Membership: Professor S A Austin (Chair), Dr J L Horner, Professor I C Morison, Mr M Sharp (ab), Ms C J Tormey, Professor P Warwick (ab)

By Invitation: Mr J G Dickens, Dr D R Green, Mr W P J Maunder

In Attendance: Dr J E M Elliott

Apologies for Absence: Professor Warwick

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

.2 Minute 01/2.2 - MA Investigations Management (Distance Learning)

It was noted that revised proposals were not yet available.

.3 Minute 01/7 - MSc Marketing and Management/MSc Finance and Management

The minute of Learning and Teaching Committee's discussion was noted.

.2 Members noted the instruction from Senate of the Sub-Committee's duty to consider the pedagogic aspects of such cases in the future, referring resource issues outside its remit to Operations Sub-Committee. The Sub-Committee considered how it should deal with any similar such case of competing modules coming forward in the future. It was considered that the Sub-Committee was able to evaluate potentially competing modules from a general quality point of view, but might not be in a position to differentiate those modules on pedagogic grounds. In which case it was considered that this became a resource issue to be resolved elsewhere with the Sub-Committee's academic quality input. It was hoped that the principles and policy statement on Service Teaching for approval by Senate at its next meeting would clarify how proposals should be received by Curriculum Sub-Committee, which would hopefully preclude competing alternative modules coming forward. The Sub-Committee might need to consider some revision to the question on the proposal form for new modules which required departments to check the database for existing modules which would serve as an alternative to their proposal.

.3 The Sub-Committee considered proposals for the new modules 01CGA011/012, the Chemical Engineering Department's intention being to teach mathematics to its own first year students from the beginning of the next academic year. The AD(T) of Science reported that there had been no further comments on the Module Specifications from the Department of Mathematical Sciences. It was AGREED to APPROVE the proposed module specifications for 2001/02, noting that the Objectives Field on the Module Specification would require revision to Intended Learning Outcomes.

.2 Members commended the dialogue with the external contact as presented in the papers, which had proved helpful. It was noted that the Department would be required to revise Module Specifications for 2001/02 to include Intended Learning Outcomes, and to provide Programme Specifications.

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

(i) Revision of para 6 on the proposal form to ensure a module weighting of 120 in Part D.

(ii) Revision of Programme Regulations para 2.3, penultimate para, to read 'As an alternative to those options listed ….'

(iii) Revision of Module Specifications to ensure that the examination weighting was consistent with text in the MTLA field.

.2 It was AGREED to recommend the proposals to Learning and Teaching Committee, subject to the proposers providing a fall-back position to the Sub-Committee should the self-learning material not be completed for the intended October 2001 start.

.2 The comments from the Departments of Information Science and Mathematical Sciences were highlighted; the issues of the withdrawal of optional modules on the Information Management and Computing programme had yet to be resolved. The objection from Mathematical Sciences to the proposed 40-credit module in Part A of the proposed new programme had subsequently been withdrawn. The Sub-Committee, nevertheless, expressed unhappiness at such a large non-project module, particularly in Part A, and the possibility of non-progression through failure of this one module.

.3 The Sub-Committee noted the comments in the proposal concerning the requirements for computer laboratory space and larger lecture room space. Reference to possible additional lab space in the Centre Site development was noted; the Sub-Committee assumed that the Department would deliver the programme regardless of the outcome of the Centre Site development. Attention was drawn to the excellent market research which had been undertaken for the programme.

.4 It was AGREED to recommend the proposals to Learning and Teaching Committee, including the revised Programme Regulations for Computer Science, subject to the following matters being resolved to the satisfaction of the Chair of Curriculum Sub-Committee prior to the meeting of Learning and Teaching Committee:-

(i) Clarification from the Department of Information Science as to whether they would be providing the proposed IS modules on the programme. If these were not to be provided, alternative modules would be required.

(ii) Resolution of the issue concerning the withdrawal of optional modules from the Information Management and Computing programme. Statements from both Information Science and Computer Science were required.

(iii) Conversion of 40-credit module COA255 to two 20-credit modules; long-thin modules might be acceptable if there was no other option.

(iv) Revision of para 2.3.2 Part D in the Programme Regulations to remove reference to BSc Project.

(v) The inputting of all proposed new CO module specification onto hpa.

(vi) Amendments to module specifications to ensure that examination weightings were consistent within module specifications and also to distinguish coursework, which is assessed, and tutorial work, which is not assessed.

.2 Members expressed concerns on the following issues:-

• There was no written evidence of external demand for the programme, particularly from employers.
• Whether or not the proposed mathematics provision in Part A was adequate for other modules in the programme, particularly core modules. If modules had no mathematics pre-requisite, was the foundation mathematics simply felt to be desirable in its own right?
• The appropriateness of Foundation Programme modules at undergraduate level and the implicit exclusion of foundation students from the proposed programme.
• The precedent of 15-credit modules at UG level.
• The position for students with A-level mathematics who wished to register on the programme.

