Responsesassignment

QAC: 25.10.12
H/02/28/02
The University of Edinburgh
Senatus Quality Assurance Committee
Thursday 25 th October 2012
The meeting of the Senatus Quality Assurance Committee will be held on Thursday 25 th October 2012
at 2pm in the Library Meeting Room 1.09, Library Meeting Suite
AGENDA
1 Minutes of previous meeting held on 6 September 2012 QAC 12/13 2 A
2 Matters arising from the Minutes
3 Convener’s Business
For discussion
4 School course monitoring forms – current practice QAC 12/13 2 B
5 Update on MOOCS Verbal report
6 Study Abroad and Placements Working Group Final Report QAC 12/13 2 C
For approval
7 Internal Review reports and responses 2011/12 for ratification (standing item) QAC 12/13 2 D
8 College Annual Quality Report template QAC 12/13 2 E
For information
9 External Examining on-line reporting overview QAC 12/13 2 F
10 Enhancing Student Support update (standing item) Verbal report
11 SSIG Personal Tutor evaluation Verbal report
12 Annual report on Student Discipline QAC 12/13 2 G
13 ELIR implementation and progress towards year-on report (standing item) QAC 12/13 2 H
CLOSED
14 UK Quality Code Chapter B11 Research Degrees mapping QAC 12/13 2 I
15 Assuring the Quality of the Student Experience task group update QAC 12/13 2 J
16 College Annual Quality Reports and Internal Review Reports and Responsesassignment
of Readers
Electronic Business
17 University response to QAA Consultation on Quality Code Chapter B10:
Management of collaborative arrangements
QAC 12/13 2 K
QAC 12/13 2 L
18 Equality and Diversity action plan report update QAC 12/13 2 M
To follow
19 Allocation of Business 2012/13 QAC 12/13 2 N
20 UK Quality Code Chapter B3:Learning and teaching
For information
The chapter has now been published on the QAA website at
www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Pages/quality-code-B3.aspx
21 AOCB
The next meeting of the committee is on Thursday 13 th December 2012 at 2pm in the Library Meeting Room 1.09,
Library Meeting Suite, and Main Library.
Gillian Mackintosh, Academic Policy Officer, October 2012

QAC: 25.10.12
H/02/28/02
QAC 12/13 2 A
The University of Edinburgh
Minutes of the meeting of Senatus Quality Assurance Committee held at
2.00 p.m. on Thursday 6 September 2012.
Minutes are draft until approved by the next meeting of the Committee
Present
Dr Tina Harrison (Convener)
Dr Shereen Benjamin
Mrs Irene Bruce
Professor Karen Chapman
Mr Euan Fergusson
Ms Erin Jackson
Ms Isabel Lavers
Mr John Lowrey
Mrs Gillian Mackintosh
Dr Lesley McLellan
Professor Stephen Osborne
Mr Stephen Warrington (Vice
Convener)
In attendance
Dr Linda Bruce
Ms Nichola Kett
Ms Rachael King
Dr Sue Rigby
Apologies
Professor Jeremy Bradshaw
Mr Andrew Burnie
Dr Gordon McDougall (Vice Convener)
Mr Peter Phillips
Professor Ian Pirie
Ms Sheila Williams
Assistant Principal, Academic Standards and Quality
Assurance
College of Humanities & Social Science, (School of Education)
Head of Academic Services
College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine
Representative for Student Experience
Co-opted member: Distance Learning
Co-opted member: E-Learning
Representative for Collaborative Provision
Academic Policy Officer, Academic Services
External member, Scottish HE sector, The University of
Dundee
Associate Dean, (Quality Assurance) CHSS
College of Science and Engineering (School of Engineering)
Academic Services
Academic Services
Academic Representation Coordinator, EUSA
Vice Principal Learning and Teaching
Director of Quality Assurance, CMVM
Vice President Academic Affairs, EUSA
Dean, Quality Assurance, CSE
Deputy Director, GaSP
Assistant Principal Learning Developments
Representative Student Support Services area
Welcome
The Convener welcomed Dr Shereen Benjamin, CHSS representative, Mr
Euan Fergusson, Representative for Student Experience, Ms Erin Jackson,
Co-opted member Distance Learning, Mr John Lowrey, Representative for
Collaborative Provision and Professor Stephen Osborne, Associate Dean
(Quality Assurance) CHSS to the committee and to Ms Rachael King attending
for item 4 and Ms Nichola Kett attending for item 5.
The Convener proposed Mr Stephen Warrington as Vice-Convener for this
academic year. No objections were received.
The Convener noted that in order to maximise the time available for discussion
of substantive items at meetings, a section of the agenda would be created for
electronic business.
Members were reminded that papers would be taken as approved or noted, as
1

elevant, and not discussed further at the meeting, unless a comment was
received which raised an objection or suggested a correction. In order to
ensure that comments were given the appropriate consideration prior to the
meeting, they should be sent to the committee secretary by the close of
business the day before the meeting. As this was the first meeting of the
committee the convener agreed to discuss the papers as some comments
were received just prior to the meeting.
It was noted that comments were received on various papers immediately
prior to the meeting from the Dean (Quality Assurance) College of Science
and Engineering. The convener noted that these had not been received in time
to be included in the report of electronic business and would be addressed
subsequent to the meeting and a response sent to the Dean.
A revised agenda with changes to the running order of the papers was
circulated at the meeting in order to allow those attending for specific items to
leave the meeting once the papers had been discussed.
1 Minutes of previous meeting 24 May 2012 QAC 12/13 1 A
The minutes were approved as a correct record.
2 Matters arising from the minutes
Under item 5, it was noted that Academic Services would provide a briefing for
all committee members. Further to this, guidance was circulated to committee
members at the meeting. An informal session could be arranged to discuss the
guidance further if members would find this useful and they were asked to
feedback to the secretary if this was required.
Under item 7.3 and 7.4 It was noted in comments received from Dr McDougall
prior to the meeting that it may be useful that the papers on the analysis of the
NSS qualitative data were also sent to the new Deans of Students, in
particular all issues related to Personal Tutor and pastoral care.
Action: Committee Secretary to circulate paper to Deans of Students.
Under item 7.5, it was confirmed with the insurance office that appropriate
insurance cover for ERASMUS students is provided by the University.
Under item 12- ‘Report from Equality and Diversity Committee 2011/12,
Academic Services to provide an update on progress on action points in
Semester 1 2012/13’. A meeting with APASQA and the Convener of the
Accessible Learning implementation group would take place shortly to discuss
implementation progress and workshop planning for semester 1.
Under item 16, ‘School of Education Course Monitoring Forms on-line
demonstration’ – it was agreed that this item would be discussed further at the
October meeting. Andrew Horrell will present a demonstration at the School
Directors of Quality Meeting in October.
Under item 19- the Principles for surveying students were circulated to the
SSEC for information.
Under item 20 – ‘Academic Services to develop appropriate document/tool for
highlighting trends and themes to provide a responsive and strategic approach
and enable the sharing of good practice’. A good practice database will be
scoped for development during this semester. The committee would now be
asked to ratify all reports and responses via electronic business where
appropriate. All reports and responses would be reviewed by Academic
2

Services prior to submission to subject area/school for checking of factual
errors and publication on the web not that recommendations would be
changed but to allow for the opportunity to re-word it more accurately, more of
an iteration before the final report stage.
3 Conveners Business QAC 12/13 1 B
The Convener reported that following the development of the School Director
of Quality role, an annual workshop was scheduled to take place in late
October.
It was noted that an annual meeting would take place in early November with
the IAD and the Convener to consider themes emerging from internal reviews
and to identify possible IAD response and involvement.
The convener drew attention to the Quality Assurance Agency quality mark
which allows eligible QAA subscribers to display this on all forms of
communication. The University was now eligible to use the quality mark and
this would be added to relevant documentation in due course.
It was noted that revised Scottish Funding Council guidance for 2012-16 would
now include a requirement to report on the key messages derived from
monitoring and analysing performance indicators, especially those relating to
retention, progression, completion, attainment and achievement, from analysis
of feedback from students, including NSS, other key stakeholders, and action
taken as a result. A group would be set up to consider common parameters
on performance and key progression hurdles. The first report under the new
guidance would be due in September 2013.
Undergraduate Degree Classification Analysis update- it was noted that GaSP
would provide UG degree classification outcomes by early November.
Benchmarking against Russell Group institutions would be available in the
Spring.
The review of course and programme handbook would be remitted to the
Curriculum and Student Progression Committee for action as this aligns more
with their remit.
Principles of Internal Moderation – the convener reported that following the
Quality Assurance Committee meeting on 24 th May, the draft paper on
moderation was revised to set out the definition, purpose of internal
moderation and key principles for its operation.
Action: Committee Secretary to remit the paper and flowchart to the
Curriculum and Student Progression Committee for approval and
dissemination as appropriate.
The convener reported on the SCQF database and confirmed that the
University would not be expected to upload all programmes however any
CPD, Third party credit rated programmes, Office of Lifelong Learning would
be uploaded. It was noted that this could be done as a bulk upload once the
relevant information in EUCLID.
There was discussion around who would be responsible for inputting and
updating all relevant information.
Action: As this is a curriculum structure issue it was agreed to remit to
CSPC to take forward.
The convener noted that there is a general expectation on QAC in the
Employability Implementation Plan to ensure all enhancement processes
consider graduate attributes, feeding to the Strategy Group. QAC would report
3

to the Employability Strategy Group after the April meeting for themes from
College Annual reports and September for the annual themes and trends
report on internal review activity.
4 Learning from Internal Review 2011/12 QAC 12/13 1 C
Dr Bruce presented the paper which presented instances of good practice
identified during internal subject reviews held in 2011/12 together with areas
for further development. The paper would be remitted to Institute for Academic
Development (IAD) to identify potential themes which can be integrated with
on-going or planned IAD activity.
It was noted that reviews scheduled for 2012/13 would need to bring out
positive aspects and instances to be promoted more widely.
It was agreed that it would be useful for the committee to receive an update
later in the year on the areas for further development; this would include a
response from the IAD.
The paper was approved by the Senatus Quality Assurance Committee.
Action:
The College Director/Dean/Associate Dean for Quality Assurance will
disseminate the paper to appropriate quarters, including School
Directors of Quality Assurance, Teaching and Postgraduates or
equivalents.
The paper would be remitted to the Institute for Academic Development to
identify potential themes from reviews which could be integrated with on-going
or planned IAD activity, thus increasing the impact of reviews.
Action: Committee Secretary to remit to IAD
Items relevant to the remits of Vice and Assistant Principals and Senate
Committee Conveners are noted in a table on page 7. The paper would be
sent for information and discussion to Senate Learning and Teaching
Committee and Senate Researcher Experience Committee.
Action: Committee Secretary to remit to LTC and REC
Action: Committee Secretary to include update on agenda for February
meeting and invite the Director of Institute for Academic Development to
meeting.
5 Annual report to Scottish Funding Council QAC 12/13 1 D
Introducing the paper, Dr Bruce presented the University’s annual report to the
Scottish Funding Council for 2011-12.
It was noted that this was the last report under the current format with the
introduction of revised reporting requirements for 2012-16. The revisions were
set out in Paper I.
It was noted that the report will be much more audit focused, considering the
effectiveness and impact of responses to recommendations.
The paper would be presented to Senate and to Court for endorsement before
submission to the Scottish Funding Council. From next academic year, Court
would be asked to return an annual statement of assurance to the Council.
The paper was approved by the Senatus Quality Assurance Committee.
4

6 School Quality Assurance report template QAC 12/13 1 E
Dr Bruce presented the revised version of the School annual quality assurance
and enhancement report template for use in 2012-13 onwards. The revisions
relate to the need to reflect external expectations of institutional quality
processes which were summarised at the start of the paper.
It was noted that comments on the template were received from the Dean
(Quality Assurance) which would be considered further by the Convener and
Academic Services. It was suggested that links to some policies which
reviewers were asked to report on would make the template a more useful
working document.
The template was approved by the Senatus Quality Assurance
Committee.
Action: Academic Services to develop College template.
7 Task Group remit and membership: Assuring the Quality of the Student
Experience Phase 2
QAC 12/13 1 F
The convener presented the remit and outline membership for the second
phase of the task group which will operate in 2012/13. It was noted that some
new members had been invited to join the task group however the majority are
existing members from last year. It was noted that there was also scope to
invite colleagues to attend for a relevant discussion where appropriate.
The paper was approved by the Senatus Quality Assurance Committee.
8 Outline approach for Quality Assurance of not for credit courses:
Massive Open On-line Courses (MOOCs)
Verbal report
The convener noted that as part of the updated guidance from the Scottish
Funding Council there was an expectation on the University to ensure that all
our credit bearing provision were subject to Quality Assurance procedures.
It was commented that the Massive open on-line courses should be treated as
part of a light touch approach similar to CPD and the Office of Lifelong
Learning. It was commented that Schools that deliver these course would be
required to report as part of the School annual Quality Assurance report.
It was discussed as to whether there would be any feedback surveys from
students participating in these MOOCs and if guidance would be available to
schools on the quality assurance procedures relating to these courses.
It was discussed that it would be useful to gather performance data on these
courses and to confirm what data is collected and evaluated at present.
For example, traditionally on this type of course there was normally a large
sign up however in reality not the same number of students completed the
course. It may be worthwhile investigating why this happens, are expectations
not being met and feedback could provide useful insights for further
development of courses. It may also be interesting to consider widening
access issues.
The convener agreed that it would be useful to develop guidance however
further discussion would be required in the first instance on what current
monitoring and feedback procedures were in place for these courses.
5

Action:
The convener to discuss further with Vice Principal Haywood.
Committee Secretary to include on the October meeting agenda for
further discussion.
9 Enhancing Student Support update (standing item) QAC 12/13 1 G
Ms Kett introduced the paper on behalf of Assistant Principal Learning
Developments. The paper provided an update on the monitoring, evaluation
and enhancement in the Enhancing Student Support project. It was noted that
the appendix would follow once the information was released from GaSP.
It was commented as to how progress will be reviewed on the roll-out of the
personal tutor scheme this academic year and what would be the role of the
Colleges in this.
Action: Assistant Principal Pirie to respond.
The convener noted that Learning and Teaching Committee would be the
formal committee receiving business in terms of the audit trail for the project,
with the other Senate committees receiving information as appropriate.
10 ELIR implementation and progress towards year-on report (standing
item)
QAC 12/13 1 H
CLOSED
PAPER
The convener presented the proposed actions for responding to the
recommendations of the University’s 2011 Enhancement-led Institutional
Review. It was noted that the implementation plan would be available in due
course on the Academic Services website under ease protection. The
University’s response would be submitted to the Quality Assurance Agency on
20 April 2013.
The paper was approved by the Senatus Quality Assurance Committee.
11 Scottish Funding Council Guidance on Quality 2012-16 QAC 12/13 1 I
Dr Bruce reported on the new elements in the Scottish Funding Council’s
guidance on Quality for the period 2012-16. It was noted that there was
ongoing work in terms of student engagement and involvement in quality
systems. It was highlighted that the section on Institutional reporting on quality
would need further consideration especially in terms of reporting on
progression data. Dr McLellan noted that within The University of Dundee,
such data is held centrally allowing for easier collation. It was suggested that it
would be useful for further discussion to take place with colleagues in student
operations at Dundee.
It was noted that there would be a requirement to gather more feedback from
students before internal reviews however it was highlighted that students
should not be over surveyed, and that due to the nature of reviews taking
place at different times during the academic years that there is no conflict with
other surveys that are taking place at the same time.
Professor Chapman commented that consideration could be given to the
development of a wiki where students were given editing rights to gather
feedback before a review. This was noted in Paper C- Learning from Internal
Reviews that during the TPR of Physics a wiki was set up to collect review
documentation and to encourage engagement with the review by students and
staff.
6

The convener noted that discussions had taken place with the EUSA
President to consider the use of student forums for collecting relevant data
around the time of internal reviews rather than developing another system.
It was noted that work to ensure compliance with the guidance would be taken
forward by Academic Services.
Action: Dr McLellan to arrange for colleagues in student operations to
attend a future meeting of the committee to discuss data collection.
12 EUSA Vice-President Academic Affairs priorities QAC 11/12 1 J
Ms Rachael King introduced the paper in the absence of Mr Andrew Burnie.
The paper outlined the priorities for the EUSA sabbaticals in 2012-13 and how
these relate to the University’s quality processes.
The paper was welcomed by the committee and it was noted that the priorities
aligned to the committees’ current projects and business for the year ahead.
The Associate Dean (Quality Assurance) CHSS reported that he plans to meet
with the Vice-President Academic Affairs to discuss these priorities further in
relation to CHSS with a particular interest in engaging students at College
level.
It was noted that a comment was received from the Dean (Quality Assurance)
CSE on how to encourage the same sort of level of engagement that exists at
School and Senatus committees with the College committees.
It was highlighted that following the recent ELIR, institutional consistency
should be noted and given consideration when developing any new processes
or initiatives that could form the template for sharing good practice with the
other Colleges.
The convener noted that due to the importance of student engagement,
Colleges would be invited to put forward theirs plans for student engagement
at College level at the December meeting of the committee.
In relation to Online and Distance Learning, Ms Jackson offered to advise
where appropriate.
Professor Chapman noted that in the College of Medicine and Veterinary
Medicine an effective group similar in format to the Student Staff Liaison
Committee had been set up for distance learning students. Dr Jo-Ann Murray
could be contacted for further information.
The convener noted that the document would be referred to as part of the
forward planning for committee business and work packages.
The convener thanked the Vice President Academic Affairs for preparing the
paper.
Action: Committee secretary to add College plans for student
engagements to the December agenda and inform College Quality
Deans.
13 HEA Project Report: Developing an Inclusive Culture in Higher Education QAC 12/13 1 K
The paper sets out the final report of the Higher Education Authority project,
Developing an Inclusive Culture in Higher Education and notes a forward work
plan for the year ahead.
7

Action: Committee Secretary to invite suggestions from Colleges on how best
to disseminate the report
14 Update on Outcomes of External Surveys Verbal report
The convener received a report from the Deputy Director of Planning giving an
update on the National Student Survey and Postgraduate Taught Experience
Survey. It was noted that the NSS data was under embargo until presented at
the Learning and Teaching Committee on the 27 th September, however it
could be circulated to members following the meeting.
Action: The convener invited feedback from members in relation to the
timing of this information and whether the content was sufficient at this
stage?
It was discussed that external surveys such as the ISB provide the University
with a substantial amount of data however it was noted that more meaningful
information can be sought from analysing the qualitative data and using this
information to respond to student feedback.
It was noted that it would be useful to look at the ways in which other
institutions are engaging their students.
The Associate Dean (Quality Assurance) CHSS noted that there were pilot
plans in the College of Humanities and Social Science looking at this area of
student engagement.
It was noted that the ‘Assuring the Quality of the Student Experience’ task
group would be reviewing this as part of their remit.
Electronic Business
15 National Student Survey Qualitative Analysis: Issues and Actions Arising QAC 12/13 1 L
The committee noted the issues and actions arising from the National Student
Survey Qualitative Analysis.
16 Committee membership update QAC 12/13 1 M
The committee noted the updated membership of the Senatus Quality
Assurance Committee for 2012/13.
17 External Examiner Report Form 2012/13 ( for approval) QAC 12/13 1 N
The convener noted the following comments in relation to the form; there are
currently two deadline dates stipulated on the form therefore to avoid
confusion the sentence under completion of report referring to returning
reports within 7 days of final meeting of Board of Examiner’s would be
removed. In the section ‘assessment process’ it was noted that a question
would be inserted
‘was the feedback provided to students of sufficient quality’? Under the section
‘overview of term of office’ it was noted that a sentence would be included to
state that this questions relates only to externals in their last year of
appointment.
The form was approved by the Senatus Quality Assurance Committee for
use from September 2012.
18 Update on outstanding Undergraduate External Examiners reports Verbal report
8

