SCIENCE FACULTY – ANNUAL QUALITY ENHANCEMENT REPORT – SESSION 2008/09

FACULTY OF SCIENCE

ANNUAL FACULTY ACADEMIC QUALITY ASSURANCE AND ENHANCEMENT REPORTFOR SESSION 2008/09

The Annual Faculty Academic Quality Assurance and Enhancement Reports are the mechanism for providing the Quality Monitoring Committee with assurance that good quality assurance and enhancement procedures are in place in each of the faculties. The information provided in these reports informs reports to Senate and Court as well as the Quality Assurance Agency and the Scottish Funding Council. The Reports also form part of the documentation provided for Enhancement-led Institutional Review. The revised template for session 2008/09 has been restructured into four sections: Section A seeking responses for which information can be gathered early in session 2009/10, Section B seeking responses that will be dependent on information from the Planning Office and the Careers Service, Sections C and D to give an opportunity for the Faculty to provide more up-to-date information and Section E for the conclusion.

SECTION A

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Please provide an overview of the Quality Assurance structure at Faculty Level.

1.1.1 In the Faculty of Science, responsibility for overseeing Quality Assurance and the Enhancement of the Faculty’s Teaching and Learning provision rests with the Vice-Dean (Academic), acting on behalf of the Dean. This officer attends Senate (if not an elected member) and is a member of the various University committees and groups charged with promoting learning and teaching.

1.1.2 The Vice-Dean is assisted by a Faculty committee structure, at the centre of which is the Academic Administration Committee (AAC), to which the Faculty’s Board of Study has delegated the following functions. The Committee:

1 considers and makes recommendations to the Board of Study on all matters pertaining to learning and teaching, and student administration;

2 ensures quality assurance in the design and delivery of courses at all levels, scrutinising programme specifications, curriculum content, regulations and annual course reviews and scrutinising also the outcomes of external assessments including accreditation visits by professional bodies;

3 monitors and where necessary takes action to enhance the effectiveness of the various processes that affect the student life cycle, whether undergraduate or postgraduate, including the admissions selection process, counselling, the advisers of study system, registration, timetabling, credit-based degree structures, the arrangement of semesters, postgraduate supervision, student-staff committees and all aspects of student feedback;

5 receives reports from all Boards of Examiners and Appeals Committees on matters relating to student progress and the conduct of degree examinations and where necessary takes action aimed at their enhancement;

6 receives reports from Faculty Review Groups on matters pertinent to its remit, and advises the Board of Study thereon.

1.1.3 AAC is served by a small number of sub-committees and reports to the Faculty’s Board of Study. Where necessary, recommendations from AAC and the Board on matters pertaining to teaching and learning are forwarded to the University Senate. Annex 1 shows the committee structure in diagrammatic form.

1.2 Please comment on how the actions identified in the Faculty’s last Academic Quality Assurance and Enhancement Report have been carried forward and on the impact these have had on the academic quality of the Faculty’s programmes.

At the conclusion of the Faculty’s report for session 2007/08, the following quality assurance and enhancement issues were flagged.

The restructuring of curricula and the preparation of revised regulations to meet the requirements of the Undergraduate and Integrated Masters Framework. As predicted, academic administration in session 2008/09 was dominated by this process. The opportunity was taken, wherever possible, to promote curriculum renewal and a review of both the extent and the mode of assessment. It is anticipated that the new system will have a generally positive impact on quality.

The desirability of looking at wider access and the retention performance of students admitted through the GOALS initiative.Little action was taken in this regard. This general issue remains a project worth pursuing with help of Schools and Colleges Liaison. Associated with it is the Faculty’s Natural Sciences degree which in the past has functioned, inter alia, as one that favours wider access in the sense that it admitted candidates with non-standard entry qualifications. During 2008/09, concerns about the quality of this degree’s outputs led to a decision to review its future. The review took place at the end of semester one session 2009/10. The report is anticipated to include recommendations that will tend to diminish the degree’s ‘wider access’ profile, though that theme will still be pursued through the Summer School and departments’ discretion in administering their recruitment.

The comments in the Student Barometer about the need for a better welcome and induction package for overseas students will require consideration.Recent Student Barometer results have shown Science to be the Faculty most likely to be recommended by its existing overseas students. Within the Faculty, induction arrangements for these students are conducted at departmental level and departments continue to strive to improve their processes. The collaborative MPharm programme with the International Medical University (IMU) in Kuala Lumpur produces over two-thirds of the Faculty’s annual intake of overseas undergraduates and the Strathclyde Institute of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences (SIPBS), the host department, takes pains to ensure that the induction process begins even before the students arrive in Glasgow. This includes talks delivered at the IMU on developments in pharmacy practice in the UK (much of which is built into the teaching in any case), a talk entitled ‘Living and Working with the NHS’ delivered by the Strathclyde Director, presentations by the British Council and a representative of the Strathclyde International and Graduate Office about living in the UK, and about Glasgow and life at Strathclyde. In the future, more reference will be made to wider career and possible research opportunities for students with the MPharm degree. Graduates (‘seniors’) from previous years are also invited by IMU to pass on their own experiences of living as a student on campus at Strathclyde.

Monitoring the introduction of the new University-wide compensation scheme in 2009/10 and the phasing-out of the Faculty’s own compensation schemeIn Science, the University scheme will be phased in over three years, with first years in 2009/10, first and second years in 2010/11 and years 1-3 in 2011/12 while, in parallel, the Faculty’s Average Mark Scheme (FoSAMS) will be phased out, applying to years 2-4 in 2009/10, years 3-4 in 2010/11 and Integrated masters year 4 in 2011/12. The impact of the new scheme will not be known for sure until the June 2010 general exam boards. Some modelling has been carried out that suggests that progression may suffer, as the University scheme is less generous than FoSAMS. However, it is hoped that revisions to assessment regimes introduced along with the curricula restructuring may counterbalance that effect.

1.3 Please provide details of the course and class approval and renewal procedures operated by the

Faculty

In the Faculty, courses are designed by subject specialists within Departments and therefore Course and class approval requests originate in Departments and then proceed to the Faculty’s Academic Administration Committee (AAC).

2

The Faculty’s intranet provides the necessary forms which are based on those used in the University’s procedures. Thus, Course approval requires a rationale for the course (including evidence of need and demand, consonance with Faculty and University strategic plans) academic issues (including aims and objectives, content and curriculum, modes of delivery, modes of assessment, benchmarked standards) student-centric issues (from admissions policy to career prospects) external influences, resource implications, likely competition, any articulation or collaboration implications, and a risk assessment. Regulations for the course are required together with a Programme Specification and Class Descriptors for any new classes.

Class approval/amendment follows the above very closely and should be accompanied by course regulations and Class Descriptors.

Assuming approval at AAC, the proposals proceed to the Board and then onto the University Senate and Ordinances & Regulations Committee for ratification. Following the Board stage, the Programme Specification and Class Descriptors are stripped out, so that the University-level committees see the rationale and regulations only. The Programme Specification and Class Descriptors are available from the Faculty Office if required.

Throughout the above, the Vice-Dean (Academic) is frequently involved in refining proposals, and also has delegated authority to act between AAC meetings to expedite business, powers that are often used during the summer vacation. Similarly, the Dean occasionally exercises his delegated authority on behalf of the Board of Study.

1.4 Please provide details of the link between quality assurance at departmental and faculty levels.

The link between quality assurance at departmental and Faculty levels is provided by the Vice-Dean (Academic) and the membership of the Academic Administration Committee. The AAC comprises one representative from each department (except SIPBS, which is allowed two) and the Course Director for Natural Sciences. This is the ‘front-line’ quality assurance link, but it is important to remember that the Dean and the Heads of Departments have a responsibility for quality assurance and it is on their behalf that the Vice-Dean and the AAC members act.

The departmental representatives, for instance, compile the annual course reports that allow the Faculty to scrutinise quality assurance at departmental level. Initially light touch, these reports are now more detailed and separate returns are required on undergraduate and postgraduate teaching activities. These reports and other information provided by the departmental representatives on AAC contribute significantly in providing the departmental examples that appear in this report.

Through the AAC, the Faculty-Department links work in both directions – such reports as noted above travelling from Department to AAC while the Vice-Dean is able to communicate latest developments at the Education Strategy and Quality Management Committees of the University to departments through the AAC.

2 CYCLICAL REVIEWS

2.1 Please confirm that the 5-year rolling plan of Departmental and other Reviews is accurate and provide an explanation for any drift in the proposed timetable.

The rolling plan (available on the Common Folder for Corporate Services) for reviews of Departments and Faculty-wide courses within the Science Faculty is accurate. There has been no slippage.

2.2 Please list the Departmental and other Reviews (e.g. Strategic and Excellence Reviews) carried out in session 2008/09 (Reports in full should be forwarded to GMAP, the Recommendations should be attached as an Annex to this Report).

3

Session 2008/09 saw the first Faculty review of SIPBS which was formed from the merger of 5 departments and began operating on 1 August 2006. It was reviewed over two days in February 2009. Annex 2 is the departmental response from SIPBS which addresses each recommendation of the review.

Session 2008/09 also saw a University/Faculty Strategic review of the Department of Physics and the Institute of Photonics (IoP), chaired by the Principal, prompted by concerns about the former’s showing in the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise and about the financial sustainability of both. The review was on 28 May 2009. Annex 3 sets out the recommendations only of this report. (Note: This could not be construed as a Faculty Review, involving an assessment of teaching and learning. Consequently a full quinquennial Faculty Review of Physics, including teaching and learning, was undertaken in October 2009 and will feature in next year’s report. The IoP is a research non-departmental unit and is not subject to quinquennial reviews).

Although strictly speaking not a review outcome, mention should, nonetheless, be made of the work of the Mathematics and Statistics & Modelling Science (STAMS) merger group during this session which culminated in their merger to become the Department of Mathematics and Statistics on 1 August 2009.

2.3 Please detail any significant developments or issues other than those in learning and teaching (which should be dealt with under section 5) arising out of Departmental Reviews or Excellence Reviews conducted in session 2008/09, including any follow up and the Faculty’s proposed response to these.

None to report.

2.4 Please list any accreditation visits/reviews by Professional and Statutory Bodies that took place during session 2008/09 and report the outcome. If these have made any recommendations in respect of improvements to learning and teaching, how are they to be addressed? If these have highlighted areas of good practice which might be applicable elsewhere in the University, please note these below. (Reports in full should be forwarded to GMAP).

The following accreditation reviews by Professional and Statutory Bodies took place in 2008/09.

Computer & Information SciencesChartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (for the Department’s Information Services degrees) in 2008 – re-accredited for 5 years.

Pure & Applied ChemistryThe Royal Society of Chemistry in 2009 for all degrees – re-accredited for 5 years.The Forensic Science Society for the MSc in Forensic Science and the MChem in Forensic and Analytical Science in 2009 - accredited for 5 years.

Strathclyde Institute of Pharmacy and Biomedical SciencesRoyal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain for the new ‘2+2’ Collaborative MPharm degree with the International Medical University, Kuala Lumpur. Accredited for 5 years (without any conditions or recommendations).

None of the above accreditations involved anything other than minor recommendations. All Faculty departments can say that almost all of their principal degrees are accredited by the appropriate professional body (assuming that body exists).

3 UNIVERSITY GUIDELINES, POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

3.1 Are there any areas in which Faculty practice was not consistent with the University’s Policies and Procedures for Teaching and Learning or with any of the supplementary Guides listed

4

below? If so, please give details and the reasons for deviating from normal University practice in each instance.

Academic Strategy 2006-09 (May 2006) Policy and Code of Practice for Collaborative Courses leading to Award or Joint Awards of

the University and Flexible and Distributed Learning (including e-learning) (June 2005) Procedures and Guidelines for Course and Class Approval (December 2003) Dealing with Applications from Students with Criminal Convictions (November 1999) Dealing with Instances of Possible Academic Dishonesty (November 2001) (update

approved by Senate in June 2009) Procedures and Guidelines for Faculty Board Reports to Senate (March 2004) Departmental Reviews (October 2008) Guidelines and Procedures for the Management of Support for Undergraduate and

Postgraduate Disabled Students (March 2005) Policy and Code of Practice for Postgraduate Research Programmes (May 2005) (currently

being updated) Procedures and Guidelines for Postgraduate Instructional Programmes (December 2003) Guidelines for Examiners of Research Degrees (October 2005) Policy, Procedures and Guidelines for Summative Assessment (May 2005) Framework for Professional Doctorates (December 2005) Procedures and Guidelines for External Examiners of Instructional Courses (October 2005) Student Complaints Procedure (May 2007) Policy on Students’ External Engagement (November 2006)

We believe all our procedures are in line with the University policies and procedures noted above.

3.2 Are there any aspects of the guides to policies and procedures which the Faculty believed required reviewing? If so, please give details.

The Faculty raised in its previous report the suggestion that the Policy and Code of Practice for PG Research Programmes and the Guidelines for Examiners of Research Degrees might be revised and possibly combined into a single document. This would still be our preference. Indeed, the Faculty would welcome an across-the-board review to merge related policies and procedures wherever possible.

4 FEEDBACK FROM STUDENTS AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS

4.1 Please comment on any significant issues raised by external examiners at class/course level in their 2007/08 reports and the actions taken in 2008/09 in response to them.

In Computer & Information Sciences (CIS), the external for the Computer & Electronic Systems suggested there was not enough project choice for the CES students, but confirmed in his January 2010 report for 2008-09 that this had been satisfactorily addressed.

In Mathematics, the external did comment that the University convention on self-certification (accepting self-certification for short illness because often doctors refused to provide certification for less that 4 days) was open to abuse. This perennial issue was passed to the Vice-Dean Academic who raised it with his opposite numbers in other faculties and with Registry. However, there is no resolution to date.

