Close
Answers to the most frequently asked questions about the UCL Emergency Resilience Framework for programmes and modules.
The UCL Emergency Resilience Framework is a set of data with suggested actions for faculties to use to review to adjust and simplify degree programmes and modules.
1. Using the Framework
Should we be applying this framework to all modules or only those falling into the category where it looks like there are fewer than 10 students?
The central data and decision trees are provided to support faculties with evaluating their programmes and modules. The data is focused on programmes and modules with small cohorts as the resource cost of running and processing those modules may outweigh the benefit to students. However, you are not constrained by this list. Modules with high cohort numbers, where you think you could reasonably accommodate those students in other modules with low impact on both staff and students, are also in scope for review.
What about modules that show low numbers of enrolled students on the central data but actually have a larger number of students who are taking the module as CPD and are therefore not registered students?
The central data is provided to support departments and faculties with making such decisions. This is an example of a situation where additional relevant data that can supplement the data we’ve provided is held in departments. If there’s enough critical mass and the module can be delivered online, it would seem appropriate to run it.
The Emergency Resilience Framework process is about temporarily suspending modules or programmes. What if we want to permanently suspend any?
You can also use this process to indicate a withdrawal of a programme or module(s). We will collect that information on the same spreadsheet as temporary suspensions – please just indicate clearly where it is a permanent withdrawal.
How do I tell if a module is compulsory?
You can filter by the ‘Compulsory on Something’ column in the M1 Tableau Dashboard to check if a module is compulsory on any programme.
Offer holder behaviour may be very different this year and we may not know the true size of a cohort until the start of term. When are we going to be able to make a decision about withdrawing programmes if they fall to a very low cohort number and run risk of poor quality experience?
We acknowledge that these are complex and difficult decisions to take with incomplete data. However, due to the timeline, paperwork and CMA requirements involved in doing this correctly, we cannot wait until we have confirmed cohort numbers and you will have to make decisions based on best estimates.
To help in this, we are suggesting that departments and faculties focus on programmes and modules with low cohort totals and high international cohorts. For example, if you have a PGT programme with 50% international students which runs a small number usually, this would be a good candidate for review.
2. Mitigation options
Timetabling changes will be an important mitigation (moving lab modules from Term 1 to Term 2 delivery). Is this an acceptable proposed mitigation at this stage?
Yes, amending the programme diet so that the practical elements are much later in the academic year is a suggestion made for one of the categories of data.
The Curriculum Data Management functionality in Portico will be re-opened to enable departments to record this directly on the system.
Could we offer a module which could fulfil the learning outcomes but which is not currently part of the current programme diet (for example, where there would be a greater number of students on it)?
This is possible but would require an amendment to the programme. Such changes would have to demonstrably contribute to the learning outcomes of the programme.
Could a PGT programme run outside of term time, for example, can we run laboratory practicals during Easter 2021?
This might be pragmatic way of managing them but departments need to be mindful that the Easter break and other holidays are intended as a break for staff and students and arranging out-of-term contact time may present logistical challenges for students (and staff), e.g. availability of accommodation, caring responsibilities etc. All students should be confirmed as capable of engaging before decisions are taken– particularly for compulsory modules – and students should be given plenty of notice.
Could research intensive PGT programmes run from Jan 2021 to Jan 2022 instead of Sept to sept? I've heard a number of other institutions are looking at this.
Programmes are expected to all start in September and run the course of the academic year. To move these would create an overlap with 2021-22 academic year; programmes may struggle to accommodate two cohorts of students, for example, two cohorts could create lab space issues.
3. Communicating with students
We ask PGT applicants to select module choices pre-arrival, as early as now. Should we be informing students about (potential) changes now?
For those PGT applicants who have already confirmed their choices, you should contact them with a frank explanation of why you have needed to suspend particular (optional) modules as soon as such decisions are firm.
For students who have not yet made module choices, we advise that you delay contacting them about potential programme/module changes until you have can provide details of confirmed changes.
4. Staff development
The Teaching Continuity webpages have given help with moving to online platforms and tools in Term 3. Can we expect more detailed staff guidance soon on the pathway or process for moving their module online?
Yes, design principles that will take users through different stages of redeveloping their modules are being developed and will be available from the Education Planning 2020-21 webpages soon. These go beyond initial guidance provided on tools and platforms, and will take staff through the exercise of reviewing existing content and revising it for remote, ‘connected’ teaching.