UNIVERSITY OF BRIGHTON BRIGHTON STUDENT … OF BRIGHTON BRIGHTON STUDENT SURVEY – SCHOOL ACTION...

UNIVERSITY OF BRIGHTON

BRIGHTON STUDENT SURVEY – SCHOOL ACTION PLAN DRAFT

School: Computing, Engineering and Mathematics

Key contact: John Taylor, Head of School Liz Guy, Student Engagement in Quality Champion

Please complete all four sections of the School Action Plan

Section 1: School evaluation/comment on performance in 2016 BSS

Section 2: School evaluation/comment on promoting and managing the 2016 BSS

Section 3: Confirmation of 2015/16 Action Plan

Section 4: Student engagement with BSS

Section 5: Institutional planning

Data Please refer to the BSS 2016 data provided by the Strategic Planning and Projects Office, via the SPPO website

SECTION 1 – SCHOOL EVALUATION/COMMENT ON PERFORMANCE IN 2016 BSS

In the space below, please provide an overview of the School’s BSS performance. This should include:

The school’s evaluation of their 2016 BSS results.

A brief appraisal of whether the BSS results correspond to previous results from the NSS1

The immediate priorities the School identifies for further action (specific actions to be detailed in the BSS action plan 2015/16: see Section 3).

Overview

The overall performance of the School is poor and disappointing. We have the worst set of BSS results in the University and remain below the University average in all categories except Careers – see Figure 1 below. Although some areas of the School have documented quality challenges, the results were worse than we were expecting. For example, some courses that have achieved very good NSS results in the past couple of years – such as Mathematics and Product Design – were only able broadly to match the University average. Particularly disappointing are the results for the Mechanical Engineering course family. In most main question categories, there is a noticeable decline in satisfaction between Level 4 and Level 5 at the School level; exceptions are the Assessment & Feedback and Personal Development categories. Where there were sufficiently many respondents to report individual courses at both Levels 4 and 5, all courses except the Hastings-based Digital Games Production experienced falls in overall satisfaction between Levels 4 and 5; this was dramatic in the case of the Mechanical Engineering course family. Although the outcomes were worse than expected overall, the issues identified in the free text comments were, for the most part, issues that the School is aware of and is attempting to address. When reading the free text comments, it is natural to focus on the negative comments and these do, indeed, contain much that the School needs to address. However, there are also many very positive comments which clearly indicate that some colleagues are dedicated to delivering an excellent student experience.

1 Note: you are not required to compare satisfaction data from the 2016 BSS with previous years NSS data. Instead a broad appraisal can be made here about whether the themes emerging in the BSS results are similar to what the NSS has told us previously.

https://staff.brighton.ac.uk/spo/Pages/BSS.aspx

Figure 1: overall School results Course level

For each course family, the Head of School, the Head of Division, Course Leader(s) and, in most cases, the Student Engagement in Quality Champion (SEQC) met to review the results. Heads of Division and Course Leaders were supplied, in confidence, with the free text comments for their courses; the SEQC was supplied with all free text comments. Course Leaders were asked to prepare, in rough note form, action plans for their course family but the short deadline did not always allow this. The following provide some brief headlines for each of the course families arranged by the Divisions in which they are located.

Computing Division

Business Computing Overall satisfaction is above the University and School average. The main areas of weakness are Teaching and Organisation & Management; some staffing issues may have contributed to the latter. The introduction or more regular and structured communication sessions with the Course Leader and the appointment of a Deputy Course Leader were discussed.

Computing Science Overall satisfaction is below the University and School average. The three courses in the family are similar but, curiously, the scores are quite different in some categories making analysis difficult. Student intake is varied with some Level 4 students finding the material quite easy and others finding it very challenging. The quality of laboratory tutors was identified as an issue. Digital Media For two of the three courses, overall satisfaction is above the University and School average; for BA Digital Media (Level 5) overall satisfaction is below the University and School average. This might indicate that the re-designation of Digital Media from BA to BSc had a positive effect. However, in most key categories, all three courses remain below the University average. Teaching on the course was reportedly over-reliant on PowerPoint presentations. Hastings courses Only Digital Games Production had sufficient numbers to report data; this course is above the University and School average in overall satisfaction and above or near the University averages in most categories. For both Hastings courses, staffing problems affected the delivery of one or two core modules. Access to computing facilities out of hours was also an issue – see the Hastings action plan. Engineering and Product Design Division