In 2006/07, an external examiner for Physics advised that Physics and Mathematics should agree a single algorithm for determining the classification of Honours candidates on the Maths and Physics degree. Despite an agreement in early 2007/08 to use the Maths algorithm, misunderstanding led to the Physics Board recording an assessment of the students under their algorithm. The same external stated that ‘this should be reconciled as a matter of urgency’. This was done and the Maths algorithm was applied at the June 2009 exam board. This case is significant as it was the catalyst that led the

5

Faculty to develop a common Honours algorithm during 2007/08. The final version was approved in October 2008. It will apply to students entering 2009/10 onwards, although departments may choose to apply it earlier if students are fully informed in good time.

Two other issues were raised for Physics. In response to earlier comments, 2008/09 saw the introduction of a 2-point scaling routine which is applied, at the discretion of the lecturer, to classes which exhibit abnormally low or high average mark and pass rates. Secondly, to alleviate the external examiner’s concerns over the impact of the project viva, the Department introduced a training viva that takes place in weeks 1 and 2 of 2nd semester.

In Pure & Applied Chemistry, external examiners commented that the algorithm for the calculation of the classification of its degrees was ‘final year heavy.’ This was addressed at departmental level (also to accommodate the requirements of the Royal Society of Chemistry) and the changes are consonant with the new Faculty algorithm, just mentioned. Another external examiner commented that it would be helpful to introduce small group tutorials and this was done in 2008/09.

In the SIPBS, a key issue for the external examiners at the MPharm Board in June 2008 was the large number of vivas. SIPBS was asking all students who failed any classes to undergo an oral exam, as well as those students on borderlines. The policy was revised for the June 2009 Board and only borderline students are now given orals.

The external examiners for the Biomedical Sciences Honours asked for more guidance regarding expectations of student performance. In 2008-2009, two routes were pursued – (i) asking staff to provide more detailed annotation on answer scripts to indicate particularly strong/weak areas of performance and (ii) staff providing external examiners with bullet-style model answers indicating what should be present within students’ answers. These changes were well received by the externals.

4.2 Please comment on any significant issues raised through the 2008 National Student Survey, Pyramid discussions and the three First Year questionnaires (Induction (wks 5-6), Engaging in Learning (before Easter), What’s it like so far? (term 3).

Please comment on actions to be taken the way in which the Faculty has responded to students.

The 2008-09 NSS survey shows CIS performed better than the University average in the areas of Academic Support, Learning Resources and Overall Satisfaction. However, CIS performed poorly in the areas of Assessment and Feedback, and Organisation and Management. After the CIS annual monitoring meeting on 30 June 2009, the Teaching Committee has recommended that all lecturers produce a Learning Contract with Students which states clearly the dates of assessment and describes the nature of the feedback to be provided. All staff have been made aware of the Faculty's policy that feedback should be provided within two weeks of work being submitted.

Similar comments about feedback were made by students in Chemistry. The Department addressed these comments in a variety of ways. For example, it now returns placement assignments marked with feedback to the students on 4th year industrial placements while they are still on placement, so that they have prompt feedback. Elsewhere, students write up laboratory reports as they work through their practical classes. These are marked and returned to them within two weeks of submission. Other comments included complaints that some lecture rooms were hot and cramped (and the Department continues to raise this point with Estates Management) and that equipment often seemed out-of-date. This is a long-standing problem. The Department invested some capital in teaching equipment in 2008/09, but argues for a major initiative to make a real difference.

In SIPBS, feedback was also the issue foremost in both undergraduate and postgraduate instructional students’ minds. This was addressed during 2008-09 by discussing with student representatives the nature of the feedback provided and what they might reasonably expect. The review highlighted a mismatch between staff and student perceptions of what constituted feedback. SIPBS is sharpening

6

up feedback procedures and continuing to engage with its students about the nature and extent of feedback given.

There was insufficient response from students in either Mathematics or STAMS for them to be included in the National Student Survey.

Physics has raised some generic points about the number of questions in the internal surveys and about the results being presented on a Faculty-wide basis. Regarding the latter point, since departments are ultimately responsible for maintaining and improving the effectiveness of their teaching and learning provision, if areas where improvement is needed cannot be identified at departmental level then the effectiveness of these internal surveys is compromised.

4.3 Please comment on any significant issues raised through the Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey (PTES) which are relevant to the Faculty’s Departments.

Please comment on actions to be taken the way in which the Faculty has responded to students.

The survey highlighted no specific issues that our departments saw the need to specifically address.

4.4 Please comment on any significant issues raised through the Postgraduate Research Experience Survey (PRES) which are relevant to the Faculty’s Departments.

Please comment on actions to be taken the way in which the Faculty has responded to students.

No Department was aware of issues raised by this survey.

4.5 Please comment on any significant issues raised through the IGrad Survey which are relevant to the Faculty’s Departments.

Please comment on actions to be taken the types of feedback and responses to students

The International Student Barometer results show University-wide rather than Faculty-specific issues under subject headings that include the learning environment, the living environment and the support environment. So, a Faculty analysis is very difficult. Added to that, the summer 2009 survey had a very low return from Strathclyde’s overseas students compared to previous years (only 16%), so it can be easily argued that the statistics are unreliable. Perhaps Science can take some comfort from this because, whereas previously, when respondents were asked to what extent they would encourage others to come to Strathclyde, Science students had showed the most positive results among the faculties, this was no longer the case. On this benchmark, Engineering’s students were the most satisfied, with Science very slightly behind Business and Law Arts & Social Sciences.

No Department reported on issues raised by this survey.

4.6 What steps did the Faculty and its Departments take in session 2008/09 to obtain effective student feedback? Did student feedback in the Faculty identify any issues that had implications at University level or areas of good practice which might be applicable elsewhere in the University? If so, please detail.

The Faculty views the formal Student-Staff Committee arrangements and the Class/Course Evaluation arrangements as efficient and robust mechanisms for maintaining effective dialogue with, and

7

feedback from, students. Minutes of departmental Student-Staff Committees are scrutinised at the AAC where assurance is sought that any matters of significance that have been raised have been appropriately resolved. Some specific developments are worthy of mention.

In Chemistry, a summary of the results from class assessment forms are distributed to staff for analysis and discussion. As well as regular Student-Staff Committee meetings, the Department holds meetings with a group of disabled students to gain feedback on their experience. Some Chemistry students also volunteered to participate in the Pyramid discussions dealt with at 4.2 above.

The CIS Teaching Committee formulated a policy for all staff concerning feedback and circulated a standard questionnaire for completion by all UG students by the end of Week 10 in each semester. For taught postgraduates, a comprehensive questionnaire was distributed to all students at end of semester 2 (covering both semesters and all taught classes). Staff were also encouraged to obtain feedback via ‘one-minute’ papers and other appropriate means on a week-by-week basis.

Mathematics and STAMS posted the minutes of their Joint Staff-Student Liaison Committee (with relevant actions and outcomes) on SPIDER for all students to view. Other items of information and feedback were also disseminated to students via SPIDER.

In Natural Sciences, students are encouraged to join the Student/Staff committees in their subject areas and are also told to contact the Course Director with any concerns.

Following from the 2008/09 National Student Survey, Physics are developing a questionnaire to find out what Physics students regard as effective feedback on their work. As to reacting to feedback, in direct response to its Student/Staff Committee, the Department has revised the way students are notified of the available projects and how these projects are allocated to the students.

SIPBS initiated the detailed discussions with students on effective feedback referred to in 4.2 above.

4.7 How did the Faculty monitor issues arising out of Staff/Student committees? How were actions communicated back to the student body?

The Faculty’s Academic Administration Committee received and scrutinised the minutes of each Department’s Student-Staff Committees. The actions from those meetings are communicated back to the student body by the student representatives themselves, and by the departments, frequently by posting minutes on SPIDER. Some departments’ minutes include appendices detailing actions taken following each meeting, and all are being encouraged to follow this example.

4.8 Please note any specific follow-up action and monitoring arrangements in relation to feedback from students and other stakeholders such as employers.

None reported.

4.9 Has the Faculty introduced any other initiatives for feedback other than the above?

Physics reports that staff are making increasing use of personal response systems to gain immediate feedback at lectures that confirms whether or not students have grasped key concepts. This approach ties in with assessment etc, but is a route to obtaining on-the-spot feedback that may be more beneficial to students in the long run.

4.10 Has the Faculty taken any steps to address any generic issues raised by the Departments?

One suggested reform is that the Faculty should be more prescriptive in the management of departments’ Student-Staff committees, asking each Department, for example, to hold two per semester and to report the minutes and follow-up actions to the next available AAC (at present, the Faculty sometimes has to chase departments for these minutes, with the result that issues raised can be ‘dead’ by the time AAC sees the minutes).

8

5 TEACHING, LEARNING AND ASSESSMENT

Through the work of the Joint APC/QMC Working Party, the following courses in the Science Faculty were given permission to be at variance with the 20-credit Framework for Undergraduate and Integrated Master’s Study as approved by Senate:

MChem and BSc with Honours in Chemistry with Drug Discovery BSc with Honours in Applied Chemistry MSci in Applied Chemistry and Chemical Engineering BSc Mathematics and Computer Science BSc Mathematics and Physics BSc Mathematics Statistics and Accounting

5.1 Does the Faculty have any high level reflections on the impact of the introduction of the 20-credit framework?

While the above list shows only a few courses operating outwith the new 20 credit framework, many more sought exemption unsuccessfully. The Faculty remains supportive of the arguments put forward by Pure & Applied Chemistry that it be allowed to operate the degrees listed above at variance with the Framework because of the demands made by the Royal Society of Chemistry.

Across the Faculty, departments found some difficulties in adjusting to the new framework, whether these stemmed from accreditation issues or a fear that the new system would diminish student choice and flexibility. For most science degrees, some of the choice available under the old 10 credit system was lost as accreditation and core syllabus requirements had to take priority. Students on joint degrees such as the BSc Honours Mathematics and Physics now faced overloaded curricula in years 1 and 2 which was not an issue under the old framework. It has been argued that the new approach makes interdepartmental and interfaculty courses harder (not easier) to develop and was cited as a factor in the withdrawal of the joint Science-LASS BSc Honours Biomedical Sciences & Psychology degree as it could not be made to fit the framework. Another side-effect has been that the topics covered by discrete credit-bearing personal development planning classes have had to be embedded within other classes, raising questions as to whether PDP will continue to receive the attention it was once felt it merited.

Notwithstanding all of the above, the Faculty also sees merit in the new framework. It has provided the opportunity for curriculum renewal and a review of both the extent and the mode of assessment. For example, in Physics, the 1st year material now matches that taught in the Advanced Higher Physics curriculum. The Faculty is, generally, phasing in the new framework, year by year, so work on the 20-credit framework during 2008/09 focussed on the 1st year curriculum. We expect to see benefit in more efficient operation of the General Examination Boards because the students will be doing fewer classes and will have less choice of optional classes. We would prefer to see the outcome of the General Examination Boards in June 2010 before pronouncing on the overall impact of the new framework and of the new University-wide compensation scheme that is accompanying it.

5.2 Please describe any changes to the Faculty’s portfolio of degree programmes that were implemented in session 2008/09 (additions/deletions). Please outline the rationale behind any such changes.

No new courses were introduced in 2008/09. The following ‘deletions’ were processed in 2007/08 and implemented in 2008/09:

(i) withdrawal of the BSc pass degree in Biomedical Sciences, as part of a wider re-design of the Biomedical Sciences degrees preparatory to the introduction of the 20-credit framework and preparatory to seeking (successfully) accreditation from the Institute of Biomedical Sciences

9

(ii) suspension of recruitment to the BSc Honours Bioscience and Teaching and BSc Honours Chemistry and Teaching degrees in response to both limited demand and resource questions affecting the Education and Science faculties.

Additionally, Physics completely restructured its degree programmes. It removed its MSci degrees in Applied Physics, Photonics, Biophysics, Physics with Mathematical Finance and Physics with Visual Simulation, together with its BSc degrees in Applied Physics and Laser Physics and Optoelectronics. It now offers only three degrees: the MPhys, the BSc (Hons) Physics and the BSc (Hons) Physics with Teaching. The ousted degrees had received few UCAS applications (< 20), very few of which matured into actual students. As many of the deleted degrees had specialised classes in years 2-5, the reform relieved the academic staff of a significant teaching burden. Under the new portfolio of degrees, students wishing to specialise in a given area can choose suitable combinations of Level 4 and Level 5 classes to allow for the necessary specialisation.

5.3 Please highlight any major external factors (government initiatives, policies of specific client groups) that impacted in 2008/09 on the Faculty’s degree programmes and indicate how the Faculty dealt with them.

The University’s position on the ‘Bologna process’ is welcomed, that wholesale revision to achieve compliance is inappropriate and that, instead, courses should be developed opportunistically. But the Faculty would still welcome some clearer guidance from the University as to exactly what is compliant, what is not and what will require attention.

During 2008-09, SIPBS responded to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain’s consultation on the principles of pharmacy education by participating in RPSGB-led meetings and by making written submissions to the RPSGB.

5.4 Please comment on any significant changes in Teaching Learning and Assessment (for example in curriculum design and/or modes of delivery/assessment) in session 2008/09.

Chemistry began planning for the use of formative assessment throughout 2nd year with the aim of improving the student experience and ultimately the pass rates for the classes in this year. This is being supported by four Teaching Fellows in session 2009/10 onwards.

In Mathematics and STAMS, all new postgraduate research students began to undertake three Scottish Mathematical Sciences Training Centre (SMSTC) courses unless otherwise exempted due to previous qualifications.

