Smudie project report 3

Smudie Project Report 3

The Academic Viewpoint
Introduction

This report covers the outcomes of the third phase of interviews carried out as part of the JISC
Swansea Metropolitan University Data Integration Exercise (Smudie) Project. The focus was primarily
on student information management by Academic Staff at the University.

Three members of staff from each of the four Faculties were interviewed and the sample included
Programme Directors, Year Tutors and Module Tutors. Further interviews were also carried out with
IS staff, ADQs and Faculty Secretaries, as well as with staff in the Finance Department and the
Students Union.

The main message that came from the discussions was that information management in the
Faculties was focussed on day to day course management issues and only periodically on summative
assessment and statistics reporting. Communications with the students and their effective support
was central to course team activity and for this reason local information recording systems and the
Moodle online learning environment tended to play a much more prominent daily operational role
than the institutional student records system.

A further factor that emerged was the variability in delivery between the curriculum areas and the
effect that this had on student information management. It could also be seen that differences in
reporting practice reflected differences in local management organisation within the Faculties. This
ranged from student information management systems organised on a school-wide basis to systems
devised and operated by individual academics. The formal process of reporting student academic
progress, however, was periodically brought together through the entry of student assessment
outcomes using the QLS V4 system and was reported and reviewed through the Faculty quality
systems.

Attendance monitoring was also a major component of Faculty student information management
activity. As detailed in other reports 1, this is an area where attention is needed in terms of
procedural and operational consistency across the University. It also has implications for the
institutional reporting requirements and the way the University is viewed by external stakeholders,
particularly UKBA, SLC and the way the institutional profile is reported by HESA.

This report summarises the systems in place in the Faculties for the purpose of aiding discussions
about potential improvements. The fact that there are multiple systems within the institution is
neither unusual for a large organisation nor, necessarily, ineffective. What may be undesirable is the
existence of local information management systems that are unknown generally and hence out of
institutional management control. The report concludes with some recommendations in this regard.

1
https://www.dropbox.com/s/cwzx991qap5s23z/Student%20Attendance%20Monitoring.docx

An Overview of the SMU Student Information Management System

The schematic diagram below is a development of the comprehensive picture produced by John
Millward 2. It shows the range of inputs and outputs to the student information management system,
both internally and externally. On the right of the diagram is a representation of all the internal
interactions and on the left are the external links. The overall message is that it is a complex system
involving many stakeholders.

Important for the issues raised in this report are the components at the top and the bottom of the
diagram. Firstly, academic staff have three different user interfaces with the student records system,
which is reported as problematic. Secondly, the system communicates with other information
management systems used by the University but, perhaps more importantly, does not communicate
with a range of local databases, spreadsheets and records that are also key components of the
information management processes.

2
https://www.dropbox.com/s/06uzb4tvrmna7y7/MIS%20Schematic.docx

Data entry into the system occurs through different interfaces and with different timing patterns
largely aligned to the standard academic year. The timing patterns can be broadly described as:

1. Annual. Eg: UCAS applications, student enrolment, student registration, exam boards, HESA
returns;
2. Periodic. Eg: student assessment recording, student attendance reporting;
3. Ongoing. Eg: student attendance monitoring, student progression monitoring, student
support records.

Much of the core student data is captured through the application and enrolment processes at the
start of the year using customised system interfaces/processes. This is largely managed centrally in
liaison with the Faculties. Periodic and ongoing student data is managed by programme teams in the
Faculties and is recorded and stored locally in paper form and, typically, using individual or shared
spreadsheets.

Processes and timings vary, but assessment results will be entered at appropriate points to the
central student record system through the V4 interface. Mid-session and end of session Faculty
quality procedures ensure the consistency and accuracy of this process and, as the primary
performance indicator for the institution derives from the outcome, the quality system that supports
it is taken very seriously.

Attendance monitoring does not have the same level of quality control or consistency. External
reporting obligations vary from the regular and detailed information about overseas students
required by UKBA to the more top level annual reporting to HESA. As a consequence, those
programmes with a significant proportion of overseas students have more rigorous monitoring and
reporting systems than those that do not.