Electrical and Electronic Engineering Overall satisfaction is above the University and School average for the ‘main’ course but, for those entering from the foundation year, overall satisfaction is below the University and School average; it is hard to interpret why this is the case. A similar pattern emerges in most categories. Issues with the delivery of some modules were identified. Longer access to laboratories out of hours or the alternative of a loan pool for small pieces of equipment should be explored. Mechanical Engineering Most courses in the family lie below, sometimes substantially, the University and School averages across most categories. There is also a marked drop in overall satisfaction from Level 4 to Level 5 (where this is reported at course level); overall satisfaction rates at Level 5 are very poor indeed. Course leaders have undertaken a detailed analysis of free text comments with issues around the quality of teaching, organisation and assessment overload/bunching being the three largest categories. The Division’s assessment model should help with the overload issue and the new Year Tutor role should help with the assessment schedule. The delivery of two or three modules at Level 5 are seen as problematic; the Division will need to consider the staffing of these modules. Delays in returning student work is another issue; this has twin causes: lack of staff resources and assessment design. It is hoped that the appointment of new members of staff in mechanical engineering will help address the former and the redesign of modules following professional body accreditation will help address the latter. Engineering foundation year The foundation year is common to all engineering courses including Civil Engineering. Extracting the year 0 results across the CEM courses shows overall satisfaction just below the University averages but above the School average. The scores are above the University average in three of the six main categories. The lower scores in Teaching and Assessment & Feedback was influenced by two modules where there were one-off staffing issues.

Product design Overall satisfaction is between the University and School average; this is disappointing for a course that had 100% overall satisfaction in last year’s NSS. In most of the categories, however, the courses lie above the University average. Issues were identified in free text comments in relation to the specialist module in the Sports Product Design course. The main action going forward is to ensure a smooth transition to the School of Architecture and Design. Mathematical Sciences Division

Mathematics Overall satisfaction is just below the University average but above the School average; as with Product Design, this is disappointing for a course that had 92% overall satisfaction in last year’s NSS (a result that was itself disappointing). In most categories the score is at or above the University average; the exception is Assessment & Feedback although none of the free text comments relate to this.

Priorities for action

The main priorities for the School are to

improve the quality of teaching in some areas, including support for laboratories and tutorials;

ensure that module teams meet the stated turn-around times for returning marked work and provide feedback to students that will help them learn and improve;

try to ensure teaching timetables are student-friendly, are published on time and remain stable;

take a zero tolerance attitude to classes being cancelled without clear reason and to ensure classes are made up when cancellation is unavoidable.

The School has good policies and procedures for learning, teaching and assessment. They need to be followed more fully. In short, our priority for 2016-17 is to get the basics right.

SECTION 2 – SCHOOL EVALUATION/COMMENT ON PROMOTING AND MANAGING THE 2016 BSS

In the space below, please provide an overview of the School’s approach to managing and promoting the 2016 BSS. This should include:

how the school engaged staff and students with the survey

whether the school offered any incentives , if so please provide details

examples of any good practice from your school

The Figure 2 below shows the response rates across the School. Response rate

Computing and Mathematics courses had an advantage because we can ask students to complete the BSS in computer laboratory classes. Engineering and Product Design are not able to do this. The Digital Games Production cohort at Hastings have a strong sense of community.

Figure 2: CEM average response rate – 45.7%; UoB average – 45.1%

How we engaged staff and students

We asked module leaders to talk to students in class about the BSS and its importance. The Student Engagement in Quality Champion (SEQC) produced and circulated a slide for colleagues to use in lectures.

We identified modules and classes where it would be possible to talk to the whole cohort and which would be well-attended; for example, when introducing a new assessment or module at the start of semester 2, giving back marks and feedback.

The SEQC emailed course leaders with regular updates about CEM and course response rates, produced charts (like the one above); made students aware of this through studentcentral announcements. The SEQC used the data to identify courses that needed a final push and those that were lagging. Course leaders emailed or talked to students to motivate them. In some cases, Course Leaders encouraged competition between related courses and this worked well; for example, Business Computer Systems students were encouraged to match the high response rate of Business Information Systems (the other course in the same ‘course family’).

Most of this activity took place during semester 2, as there is relatively little structured contact with students during the assessment fortnight. We did not offer any incentives to students or courses. We have had some feedback from students about being harassed by constant reminders to complete the survey. Some computing students objected to logging in to the survey with their personal data such as their date of birth; they were concerned that their anonymity was safeguarded.

