Membership: Professor S A Austin (Chair), Ms R Church, Professor J P Feather, Dr J L Horner, Dr E A O'Brien, Ms C J Tormey

By Invitation: Mr J G Dickens, Dr D R Green, Mr J F Harper (for Minute 00/4), Mr W P J Maunder

In Attendance: Dr J E M Elliott

CSC99-M4

The minutes of the sixteenth meeting held on 22 October 1999 were confirmed and signed.

.1 It was noted that all recommendations to Teaching and Learning Committee, and subsequently to Senate where appropriate, had been approved.

.2 Minute 99/51.6 - MSc Advanced Process Engineering (Use of Block-Taught Modules on UG programmes)

The ADT of Science reported that the issues relating to the provision of block-taught modules to MEng and MSc students at the same time had not reached a critical point and departments were at different stages in their experience. The Sub-Committee agreed that the issues would need to be addressed before reaching a critical stage and that a balance would be needed between the resource issues of such combined teaching and the academic issue of whether intensive block-taught postgraduate modules were appropriate for undergraduates, albeit those undertaking enhanced study in Part D.

It was AGREED that the AD(T)s of Science and Engineering request that their Departments consider revisions to Programme Regulations for 2000/01 that would address problems already experienced or anticipated.

.3 Minute 99/57 - MSc Advanced Systems Engineering: New Programme Proposals

It was noted that revised proposals had been approved by Senate on the recommendation of Teaching and Learning Committee.

.4 Minute 99/54 - Regulation for the Curriculum-based Component of the Doctor of Engineering (EngD) Research Programme

It was requested that progress on the actions identified in para 2 be reported at the next meeting. It was hoped that these could be in place for October 2000.

.2 The question was raised as to whether it was the intention that students would have total freedom of choice of modules, or whether there would be restrictions on choice to ensure a balance portfolio, as the term matrix would imply. The Sub-Committee was informed that students would be registered in the department of their project and that that department would advise them in their choice of modules. There was a need to respond to a company's training needs but also to balance this with a credible qualification for the employee.

.3 It was AGREED to recommend the proposals to Teaching and Learning Committee subject to the following matters being resolved prior to the meeting of Teaching and Learning Committee:-

(i) Provision of a top-level statement of Programme Aims.

(ii) A revision of the Programme Regulations to require the choice of modules to be by negotiation with the Programme Director (who would be the AD(T) in the first instance) and normally expect the selection of a coherent set of modules reflecting a student's academic background and employment.

(iii) A revision to para 3 of the Programme Regulations to incorporate criteria for the award of the LPD, LPD with distinction, and LPC, and to allow for re-assessment in the special assessment period, if appropriate.

.4 The implications of a Faculty-based programme on the constitution of a Programme Board were raised and the regulatory position on this was to be explored.

.2 Attention was drawn to the comments on the consultation form from the University's Flexible Learning Co-ordinator, relating to the proposed distance learning provision. The Sub-Committee was informed that IPTME already had experience of DL provision through the IGDS programme with Brunel University. Consultation had been undertaken with Flexible Learning. The general need for a central resource to assist in conversion to DL material was identified, and the Sub-Committee requested that this issue be forwarded to Teaching and Learning Committee as part of its consideration, through the PDQ Team, of quality issues relating to DL provision. The Sub-Committee was informed that the Department already sought to analyse its student profile through a pro-forma and its Personal Tutor scheme. In terms of peer group support, however, there was a need to be practical and not incur students in additional expenditure where costs such as residential costs needed to be met personally. The idea of 'virtual' groups was considered a valuable concept which should be explored. The Sub-Committee was assured that those DL modules intended to be offered in 2000/01 were already operative. The Department would be undertaking an analysis of student performance in relation to DL and more conventional delivery, and it was AGREED that the results of this be reported back to the University as part of the Programme Review procedure.

.3 It was AGREED to recommend the proposals to Teaching and Learning Committee, subject to the following matters being resolved to the satisfaction of the AD(T) prior to the meeting of Teaching and Learning Committee:-

(i) Amendment to para 1.3 of the Programme Regulations to insert 'normally' before 'three years'.

(ii) Deletion of para 3.4 of the Programme Regulations.

.4 Consequent upon these proposals, it was AGREED to recommend to Teaching and Learning Committee the discontinuation of the MSc in Materials Engineering with effect from October 2000.

(i) The receipt of satisfactory consultation forms and evidence of external support, the latter to be considered by the Chair.

(ii) Amendments to paras 1.2 and 4.2 of Programme Regulations to allow for the award of LPD with distinction, to replace references to grades in para 4.1 with percentages, and to remove assessment details from module listings and replace 'credit' with 'modular weight'.