Attendance monitoring is also used to inform the student support systems in the Faculties. Poor
attendance triggers action to support students who have problems and, if not successful, leads to
the formal processes for withdrawal, transfer or suspension of studies. There is inconsistency across
the institution in the formality of this process and hence in the way data is captured. It should be
noted however, that the interviews demonstrated that all academic staff are focussed on effective
student support and always seek to find the best solution when problems arise. All that differs are
the methods employed to achieve that outcome. The sharing and documenting of good practice
would be of general benefit.

Information Systems in Academic Delivery and Assessment

There are four main information systems used by academic staff at SMU as part of programme
delivery and assessment. These are:

1. The Faculty Query System (FQS): the original internally developed student record system at
SMU, still used extensively by staff;
2. QLe: one of two user interfaces to the Agresso Student Management system introduced in
2010 and intended to replace FQS. This interface is read-only and provides access to student
records;
3. QLS V4: the second interface to the Agresso Student Management system that academic
staff use to populate the student records with assessment data;

4. Moodle: the Online Learning Environment adopted by SMU in 2011 as a replacement for the
previous Blackboard system. Moodle is populated by core student data from QLe and
provides teaching resources and communications functionality to support course delivery.

A fifth systems component is planned for online assessment submission. The Turnitin system will
replace the current requirement for students to hand in assignments in the school office and to
receive a receipt.

Summary of usage:

The Faculty Query System: FQS remains in use by many academic staff to access student and cohort
information. It was originally expected to be replaced once the Agresso QLS system was in place, but
usability issues with the new system has led to its retention and updating.

Key messages:

• FQS is used by many staff as their primary source of student information, particularly at the
beginning of the year as it provides convenient access to core data including student
photographs, and matrices of cohort information for checking correct registration on
modules and similar details that are reported not easy to extract from QLe. FQS is populated
by QLe when the students self-enrol and is used by many staff as their source of cohort
information when creating class registers.
• Certain recent updates of FQS have not been universally welcomed. The two most quoted
have been, firstly, the change from a name search to a student ID search process which staff
find inconvenient because they are familiar with names but not with IDs. The second issue is
with the decision to identify part-time students through the use of ‘year 9’ in the year of
study data field. This means that their records do not include their actual year of study.
• This raises the issue of how system upgrades are agreed and implemented. The IS staff are
seeking to optimise the system for the users and respond to requests for improvements.
However, changes for one group of users may impact in an unforeseen way on the use by
others. A review of change management processes may be needed here.
• Newer staff who joined SMU after the launch of QLe report using only the new system and
not FQS.

QLe: This read only interface provides intranet access to the QLS student records system for
academic staff. This includes application information from UCAS, student self-enrolment information
and other data needed by academics and support staff preparing for new cohort delivery.

Key messages:

• There remains a view that FQS is a more user friendly interface to student cohort
information than QLe, particularly when preparing registers and other administrative
systems for course delivery. This is ironic as QLe populates FQS which effectively re-presents
the same data.
• There also appears to be widespread confusion amongst academic staff why there are two
different interfaces to QLS and that they need to be signed on to separately. The role of V4

in entering assessment data and preparing for exam boards is understood, but the purpose
of a different read only interface to the same system is not.
• A common feature of academic programme management is that student information is
managed locally most of the time and feeds into QLS only periodically. While FQS provides
the day to day access to records needed by academics there is no incentive to adopt another
system that is felt to provide a poorer service.

QLS V4: This is the main interface used by academic staff to enter student assessment outcomes.
Data is entered at the conclusion of assessment periods which are typically twice per academic year
but vary between curriculum areas. Academic staff enter the data individually, with help from the
Faculty MIO or with help from the Faculty office.