The Associate Dean (Quality Assurance) CHSS reported that out of the 200
external examiner reports due, 53 were currently outstanding at this point in
time. This would be monitored centrally by the College Office on a monthly
basis and followed up with Heads of School.
Information forwarded to the Convener prior to the meeting from the Dean
(Quality Assurance), College of Science and Engineering noted that:
‘this was not a major issue last session for CSE as at the time of the last
meeting only one report was outstanding which has subsequently been
received. This session the vast majority of the UGT reports have been
received as expected. Only 6 are currently outstanding and reminders were
sent out on the 27 th August, this is similar to normal and we anticipate 100%
return by the end of September. PGT reports (11) are only due over the next
few weeks following September exam boards to consider final dissertations’.
In the absence of the Director of Quality Assurance, CMVM, no figures were
available from the College however it was suggested that they would expect
be in a similar position.
The convener noted that the revised version of the External Examiner report
form template stipulates deadlines for the receipt of completed reports.
Action: Director of Quality Assurance, CMVM, to provide update at next
meeting.
19 University response to QAA Quality Code Chapter B3: Learning and
teaching
QAC 12/13 1 O
The committee noted the University’s response to the Quality Assurance
Agency UK Quality Code consultation on Chapter B3: Learning and teaching.
20 QAA Consultation on Quality Code Chapter B10: Management of
collaborative arrangements
QAC 12/13 1 P
The committee noted the consultation by the Quality Assurance Agency on the
UK Quality Code Chapter B: 10 Management of Collaborative Provision.
Members were asked to provide comments on the consultation by Friday 5 th
October.
Members were reminded that it would be appreciated by the convener when
writing the response on behalf of the University that although members may
not have comments or feedback to make that they respond noting this.
It was noted that the convener and Mr David Robinson, Academic Services
would attend the QAA consultation event in October and that it may be useful
for Mr John Lowrey, Representative for Collaborative Provision to also attend.
Action: Members are asked to provide any comments by 5 th October to
the committee secretary.
21 UK Quality Code for Higher Education Chapter Consultation Planner QAC 12/13 1 Q
The committee noted the Quality Assurance Agency’s UK Quality Code for
Higher Education consultation planner detailing the forward plan for the
remaining chapters.
The convener noted that for each of the revised chapters, a mapping against
9

our current policies and procedures would be carried out. Once the revised
chapters are published the University has one year to comply with the
requirements.
22 Internal Review reports and responses 2011/12 for ratification QAC 12/13 1 R
The committee formally ratified the Teaching Programme Review of
Community Education and the 14 week responses to the Teaching
Programme Review of Biomedical Sciences, Social Anthropology and
Sociology.
A comment was noted from the Dean (Quality Assurance) CSE in relation to
the Biomedical TPR response that proposed a detailed five year plan for
teaching and would it be the intention for this process to be rolled out with the
expectation for all schools to have a strategic plan for teaching. The convener
noted that this recommendation was specific to that review however if it was
felt to be relevant to a review that recommendation would be made. The Vice
Principal Learning and Teaching commented that there would be plans to
consider School Learning and Teaching strategies in the future which would
cover this matter.
It was highlighted that the 14 week response for Social Anthropology should
be completed to reflect the timescales and completion dates as per the
template.
It was noted that roles and not names should be mentioned in internal review
reports.
The convener noted that the PPR of Chemistry and PPR of Engineering 2011-
12 final reports were now outstanding. As the themes from both TPRs and
PPR’s would normally be included in the annual report to the Scottish Funding
Council it was important that reports were received at the agreed time.
Action: Committee secretary to follow up 14 week response template
with Social Anthropology.
The Representative from the College of Science and Engineering to
follow up the outstanding PPR reports.
23 Internal Review Schedules and membership 2012/13 QAC 12/13 1 S
The committee noted the dates and membership of review panels for internal
reviews in 2012-13 and the forward schedule for reviews up to 2018/19.
24 QAA consultation subject benchmark statements:
Forensic Science
Counselling and psychotherapy
The committee noted the consultation on subject benchmark statements.
For information
25 Allocation of Business 2012/13 QAC 12/13 1 T
26 AOCB
The committee noted the draft allocation of committee business for 2012/13. It
was noted that the document would remain a live document and would be
updated in line with on- going ELIR implementation plans.
The Head of Academic Services gave a brief update on Academic Appeals. It
was noted that the revised operational procedures appeared to be working
well and although the number of appeals had increased compared to this time
10

last year, the turn- around time had improved. Schools were also to be
commended on contributing to the faster response timescale.
It was raised as to whether there was a section on the appeal form that the
student completed in relation to a time sensitive appeal case. It was noted that
Academic Services would consider the procedure for urgent appeals as part of
the continual review process of appeals.
Action: Head of Academic Services to report on student appeal form
regarding time sensitive appeals.
Gillian Mackintosh
4 October 2012
11

QAC: 25.10.12
H/02/28/02
QAC 12/13 2 B
The University of Edinburgh
Senatus Quality Assurance Committee
Thursday 25 October 2012
Course monitoring – current practice
Brief description of the paper, including a statement of relevance to the University's strategic
plans and priorities
The paper contains an overview of current practice in course monitoring.
The paper is relevant to the University’s Strategic Goal of ‘Excellence in Education’.
Action requested
For discussion.
Resource implications
Does the paper have resource implications? No.
Risk Assessment
Does the paper include a risk analysis? No.
Equality and Diversity
Does the paper have equality and diversity implications? No.
Originators of the paper
Lynn Hyams (CHSS) Jeremy Bradshaw(CMVM), Gordon McDougall (CSCE),
October 2012
Freedom of information
Can this paper be included in open business? Yes
Keywords
Course monitoring, annual monitoring

The University of Edinburgh
Senate Quality Assurance Committee – 25 October 2012
Course monitoring – current practice
College of Humanities and Social Science
A range of practice exists across Schools including:
On-line completion of CMFs
Paper completion of CMFs
The piloting on-line completion
Use of a standard CMF form
Use of a CMF form adapted to the needs of an individual School
A successful and comprehensive course audit file system bringing together 8 different
sources of information including student feedback, currently paper but looking at
possibility of putting the system on-line
A successful peer review system which considers course materials and content,
contribution of the course to the programme, assessment and feedback, recent changes
and intended developments, examples of good practice using a range of evidence
including student feedback
The way that Schools monitor the issues raised and actions taken also varies and
include:
- Subject areas analysing the CMFs with their analysis being considered by the QA
Director
- CMF issues being discussed in an annual course review meetings
Lynn Hyams, October 2012
College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine
Current practice for annual course monitoring in the College of Medicine and Veterinary
Medicine is as follows:
Electronic forms (Word.doc) files are sent out each year and returned in paper or email form.
Each area (MBChB, BVM&S, Biomedical Science, PG) has modified the forms to suit their
own particular need,
BVM&S has developed a section of its EEVeC VLE as a hub for QA&E. Staff and
students have access, through this hub to:
A summary of decisions from the previous year;
Staff-student liaison minutes;
Course questionnaire results;

Exam Board minutes;
External examiners reports;
Annual course review;
A reflective summary from the course director;
An independent review from a member of the BVM&S QA committee
member who is not involved in delivering the course; and
A summary of decisions from the current year.
College of Science and Engineering
(based on current School QA Models)
JPB 16/10/2012
Biological Sciences
Course Monitoring and Reporting Procedures
The BTO uses several vehicles for the monitoring of courses in years 1 to 3.
• It requires all COs to complete and return the College Course Monitoring form and to
include a short summary indicating strengths and weaknesses of the course. Staff in
charge of the practical classes are also required to complete separate evaluation
forms relating to the practicals
• It requires COs to conduct a course questionnaire – an optically marked version is
available for the larger courses – and to comment on students’ responses (and
consequences).
• It receives the minutes of all Teaching Committee meetings, Student Liaison
meetings and Examination Board meetings.
This documentation is monitored for all courses by the Director of the BTO, to ensure that
the course monitoring and feedback procedures are carried out satisfactorily, and that the
feedback loop is closed by action taken in response to identified shortcomings and
inefficiencies. The Director communicates directly with Course Organisers if student
responses indicate a problem that needs addressing. COs provide the BTO with feedback
on course support, when course resourcing
(consumables, tutors, etc.) is negotiated with the BTO at the beginning of each year, and
when the BTO Technical Support Manager collates the annual equipment requests of COs
and course technicians. Honours programmes are funded from School budgets which are
administered through the BTO. The review and development of Honours programmes is the
responsibility of the Steering Committee and appropriate sub-groups of this Committee.
Chemistry
Course Monitoring
COs are responsible for overseeing their course. This includes keeping close informal
contacts with other COs and academic colleagues. COs should:
• Act as a first point of contact in respect of enquiries and complaints.
• Act as a conduit for staff to report poor performance and non‐attendance.
• Attend SSLC meetings (Sec. 3.4), responding to issues raised and completing any
action points. The CO should reporting outcomes of actions to the next SSLC
meeting.
• Analyse returns from course questionnaires.

• Encourage discussion among staff on development of the course curriculum.
• Evaluate the course annually, using examination results and student feedback,
seeking views of staff and making recommendations to the CCoC.
Course Organisers are responsible for ensuring that student feedback is obtained for each
course
via online student questionnaires. Results of feedback from questionnaires are discussed
through
Course Committees, at COC, and reported in Course Monitoring forms.
Engineering
Course Monitoring
The ETO maintains numerical data on:
• annual pass rates for each course taught in the School;
• numbers of students graduating with each class of degree in each discipline.
Course Organisers present an Annual Report to the Discipline Teaching Review &
Development meeting, which should include student feedback from questionnaires and
Staff-Student Liaison Meetings. Also presented to each discipline’s Review and
Development Meeting are the outcomes of annual “vertical” subject reviews. These are
short, proforma-based submissions agreed among staff teaching a given subject (or linked
group of subjects) across the different years of a programme. Exceptionally, if the shortform
vertical review identifies a need for a major review, a full subject review will be prepared and
presented.
Course Organisers are expected to lead the discussion on any proposed changes, whether
resulting from his/her own observation, student feedback or staff feedback. Where a
proposed change may affect several courses or a whole degree programme, the Head of
Discipline may set up a short-term working group to examine the proposal and report back to
the next meeting
Course Questionnaires
The Course Organisers (assisted by the ETO) are responsible for ensuring that student
feedback is obtained for each course via Student Questionnaires. The questionnaires are
analysed in the ETO, and the Course Organiser reports on the results to the appropriate
Discipline Course Review and Development Meeting.
GeoSciences
Course Monitoring
The Teaching Organisation maintains quantitative and qualitative data on:
• Annual pass rates for each course taught in the School,
• Issues raised regarding teaching and resources,
• Reponses to feedback from student feedback.
The Course Organiser presents the Course Monitoring Report to the appropriate Degree
Programme Committee and/or School Teaching Committee which should include student
feedback from questionnaires and SSLC meetings. The Course Organiser is expected to
lead the discussion on any proposed changes through their own observation or via student
and staff feedback. Where the proposed change may affect other courses, the Degree
Programme Convenor may examine the prose change and report to the Degree Programme
Committee. Each teaching office holds a binder of relevant Course Monitoring forms
available for all staff to access.
Course Monitoring forms are completed by the Course Organiser with the Course Secretary
completing the marking and grade outcomes for the course for each course. Summarised

Course Evaluations are needed for this stage. This form summarise the student feedback,
responses and addresses resource issues. Once a year the School Teaching Committee
has a pre-honours focus in order to review all evaluations and course monitoring forms.
Each teaching office holds a binder of relevant Course Monitoring forms available for all staff
to access.
Informatics
Course Reports
After a UG course has been fully examined the Course Organiser prepares a report which is
submitted to the ITO. It is the responsibility of the Director of Teaching to extract any
relevant points and bring them to the attention of the Board of Studies or the Teaching
Committee as appropriate.
The Course/Year Organiser may call a meeting of the staff involved with the course if there
are issues which could usefully be discussed at this level.
A similar process is carried out in October for MSc courses.
Mathematics
Ongoing Course Monitoring
Ongoing course monitoring is done on an ad hoc basis. Any issues raised by students or
tutors are addressed by the relevant lecturer or, if necessary, the Year / Course Organiser. If
a member of staff requires guidance, then their mentor should provide that assistance; if a
tutor requires guidance, then a member of the Tutor Support Group will attend a tutorial and
provide feedback.
Course Reports
Cohorts of undergraduate courses are sent questionnaires at the end of the relevant
semester. The responses are considered by the Year / Course Organisers and incorporated
into their formal QA report. Course lecturers are expected to complete QA reports at the end
of the delivery period. These QA reports are considered by the relevant Programmes
Committee and comments reported in the QA Report for that session. Postgraduate taught
students complete a questionnaire before completing a dissertation.
Physics and Astronomy
Pre-honours Course Monitoring
Each course at pre-honours level holds an annual Course Monitoring Meeting. These
meetings are called by the Teaching Office on behalf of the course organiser. Membership
comprises all academic members of staff teaching on that course, the T&GSM plus a
member
of the Teaching Office staff responsible for that course. Course Monitoring Meetings have a
standing agenda to consider the following:
• Minutes of the previous meeting
• Course statistics – pass rates, compared with previous years
• Student Questionnaire feedback
• External Examiners reports
• Board of Examiners minutes, in particular comments made by External
• Examiners
• Comments from the Teaching Office
• Plans for the next session
The minutes from each Course Monitoring meeting are considered at Teaching Committee
to

ensure that the loop on outstanding actions is closed.
Honours Programme Monitoring
At honours level, three honours programme monitoring meetings are held:
• Physics & Computational Physics programmes, including joint degrees
• Mathematical & Theoretical Physics programmes
• Astrophysics programmes
Individual honours-level courses may also hold course monitoring meetings, if required. The
minutes of these meetings should be reported to the programme monitoring meetings. Each
programme holds a Programme Monitoring Meeting. These meetings are arranged by the
Teaching Office on behalf of the Programme Coordinators. The membership comprises all
academic members of staff teaching on the relevant programmes. The Programme
Coordinator leads the discussion on pass rates, student feedback, external examiner
comments and plans for the next session. The minutes from each Programme Monitoring
meeting are considered at Teaching Committee to ensure that the loop on outstanding
actions is closed.
Gordon McDougall, October 2012

QAC: 25.10.12
H/02/28/02
The University of Edinburgh
QAC 12/13 2 C
Senatus Quality Assurance Committee
Thursday 25 th October 2012
Study Abroad and Placements Working Group Final Report
Brief description of the paper, including a statement of relevance to the University's strategic
plans and priorities
This paper is the final report of the Study Abroad and Placements Working Group.
The paper is relevant to the University’s Strategic Goal of ‘excellence in education’ and the
Strategic Theme of ‘Outstanding student experience’ and ‘Equality and widening
participation’.
Action requested
For discussion.
Resource implications
Does the paper have resource implications? No
Risk Assessment
Does the paper include a risk analysis? No
Equality and Diversity
Does the paper have equality and diversity implications? No
Originator of the paper
Lynn Hyams
Academic Affairs Officer
College of Humanities and Social Science
Freedom of information
Can this paper be included in open business? Yes
Any other relevant information, including keywords
Study abroad, placements, International Office, Erasmus.

The University of Edinburgh
Study Abroad and Placements Working Group
Final report of the work of the group
1. BACKGROUND
There was a growing need for the University to develop a central record of all student
activity either studying abroad or on placement that would enable easy identification of
student location in any given situation. Additionally, clarity was required as to where
responsibility should lie for organising and managing study abroad arrangements, and it was
recognised that there was increased need for students to take joint responsibility for
managing their study abroad.
2. FOOCUS OF THE GROUP’S WORK
The University-wide Study Abroad and Placements Working Group was set up to specifically
concentrate on the non-academic issues described above, including managing risk, dealing
with student feedback, improving information to all students, considering the need for a
centralised study abroad office and standardising a Lead Co-ordinator role in each School.
The work of the Group concentrated on compulsory study and work placement abroad as
lessons learned and resulting work would be relevant to all other types of study and
placements both at home and abroad.
3. GROUP MEMBERSHIP
The first University-wide meeting was held on 24 August 2009, followed by 6 further
meetings. The work of the Group was aided in the initial stages by input from the University
of Leeds Project Officer (Student Health and Safety).
Core membership of the Group was kept purposefully small with a clear co-ordinating role
reporting to Senatus Quality Assurance Committee, bringing in staff with particular interests
or expertise as and when needed.
Janet Rennie
Sandra Morris
Prof Lorraine Waterhouse
Ruth Stewart
Dr David Williams
Dr Huw Lewis
Lynn Hyams
Director of Academic and Student Administration, CHSS
& Group Convener
Deputy Director, International Office
Vice Principal, Equality and Diversity
Head of Academic Administration, CMVM
Head of Academic Affairs, CSE
Head of DELC
Academic Affairs Officer, CHSS and Group Secretary
The following staff also contributed to the work of the Group at different times: Dr John
Ardila, Dr Phil Bailey, Marion McGill, Sheila Williams, Dr Tina Harrison, Kim Waldron, Jan
Gardiner, Alex Baker, Lorna Halliday, Katrina Edmunds, Claire Swindels, SDahnnon Hersage.
4. WORK UNDERTAKEN & ACTION UPDATE
a. Questionnaire to Schools on information currently provided to students
Action update
Schools responded to a questionnaire listing the information they currently provided to
students before, during and after their studies abroad (including debriefing students,
how staff are involved and how the information is used to brief new students)

The International Office ensure good practice is shared amongst Exchange Co-ordinators
in all subject areas that receive and send students on exchange
b. Review agreements with partner organisations
Action update
CHSS no longer allows informal exchange agreements, to reduce the potential risk
(academic and personal safety) of dealing with unknown organisations
The International Office has an on-going review of annual formal agreements for each
exchange partner
c. Review the benefits of a centralised Study Abroad Office or specially appointed
School Study Abroad Officers
Action update
Alan McKay, International Office Director, is leading on work to develop a vision of
internationalisation for the University through the ‘Edinburgh Mobility Task Group’. (This
Task Group now supersedes an earlier action point by the Study Abroad Group and takes
forward the idea of a dedicated University Study Abroad Office)
d. Roles and responsibilities of School/subject area Exchange Co-ordinator
Action update
The Assistant Principal, Academic Standards and Quality Assurance, sent a letter to all 22
Schools highlighting quality assurance issues within student exchanges and asking for
names of Exchange Co-ordinators to be sent to the International Office
Exchange Co-ordinators are responsible (inter alia) for ensuring their School/department
pre-departure web information is kept up to date
e. Consider establishing a Standing Group of Exchange Co-ordinators
Action update
The Group decided that an informal advisory network would be more appropriate
f. Guidance to students on risk management issues
Action update
International Exchange and Erasmus students complete risk assessments before
departure
Exchange Co-ordinators are responsible for ensuring all subject areas advise the
International Office of students travelling abroad on any other student programmes not
managed by the International Office
The next phase in the development of the International Office Mobility System will
support students travelling abroad on any other student programmes
g. Develop procedures for ‘calamitous events’
Action update
The International Office manages the guidelines that were developed University-wide to
cover ‘calamitous events’
The International Office Mobility database system now provides much more information
on students’ whereabouts when abroad
h. Clarify if student insurance policies for studying abroad provide repatriation
Action update
The University policy provides for repatriation in the event of death or serious injury but
no reduction in premium could be made if insurance were made compulsory with this
company

Whilst students are not required to take out the University’s travel insurance, they are
required to take out insurance with sufficiently equal cover
i. Student guidance on declaring a disability
Action update
The Study Abroad handbook now has further information for students with disabilities.
Both the International Office and Student Disability Service have put more ‘FAQs’ on
their websites
LLC have a protocol in place used by all relevant subject areas to identify students with
an adjustment schedule before they go abroad
The International Office will advise any student, who makes them aware of their needs,
on the appropriateness of the institution at which the student would like to study
j. Compulsory preparation for students studying abroad.
Action update
The International Office launched a new database in November 2010 initially only
covering Erasmus and International Exchange students, with staff road shows to
highlight the new database
The International Office has a set of pre-departure generic information available in the
study abroad handbook and website
Students have to fill out a compulsory pre-departure questionnaire as part of their
application process
Students are also required to go through a compulsory set of questions on the Mobility
system to focus them on what they need to do as part of their preparations for study
abroad
Compulsory pre-departure briefing dates for students are available with a choice of
dates and students required to sign-in on arrival. Students who don’t attend are
contacted
k. Debriefing returning students and student feedback
Action update
The International Office will identify issues from student feedback and raise them with
Exchange Co-ordinators for follow-up action as appropriate
The University Secretary undertook to liaise with Director of Planning to see whether it is
possible to develop appropriate surveys for students studying abroad and on placements
l. Follow-up cross-cultural training issues for staff and international students studying
at the University
Action update
The International Office has run a number of cultural awareness workshops across the
University which include guest staff speakers who have specific areas of expertise in
relevant subjects. Approximately 10 further workshops are planned for 2012/13
The international Office will consider delivering focussed preparatory/cultural awareness
courses to students going on International Exchange or departmental exchange
programmes to certain countries (eg Far East) from January 2013. These may be
delivered in cooperation with British Council experts.
EUSA are planning a model to measure students’ inter-cultural competences will also be
looking at ways to help students reflect on their experiences both at home and abroad
Summary of outstanding work as identified above
1. Alan McKay, International Office Director, is leading on work to develop a vision of
internationalisation for the University through the ‘Edinburgh Mobility Task Group’ (this

Task Group supersedes an earlier action point by the Study Abroad Group to take
forward the idea of a dedicated University Study Abroad Office)
2. The next phase in the development of the International Office Mobility System (its
database) will support students travelling abroad on any other student programmes
3. The International Office will identify issues from student feedback and raise them with
Exchange Co-ordinators for follow-up action as appropriate
4. The Director of Planning will see whether it is possible to develop appropriate surveys
for students studying abroad and on placements
5. The International Office will consider the delivery of cultural awareness courses for
students in the semester prior to a year abroad
Proposal to wind up the Group
There are now no outstanding actions that fall to the Group to deliver. All 5 action points
above are in hand, and any new initiatives that look to improve the student experience
during periods of study abroad will be led by other groups.
It is therefore proposed that the Study Abroad Group consider its work complete.
Lynn Hyams
May 2012

QAC: 25.10.12
H/02/28/02
The University of Edinburgh
QAC 12/13 2 D
Senatus Quality Assurance Committee
Thursday 25 th October 2012
Internal Review reports and responses 2011/12
Brief description of the paper, including a statement of relevance to the University's strategic
plans and priorities
The paper contains the final report of the Postgraduate Programme Review of Engineering
which took place during session 2011-12.
The paper is relevant to the University’s Strategic Goal of ‘excellence in education’ and the
Strategic Theme of ‘Outstanding student experience’,
Action requested
For approval
Resource implications
Does the paper have resource implications? No
Risk Assessment
Does the paper include a risk analysis? No
Equality and Diversity
Does the paper have equality and diversity implications? No
Originator of the paper
Academic Services
October 2012
Freedom of information
Can this paper be included in open business? Yes
Any other relevant information, including keywords
Postgraduate Programme Review, internal review, PPR.