SECTION 3 – SCHOOLS BSS ACTION PLAN 2016

SEE OVERLEAF FOR ACTION PLAN TEMPLATE

Notes on completing the action plan as follows:

School action plan: the action plan is intended to capture actions at a School level but is likely to refer to specific courses for some actions

BSS categories (Teaching on my course etc): provide brief points of the issues raised in the data so that actions can be contextualised

Actions and priorities: outline actions you intend to take to address the issues raised and identify their prioritization (high, medium, low)

Timescale: be specific, fix some early timescales to gain momentum and address issues quickly, avoid ‘ongoing’ as a timescale

Responsibility and oversight: indicate who is responsible for the action, try and be specific rather than suggest ‘all’ are responsible and also identify

who is responsible for overseeing actions are completed, this might be a senior postholder with oversight for each area, for a specific set of actions or

for the whole action plan.

Measures of success: identify the improvements you’d expect to see and how you will know whether the action has been successful (avoid ‘an

improvement in BSS scores’), be specific about the effect of the action on current students.

RAG status: during the year you will need to monitor whether actions are being implemented and effective, its helpful to identify them as Red (at risk), Amber (warning signs of delay) , Green (completed)

SECTION 3 – SCHOOLS BSS ACTION PLAN 2016

BSS Action Plan 2015/16 Computing, Engineering and Mathematics

In light of your performance in BSS 2016 identify the actions being taken by the School in 2015/16 to improve/sustain performance in BSS, NSS and improve student experience

Actions and priorities Timescale Responsibility and oversight

Measures of success RAG status

Teaching on my course Some negative comments on changes of module teams in-year. Part of this was due to staff appointments not being made on time. Free text comments suggest some teaching lacks inspiration. A number of free text comments are critical of the English language communication skills of some staff.

Ensure academic staff posts are filled bin time for the new academic year. High Encourage colleagues in course and subject groups to engage in informal peer observation. High Encourage colleagues to engage in and complete the D1/D2/D3 series of HEA fellowship programmes. Celebrate staff successes. Medium Extend current School support in English language for colleagues for who English is not their first language. Medium

September 2016 May 2016 agreement; December 2016 review Nov 2016 for D1/2/3 outcomes July 2016

Head of School Head of School; DHoS (T&L) to review Jorj Kowszun Head of School Heads of Division

Appointment made in time for a smooth start to the academic year. Number of staff groups actively participating. Number of staff submitting. Take up of support sessions. Reduction of language communication comments.




Some feedback from students and from periodic reviews suggest modifications to courses to address various issued.

Where changes have been introduced for 2016-17, course teams to monitor changes. Where changes still need to be made, course teams to propose changes for approval by SASC. Medium

February 2017

Course Leaders, DHoS (QA)

Positive feedback from students at Course Boards and Staff-Student meetings.

Assessment and feedback Student complaints about assessment overload and bunching as well as (sometimes) a lack of advanced knowledge of assessment dates. Engineering courses have introduced a student effort model to try to ensure greater balance between modules as well as a general reduction in student assessment effort Student complaints about the length of time they sometimes need to wait to obtain assessment results and feedback.

(See also Organisation and Management) Require module moderators to comment explicitly on the student effort required (assessment setting stage) and quality of feedback (assessment marking stage) High Module teams to adhere to university policy on turn-around times. Where it is not possible to meet the deadlines, students must be informed. School to provide marking support for large modules. High

May 2016 (policy) May 2017 (review) September 2016 (policy reminder & marking support) May 2017 (review)

School Management Group DHoS (QA) Head of School, Heads of Division DHoS (Q&A)

Improvements in the Assessment and Feedback scores in the 2016-17 NSS and BSS. Improvements in the Assessment and Feedback scores in the 2016-17 NSS and BSS. Reduction in the negative free text comments.




Academic support There were numerous free text comments within the computing courses about the poor quality of some laboratory classes. In engineering, the refurbishment of Cockcroft has had a positive impact on laboratory and workshop provision. There remain come concerns over student access to laboratories outside formal classes.

Implement a formal process to recruit laboratory assistants in computing from final year and PhD students. The quality of their work also needs to be monitored. High Implement processes to ensure better student access to engineering laboratories High Raise awareness of support available: PASS, ASK, language support etc. Medium

September 2016 July 2016 October 2016

Head of Computing Division, Course Leader Computing Science course family Head of Engineering Division, Technical Support Manager Course leaders

Laboratory assistants appointed in time for beginning of semester 1. More positive free text comments on the quality of laboratory tuition. Effective and safe system for giving students greater access to workshops outside formal classes. Improved BSS and NSS scores in Academic Development.

Organisation and management The mathematics courses have had level tutors for many years and engineering have introduced them for 2015-16. Computing courses have not, to date, had formal support for Course Leaders.