Key messages:

• Because the system is only used by academic staff once or twice a year, they are unfamiliar
with the menus and methods which make the process inefficient and frustrating (particularly
part-time staff). Help from the MIOs and the Faculty office staff is often necessary and
appreciated.
• Staff, particularly part-time staff, are not all aware of the training or support available from
IS or the MIOs. Assistance is often sought from immediate colleagues.
• The interface is reported to be non-intuitive, but this may be due to infrequent usage. A
common comment about usability, however, was that assessment data entry was
frustratingly slow with a wait before the next entry could be made. This appeared to depend
on the volume of system traffic at the time.
• Typically, academic staff keep their own spreadsheets of student assessment results as they
can’t view a summary for the whole cohort from QLS. This was reported to be particularly
the case when students were studying on a portfolio of modules drawn from a number of
different programmes. In one curriculum area the tutor spreadsheet data was reported to
be used for the external examiner pack rather than a QLS report.
• Multiple grade averaging and applying resit mark limits were identified as examples of
procedural issues that needed to be resolved.
• There was a bottleneck leading up to exam boards when last minute assessment outcomes
needed to be entered onto the system. This appeared to be more a management than a
systems issue.

Moodle: the open source Moodle VLE was launched as the institutional online learning environment
in 2011, replacing the commercial Blackboard application. Adoption by academic staff has been
positive, not the least because of the support provided by the IS team and the e-Learning support
officer. Moodle is populated with student information from QLS when the students have self-
enrolled.

Key messages:

• Moodle is used to communicate with students for personal and course information. Email &
forums (the latter to communicate with the whole group) are used and it encourages the
students to use the university email system. For a number of courses it is the main method
of out of class communications and is very good for peripatetic and part-time students.

• Moodle is used as teaching resource repository and to send materials to students. Student
work can be submitted through Moodle. The intention is to use Turnitin for the future
submission of all assignments and have receipts issued online, thus replacing the current
Faculty office submission process.
• Moodle is also used for course announcements and students can use it to check on changes
in daily course activity such a staff absence or room change for teaching sessions. It provides
a calendar for course planning and can also contribute to the social aspect of cohort activity
through appropriate communications.
• The availability of teaching resources online adds significantly to the choices available to
students when they engage with their learning. Although it is not designed to replace formal
taught classes, it can provide an effective backup if necessary. It is also very efficient for
students during revision with all relevant resources assembled in the same place.

Information Systems in Attendance Monitoring and Reporting

Three reports have been produced concerning student attendance monitoring and reporting at
SMU 3,4,5. The overall conclusions were that student attendance monitoring was currently an
institutionally unmanaged process and that locally managed systems were in place at Faculty,
School, Programme and tutor levels. This applied at all stages in the process from the creation of
attendance registers, through the completion of attendance recording, the storing and archiving of
attendance records and the reporting of attendance to external bodies.

Typically the system uses paper based recording in the classroom and usually, but not always, by
students individually signing next to their names on a circulated list. Other methods are also used,
including the tutor completing a traditional roll-call or simply noting who is present and completing
the form independently. These latter methods are only practicable for small class sizes.

The system employed also depends on the curriculum area, the session format and the attendance
pattern. Under any circumstances where the students in a cohort are not carrying out the same
activity in the same place at the same time, appropriately customised recording procedures need to
be devised.

The actual registers used by tutors to record attendance are created at various levels by programme
directors, year tutors or individual module tutors depending on the local management arrangements
in place. Whoever creates the register will typically interrogate either FQS or QLe for details of the
enrolled students as indicated in the diagram:

3

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hleeeijkgon3k3t/A%20Brief%20Report%20on%20Student%20Attendance%20Mo
nitoring.docx
4
https://www.dropbox.com/s/cwzx991qap5s23z/Student%20Attendance%20Monitoring.docx
5
https://www.dropbox.com/s/zc7xufftogffquy/Update%20on%20the%20Student%20Non-
attendance%20Review.docx

These paper records are then typically, but not always, transcribed onto local spreadsheets which
are themselves sometimes transcribed onto a master programme or school spreadsheet. Where this
does happen the spreadsheets are available as shared documents on the staff intranet and are
designed to flag up problems which can then be acted upon.

In addition to these largely similar attendance monitoring practices, there are examples of individual
variations where, for example, there are no paper records and the attendance is entered directly
onto spreadsheets in the classroom or where absence rather than attendance is recorded.

All programme teams use the attendance monitoring information, together with academic progress
information, in their support activities for students. They follow the institutional procedures
activated by successive non-attendance that, if not resolved, lead to the formal processes of
withdrawal, transfer or suspension of studies.