College of Science and Engineering
POSTGRADUATE PROGRAMME REVIEW
SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING
March 2012

Contents
Introduction: Review structure and process 3
1. Management of the student learning experience 5
2. Management of quality and standards 17
3. Management of enhancement and promotion of good practice 23
Summary and recommendations 24
Appendices 28
2

Introduction: Review structure and process
The Postgraduate Programme Review (PPR) of the School of Engineering is part
of the University’s Quality Assurance procedures and is complemented by the
Senatus and College Quality Assurance Committees’ monitoring and reporting,
and by the External Examiner system.
The PPR system is designed to look at the total postgraduate provision of a
School, including all postgraduate taught programmes and research degrees,
and the supporting managerial and administrative structures. However, as the
administration and management of postgraduate taught provision is undertaken
by the School of Engineering Teaching Organisation, this provision is scheduled
to be reviewed under the University’s Teaching Programme Review mechanism
(TPR). The next TPR for the School of Engineering is scheduled for the
academic year 2012/13.
This PPR was therefore concerned only with research degree provision and the
operation of the Graduate School. The review covered the period January 2006
to January 2011. The School of Engineering was last reviewed under the (then)
Quinquennial Review process in December 2005.
The PPR consisted of:
• The University’s standard remit for internal subject review
• The subject specific remit for the review
• The analytical report prepared by the Graduate School and additional
material provided in advance to the review team (appendix 2)
• The visit by the review team, including consideration of further material
(appendix 2)
• The PPR report produced by the review team
• Following the review, action by the subject area and others to whom
recommendations were remitted
Membership of the Review Panel
The Review Panel comprised:
Dr G McDougall Chair, College Dean of Quality Assurance
Professor T Mays External Assessor, University of Bath
Professor A Vaughan External Assessor, University of Southampton
Dr P Nienow
Internal Member, School of GeoSciences
Dr M Bailey
Internal Member, College of Medicine and Veterinary
Medicine
Mr Eric Holmes Student Member, Business School
Secretariat: Lynda Henderson (CSE Academic Affairs Officer)
3

Apologies: One of the internal assessors was unable to attend the review
meeting.
Review Arrangements
The review, which was held over two days on 21 st and 22 nd March 2012, took the
form of a series of meetings with relevant individuals and groups, looking at
matters concerning postgraduate research students, and the administration,
management structures and strategic issues of the Graduate School. The review
was based on three overarching themes:
• Management of the student learning experience
• Management of quality and standards
• Management of enhancement and promotion of good practice
One of the stated objectives of the University’s strategic plan is to maintain and
increase the number of high quality postgraduate students. One of the aims of
the review process therefore is to help Schools take a longer-term view of the
development of their postgraduate strategy, as well as providing reflection on
previous and current practice.
4

1. Management of the student learning experience
Management and resourcing of the research and learning environment
Overall responsibility for the School lies with the Head of School. The strategic
operation of the School is directed through the School Management Committee.
Responsibility for the management of the Graduate School is in the remit of the
Head of Graduate School (HoGS).
The School of Engineering is subdivided into 5 Institutes:
Institute for Digital Communications
Institute for Energy Systems
Institute for Infrastructure and Environment
Institute for Integrated Micro and Nano Systems
Institute for Materials and Processes
The Engineering Graduate School is headed by the Head of Graduate School,
who is supported by two administrative staff and the Deputy Director of
Professional Services. The post of Head of Graduate School is a delegated role
and is responsible for strategic development and operational matters.
Two committees, the School Postgraduate Experience Committee (SPEC) and
the School Postgraduate Progression Committee (SPPC), provide managerial
oversight of such matters as training provision, Graduate School activities (both
social and academic), progression, assessment, and applications for prestigious
scholarships such as the Principal’s Career Development Scholarships.
At present the Head of Graduate School is not a member of the School’s
Management Committee, and PGR matters are raised through the Director of
Research. The Panel felt that the Head of Graduate School post was a
strategically important role and that the Head of Graduate School should be a
member of the management committee.
Each Institute is responsible for maintaining its own research and study facilities
within the overall management structure and strategic research aims of the
School. (1.1) 1
The School currently has 265 research students, of which 23% are female.
Average annual intake over the last six years has been 55 students, with the
intake for the last four years being relatively stable at an average of around 50.
The majority of students are home/ EU, with overseas students forming an
1 References refer to the University of Edinburgh Standard Remit for Teaching Programme
Review and Postgraduate Programme Review October 2011 (Appendix 3 of this report).
5

average of 30% of the intake over the last six years. The proportion of overseas
students per year has increased in the last three years. (1.3)
The School hosts an Induction Day in early October and is currently looking at
plans to hold a repeat in early January. International students are encouraged to
make use of support services provided by the International Office to help them to
settle in and adapt to the educational environment. (1.3)
The Head of School indicated that the School financial position had gradually
improved over the review period and the School was now in a much better
position to meet the changed external funding environment. The School endured
a period of serious austerity in recent years which limited investment in
refurbishment, student funding and replacement of staff. Investment efforts have
concentrated on developing income-generating activities such as running more
postgraduate taught programmes; attracting more good quality overseas
students to both PGT and PGR programmes; and expanding income from PI lead
grants. The priorities are now to replenish staff levels where critical, and to
refurbish lab research areas to expand research capacities.
The School has adopted a system of peer review for grant applications which has
helped to increase the rate of success in securing grants. The School has not
been particularly successful in DTC applications in recent years, which reflects
the experience across the University. The notable exception is the success of the
recent DTC for Offshore Renewable Energy (IDCORE) application. The Panel
noted that there will likely be an EPSRC call for bids in 2013, and enquired about
what action the School will be taking to identify and prepare applications. The
Head of School indicated that the College is now putting more emphasis and
support in place for multidisciplinary /cross school bids, and there is now more
coordination at College through the research committee structure. The College
Office is investing in network opportunities and workshops to support schools and
academic staff. This will help the School build much stronger bids. (1.1 & 1.6))
The main ‘brake’ on recruitment has been identified as the lack of funding on
offer for applicants. Each Institute is responsible for resourcing each PhD and
allocating funding as appropriate. The quality of the applicant is paramount and
the ‘match’ of the student to available funding is carefully considered. As the
financial climate has changed, the opportunities for funding have decreased, and
it has become more difficult to identify available funding. The School has good
links with industry and other research centers. The School receives sponsorship
for PhD projects from industry (e.g. through CASE scholarships) as well as
existing Doctoral Training Programme funding. It is the School’s practice to
provide 50% funding for projects, and it is the supervisor’s responsibility to
secure the remainder. Some supervisors do not support this practice as they feel
this diverted academic staff from their academic work.
6

The panel detected a certain level of reluctance amongst academic staff to find
funding and a view that the School, College and University should be providing
more financial support. It was unclear to the Panel the extent of transparency in
the School regarding its past financial position. It is possible that greater
transparency may help staff to understand the context of School policy and why
they are being asked to help with securing funding. (1.1 & 1.3)
The School follows the University’s Postgraduate Admission policy, and no offer
of a place is made to a student without resources being available. The School
operates a robust process involving the Heads of Institutes, the progression
committee, and the Deputy School Administrator, to ensure that resources are in
place at the start of the project, and that there is confirmation of resources once
the project is fully scoped at the 2 month stage. Where there is difficulty over
resources, resource support is not signed off at Graduate School level until either
a re-scoping of the project has been undertaken or new funding has been
secured. (2.4)
The School raised questions regarding the balance between industry funded
projects, self-directed projects, and potential impacts on the student experience.
Some concerns have been raised by academics and students that greater
reliance on ‘funder-driven’ projects may limit the School’s ability to maintain
curiosity research or research in novel areas. The School attempts to ensure that
a degree of flexibility in research is agreed at the negotiation stage with sponsors
and ensures that, in as many cases as is possible, the IP agreements permit
paper publication to ensure this aspect of the student experience.
The Panel explored this matter with all groups and found that there was a range
of opinions. However, there appeared to be no evidence that that this was
affecting the student experience or limiting research development at the present
time.
Support for funder-driven projects centred on employability, the potential for
development into commercial activities and, to some extent, stricter expectations
on delivery of a completed project in a defined timescale. The Panel recognized
that the current funding climate would probably lead to an increase in
dependency on funder-driven projects; however, it felt that the reputation of the
School and the strong relationship the School has with industry will allow them to
be able to maintain negotiating strength to preserve research flexibility for the
student in most projects. The School’s participation in the ISLI doctorate and the
new IDCORE programme were identified as good examples of how research and
industry can be integrated successfully while providing a very strong student
experience. (1.1, 1.2, 1.5, 1.6 & 1.7)
The Panel found however during these discussions that the actual length of the
project and management of completion was more of an issue. The School had
raised the question of the ‘natural’ length of a PhD in the reflective review. Again,
7

the Panel found a range of opinions on the matter across staff and students. The
University’s regulations designate the duration of a PhD as a 36 month
prescribed period with a maximum of 48 months (12 month writing up period).
The completion statistics indicated that few students submitted by the end of the
prescribed period, with the majority submitting within the maximum 4 year period.
The Panel noted that there was a significant number each year that appeared to
submit after the 4 year maximum period. The statistics also indicated that there
appeared to be a discrepancy between entry numbers and award numbers.
There was no clear indication as to why there was a discrepancy and the School
did not have a statistical mechanism to be able to monitor progression and dropout
rates on a cohort basis.
The different funding regimes also appeared to add variance to the length of time
a project took, with some funding being available for 36 months and some for 42
months. Students reported that they had been told by their supervisor at the start
of their 36 months funding that they would not be complete the project within 36
months and that they should budget for this. Another student indicated that they
had received ‘promises’ from their supervisor that additional money might be
available for longer than 36 months, but the student had no idea where this
‘funding’ would come from or whether it actually existed.
The general view of the students was that as long as it was clear to them what
funding was actually available to them at the start of their study they did not see
the variance in funding schemes as being a major problem. The concerns of the
students centered more on the original scoping of the project for realistic
completion in the prescribed period and time management of the project to
support them to complete within the period for which they were funded. They felt
that it was important that they had a clear idea of what was expected of them and
how long they had definite funding for at the very start. It would be their
responsibility to ensure that they worked to that definite timescale.
Some of the academics felt that 36 months was too short for an experimental
project to be completed irrespective of regulations and funding. They did not
expect their students to complete in less than 48 months. Some felt that 42
months was a more realistic target for completion while others expressed the
view that it was the responsibility of the supervisor to ensure that the project
scoped could be completed in 36 months. All acknowledged that enhanced
monitoring of progress would help students to finish in a timelier manner.
The SPPC has an overview of progression but there is currently no formal way of
knowing when a student is ready to submit as the ‘intention to submit’ form is
submitted directly to the College Office as part of the examination process. This
leads to a disconnect which meant that identifying trends is very difficult and is
often retrospective.
8

The Panel noted that the UK PhD research degree is 3 years and the award is
assessed and granted on that basis. Although some funders may provide funding
for 42 months to allow students to take increased amounts of research skills and
transferable skills training, it was considered that it was unlikely that the UK
would formally move from the 36 month PhD in the near future. The current
completion rates of the School were not felt to do the School justice and could be
detrimental to a student’s competiveness in the UK. Larger levels of student UG
debt and increasingly stringent visa regimes will also have an influence and
impact on student’s personal circumstances and motivation to complete in a
timely manner. (1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.5, 1.6 & 2.4)
The Panel commends the strong links that the School has with industry and
business
The Panel would therefore recommend that the School articulates clear
procedures to cover the following:
• scoping of project – it should be the supervisor’s responsibility to ensure
that the project can be realistically completed by a competent student in
36 months
• conditions of funding – there should be a clear relationship between the
scope of the project, writing up time and the maximum funding period
• conditions of study – the student should be provided with clear information
on the project, a time line of the project and the exact period of funding
• improve the monitoring process to enhance review at the later stages of
the student’s study (see section 2)
• improved committee oversight of completion rates within Institutes to
identify trends and potential problems such as lack of resources,
equipment or facilities that could be impacting on students’ projects
In order to assist with the strategic operation of the School the Panel
recommends that Head of Graduate School should be a member of the
Management committee
The Learning Environment
Each Institute is responsible for managing the learning environment. It was
acknowledged that, although there is capacity in the School overall to expand,
some Institutes are now at capacity. This is leading to pressure on areas such as
dedicated study office space for research students. A new area has been
refurbished to provide additional space on a ‘hot desking’ basis but there is still
work to be done to address space shortages in the future.
9

The School uses the University’s IS systems as much as possible. The School’s
IT section provides support and development of specialized IT software as
required. All research students are provided with a computer from the School’s
stock and all have access to network systems. IT support is available to both
students and staff through the University’s central services and at a local level
through the School’s IT staff. Support for specialist software and IT equipment is
available through the School’s IT staff and within the research groups
themselves. In some cases web user groups have been formed to give informal
support.
The School uses EUCLID for the main student record activities and for
applications. However use of EUCLID for internal monitoring is limited and the
School still uses its own database to track students’ progress. As a result internal
monitoring has to be carried out by the administrative staff by a combination of
EUCLID, School database and student files. An in-house tracking system has
been developed to assist with the first year monitoring and hopefully it will be
possible to develop this further to cover all monitoring stages.
The School provided the Panel with statistics but the data had had to be retrieved
from various sources. This had taken considerable time and effort. The Panel
expressed concern over the School’s inability to respond to questions on matters
such as student intake profile and non completion rates due to the lack of readily
accessible statistical information. The original remit of EUCLID, the University’s
new student record system, had been for the system to be fully integrated;
however this has not happened and the remit has been revised. The Panel noted
that this had reduced the capacity for individual Schools to undertake statistical
analysis. The Panel recognised that the lack of obtainable data was not confined
to the School of Engineering and that this was a University-wide issue.
The problems for the School appeared to be compounded by the lack of handson
training the administrative staff had had in utilising BOXI, the reporting system
for EUCLID. Administrative staff had been given a demonstration and there was
some online training but the University is no longer providing ‘hands-on’ training
sessions.
The Panel considered that being able to access reliable management data
underpinned the efficiency of student record keeping and tracking, effective
planning and was critical for such activities as recruitment and marketing and
responding to appeals and complaints. (1.1, 1.6, 2.2, & 2.5)
The Panel recommends that the College reviews the provision of management
data to Schools and works with the Schools and GaSP to identify what data is
required and to provide access to standard BOXI reports to retrieve this data
from EUCLID.
10

The Panel also recommends that further hands-on training is provided by SACS
across the University as a matter of urgency.
Support for students and development of graduate attributes
Research and skills training is provided at both Institute level and at the Graduate
School level. The Institutes are responsible for providing local specialist training
for such matters as health and safety, specialized equipment and subject interest
seminars and talks. The SPEC provides a managerial overview of the School’s
generic training provision and reviews the provision to enhance the student
experience. The SPEC and the Head of Graduate School work closely with the
University’s Institute of Academic Development (IAD) to support and develop a
suite of training courses and opportunities. Currently the IAD provide support for
Induction Day, the Postgraduate Conference and activities at the Annual Firbush
Centre Fieldtrip.
Although overall provision is good, the School recognised that there are some
areas that were not as well provided for and a review of the training provision is
ongoing to identify and address these skills gaps. The new IDCORE programme
has provided additional training resources to the discipline of offshore renewable
energy. PhD students were also able to attend UGT masters and PGT courses to
increase their knowledge in areas relevant to their research. The general training
courses are advertised at events like induction etc. The School agreed that more
promotional work could be undertaken to raise awareness of both ‘standard’
courses such as thesis writing and presentation skills, and the wide range of
generic skills training available. Overall uptake and attendance on courses is
good but the range and amount of courses taken very much depends on the
supervisor and student working together to identify needs.
The Panel commends the School’s proactive approach to skills training
development.
Issues regarding the effective identification of international students who initially
required additional support for English language were raised by the postgraduate
members of SPEC. It was not always easy to find details of appropriate courses
although the quality of the language courses available was good. There was
perhaps not always the appropriate level of consistency in encouragement or
compulsion to attend, and it did appear to be left to the supervisor and student to
resolve the matter. (1.5, 1.7 & 1.8)
The Panel recommends that English language support provision is included in
the current training review that was being undertaken.
11