In 2008/09, Physics, as discussed above, introduced formative assessment for final year project students in the form of training viva voce exams. Other innovations were the use of personal response systems in 1st year lecture courses to give students formative feedback during lectures and peer-based marking of 1st year tutorial solutions. Regarding the latter, as these marks counted towards final assessment, they were then checked over by the staff responsible for the tutorial. However, peer-based marking was discontinued in 2009/10 session – students did not like marking other students’ work and handing in after the tutorial meant that formative feedback to students from the tutor was delayed.

In SIPBS, a major review of the MPharm curriculum was initiated in parallel with the RPSGB consultation on the principles of pharmacy education which will lead to new standards for pharmacy education. The MPharm review is ongoing and will be concluded when the new standards are published in 2010. Note also the comments on feedback review at 4.2, which inevitably embraces assessment issues.

10

5.5 Please comment with respect to 2008/09 on

the Faculty’s approach (other than through the revision of courses for the introduction of the 20-credit framework) to embedding employability in the curriculum and in its teaching, learning and assessment strategies, and generally to developing graduate attributes

Science degrees deal with disciplines that drive the technological world that we live and work in. Being generically enquiry-based and about problem solving, be that in the laboratory or as a more abstract intellectual pursuit, they are intrinsically about employability. Our departments are all research-intensive, and the research ethos and activity feed into and inform our teaching of necessity, particularly in the fast-moving sciences that are changing the shape of society. Therefore, graduate attributes are inherently embedded in all science courses. However, an important part of the Faculty’s approach to curriculum renewal for the introduction of the 20-credit framework was to highlight the need to make that explicit in class and course documentation, and in delivery. Additionally, some specific departmental developments can be mentioned.

CIS has long emphasised employability in its degree programmes by stressing teaching skills such as the ability to design, implement and test computer programmes, as well as presentation and report-writing. Some of the degree programmes involve industrial placements. (In 2009-10, the CIS reformulated its Industrial Advisory Board so that it can focus on the relationship between curriculum development and employability).

Chemistry has strong links with the Careers Service and their Science Advisor addresses 2nd year students (a seminar on CV writing), 3rd year students (a seminar on interview techniques before they embark on their 4th year 12 month industrial training project) and final year students (a seminar on job prospects). Additionally, the Science and Engineering Advisors give a number of presentations to the students on the MSci Applied Chemistry and Chemical Engineering course. All Chemistry students also participate in a Transferable Skills course which features in each year of study (full details of which are available on request) but which features, inter alia, in year 1 Information Technology Skills, in year 2 Chemical Drawing skills, scientific writing skills and team skills, year 3 oral and other presentation skills, in year 4 an opportunity while on placement to enhance all of the above in ‘real’ situations and in year 5 further presentation skills.

In Physics, key skills associated with employability, such as report writing and communication skills, continue to be embedded in many practical and project training classes.

any new initiatives in relation to the Faculty’s engagement with the quality enhancement themes and other developments in Learning and Teaching.

In Chemistry, problem-based learning was expanded in the teaching of the MSc in Forensic Science.

First year engagement has long been an important aspect of Natural Sciences ‘reception’ All students were interviewed and their plans for the academic year discussed. Those on the pass degree stream were invited to think about the possibility of transfer to Honours at the end of the year. This prospect is often a sufficient spur to engage with coursework, providing a reward for good performance. Exam marks often exceed the average for related degrees, despite the lower entry standard of the Pass degree.

Physics recognises the importance of the First Year Experience. New students saw the same member of staff for all Physics lectures in 1st semester, and meet with their counsellor in the first week of term. Those staff involved were chosen for being ‘student friendly’. Assessment strategies were also to the fore. Physics introduced significantly more formative assessment through various means including viva training, personal response systems and laboratory report writing in 1 st-3rd year, as well as peer based marking in 1st year tutorials and 3rd year project training classes. Students also designed assessment criteria for project training classes. Research-teaching linkages are, of course, important throughout Science. In Physics, as part of a recruitment initiative, new PhD students were asked to write talks suitable for S4-S6 schools pupils on the latest research developments in, for example,

11

astrophysics, plasma physics etc which could then be taken into schools showing how research is influencing modern society.

Through 2008/9 the Faculty progressed the development of the Mathematical Skills Support Centre, funded by the University’s Education Excellence Funding. (The Centre opened in September 2009 in time for the start of the 2009/10 academic year).

The Faculty made good use of the Interns@strathclyde scheme to offer more high-flying students the opportunity to undertake project work in a research environment over the summer, augmenting similar opportunities offered through the Nuffield and Carnegie Summer Bursaries and by any of the scientific professional bodies.

For research students the Faculty, in collaboration with the Careers Centre, introduced a Careers Event run in May. This was very well received and will be run again this year, possibly jointly with the Faculty of Engineering. The Researchers’ Induction Day was run again in late October and was much appreciated by the incoming research students.

any changes made in respect of learning and teaching arising from the recommendations of departmental reviews undertaken in the previous two sessions (i.e. 2006/07 and 2007/08) and evaluate their success in addressing the issues raised by the review.

Chemistry underwent its Faculty Quinquennial Review during 2007/08. One recommendation asked the Department to review its policy of double marking in the undergraduate final year, seen as demanding of staff time. A ‘lighter touch’ marking system since introduced. The Department’s External Examiners have raised no objections.

the steps taken in the Faculty to enhance teaching, learning and assessment in accordance with the strategic aims identified in the Academic Strategy?

In Chemistry, the planned introduction of the Teaching Fellows (2009/10) aims to improve completion rates for full-time undergraduates.

how the 12 assessment principles have been used to review and improve assessment?

Through AAC, the Faculty stressed the need for its Departments to look to the 12 assessment principles when redesigning its classes and courses for the new 20-credit structure. There is clear evidence in the course proposals approved by the Faculty that a variety of assessment regimes are being employed within and across our courses, addressing the assessment principles where appropriate.

The following are particular points raised by departments.

In Chemistry, the 12 assessment principles were disseminated to all teaching staff and the Teaching Committee and Year audit teams considered them during the annual review of assessment.

CIS staff have been encouraged to consider ways of engaging more directly with students through different feedback mechanisms.

In Mathematics, a ‘Maths Skills Test’ has been introduced to ensure consolidation of basic algebraic skills and increased use has been made of continuous assessment.

Physics is introducing more formative assessment, extending the use of class tests to lead to the award of credits, and involving students in the design of assessment criteria.

In SIPBS, the principles are informing an ongoing review of assessment within all its degree programmes. For the MPharm, this review is in parallel with the RPSGB consultation on new

12

standards for pharmacy education and the review of the MPharm to be concluded when the new standards are published in 2010.

STAMS has a strong track record of innovative teaching and learning developments and intensive use of continuous assessment through project work.

5.6 Please provide examples of good practice in teaching, learning and assessment that came to light in session 2008/09 through annual monitoring which might have relevance to other parts of the University.

Chemistry is phasing in the use of personal response systems into lectures.

CIS has implemented forums for each class to facilitate group discussions, provide advice about problem-solving, example solutions, commented solutions etc. This is a very rich form of feedback which is still being piloted by a subset of academic staff. Meanwhile, the ‘crime scene and court exercise’ delivered as part of the MSc Forensic Informatics degree was praised by both students and external examiner. While resource intensive, the benefit to the student learning experience was high and the exercise subsequently commended for its strong practical element delivered within a realistic setting that provides students with the opportunity to put theory into practice.

5.7 What issues arose from annual monitoring? What actions were taken to deal with them?

5.8 Did the Faculty identify any issues to do with undergraduate, postgraduate instructional or postgraduate research programmes which might have implications at University level? If so, please detail.

See concerns about the new University-wide compensation scheme (1.2) and the 20 credit framework (5.1).

5.9 Please comment on the Faculty’s approach to monitoring Continuing Professional Development/Lifelong Learning and highlight any significant issues that arose in session 2008/09.

In Science, our experience is that formal CPD is generally related to acquiring a specific academic or professional qualification rather than running short courses specifically designed and delivered to order. Indeed, one issue we have is in persuading our departments to highlight appropriate PGI provision as CPD. MSc courses in Chemistry (Forensic Science), CIS (Information and Library Studies, Information Management), SIPBS (Clinical Pharmacy, Analysis of Medicines, Pharmaceutical Quality and Good Manufacturing Practice) and Physics (High Power RF Science and Engineering) could all be headlined as CPD provision. More specific CPD provision is the Independent Prescribers Certificate for Pharmacists and the Forensic Science Society Professional

Following an annual monitoring meeting in June 2009, CIS has agreed a brief handbook will be made available to all students at the start of each class which should contain schedules of dates for issuing and submitting coursework, the amount of time students are expected to study and what form that studying should take, and what kind of feedback will be provided. It was agreed that for each class, students should be asked to complete the class questionnaire produced by the Teaching Committee.

In Chemistry, it became apparent that students found Organic Chemistry especially challenging. A new structure and syllabus has been introduced in 2009/10, following a thorough review of teaching in this area. Also, 4th year Chemistry students complete a year in industry, during which they have to complete three distance learning assignments and then an examination when they return for their final year of study. The Department held a meeting with the students and took on board their comments about the assessment for this class. Subsequent changes were made to the timing and scheduling of the examination and the nature of the feedback the students received. Involving students in the discussion about assessment proved a good experience.

13

Postgraduate Diploma suite which is validated by the University (see 5.10). As such, all our CPD provision is monitored and quality assured through our normal academic procedures.

Chemistry has commented that it tries to encourage this type of activity (its relationship with the Forensic Science Society is a striking example of good CPD work) but a difficulty continues to be the timing of courses which clash with other commitments in the Department and wider University.

5.10 Please comment on examples of good practice in Continuing Professional Development/Lifelong Learning that might have relevance to other parts of the University.

In 2008/09, Chemistry, through its Centre for Forensic Science expanded its long-standing validation arrangements for the Forensic Science Society by introducing the ‘Professional Diploma’ whereby students taking the FSS’s classes may accrue credits towards a Strathclyde-awarded Diploma. (In March 2010, Senate will be asked to approve an arrangement that would see this extended to include a ‘Professional Masters’).

An exciting development in 2008/9 was Chemistry’s agreement with GlaxoSmithkline Beecham for a joint programme of research projects leading to the award of MPhil degrees. Currently, negotiations with GSK to expand this to a PhD programme are well advanced.

6 RESOURCES

6.1 Was the University’s provision of learning resources (library/IT provision, teaching accommodation etc) adequate? If not, were improvements sought and effected?

General comments

The Faculty is conscious of the present debate concerning Library non-staffing resources (book and journal purchases) and ‘entitlement’, as seen from the perspective of the University’s RAM. This must not prevent us from the essential task of building our electronic subscriptions resource which continues to lag behind that of several of our competitor institutions.

The new RAM (which had its first full year of operation in 2008/09) highlighted the need to use space more efficiently but has had the unfortunate effect of driving some lab-based departments into substantial deficit from which it is difficult to see them recovering. The Faculty is seeking solutions, in partnership with the University, but feels that the detail of the RAM as regards laboratory accommodation must be reviewed.

A growing concern relates to teaching equipment. Despite the Faculty’s allocations of equipment monies and an overseas allowance, departments’ stocks of equipment that can be used for teaching are becoming out-of-date and, in some instances, almost unserviceable. Newly refurbished labs are often housing old equipment that looks bad for prospective students and disheartening for actual students. Research labs, by contrast, are well provided for. The situation may require an injection of capital from the University.

Departmental perspectives

Chemistry’s Quinquennial Review in 2007/08 highlighted a number of resource-related shortcomings, not all of which had been resolved by 2008/09. The Department found it disappointing that heating and cooling problems in some teaching and laboratory accommodation still existed, despite several discussions with Estates Management. The Department (like Maths, below) requested that broad sweep blackboards should still be available in the lecture theatres it used. This was partly addressed by Estates but some rooms allocated did not have adequate facilities for teaching Chemistry courses. However, the Department did request and receive adequate locker space for its undergraduates.

Mathematics and STAMS again stressed the lack of blackboards available in central pool teaching rooms, and the shortage of large capacity teaching rooms which impacts on increased teaching loads due to repetition of lectures etc. It also complains about the inaccuracy of information contained on

14

the Learning Services’ website obtained via Pegasus in relation to room booking that details the capacity, layout and facilities of each room.

6.2 Were there any potential challenges that might be of interest at an institutional level?

None reported.

6.3 Were any specific staff development challenges highlighted?

The Faculty is anxious to ensure that training developments available to Academic Staff (in some cases mandatory) are equally accessible to Teaching Support Staff. Thus, for example, the Faculty invites all Academic Professionals to attend its PGR Supervisors Induction Training. We would appreciate clarification on the requirement for Teaching Support Staff (including Fixed-Term Employees) to pursue the PG Cert/Diploma in Educational Studies and eligibility for membership of the HEA.

7 GRADUATE EMPLOYMENT

In completing this section, Faculties should refer to the standard annual datasets produced by the Careers Service and the Management Information Profiles

7.1 Please comment on any developments in respect of the employment of the Faculty’s graduates (undergraduate, postgraduate instructional and postgraduate research).

The following concerns those who graduated in 2008 – it is too early to comment on 2009 Graduate employment.

In terms of undergraduates, Science graduates’ destinations followed a general pattern for all Strathclyde graduates in 2008. Fewer entered employment [65%, down from 69.5% in 2007], more went on to further study [27.5% compared with 22.4% in 2007] and slightly more were unemployed [5.9% compared with 4.8%]. In terms of postgraduates, there was a little change to the distribution of Science graduates’ destinations between 2007 and 2008, with 66.7% entering employment (down from 86.5% in 2007) as a result of more pursuing further study options such as MRes or teacher training. Although entry to primary teaching was oversubscribed, more opportunities were available in secondary teaching, depending on the subject area (notably in Mathematics, Physics and CIS subjects).