An important factor for the university, when instigating change to create a solution for problems
students have with their study programmes, is to demonstrate that:

1. The needs and aspirations of the students are paramount and that the institution will always
look for the best solution for the student;
2. The first choice solution will always be to guide the students to more suitable programme
arrangements before the less desirable options of suspension of studies or withdrawal.

In that way the institution is demonstrating its commitment to finding pathways to student success
and value for money both as a public sector body and, increasingly, as a student funded institution.
This is important for the institutional public profile, future marketing and recruitment.

The need to establish a consistent and accurate system of attendance monitoring, particularly in this
era of increased student fees and institutional service provision accountability, is recognised by SMU
management. Trials have been carried out in the use of student proximity card attendance recording
and the use of CELCAT timetabling software. The conclusions from that trial showed significant
potential benefits, but that there are logistical, cost and procedural issues to be dealt with if an
institution-wide implementation is to be successful.

There is a genuine concern expressed by academic staff that a technology based solution would
impact on the need for flexible and adaptable curriculum delivery. This is particularly relevant as
blended learning support systems evolve and student choice in engagement develops. A repeated
comment was that they feared that an imposed IT solution might compromise academic quality and
innovation.

Conclusions

The main conclusion that can be drawn from this study is that the management of student
information at the university operates at different levels within the faculty structures and with
different levels of management planning and control.

This is entirely expected as academic staff with different levels of management responsibility have
different roles to play in the information management process.

• Primary data is gathered by the module tutor about student progress and attainment and
this is used for subject level student feedback and support. Local records are kept of
attendance, assessment outcomes and other relevant information such as mitigating
circumstances;
• Programme Directors and Year Tutors access summative data, typically in spreadsheet form,
drawn from individual module records. Often, but not always, these are available to the
course team through shared spreadsheets on the staff intranet. This facilitates team
discussions about individual student progress and decisions about any actions to be taken;
• ADQs, MIOs and Faculty Secretaries are all involved with the programme teams ensuring
that assessment outcomes are entered onto the student records system and that the
information is accurate and complete. It is at this level that consistent quality procedures are
assured across the university in preparation for Exam Boards.

There are different categories of student data recorded that are used for different purposes by
different staff in the institution. These include:

• Core Student Data: largely drawn from the student application and enrolment process. This
triggers student registration, the generation of student cards, email and Moodle accounts
and the population of FQS and QLS. It is also used by Finance to set up SLC and fees
arrangements, The Exams Officer and Student Support Services to make provision for special
needs, the International Office to liaise with UKBA etc.
• Student Academic Data: used by module tutors to provide academic support; by programme
teams to report on student attainment; by the quality system to judge programme and
faculty academic performance and to plan quality improvement; to report externally on
institutional performance.

• Student Attendance Data: used by module and year tutors to monitor day to day progress
and allow early identification of individual problems and take action; by the international
office to report to UKBA; by finance to report to SLC; by information services to report to
HESA.

It is clear that such a multi-faceted, multi-purpose, multi-stakeholder system is unlikely to be
adequately supported by a one size fits all management information solution. The way the system is
profiled here suggests a modular approach with shared data fields, which may well be possible using
the Agresso QLS package with appropriate add-ons such as CelCat for timetabling and attendance
monitoring, Moodle for learner support etc.

However, that is not the way it is working at the moment. It is also not obvious that the flexibility
and adaptability needed for curriculum variety and innovation would be possible using these tools. It
may be, but we don’t really know.

It is proposed, therefore, that the final phase of the Smudie project should carry out the task that
was always in the plan: to create a ‘to be’ model for student information management. It is
suggested that this should be strategic and process based rather than technology specific.

The objective would be to address the inconsistencies and variable management practices identified
in this study, whilst also specifying a system that the stakeholders at each level agree meets their
needs. Such a specification could be applicable in the design of whatever technology system is
preferred by the newly merged institution.

Tony Toole
August 2012

Smudie project report 3

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Smudie project report 3 (20)

More from Tony Toole (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Smudie project report 3