The student and postdoc members of the SPEC felt that while there were
opportunities to interact with colleagues in their own specific institute, there were
fewer opportunities to interact with colleagues from other institutes. There were
common activities such as the BBQ and Firbush but there were limitations on
space on both of these and the activities did not necessarily suit everyone’s
interests. It was felt that more could be done to increase interaction and crosscommunication.
There tended to be strong student communities within each
institute; however these could be strongly influenced by the study culture of
dominant groups of students. The School provides funding for activities and the
students felt that perhaps opportunities were being missed to encourage student
engagement with the Graduate School.
The Panel recognized that it was natural for a student to feel a strong alliance to
their research group and institute; however, the Panel recommends that the
School takes steps to raise the visibility of the Graduate School to students.
The Panel suggests that SPEC may wish to consider supporting a school wide
student/postdoc society to host social and cultural events throughout the year.
The society could perhaps be encouraged to take advantage of the numerous
festivals held in Edinburgh throughout the year to organize communal activities.
Advice on setting up activities could be sought from such resources as EUSA
and the International Office, who host a programme of events for students during
semester teaching periods. (1.6 & 1.7)
The Panel noted that the School has excellent facilities and many highly
specialized laboratories and equipment and that provision was in place to ensure
specialized training. The School has a policy to have standard operating
procedures for all laboratory equipment and to have risk assessments for all
research work. It was quite usual for a Postdoc or PhD to ‘run’ a piece of
equipment and to build up considerable experience and technical knowledge
about the equipment but this ‘hands-on' knowledge could be lost when the
person left. This could potentially lead to problems over continuity of training and
support provision for students.
The Panel recommended that a review of the operational and health and safety
training should be carried out by the SPEC. This would assess current provision
and look at ways to ensure continuity and support, perhaps by creating an online
repository of training videos and films made by the postdocs and research
students currently operating the equipment. These video clips would be
complimentary to the existing standard operating procedures but would allow ‘on
the ground’ practicalities and tips and hints to be passed on. It was felt that
general aspects of health and safety should be mandatory and included at a very
early stage of the PhD student’s career. (1.6 & 1.8)
The School has a strong record in supporting their students to publish papers in
journals and to attend and present at both national and international conferences.
12

The School also has a good record in supporting students in entrepreneurial
ventures and the School hosted a Business Development Executive from
Edinburgh Research and Innovation to advise students on patent issues, IP
exploitation queries and business startups. The School follows the University’s
policy that the IP is the right of the student unless there is a formal agreement to
the contrary. Some concerns were mentioned by the academic staff that this
policy could sometimes make it difficult to decide what level of advice should be
given to students without risk to the staff member of losing the right to IP on their
own innovations and research work. (1.5 & 1.6)
The Panel commends the School ethos and culture in encouraging and
supporting students to publish papers and attend conferences.
All students have a principal supervisor and a second supervisor in accordance
with the University’s Code of Practice for Supervisors and Research Students.
The second supervisor function is primarily pastoral support as well as additional
support for project supervision. If a student does not wish to discuss a personal
matter with either of their supervisors they can approach the Graduate School for
advice. The students were very supportive of their principal supervisors and they
were aware of the support mechanisms in place to help them. They confirmed
that they had regular weekly access to their principal supervisor and could also
see them as needed. Notes and actions of the meetings were recorded in the
student’s laboratory book. The students reported that they were able to get
support and technical advice from research group members and from postdocs
as well. (1.4)
The actual role and function of the second supervisor was not well understood,
with both students and supervisors indicating that interaction between the
students and the second supervisor could be minimal.
The Panel suggested that steps could be taken at induction and in the student’s
first year to improve the understanding of the role, function and value of the
second supervisor. Involvement of the second supervisor on a more regular basis
would expand the students’ exposure to ideas and research expertise.
The Panel noted the School’s concern regarding the balance of supervisory
teams for female students. The Panel found no evidence to suggest that an allmale
supervisory team was a specific problem but it did note that issues may
arise with female students from different cultural backgrounds. (1.3)
The Panel recommended that the School should put in place a mechanism that
would facilitate any request, made because of cultural issues, for the involvement
of female assistant supervisors in a team. This may mean that additional
supervisors are added to the team. In addition the School should appoint a
designated female pastoral advisor to work alongside the current Head of
Graduate School. This would enable any student to choose to speak to a female
13

member of staff if they felt that their concern was of a sensitive or personal
nature.
The School has implemented the principles of the University’s Academic Pastoral
Support standards, and the roles of the designated staff are clearly laid out in the
PhD Handbook. Concession requests are considered by SPPC and the Head of
Graduate School before being passed to the College Research Training
Committee for final approval/ratification. (1.4)
The School now has a policy of a maximum of students per supervisor of 6 as
principal and 6 as second supervisor. This was introduced after the last review
highlighted wide variations in staff: student ratios. The ratios had been improved
and the excessive numbers that had been apparent in the previous review have
been curtailed. The Panel noted however that the ratios still appeared to be
polarized with some staff having no or few students as principal supervisor and
some staff with considerable numbers of students across both principal and
assistant. The Head of School considered that the distribution of students over
the review period did mirror the distribution of grant funding with some areas of
research being able to attract more funding than others. When considering the
allocation of students to staff, the Institutes now prioritize the development of new
staff and their research areas. The Panel considered that the position of having a
significant number of staff without PhD students was unsustainable and
suggested that the School could address this by raising the status of supervision
in the annual appraisal system. (1.1, 1.4 & 1.8)
The main mechanism for feedback from students is the PG representation on the
School’s Postgraduate Experience Committee. The PG representatives present a
report highlighting issues and good practice at each meeting. The PG
representatives also act as liaison between the SPEC and the Heads of Institute
and hold regular discussions with their peers to feedback outcomes from the
SPEC and to identify issues. (1.4)
The Panel was impressed by the high standard of supervisory and training
support that was available to the students and commends the School for its
positive outlook on the contribution that research students make to the School’s
academic community.
Support and development of staff and approach to promoting diversity and
equality
Although the School has a diverse staff profile with staff coming from a wide
range of countries and backgrounds, it is aware that female staff, postdocs and
students remain in the minority. The College and School are trying to address
this by participating in such initiatives as membership of Athena Swann (Charter
14

for Women in Science). It was acknowledged that more work needs to be done to
clarify policies and practices to support staff on matters such as maternity and
paternity leave and flexible working. The College has set up an Equality and
Diversity committee to develop College strategy and the School is actively
participating in this committee.
The proportion of academic staff with Chartered Engineer status is not high and
this has been commented on repeatedly during accreditation visits for UGT
programmes. The School is taking steps to address this by covering the
application fee for chartership status and chartership is now being given higher
recognition in promotion criteria. The School acknowledged that they should be
more proactive in supporting more staff to apply for and achieve chartered status.
(1.7 & 1.8)
The Panel recommends that the School should strongly encourage staff to apply
for chartership to develop the level of expertise and national recognition of the
School’s research environment.
Staff are not permitted to undertake supervision duties until they have attended
the College new supervisor briefing event. Each supervisor is required to attend a
supervisors' update briefing event a minimum of once every five years to update
them on best practice and current regulations. Where there are problems with
supervision this is addressed by the Head of School supported by the Head of
Graduate School. (1.4 & 1.8)
Postgraduate research students are actively encouraged to undertake
demonstration and tutoring duties and all are required to undertake Schoolspecific
training before they can start. The School’s Teaching Organisation is
responsible for the management of the provision of demonstrators and tutors.
There have been issues with the allocation of demonstration duties, and the
Head of Graduate School is working with the Director of Teaching and the
Teaching Organisation Manager to resolve these issues. The School also
promotes Vitae, which provides advice, support and resources for professional
development for research to both students and postdoctoral staff. (1.8)
Students with disabilities are encouraged to disclose and to engage with the
University’s Student Disability Service. The School’s Coordinator of Adjustments
has responsibility for overseeing the adjustment arrangements for all
postgraduate students. (1.7)
The administrative staff reported that they felt that they are supported in their
positions, and they meet regularly to discuss matters that have arisen, to share
good practice and to ensure that they are all kept abreast of any changes, new
policies and future developments. The relationship with the College office was
reported to be good and they were able to get advice when they needed it. Any
major issues with the College tended to centre on the annual reports. This has
15

een recognized by the College and a working party on PGR business practice
has been formed to review and address these problems. The introduction of the
new Tier 4 student visa regime has added considerably to the Institutes’
administrators’ workload but again this is being reviewed by the College level
working group. (1.4 & 1.8)
16

2. Management of quality and standards
Approach to monitoring and quality assurance and how quality arrangements
take account of all students
The School follows the College’s formal QA monitoring procedures. The College
introduced a formal QA model requirement for postgraduate research
programmes in 2009/10. The School now has defined QA models for both
research and taught provision. (2.1)
The examination of thesis is in accordance with the University’s Assessment
Regulations. The University’s external examiner procedures for research
students are followed. If the appointed internal examiner is inexperienced a ‘nonexamining’
chair is appointed to act as advisor and to observe the viva.
Comments from the external examiners on the PGR programme are formally
reviewed by the School Postgraduate Progression Committee. (2.5)
The QA Officer reported increased difficulty in obtaining good statistical reports. It
had been planned that the College and GaSP would provide the data and the QA
Officers would have provided the analysis and reflection. Unfortunately this has
not happened and the School has had difficulty in extracting the data from a
variety of sources including the School database and EUCLID. The QA Officer
felt that he had had to spend a lot of time on details and had not been able to
devote as much time to reflective review as he would have wished. (2.1, 2.2 &
2.5)
Although the SPPC has the remit of QA, the QA Officer reported that there was
little direct interaction between himself and the committee. Recommendations for
action are contained in the Aide Memoire that is generated as part of the College
QA annual review process. This is passed to the SPPC and the Head of
Graduate School. Where there was a major problem the QA Officer will report
this directly to the Head of Graduate School. The QA Officer noted that although
there was support for QA amongst individual members of staff the concept of QA
was not as embedded in the dedicated processes for research programmes as it
was for the taught programmes.
The Panel noted that there appears to be a disconnect between the QA Officer
and the SPEC. The Panel recommends that the relationship between the QA
Officer and the SPEC is reviewed to ensure that the QA Officer has direct access
to the committee. In addition, the point of responsibility for responding to
postgraduate issues raised through the College QA monitoring system should be
identified. The Panel also recommends that the School develop mechanisms to
further embed the annual PGR QA reporting into the Graduate School’s
procedures.
17

The School has arrangements in place to provide support and supervision for
students who are undertaking field or research work away from the School.
Arrangements for supervision at the host organisation are agreed in advance and
a summary report on progress etc is provided by the organisation at the end of
the period. Regular contact by email or Skype is maintained between the student
and the Edinburgh supervisor and between the supervisors in each location. (2.2)
Approach to setting and maintaining standards and external reference points
Students are encouraged to take part in industry and research council training
events and programmes such as Summer Schools and specialist training
programmes such as PARDEM and Marie Curie ITN. Contacts include Network
Rail, Wolfson Microelectronics, Samsung and Toshiba, BAE Systems and power
companies such as Scottish & Southern Electricity. This regular contact and input
ensures that the students obtain essential sector skills and have opportunities to
interact with industry and broad spectrum of researchers.(2.3)
The outcomes of the Schools research programmes are aligned to the SCQF
framework level 12. In addition the training programmes comply with Research
Council training requirements. (2.3)
Applications are received through the University’s EUCLID online system. The
application is checked by the Graduate School administrator who then sends the
application to the appropriate member of academic staff to review. The academic
is required to review the application. If the academic wishes to take the
application further they are required to contact the Head of Institute to establish if
sufficient resources and space are available in the Institute. If an offer is to be
made the Graduate School administrator will run checks against NARIC to verify
qualifications before an offer is sent. The Panel noted that there was not a clear
statement in any of the documentation received of the School’s admissions
policy, and there appeared to be no formal central review mechanism in place to
ensure that the selection criteria and approaches applied across the Institutes
were consistent. As a result there were variations in practice between Institutes in
selection mechanisms with some Institutes holding some kind of interview (eg
Skype) on a regular basis while others Institutes did not interview. Although the
supervisors appreciated the flexibility of being able to consider applicants directly,
they nonetheless felt that there should be a standard practice for selection. (2.4)
There are distinct differences in the range of applicants to each Institute, and
some supervisors stated that they found it hard to find UK students but that they
always received excess applications from good overseas students. Other
Institutes reported the reverse situation. It was noted that the employment levels
for engineering undergraduates overall had not been hit as hard in the UK as
some other areas so good students tended to favour commercial or industry
18

employment over a career in academia. The Panel noted, with concern, that
there was a very high concentration of international students from one country in
one of the Institutes. The Panel considered that this was a high risk strategy
which made that Institute vulnerable to any change in that particular market and
to increased competition from the EU and countries such as Australia and
Canada, who are investing heavily to heighten their status in the world
recruitment market. (1.3 & 1.2.4)
The administration staff raised the issue that they were sometimes unaware of
new students starting or that changes in expected start dates for students had
been agreed between the supervisor and students. This could lead to problems
for induction and matriculation and such issues as computer access and study
space allocation. It could also cause complications with compliance with the
University’s Tier 4 sponsorship reporting duties for overseas students. The main
issue appeared to be the lack of a formal communication link between the
academic staff and the Graduate School/ administrators once an offer has been
made and accepted.
The School noted that the College Office provided good support for recruitment
for UGT and PGT but the level of support for PGR recruitment and admissions
was not well developed. Some measures to address this are being considered by
a working group who are looking at PGR working and business practices across
Schools and College.
The Panel recommends that the School reviews the recruitment procedures in
order to strengthen the central oversight of the recruitment processes and
academic standards of admission criteria.
The Panel recommends that the School develop a formal admissions policy for
research students, applicable across the five Institutes. The policy should include
minimum admissions criteria, clear recruitment processes for scrutiny of
applications and follow-up conversion and induction/ welcome processes,
strategies to maintain and increase student numbers, and expansion into new
markets such as South America, to counterbalance the existing reliance on a
small number of countries.
Management of assessment, progression and achievement
The School has a formal progression ‘milestone’ monitoring system that consists
of a two month report, an 8 month report and a second year poster. Second year
students are required to give an oral presentation at the School’s conference and
submit a thesis plan. In addition, weekly supervisory meetings are held and a
record is signed off in the student’s laboratory notebook provided by the School.
19

The two month report is a short summary to outline the project plan and aims and
objectives of the research. The report also highlights required resources and has
a one page diagrammatic work plan (eg a Gantt chart). The report and plan are
considered by the SPPC and feedback is given to the student. A fuller Interim
Report is required at the 8 month stage and this forms the basis of confirmation
of registration at the end of year one. This report is 6 pages long, and should
contain a summary of the project and its objectives, programme management
plan and methodology. The reports are reviewed by the second supervisor and a
nominated reviewer. The review team may also interview the student. The SPPC
receives the report and reviewers’ comments. The decision to confirm registration
is made by the SPPC. (2.4 & 2.5)
An annual conference is held and all students attend. At the conference, second
year students are required to present a poster and third year students are
required to submit a thesis plan at month 27. This plan should contain a clear
statement of the thesis, a few sentences of proposed content for each chapter, a
timetable for completion and progress to date. Third year students can also opt to
give a short oral presentation on their work at the conference.
Although the monitoring scheme is routinely followed and targeted training
opportunities are scheduled in to support the students, there was a general
feeling amongst students and supervisors that the system was not as supportive
in practice as it could be. In particular, concern was raised by the students with
respect to the quality of the feedback and the timing of the second year poster,
which could fall anywhere in the student’s second year depending on which
month they started their PhD and the month in which the annual conference fell.
The students found the two first year reports helpful, but they felt that more
focussed monitoring requirements in the later years would help them to keep
focused and identify problems sooner. There were no training courses or events
for viva presentation. Students who had been able to present at an external
conference where able to use this experience but this was not always the case
for all students.
Concerns expressed by academic staff mainly focused on the robustness and
timings of the reports and the processes involved. It was felt that the 8 month
report should be more exacting to stretch the students and assist in identifying
students with poorer performance. The criteria for assessment of progress and
decision making were not clear, and there was a risk that the recommendations
across Institutes were not consistent. It was felt that the current system could
allow underperforming students to progress, which is not good in the long term
for either the student or the School. Concern was also expressed about the lack
of opportunity for the principal supervisor to make comment on a student’s
performance during the review process. Although the need for an ‘independent
person’ in the process was recognized as critical, it was felt that the system could
be unintentionally ignoring a valuable source of input to the decision making.
(2.5)
20

The Panel recommended that the School look to developing a compromise to
facilitate principal supervisor input while protecting objectivity. This could be
achieved by introducing a ‘thesis committee’ for each student. This committee
would follow the student throughout their study at the School and would be
responsible for the review of all required work and submitting recommendations
to the SPPC. The committee would be required to seek the views of the principal
supervisor before making its recommendations. The thesis committee would also
provide feedback to the student and could act as pastoral support for the student
if problems arose with the project or the supervision.
The Panel was also concerned that the 6 page report is not robust or challenging
enough to be used as the sole assessment for continuation. The Panel did not
see the value in requiring very large submissions but did see value in making the
report more comprehensive with a higher requirement for explanation, reflective
and constructive analysis and critical review from the students.
The Panel expressed concerns regarding the lack of formal opportunities for the
students to develop writing skills to support them during thesis writing. The 8
month report is not an in-depth report and there appeared to be no formal
opportunity for a student to submit any piece of substantial written material
between the 8 month report and the commencement of the writing up period. The
School and IAD provided a Writing a Scientific Paper workshop at month 17, and
a Thesis Workshop at month 26, but these courses are not mandatory. It was felt
that at least the Thesis Writing Workshop should be mandatory and that
additional opportunities for writing and critical reflective review should be put in
place to assist students with their write up. These opportunities should be
available in both year 2 and year 3. The Panel noted that the emphasis on 27 th
month milestone had become diluted over the years of operation. The Panel
considered that it would be constructive to re-emphasis the importance of this
plan as a means of evaluating the progress of writing up, identifying any
problems and to define a final work plan for completion. Strengthening this step
would help to prevent ‘drift’ in finishing the project and improve completion rates.
The Panel was supportive of the poster presentation and considered that more
writing skills training must be additional to the poster session and not in place off
of the poster. The Panel however heard varying reports about the effectiveness
of the ‘review’ mechanism and the feedback mechanism at the poster
presentations.
The Panel recommends that the following adaptations are considered to
increase the effectiveness of the process:
• Upgrading the requirements of the 8 month review to make the report
more comprehensive with a higher requirement for explanation, reflective
and constructive analysis and critical review from the students.
21

• Introducing a more formal ‘thesis committee’ system for each student to
provide the student with a comprehensive review and feedback in parallel
with their development over their study period. The thesis committee could
also help to provide pastoral care. The School may wish to consult with
the Schools of Biological Sciences and Physics and Astronomy who
already operate such systems.
• Introducing clear and transparent criteria for appraisal of progress which
are applicable across the School.
• Introducing additional opportunities for students to develop their writing
and critical analysis skills in years 2 and early year 3. These opportunities
would be in addition to the current milestone monitoring requirements.
Such opportunities could be a requirement to write a second year critique
of the project to date and a forward look at the project, or a requirement to
write a mock journal paper based on one aspect of their work that they
had completed. An exercise to write a mock grant application complete
with budget analysis could be considered for third year students. This
exercise could be a group activity to help develop team-working skills.
• Making the Thesis Writing Workshop compulsory for all third year
students.
• Reviewing the process and rigour of the poster presentation review. A
more formal review procedure should be introduced to ensure that all
students have a constructive and consistent experience.
• Introducing training opportunities for viva preparation.
• Reviewing the 27 month thesis plan with the aim to refocus the process to
include a more comprehensive review of progress to date, to identify a
clear cut-off for project work and plan for write up. This monitoring point
would also be a good opportunity to look at the career aspirations of the
student with a view to identifying training needs eg interview skills, CV
writing etc.
22

3. Management of enhancement and sharing of good practice
Management of quality enhancement and mechanisms to identify and share
good practice
The SPEC has responsibility for disseminating best practice between the
Institutes. This committee meets once a semester and receives reports of
innovation and good practice from the Institutes at each meeting. The minutes
from the SPEC meetings are open to all members of the School. Dissemination
and cascade of good practice from these meetings is through the Research
Institute’s committee representative. This cascade is achieved through meetings
with the Head of Institute and meetings with representatives of the postgraduate
community. The School has identified that this could be expanded to include staff
meetings. The Panel would fully support the School in this and would suggest
that an enhancement standing item is formally placed on the agenda at staff
meetings.
An example of enhancement that has been introduced across the School is the
‘Engineering Lab book’ in which the student records their work and outcomes of
student/supervisor meetings. The Supervisor is required to sign off the notes of
the meeting. This has improved communication and clarity in what was agreed,
records action points and allows regular review of achievement of action points.
This helps to keep the research work focused and on track and reduces
misunderstandings. (3.1)
The Head of Graduate School is a member of the College Research Training
Committee which is responsible for sharing of good practice across College and
Schools. (3.3)
The Annual Review forms are reviewed by the Graduate School administrator
and any matters of concern are passed to the Head of Graduate School. The
School noted that the design of the University reports forms did not make
identification of problems particularly easy. (3.3)
Engagement with Quality Assurance Agency enhancement themes and other
sector themes as appropriate
The School is involved in the management of UKERC and a number of the
Scottish Research pooling initiatives eg Energy Technology Partnership and the
National Telford Institute. Members of the academic staff have acted as
consultants and have served on the EPSRC Technical Opportunities Panel and
have been consulted on research training provision by research councils. (3.2)
23

