

− HC confirmed that the all the course materials, published by HC printing arm, are supplied to the students inclusive of the fee paid, on the commencement of each module of study. These include the case book, the text book, the module planner and the revision book. These resources are designed to enable students to maximise their limited time throughout the week. Noted that they are constructed in


such a way that if a student were to miss a week for any reason, they could easily catch up, without necessarily receiving additional handouts or notes from the Academic Office.

− Panel questioned HC on how much need they believed there to be, to read outside of the texts provided. HC believed that for the majority of the programme the texts provided were sufficient, but some additional reading may be required. Noted that where the module planner identified additional reading, multiple copies were provided in the library and core texts were subject to the borrowing restrictions of 2 books per week per student. Noted also that during the project period the library was open on additional days, i.e. on Sundays.

− Cederic Bell reported that he and the Librarian annually review expenditure on library resources, ensuring maintenance of the key texts and law reports, but have designated 15-20% of the budget to strengthening the wider library stock. Panel sought re-assurance from HC that any growth in student FTEs should be matched by an equally proportionate growth in learning resources.

− Panel also noted the need to re-open discussion with UW Learning Resources about Holborn students’ access to UW learning centre resources. SLS to take up with UW.

− Following this discussion the panel resolved that no further purpose would be served by asking for UW Learning Resources staff to visit HC, as the concerns held by the Panel were largely resolved. The recommendations below, will ensure that the students’ learning resource needs will be met.

6. Feedback to Holborn College and SLS.

− The Panel noted the close and productive relationship between HC and UW, with a committed teaching team and acknowledged that a considerable amount of time is put into maintaining the partnership. The students questioned had clearly found the experience of studying the LLDip at HC, a rewarding and positive experience.

− The provision offered by HC provided an affordable and important access route for students wishing to study the LLDip on a part time basis at weekends only, and fulfilled UW’s widening access mission.

− Following the further discussion with HC staff about learning resources, and following examination of the materials provided to students, the joint meeting of the Standing Panel and the CPE Board agreed that it was prepared to re-validate the programme, but wished to make the following points, which need to be monitored and / or put into action by HC / SLS. • Assurance that future academic provision will maintain the current FTE resource, and will be

raised to reflect any growth in student FTEs. HC and SLS to monitor changes in student numbers and ensure learning resources are matched accordingly.

• Further dialogue to be carried out by SLS with UW Learning Centre about Holborn students’ access to resources.

• Review the system of student feedback, to ensure students receive at the earliest possible opportunity feedback on their assignments / examinations. Note this can be given with the proviso that grades are subject to award board and External Examiner ratification or feedback could be given early, with grades given following award boards.

• Exam scripts, assignments and projects to be sent to the external examiner as joint consignments containing both HC and UW papers together.

• External Examiners be asked to report explicitly on the comparable performance and achievement of each cohort, HC and UW, and ensure the outcomes are discussed at SLS SQC as a standing item and with HC.

• HC to consider ways of sharing the workload, tasks and responsibilities between members of the LLDip teaching team, which currently rest solely with the Award Leader, e.g. student counselling.

• Ensure that the annual monitoring report specifically looks at the effectiveness of the proposed personal tutor scheme and the introduction of peer teaching observation.

• HC to investigate how they can obtain final destination information of students completing the course.

• HC to monitor the students’ experiences of the administrative support, i.e. do the students feel that the support / service offered is adequate from their perspective.

• SLS SQC should incorporate into its regular monitoring of the collaborative link with HC, progress made in achieving compliance with UW’s statements and action plans on the QAA’s Code of Practice, specifically the section on Collaborative Links.

• Consideration should be given to a suggestion made by one of the students to improve student retention, that a more intensive induction block be given prior to the course starting, e.g. a Saturday plus, a Friday evening or Sunday. The purpose of such a session would be looking at study skills, returning to learning, team building and perhaps early careers advice.


• Consideration also might be given to introducing a Course Buddy Scheme, i.e. either a member of staff employed to specifically answer questions and support students on the LLDip or the matching up of second years with first years, especially during the early stages of their programme.

Note the Panel would like a progress report on the points outlined above by Easter 2002, which it will considered and forward to the CPE Board for information by the end of the next academic year. − A revised version of the Award Guide must be produced and submitted to the Panel for approval by

30/3/01, so that it can accompany the Academic Approval Record (AAR), which will be sent onto the CPE Board for ratification.

− SLS to produce a revised Memorandum of Co-operation to reflect the changes in the curriculum, which needs to be forwarded to JN for inclusion in the AAR by Easter.

− The current period of UW validation is 6 years, in line with the QAA cycle of review and re-validation. The recommendation will be made to the University’s Quality Committee to re-validate the LLDip and the LLDip franchise to HC for a period of six years. But note the period of validation will be subject to further ratification and approval by the CPE Board of the Law Society.

Academic Approval Record (Reference 1174)Academic Approval Record (Reference 1174) ... Tam Ikram,...

Documents

Transcript of Academic Approval Record (Reference 1174)Academic Approval Record (Reference 1174) ... Tam Ikram,...