.3 The Sub-Committee was informed that the Director of the Foundation Programme had commented that the inclusion of foundation modules in an undergraduate programme was not appropriate or feasible. The Sub-Committee recognised that it might be undesirable from both sides to bring together undergraduate and foundation students; the Foundation Programme had its own identity and nature. Use of the existing 10-credit 'bridging' mathematics module was suggested as a possible alternative option, or the provision of 'A' coded modules based on the foundation modules but with different learning outcomes and assessment. The Sub-Committee acknowledged the argument that the issue of 'level' could be compared to the provision of sub-A-level language modules on some programmes.

.4 The Sub-Committee was unimpressed with the proposal as it stood, effectively presenting the programme as an inferior product, but in view of the low risk to the Department in running the programme, with it only involving existing modules, did not wish to hold the proposals back from possible recruitment in 2001 if issues could be resolved quickly. It was therefore AGREED to recommend the proposals to Learning and Teaching Committee, subject to the provision of satisfactory revised proposals to Learning and Teaching Committee incorporating the following:-

(i) Reassurance from the Department that all modules for the programme had been reviewed in terms of any mathematics pre-requisite.

(ii) Whether the proposed mathematics provision was required for any core modules or a separate skills development theme.

(iii) A suitable progression route on the programme for students having A-level Mathematics and also possibly from the Foundation Programme.

(iv) A written statement from the Director of the Foundation Programme concerning the inclusion of Foundation Programme modules in UG programmes.

(v) If deemed still necessary (as mathematics prerequisites or for independent skills development), the provision of 'A' coded modules based on and to replace the 'F' modules proposed, including the Learning and Communication Skills Module, weighted at 10 or 20 rather than 15 and with their own defined outcomes and assessment.

.5 The item would be unstarred at Learning and Teaching Committee, and a representative of the Department would be invited to attend.

.6 Should the programme receive Learning and Teaching Committee approval, the Chair of Curriculum Sub-Committee would expect to see evidence of employer demand for the programme prior to the start of the 2001/02 session. Ideally such evidence should be provided prior to the meeting of Learning and Teaching Committee.

.2 The Committee was informed that the Engineering Faculty had a Distance Learning Officer who would oversee all DL proposals from the Faculty and provide advice to Curriculum Sub-Committee accordingly. A comparable arrangement was required for the other two Faculties and it was AGREED that this should involve the Director of Learning and Teaching Development who would need to be satisfied with a proposal before Curriculum Sub-Committee would give its approval.

.3 It was AGREED to recommend the proposals to Learning and Teaching Committee subject to the following matters being resolved to the satisfaction of the Chair of Curriculum Sub-Committee prior to the meeting of Learning and Teaching Committee, at which the item would be unstarred:-

(i) A written response to be provided by the Department to the issues raised by the Director of Learning and Teaching Development, together with the Director's subsequent assurance that her concerns have been addressed.

(ii) Indication on a module by module basis of how the DL material would be produced and by whom, together with a list of those staff already having DL experience in the Department.

(iii) Confirmation as to whether the Industrial Statistics module was DL or would be run as a block-taught module.

(iv) Clarification in 01MPP358 of the distance learning pack under indicative reading.

.4 It was suggested that Learning and Teaching Committee should receive in due course an analysis of the University's DL modules with an indication of their success and of student satisfaction. It was hoped that recommendations would result from this on how the University should deal with DL proposals and that it would assist Curriculum Sub-Committee in identifying good practice.

.5 It was NOTED that recruitment to the MSc Materials Evaluation programme would be discontinued with effect from October 2001.

,2 It was AGREED to recommend the proposals to Learning and Teaching Committee as an unstarred item subject to the following:-

(i) A written response should be obtained from the Department of Human Sciences.

(ii) Dependent on (i), Learning and Teaching Committee should expect to receive either revised proposals incorporating any Human Sciences input, or the original proposals together with the statement from Human Sciences.

.2 Nevertheless, it was felt that LUBS should work towards bringing these programmes closer to the University's norms. A 60-credit rather than 100-credit Certificate would bring this more in line with the LPC. Disquiet was expressed at the disproportionality of effort compared to the University norm of 10 hours per credit unit, and that the hours of total student effort as presented appeared unrealistic (eg. 6 hours for reading and production of assessed work). There was also concern at the adoption of a pass mark for elements of work in a module.