Summary and Recommendations
The Panel would like to thank all the students and staff who took part and
contributed constructively to the process. The College would like to thank the
Panel members for their work and their valuable contribution.
The Panel was impressed with the level of development that the Head of
Graduate School had put in to enhance the student experience. This was
supported by the positive responses from the students. The Panel felt that many
of the major issues highlighted in the previous review had been addressed well.
The Panel gained the overall impression that the School successfully provides
high quality postgraduate education within a supportive training environment and
academic community. The Panel noted that the School has excellent facilities
and many highly specialized laboratories and equipment.
The Panel did however identify some procedural and strategic issues that were
negatively impacting on the otherwise high standard of research training and
support given to the students. Procedural and strategic issues where further
development is required and amendment of existing procedures is needed are
summarized in the list below.
Commendations
1 The Panel commends the enhancement of the procedures, the structure and
the operation of the Graduate School since the last review.
2 The Panel was impressed by the high standard of supervisory and training
support that was available to the students and commends the School for its
positive outlook to the contribution that research students make to the
School’s academic community.
3 The Panel were equally impressed with the quality of the students and their
participation and engagement in their research and in the review itself.
4 The Panel commends the approach taken by the School to milestone
monitoring and noted the practice of integrated training.
5 The Panel commends the strong links that the School has with industry and
business.
6 The Panel commends the School ethos and culture in encouraging and
supporting students to publish papers and attend conferences.
24

Recommendations
The panel makes the following recommendations:
To the School:
Management of the student learning experience
1 The Panel recommends that the School develops clear procedures to
assist with timely completion:
• scoping of project – it should be the supervisor’s responsibility to
ensure that the project can be realistically completed by a
competent student in 36 months.
• conditions of funding – there should be a clear relationship between
the scope of the project, writing up time and the maximum funding
period.
• conditions of study – the student should be provided with clear
information on the project, a time line of the project and the exact
period of funding.
• improve the monitoring process to enhance review at the later
stages of the student’s study (see recommendation 9, below).
• improved committee oversight of completion rates within Institutes to
identify trends and potential problems such as lack of resources,
equipment or facilities that could be impacting on students’ projects.
2 The Panel recommends that a review of the operational and health and
safety training should be carried out by the SPEC. This would assess
current provision and look at ways to ensure continuity and support,
perhaps by creating an online repository of training videos and films made
by the postdocs and research students currently operating the equipment.
It was felt that general aspects of health and safety should be mandatory
and included at a very early stage of the PhD student’s career. (1.6 & 1.8)
3 In order to assist with the strategic operation of the School the Panel
recommends that the Head of Graduate School should be a member of
the Management committee.
4 The Panel recognized that it was natural for a student to feel a strong
alliance to their research group and Institute; however the Panel
recommends that the School takes steps to raise the visibility of the
Graduate School to students.
5 The Panel recommends that English language support provision is
included in the current training review that is being undertaken.
25

6 The Panel recommends that the School put in place a mechanism that
would facilitate any request, made because of cultural issues, for the
involvement of female assistant supervisors in a team.
7 The Panel recommends that the School should strongly encourage staff to
apply for chartership to develop the level of expertise and national
recognition of the School’s research environment.
8 The Panel recommends that the relationship between the QA Officer and
the SPEC is reviewed to ensure that the QA Officer has direct access to
the committee. In addition the point of responsibility for responding to
postgraduate issues raised through the College QA monitoring system is
identified. The Panel also recommends that the School develop
mechanisms to further embed the process of annual PGR QA reporting
into the Graduate School’s procedures.
Management of quality and standards
9 The Panel recommends that the following adaptations are considered to
increase the effectiveness of the process for monitoring progression
(milestones):
• Upgrading the requirements of the 8 month review to make the
report more comprehensive with a higher requirement for
explanation, reflective and constructive analysis, and critical review
from the students.
• Introducing a more formal ‘thesis committee’ system for each
student to provide the student with a comprehensive review and
feedback in parallel with their development over their study period.
The thesis committee could also help to provide pastoral care.
• Introducing clear and transparent criteria for appraisal of progress
which are applicable across the School.
• Introducing additional opportunities for students to develop their
writing and critical analysis skills in years 2 and early year 3. These
opportunities would be in addition to the current milestone
monitoring requirements.
• Making the Thesis Writing Workshop compulsory for all third year
students.
• Reviewing the process and rigour of the poster presentation review.
26

A more formal review procedure should be introduced to ensure that
all students have a constructive and consistent experience.
• Introducing training opportunities for viva preparation.
• Reviewing the 27 month thesis plan with the aim to refocus the
process to include a more comprehensive review of progress to
date, to identify a clear cut-off for project work and plan for write up.
10 The Panel recommends that the School reviews the recruitment
procedures in order to strengthen the central oversight of the recruitment
processes and academic standards of admission criteria.
11 The Panel recommends that the School develop a formal admissions
policy for research students, applicable across the five Institutes.
To the College and the University:
1 The Panel recommends that the College reviews the provision of
management data to Schools and works with the Schools and GaSP to
identify what data is required and to provide access to standard BOXI
reports to retrieve this data from EUCLID.
Action: Dean of Quality Assurance, CSE
2 The Panel requests that SACS provides ‘hands on’ training sessions in
BOXI for staff to compliment the current online training provision.
Action: Head of Academic Affairs, CSE
27

Appendix 1
Glossary
BOXI
CASE
CSE
DTC
EPSRC
EUCLID
HoGS
IAD
IDCORE
ISLI
NARIC
PGR
PGT
PI
SACS
SPEC
SPPC
TPR
UKERC
Business Objects XI
Council for Advancement and Support of Education
College of Science and Engineering
Doctoral Training Centre
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
Edinburgh University Complete Lifecycle Integrated Development
Head of Graduate School
Institute of Academic Development
Industrial Doctoral Centre in Offshore Renewable Energy
Institute for System Level Integration
National Academic Recognition Information Centre
Postgraduate Research
Postgraduate Taught
Primary Investigator
Student, Admissions and Curricula Systems
School Postgraduate Experience Committee
School Postgraduate Progression Committee
Teaching Programme Review
United Kingdom Energy Research Centre
28

Appendix 2
Additional information considered by the review team
The Review Panel considered the following documents:
Overview:
Reflective Review of PG provision in the School of Engineering
Committee Structure and Graduate School Structures and Procedures
QQR2005 Report
QQR2006 Response
Research programmes:
Statistics: Research programme
PhD Handbook Academic October 2011
Quality Assurance:
School of Engineering QA PGR reports
29

Appendix 3
Standard Remit October 2011
The University of Edinburgh
Standard Remit for Teaching Programme Review and Postgraduate
Programme Review
Introduction
The standard remit for all reviews (undergraduate and postgraduate) provides
consistent coverage of key elements across all of the University’s internal subject
reviews, while allowing for flexibility in the specific focus within each of the overarching
themes. The University’s internal subject review remit covers all academic provision,
including on and off-campus activities and provision delivered in collaboration with
external bodies and institutions
The remit consists of three overarching themes:
1. Management of the student learning experience
2. Management of quality and standards
3. Management of enhancement and promotion of good practice
The remit makes a number of key elements explicit:
1. It places increased emphasis on enhancement and the deliberate
management of enhancement.
2. It identifies clear aspects of the learning/research experience and emphasises
throughout the importance of recognising and responding to the needs of the
specific student profile on the programmes.
3. It includes explicit reference to modes of delivery, including on and off-campus
activities and maintaining support with students studying away or on placements.
4. It expands employability to take account of graduate attributes – related to the
current theme.
5. It makes explicit the management of teaching/research and how each is
resourced and prioritised alongside other activities.
6. It emphasises the role of staff development in relation to teaching and provides
a link with the Institute for Academic Development (IAD).
Standard Remit
Within each area of the standard remit as appropriate reviews will address the
effectiveness of the review area’s engagement with relevant University and
external policies and codes of practice.
1. Management of the student learning experience
30

1.1 The review area’s approach to the management and
resourcing of teaching/research
Taught provision: including strategies and aims, priorities for teaching, policies to
support teaching, relationship between teaching and other activities.
Research provision: including strategies and aims, approach to obligations under
the Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers, priorities for
research, policies to support research training, management of research leave,
relationship between postgraduate research and other activities.
1.2 Key features of the learning and teaching/research provision
Taught provision: including the distinctiveness of provision, balance and
appropriateness of programmes offered, currency of the curriculum, programme
aims and learning objectives. Provision should be related to the SCQF levels at
which it is taught. (see SCQF framework at h ttp ://www.scqf. o rg .u k/The %2 0
Fra me work/)
Research provision: including the distinctiveness of provision, currency of
research training for postgraduates, programme aims and learning
descriptors (see SCQF framework at h ttp :// www.scqf.o rg .u k/The %2 0
Fra me work/)
1.3 Key features of the student population and implications for
learning and teaching/research
Taught provision: including any notable characteristics of the student profile and
implications for the effective management of the student learning experience,
initial and ongoing induction needs, and future discernible trends.
Research provision: including any notable characteristics of the student profile
and implications for the effective management of the student research experience,
initial and ongoing induction needs, and future discernible trends.
1.4 The extent to which the review area engages and supports students
in their learning
Taught provision: including student representation, effectiveness of the
implementation of the University Feedback Standards and Guiding Principles,
mechanisms for gathering and responding to feedback from students, provision of
pastoral and academic support, including effectiveness of implementation of
University Standards and Guiding Principles on Academic and Pastoral Support for
Students, including in collaborative and distributed/placement learning.
Research provision: including student representation, effectiveness of the
implementation of the University Feedback Standards and Guiding Principles
mechanisms for gathering and responding to feedback from students, provision of
pastoral and academic support, including effectiveness of implementation of
University Standards and Guiding Principles on Academic and Pastoral Support for
Students the role of the supervisor/supervisory team.
31

1.5 The extent to which the review area promotes the development of
graduate attributes
Taught provision: including graduate skills development, Personal Development
Planning, engagement with employability theme.
Research provision: including IAD support for researchers, researcher development
framework, Personal Development Planning, training for specific professional
standards of behaviour e.g. ethical, legal or disclosure.
The University’s graduate attributes are at
h ttp :/ /www.e mp lo yab ility.ed .a c.u k/G rad ua te a ttrib ute s.htm
1.6 The effectiveness of the review area’s approach to managing the
learning environment
Taught provision: including the physical environment of libraries, IT, laboratories,
classrooms and the virtual environment, such as the VLE and use of e-learning
for both learning and social/community building activities.
Research provision: as above, from the perspective of the research environment,
with an emphasis on research community, inclusion/interaction of taught
postgraduate students in the PhD community.
1.7 The effectiveness of the review area’s approach to promoting equality,
diversity, sustainability and social responsibility and effective learning for all
of its students
Taught provision: including the impact of equality of opportunity on the curriculum or
student experience, review area approach to making the curriculum accessible for
all students, involvement of the review area in disability/equal and diversity
committees, involvement in Widening Participation, opportunities for students with
disabilities and other diversity categories as relevant to the review area’s student
population, the provision of an accessible curriculum in collaborative/ distributed/
placement provision. Extent of flexible entry/exit points and articulation
arrangements.
Research provision: including the impact of equality of opportunity on the research
provision, review area approach to making research support/facilities accessible for
all students, including part-time and online modes. Involvement of the review area
in disability/equality and diversity committees, opportunities for students with
disabilities and other diversity categories as relevant to the review area’s student
population, the continuity of accessible learning precepts where students are
studying at other institutions/on placement.
1.8 The extent to which the review area supports and develops staff to
promote effective learning for students
32

Taught provision: including development of tutors (including external staff and
postgraduate tutors) for delivery of undergraduate teaching, ongoing staff
development, programme director training, supervisor training, engagement with
the Institute for Academic Development, peer observation of practice (can include
teaching, provision of feedback, etc).
Research provision: development of postgraduate tutors from the career
development perspective, peer mentoring and support networks for
postgraduate tutors, training for academic staff in mentoring and supporting
postgraduate tutors, engagement with the Institute for Academic Development.
2. Management of quality and standards
2.1 The effectiveness of the review area’s approach to monitoring and quality
assurance
Taught provision: including the review area’s Quality Assurance model and how this
articulates with School, College and University expectations, effectiveness of course
monitoring and interaction with external professional and accrediting bodies,
effectiveness of monitoring and quality assurance of collaborative programmes and
distributed learning.
Research provision: including the review area’s Quality Assurance model and how
this articulates with School, College and University expectations, effectiveness of
monitoring and interaction with external professional and accrediting bodies,
effectiveness of monitoring and quality assurance of collaborative programmes and
distributed learning.
2.2 The extent to which the review area’s monitoring and quality arrangements
take account of all students
Taught provision: including in particular those on and off campus and on
collaborative programmes delivered with other institutions/bodies, and particular
groups of students as relevant to the demography of the student cohort.
Research provision: including in particular those on and off campus, on collaborative
delivered with other institutions/bodies, and particular groups of students.
2.3 The extent to which the review area takes account of external reference
points
Taught provision: including the Academic Infrastructure, the SCQF framework,
professional body requirements and external examiners.
Research provision: including research councils, professional body requirements,
the SCQF framework, external examiners.
33

2.4 The effectiveness of the review area’s approach to setting and maintaining
academic standards
Taught provision: including admissions policy and recruitment, conversion of offers,
programme design, procedures for validation and approval of courses and
programmes, operation of Boards of Studies.
Research provision: including admissions policy and recruitment, programme design
including addressing stakeholder requirements e.g. research councils, operation of
industrial boards, Research Training committees/Graduate School committees.
2.5 The effectiveness of the review area’s approach to the management of
assessment, progression and achievement
Taught provision: including appropriateness of assessment methods, rates and
trends in student progression and completion, operation of Exam Boards.
Research provision: including progression of research students, assessment of
doctoral students, completion rates.
3. Management of enhancement and sharing of good practice
3.1 The extent to which the review area takes deliberate steps to manage
quality enhancement
Taught provision: including quality enhancement strategies, articulation with College
and University strategies, responsibility for management and implementation.
Research provision: including quality enhancement strategies, articulation with
College and University strategies, responsibility for management and
implementation within Graduate School/research centre.
3.2 The extent to which the review area engages with Quality Assurance
Agency enhancement themes and other sector themes as appropriate (e.g.
Higher Education Academy)
Taught provision: including involvement in external events, internal developments
arising from engagement in external activities and their impact on enhancing the
student learning experience.
The Enhancement Themes can be found at h tt p:/ /www.e nh an ce men tthe me
s.a c.u k/
Research provision: including engagement with Research Councils
benchmarking, research skills training, engagement with professional
competencies for research.
3.3 The extent to which the review area identifies and shares good practice
34

Taught provision: including learning from annual monitoring, mechanisms in
place for promoting and disseminating good practice.
Research provision: including learning from annual monitoring of postgraduate
research provision, mechanisms in place for promoting and disseminating good
practice
October 2011
35

QAC: 25.10.12
H/02/28/02
The University of Edinburgh
QAC 12/13 2 E
Senatus Quality Assurance Committee
Thursday 25 October 2012
College Annual Quality Assurance and Enhancement Report Template
Brief description of the paper, including a statement of relevance to the University's strategic
plans and priorities
The paper presents a revised version of the College annual quality assurance and
enhancement report template for use in academic year 2012/13. The revisions take into
account sector developments in the UK Quality Code and the revised Scottish Funding
Council guidance on quality from August 2012. The revisions also take into account a range
of University developments and policies.
The paper is relevant to the University’s Strategic Goal of ‘Excellence in Education’.
Action requested
For approval. For use in academic year 2012/13.
Resource implications
Does the paper have resource implications? No.
Risk Assessment
Does the paper include a risk analysis? No.
Equality and Diversity
Does the paper have equality and diversity implications? No.
Originator of the paper
Dr Linda Bruce, October 2012
Freedom of information
Can this paper be included in open business? Yes
Keywords
College annual report, quality assurance report, enhancement report

The University of Edinburgh
Senate Quality Assurance Committee – 25 October 2012
College Annual Quality Assurance and Enhancement Reporting 2012/13
DRAFT
The paper presents the template for College annual quality assurance and enhancement
reports to Senate Quality Assurance Committee for use in Academic Year 2012/13. The
paper is presented for approval.
Changes for 2012/13
The changes proposed for 2012/13 are summarised in the table below.
Updates to the UK Quality Code
The Quality Assurance Agency is updating the UK Quality Code between March 2012 and
October 2013. Universities are required to comply with the revised Code and relevant
updates are included in the School and College annual report templates.
Statistical information
Appendix: Standard statistical reports have been developed by GaSP to support School
Annual QAE reports. These are available as BOXI reports from Governance and Strategic
Planning.
Use of reports in the University’s quality assurance framework
The annual School Quality Assurance and Enhancement Report from the previous 3
academic years is included in the documentation for internal subject review (TPR & PPR).
Summary of changes
Purpose
1.
Addition of specific reference to compliance with external expectations to
align with reference in School report template.
Addition of specific reflection on distance travelled in relation to actions
2.
taken as a result of actions raised in previous year’s report.
The Policy
2.1 & 2.2 Addition of further guidance under heading ‘Actions taken as a result of
issues raised in the previous year’s report’.
3.1 Clarification that scope of annual monitoring and review is of all courses
and programmes leading to a University of Edinburgh award.
Addition of reference to University Policy on Quality Assurance,

