Learning and Teaching Committee
LTC04-M2
Minutes
Minutes of the Twenty-Seventh Meeting of the
Committee held on 3 June 2004:
Present: Professor M Bell (Chair);
Professor S A Austin (ab); Dr D G Berry (ab); Ms V Blackett; Mr J G Dickens; Dr
D R Green; Dr K Gregory; Mr M Hutton; Dr C M Linton (ab); Mr W P J Maunder; Dr
J C Nutkins; Dr D A Wilson
By invitation:
Dr P L Byrne, Dr M C Harrison
In attendance:
R A Bowyer
Apologies for absence:
Professor Austin, Dr Berry, Dr Linton
The Chair welcomed Dr Byrne and Dr Harrison as AD(T)s – elect of the Faculties of SSH and Science.
04/24 Minutes
LTC04-M1
The Minutes of the Twenty-Sixth
Meeting of the Committee held on 12 February 2004 were confirmed and signed.
04/25 Matters Arising from the Minutes not
otherwise appearing on the Agenda
.1 Drama: Programme Review
LTC04-P17
The Committee received the HoD’s
response to the External Consultant’s report.
.2 Working Group on Validation
It was noted that Senate had
approved the Committee’s recommendations relating to the responsibilities of
academic departments in collaborative provision.
.3 Working Group on Impaired
Performance Claims
It was noted that an amended
claim form and guides for staff and students had been approved by the PDQ team
and circulated to all departments.
Departments had been urged to adopt the new procedures on a trial basis
this summer, with the intention that, subject to satisfactory feedback from the
trials, they should be formally and consistently applied across the University
next academic year.
.4 Increasing Discretion for
Undergraduate Programme Boards
It was noted that the proposals,
as amended at the previous meeting, had been incorporated into the revised
Regulations presented elsewhere on the agenda.
.5 Regulation XIV: Student Appeals
It was noted that Senate had
approved the proposed amendments.
.6 MSc in Sports Nutrition
(DL): New Programme Proposal
It was noted that revised
proposals had been approved by Chair’s action on behalf of CSC, LTC, Senate and
Council.
.7 Curriculum Sub-Committee: Other
Proposals
It was noted that Senate had
approved the Committee’s other recommendations relating to new programme
proposals and strategic programme changes.
.8 National Teaching Fellowships
Scheme
It was noted that two nominations
had been made, one in the “Experienced Staff” category and one in the “Learning
Support Staff” category.
.9 Centres for Excellence in
Teaching and Learning
It was noted that the following
bids had been submitted:
-
Industry and Employer Linked Engineering (Single-institution
bid)
-
Provision of University-wide Mathematics and Statistics
support (Collaborative bid with Coventry University, Loughborough as lead)
04/26 QAA Institutional Audit
The Committee received the draft
report on the QAA Institutional Audit.
The audit team’s view was
that ‘broad confidence [could] be
placed in the soundness of the University’s current and likely future management
of the quality of its programmes and the academic standards of its
awards.’ The report identified many
features of good practice, as well as recommendations for action in the
category of ‘advisable’ or ‘desirable’.
The University could take pride in the very positive outcome that had
been achieved.
The QAA had asked the University
to indicate by 24 June any errors of fact in the draft, and any instances where
comments or judgements were based on a misconception of the facts. The final report would be available by 22
July and published on the QAA web-site on 19 August. The University would have the opportunity to submit a brief
statement reporting on developments since the audit for publication as an appendix
to report.
A meeting of the Audit Steering
Group had been convened on 7 June to consider how to respond and start to
prioritise work on the recommendations.
Members of the Committee drew
attention to misunderstandings about the PPR process evident in the report and
to the need to correct a statement about the use of the BEng as a ‘fallback’
qualification for the MEng. These and a
number of other errors would be brought to the QAA’s attention.
ACTION: MB, RAB
The Chair thanked all members of
staff concerned for their work in support of the audit visit.
