Module Data Quality - University of Ulster

UNIVERSITY OF ULSTER
TEACHING AND LEARNING COMMITTEE
16 June 2010
MODULE DATA QUALITY ENHANCEMENT WORKING GROUP
1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
During preparation of the 2008/09 statutory HESA return from the new Banner
student records system, it became clear that there appeared to be a growing trend of
module non-completion, due in many instances to the available records showing that
students were not sitting final module examinations or were not submitting
coursework. This resulted in the 2009 HESA return showing a markedly higher noncompletion
rate than before.
As defined by HEFCE, completion does not refer to success or failure in a module
but is determined by the fact that all assessments have been attempted. Data on
whether or not students have completed all modules on which they are enrolled
feeds directly into the University’s HESES and subsequent HESA returns and
therefore instances of non-completion have a direct and potentially significant impact
on an institution’s funding.
To explore in some detail the common issues impacting on module data quality,
including the quality of registration and assessment data held against modules and
their potential impact upon student progression and retention data, a Working Group
was established, under the Chairmanship of the PVC (Teaching and Learning).
2. WORKING GROUP ACTIVITIES
The Working Group met on three occasions between March and May 2010 under the
remit to identify and consider issues that impact upon module quality and the quality
of module data, and to bring forward recommendations that would enhance both of
these items such that their implementation would assist in improving student
retention and progression whilst at the same time underpinning the robustness of the
data required for statutory returns.
The Department of Corporate Planning and Governance is responsible for making
the student related statutory returns and, as such, is reliant on the data held in the
Student Record System. The returns exercise is particularly difficult where there
appears to be instances of insufficient or missing module assessment data for
students.
Given the potential for misinterpretation arising from the current arrangement, the
Working Group focused its activities on identifying the scale and scope of the
apparent insufficient/missing data problem and proposing corrective actions, in the
form of recommendations.
3. CONCLUSIONS
Analysis of the missing module data by Faculty and Department representatives
resulted in the identification of two broad categories of explanation: reasons relating
to the programme and/or module (e.g. programmes with flexible frameworks,

dissertation and other modules that span more than one semester, exit awards, etc,)
and reasons relating to an individual’s circumstances (e.g. leave of absence,
extension, change of status, repeating a year, not taking modules signed up for,
etc.).
There is capacity within the statutory returns to allocate a code to modules with a
non-standard structure, which would flag the fact that marks would not be expected
until a later date. Identification and appropriate coding of such modules could
address a proportion of the missing information.
In conjunction with data associated with modules and completions, personal data is
also required for statutory returns, for example details of students’ highest
qualifications on entry to the institution. Representatives from Corporate Planning
and Governance reported a correlation between students that enroll off-line and
instances of missing personal data
The importance of data accuracy and the potential implications for University/Faculty
funding is not clearly understood by all involved in the data input process. There is a
need to raise awareness of both the range of Banner data output reports available to
assist academic staff with module co-ordination/programme management and the
ramifications of missing or inaccurate data being recorded.
There appears to be evidence of established procedures not being fully followed in
some Faculties and a variety of operational practices are in existence.
A proportion of the data identified as missing could be captured through a
combination of enhancements to the current data systems and processes and a
range of communication measures to provide key information to stakeholders and to
encourage more use of Banner validation reports at the Faculty/School level.
4. PLANNED ENHANCEMENTS
Student Administration introduced a range of measures during the 2008/09 and
2009/10 academic years to ensure the accuracy of module assessment data and
plan to introduce the following additional measures in 2010/11 to further improve the
quality of student data:
a) Online Enrolment Confirm Module Selection screen to be enhanced for
registration from 1 September 2010. Enhancements will include
� Check if students on full-time undergraduate programmes have chosen more
that 120 credits and prevent them from proceeding with enrolment until they
have reduced the number of credits selected. Additional coding to take into
account a number of course years where students are permitted to take more
than 120 credits.
� Where full-time undergraduate students, except students on a placement or
intercalary year (attribute of SW or IC), fail to select modules amounting to at
least 120 credits they will receive a warning message.
2

) Additional suite of validation reports to identify potential anomalies in module
enrolments for registered students other than full-time undergraduates, students
on leave of absence and early leavers.
5. RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations, in conjunction with the planned enhancements
detailed above, will maximise capture of the module and personal data required for
statutory returns.
1
2
3
4
5
Recommendation Responsibility Timescale
Online Enrolment
Online enrolment to be made compulsory for all
new entrants and progressing students.
Module Coding
Modules
a) that do not complete within the HESA
reporting period (i.e. modules completed in
the following academic year), and
b) for which results will not be available within
the HESA reporting period (i.e. results not
known until after 30 September)
to be identified and assigned an appropriate
identification code to flag the expected
completion date within statutory returns.
Updating exercise to be undertaken on an
annual basis.
Communication/Training
The Notes of Guidance (Leave of Absence,
Withdrawals, Repeating Students, etc.),
previously distributed by Student
Administration, to be re-circulated to Faculties
for dissemination and discussion at appropriate
Faculty/School Course Director forums.
Banner report summaries and Notes of
Guidance (Recommendation 3 refers) to be
made available on the new Course Director
Support Facility being developed for the Portal.
Formal procedures to be established to
manage within Faculties the validation of
assessment results, utilising reports currently
provided by Student Administration and
investigating issues identified by the new suite
of validation reports (Section 4b refers).
3
Course Directors
Corporate
Planning &
Governance
Student
Administration/
Heads of School
Student
Administration
Heads of
School/Faculty
Administration
2010/11
Academic
Year
Aug/Sep
2010
Aug/Sep
2010
Pending
availability
of Portal
Facility
2010/11
Academic
Year

6
7
PMcC
Recommendation Responsibility Timescale
School staff to be encouraged to produce
course results sheets for Course Directors.
Data Integrity Internal Audit Review
Implementation, progression and monitoring of
Recommendations 1-6 to be integrated into the
outcomes of the KPMG Audit.
4
Heads of
School/Faculty
Administration
Corporate
Planning &
Governance
2010/11
Academic
Year
May/June
2010