Monitoring and Reporting of Postgraduate Research Provision.
3.2 Expanded guidance on scope of monitoring of collaborative provision.
3.3 In addition to existing monitoring and review of CPD, where relevant,
annual monitoring and review of Massive Open Online courses and other
provision that sits outside UoE degree programmes.
3.4 Inclusion in scope of reflection on student performance and achievement
entrants through flexible SCQF credit arrangements (entrants from
further education, entrants with advanced standing and part-time
students); entrants through Widening Participation. Specific reflection in
relation to performance and achievement data on home, EU and
international students.
3.5 Summary of themes from External Examiners’ reports replaces previous
‘feedback from External Examiner Reports’.
3.6 To reflect revised QAA Quality Code Chapter on Student Engagement
and SFC Guidance: Scope now covers student engagement in College
and School quality and other processes, including learning
developments, more broadly rather than previous focus on feedback
from students. With regard to annual trends, Colleges should include a
reflection on the key themes in relation to the study abroad experience,
where relevant.
With regard to gathering and responding to feedback from students,
attention is drawn to the new University Principles for Learning From and
Responding to the Student Voice.
3.7 To reflect revisions to internal subject review processes: overview of
progress towards meeting recommendations from reviews, to include
identification of any barriers to completion.
3.8 External Reviews, including accreditation reviews. Clarification that this
section should contain issues arising and responses.
3.9 Peer observation of practice: Scope should not be restricted to classbased
teaching activity.
4.1 Wording changed in light of learning and teaching strategies being in
place for all Colleges.
4.3.1 Graduate attributes and employability: Requested by Employability
Steering Group: .addition of encouragement explicitly to surface good
practice relevant to students’ graduate attributes and employability.
Examples from annual School reports will be forwarded to the
Employability Steering Group.
4.3.2 Addition of reflection on progress towards implementing strands of the
Enhancing Student Support project.
4.3.3 Reflection on key themes arising from survey on feedback practice
completed by Schools as an appendix to their annual report.
4.3.4 Previous sections on Equality and Diversity and Accessible Learning
merged. Equality and Diversity reflection to include engagement with
and actions in support of the University Equality and Diversity Strategy
and Action Plan.
http://www.docs.csg.ed.ac.uk/EqualityDiversity/Strategy.pdf
Accessible Learning reflection to include mainstreaming of adjustments
and implementation of best practice. Reference to Distance Learning
students changed to e-learning students.
4.3.5 Section on Teaching and Learning spaces recast as ‘The physical and
digital learning and teaching environments’.
4.3.7 New section: Internationalisation: a reflection on any international

practice or discipline reference points which have informed the College’s
or Schools’ approach to learning and teaching strategies and
enhancements including to the student experience
4.4 Examples of good practice to include links to material on School or other
website, where available.
Appendices
Added to the existing requirement to provide TPR and PPR responses:
(The more recent of the 14 week or year-on response) and thereafter the
annual report proforma on progress towards meeting recommendations.
List of External Examiners to include both taught and PGR examiners.
DRAFT VERSION 2012/13
The University of Edinburgh
Contact Officer
Purpose
Overview
Scope
Guidance on College Annual Quality Assurance and
Enhancement Reporting
Dr Linda Bruce, Assistant Head, Academic Services
(linda.bruce@ed.ac.uk)
The purpose of the College Annual Quality Assurance and
Enhancement (QAE) Reports is:
1. To provide assurance that monitoring and review are being
carried out effectively within the Schools/units for which the
College is responsible and that they continue to comply with
external expectations.
2. To provide an update and a reflection on distance travelled in
relation to actions taken as a result of issues raised in the
previous year’s report.
3. To report on key trends/issues arising from monitoring and
review activities in the past year and how the School intends
to respond.
4. To provide an update on progress in relation to the School
and College Learning and Teaching Strategy and related
University strategies.
5. To identify and share good practice across Schools within
each College and to feed in to similar identification and
sharing at University level.
Rather than provide collates summaries of individual School
monitoring and review activities and outcomes, College reports will
provide an overview of the key trends arising from annual
monitoring and review with a view to identifying areas for follow up
or action.
The guidance forms part of the University’s quality assurance and
enhancement framework.
The guidance applies to all Colleges.
The Policy
Guidance on College Annual Quality
Assurance and Enhancement Reporting

1. Introduction
1.1 Brief overview of the College
1.2 Brief overview of the scale and scope of learning and teaching activities
1.3 Overview of the key features of annual monitoring and review in the College,
including student engagement with Quality Assurance (QA) processes.
2. Actions taken as a result of issues raised in the previous year’s report
2.1 An overview of the actions taken, in response to issues arising from the
monitoring and review activity in the previous year’s report, including update and
reflection on the distance travelled.
2.2 Discussion of how any recommendations made by both the College and
Senate Quality Assurance Committees following review of the previous year’s
report have been addressed.
3. Assurance of Quality and Standards (to reflect on key trends/issues arising
from each of the following and to identify areas for follow-up and action for
Schools, the College or the University)
3.1 Annual monitoring and review of all courses and programmes leading to a
University of Edinburgh award, including trends in and responses to feedback
and performance data. Any specific issues for UG, PGT and PGR should be
noted separately. The PGR section should include issues arising from the
quality assurance, monitoring and reporting of PGR provision (under the
University policy in this area). An update should be included on the status of
programme specifications.
References: Policy on Quality Assurance, Monitoring and Reporting of Postgraduate
Research Provision:
http://www.docs.sasg.ed.ac.uk/AcademicServices/Policies/Quality_Assurance_Reporting_P
ostgraduate_Research_Provision.pdf
Programme Specifications guidance and templates: http://www.ed.ac.uk/schoolsdepartments/academic-services/staff/curriculum/degree-prog-specific
3.2 Annual monitoring and review of all instances of collaborative provision
including accreditation agreements, joint taught degrees, joint PhDs,
including trends in and responses to feedback and performance data.
Reference: Collaborative provision policy, guidance, templates and repository:
http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/governance-strategic-planning/collaborativeactivity
3.3 Annual monitoring and review of Continuing Professional Development
(CPD), Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), executive education and
other provision that sits outside University of Edinburgh degree programmes,
including trends in and responses to feedback and performance data.
Reference: Massive Open Online Courses:
http://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/postgraduate/online-distance-learning/programmes/moocedinburgh
3.4 Student performance and achievement including where relevant entrants
through flexible SCQF credit arrangements (entrants from further education,
entrants with advanced standing and part-time students); entrants through

Widening Participation programmes, collaborative provision, e-learning and
On-line Distance Education and Work-based and Placement Learning, and
presentation and analysis of statistics for UG, PGT and PGR, home, EU and
international students.
References: SCQF: http://www.scqf.org.uk/The%20Framework/
On-line Distance Education policy and code of practice:
http://www.docs.sasg.ed.ac.uk/AcademicServices/Policies/Online_Distance_education.pdf
http://www.docs.sasg.ed.ac.uk/AcademicServices/Codes/CoPOnlineDistanceEducationFINA
L.pdf
On-line Distance Education indicators of sound practice:
http://www.docs.sasg.ed.ac.uk/AcademicServices/Policies/Online%20Distance%20Education%20Indicators%20of%20Sound%20Practice.pdf
Work-based and Placement Learning policy, code of practice and indicators of sound
practice:
http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/governance-strategic-planning/collaborativeactivity/guidance-templates
3.5 Summary of themes from External Examiner Reports (with any specific
issues for UG, PGT and PGR noted separately).
3.6 Student engagement: an outline of how students are engaged in College
quality and other processes and a summary of student engagement in
Schools, including student involvement in learning developments and
methods for obtaining feedback and the key annual trends arising from these,
and how they are being responded to. (including internal course and
programme feedback surveys and external surveys such as NSS, PRES,
PTES and ISB). With regard to annual trends, Schools should include
reflection on the study abroad experience, where relevant.
Reference: Policy on Learning from and Responding to the Student Voice:
http://www.docs.sasg.ed.ac.uk/AcademicServices/regulations/Introdocs/Pol/StudentVoicePri
nciplesNewJuly2012.pdf
EUSA student representation information for staff:
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/representation/classreps/infoforstaff/
3.7 Internal Reviews: TPRs and PPRs. Key themes from reviews in the reporting
period. Reflection on progress towards meeting recommendations from
previous reviews, including identification of any barriers to completion.
Reference: Internal review reports: http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/academicservices/quality-unit/quality-assurance/internal-review
3.8 External Reviews (including accreditation reviews).
3.9 Peer observation of practice. Reflections on peer observation should not be
restricted to the formal recording of class-based teaching activity, but can
include wider observation of learning and teaching practice, moderation,
feedback to markers on their feedback to students, and peer teaching. The
emphasis should be on surfacing good practice.

3.10 Summary of key issues arising from the annual monitoring and review of
quality and standards and implications for enhancement (a summary of key
issues arising from sections 3.1 to 3.9)
4. Enhancement and Good Practice
4.1 Update on any developments to the College Learning and Teaching Strategy
and related School/University strategies
Reference: University Learning Teaching and Enhancement Strategy:
http://www.docs.sasg.ed.ac.uk/AcademicServices/Policies/Learning_Teaching_and_Enhanc
ement_Strategy.pdf
4.2 Update on activities in support of QAA Enhancement Themes (relating to
current and previous Enhancement Themes)
Reference: Current Enhancement Theme to summer 2014, ‘Developing and Supporting the
Curriculum’.
http://www.enhancementthemes.ac.uk/enhancement-themes/developing-and-supportingthe-curriculum
Previous Enhancement Themes:
http://www.enhancementthemes.ac.uk/enhancement-themes/completed-enhancementthemes
4.3 If not already addressed in the College Learning and Teaching Strategy, the
report should also include reflections on the effectiveness of the College’s
approach to:
4.3.1 Graduate attributes and employability, highlighting examples of
good practice.
Reference: Employability Initiative: http://www.employability.ed.ac.uk/What/
4.3.2 Pastoral and Academic Support. To include reflection on
progress towards implementing strands of the Enhancing
Student Support Project and to include comment on the status
of the ‘Pastoral and Academic Support Standards and Guiding
Principles’.
Reference: Pastoral and Academic Support Standards and Guiding Principles:
http://www.docs.sasg.ed.ac.uk/AcademicServices/Policies/Academic_Pastoral_Support_Sta
ndards_Guiding_Principles.pdf
Enhancing Student Support: https://www.wiki.ed.ac.uk/display/PESS/Home
4.3.3 Assessment and Feedback: how key trends arising from
feedback are being addressed. Key themes emerging from the
survey on feedback practice completed by Schools in relation
to the ‘Feedback Standards and Guiding Principles’.
Reference: Feedback Standards and Guiding Principles:

http://www.docs.sasg.ed.ac.uk/AcademicServices/Policies/Feedback_Standards_Guiding_P
rinciples.pdf
4.3.4 Equality and Diversity, including engagement with and actions
in support of the University Equality and Diversity Strategy and
Action Plan. University Equality and Diversity and actions in
support of meeting the objectives; and Accessible Learning,
including a reflection on mainstreaming adjustments and
implementation of best practice and the framework for
monitoring, evaluating and revising processes and future
progress, meeting needs of e-learning students and studiobased
practice where relevant.
References: Equality and Diversity Strategy and Action Plan:
http://www.docs.csg.ed.ac.uk/EqualityDiversity/Strategy.pdf
Accessible Learning: http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/institute-academicdevelopment/learning-teaching/staff/advice/courses/topics/accessible-learning
4.3.5 The physical and digital learning and teaching environments.
To include a reflection on their impact on the student learning
experience and provision of teaching.
4.3.6 Internationalisation: a reflection on any international practice or
discipline reference points which have informed the College’s
or Schools’ approach to learning & teaching strategies and
enhancements including to the student experience.
4.4 Summary of enhancement and good practice for sharing across Colleges.
Please include links to relevant material where available.
5. Forward Look
5.1 Summary of recommendations for action by Schools, the College or other
University departments arising from the Annual Report
5.2 Identification of themes to be taken forward by the College (progress on
these to be reported in section 2 of the report in the following year)
Appendices
Include as appendices the following (either as hard copy or via url):
Remit and membership of the College QAE Committees
Data on student performance (i.e. College-level overview of aggregated data
presented in a way meaningful for the College, and highlighting areas for attention,
which could be School-based)
TPR/PPR Responses
List of External Examiners: taught and PGR.
PSRB accreditations
Keywords
School, quality, assurance, enhancement, annual report

DOCUMENT CONTROL
Date approved
Approving authority
Senate Quality Assurance Committee
Consultation undertaken Senate Quality Assurance Committee
Equality Impact Assessment October 2012
Date of commencement October 2012
Amendment dates
Date for next review May 2013
Section responsible for Academic Services
policy maintenance & review
Related Policies, Procedures School Annual Quality Assurance and Enhancement
Guidance & Regulations Reporting 2011/12; Others as noted throughout policy.
Guidance superseded by this
Guidance
College Annual Quality Assurance and Enhancement
Reporting 2011/12

QAC: 25.10.12
H/02/28/02
The University of Edinburgh
QAC 12/13 2 F
Senatus Quality Assurance Committee
Thursday 25 th October 2012
External Examining On-line Reporting Overview
Brief description of the paper, including a statement of relevance to the University's strategic
plans and priorities
This paper sets out the planned activity and deadlines for the External Examining On-line
Reporting Scoping Project.
Aligns with the “Excellence with Education” priority within the Strategic Plan 2012-16.
Action requested
For Information
Resource implications
Does the paper have resource implications? No, resource implications will be considered as
part of the proposal to IS.
Risk Assessment
Does the paper include a risk analysis? No
Equality and Diversity
Does the paper have equality and diversity implications? No
Originator of the paper
Anne-Marie O’Mullane
Academic Policy Officer
Academic Services
Freedom of information
Can this paper be included in open business? Yes
Any other relevant information, including keywords
External Examiner Reporting, On-line, Proposal, IS

External Examining On-line Reporting Scoping Project 2012/2013
September ‘12 October ‘12 November ‘12 December ‘12 January ‘13
College Consultation on current processes for external examiner reporting
Consultation with two Schools from each College
Meet with Senate Office of Glasgow University re external examiner reporting system
Meet with Head of SACS and Business Enhancement Process Team
Submission to IS of proposal including project title, sponsor, brief summary with reasons
why the project should go ahead.
Submission to be categorised by Sponsor as C (Compliance) or D (Discretionary) 16 Nov ‘12
Submission to be categorised by Sponsor as S (Small), M (Medium), L (Large) 23 Nov ‘12
Submission of full proposal 21 Dec ‘12
Estimation of effort for Proposals 21 Jan ‘13
Final Changes to Proposal, Identify if proposal requires additional resources or funding,
Identify any hardware and other IT equipment required for proposal which may
potentially qualify for ISC funding 25 Jan ‘13

QAC: 25.10.12
H/02/28/02
QAC 12/13 2 G
The University of Edinburgh
Senatus Quality Assurance Committee
Thursday 25 October 2012
Annual Report on Student Discipline 2011/12
Brief description of the paper, including a statement of relevance to the University's strategic
plans and priorities
The paper contains information on the number of students having committed a disciplinary
offence over the course of the 2011/12 academic year.
The paper is relevant to the University’s Strategic Goal of ‘Excellence in Education’.
Action requested
For information.
Resource implications
Does the paper have resource implications? No.
Risk Assessment
Does the paper include a risk analysis? No.
Equality and Diversity
Does the paper have equality and diversity implications? No.
Originator of the paper
David Robinson
Registry Academic Services
October 2012
Freedom of information
Can this paper be included in open business? Yes
Keywords
Student Discipline, Academic Misconduct, Plagiarism

The University of Edinburgh
Senate Quality Assurance Committee – 25 October 2012
Annual Report on Student Discipline 2011/12
1. Introduction
1.1 This report provides information on the number of students found to have committed
a disciplinary offence over the course of the academic year 2011/12, as well as details of the
nature of the offences committed. Some historical data relating to previous academic years
is included for comparison.
2. General Disciplinary Offences
2.1 Appendix 1 provides details of the number of students who have been disciplined
over the past five years grouped according to the category of the offence committed as
determined by the University Code of Discipline. The total number of disciplinary cases
continues to involve a very small proportion of the student population. In 2011/12, the figure
remained below one per cent.
2.2 There remain two disciplinary cases relating to 2011/12 that are currently under
investigation and do not appear in these figures.
3. Offences dealt with by Accommodation Services
3.1 Around 56 per cent of offences (categories 6 and 10) were dealt with by
Accommodation Services. The vast majority of these offences were incidents that involved
smoking or tampering with smoke alarms in breach of the University’s Health and Safety
Policy in relation to fire safety.
3.2 The penalties imposed as a result of these breaches of discipline involved formal
warnings and fines.
4. Offences relating to Academic Misconduct
4.1 Around 42 per cent of offences related to academic misconduct (category 8).
Academic Misconduct is defined as plagiarism, collusion, falsification of data, cheating in an
examination, deceit or personation. The vast majority of these incidents involved plagiarism.
Again, the total number of academic misconduct cases continues to involve a very small
proportion of the student population. In 2011/12, the figure was below a half of one per cent.
4.2 The penalties imposed as a result of these breaches of discipline involved formal
warnings and mark penalties.
4.3 Appendix 2 provides details of these offences broken down by College for 2011/12
and the two previous years. It also shows the totals for plagiarism only.
David Robinson
Registry Academic Services
18 October 2012

APPENDIX 1
Number of Students Subject to Disciplinary Action Grouped by Academic
Year and by Category of Offence
Offence 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
1: Disruption of activities of the
0 0
0 3
University
0
2: Obstruction or improper interference
with the functions, duties or activities of a 0 0 0 0 0
student, member of staff or visitor
3: Violent, indecent, disorderly,
threatening or offensive behaviour
5 3 4 0 0
4: Infringement of freedom of thought or
expression whilst on University premises 0 0 0 0 0
or engaged in University activity
5: Fraud, deceit, deception or dishonesty 0 0 0 1 1
6: Action likely to cause injury or impair
safety in the vicinity of University
76 117 158 103 130
premises
7: Breach of any Code or University rule
of regulation
0 0 0 0 0
8: Examination offences, including
academic misconduct
121 176 139 97 131
9: Damaging or defacing University
property
11 0 0 0 3
10: Misuse or unauthorised use of
University premises or property,
48 51 81 61 48
including computer misuse
11: Conduct which constitutes a criminal
offence
0 10 2 0 0
12: Behaviour which brings the
University into disrepute
0 0 0 0 0
13: Failure to disclose name and other
relevant details to an officer of the
University when there was reasonable
0 0 0 0 0
requirement for the information
14: Failure to comply with a previously
imposed penalty
0 0 0 0 0
15: Making of false and malicious reports
of malpractice which are proved
0 0 0 0 0
unfounded
16: {In relation to students training for a
professional qualification} Conduct which
renders that student not fit to be
0 0 0 0 0
admitted to that profession or calling
17: Misconduct prior to enrolment 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 261 343 384 262 313
NB: Offences are categorised according to the list of offences set out in full in the
University’s General Statement on Student Discipline. See http://www.ed.ac.uk/schoolsdepartments/academic-services/staff/discipline/code-discipline

APPENDIX 2
Number of Students Disciplined for Academic Misconduct Grouped by
College
College
HSS MVM SCE Grand Total
2009/10 63 14 62 139
2010/11 48 19 30 97
2011/12 74 26 31 131
Number of Students Disciplined for Plagiarism Grouped by College
College
HSS MVM SCE Grand Total
2009/10 58 14 49 121
2010/11 43 19 28 90
2011/12 66 22 27 115

QAC: 25.10.12
H/02/28/02
QAC 12/13 2 I
Brief description of the paper
The University of Edinburgh
Senatus Quality Assurance Committee
25 October 2012
QAA Code of Practice Chapter 11 Research Degrees
The paper outlines the University of Edinburgh’s recommended practice and expected standards in the
management of Research Degrees in line with the QAA Code of Practice Chapter 11 Research Degrees.
Action Requested
For information. Senatus Researcher Experience Committee are considering and discussing the paper
further.
Resource implications
None.
Equality and Diversity
Does the paper have equality and diversity implications? No.
Freedom of Information
Can this paper be included in open business? Yes.
Originator of the paper
Academic Services
September 2012

The University of Edinburgh
Indicators of sound practice:
QAA Code of Practice - Chapter 11 Research Degrees
This code of practice (Code) outlines the University of Edinburgh’s recommended practice and expected standards in the management of Research Degrees.
QAA Indicators of sound practice
1 Higher education providers that are research
degree awarding bodies have regulations for
research degrees that are clear and readily
available to research students and staff, including
examiners.
The University of Edinburgh mapping to the QAA Indicators
University’s Degree Regulations and Programmes of Study and the Postgraduate Assessment Regulations for
Research Degrees are available on the Registry Academic Services website.
Postgraduate Assessment Regulations for Research Degrees Academic year 2012-13
http://www.docs.sasg.ed.ac.uk/AcademicServices/Regulations/PGR_AssessmentRegulations.PDF
Doctoral and MPhil Thesis Assessment Process Flowchart
http://www.docs.sasg.ed.ac.uk/AcademicServices/regulations/Doctoral_and_MPhil_thesis_assessment_proces
s_flowchart.pdf
The University of Edinburgh: Guidelines for the Examination of Research Degrees
http://www.docs.sasg.ed.ac.uk/AcademicServices/Guidance/Research_Degrees_Examination_Guidelines.pdf
Regulatory Standards for the Format and Binding of a thesis
http://www.docs.sasg.ed.ac.uk/AcademicServices/regulations/Thesis_Binding_PGR.pdf
Where appropriate, regulations are supplemented
by similarly accessible, subject-specific guidance
at the level of the faculty, school, department,
research centre or research institute.
The University’s Course and Degree Finder: http://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/postgraduate/degrees
gives School related information on: research profile; training and support; facilities and funding. It can be
further drilled down to subject specific handbooks and guidance.
2 Higher education providers develop, implement
and keep under review codes of practice for
research degrees, which are widely applicable
and help enable the higher education provider
meet the Expectation of this Chapter.
The codes are readily available to all students and
staff involved in research degrees, and written in
clear language understood by all users.
The codes of practice, policies and guidance are reviewed on a regular basis by Academic Services and by the
appropriate Senatus Committees.
Codes and guidance are available on the Academic Services website:
http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/academic-services/students/postgraduate-research