.3 The need to review the Professional Certificate/Diploma programmes when full guidance was available on the National Qualifications Framework was highlighted. It was suggested that if the modules were not postgraduate in level they should be designated as other than 'P' modules. It was AGREED that this issue be forwarded to the Programme Development and Quality Team, which would require a list of relevant module specifications, for recommendation ultimately to Learning and Teaching Committee.

.4 It was AGREED to recommend the proposals to Learning and Teaching Committee, subject to the following matters being resolved to the satisfaction of the Chair of Curriculum Sub-Committee prior to the meeting of Learning and Teaching Committee, at which the item would be unstarred:-

(i) An explanation of the requirement for pass marks for individual elements of coursework. If this was a necessary requirement for all modules it might better be presented, suitably reworded, in para 3 of the Programme Regulations.

(ii) Retitling of module BSP803 Foundation I and revision of the keywords, which conveyed nothing about the module's content.

(iii) The total student effort required for each module should be re-evaluated to be fair and realistic. The modular weights should then be based on the University norm of 10 hours per credit and be multiples of 5. Consideration of a 60-credit total Certificate would be consistent with the University norm (but was not essential if the programme remained outside GRMPA and ARMPA).

(i) There was a discrepancy in the proposals as to whether the minimum time for submission of the thesis was 3 years or 3 years 6 months.

(ii) Re para 12, all departments involved had now agreed to the minimum requirements for an LPD in GRMPA of 100 credits and module marks of not less than 40% in further modules with a weight of 20. This would affect the Programme Regulations as presented in CSC01-P27.

(iii) Re para 2, referring to possible exemption from modules up to a weighting of 30, should this not refer to the award of credit rather than exemption? How could a distinction in the LPD be achieved for a student who had transferred - in credit? The Sub-Committee suggested that transferred credit could be ignored for the purpose of calculating the average mark. This same question applied to the EngD.

(iv) Re para 13, the Sub-Committee questioned who would be undertaking the assessment, and suggested that the research be assessed more in line with that for the standard PhD, with a written report at the end of each year (a 10,000 word report at the end of Year 2) and possibly a viva at the end of Year 2.

(v) The role (possibly binary?) and constitution of the Programme Board and the role of Programme Director required clarification.

(vi) Re para 15, progress to a standard PhD should be included as an explicit option.

.2 The Sub-Committee then considered Programme Regulations for the LPD in Integrated Research Studies for modular pathways under the PhD Plus scheme, for October 2001 entry. The required amendments referred to in para .1 (ii) above were noted. It was questioned whether it was appropriate to include a full list of optional modules as in the Engineering pathway, which would require updating each year. It was noted that the Regulations mirrored those of the Advanced Engineering postgraduate programme and it was agreed that the format remain as presented for the time being. The Sub-Committee was informed that module codes could not be allocated to the four new skills development modules until resource implications had been resolved. It was AGREED to recommend the proposed Programme Regulations to Learning and Teaching Committee subject to the above comments.

BA Library and Information Management (October 2000)
MA Theatre and Representation of Gender (No recruitment in recent years)
BSc/MChem Chemistry with Information Studies (October 2000)
BSc/MChem Chemistry with a European Language (October 2000)
MSc Analytical Chemistry and Instrumentation (October 2000)
MSc Medicinal Chemistry and Drug Metabolism (October 2000)
MSc Analytical Science, Multi-University Modular Programme (October 2000)
BSc Computing with a Modern Language (October 1998)
MA Women's Studies (October 1996)
MA Policy, Organisation and Change in Professional Care (October 2000)
BEng/MEng Building Services Engineering (October 1999)
MEng Civil and Building Engineering (October 1997)
MSc Electrical Power Generation (October 2001)

It was AGREED to approve the following procedure for the approval of major changes to Programme Regulations for the period to October 2001. Proposals should receive CSC consideration by post at the discretion of the Chair. Where concerns were raised a second circulation would summarise these and invite a formal decision. The Chair would be empowered to determine whether the replies constituted a consensus.

Further to Minute 01/5.2 of the previous meeting, it was noted that the following MEng part D modules in the Department of Chemical Engineering were being redesignated as 'D' modules as part of the Annual Review of Module Specifications process: CGC032, CGC044, CGC045, CGC046.

(i) The memorandum circulated to departments on 5 March 2001 (without Annexes).

(ii) The revised table on Approval Requirements for changes to Module Specifications: 2001.

(iii) The proposal forms for Module Specification/Programme Regulation changes for 2001/02.

(iv) Validated Programmes: the procedure and timetable for revision and approval of Module Specifications and Programme Regulations for 2001/02.

Thursday 11 October 2001 at 9.15 am
Thursday 17 January 2002 at 9.15 am
Thursday 9 May 2002 at 9.15 am

Author - Jennie Elliott
Date - May 2001
Copyright © Loughborough University. All rights reserved.