04/27 Learning
and Teaching Strategy
LTC04-P19
The Committee considered a revised
summary version of the University Learning and Teaching Strategy. This was required for publication on the
Teaching Quality Information (TQI) web-site and had been produced using the
template headings and observing word-limits prescribed. The document was intended to move the
strategy forward from the 2002 version.
The PDQ Team had commented on an earlier draft. It was intended there would be links from
the version published on the TQI site to relevant University web pages.
It was remarked that the strategy
did not single out any major initiatives.
The Committee felt these could emerge in the following areas:
·
Student number growth: the
numbers envisaged in the document were those broadly agreed with departments
but it was felt that incremental growth would not be sufficient in itself to
meet the targets, and new developments would be necessary
·
Profile of PG activity: the
development of a graduate school was a possibility in the SSH Faculty
·
On-line strategy: some
discussions had already taken place on ways of moving this forward
·
Widening participation.
It was anticipated the
introduction of variable tuition fees from 2006 would be accompanied by bursary
schemes across the sector and the University would need to raise its profile in
the new market conditions that would be created.
Members felt that investment in
quality teaching space for flexible teaching delivery should also have a high
priority. It would be important to
ensure that the impact of the emerging on-line strategy was taken into account
and to input to discussions on the estates strategy.
The Committee noted various
linkages between the themes discussed.
It was felt the time was ripe for a more thorough and systematic
consideration of the strategic options available in the light of the changing
context. It was felt the relations
between the groups currently providing infrastructural support for learning and
teaching and between these groups and other parts of the organisation were also
in need of review. New structures were
likely to be needed to support whatever strategies were adopted. It was agreed that an ‘away day’ and perhaps
a series of shorter meetings be arranged to provide a forum for such a debate.
ACTION: MB, RAB
It was hoped that some flavour or major new initiatives in prospect could be built into the strategy document. Members suggested a number of minor amendments to help clarify the existing text and were invited to forward any further suggestions to the PVC(T) as soon as possible.
It was agreed that a revised draft
of the paper should go forward to Senate.
ACTION: MB
04/28 Report of the Committee to Review the
Structure of the Academic Year
LTC04-P20
Consideration was given to the
final report of the Committee.
Attention was drawn to the recommendations on the final page and in
particular to those advocating flexibility in the use of the academic year and
proposing that departments review and refine their academic programmes with
attention to assessment practices, modular weightings and modular options.
In relation to the departmental
review of programmes, the following points were made:
·
Some departments had already undertaken reviews or were in
the process of doing so
·
It would be desirable for the AD(T)s to take a proactive
role in helping departments with their reviews: the reference to ‘Faculty
Boards’ in 5.6 might be changed to ‘Faculties’
·
It would be desirable for every department to be asked to
produce an ‘assessment matrix’ for every one of its programmes (as recently
instigated by the CSC for new programmes); this would be a useful
starting-point for a review and would enable the AD(T)s to identify and share
examples of good practice
·
Any support that could be provided by CIS would be welcome
(for example, a web-based template for the assessment matrix)
·
In terms of timescale, it was hoped that programme changes
identified in the course of the reviews could be acted upon for 2005/06.
In relation to the other recommendations, the Committee noted:
·
The rationale for two four-week vacations
·
The intention that semester one marks would not be ‘fixed’
on the student record until the end of year Programme Board
and commented as follows:
·
That resit fees should not only be increased but also
publicised more widely to students
·
That the overall monitoring of the effects of the changes
proposed should be undertaken by the PDQ Team which would advise LTC as
appropriate
·
That the final recommendation should be reworded or removed
altogether.
LTC resolved, subject to the above comments, to endorse the Committee’s
recommendations for onward transmission to Senate.
ACTION: MB, GLW, RAB
04/29 Use of 15-credit modules in undergraduate
programmes
.1 Report from Programme
Development & Quality Team
LTC04-P21
The Committee considered a report
from the PDQ Team on discussions at its meeting on 24 May 2004 on the use of
15-credit modules in undergraduate programmes.