The Code of Practice for Supervisors and Research Students is available in print form from Academic
Services, College and School Offices and on the Academic Services website:
http://www.docs.sasg.ed.ac.uk/AcademicServices/Codes/CoPSupervisorsResearchStudents.pdf
3 Higher education providers monitor their research
degree provision against internal and external
indicators and targets that reflect the context in
which research degrees are being offered.
Postgraduate Research Programmes are included in the School and College Reporting to the Quality
Assurance Committee.
http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/academic-services/quality-unit/quality-assurance/annual-monitoringreporting
The University takes part in the Postgraduate Research Experience Survey (PRES). The next survey takes
place in 2013.
http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/academic-services/staff/postgraduate-surveys
The University benchmarks against the Quality Assurance Agency subject specific and institutional benchmark
statements.
4 Higher education providers accept research
students only into an environment that provides
support for doing and learning about research,
and where excellent research, recognised by the
relevant subject community, is occurring.
The University’s Governance & Strategic Planning website holds relevant information on the University’s
research:
http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/governance-strategic-planning/research
Detailed information on the research environment is available on the University website:
http://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/postgraduate/introduction
and on the College websites:
College of Humanities and Social Sciences
http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/humanities-soc-sci/postgraduate
College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine
http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/medicine-vet-medicine/postgraduate/research/overview
College of Science and Engineering
http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/science-engineering/studying/prosp-research-postgrad
5 Higher education providers' admissions
procedures for research degrees are clear,
consistently applied and demonstrate equality of
opportunity.
6 Only appropriately qualified and prepared
applicants are admitted to research degree
programmes.
The Postgraduate Admissions Guidance is available on the University website:
http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/student-recruitment/admissions-advice
Requirements for entrance are available on the University website:
http://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/postgraduate/applying/before

Admissions decisions involve at least two
members of the higher education provider's staff
who have received training and guidance for the
selection and admission of research degree
students. The decision-making process enables
the higher education provider to assure itself that
balanced and independent admissions decisions
have been made in accordance with its
admissions policy.
The University offers Admissions Decisions software training to new staff:
http://www.euclid.ed.ac.uk/staff/training/PG_Decision_Training.htm
7 Higher education providers define and
communicate clearly the responsibilities and
entitlements of students undertaking research
degree programmes.
Sections three and four of the Code of Practice for Supervisors and Research Students sets out the
responsibilities and entitlements of postgraduate research students.
http://www.docs.sasg.ed.ac.uk/AcademicServices/Codes/CoPSupervisorsResearchStudents.pdf
Postgraduate Research Students are included in the University’s Feedback Standards and Guiding Principles:
http://www.docs.sasg.ed.ac.uk/AcademicServices/Policies/Feedback_Standards_Guiding_Principles.pdf
8 Research students are provided with sufficient
information to enable them to begin their studies
with an understanding of the environment in which
they will be working.
Comprehensive guidance is given on the University’s New Students web site:
http://www.ed.ac.uk/staff-students/students/new-students/new-students
The University, Colleges and Schools hold induction events in Semester 1 and on-going support events
throughout the year. Information is available on:
http://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/postgraduate/open-day
In addition to information provided by Colleges and Schools, the University’s Institute for Academic
Development (IAD) provides a range of support for Doctoral Researchers:
http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/institute-academic-development/postgraduate/doctoral
See Indicator 4, each of the Colleges has a dedicated Doctoral Research website.
9 Higher education providers appoint supervisors
with the appropriate skills and subject knowledge
to support and encourage research students, and
to monitor their progress effectively.
10 Each research student has a supervisory team
containing a main supervisor who is the clearly
identified point of contact.
Section three of the Code of Practice for Supervisors and Research Students sets out the role of Supervisors.
http://www.docs.sasg.ed.ac.uk/AcademicServices/Codes/CoPSupervisorsResearchStudents.pdf
Also see Indicator 3.
See Indicator 9.

11 Higher education providers ensure that the
responsibilities of research student supervisors
are readily available and clearly communicated to
supervisors and students.
The Code of Practice for Supervisors and Research Students sets out the responsibilities of the School,
including the Postgraduate Director (sometimes called a Head of Graduate School) and the members of the
Supervisory Team.
http://www.docs.sasg.ed.ac.uk/AcademicServices/Codes/CoPSupervisorsResearchStudents.pdf
12 Higher education providers ensure that individual
supervisors have sufficient time to carry out their
responsibilities effectively.
13 Higher education providers put in place clearly
defined mechanisms for monitoring and
supporting research student progress, including
formal and explicit reviews of progress at different
stages.
See Indicator 9 and especially section 3.1
See Indicator 3
Postgraduate Research Students are included in the University’s Feedback Standards and Guiding Principles:
http://www.docs.sasg.ed.ac.uk/AcademicServices/Policies/Feedback_Standards_Guiding_Principles.pdf
Research students, supervisors and other
relevant staff are made aware of progress
monitoring mechanisms, including the importance
of keeping appropriate records of the outcomes of
meetings and related activities.
Dissemination of policy, guidance and codes of practice takes place through the Senatus Committees. In
particular, quality assurance models are disseminated through the Colleges’ Dean, Associate Dean and
Director of Quality Assurance, members of the Quality Assurance Committee and the Schools’ Directors of
Quality. Information on Senatus Committees available on:
http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/academic-services/committees
See also the role of the Postgraduate Director or School Postgraduate Group in review mechanism on page 8
and monitoring progress on page 15 of Code of Practice for Supervisors and Research Students.
http://www.docs.sasg.ed.ac.uk/AcademicServices/Codes/CoPSupervisorsResearchStudents.pdf
14 Research students have appropriate opportunities
for developing research, personal and
professional skills.
The Institute for Academic Development has dedicated Researcher: Career Skills and Development web
pages:
http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/institute-academic-development/research-roles
and each of the Colleges has a dedicated Doctoral Research websites:
College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine
http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/institute-academicdevelopment/postgraduate/doctoral/courses/medicine-veterinary-medicine
College of Science and Engineering
http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/institute-academicdevelopment/postgraduate/doctoral/courses/science-engineering

College of Humanities and Social Sciences
http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/institute-academicdevelopment/postgraduate/doctoral/courses/humanities-social-science
Each research student's development needs are
identified and agreed jointly by the student and
appropriate staff at the start of the degree; these
are regularly reviewed and updated as
appropriate.
15 Higher education providers put in place
mechanisms to collect, review and respond as
appropriate to evaluations from those concerned
with research degrees, including individual
research students and groups of research
students or their representatives. Evaluations are
considered openly and constructively and the
results are communicated appropriately.
See, in particular, the Principal Supervisor’s duties on pages 9 and 10 and section 4.5 of the Code of Practice
for Supervisors and Research Students.
http://www.docs.sasg.ed.ac.uk/AcademicServices/Codes/CoPSupervisorsResearchStudents.pdf
See indicator 3.
The Colleges and Schools report annually to the College Quality Assurance Committees on the quality
assurance of postgraduate research provision.
http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/academic-services/quality-unit/quality-assurance/annual-monitoringreporting
Each Research Student has formal, noted meetings with their Supervisor as laid out in the policy on Quality
Assurance, Monitoring and Reporting of Postgraduate Research Provision:
http://www.docs.sasg.ed.ac.uk/AcademicServices/Policies/Quality_Assurance_Reporting_Postgraduate_Rese
arch_Provision.pdf
16 Higher education providers that are research
degree awarding bodies use criteria for assessing
research degrees that enable them to define their
academic standards and the achievements of
their graduates. The criteria used to assess
research degrees are clear and readily available
to research students, staff and examiners.
17 Research degree final assessment procedures
are clear and are operated rigorously, fairly and
consistently. They include input from an external
examiner and are carried out to a reasonable
timescale. Assessment procedures are
communicated clearly to research students,
supervisors and examiners.
See Indicator 1.
See, in particular, pages 2 and 22 of the Code of Practice for Supervisors and Research Students identifies
relevant University Regulations and Examination procedure.
http://www.docs.sasg.ed.ac.uk/AcademicServices/Codes/CoPSupervisorsResearchStudents.pdf
University’s Degree Regulations and Programmes of Study and the Postgraduate Assessment Regulations for
Research Degrees are available on the Registry Academic Services website. Their existence is highlighted in
the Code of Practice for Supervisors and Research Students; see indicator 16.
Postgraduate Assessment Regulations for Research Degrees Academic Year 2012-13
http://www.docs.sasg.ed.ac.uk/AcademicServices/Regulations/PGR_AssessmentRegulations.PDF
Doctoral and MPhil Thesis Assessment Process Flowchart
http://www.docs.sasg.ed.ac.uk/AcademicServices/regulations/Doctoral_and_MPhil_thesis_assessment_proces
s_flowchart.pdf

The University of Edinburgh: Guidelines for the Examination of Research Degrees
http://www.docs.sasg.ed.ac.uk/AcademicServices/Guidance/Research_Degrees_Examination_Guidelines.pdf
Principles of Assessment
http://www.docs.sasg.ed.ac.uk/AcademicServices/Regulations/Principles_of_Assessment.PDF
18 Higher education providers put in place and
promote independent and formal procedures for
dealing with complaints and appeals that are fair,
clear to all concerned, robust, and applied
consistently. The acceptable grounds for
complaints and appeals are clearly defined.
Appeals are handled by Registry Academic Services, information available on:
www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/academic-services/students/postgraduate-research/academic-appeals
Complaints are handled by Student and Academic Services Group:
http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/student-academic-services/student-complaint-procedure/complaintprocedure
Further advice is available to Postgraduate Research students from the EUSA academic team, contact details
on website:
www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/advice/academic-advice/
Procedures are highlighted in Section 7 of the Code of Practice for Supervisors and Research Students:
http://www.docs.sasg.ed.ac.uk/AcademicServices/Codes/CoPSupervisorsResearchStudents.pdf

QAC: 25.10.12
H/02/28/02
The University of Edinburgh
QAC 12/13 2 J
Senatus Quality Assurance Committee
Thursday 25 th October 2012
Assuring the Quality of the Student Experience Task Group
Brief description of the paper, including a statement of relevance to the University's strategic
plans and priorities
The paper provides an update on the work to date of phase 2 of the Assuring the Quality of
the Student Experience task group.
The paper is relevant to the Strategic Plan goal of ‘excellence in education’.
Action requested
For information.
Resource implications
Does the paper have resource implications? Yes. These have been approved by relevant
committees.
Risk Assessment
Does the paper include a risk analysis? No.
Equality and Diversity
Does the paper have equality and diversity implications? Improved understanding of the
student experience is likely benefit equality and diversity considerations.
Originator of the paper
Dr Linda Bruce
Academic Services
Freedom of information
Can this paper be included in open business? Yes.
Any other relevant information, including keywords
Student experience, quality assurance, student surveys, Code of Practice on Learning from
and Responding to the Student Voice, Assuring the Quality of the Student Experience task
group, National Student Survey, NSS, Student Surveys Coordinator.

The University of Edinburgh
Senate Quality Assurance Committee – 25 October 2012
Assuring the Quality of the Student Experience Task Group Update
The University Court has recently endorsed a range of actions aimed at improving the
University’s scores in the NSS. The task group convener has been asked to lead on
developing a virtual survey entity which would focus on holistic surveying of students, with a
timeline of 3 years in the first instance. The aim is to improve understanding of the overall
student experience and particular pressure points within it, particularly in relation to the
earlier years, and how to effect change.
Under proposals recently approved by Central Management Group the task group will be
responsible for developing a survey for delivery in Semester 2 2012/13 on a similar
timescale to the NSS. The scheduling of the task group’s work under its original remit will
therefore be adjusted, with work on course evaluation being rescheduled to later in the
group’s life. A Student Surveys Coordinator will be appointed to support the development of
a Student Survey Unit and to oversee the end-to-end coordination of a range of activities
associated with surveys of the student experience.
The 3 year timeline for survey development will be:
Year 1 – develop internal surveys
Year 2 – consideration of how to bring together all relevant internal and external
surveys
Year 3 – standardising course and programme evaluations to allow for benchmarking
Work strands for Semester 1 2012/13 will therefore be:
Evaluation of options for delivery of an online survey and analysis of results
Development of core survey content for delivery in Semester 2 2012/13. This will
include drawing on current and best practice across the University. The immediate
focus is undergraduate students. Longer term the survey will cover all students
The task group will act as an initial steering group for the University overview of
survey activity until the Student Surveys Coordinator is in post.
Work strands for Semester 2 2012/13:
Development of University Code of Practice on Learning from and Responding to the
Student Voice
Further work on identifying current and best practice
Overall University approach to surveying students
Compliance with UK Quality Code Chapter B5: Student Engagement
Linda Bruce
15 October 2012

QAC: 25.10.12
H/02/28/02
QAC 12/13 2 K
The University of Edinburgh
Senatus Quality Assurance Committee
Thursday 25 th October 2012
College Annual Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee Reports
and Internal Review Reports and Responses
-Assignment of Readers
Brief description of the paper, including a statement of relevance to the University's strategic
plans and priorities
This paper sets out the assignment of readers for the College Annual Quality Assurance and
Enhancement Committee Reports and Internal Review Reports and Responses. The paper
is relevant to the University’s Strategic Goal of ‘excellence in education’ and the Strategic
Theme of ‘Outstanding student experience’
Action requested
For discussion.
Resource implications
Does the paper have resource implications? No
Risk Assessment
Does the paper include a risk analysis? No
Equality and Diversity
Does the paper have equality and diversity implications? No
Originator of the paper
Gillian Mackintosh, Academic Policy Officer, Academic Services
Freedom of information
Can this paper be included in open business? Yes
Any other relevant information, including keywords
College annual reports, internal review reports and responses, TPR, PPR,

Senatus Quality Assurance Committee
College Annual Quality Reports- assignment of readers
Date of QAC meeting
Deadline date of
reports to Readers
Deadline for
Reader’s
comments to QAC
18 th April 2013 15 th March 2013 29 th March 2013
College Lead Reporter Reader Notes
CHSS Karen Chapman Gordon McDougall Please note that the
CMVM Shereen Benjamin Stephen Osborne deadline date has
CSE John Lowrey Jeremy Bradshaw been set earlier this
year to allow time
for lead readers to
collate comments
for circulation to the
committee.
Internal Review Reports and Responses –assignment of readers
College Lead Reporter Reader Notes
CHSS Stephen Warrington Andrew Burnie & Karen Chapman Extra readers required for CHSS due to the
number of reviews during 2012/13
CMVM Gordon McDougall John Lowrey
CSE Stephen Osbourne Erin Jackson

H/02/28/02
QAC: 25.10.12
QAC 12/13 2 L
The University of Edinburgh
Senatus Quality Assurance Committee
Electronic Business
25 October 2012
University Response to QAA Consultation on Management of Collaborative
Arrangements
Brief description of the paper, including a statement of relevance to the University's strategic
plans and priorities
This paper details the University’s response to the QAA consultation on the Management of
Collaborative Arrangements. The paper is relevant to the University’s Strategic Goals of
‘Excellence in Education’ and ‘Excellence in Innovation’.
Action requested
For Information.
Resource implications
Does the paper have resource implications? No.
Risk Assessment
Does the paper include a risk analysis? No.
Equality and Diversity
Does the paper have equality and diversity implications? No.
Originator of the paper
David Robinson, Registry Academic Services, 18 October 2012.
Freedom of information
Can this paper be included in open business? Yes.
Any other relevant information, including keywords
UK Quality Code, QAA, collaborative arrangements, collaborative provision.
A comment need only be submitted to raise an objection/suggest corrections. If no
observations are received Senate Quality Assurance Committee will approve the University
Response to QAA Consultation on Management of Collaborative Arrangements. In this
context any comments on this paper should be emailed to Gillian.Mackintosh@ed.ac.uk
quoting “comment on QAC 12/13 2 L” for discussion at the meeting of Senate Quality
Assurance Committee.

The University of Edinburgh
Senate Quality Assurance Committee – 25 October 2012
University Response to QAA Consultation on Management of Collaborative
Arrangements
1.1 The QAA is currently is consulting on Chapter B10 of the UK Quality Code which deals
with the management of collaborative arrangements. The deadline for submission of
responses is Friday 19 October, so it has not been possible for the University’s draft
response to be considered by the Committee.
1.2 The consultation document was circulated to members of the Committee and other
interested parties within the University at the end of August. Responses were collated by
Registry Academic Services. Appendix 1 gives details of the questions asked in the
consultation and, in red, the University’s response.
David Robinson
Registry Academic Services
18 October 2012

UK Quality Code for Higher Education Chapter B10: Management of
collaborative arrangements
Consultation Survey- QUESTIONS ONLY version
APPENDIX 1
UK Quality Code: Chapter B10 Management of collaborative arrangements
Consultation Survey
UK Quality Code for Higher Education, Chapter B10: Management of
collaborative arrangements
Welcome to the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) consultation
on Chapter B10: Management of collaborative arrangements of the UK Quality Code
for Higher Education.
The focus of this Chapter of the Quality Code is on the responsibilities of degreeawarding
bodies and other higher education providers which manage collaborative
arrangements for the provision of higher education either within the UK or overseas.
We hope that this consultation process will generate lively debate and discussions
about the key principles of managing collaborative arrangements across the full
range of collaborative activity which is involved in providing UK higher education
both within the UK and overseas. We are keen to receive feedback which can be
used to produce a final publication that is of value and relevance to all potential
users.
We welcome contributions to this consultation from anyone in higher education in the
UK with an interest in the management of collaborative arrangements, including
representatives from all four countries; from prospective, current and past students;
from staff from the full range of higher education providers, including staff who have
responsibilities for managing collaborative arrangements (including placements), and
staff who teach or who support learning and teaching in such arrangements; from
employers who engage, or seek to establish links with, higher education providers;
from Professional Statutory and Regulatory Bodies (PSRBs) and employer
representative bodies.
To answer the consultation questions, please refer back to the consultation
document and the relevant Indicators. The consultation questions are ordered as
follows:
1. Your overall impressions of the Chapter (including suggestions for
additional Indicators)
2. The Expectation
3. The Indicators of sound practice in detail
4. Further comments.