Provide a support team for Computing Course Leaders, either Level Tutors of Deputy Course Leaders. Medium

July 2016

Head of Computing Division, Computing Course Leaders.

Improved day to day operation of courses, more efficient turn-around of extension requests etc.




Student complaints about assessment overload and bunching as well as (sometimes) a lack of advanced knowledge of assessment dates. There are a number of reported issues regarding timetables: lack of personalized timetable, large gaps between classes, changes in-year and communication of these.

Produce assessment schedule for each level of each course and publish to students by the start of the academic year. High Evaluate and, where possible, improve the output of the automated timetabling process. High Determine whether it is possible to provide individualised student timetables. Low Review the process for communicating timetable changes to students. Medium

October 2016 June 2016

Course Leaders to produce; DHoS (QA) to monitor Course Leaders, Heads of Division, School timetabling staff Course Leaders, School timetabling staff Heads of Division, School timetabling staff

More balanced assessment schedules. Reduction in assessment overload comments in 2016-17 BSS and at Course Boards and Staff-Student meetings. Course timetables that are reasonably student friendly Individualised timetables produced. More effective communication with student and reduction in negative BSS and NSS comments in this area.




Learning Resources There has been some generalised dissatisfaction, reflected in the BSS, on the opening hours of computing labs and software availability. In part this has been due to the move of computing facilities from Watts to Cockcroft with the Watts labs closing much earlier than previously.

Publicise more widely the opening times of computer laboratories, especially those in Cockcroft. Ensure Cockcroft computer laboratories have the required specialist software available. Ensure the library computers have the relevant software. High

May 2016 and October 2016

School Technical Support Manager, Information Services

Improved BSS and NSS satisfaction scores in Learning Resources section.

Personal development All our courses provide a wealth of personal development opportunities through the curriculum and assessment. However, these are not always perceived as such by students. All areas of the School also provide personal development enrichment activities. For example, the Mathematical Sciences Course Leader runs a well-received annual event that brings graduates back to the university to talk about their

Invite level 4 and 5 students to the final year project exhibition days in computing, engineering and product design. Medium Encourage course teams to consider developing activities and events that Medium More active implementation of the Career Planning Agreements in courses. Medium

May 2016 (computing, product design), May 2017 (all courses) May 2016 Review: May 2017 February 2017

Course Leaders, Project coordinators Head of School, Course Leaders Course Leaders

Improved BSS and NSS satisfaction scores in Personal Development section. More events and activities run. Improved BSS and NSS satisfaction scores in Personal Development section.




career experiences with the whole maths cohort. The Formula Student, Robot Wars and Battlebots activities in engineering provide opportunities for enhancing a wide range of skills including practical, team-working, organisational, negotiating, budgeting etc. Product Design students’ final-year projects also develop similar skills and have led to students producing commercially valuable outcomes. Several courses also offer enhancement visits to a variety of organisations.

Continue to run Games Jam event. Medium

November 2016

Hastings computing team

Games jam run successfully.

Promoting and managing the BSS (not a BSS category) It was quite difficult to engage students with the survey as it straddled the end of semester 1 assessment period.

Consider the timing of the survey; possibly run for 4-5 weeks at the beginning of semester 2. Consider whether a scanable paper questionnaire is an option alongside the on-line version.

Autumn 2016

BSS team BSS team




Publishing School and Course level information on the changes that resulted from the 2015-16 BSS Consider a University level prize draw for students completing the survey with some significant prizes. Anonymity of the survey results would need to be assured.

January 2017 December 2016

SPPO and Schools PVC (E&SE)

Optional questions as applicable:

Practice Placements

Careers

Course content and structure

Course delivery

Feedback from students

Learning community

Intellectual Motivation

At this point in its development, the School’s priorities are focussed on the core areas of the BSS and NSS. It is most important that our energies are focussed on those areas for 2016-17.

SECTION 4 – STUDENT ENGAGEMENT

The QAA Quality code sets out the expectation that all HE providers take deliberate steps to engage all students

individually and collectively, as partners in the assurance and enhancement of their educational experience. Schools

are therefore asked to confirm details of their student engagement.

(i) How will the School be engaging with student representatives in relation to BSS and the 2015/16 Action Plan?

Reported results at Computing Science course board 13 April and at Digital Media course board 27 April. Results to be reported at the Mathematics Course Board on 4 May.

The SEQC has produced usable charts of headline results by ‘course family’ for dissemination to student representatives and all students – these will be posted on the studentcentral course areas and studentcentral announcements. There will be a new page on Course Areas for feedback and engagement in quality issues.