The PDQ Team had received a report of discussions at Curriculum
Sub-Committee on proposals from Electronic and Electrical Engineering (EL) for
the introduction of a new BEng programme in Systems Engineering which involved the
use of 15-credit modules. It had also
received a communication from the HOD concerning a new undergraduate programme
structure including 15-credit modules, which the department wished to introduce
across existing programmes, and the HOD had suggested that the department be
permitted to run the 15-credit modules in 2004/05 as a pilot study to assess
their impact.
LTC was invited in the light of
the PDQ Team’s report and feedback from the AD(T)s on subsequent consultations
in their faculties to make recommendations to Senate.
The Committee noted the arguments
advanced by EL in support of its case for using 15-credit modules, as set out
in the agenda paper and elaborated verbally by Dr Gregory. The Committee also noted the point made by the
PDQ Team that to allow EL to proceed would undermine one of the main principles
of the modular structure, that it should facilitate inter-departmental and
inter-faculty co-operation, even if in practice only a very small number of
students would be affected.
It was reported that the
Engineering Directorate fully supported EL in seeking approval for the use of
15-credit modules. The majority of
Science Faculty Teaching Co-ordinators were reported to be neutral on the
matter, so long as the use of 15-credit modules did not impact on their joint
programmes; and a minority were opposed to the proposal. A majority in SSH were opposed to it: there
was concern not only about creating a precedent for moving away from the
current University-wide structure based on the 10-credit module and about the
potential effects on the ability of departments to offer joint programmes, but
also about the constraints it would place on students’ ability to select
optional modules from outside their own department.
It was noted that the proponents
of the case for 15-credit modules were not proposing to exclude the use of 10-
or 20-credit modules, and departments offering joint programmes already had to
negotiate over details of programme structure.
It was noted that the EL proposals
also took the volume of credits from year-long modules over the agreed ceiling
of 80 per year: the Committee was assured that at least 20% of the assessment
of each module was nevertheless undertaken in
Semester 1.
There followed a full and frank
discussion.
The Committee was reminded that
under the previous agenda item the Committee to Review the Structure of the
Academic Year had advocated a departmental review of programmes across the
University, which in part would focus on the balance of modules of different
credit values. EL had already
undertaken a review of its programme structure, very much along the lines now
envisaged, before coming forward with its proposals. Although these proposals went outside the current modular
framework, there was a strong possibility that before the end of 2004/05, other
departments, having reviewed their own programmes, would also be looking for
additional flexibility in the modular framework. Issues such as the introduction of 15-credit modules and the
relaxation of the 80-credit ceiling on year-long modules would then have to be
resolved, but decisions could be taken at that point with the benefit of
considered views from all departments.
It was therefore suggested that at this juncture EL should be allowed to
implement its proposals, strictly without prejudice to any future decisions on
the matters in question, while awaiting the outcome of the departmental
programme review exercise.
It was also suggested that
departments should be specifically asked as part of the process of reviewing
their programmes to consider whether they would favour the introduction of
15-credit modules.
It was RESOLVED to RECOMMEND that
the Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering be permitted to
introduce its proposed new programme structure, using 15-credit modules in Part
B of its existing undergraduate programmes and in the new BEng programme in
Systems Engineering, while awaiting the outcome of the departmental programme
review exercise recommended by the Committee to Review the Structure of the
Academic Year. This should not be
regarded as a precedent for the use of 15-credit modules in other undergraduate
programmes and if, following the programme review exercise, the University
decided not to relax the current rules against the use of 15-credit modules,
the department would be required to revert to a 10-credit-based modular
structure.
.2 BEng/BEng(DIS)/BEng(DPD) Systems
Engineering – New Programme Proposals
LTC04-P22
It was RESOLVED to RECOMMEND the
proposals to Senate, having noted that the Curriculum Sub-Committee had
recommended approval in principle and having recommended in the course of the
foregoing discussion that the use of 15-credit modules in 2004/05 be permitted
in this instance.