If you intend to give full answers to our questions, and/or if you would like to work
through them in a different order, we recommend that you write and save your
answers separately then copy them into the survey, as responses need to be
completed in one sitting. A link to the consultation survey can be found belowhttp://www.surveymonkey.com/s/UKQCHE_B10_Management_of_collaborative
_arrangements
Once the survey is submitted you will not be able to change your answers.
The consultation will close on Friday 19 October 2012.
Any questions about the consultation can be sent to qualitycode@qaa.ac.uk
Thank you for your interest.
1. NAME
David Robinson
2. PROVIDER/ORGANISATION NAME
University of Edinburgh
3. ARE YOU RESPONDING TO THE CONSULTATION AS:
Student/prospective student
Student representative at your university/college
Staff in HE (non-academic)
Staff in HE (academic)
Staff in HE in a quality related role
From an HE sector body (civil servant)
From an HE sector body (not a civil servant)
Professional Statutory and Regulatory Body (PSRB)
Parent/guardian
Staff in school/college
Careers adviser in school/college
Member of Parliament
QAA auditor/reviewer/secretary
Other On behalf of the University
Chapter B10: Management of collaborative arrangements - Overview
5. Does this Chapter adequately reflect the developments which have taken
place in collaborative activities since the 2004 edition was published so that it
reflects the diversity of collaborative arrangements taking place in
contemporary higher education?
The University is currently involved in developing a collaboration to support
the credit rating of courses, carried out by a non-HE provider. This Chapter

would appear to not cover such types of collaboration, however we do
recognise that the code cannot cover all types of collaboration and it may be
best to limit it to collaborations which lead or contribute to academic credit or
a qualification of a degree-awarding body.
6. This Chapter will replace the Code of practice for the assurance of academic
quality and standards in higher education (the Code of practice) Section 2:
Collaborative provision and flexible and distributed learning (including e-
learning) (2010), and relevant parts of the Code of practice, Section 9: Workbased
and placement learning (2007). Does it adequately capture the relevant
content of these two documents?
We found the new Chapter to be helpful and informative. We welcome the
reduced number of indicators.
7. The definition of 'collaborative provision' in former Section 2 has been
amended by the removal of references to 'specific' credit and to make it clearer
that it embraces small volumes of learning as well as whole programmes.
Does the definition of 'collaborative arrangements' potentially embrace all
forms of collaboration in educational provision?
We find the Chapter to be more inclusive.
8. Does this Chapter make it sufficiently clear that, although any form of
collaborative activity is the subject of this Chapter, the procedures and
processes used for the approval and oversight of the arrangements will be
variable and should be proportionate to the risks involved, and to the scale
and complexity of the activity.
This approach is welcome and sensible, given the range of collaborations that
could be encompassed by the code. This approach is made clear in several
places in the consultation. However, the balance between quality and
proportionality at times appears too skewed towards assurance and may go
beyond what is necessary. For example:
Responsibilities of the degree- awarding body (page 4)
“However, they [degree-awarding bodies] ensure that their partners have an
explicit understanding both of the Chapter of the Quality Code relevant to the
collaboration, and of the respective responsibilities of the degree-awarding
body and partner organisation(s) in addressing the relevant Expectations and
Indicators of sound practice.”
This point regarding ensuring that partners have an explicit understanding of
the chapter of the quality code relevant to the collaboration, could be seen to
be unnecessary, if we are referring to collaborations with other UK HEIs.
Negotiating, agreeing and managing a collaborative arrangement (page 12)
“Collaborative arrangements are therefore properly costed and accounted for
accurately and fully.”

The above sentence could be disproportionate to smaller types of
collaborations. For whilst collaborations should be properly costed, is it
realistic and necessary to expect that these will be accounted for fully?
Responsibility for, and equivalence of, academic standards (page 20)
Where a degree-awarding body validated programmes leading to the same
qualification offered by different partners and with different curricula, it
ensures that the standards of the different programmes are equivalent to each
other and equivalent to the standards of the degree-awarding body’s other
programmes leading to qualifications at the same level.”
Could “equivalent” be changed to “comparable” as an exact match will be
difficult to achieve.
9. This revised Chapter is intended to apply not only to degree-awarding
bodies but also to other higher education providers without degree-awarding
powers which manage a collaborative activity (such as a placement). However,
some responsibilities are reserved for degree-awarding bodies alone.
a) Is it sufficiently clear that the Chapter applies to any higher education
provider involved in managing a collaborative arrangement?
Yes. There could be a summary page at the start of the chapter in bullets
summarising: who is the chapter aimed at? What does it cover?
b) Does the text adequately and appropriately distinguish the specific
responsibilities expected of degree-awarding bodies?
The text is clear and distinguishes the specific responsibilities expected of the
degree awarding body. Perhaps to draw these out further, there could be a list
of responsibilities of degree awarding bodies underneath the indicators of
sound practice.
c) Does the terminology make it clear that references to higher education
providers in this Chapter refer to these providers in their capacity of managing
collaborative arrangements rather than in their role as partners of degreeawarding
bodies?
Yes – however an appendix defining each group might be beneficial.
10. Do the Indicators of sound practice in this Chapter adequately set out what
degree-awarding bodies or other higher education providers managing
collaborative arrangements might do to meet the Chapter Expectation? Are
any aspects missing?
Generally yes.

In indicator 2, it may be useful to provide some guidance to partner institutions
about how they should fit their policies and procedures for negotiation and
approval with the policies and procedures for the degree awarding body (i.e.
they should comply with the procedures required by the degree awarding body
and fit these into their internal procedures). Also under this indicator there is a
reference to the Companies Act – could it be summarised in the text what part
of the Act should these activities comply with.
The list on pages 16 &17 could also include:
insurance and indemnity; graduation arrangements; statistical requirements;
matriculation arrangements; who monitors progress; financial arrangements;
student appeal, complaints and discipline; language issues; health and safety
(especially for work placements).
The list of sources looks useful, would it be possible to have examples of best
practice also included?
11. Do you agree with the order in which the Indicators have been arranged?
Could indicator 4 & 6 be combined as they both refer to similar points (legal
powers of a degree awarding body to issue an award and the legal status of
partners).
12. Are any additional sub-headings within the explanatory text to the
Indicators necessary (for example to signpost text relating to collaboration on
research degrees or joint awards)?
See answer to 9b, a summary list of responsibilities after each indicator would
be helpful.
Chapter B10: Management of collaborative arrangements - Expectation
The Quality Code sets out the following Expectation about the management of
collaborative arrangements, which degree-awarding bodies and higher education
providers are required to meet:
Degree-awarding bodies and other higher education providers implement and
manage collaborative arrangements effectively. Degree-awarding bodies take
ultimate responsibility for the academic standards and quality of learning
opportunities delivered irrespective of where these take place or who provides
them.
13. Do you agree with the wording of the Expectation for this Chapter?
Yes, but we would like to see the two sentences appear in reverse order.

Indicators of sound practice: Strategy and governance
The Chapter sets out the following Indicators about 'Strategy and governance.'
Indicator 1:Degree-awarding bodies and other higher education providers adopt a
strategic approach to collaborative activity and are clear about its fit with their
missions, academic portfolios and corporate plans.
Indicator 2: Governance arrangements at appropriate levels are in place for all
types of collaborative activity and collaborative arrangements are negotiated, agreed
and managed in accordance with the formally stated policies and procedures of the
degree- awarding body.
Indicator 3: Policies and procedures ensure that there are adequate safeguards
against financial impropriety or conflicts of interest that might compromise academic
standards or the quality of learning opportunities
Indicator 4: Degree-awarding bodies that engage with other authorised awarding
bodies to provide a programme of study leading to a joint academic award satisfy
themselves that they have the legal capacity to do so.
The questions below relate to these four Indicators.
14. Do you agree with the wording of these Indicators?
Yes for 1-3. Could indicator 4 be broadened out to cover the scenario where a
degree awarding body is providing a single award but where collaborative
partners are contributing, for example by providing one course?
15. Do you have any suggestions for additional explanatory text or signposts
to further information it may be helpful to include?
Explanatory text: In relation to indicator 1, the strategic importance of
collaborative provision should be a matter for the institution to determine. For
some institutions it might have more strategic relevance than for others.
Perhaps the guidance could indicate this. Whether or not collaborative
arrangements feature highly in the strategic plan, they should be governed
appropriately. Hence the governance is perhaps more important.
Signpost to: Further and Higher Education Scotland Act 2005.
Indicators: Negotiating, agreeing and managing a collaborative arrangement
The Chapter sets out the following Indicators about 'Negotiating, agreeing and
managing a collaborative arrangement.'

Indicator 5:Degree-awarding bodies and other higher education providers assess
the risks of each collaborative arrangement and review these subsequently on a
periodic basis. They determine, and put in place, appropriate safeguards to manage
the risks of their various arrangements.
Indicator 6: Degree-awarding bodies and other higher education providers
determine appropriate due diligence procedures for each collaborative arrangement
and implement these periodically to satisfy themselves about the capacity of the
partner organisation to fulfil its designated role in the proposed arrangement. This
investigation includes the legal status of the partner, and its capacity in law to
contract with the degree-awarding body.
Indicator 7: There is a written agreement or contract setting out the rights and
obligations of the parties which is regularly monitored and reviewed. It is signed by
the authorised representatives of the degree-awarding body or other higher
education provider and by the partner organisation(s) before students are admitted.
Indicator 8: The agreement or contract makes it clear that any serial arrangement
may be undertaken only with the express written permission of the degree-awarding
body in each instance. Degree-awarding bodies take responsibility for ensuring that
they retain proper control of the academic standards of awards offered through any
such arrangements.
Indicator 9: Degree-awarding bodies retain responsibility for ensuring that students
admitted to a programme can complete it under their awarding authority in the event
that they wish to terminate a collaborative arrangement or a partner withdraws from
an arrangement.
Indicator 10: All higher education providers maintain records (by type and category)
of all collaborative activity that is subject to a formal agreement.
The questions below relate to these six Indicators.
16. Do you agree with the wording of these Indicators?
Yes, although we would make a point in relation to indicator 9 that sometimes
events outside the control of the institution can lead to a breakdown in a
collaborative arrangement. The institution can only plan so far in such
instances in terms of ensuring students are able to complete their
programmes of studies – so some recognition of this would be useful.
17. Would sub-headings within the list of bullet points in the explanatory text
to Indicator 7 be helpful in order to distinguish the different types of issues to
be addressed?
Yes.

18. Do you have any suggestions for additional explanatory text or signposts
to further information it may be helpful to include?
No.
Indicators: Responsibility for, and equivalence of, academic standards
The Chapter sets out the following Indicators about 'Responsibility for, and
equivalence of, academic standards':
Indicator 11:Degree-awarding bodies take responsibility for the academic standards
of all credit and qualifications granted in their name. This responsibility is never
delegated. Therefore, degree-awarding bodies ensure that the standards of any of
their awards involving collaborative arrangements are consistent with those set for
other awards they confer at the same level and with UK national requirements.
Indicator 12: Degree-awarding bodies inform any professional, statutory and
regulatory body (PSRB) that has approved or recognised a programme or award of
any proposals to collaborate on any aspects of its delivery and of any formal
agreements involving that programme or award. Degree-awarding bodies secure
accreditation for collaborative arrangements where necessary. The status of the
programme in respect of UK PSRB recognition is made clear to prospective
students.
The questions below relate to these two Indicators.
19. Do you agree with the wording of these Indicators?
In relation to Indicator 11, we believe that responsibility is sometimes actually
delegated in a validation arrangement.
20. Do you have any suggestions for additional explanatory text or signposts
to further information it may be helpful to include?
No.
Indicators: Assuring academic standards and the quality of learning
opportunities
The Chapter sets out the following Indicators about ' Assuring academic standards
and the quality of learning opportunities':
Indicator 13: Degree-awarding bodies approves module(s) and programmes
delivered through a collaborative arrangement through processes for assuring quality
and academic standards that are as rigorous, secure and open to scrutiny as those
for programmes provided wholly within the degree-awarding body.

Indicator 14: Degree-awarding bodies clarify which provider is responsible for
admitting a student to modules or programmes involving collaborative arrangements
and ensure that admissions procedures are consistent with their own admissions
policies.
Indicator 15: Degree-awarding bodies ensure that a partner organisation involved in
the assessment of students understands and follows the requirements approved by
the degree-awarding body for the conduct of assessments.
Indicator 16: Degree-awarding bodies retain ultimate responsibility for the
appointment, briefing and functions of external examiners. The external examining
procedures for programmes offered through collaborative arrangements are
consistent with the degree awarding body's usual practices.
Indicator 17: Degree-awarding bodies ensure that modules and programmes
offered through, or involving, collaborative arrangements are monitored and
reviewed effectively through procedures that are consistent with or comparable to
those used for their other provision.
The questions below relate to these five Indicators.
21. Do you agree with the wording of these Indicators?
Yes.
22. Do you have any suggestions for additional explanatory text or signposts
to further information it may be helpful to include?
No.
Indicator : Information for students and partner organisations
The Chapter sets out the following Indicator about 'Information for students and
partner organisations':
Indicator 18: Degree-awarding bodies and other higher education providers produce
relevant information for prospective and current students, and to partner
organisations.
The questions below relate to this Indicator.
23. Do you agree with the wording of this Indicator?
We think it should be broadened so that partner organisations can also
provide this information, if they are delegated that role.

24. Do you have any suggestions for additional explanatory text or signposts
to further information it may be helpful to include?
No.
Indicator: Certificates and records of study
The Chapter sets out the following Indicator about ' Certificates and records of
study':
Indicator 19: Degree-awarding bodies ensure that they have sole authority for
awarding certificates and detailed records of study relating to achievement through
collaborative arrangements.
The certificate and/or record of academic achievement state the principal language
of instruction and/or assessment where this was not English. Subject to any
overriding statutory or other legal provision in any relevant jurisdiction, the certificate
and/or the record of achievement records the name and location of any higher
education provider which is a partner in delivery of the programme of study. Where
information relating to the language of study or to the name and location of the
partner is recorded on the record of achievement only, the certificate refers to the
existence of this formal record.
The questions below relate to this Indicator.
25. In the second paragraph of the Indicator, the requirement for the certificate
and/or the record of achievement to record the name and location of the
partner, 'subject to any overriding statutory or other legal provision' remains
as in the 1999 edition of Section 2 of the Code. Given that the primary function
of certificates is to confirm academic standards achieved, whereas that of
records of academic achievement (such as the HEAR and Diploma
Supplement) is to provide for employers and other stakeholders a more
detailed record of academic achievement and information on the programme
studied , would it be preferable if the phrase ' Subject to any overriding
statutory or other legal provision in the relevant jurisdiction ' were deleted and
the Indicator worded more flexibly so that degree-awarding bodies have the
option of recording this information on the certificate or the record of
achievement?
The alternative text would then read as follows:
'The certificate and/or record of academic achievement state the principal
language of instruction and/or assessment where this was not English. The
certificate or the record of achievement records the name and location of any
higher education provider which is a partner in delivery of the programme of
study.'
Do you agree that the alternative text should be substituted in this Indicator?

We feel that the primary function of the certificate is to confirm academic
standards achieved. The code argues elsewhere that the standards are
equivalent regardless of location of delivery or collaborative arrangement – so
why should there be a need to indicate the location of study. Do we do this for
online programmes? We think that the certificate should confirm the award
and the transcript or HEAR should include other relevant information.
26. Do you agree with the remainder of the wording of this Indicator?
No comment.
27. Do you have any suggestions for additional explanatory text or signposts
to further information it may be helpful to include?
For study abroad, we would ask for clarification as to how we could have “sole
authority” for awarding certificates and records of study?
28. Please use this space for any further comments on the Chapter. There is
NO word limit for this question.
We note that the intention is for the revised guidance to be issued by
Christmas 2012. There will need to a transition period to allow institutions to
digest the new chapter, before they can evidence compliance with it. Can
further information be provided to institutions about by when the QAA expects
institutions to have reviewed and amended their current policies and
procedures, in line with the new code chapter by?

QAC: 25.10.12
H/02/28/02
QAC 12/13 2 N
The University of Edinburgh
Senatus Quality Assurance Committee
Electronic Business
Thursday 25 th October 2012
Senatus Quality Assurance Committee Allocation of Business 2012/13
Brief description of the paper, including a statement of relevance to the University's strategic plans and
priorities
This paper outlines the draft allocation of committee business for 2012/13.
Action requested
For Information and comment.
Resource implications
Does the paper have resource implications? No
Risk Assessment
Does the paper include a risk analysis? No
Equality and Diversity
Does the paper have equality and diversity implications? No
Originator of the paper
Gillian Mackintosh
Academic Policy Officer
Academic Services
Freedom of information
Can this paper be included in open business? Yes
Any other relevant information, including keywords
Quality Assurance Committee, agenda, QAC.
A comment need only be submitted to raise an objection/suggest corrections.
In this context any comments on this paper should be emailed
to Gillian.Mackintosh@ed.ac.uk quoting “comment on Paper N’ for discussion at the meeting of Senate
Quality Assurance Committee.

Senatus Quality Assurance Committee
Allocation of business 2012/13 (working document)
Standard items to be included to cover ELIR 3 expectation that institutions have systematic arrangements for:
Identifying the reference points that are most relevant to the institution’s strategic direction and student population
Identifying changes in the Quality Code, SFC guidance and related key reference points and updating institutional policy and practice
accordingly
Using these reference points in its evaluation and management of institutional policy and practice”
Date of meeting Business Author Comment
25 th Oct 2012
ELIR implementation and progress towards year-on report
Standing agenda item
Consultation Implementation update
Standing agenda item
Report on Chapter B11: Research degrees mapping;
ESS update
Standing agenda item
Report on task group implementation LB For information
Internal review reports or responses
Standing item Outstanding
Annual report on Student Discipline DR For information
Study Abroad and Placements Working group final report
Report received & in electronic folder
Discussion on School on-line course monitoring
Study Abroad Progression Committee report
DR
College Annual Report template
LB
13 th Dec 2012
ELIR implementation and progress towards year-on report
Consultation Implementation update
QAA UK Quality code Revision Chapter B:4
Part C: Information about higher education mapping
Report on Chapter B3: Learning and teaching mapping
Report on Chapter B5: Student Engagement – update on
areas for further development from 12 April 2012 QAC paper I
Appendix. To include University Principles for Staff-Student
Liaison committees.
ESS update
Announce timing of year-on review of Principles for Surveying
Students; School Director of Quality role outline; External
Standing agenda item
Standing agenda item
Standing agenda item
Principles & School Director of Quality role:
September 2013.

Date of meeting Business Author Comment
Examiner Code of Practice & associated material.
EE material: September 2013 but with
College Deans to get feedback from new
School Directors of Quality and to give
verbal update on EE material at May 2013
meeting so that any urgent changes can be
developed over the summer.
Student Charter Forum 25 October: Jean Grier & Irene Bruce
If available by circulation date.
to report if they attended.
Revised UK Quality Code Chapter B10: Management of
collaborative arrangements
Internal review reports or responses
Academic Appeals report
Student Engagement draft statement
Report from International Office on feedback from returning
Year Abroad student survey
Katrina Edmunds IO Arises from ELIR recommendation para 33.
Report to come annually to QAC at
December meeting. LB met Katrina
Edmunds and agreed 9/10/12
Update from School Director of Quality annual meeting
External Examiner fee review
GM
Colleges to be invited to put forward theirs plans for student
College Deans to be contacted
engagement at College level
Update on MOOCS
Study Abroad Progression Committee report
College reporting deadline dates
7 th Feb 2013 ELIR implementation and progress towards year-on report Standing agenda item
Consultation Implementation update
Standing agenda item
Report on Chapter B10: Management of collaborative
arrangements mapping.
ESS update
Standing agenda item
Key reference points
Standing agenda item
Alert College Deans to give verbal update at May meeting on
operation of External Examiner Code of Practice and
associated material prior to year-on review in September
2013.
Ask College Deans via their Quality committees to get
feedback from new School Directors of Quality on the
Internal review reports or responses
Inspiring Teaching Conference report? Depending on timing of
event?

Date of meeting Business Author Comment
Update from IAD meeting on Learning from internal review
18 th April 2013 ELIR implementation and progress towards year-on report Standing agenda item
Consultation Implementation update
Standing agenda item
ESS update
Standing agenda item
Annual College reports (to include an reflection on
Collaborative Provision and ODL/WBL/Placement learning
Codes of Practice introduced
Internal review reports or responses
Inspiring Teaching Conference report? Depending on timing of
event?
Student Support Services Reviews sub-committee reports
Task group updates
Annual review of UoE degree classification data and HESA
benchmark data
Jim Galbraith, GaSP
Also send reports/highlight relevant
extracts/themes to Employability Strategy
Group re graduate attributes/employability
aspects.
Standing agenda item
Relates to Annual College reports item and
informs annual institutional statement to
Scottish Funding Council.
23 rd May 2013 ELIR implementation and progress towards year-on report Standing agenda item
Consultation Implementation update
Standing agenda item
ESS update
Standing agenda item
Review of School Director of Quality role following 1 st year of
implementation
There is a general expectation on QAC in the EIP to ensure all
enhancement processes consider graduate attributes, feeding to
the Strategy Group. QAC to report to the ESG after the April
meeting for themes from College Annual Reports and September
for the annual themes and trends report on internal review activity.
Internal review reports or responses
School and College annual quality report template LB Moved to here from September meeting to
allow Schools longer to respond to any
updates.
Task group reports
Draft committee remit and terms of reference
Annual committee report to Senate
Annual report of the Student Disability committee 2012-13
Report from the Equality and Diversity Committee 2012-13
SSEC annual report

12.10.12