A further concern is that 20% of all Science graduates (admittedly less then the University-wide figure of 25%) were classified as under-employed (ie not in appropriate level graduate jobs) within the first six months following graduation. There is an emerging trend of students failing to engage with the job market until after the completion of their studies. No matter how much the Careers Service and departments prompt students, ultimately, the choice to engage with the job market rests with the students themselves.

Main recruiters for Science included the National Health Service (NHS), Boots/Alliance, Lloyds Pharmacy, Co-operative Pharmacy and Prudential. But, significantly, graduates whose courses had included work placements generally performed better in the job market. This suggests that departments should aim to include more work experience within courses.

8 ACCESS FOR DISABLED STUDENTS

8.1 Please comment on the ways in which the Faculty progressed with the duty to provide access to the curriculum for disabled students and on the Faculty’s strategies for implementing the Disability Equality Scheme.

15

The importance of the University’s Disability Equality Scheme (UDES) is well understood and the Vice-Dean (Academic) represents the Faculty on the University’s Disability Committee. Compliance with the UDES is devolved to departments, with the Faculty monitoring that compliance through the Academic Administration Committee, principally through receiving the Student-Staff Committee minutes which should highlight any issues relating to disability. The annual course review exercise conducted by AAC also questions departments about their implementation of the UDES. Departments try to foster a climate in which disabled students are more likely to disclose their disability.

Across the Faculty, many classes have content available on SPIDER and/or the University’s VLE, enabling students to use specialised screen-reading software or zoom-in tools. Departmental Disability Coordinators work closely with the Disability Service to ensure that proper provisions are made with respect to curriculum access and assessment.

8.2 For all academic departments within the Faculty, please note those that completed Teachability reviews of access to the curriculum for disabled students in session 2008/09 and summarise the main action points which emerged.

In our report for 2007/08 we advised that that Chemistry and Physics had completed and that CIS, the about-to-be-merged Mathematics and STAMS, and SIPBS were undertaking their Teachability reviews between February and July 2009.

The CIS Teachability review was submitted but considered to be lacking some details. A resubmission of the survey is pending. A holding report for the merged Department of Mathematics and Statistics was sent to the Disability Centre in September 2009. A further, post-merger, review is anticipated. Physics had submitted its report in 2008, but it was returned for amendments, re-submitted in October 2009 and has not yet been signed off by the Disability Service. SIPBS completed its Teachability review in July 2009 and received a positive response from the review panel, being commended for its very strong commitment to the development and management of accessible curricula.

Chemistry had been the first to undergo a successful review. Its report led to the training course for postgraduate demonstrators being modified to include specific details associated with supporting students with disabilities, an increased involvement of disabled students in discussions about refurbishment, purchasing of equipment, etc, the use of video support in teaching laboratories (to be phased in to all teaching laboratories, so far as resources allow) and the routine use of microphones for all undergraduate lectures. This Department is at the forefront of responding to the UDES (collecting data, promoting staff development, managing lectures, tutorials, labs and placements etc) and further details of the many actions it is taking are available on request from the Faculty Office (or the Department itself).

8.3 Was the Faculty confident that information regarding the needs of disabled students was being conveyed to relevant staff and dealt with appropriately?

Yes. Mathematics is perhaps typical. At the commencement of each semester, the Departmental Disability Coordinator (DDC) informs all members of staff within the department of their obligations in relation to the UDES and advises them of the relevant information in relation to PEGASUS and the Disability Service. The Department in turn implements all issues that have been identified. Disabled students are informed of the provision that is being made for them and are advised of the DDC within the Department.

There was an issue raised by the Disability Service regarding the apparent infrequency of some staff accessing PEGASUS for information about their disabled students (though in this respect, Science had the best record) but this was due to some departments taking a centralised approach – that is to say, one person or a small team was acting as the co-ordinator, consulting Pegasus and passing the information onto the appropriate staff.

16

However, Physics believes that how relevant staff are told about a student’s disability could be improved upon. At present, as soon as a disabled student’s needs have been identified, the necessary adjustments are posted on PEGASUS and to the departmental disability coordinators. But these adjustments can be posted at any time and so teaching staff must check the disabled section on PEGASUS every day to ensure that they pick up on any changes to the disabled students in their classes. Understandably, this does not happen. A better approach might be to ensure that there is proper integration between Disability Service, PEGASUS and the Class Catalogue so that when a student is identified as having additional support needs for given classes the lecturer is notified by email rather than having to check PEGASUS on a daily basis. This requires Departments to maintain the correct information on the Class Catalogue regarding class information, which can be managed more effectively by the Departments.

8.4 For each department within the Faculty, note the arrangements that were in place for seeking feedback from disabled students about accessibility of teaching and teaching materials, and summarise the key points made by disabled students.

In Chemistry, the Department consults with the disabled student body twice per academic year (prior to the Student Staff Committee meetings). No key issues were raised by the students.

The CIS Disability Coordinator distributed questionnaires as part of the ‘Teachability’ review and e-mails all disabled students to establish a two-way channel of communication. The DDC regularly informs CIS staff of disabled students and their requirements, as well as resources such as the Teachability website.

In Mathematics and STAMS, after each diet of examinations, students for whom special needs examination arrangements have been made, are contacted and asked for formal feedback regarding teaching and/or examination arrangements. Feedback is also sought from postgraduate students who were involved in the invigilation process and from staff for whom arrangements were made in relation to students taking their classes.

In Chemistry, the Department consults with the disabled student body twice per academic year (prior to the Student Staff Committee meetings). No key issues were raised by the students.

.Physics runs an annual survey in Semester 2 and this is issued to all students and staff taking or teaching any class in Physics. The DDC meets with each student who has disclosed a need on a one-to-one basis. No issues have been raised to date. Disability also forms part of standing issues on the Departmental Committee giving staff a chance to give feedback on necessary adjustments.

SIPBS also consults its disabled students formally, but also encourages informal anonymous feedback.

9 STUDENT APPEALS/STUDENT COMPLAINTS

9.1 Please provide summary information on student appeals and student complaints dealt with at Faculty level in session 2008/09 (number of instances, outcomes).

See Annex 4 for the summary information on appeals in session 2008/09.

With respect to student complaints that came to the attention of the Faculty, three arose during 2008/09, one each involving the Centre for Forensic Science (Chemistry), Physics and SIPBS. None was upheld

9.2 Is the Faculty aware of any trends in the number and content of cases?

17

Appeals are increasing at an alarming rate, and are consuming a very substantial proportion of the Faculty Office’s time (principally that of the Assistant Faculty Officer). Complaints are, by contrast, very few in number – but these too can become very time consuming and involved.

9.3 Does the Faculty have any reflections on issues arising out of student appeals/complaints?

The Faculty supports the comments received from SIPBS that “there is definitely an increasing tendency for students to appeal weak performances – particularly overseas students. Some of the appeals evidence we have started seeing is of very dubious veracity”. We may need to be more rigorous in the process for accepting appeals and the criteria for supporting them. It has been suggested that we should not accept non-contemporaneous medical or other evident (ie medical certificates or other evidence written some time after the illness or circumstance forming the ground for appeal) in support of an appeal. At the moment, the great bulk adhere to the published deadlines, but a steady trickle arrive at any time in the year. As some of these are found to be legitimate cases, one hesitates to adhere too strictly to the deadlines, though the sheer weight of appeals business may require us to do so.

10 INTERNATIONALISATION

10.1 Please comment on any issues specific to the internationalisation agenda.

The advent of the new Points-Based System of immigration with effect from March 2009 is relevant to any discussion of internationalisation, affecting the process of admissions and introducing attendance monitoring for all students from overseas. Preparations were in hand throughout 2008/09. Each department has had to introduce mechanisms for monitoring attendance. The immediate impact of PBS seems to have been far less harmful to admissions than had been feared, but there have been difficulties. The effectiveness and impact of the new system is being monitored.

Please provide details of specific initiatives to assist with integration of international students.

Physics has set up its own International Recruitment Office. Apart from work on attracting new overseas students, it meets with all non-UK home and overseas students, recruited or attending the Department through an Erasmus exchange, and has regular informal lunches for them twice per semester.

For SIPBS, the advent of the 2+2 MPharm programme for Malaysian students from the International Medical University in Kuala Lumpur saw preparations for the induction of the first cohort to transfer to Strathclyde . This was in addition to the existing induction for students on the traditional collaborative MPharm with the IMU (5+3 semester model) who arrive in June each year. The new induction programme was delivered successfully in September 2009.

Are there any particular challenges or problems with the internationalisation of learning that the University should be aware of?

CIS reports that, despite having drawn students’ attention to the University's policy concerning academic dishonesty as well as to literature produced by the Department providing examples of good/poor scholarship, a number of international students continue to demonstrate poor scholarship when completing coursework. Commissioning coursework is possibly even more of a problem.

SIPBS reports that the Points-Based System of immigration has increased the administrative burden of the admissions processes for the IMU programme.

Have there been any particular initiatives to encourage the Faculty’s students to undertake part of their curriculum abroad?

18

Faculty-wide comments

ERASMUS Student Mobility Activity

SCIENCE Incoming Erasmus Exchange Students Outgoing Erasmus Exchange Students2008/09 55 20 (plus 4 on work placements*)2007/08 63 142006/07 45 82005/06 48 14

The Faculty has a well-developed programme of exchanges under the ERASMUS Student Mobility scheme. The above figures show the extent of that activity. They also show the imbalances between incoming and outgoing students, but these are accepted for strategic reasons (often, the exchanges encourage recruitment of other students who do bring fees, or help to nurture research activities). Also, the viability and value of the exchange agreements is continually reviewed, in line with University policies in these matters.

In addition to the traditional ERASMUS study placements, 4 students from Chemistry took advantage of the new ERASMUS work placement initiative for the first time in 2008/09. The undergraduate students undertook 12 month placements with industrial partners in The Netherlands and Germany as part of their Integrated Masters degrees. The industrial placements have been well received and the associated ERASMUS funding provides an increasingly popular incentive to students to undertake part of their curriculum abroad.

Departmental PerspectivesApart from Erasmus exchanges, Chemistry has two distinct initiatives:

(i) JCEMolChem – An EU-funded exchange scheme with Canada (Universities of Montreal and Ottawa). During 2008/09, PAC received 4 students and sent out 2 Strathclyde students, each for a period of 4 months. One member of staff visited Montreal for one month.

(ii) American Chemistry Society IREU scholarships – PAC has received 3 students who carried out research projects for a period of 6 weeks.

Additionally, the Department holds several meetings each year with undergraduate students to discuss options for study abroad. Postgraduates are encouraged to participate in the JCEMolChem scheme.

In Physics, Biophysics students can now take their final year project at a Czech University.

Have there been any specific developments to enhance the international dimension in the curriculum?

None reported, though it may be noted that Science by its very nature has a global (if not universal) curriculum that is continually being updated in the light of scientific advances.

10.2 Have there been any specific issues relating to progress arising out of academic dishonesty on the part of international students.

Chemistry reports an increasing problem with plagiarism amongst overseas students on the MSc Forensic Science.  New information has been put in place from the start of the course to try and counter the trend but the past two years have been particularly problematic in this regard with one student from each year making a complaint about their treatment on the course based in part on the fact they failed the MSc as a result of their plagiarism.

SIPBS points to the “I can’t fail” mentality of some overseas students that leads them to commit academic dishonesty. Additionally, there is difficulty with the veracity of evidence presented in the support of appeals. This is by no means confined to international students, but in that context there are sometimes questions about the provenance or genuineness of medical certificates issued by

19

overseas medical institutions or doctors, sometimes in respect of an ailment that has occurred to the student while in the UK for which there has been no face-to-face consultation.

SECTION B

11 ADMISSIONS

In completing this section, Faculties should refer to the standard annual datasets produced by the Planning Office. (Note: GMAP is exploring alternative ways of taking forward analysis of ethnic origin and disability)

11.1 Please comment on trends in respect of Undergraduate and integrated master admissions. Within this analysis please comment specifically on the following for session 2008/09:

- the breakdown of entrant students (mature, overseas, gender balance, intake from non-standard backgrounds – i.e. Wider Access programmes/FE colleges etc)

- changes in mode of study (ft/pt/dl) required by students;- general entrance standards.

Undergraduate (full-time & part-time FTEs)*

Intake Population2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09

Home 801 784 693 2532.5 2639 2533.5Overseas 124.5 132 132 157.5 172 166Total 925.5 916 825 2690 2811 2699.5

* From the University’s published standard annual datasets produced by the Planning Office, year–ending 2006/07 - 2008/09.

General commentaryThe Faculty’s target for the previous year, 2007/08, was 760 Home/EC funded places. As usual, to cope with no-shows and early withdrawals, selectors were encouraged to overshoot by a small margin, with the knowledge of the University. Withdraws did not occur to the expected extent, leaving the Faculty with an intake of 784. In 2008, the Faculty had a reduced target of 720 Home/EC funded places. By early August and the announcement of the Higher results, the Faculty was struggling to meet its target. The Engineering Faculty, on the other hand, had by then exceeded its target and was still holding good offers. Science released 30 funded places to Engineering. This transfer was for 2008 only, but it was potentially the loss of around £250k recurrent of the Faculty’s resource base.

The University’s policy towards Clearing then exacerbated the Faculty’s position. The University had declared that no area of the University should enter Clearing trading at more than 1 point less than its usual tariff. The Faculty had been able to deliver on that request. However, the University also believed that being in Clearing was not good for Strathclyde’s reputation. With overall numbers good, the decision was taken to withdraw from Clearing on 19 August, only a few days after the announcement of the ‘A’ level results. Recruitment to Science slowed to a trickle, and by 3 October, Science had recruited 699 against its target of 720.

