By Invitation: Mr J Costello, Professor B A Marples, Dr R B Wilcockson
In Attendance: Mr R A Bowyer
Apologies: Professor Feather, Ms Myers
The Minutes of the Third Meeting held on 14 May 1996 were confirmed and signed.
The Sub-Committee noted the relevant Minute of the Teaching and Learning Committee and that the matter had been further discussed at the meeting of the TLC Steering Group on 18 September 1996. The AD(T) of SSH had been requested to bring forward revised proposals to the next meeting of the Steering Group.
The Sub-Committee noted the relevant Minute of the Teaching and Learning Committee.
The Sub-Committee noted the relevant Minutes of the Teaching and Learning Committee.
31.1 The Sub-Committee considered proposals from the Department of Physics. It was emphasised that the new programmes were intended to start in 1998, notwithstanding that the consolidated set of regulations would be operative for the existing programmes from September 1997. The EEP programme would not be advertised for entry after 1997.
31.2 Attention was drawn to two minor corrections which needed to be made in the programme regulations. One member felt that the way in which the regulations for the various programmes had been consolidated was unhelpful and meant that module choices were not easy to follow: it was nevertheless recognised that a consistent format had been adopted and agreed that this did not diverge too far from the customary style.
31.3 Subject to the minor corrections to programme regulations, it was RECOMMENDED to the Teaching and Learning Committee that two new BSc programmes in Physics with Computing and Physics with Environmental Science be introduced with effect from September 1998 and that the existing BSc programme in Electronic Engineering and Physics be discontinued after the 1997 entry.
32.1 The Sub-Committee considered proposals for the introduction of a new self-financing BSc programme in Retail Automotive Management which had been brought forward following detailed discussions between the Ford Motor Company, PE Consulting (training provider to Ford), the Business School and the External Relations Office. The programme would be offered exclusively to Ford Dealership Managers.
32.2 Attention was drawn to the following aspects of the programme in which it would differ from other undergraduate programmes in the University:
* attendance would be on a block release residential basis over three years, during which time the students would continue to be employed in the Ford Dealership Network
* distance learning materials would supplement direct staff/student contact hours which were otherwise lower than University norms
* students would develop an NVQ Level 4 portfolio alongside the degree; this would be separately assessed by PE Consulting but build upon six work-based assignments that would also be subject to normal University assessment procedures and account for 120 modular credits in the degree programme
* it was proposed to appoint a Ford/PE Teaching Fellow to contribute to the teaching and management of the programme with further inputs from PE Consulting specialist staff.
32.3 The Sub-Committee in the course of a full discussion expressed concern over the following aspects of the proposals which left members in some doubt as to the academic rigour of the programme:
* the University assessment requirements for the work-based assignments were not described in sufficient detail to allow a proper evaluation to be made of their contribution to the degree
* the low contact hours per module were a concern, especially since the style and content of the distance learning element,which was intended to compensate for the low staff/student contact, was not explained; the pattern of attendance was also unclear (i.e. the scheduling of the block release)
* the amount of student effort required was difficult to reconcile with that normally demanded by the University of a three-year full-time student on an Honours degree; at the same time, bearing in mind that the Ford students would be engaged in full-time employment and also spending time on developing an NVQ portfolio, it was difficult to see how they could sustain the effort that such a programme should entail, and it was suggested that it might be more appropriate for the programme to be scheduled over a period longer than three years
* the module specifications were drafted in such a way that it was difficult to gauge the depth in which material would be covered
* the overall assessment requirements were felt to be light; attention was drawn, for example, to the assessment for one 20-credit module based 50% on "one essay-based coursework assignment"; particular concern was expressed over the final year (contributing 75% to the final degree classification) where 50 credits would come from a project, 40 credits from word-based assignments and there would be no written examinations in the remaining modules
* the involvement of Business School staff appeared limited, heavy reliance being placed on the Teaching Fellow to be appointed, and on other PE Consulting staff; particular concern was expressed over the role of external personnel in relation to assessment
* there was felt to be a need for more obvious external support from disinterested parties, including external examiners.
32.4 It was pointed out to the Sub-Committee that the Ford Motor Company were hoping for the first entry to the programme to take place at the beginning of Semester 2 in February 1997.
32.5 The Sub-Committee did not consider it possible in the light of the concerns expressed to recommend to TLC and Senate at this stage that the proposal be approved. However, recognising the urgency of the matter and that negotiations with Ford were proceeding in parallel with the University approval process, it was agreed to ask the AD(T) for SSH to alert the Business School to the concerns expressed. It was also agreed to hold a special meeting of the Sub-Committee to discuss these issues with appropriate members of the Business School and suggested that the PVC(T) and the Academic Secretary should also attend that meeting. Meanwhile the views of the Sub-Committee would be forwarded to the Teaching and Learning Committee.