.2 There was some confusion as to the reference to distance learning in section 10 of the proposal form and the resultant comments from the Librarian, in view of the AD(T)s understanding that no distance learning modules were involved in the programme. It was considered unnecessary for consultation forms from departments to identify a named member of staff to supervise projects for such a programme, on the basis that willing Departments would be expected to identify the most appropriate supervision for any particular project.

.3 It was AGREED to recommend the proposals to Teaching and Learning Committee, subject to the following matters being resolved to the satisfaction of the AD(T) prior to the meeting of Teaching and Learning Committee:-

(i) Confirmation as to whether distance learning provision was intended.

(ii) Amendment to para 1.2 of the Programme Regulations to read General Regulations for Modular Postgraduate Awards, and deletion of assessment details from the module lists in para 2.

.2 The Sub-Committee was concerned that for a programme intending to commence in February 2000 there was no explicit statement in the proposals that the distance learning material was in existence.

.3 It was AGREED to recommend the proposals to Teaching and Learning Committee subject to the following:-

(i) Provision of a report from LUBS to the satisfaction of the AD(T) providing evidence that the distance learning materials were available for delivery, identifying the support in place for the distance learning provision and confirming the availability of appropriate staff to run the programme.

(ii) Approval by Operations Sub-Committee of the resource aspects of the proposal.

(iii) Amendments to Programme Regulations to:

.4 The proposals were to be considered by Teaching and Learning Committee as an unstarred item.

.2 The Sub-Committee acknowledged that whilst Mathematical Sciences had been forwarded a copy of the proposal from Chemical Engineering together with a consultation form to complete, this could not be considered as prior consultation. The Sub-Committee expressed disappointment that Chemical Engineering had not approached Mathematical Sciences at an earlier stage, as would have been expected.

.3 It was considered that sufficient issues of academic content in the proposed modules had been raised by Mathematical Sciences that the Sub-Committee could not consider approval of the modules at this time. It was AGREED that the proposals be referred back, through the AD(T) of Engineering, to Chemical Engineering for full consultation with Mathematical Sciences and involving the AD(T) of Science.

.4 Teaching and Learning Committee would then consider a revised case as an unstarred item, and would need to be convinced that the modules could be satisfactorily delivered by Chemical Engineering and that this change would be beneficial to students. Sections 4 and 12 of the pro-forma would require expansion and supporting evidence. Any outstanding resource issues might require resolution by Operations Sub-Committee. It was hoped that the AD(T)s of Engineering and Science would present a joint academic view at Teaching and Learning Committee.

.1 Further to Minute 99/51.1 of the previous meeting, the AD(T) of SSH reported on separate discussions with the Librarian and the Director of Computing Services. In regard to implications of new programme proposals on Library provision, the Librarian had not considered the issue of Library space to be of present concern, and had felt that Departments recognised that with new programme provision departmental spending on existing Library materials might need some adjustment to satisfy new requirements. Members considered that the consequences of this, whereby resources might be diverted from existing competing programmes, raised issues of quality that were a matter of concern.

.2 The Director of Computing Services had identified space as a critical issue for computing provision; file space was as yet less problematic. As it had often proved difficult for the Director to discern the implications for Computing Services of proposed new programmes, he had suggested that the pro-forma for new programmes be revised to seek more information on the requirements for laboratory-based computing facilities. Upon such information he could make more valued comments.

.3 A member suggested that the pro-forma for new programme proposals could seek information on the hours of pool computer laboratory time that would be required for a new programme. It was acknowledged, however, that increased use of departmental laboratories was also responsible for increased pressure on the network and whilst additional incremental pressure on computing resources from existing modules might become apparent during the Annual Review of Module Specifications, such additional pressure, particularly with the encouraged use of CAA and other on-line activities, might not be apparent from Module Specifications.

.4 It was AGREED that AD(T)s examine the wording of the new programme proposal pro-forma, to seek information from proposers on the effect on demand of DISS resources relative to the current position, and to pull out computing services requirements as a separate section as for Library requirements. In order to seek information on incremental changes in the requirements of existing provision, AD(T)s would also examine the module approval process and build into the Programme Review process a statement of learning resources used together with usage plans for future years. It was intended that such changes would provide sufficient information to allow the Librarian and Director of Computing Services to provide more informed comment on future programme proposals.

Thursday 11 May 2000 at 9.15 am.

Author - Dr J E M Elliott

Date - January 2000

Copyright (c) Loughborough University. All rights reserved.