The Faculty remains critical of the University’s approach to Clearing as being counter-productive. For instance, the early exit from Clearing deprived Science of high quality entrants still in the system (among them, those presenting with ‘A’ levels). Nor is the University’s approach conducive to transparency for important stakeholders – the prospective students looking for available places on high quality courses. The University’s attitude to the Natural Sciences degree also caused concern within Science – many entrants to Natural Sciences went on to achieve good (and, in some instances, very good) degrees and we feel it would be unfortunate to lose the ability to help such students realise their potential. Equally, it was acknowledged that the new cohort of students, recruited to higher entry

20

standards than their predecessors, ought to present better progress and retention performance. So, it was hoped that the Faculty’s overall population, which was the principal financial driver (rather than intake), might remain stable.

Science also considered the reasons for Engineering’s good performance, noting that this had not been across the board, though some areas had recruited extremely well. Engineering was able to market itself as the biggest and best Engineering Faculty in Scotland. Science could not match such a statement but it ought to look to maximising such strengths as it undoubtedly had, by identifying and promoting a high-quality ‘Science at Strathclyde’ brand identity.

UG Admissions – Competitive Entry and Points ScoresCompetitive entry standards for Science Faculty courses are set and adjusted by departments in the light of previous intakes and intake targets and monitored by the Faculty’s Selectors and Student Recruitment Committee (SSRC) and Academic Administration Committee. Those for 2008 had been set in 2006.

However, debate at Faculty level about these standards is not precluded. In November 2007, the SSRC discussed the University’s Excellence Agenda’s determination to drive up entry standards and, thereby, the quality of applicants. Points raised included the possibility of targeting high-achieving applicants at an early stage (ie applicants from sixth year to whom unconditional offers would be made) by contacting them as soon as their application was received and offering an early visit to the University. The early contact could be used to impress upon such candidates the importance of focussing on their school studies, even if they had won an unconditional offer. Also, where appropriate, as well as the unconditional offer of entry to 1st year, such candidates could be given a conditional offer for direct entry to second year which might also help maintain their motivation towards attaining Advanced Highers.

Proportionately, only a small number of students entered the Faculty from fifth year at school and it was suggested that the Faculty should encourage students to consider direct entry to Year 2 after sixth year, provided that they were suitably qualified, by which was meant three good Advanced Highers. However, few students presented with three Advanced Highers and certain degrees would not fit this model. Furthermore, schools were motivated by a desire to excel in the league tables and tended to promote two Advanced Highers and one ‘crash’ Higher in sixth year as a more easily achievable goal. And, while AAB or ABB at Advanced Higher in appropriate subjects probably reflected a suitable level of achievement for direct entry to Year 2 of Science’s courses as currently designed, there was also a concern about Strathclyde’s real ability to attract significant numbers of such high-achieving science students who would probably be targeting medicine or Oxbridge.

In 2006/07, the average points score presented by entrants to Science was 476, slightly ahead of the University’s average of 468. The method used to calculate this performance indicator then changed for 2007/08. For Science, in 2007/08, the average UCAS Tariff was 362.9 and for the University, 378; in 2008/09, Science scored 379.2 - still chasing the University average which had risen to 387.4.

However, some of our Selectors suggest that there may be a ‘Science Specialism’ effect here. Thus, a pupil with good Highers in 5th year intending to pursue science at University but remaining at school for 6th year is liable to be strongly advised to pursue Advance Highers in their intended science as well as mathematics and thus end up with 4 or 5 subjects contributing to their UCAS tariff. On the other hand, such students intending to pursue a University course that does not immediately build on a school subject may choose to broaden their education pursing new subjects at Higher thus increasing the number of subjects contributing to their UCAS tariff score. It has been suggested that “Average UCAS Tariff per Subject” may be an interesting indicator.

UG Admissions - Overseas RecruitmentThe great majority of the Faculty’s overseas undergraduate entrants arrive via the Collaborative Pharmacy programme with the International Medical University in Kuala Lumpur (IMU). Entry to the traditional 5+3 semester model is in June and in 2009 the intake was 103. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain will not accredit that degree (as more than 50% is delivered

21

outwith the UK) but in July 2009 agreed to accredit the new 2+2 year model of the degree, which had taken its first intake in January 2008. That cohort reached Strathclyde in October 2009 and numbered 29. Admissions data show that the 2+2 model is gaining popularity at the expense of the traditional 5+3 version. At the same time, the IMU arrangement is facing competition from other providers. Strathclyde and the IMU are working closely to ensure that this valuable collaboration (which now extends to Psychology and will shortly embrace joint Biomedical Sciences degrees) will continue to flourish.

A much smaller cohort of students from Oman takes the standard ‘Home’ version of the MPharm degree. An articulation agreement with Donghua University, China, produced a first cohort of around half a dozen students for the BSc Maths and Statistics degrees in 2007/08, whose results in 2008/09 were outstanding. The remaining overseas Undergraduate students come as individuals, not as part of a programme.

Most of these overseas students perform very well, though there are occasional difficulties, often to do with the distance between them and their families. The Faculty, assisted by the International and Graduate Office, does all it can to ease these students’ difficulties.

UG Admissions and Population -GenderGender data for 2006/07 are not available. More recent analyses show the gender balance amongst undergraduate admissions in Science as a male/female split of 45:55 in 2007/08 and 46:54 in 2008/09. In terms of student population, there remains a steady male/female split in Science of 47:53 in both 2007/08 and 2008/09.

UG Admissions-MatureData on mature (>25) entrants in 2006 showed the Faculty continuing to attract fewer mature students than the University average, and its share was not growing: 3.7% in 2004/05, 3.5% in 2005/06 and 3.6% 2006/07, based on full-time undergraduate admissions, against the corresponding figures for the University as a whole of 6.4%, 7.1% and 7.9% respectively. This is perhaps not surprising since the study of Science at HE level requires the foundation of recent study of the school curriculum (or equivalent) and this is probably not an easy thing for mature candidates to achieve. Data for 2007/08 and 2008/09 appear not to be available.

UG Admissions and Population - Mode of Study

As the following table shows, part-time study among undergraduates in Science is very unusual. The reasons are partly practical – the problems posed by part-time study for the routine of laboratory management – and partly historical – the absence of any imperative to address those challenges. The new 20 credit framework was used as an opportunity to recast regulations to state that most course would be available full-time or part-time. It remains to be seen whether future entrants will avail themselves of the new opportunities.

UG Mode of Study (p/t)

Intake PopulationScience University Science University

2008/09 0.8% 4.3% 0.8% 3.5%2007/08 0 5% 0.08% 4%2006/07 0.05% 3.5% 0.05% 2.89%

UG Admissions: Wider Access

Wider access information is provided by the Schools & Colleges Liaison Office (SCLO) and largely drawn from the intake data from Focus West (formerly GOALS) Schools.

Admissions 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09No (as % of Home Science intake)

83 (10.3%) 87 (11%) 74 (10.6%)

No (as % of University 83 of 266 87 of 282 74 of 269

22

GOALS/ Focus West intake)

(31.2%) (30.85%) (27.5%)

In 2006/07 Science returned to being the most popular Faculty for GOALS entrants (a recovery from an unexplained slump in 2004/05), based on a 31% share of the number of entrants from these schools. Science’s popularity with GOALS schools used to be attributed principally to the attractions of the Science Studies degree and its successor Natural Sciences but, in fact, entrants are taken in across the full range of Faculty degrees. An analysis to determine exactly how these students fare, and whether they contribute at all disproportionately to the Faculty’s retention issues, remains to be done.

The numbers reaching the Faculty from Further Education Colleges tend to be very small. Discussions with Stow College about intakes into CIS degrees are still ongoing.

Some Departmental perspectivesFor Chemistry, entrance standards did not change but a significant enhancement of schools contacts and student application experience followed from the Department’s in-house Marketing Assistant initiative. The number of applications in 2008 was 601 (239 female, 232 male, 15 mature and 9 overseas). Of these 160 arrived in the department, namely 140 masters and 20 BSc Honours students. Clearing was not required. The average UCAS tariff points (all entrants except HNC/HND) was 430. The average for Masters students was 443. Non-standard background entrants comprised 7% of this total.

Regarding entrance requirements, for Mathematics and STAMS the entry criteria for 2008-09 was increased from a B to an A grade in Higher Mathematics. In the event, with the disappointing performance in the 2008 SQA results, several pupils did not meet the new standard but could be taken into Natural Sciences. The wider access aspect of that programme was still in evidence in 2008, as there was still recruitment to the Pass degree (stopping in 2010). The number admitted directly to Honours grew, but the majority were the Pass degree entrants, mainly coming as referrals from Science Faculty selectors.

For the Physics BSc stream, 82% of entrants exceeded the entrance tariff of BBCC and the average tariff was 297 for an average number of 4.8 Highers. For the MPhys, 12 out of 13 exceeded the tariff of ABBB, the average tariff being 360 for an average number of 5.3 Highers. The Department recorded 56 entrants, of whom 33 were male school leavers and 12 female. There were 7 mature male entrants and 1 female. Overseas were represented by 2 EU students. Of school leavers 3 were male Home Asian, 1 English.

No department reported any noteworthy change in the mode of study being pursued by new entrants. The great majority were standard full-time students.

11.2 Please comment on trends in respect of Postgraduate Instructional admissions. Within this analysis please comment specifically on the following for session 2008/09:

- the breakdown of entrant students (mature, overseas, gender balance, intake from non-standard backgrounds – i.e. Wider Access programmes/FE colleges etc);

- changes in mode of study (ft/pt/dl) required by students;- general entrance standards.

Postgraduate Instructional (full-time & part-time)*

Intake Population2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09

Home 134.65 118 91.33 157.97 150.5 105.26Overseas 93.83 129.5 95.5 96.5 132 97Total 228.48 247.5 186.83 254.47 282.5 202.26

23

* From the University’s published standard annual datasets produced by the Planning Office, year–ending 2006/07 - 2008/09. Following a healthy recruitment cycle in 2007, the 2008 figures show a falling away, on both the Home/EC and the overseas fronts. On the Home front, the fall is most pronounced in CIS and in Chemistry’s MSc in Forensic Science (both dropping 33% between 2006 and 2008). The CIS fall is explained by the cessation of the MSc in Strategic Information Services, the bespoke 5 year programme for the Royal Bank of Scotland that had started in 2002. Forensic Science’s reduction may be due to the increased number of such courses that are now available in the UK. On the overseas front SIPBS almost halved its intake between 2007 and 2008 (102 to 56). This was a conscious decision, following a year when it over-extended itself, placing great strain on resources.

There is still some cause for concern here but, fortunately, the PGR figures below are much healthier.

PGI Admissions and Population -Gender In the terms of PGI admissions in Science, the gender balance between male and female PGI students was 47:53 in 2008/09. The University figure was 43:58. The population splits, as might be expected with PGI, were very similar: 47:53 for the Faculty against a University wide figure of 45:55.

PGI Admissions and Population - Mode of StudyAs with undergraduate study, there were few part-time students in Science compared with the University average, as the following table covering 2006/07 – 2008/09 demonstrates.

PGIMode of Study (p/t)

Intake PopulationScience University Science University

2008/09 4.2% 19% 11% 30%2007/08 7.3% 11.5% 15.3% 16.4%2006/07 6.7% 18.75% 15.5% 28.4%

Departmental PerspectivesThe academic entry requirement to the MSc Forensic Science (Centre for Forensic Science, Department of Pure & Applied Chemistry) is a 2.1 or higher for UK or a CGPA of 3.48 or higher elsewhere. Three students were from operational backgrounds with lesser academic scores but enhanced experience. Four were enrolled on the PgDip and then transferred successfully to the MSc in January 2009. The IELTS requirements were raised from 6.5 to 7.0 because of previous problems with non-English speaking entrants. Further, telephone conversations as mini interviews were pioneered and found to be successful. The intake was 37 students in 2008/09. 14 were from the UK, 6 from Europe and 17 were non-EU. Nine of the 37 students were male and 28 were female.

Physics’ entrants to its sole PGI course, the MSc in High Power Radio Engineering, were 2 ii or better but the course was not supported by the Collaborative Training Account replacement funding stream, the Knowledge Transfer Award. This probably affected recruitment. Eight students were admitted, one of whom was from overseas. SIPBS advises that the conversion rate for overseas postgraduate student entry (i.e. final numbers as a percentage of offers made) dropped in 2008-2009. The reasons are unclear, as this pre-dates the Points-Based System of immigration.

No department reported any noteworthy change in the mode of study being pursued by new entrants. The great majority were standard full-time students.

11.3 Please comment on trends in respect of Postgraduate Research admissions. Within this analysis please comment specifically on the following for session 2008/09:

- the breakdown of entrant students (e.g. home, overseas, gender balance)- changes in mode of study (ft/pt/dl) required by students;- general entrance standards.

24

Postgraduate Research (full-time & part-time)*

Intake Population2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09

Home 63.5 62 109.5 190.25 194 244.5Overseas 31.5 56 42 93.25 124.5 119.5Total 95 118 151.5 283.5 318.5 364

* From the University’s published standard annual datasets produced by the Planning Office, year–ending 2006/07 - 2008/09.

The steady increase in the intake of research students to the Faculty, reflected in the healthy population figures, reflects the research culture that imbues this Faculty. The department-by-department data in the Management Information Profiles prepared by Planning show that this growth is spread over every Department, albeit to varying degrees. Total research population shows, for example, CIS doubling between 2006/07 and 2008/09 (15.5 to 31 FTE) and an upsurge in Physics (42.5 to 70). The extent of PGR activity in SIPBS is reflected by a population size of 124 in 2008/09. However, some cautionary notes should be sounded. The first is a dip in overseas recruitment – the growth is in the Home market. The second is that not all of these students are studying for PhD – many will be doing one year MRes degrees, so the positive resource implications may be less than they appear. And lastly, good population figures may mask some unsatisfactory completion trends – see 12.3 below.