Overall Student Body

(ii) In what ways will the School be involving the student body in the implementation of the actions?

A series of ‘town hall’ style meetings are being organised by ‘course family’ as follows.

1. Computing science: Computer Science, Software Engineering, Computer Science Games

2. Digital media: BSc Digital Media, BA Digital Media, Digital Media Development

3. Business computing: Business Information Systems, Business Computer Systems*

4. Mechanical engineering: Mechanical Engineering, Aeronautical Engineering, Automotive Engineering,

5. Electrical Engineering: Electrical and Electronic Engineering

6. Engineering Foundation year

7. Mathematical sciences: Mathematics, Mathematics with Business, Mathematics with Economics, Mathematics with Finance

8. Hastings courses: Digital Games Production, INET, Computer Systems Networking

9. Product design: Product Design, Sports Product Design These meetings will be for all Level 4 and 5 students and will be promoted by the SEQC and Course Leaders. They will be Chaired by the Head of School with SEQC, relevant Head of Division and Course Leader(s) present. A summary of the action plan will be discussed and students will be invited to comment on the plan and suggest improvements.

(iii) How will the School be communicating with students to ensure that the actions arising from the BSS results are known?

See above; the course family meetings are a significant part of the communication strategy. We also plan to use the following communication channels.

Develop a new page on Course Areas for feedback and engagement in quality issues.

Course Boards and Staff-Student meetings.

Depending on the success of the meetings mentioned in part (ii) above, possibly instigate student meetings in the Autumn term.

Course Leaders will be encouraged to make their academic health course action plans available on studentcentral.

Listening and Learning

(iv) Please identify three potential Listening and Learning case studies (refer to actions where applicable)

For each potential case study please provide detail of the feedback received from students and what changes are anticipated as a result, referring to the BSS action plan To be determined following consultation with staff groups. Possibilities include:

New staff appointments in engineering (demonstrating University-level commitment to the discipline).

Turn-around of assessments.

Provision of detailed assessment schedule at the beginning of the academic year.

Improved staffing of laboratory classes.

Opening times and software in computer laboratories.

Student access to engineering laboratories and workshops.

SECTION 5 – INSTITUTIONAL PLANNING 2016/17

The 2017 BSS will be completed by students at Brighton between January and February 2017 alongside the NSS which will be completed by students at Brighton between January and April 2017. Are you aware of any issues which may have a negative impact on your School’s 2016/17 BSS and/or NSS performance? If so please provide information on these issues and how you intend to mitigate this effect.

Students’ access to Learning Resources, particularly teaching laboratories with specialist hardware and software, needs monitoring closely. This is a category where we have usually scored well in the NSS in the past, but where we are very vulnerable due to the dependence of STEM courses on technical facilities and the very high value CEM students put on access.

Relevant Central Departments will also be producing Action Plans, please provide information on any institutional level issues that you feel are impacting on the student experience in your School.

The provision of relevant specialist software to students in open access computer laboratories, such as the library, would have a positive impact. The School and University should seek ways to improve the use of studentcentral and other channels to promote student engagement. In particular, it should be possible easily to enable Course Leaders to email Level 4, Level 5, and Level 6 students in each course separately. We can communicate through course representatives, but direct communication with the whole cohort should also be possible.

http://blogs.brighton.ac.uk/listeningandlearning/

Are there any areas where you believe the University could provide additional support to your School in promoting and managing the BSS including raising response rates?

Consider a change to the timing of the BSS. Staff have limited contact with students during the final 3 weeks of semester 1 and this was a period when the BSS was effectively on hold. It then had to be re-launched on 8th February. It might be better to launch the BSS at the start of semester 2 and also make this the time for intensive promotion of the NSS. Run the BSS from the start of semester 2 to a point towards the end of the Spring term (depending on what is a realistic duration for the survey). Students would have the same time to respond to the survey, but would be in contact with staff for the whole period. This would make it easier to plan regular (weekly?) events to promote the survey and to focus on getting a high early response.

Consider having a paper survey as well as the online one to improve the response rate.

Q&S/LM March 2016

UNIVERSITY OF BRIGHTON BRIGHTON STUDENT … OF BRIGHTON BRIGHTON STUDENT SURVEY – SCHOOL ACTION...

Documents

Transcript of UNIVERSITY OF BRIGHTON BRIGHTON STUDENT … OF BRIGHTON BRIGHTON STUDENT SURVEY – SCHOOL ACTION...