32.6 In view of the foregoing discussion, it was agreed to defer consideration of the related MSc proposal to a later meeting.
33.1 The Sub-Committee considered proposals from the Department of European Studies for the introduction of a new stream to facilitate the entry of candidates without A level German or equivalent. It was noted that, exceptionally in order to include details in the Undergraduate Prospectus for 1998 entry, these proposals had already been approved in principle by the Chair of the Sub-Committee and by the PVC(T) on behalf of Teaching and Learning Committee.
33.2 Discussion focussed on the way in which the balance of the programme would be changed for the non A level students and on the desirability or otherwise of loading the post-GCSE language modules into Semester 1 of Part A.
33.3 It was RECOMMENDED to the Teaching and Learning Committee that the proposals be approved as presented. It was requested that the Department monitor closely the effectiveness of the proposals and report specifically on this aspect through the programme review process.
34.1 Further to previous discussions, the Sub-Committee considered proposals from the College for additions to its portfolio of degree programmes to be validated by the University. These were a BA in History of Art and Design with Studio Practice and a BA in Graphic Communication. Consideration of a third proposal, for the addition of a new stream in Drawing to the existing Fine Art degree, was deferred at the request of the College.
34.2 The University's pro forma for new programme proposals had been used in both cases, supplemented by further detailed documentation including outlines of programme structure and content. Details of the modules/units making up the programmes, and programme regulations, had also been provided. Operations Sub-Committee would be considering the resource implications for the College at its next meeting.
34.3 The Sub-Committee noted that the programme in History of Art and Design was based on modules with a weighting of 10, comparable with the University's own programme structure, whereas the programme in Graphic Communication was based on 12-weighted units. Members were informed that the latter structure was shared by the existing degree programmes in the College Department of Design: it was likely there would be some degree of commonality amongst the programmes. On the other hand, the History of Art and Design degree would be provided by the Department of Contextual Studies, which was already responsible for the College modules provided to the joint degree programme in English and the History of Art and Design developed in co-operation with the University's Department of English and Drama. The new programme would use some of the modules currently offered as part of the joint degree and the common modular structure could open further possibilities of academic collaboration.
34.4 Attention was drawn to the possibility that some modules would be offered at two different levels within the History of Art and Design programme, but the assessed briefs would differ in complexity to reflect the level to be attained. The Sub-Committee remarked that within the University it would be normal practice in these circumstances to set up two separate modules even though they might share common teaching, but this was considered to be an administrative matter rather than a point of academic principle.
34.5 Members requested clarification of the Exchange Studies component of the two programmes.
34.6 Subject to approval of the details of module/unit specifications and programme regulations by the Chair of the Sub-Committee, it was RECOMMENDED to Teaching and Learning Committee that the two new degree programmes be added to the portfolio of programmes validated by the University from September 1997. The Sub-Committee expressed the hope that the programme framework for the College degrees other than History of Art and Design would in due course be harmonised with the University's modular scheme.
The Sub-Committee received a verbal report from the AD(T) of Engineering and a paper was tabled. This concerned a proposal that Loughborough participate in a joint venture with JBEM whereby students who had successfully completed Parts 1 and 2 of the DipEM be admitted to a Loughborough MSc programme in Engineering Management. A similar venture had already been launched at the University of Bristol. The Sub-Committee expressed broad support for the proposal and encouraged the Engineering Faculty to develop and bring forward full proposals.
36.1 The Sub-Committee reviewed current documentation relating to the approval process in the light of experience over the previous session and recent discussions in the TLC Steering Group.
36.2 It was agreed to amend the main pro forma to require sections 1-4 to be completed in every case, and in the case of a revised module specification, if it was proposed to change the modular weight or the semester taught and the module was a compulsory component of a programme offered by another department, to require section 11 to be completed and a consultation form from the relevant department attached.
36.3 It was also agreed to add to the Procedures for the Amendment of Module Specifications a requirement that departments consult and seek approval before withdrawing any module which is a compulsory component of a programme being offered by another department. The same procedures should also flag up the need for consultation with the receiving department if it was proposed to amend modular weight or semester taught.
36.4 Under the section of these procedures dealing with changes for effect next academic year, it was agreed to add a paragraph to the effect that modules may be deleted from the database, by the responsible department in liaison with the Examinations Office, before the next academic year begins, except that if the module is a compulsory component of a programme offered by another department, the responsible department should complete the usual pro forma, attach a consultation form from the department receiving the module, and seek approval from the AD(T) and the Chair of CSC.
36.5 It was agreed that proposals should not be processed until signed off by the appropriate Head of Department or a designated deputy.
36.6 The Chair urged the AD(T)s to use the appropriate cover sheet when passing on proposals for approval by Chair's action.
Author - Robert Bowyer
Date - October 1996
Copyright (c) Loughborough University. All rights reserved.