PGR Admissions and Population -GenderFor PGR admissions in Science, the male/female split was 55:45 in 2008/09. The University-wide male/female gender balance was 63:37. The equivalent figures for population were 56:44 for Science and 62:38 for the University as a whole.

PGR Admissions and Population - Mode of StudyAs with undergraduate and postgraduate instructional study, very few students research part-time, as the following table shows.

PGR

Mode of Study (p/t)Intake Population

Science University Science University2008/09 0.33% 9.2% 1.6% 11.1%2007/08 1.69% 6.16% 2.98% 8.66%2006/07 0.94% 4.76% 7.23% 11.3%

Departmental PerspectivesChemistry reports that Home PGRs represented 79.3% of its 2008/09 intake, overseas 20.7%, the latter an increase on previous years. The male/female ratio was 34.5/65.5. Mature students numbered 22. None was from a non standard background. Physics had 23 new PGR students, 12 Male, 11 Female and 3 from overseas.

11.4 Please note any specific proposals or initiatives on admissions at Departmental and/or Faculty level that arose following experience in 2008/09 (i.e. increasing/lowering entrance requirements).

CIS is continuing to interview students prior to making them conditional offers. Undergraduate entrance requirements remained static (but are being increased for A Level students applying for entry in 2010-11).

In Mathematics and in STAMS, undergraduate intake in 2008 was a solid 110 with no decrease in entry requirements. A further ten students transferred into Mathematics and STAMS-based degrees from other areas of the University. No new initiatives with regard to admissions were deemed necessary. Mathematics continued to make use of the Summer School Programme for ‘adult returners’.

25

Physics introduced UCAS lunches and made attendance appear to be compulsory. Other initiatives included Advanced Higher Days for school pupils, so they may attend lectures and undertake practical work associated with Advanced Higher Learning outcomes; Advanced Higher Project support, which allows pupils to use departmental facilities to complete Project; schools talks that offer variety of subjects at all levels, giving access to school pupils; and a careers event where alumni talk about how a physics degree has helped their careers. Following 2008/09, admissions to academic year 09/10 saw a raise in the Integrated Masters requirements to AABB (including Maths and Physics at B). Next year will see further changes. Meanwhile, SIPBS made plans to increase the first year intake on the MPharm to 150 for 2009-10.

12 PROGRESSION/COMPLETION

In completing this section, Faculties should refer to the Management Information Profiles (MIPS) produced by the Planning Office.

12.1 Please comment on trends in respect of Undergraduate and Integrated Master progression and completion.

UG/Integrated Masters

The Faculty of Science used to have poor retention rates compared with those of the other Faculties. To start reversing that trend, the Faculty introduced in 2003/04 induction sessions for all 1 st years, after which the Dean’s Office would issue letters to those who failed to attend, this then being followed by departmental monitoring, and all being coupled with offers of assistance. In short, ‘at risk’ students were being identified, and assistance offered, practically from day 1.

In the data that follow, the ‘year after entry’ figures are used (students on the first year of their courses, ie including year 1 plus direct entry above year 1). They show the Faculty’s average retention moving above the University’s and sustaining that position in 2006/07 and 2007/08, but slipping back in 2008/09. Also less encouraging are the year by year data. The Faculty is consistently retaining fewer students after 1st and after 2nd year (save for the latter in 2006/07) than the University average. Third year retention is a different story, with the Faculty above the University average, suggesting that most of those who make it through the difficult first two years (and more than in other faculties) are capable of tackling an Honours year.

All figures are percentages (bold indicates where the Faculty exceeds the University average).

SU06/07

FoS06/07

SU07/08

FoS07/08

SU08/09

FoS08/09

Year after entry 92.33 93.00 91.20 93.00 92.0 91.1Year 1 89.94 87.33 89.30 88.2 90.6 89.8Year 2 94.27 94.29 94.40 93.30 97.1 97.2Year 3 85.20 91.90 85.00 91.00 99.6 99.7

The above data conform to the HESA templates. The figures that follow show each Faculty and are still for ‘year after entry’ but with overseas students included (though not IMU). They are for 2008/09.

Business: 95% were retainedEducation: 91% were retained

Engineering: 92.6% were retainedLASS: 92.9% were retainedScience: 91.5% were retained (last year the figure was 91%)University: 92.6% were retained (last year was 92.1%)

26

The available data on why students leave are frustratingly vague, but the next table (which confines itself to the Faculty of Science) provides some insight. Each year, by far and away the largest group of leavers comprises graduates and others receiving an award. The largest group leaving without an award are those described in the official data as ‘Academic failure/left in bad standing/not permitted to progress’, while the next largest group is depicted as ‘personal reasons and dropped out’. Unfortunately, this last group cannot be analysed further.

Total Leavers

AwardTotal

No Award Total

No Award(Academic

Failure)

No Award (Personal)

Other

2006/07 788 607 (77%) 181 102 62 172007/08 861 700 (81%) 161 87 26 482008/09 845 751 (89%) 94 62 20 12

Turning to completion, to see how those who are retained actually perform, the following concentrates on students leaving with Honours or Pass degrees only (explaining the different award totals from those that appear above), and shows the classification of degree.

Hons 1st

Hons 2/1

Hons 2/2

Hons 3

Hons Unclass

Pass Degree

2005/06 119 (18.6%) 223 165 33 8 902006/07 123 (20.6%) 236 98 45 16 792007/08 102 (15.4%) 348 104 45 2 612008/09 121 (17.3%) 291 146 53 31 54

There are no trends discernible in these data, other than the steady reduction in awards of Pass degrees.

Some Departmental perspectives

CIS reports that 1st year progress improved after tutorials were introduced but there are some concerns about 2nd year retention. The problem may be attributable to workload and this is being looked at. In Mathematics and in STAMS, there was a significant decrease in the number of Pass degrees awarded (14 in previous year reducing to 3) and a slight increase in the number of students obtaining a third class honours degree in comparison to the previous year (14 rising from 8 in the previous year). There were 15 first class awards; 13 upper second class awards; 28 lower second class awards; 14 third class awards; and 3 pass degrees.

For the 2008/09 session the progression in Chemistry from first year was 84%. There were, however, 6 students who requested re-attend of first year and 4 students who were placed in academic suspension. If they do return, progression would become 92%. The progression from second to third year was 81% but again if re-attend and suspended students are included this could rise to 93%. Progression from third year to 4th year (Honours), 4th year (Masters) or graduation (for BSc students) was 88% but this would rise to 98% if all students placed in suspension were to return. Some 96% of fourth year students (sandwich and masters) progressed to their final year of study.

12.2 Please comment on trends in respect of Postgraduate Instructional progression and completion.

GeneralDiscrete statistics on PGI progression and completion are not provided by Planning. However, comparing the intake/population figures at 11.2 above with the awards data below provides a sense that completion is very high. Additionally, it may be noted that the summary report detailing postgraduate instructional class pass rates for the January and May/June 2009 diets of examinations did not feature any Faculty of Science classes in the ‘at risk’ category (ie less than 75% passing in classes with 75 or more students); however, three classes had been identified as ‘borderline’ (ie less than 75% passing in classes with less than 75 students).

27

Postgraduate Instructional (PGI) Completion – Awards

SCIENCEMasters Degree Other Taught Degree

at Masters Level2008/09 230 552007/08 197 522006/07 188 36

Some departmental perspectivesChemistry reports that 36 of the 37 students who began the MSc Forensic Science graduated. One has an appeal pending. For Physics, there was 100 % MSc completion (including 1 Pass, but also 5 Merit, and 2 Distinction).

12.3 Please comment on trends in respect of Postgraduate Research submission and completion.

In February 2009, the Faculty’s Postgraduate Studies Committee received data on completion rates for research students who had first registered between 2001/02 and 2004/05. These showed that only 71% of 2001/02 registrations had submitted on time, 61% of 2002/03, 60% of 2003/04 and 39% of 2004/05. If all those who had submitted, though not necessarily on time, were included, these results moved to 77%, 64%, 61% and 62% respectively. As in previous years, several anomalies were identified between the historical ‘snapshot’ data of the survey and data held by the student records systems.

However, setting aside doubts about the absolute accuracy of the data, the Committee agreed the results were disappointing. In mitigation, it was noted that some students would have experienced broken periods of commitment to their studies (for example, through entering voluntary suspension). Also, Registry did not ‘stop the clock’ for PGR students entering voluntary suspension. Instead, their minimum period of study was extended by the appropriate period, leading to a thesis apparently being submitted late whereas this was not in fact the case. Another factor was peculiar to SIPBS. The historic figures were based on students in former departments that now constituted the Institute. Indeed, SIPBS was pro-active in ensuring that, given a normal teaching load, postgraduate supervision was limited to no more than 6 research students per supervisor, and the expectation that research students should submit within 4 years of registration was stressed. The Faculty learnt in its quinquennial review of SIPBS that supervisors who had a student who was late in submitting would not be allocated a studentship until the outstanding thesis was submitted.

The Faculty believes that, whatever the length of the scholarship (or other funding) supporting the research (be it 3, 3.5 or 4 years), the student should have a project plan that, given satisfactory progress, should allow the research to be completed and the thesis written and submitted within that period of study. The additional year available beyond this, termed by Registry as ‘registered as writing up’ takes a student to their ‘Maximum Period of Study’, ie to the point where the thesis MUST have been submitted unless an extension of study is applied for and granted. The historic late submission rates seemed to suggest that many students, either directed by their supervisors or by their own choice, have not been completing their research work and commencing their write up at an early enough stage.

The latest data have recently been supplied by Registry. These show that, combining those submitting on time with those submitting after the 4 year period, 79% of 2002/03, 71% of 2003/04, 76% of 2004/05 and 52% of 2005/06 registrations had completed. These figures show that there is still much room for improvement, and it is anticipated that this will be an issue that the Faculty will be trying to address in the coming months.

28

SECTION C

13 COLLABORATIVE ARRANGEMENTS

13.1 Please confirm that the information contained in the summary spreadsheet of all active collaborative agreements active in 2008/09 by type (validated, jointly delivered, articulations) is up to date.

The Faculty Internationalization Group, established in January 2008, made it its main task to ensure that the Faculty knew which collaborative arrangements were active and which had ceased. So we can confirm that the information in the summary spreadsheet (Corporate Services – Common Folder) is up to date.

13.2 Please confirm that all collaborative agreements were reviewed during the summer of 2009 as required by Senate.

As the template for undertaking this exercise was not then finalised, this exercise was conducted during November 2009.

13.3 Was the Faculty satisfied with the continued validity and viability of its collaborative agreements? If not, what was done to address any concerns?

Yes – because of the work of the Faculty Internationalization Group, the review threw up no surprises.

13.4 Did the Faculty identify any issues arising from these collaborative agreements which needed to be addressed at Faculty level?

Although properly belonging to next year’s report on session 2009-2010, mention may be made now of the Quality Assurance Agency’s visit to SIPBS in December 2009, part of a sector-wide examination of links between UK Higher Education and Malaysia. It was an ‘information gathering’ exercise, preparatory to the QAA compiling a case study about the Collaborative MPharm run with the International Medical University in Kuala Lumpur. One issue that did arise is that we were perhaps less sure than we could have been about the QA regime within which the IMU operates in Malaysia. The review of collaborations (13.2) touched on this issue, but it was a light touch, and we should better acquaint ourselves with the Malaysian QA approach and the IMU’s own practices. This type of issue may well apply to other collaborations.

13.5 Did the Faculty identify any issues arising from these collaborative agreements which needed to be addressed at University level?

See 13.4 above.

13.6 Are there any issues of note for the quality monitoring of provision that has come out of the negotiations for new and renewed collaborative.

See 13.4 above.

SECTION D (OTHER INFORMATION)

14 Please provide any current observations on information provided for session 2008/09

Nothing that has not been included in the foregoing answers.

15 Please outline the Faculty’s priorities for session 2009/10.

29

The Faculty’s priorities in 2009/10 with respect to Education (teaching and learning) are the bedding down of the new 20 credit Undergraduate and Integrated Masters framework and, following the June diet of General Examination Boards, an assessment of the impact of the new pan-University compensation scheme. Other Faculty priorities concern making high quality appointments under the recent JARL initiative, the ongoing work with the Research Excellence Framework, and launching a Knowledge Transfer strategy.

16 From a quality assurance perspective, please outline any issues in the Faculty’s Strategy

Statements that might usefully enhance the work of Quality Monitoring Committee and/or Educational Strategy Committee.

The following extracts are from the Faculty’s March 2009 Strategy Statement.

GeneralThe Science Faculty is key to enabling Strathclyde as a leading ‘technological university’…Internally, the Review of the Humanities and Social Sciences will substantially change the landscape of the University. Science is ready and keen to capitalise on the new structures. We already have joint degrees with all faculties. We look forward to working closer with the Social Sciences, Humanities and Education, introducing new degrees (for example, Masters degrees combining a science with Teaching)…

External pressures include the anticipated demographic downturn, the Scottish Government’s funding priorities, compliance with the Bologna movement, the current global economic downswing and the fierce competition in overseas student recruitment linked to the new immigration process. All will affect us. We must develop our external image across every aspect of our activities, at home, in Europe and further afield, supported by strong cross-departmental, cross-faculty and external partnership activity…

Our degree courses…already support five of the six economic priorities of Scottish Government: Energy, Life Sciences, Financial Services, Food and Drink, and Digital Markets and Enabling Technologies. The sixth, Tourism, is not addressed. As departments review their course portfolios, modes of delivery and research priorities, the needs of Government will be considered…

Education

2 Overseas UG intake: as a priority, we must re-consolidate our position with IMU by responding positively to the increased demand for the new 2+2 year model and declining interest in the 5+3 semester model, and by completing MoA’s for new joint degrees. We need to nurture our existing partnerships with China and develop further selective interactions there and elsewhere.

