How is feedback about the course given to students?

1. Feedback from students and STAR contributions

2. Review of student feedback (output from Focus Groups) and actions taken including STAR contributions.

The regulation of assessment practices at the University is detailed in the Assessment Guidebook for Staff 2009, which is updated annually. The guidebook outlines the necessary protocols and procedures involved in the assessment of students and is designed to be reviewed in conjunction with the ‘Leeds Beckett University Academic Principles and Regulations, Assurance of academic standards: assessment’ document. The content of the guidebook is detailed below:

1. The purpose of assessment 2. Assessment strategies 3. The assessment brief

4. The submission process including extensions and mitigation 5. Standardisation, marking and moderation

6. Feedback to students and return of work 7. Reassessment 0pportunities

8. Roles and responsibilities of staff and students 9. Standard Operating procedures

10. Quality Assurance Forms

Finally for this section, it is important to illustrate the influence of the consultation process on the curriculum. Feedback from the External and Internal (Alumni) Advisory Groups were particularly valuable in prompting the specific improvements

The course team have regularly been amending modules with minor and major moderations as we constantly strive to deliver improved modules in response to student feedback in annual reviews and industry direction e.g. A creative path of coaching tutorials to enable

55 staff and student integration and understanding. These have also been integrated into each of our employability modules across all 3-levels and with the same tutor throughout the students University lifespan. Various teaching innovations are also used to ‘get the best ‘out of the students and keep them engaged e.g. Contemporary film clips (which have been professionally edited and linked to things like exam board profiles and academic and social life balances).

The level 4 leader uses all of the students’ comments from the enhancement and

development meetings, annual reviews, regular feedback sessions and time-tabled group meetings during the induction week of the following year’s intake where examples of students input can be evidenced against course change.

Level 5, represents a crucial year for the students and this has been recognised and support by the level leader who takes student feedback and comments from the previous year group and shows them to students at start of the year. This helps to reassure them that (a)

feedback is taken seriously and (b) how modules have been improved. The level leader has also introduced a traffic light system for Level 5 students to highlight those at risk as well as those who still need to achieve better grades if they are to reach their desired classification at level 6.

We take our annual review meetings very seriously and continually feed this information into our ongoing work. We have a track record at acting on issues raised and this is reflected in our highly creditable modular evaluations and NSS results, which have increased by 26%

for overall satisfaction of the course (between 2009 and 2010) since then our team has continued to be pro-active on student and industry advice (our overall satisfaction for 2011 was 82%-well above the University’s average). Notably our 2011 results also evidenced a 100% return rate.

It should be noted that the BAHSBM course hold regular level meetings at each level as part of a targeted drive to increase the dissemination of materials and this has been supported by students. These meetings are time-tabled, weekly sessions (and replace the focus group sessions outlines above and below) and include discussions and information sharing such as:

Elective choice, our localised NSS strategy, various Careers and CPD services (e.g. Business start-up grants) and classification meetings. This localised NSS strategy begins 6 weeks prior to the official opening date and allows for weekly review seminars with the students where we address specific issues and help the students to understand exactly what the NSS is asking. Since it’s pilot was approved by Alison Jones, the course has had a 100% return rate (for the last 2 years).

56 7.17 National Student Survey (NSS)

National Student Survey:

The important thing to note from these results is that we received a 94%

level of completion in 2010 and a 100% completion rate for 2011

indicating both a high level of engagement and a high level of accuracy for these results with no student refusing to complete the survey. This is achieved by a specific strategy to engage all students in the evaluation and monitoring process of the course.

Staff are good at explaining things

An overall score of 84 in 2010 and 88 in 2011 evidences that staff are outstanding at explaining things to students and that this is getting better as time goes on. This is regularly targeted by Module Evaluations, regular tutorials and a variety of feedback mechanisms e.g. the use of ‘sounds good’ for audio feedback.

Staff have made the subject interesting

An overall score of 66 in 2010 and 68 in 2011 reflects and increasing high level of attainment for this section but one, which we believe, will be enhanced even further when our new curriculum is taught. Both Students and staff have had to work with a number of modules, which have not been appropriate for a number of years and under the periodic Review of last year and the Undergraduate Refocus this year these have been amended.

Overall, I am satisfied with the quality of my course

An overall score of 80 in 2010 and 82 in 2011 evidences a high level of students’ satisfaction, which is supported by their clear enjoyment of the way in which the course is taught.

I have

An overall score of 91 in 2010 and 83 in 2011 equates to an average of 87 all of which evidences a high level of support for students. This reflects the wide variety of feedback which is supplied and the variety of formats which it takes e.g. e-portfolio, coaching and audio feedback to name a few. It also reflects the ‘student-centred’ approach of the course team and the continued use of regular tutorials and high level of contact in and outside of the curriculum.

Feedback on my work has been prompt

An overall score of 62 in 2010 and 46 in 2011. This latest score reflects the lowest and most disappointing score over the last 2 years. After analysing this the course team believes this to be as a result of specific part-time staff who have been covering specific modules due to increased course numbers (currently the course has doubled its L4 numbers in 2 years and it currently has the projected highest increase for 2012-represented by a 43% increase).

The long-term success of the course means that there is a genuine need for the school to consider the appropriate resourcing of it (regarding staff). Recent staff work allocations have also taken a reduction as staff fulfil new research opportunities and PL roles unfortunately the

ramification of these successes has been to replace this teaching demand with part-time staff which immediately provokes consequences such as unfamiliarity with students, lack of context for marking only roles and a

57 lack of experience in regard to previous knowledge of tutorial students

and the course.

Additional feedback opportunities in the form of our PC3 programme, has since come to fruition with coaching taking place at every level and between levels now. Part-time staff however will be integrated better into course development and modular teams so that they fully

understand the requirements of our students better and engage fully in tutorial systems and coaching and this work has already begun with the PWBL module (2012) which integrated a part-time member of staff with specific seminar tutorial support for students.

Feedback on

An overall score of 61 in 2010 and 61 in 2011 evidences a good level of understanding from feedback but also demonstrates a score, which we aim to increase dramatically. Our strategy for this has in the past to increase the variety and amount of feedback, which we provide as a course team but after these consistent results we are now looking to deliver specific ways of providing students with their feedback. We hope that by running feedback classes across all modules and by putting previous examples of feedback within module handbooks that the students understanding of this feedback will increase.

The library resources are good enough for my needs

An overall score of 93 in 2010 and 95 in 2011. This suggests that the library resources are outstanding and are currently meeting the needs of the students. To ensure this score remains high the academic librarian for the School of Sport will be involved in enhancement and development meetings and annual review meetings to engage with feedback from students to ensure continuation of an excellent service.

I have been

An overall score of 95 in 2010 and 89 in 2011.This suggests that the IT resources are outstanding and are currently meeting the needs of the students. To ensure this score remains high appropriate feedback from enhancement and development meetings and annual review meetings will be presented to the IT department. The course team will continually review the IT provision to assess its suitability and make

recommendations for appropriate equipment and software to the appropriate departments.