Presentation to UG Flex Steering Group 11.10.10 on the problems facing students studying on flexible programmes, and possible solutions

1. Improving the experience of
students on “flexible” programmes –
the problem & possible solutions
11 October 2010
Duncan Reeder & Claire Eustance

2.  Improve & formalise year round
registration
 Enable in-year progression &
reassessment
 Investigate options for supporting
modular curriculum structures

3. School Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
A&C 262 7 3 9 1215 6
Bus 252 365 12 41 2 1 67 1823 183 64 48
CMS
882 2 4 1 13 25 936 12
Edu 214 17 16 7 18 13 6 1 1447 32 1
Eng 189 2 5 2 5 580 54 8
HSC 228 17 168 87 1 2 1153 8 8
Hums 23 1 101 15 873 16 2
IG 17
Pharm 41 21 54 23 53 29 20 88 115 64 44 24
NRI 16 18
PD 27 37 40 16 2 83 83 11 731 3 16 91
Science 174 11 93 18 4 4 984 136 1
Total 2308 470 129 361 185 142 212 227 9892 514 135 172

4.  2008-09 New Entrant Data:
◦ September intake = 9892
◦ January intake = 2308
 37% of Jan intake are Masters students (853)
 80% of Jan Masters students taught on campus (683)
◦ May intake = 185
 47% of May intake are Health students (87) all taught
on campus.

5.  Scrutinised current systems and processes used
to manage January & May starters
 Analysed methods to enable multiple registration
point
 focussed on full time funded students
 focussed on campus-based provision
 recognition of local practice in schools

12. 1. Introduce multiple registration points, with
corresponding progression points: Sept – Jan –
May (& build system capacity for potentially up to 12
registration points)
2. Annual (single) registration cycle;
3. Remove manual handling of records of students
who straddle two academic years (on same stage)

13. ◦ Clear benefit to students on under-graduate
programmes specifically designed to run from
Sept/Jan/May start points
◦ Limited benefit to students on post-graduate
taught programmes that currently run for more
than 12 months.
◦ No benefit for post-graduate students on “infill”
taught programme (e.g. Jan start Masters)

14.  All the evidence so far shows that our
systems and processes are set up to service
the Sept-July, 3 term undergraduate
schedule.
 Systems changes in themselves will not
deliver a more agile flexible curriculum.

15. A study of the academic calendars of more than 100
UK universities shows:
◦ Around 50% use the model of teaching over two
semesters with an associated assessment period
◦ Just over 25% use a three term schedule with an
examination period in the third term.
◦ Just over 20% adopt alternative, hybrid / bespoke
models (trimesters - quadmesters – differentiation
based on level of study)

16.  Project makes recommendation to Executive
that the University look again at the academic
calendar;
 Recommend review is conducted in the
context of academic requirements and not
systems requirements