3 2009/10 should be viewed as a transition year for the 20-credit structure. The newly merged M&S will review its UG portfolio as a priority. There will be continuing effort on the Funding Council’s enhancement themes (employability, enquiry/problem based learning, first year transition, flexible delivery, integrative assessment, research-teaching linkages).

4 For most taught degrees, Bologna compliance is still an issue. We look to the University Working Party on Bologna for advice and clear guidance.

5 For the Natural Sciences degree, recruitment at BBBB (elevated from previously) has resulted in an excellent but small cohort. There is much opportunity with this degree if marketed well. It has been devalued internally in the past when used as a safety net for less able students from other degrees. Weaker students need to be helped in other ways. We will explore how this degree may be used as a platform to develop a BSc Hons in ‘Interdisciplinary Sciences’ with multi-disciplinary core and subject specialisation at Honours – a new degree responding to new challenges in the employment market, post 2013.

6 …. We anticipate that the new University-wide compensation scheme (which supplants the Faculty’s own scheme) may initially damage our retention rates. Enhancement of the VLE and the new Maths Skills Centre should act as counter-balances but departments will also be looking at their assessment regimes to ensure that students capable of achieving degrees are able to do so.

30

7 All PGI courses will be reviewed, both in terms of scope and mode of delivery, in better alignment with the Scottish Government priorities. First graduate prospects may be diminished through the ‘credit crunch’ and so there is likely to be a larger pool of graduates who want to up-skill. Some departments are already doing this, e.g. CIS with Business Information Technology Systems (BITS) and SIPBS with Clinical Pharmacy.

8 More flexible delivery mechanisms will be pursued. Part-time study will be publicised better. Distance learning will also feature more. Thus, the Centre for Forensic Science is proposing a distance learning version of its popular MSc that would be attractive to international practitioners…CIS is also considering a similar future for its MSc Library and Information Studies. On-line distance learning should be assisted with by marketing and IT infrastructure from Professional Services.

9 We aim to address the problem of ageing teaching equipment by combining internal and external funding, the latter through an enhancement of industrial support…

SECTION E

17 CONCLUSION

Please summarise all required follow-up action for the session under review and any additional academic quality assurance and enhancement actions required to align with the Excellence Agenda.

17.1 The desirability of looking at wider access and the retention performance of students admitted through the Focus West initiative (see paragraph 1.2).

17.2 The desirability of looking to see how the Faculty’s teaching equipment can be upgraded (see paragraph 4.2).

17.3 The Faculty should consider being more prescriptive in the management of departments’ Student-Staff committees, asking each Department, for example, to hold two per semester and to report the minutes and follow-up actions to the next available AAC (see paragraph 4.10).

17.4 The Faculty should discuss with the Disability Service whether another approach might be used to flag to departments the needs of disabled students (see paragraph 8.3).

17.5 Better promotion of a high-quality ‘Science at Strathclyde’ brand identity (see paragraph 11.1).

JSMcG12.2.2010

31

ANNEX 1

DepartmentTeaching Committee

(Annual Review of Course) OR

appropriate PGCommittee

Head of Department (or nominee)

Student/StaffCommittee*

DepartmentalStaff Committee

Vice-Dean Academic

AcademicAdministration

Committee*

BOARD OF STUDY*

External ExaminersReports & Responses

Class Leader(Annual Class Review)OR annual PG Course

Review

Student Feedback

JSBIE:CES Jointdegrees

Chair

Chair

PG StudiesCommittee*

JSBES: Joint Teaching Degrees

Appeals Committee

Faculty of Science Academic Quality Assurance Network

(* indicates Student representation)

AccreditationPG Research

Progress reports

Selectors & Student

Recruitment

Faculty Internationalisation

Group

32

SCIENCE FACULTY – ANNUAL QUALITY ENHANCEMENT REPORT – SESSION 2008/09

Annex 2

STRATHCLYDE INSTITUTE OF PHARMACY ANDBIOMEDICAL SCIENCES

RESPONSE TO REPORT OF THE FACULTY REVIEW PANEL

(The Institute’s comments are in bold italics)

6 FINDINGS OF THE REVIEW: MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

Headship6.1 RECOMMENDS to the Faculty that steps be taken as soon as possible to develop and implement a

succession strategy for the headship of SIPBS.

The Institute has acknowledged the need for seamless and appropriate succession and how this will be best achieved will need to be the subject of careful deliberation. It is important to know very soon what role the Faculty and Centre will play in this process, whether strategic area(s) and/or person(s) will be identified, and if this will be an external appointment.

Management Structure6.3 RECOMMENDS to the Institute’s management that it review the dual role of the person acting as

Assistant Head of Institute (support staff) and Head of Teaching and Learning.

We agree that for many academics this would be an unreasonably large administrative load. However, the current holder of these positions is research-inactive and therefore does not find the load unmanageable. This arrangement fits with the department’s distributed workload model which takes into account research, teaching and administration and allows individual members of academic staff the opportunity to play to their strengths. There is little point in forcing a top level researcher to take on some of this administrative load when they are best deployed building the research esteem of the department. It is likely that the two jobs will be carried out by two individuals when the current holder demits office.

The Panel also noted that, notwithstanding the above individual’s personnel responsibility for all support staff, another member of the Institute’s Management Group (IMG), the Head of Technical Services, was often their line manager. The Panel wondered whether this might not run the risk of creating conflict.

The Assistant HoI and Head of Technical Services meet regularly and at least daily to discuss Technical Staff issues and report that not only is there no conflict in the working relationship, but that there is an advantage and reciprocal support in having two individuals participating in line management of Technical Staff.

RECOMMENDS to the Institute’s management that it considers having representatives of other support staff on the IMG, or setting up a support staff group, possibly chaired by a member of the IMG and reporting through that person to the IMG.

SIPBS believe it appropriate that all staff input into IMG and this can be best achieved by membership of other committees that directly or indirectly report to the IMG. The department now has a Technical, Secretarial and Administrators Group (TSAG) that meets every 2-3 months to discuss issues raised by support staff and to report initiatives and developments discussed by the IMG. TSAG met in April and July 2009. We believe that the TSAG is enough and that extending the IMG membership to include additional members of support staff would serve no further useful purpose.

RECOMMENDS to the Institute’s management that it considers adding two elected places (academic) to the composition of the Institute Management Group.

We are not convinced that this would serve any useful purpose. What would be the role of these people? We believe that the current structure allows all staff to input into the decisions of the IMG, although we recognise that not all staff take this opportunity. The University is moving away from elected Deans etc, presumably for the same reasons that we believe that the suggested elected places are unnecessary. Making IMG even larger would make it cumbersome and slow at decision making.

Communications6.4 RECOMMENDS to the Institute’s management that it seeks to improve the effectiveness of its

communications by establishing communications protocols which navigate only to the relevant persons and flag importance.

A wide range of communication lines are used to keep staff informed of decision making. The Newsletter serves an important role in this. Refinement of the mechanisms of promulgating information will be examined. We accept the need to make greater use of selective e-mail lists. This should be quite straightforward to implement, although some staff have proved very resistant to such improvements.

6.5 RECOMMENDS to the Institute’s management that

(i) in accordance with Regulation 1.14, representatives of the Research staff should be appointed to the Departmental Committee, and consideration should be given to having representatives on the Departmental Committee from all other significant groups of staff within the Institute (Academic Support Staff, Technicians, Administrative Staff and Secretarial Staff);

(ii) consideration be given to holding occasional meetings of all staff if issues of particular importance within the Institute arise.

To an extent this is an issue of presentation rather than change. We do currently hold reasonably regular (every 6 months, except for the period in advance of the Faculty Review!) departmental meetings that encompass all grades of staff. We shall in future make sure that these meetings are properly presented as meetings of the ‘Departmental Committee’.

Administrative Support6.6 RECOMMENDS to the Institute’s management that it provides clarification about the support to be

provided to academic and other staff by the secretarial and administrative staff.

The roles and responsibilities of all secretarial staff are currently under review. We intend moving to a model in which there is increased allocation of specific duties to individual secretaries, particularly with respect to the teaching programmes. This should improve the interface between academic and support staff.

Safety Infrastructure and Organisation6.8 RECOMMENDS to the Institute’s management that steps be taken to ensure that Safety training for

all students covers the implications of the relevant Health & Safety legislation as well as the actual procedures that must be observed.

At present we have a very comprehensive induction package that we deliver to every new arrival to the department and we find it most surprising that they claim not to know the implications of Health & Safety legislation that applies to them.  Furthermore this is supplemented with central Safety Services courses in many of these areas e.g. COSHH, risk assessment, and local courses e.g. radiation, laser awareness and routine reiteration of aspects by their research supervisor(s).  We therefore feel that the comments made are not representative of the majority. They are also surprising in that the students formally sign a document stating that they understand the local rules and explanations of them that have been provided.

7 FINDINGS OF THE REVIEW: RESOURCES AND PLANNING (FINANCE, STAFFING, ESTATES)

Staff development

34

7.7 RECOMMENDS to the Institute’s management that consideration be given to the introduction of a training budget for the use of support staff.

There already is a training budget. The issue is probably more to do with getting individuals involved in training opportunities.

Staffing – The Workload Model

7.9 RECOMMENDS to the Institute’s management that it continues to develop its Workload Model so that it becomes an effective and accepted tool for ensuring that Academic Staff are given the opportunity to contribute fully to the future success of SIPBS.

The workload model has been modified (and hopefully improved) annually. Such development is expected to continue.

7.10 RECOMMENDS to the Institute’s management that it considers how to include in the SIPBS Workload Model means of giving credit for the responsibility of implementing and managing innovations in teaching or in teaching administration.

We shall do this.

Support Staff - Annual review and PDP7.11 RECOMMENDS that the management of SIPBS circulates all staff explaining the processes for

annual review and personal development planning.

We believe that the comment here is wrong. No cases were presented to the IMG. The individual who claimed this had clearly not understood how the process was conducted last session in SIPBS (all of which were perfectly acceptable). We are surprised that individuals did not realise that the process was underway. We shall ensure as far as is possible that all know in future. We also look forward to clarification from the Centre as to how these processes are going to work in the future.

Technician Support7.12 RECOMMENDS that the Faculty discuss with the Institute’s management how to deal most

efficiently with the need to effect rapid repairs of minor breakdowns of essential equipment.

SIPBS management look forward to discussing with Faculty how best to facilitate rapid repair of essential equipment by staff of the Faculty Workshop.

Estates

7.15 RECOMMENDS

(i) to the Institute’s management that a definitive list of unresolved estates issues with the Robertson wing be compiled and forwarded to Estates Management (if this has not already been done); and

(ii) to Estates Management that work on remedying the faults in the Robertson Wing of the John Arbuthnott Building should continue to be considered a matter of priority.

SIPBS have regular (2 monthly) meetings with Estates Management to discuss ongoing and unresolved estates issues within the Robertson Wing (and the rest of SIPBS). A revised list of these issues is being compiled. We totally agree that remedying the faults should be considered ‘a matter of priority’. Unfortunately this has not always resulted in timely and effective action in the past.

35

8 FINDINGS OF THE REVIEW: EDUCATION (TEACHING, LEARNING AND ASSESSMENT)

Quality Assurance and Accreditation 8.2 RECOMMENDS to the Institute’s management that it ensures that students on the Joint Honours

Biomedical Sciences degrees are advised in good time that they have an opportunity to transfer at the end of the 2nd year of their studies to the BSc Honours in Biomedical Science degree that is accredited by the Institute of Biomedical Science.

They have been, repeatedly. For the past 2 years the Second Year Coordinator has held a meeting in Semester 2 explaining these opportunities to all 2nd Year students.

Recruitment8.3 RECOMMENDS that the Institute’s management develops a clear strategy for its PGI courses and

their recruitment targets that takes into account the availability of staff, the availability of appropriate teaching estate, the University’s overall internationalisation agenda, and the Business Plan for the new SIPBS building.

We have a strategy, which evolves as required. This takes into account all of the factors listed. Implementing the strategy has, on occasions, proved challenging.

Feedback and Assessment8.9 RECOMMENDS to the Institute’s management that

(i) all coursework and assessment regimes are designed so that staff can be reasonably expected to meet the Faculty’s policy that coursework is returned, assessed, within 2 weeks of its submission

(ii) SIPBS students are clearly advised of the standard of feedback they can reasonably expect(iii) SIPBS staff are asked to meet those standards, and(iv) consideration is given to employing PGR students to assist with coursework marking.

All of the above recommendations relating to student assessment are reasonable and we are working towards achieving these goals for all classes.

Graduate School8.15 RECOMMENDS that the Institute’s management reflects on the scope, role and aims of its Graduate

School.

It is perplexing that students do not know of the existence of the Graduate School as they are all administered through it from induction to graduation. The Graduate School has developed greatly since its start when SIPBS came into existence but we accept that there is still room for improvement. SIPBS has clear ideas on the scope, role and aims of the Graduate School, but perhaps these should be advertised more widely. We shall consider these issues.

Research Students – Infrastructure Support8.16 RECOMMENDS to the Institute’s management that it ensures that all postgraduate students have

adequate access to computing, printing and photocopying facilities.

It is the intention that all students have reasonable access to computing, printing and photocopying facilities.  Students often interpret this as having a top of the range computer each with any software package they desire, unlimited free printing and unlimited free photocopying. This of course is not possible. The Institute does provide a number of fixed computing stations and printing and photocopying facilities to all PGR students.  The number of fixed computing points has been reviewed and a number upgraded.  However, it is now the recommendation that supervisors supply a laptop for the use of each of their PGR.

36

Research Students – Student-Staff Committee8.17 RECOMMENDS to the Institute’s management that the minutes of the Graduate School’s Student-

Staff committee for research students should be reported to the Faculty’s Academic Administration Committee as a matter of routine.

This has been an oversight, which we are happy to correct.

Research Students and Research Skills Training

8.18 RECOMMENDS to the Institute’s management that it reviews the content of its research skills training programme for its research students, and its timetabling, and also considers whether such training can be better aligned to the background and needs of individual students.

Students are not required to attend the skills training classes, but are required to demonstrate that they have achieved the appropriate skill level by completing the assessments for each class. Most classes are Wednesday afternoon in Weeks 1-8.

The current obligatory programme covers all of the skills recommended by the ‘Roberts Report’. SIPBS will continue to adhere to providing these skills to students as they are not only perceived to be valuable to students but are regarded as a necessary component of training by Research Councils (that provide funds for many of the current students). Provision and delivery of these are currently being reviewed in SIPBS and at the University level and the current provision and delivery will likely be refined. In addition students can take additional classes in consultation with their supervisors, providing a degree of alignment with individual student background and needs. The development and implementation of PGR skills training classes has until now resided solely with the Graduate School and with no formal articulation with the rest of the teaching management of the department (except through reports to the IMG). We agree that there should be stronger links between the Graduate School and the department’s main teaching committee (ITC) and so we shall from now ensure that the ITC is involved in the review and approval of the PGR skills training classes along with the Graduate School.

Research Students –PhD Vivas8.19 RECOMMENDS to the Institute’s management that PhD students are given experience of viva voce

style examinations before their final assessment, and that this might be combined with their annual assessments for progress.

This has already been discussed by the Graduate School Committee and agreed that supervisors, where appropriate, should make some provision for their students to have a mock viva.

Research Students – Completion Rates8.20 RECOMMENDS to the SIPBS management that it reminds its staff and research students

(i) that PhD research projects should be designed and agreed between supervisor(s) and student so that there is reasonable expectation that, given satisfactory progress, the research can be completed and the thesis submitted within the agreed minimum period of study (be that for example 36, 42 or 48 months)

(ii) that the PhD thesis must be submitted within the maximum period of study (normally 48 months for full-time students) or else a case has to be made for late submission and an additional fee becomes payable

(iii) that similar requirements apply to MPhil and MRes projects and theses.

All students are informed of the maximum period of study at interview, induction and throughout their time in SIPBS. However, we accept that we must persevere with the completion-in-time message for all MSc, MPhil and PhD courses. Part of the responsibility clearly is with academic staff; they have to understand the importance of keeping to approved time lines (which are rather different from some of the practices in the past).

37

All students: Feedback to Overseas sponsors8.22 RECOMMENDS to the Institute’s management that reports to overseas sponsors should include a

brief commentary on why a students’ performance is judged to be satisfactory or unsatisfactory.

This is now being implemented as a matter of routine. However, we often get requests from sponsors at a time when we are not able to be anything more than perfunctory. We cannot release unverified and unvalidated information, which is often what is requested. Where we do have the authority from the University to report information to sponsors, we do so – promptly and accurately.

9 FINDINGS OF THE REVIEW: RESEARCH

Research Funding and Research Student Numbers9.7 RECOMMENDS that SIPBS should make a determined effort to improve its performance in

attracting overhead-bearing external funding to support research (and, by implication, research student numbers), especially by expanding its efforts with the industrial sector, through industrial CASE awards but also by establishing one-to-one links with SMEs and larger enterprises (an approach that ought to pay dividends also on the Knowledge Exchange front).

We are not convinced that the industrial sector should be the major target. We believe that it is more important to increase high quality and high prestige funding from RCUK and major charities (e.g. Wellcome Trust and BHF). The industrial sector is targeted by SIPBS via SIDR; we are not convinced that the current arrangement of SIDR in relation to SIPBS is the optimal organisation for being successful in this. Schemes like Scottish Enterprise's POC have proved very good for getting some researchers started on the industrial route, but it's proved very difficult to go any further towards SMEs and larger enterprises. The recent changes in the contracts for POC funding also adds problems in this approach. However, we shall continue to look for industrial funding and, indeed, we believe that this may be the best option for some researchers. We accept that overheads should be obtained wherever possible.

Research - Esteem9.8 RECOMMENDS to the Institute’s management that it strongly encourages its staff to enhance their

external engagements so as to improve the Institute’s esteem profile.

This point is constantly reinforced. We believe that the situation has improved, but the Institute’s external profile needs to be raised further. All calls for membership for research panels etc are flagged to staff. An Advisory Board is also being established to give access to people on strategically important panels etc and gain from their insights. Funding bodies have been invited to visit SIPBS, it might also be useful if senior university figures visited or invited senior people from the biomedical arena (MRC, Wellcome, CSO etc).

A wider Research Strategy9.9 RECOMMENDS

(i) to the Head of SIPBS that he clarify the locus of responsibility for strategic development in SIPBS and considers establishing a small SIPBS Strategy Group.

The IMG is currently too large to be an effective strategic body. Thus a Pharmacy Strategy Group was set up in 2008 and meets monthly. In addition, the AHoI, Head of Finance and Estates and Head of Research are scheduled to meet with the HoI at a weekly meeting. Nevertheless, another Strategy Group is worth considering.

The HoI is an ex officio member of the Research Committee, but it was decided in 2006 that it is better for the Research Committee to report to the HoI rather than he be present at all meetings. This can be revisited. It would also be useful to get some input from the Centre and Faculty as to what their ‘strategic vision’ for SIPBS is and how this fits with the vision for other departments and faculties; this is happening more now.

38

SIPBS is a large department and it has worked at creating and driving strategy within the relatively short time scale since its creation. This has been a challenge, especially as the 5 pre-existing departments had rather disparate strategies. We plan to continue forging the strategic vision of SIPBS.

(ii) to the Faculty that it alert the University to the desirability of establishing an inter-Faculty Health Care Strategy Group whose role would be to ensure that this University was able to take full advantage of initiatives in the Health sector.

This is underway.

Contract Research Staff9.10 RECOMMENDS to the Institute’s management that a budget be made available to support

networking and social events for Contract Research staff.

Budgets are currently available to allow research staff funds to pursue some independent research as well as attend scientific meetings and training courses, all with the intention of aiding career development. In addition, meetings have been held specifically for Contract Research staff. Some funding was made available for socialising, but there seemed little enthusiasm for using it. We doubt that the availability of a small budget will overcome the career progression problems that are brought about by the academic career structure in the UK.

10 FINDINGS OF THE REVIEW: KNOWLEDGE EXCHANGE

(No recommendations)

********************************************

G Coombs9 September 2009

39

SCIENCE FACULTY – ANNUAL QUALITY ENHANCEMENT REPORT – SESSION 2008/09

Annex 3

University of Strathclyde/Faculty of Science

REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC REVIEWOF THE DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS

AND THE INSTITUTE OF PHOTONICS

This is an edit of the ‘Conclusions and Recommendations’ section of the Report of a Strategic of Physics (an academic department) and the Institute of Photonics (a non-departmental unit) chaired by the Principal on 28 May 2009.

7 Conclusions and Recommendations of the Panel

7.4 During its discussions, the Panel had identified some matters of concern:

1. Both Photonics and Physics were over-reliant on one source of funding – the EPSRC. Indeed, IoP seemed to have strayed somewhat from its original purpose of being an interface between University and industry, becoming instead a major earner of EPSRC support - by no means a bad thing in itself but not if that was to the detriment of it fulfilling its original role. For both IoP and Physics, diversifying their income streams was of crucial importance.

2. Linked to the above, neither Physics nor IoP appeared to have a strategy which encompassed the likely effects of the economic downturn. The timing of the release of RCUK monies meant that the full impact of recession would be delayed for perhaps 12-24 months, compared with other sectors, but it was understood that Funding Councils and Research Councils alike were expecting substantial cuts in Government support and these would have to be passed onto the universities. Neither the Department nor the IoP had fully articulated a mid-term financial appraisal, set against level funding. The need to generate headroom to allow investment for the future was very important.

3. Much faith was being placed by Physics (and, to a lesser extent, by the IoP) on SUPA support, but SUPA was an enabler and not in itself an academic or even a fiscal strategy. While recognising the positive RAE feedback on Physics’ planning and sustainability, the success of planning with SUPA, and the plans outlined by the IoP in its self-assessment, it was felt that both Physics and the IoP would benefit from revisiting their longer-term strategies.

4. Nor should the Department be too dependent on SUPA for ideas. It should continue to

develop its own strong identity by, for instance, taking the lead in a DTC or considering how to access the Funding Council’s Horizon Funds.

5. Physics must underpin its ambitions with a realistic appraisal of its ability to fund them and it must address its recurrent deficit problem.

To address the above and place Photonics and Physics on the best possible footing for the future, the Panel agreed the following.

7.5 Recommend to the University that it lobby the Funding Councils regarding the place of applied research in the next Research Assessment Exercise. Both the IoP and Physics had great strengths in applied research but that did not play well with the RAE as currently constituted. Whether or not the next RAE was based on a more metrics approach, the University had to establish how the quality of applied research could be properly measured.

7.6 Recommend to the Faculty that it review the current arrangements for the allocation of resource associated with research students between the IoP, as the supervising unit, and Physics, as the admitting department.

7.7 Recommend to IoP and Physics that

(i) they meet as soon as possible to consider their relationship with each other, unconstrained by present structures, so as to determine whether a new model of governance can be devised that could more effectively allow them to attain their academic ambitions while simultaneously putting their finances on a sounder footing

(ii) similarly, they should consider how they might promote greater synergy with other parts of the University, in areas such as systems engineering and the life sciences

(iii) they should continue to develop their roles in SUPA

(iv) they should engage in scenario planning with a view to determining where they wish to be in ~10 years

(v) assuming the aspiration is to become a global presence in their respective fields, they should engage with Government and other sectors (such as Health) to prove how they are capable of contributing to the aspirations of those sectors

(vi) a similar approach should be embraced with respect to the private sector, so that they can nourish relationships with potential co-investors in industry

(vii) generally, they should promote themselves more aggressively, internally and externally, both at home and abroad; linked to this, they should identify a senior member of staff to ensure that achievements are recognised and individuals’ successes brought to the attention of organisations such as the Institute of Physics, the Royal Society etc

(viii) they should nurture the career paths of their staff, particularly their early-career staff, to ensure optimal performance and job satisfaction.

7.8 Recommend to IoP that, alongside its discussions with Physics, it should discuss with other departments (for example, Pure & Applied Chemistry, EEE and SIPBS) the possibilities for alternative partnerships and structures that could address the Panel’s concerns.

7.9 Recommend to Physics

(i) that the Department should develop an academic strategy and a robust business plan that combine the promotion of academic excellence with realistic financial projections that take into account the real costs of attracting leading academics

(ii) that, in view of its considerable reliance on Research-related income streams and its chronic deficit problem, the Department should vigorously continue its endeavours to maximise Teaching income, through enhanced recruitment (research students, postgraduate instructional students and overseas students)

(iii) that it consider the possibility of developing a Doctoral Training Centre, perhaps in a topic such as ‘Energy’, as a means of enhancing interdisciplinary links and stimulating research student numbers

(iv) that it review its utilisation of space as a means of driving down its Faculty deficit

(v) that it review its internal management structure (especially the relationship between the Executive Committee and the Professorial Advisory Group) to confirm that this is working to the Department’s best advantage.

41

7.10 Recommend to the Faculty that there be established an Implementation Group chaired by the Dean and comprising Professor Kane, Professor MacGregor, Professor Birch (Head of Physics) and Mr Holt (Chief Executive, IoP) whose role should be to

(i) receive reports from IoP and Physics on their responses to the above recommendations, and

(ii) encourage and assist IoP and Physics to realise their full potential.

Jim McGrathFaculty Officer12.6.09-25.8.09

42

ANNEX 4

APPEALS STATISTICS 2009

AC July 2009

AC Sept 2009

Ad HocAppeals

Totals

Total Appeals: 81 70 20 171

Appeals Upheld 46 34 14 94

Appeals Upheld (in part only) 10 6 1 17

Appeals Not Upheld 17 14 3 31

Appeals Rejected as not required / Withdrawn 8 16 0 24Appeals – Unresolved/Deferred/Lapsed 0 0 2 2

Grounds for Appeals Upheld:Medical 31 20 3 54

Personal / Compassionate 24 15 11 50

Procedural Irregularity 1 5 1 7

Other 0 0 0 0

Instances of:Examination Attempt(s) Discounted 47 23 10 80

Regulation Waiver(s) 1 1 0 2

Award Credit(s) (Raise marks / CMA / reinstatement of marks)

0 2 0 2

Award Degree 0 0 0 0

Transfer to Nat Sciences 0 2 0 2

Re-attend/Resit(s) permitted 42 7 6 55

Voluntary Suspension permitted 1 1 1 3

Academic Suspension permitted 1 13 5 19

Transfer to Honours 0 1 0 1

Permitted to proceed carrying class 1 1 0 1

Upgrade Honours Classification 0 1 0 1

Other 0 1 0 1

No. of Appeals by Cognate Area

Maths/STAMS 13 10 1 24

Physics 4 6 3 13

Computer & Information Sciences /CES 8 4 4 16

Chemistry 3 11 8 22

Biomedical Sciences 13 15 2 30

Pharmacy/Pharmaceutical Studies 36 17 2 55

43

Natural Sciences 4 7 0 11

Totals 81 70 20 171

No. of Undergraduate Appeals 49 65 13 127

No. of UG (Honours) Appeals 13 2 0 15

No. of Postgraduate Appeals 19 3 7 29

JFS Feb 2010

JSMcG12.2.2010

44