04/30 Revised Academic Regulations
The Committee considered proposals
for the restructuring and revision of academic regulations. It was noted that the changes had been
considered in detail by Ordinances and Regulations Committee on 28 May
2004. Whilst recommending the proposals
to Senate, O&R Committee had made a number of minor amendments. The Committee had also asked LTC
specifically to consider whether it was desirable to include the statement ‘the
candidate has otherwise a good pattern of marks’ in ARUA (new para 9(iii)) as
one of the conditions for condoning a failed mark.
The Committee RECOMMENDED to
Senate that the statement be deleted.
ACTION: CS, JE
It was RESOLVED to inform Senate
that the Committee ENDORSED the restructuring and revision of regulations
proposed.
It was noted however that there
remained some concerns about the equity of the reassessment regulations and it
was suggested that in the course of 2004/05 there should be a further debate on
the proposition that students who were reassessed should carry forward only
their original mark.
ACTION: JCN, CS
04/31 Use of
Calculators in Examinations
The Committee considered proposals
from the PDQ Team that the University should produce a short list of ‘approved
calculators’ for use in University examinations. The proposals had arisen on discussion of a paper from the
Engineering Faculty.
It was RESOLVED to RECOMMEND the
proposals to Senate for implementation in 2004/05. Departments would be consulted about the ‘approved list’ and an
appropriate amendment to regulations would be required.
ACTION: CS
It was the view of the Committee
that it was inadvisable for departments to take responsibility for providing
students with calculators for use in examinations.
04/32 Use of
Part C Modules in Part D of extended undergraduate programmes
Curriculum Sub-Committee had asked
for a decision from LTC on the weighting of C modules permissible in Part D,
following consideration of proposals for new MPhys programmes in Physics and
Mathematics and in Engineering Physics.
The Committee considered a recommendation from the PDQ Team that no more
than 20 C-level credits should be permitted.
It was noted that Physics had already amended its new MPhys programme
proposals to comply.
It was RESOLVED to RECOMMEND to
Senate accordingly.
It was noted that some other
programmes might be out of step with the recommendation and agreed that
departments should be given until the start of session 2005/06 to comply.
ACTION: AD(T)s
04/33 Monitoring
Student Diversity
The Committee received the report
of a joint meeting of the SRA and PDQ Teams held on 17 May 2004 to consider
statistical data on aspects of student diversity.
A number of issues had emerged
which appeared to warrant further investigation, particularly around ethnicity
and age, although the statistical significance of some of the data was
uncertain. It was agreed to invite the
Director of Registry Services and the Director of Professional Development, in
consultation with the Equal Opportunities Officer (Personnel Services), to
bring forward proposals to the next meeting on how the key issues might be
handled and how the monitoring exercise might be approached in the longer term.
ACTION: DAW, JCN, LM
Meanwhile, a report would be sent
forward to Equal Opportunities Committee.
ACTION: HEJ, RAB, JCN
It was noted that data could be
produced at faculty and departmental level, but agreed that this should not be
done unless specifically requested before further thought had been given to the
handling of the issues identified at institutional level.
04/34 Annual Programme Review
LTC04-P27
The Committee received reports
from the three AD(T)s on the 2004 round of Annual Programme Reviews.
.1 Science
The AD(T) had highlighted some
issues for attention, in discussion of which the following points were noted:
(a) It was
agreed there was a need to do more in terms of central support for
international students. Discussion had
taken place in the Executive Management Group about the joint location of some
of the key services and this was being investigated further. It was felt that Professional Development
could offer more by way of training for staff seeking to address the needs of
international students.
ACTION: DAW
(b) It was
felt there was a need to do more to assure students that their feedback on
modules and programmes was valued and taken into account by the teaching
staff. It should not be left to the
‘course reps’ to report back to the rest of the students. It was agreed to refer the matter to the PDQ
Team for further consideration.
ACTION: RAB
(c) It was
agreed to ask the Academic Registry to investigate the feasibility and resource
implications of organising SAP examinations in overseas locations.
ACTION: CS
.2 Social Sciences and Humanities
(a) The AD(T) felt that the ‘progression data’ box of the APR form remained a source of frustration and was difficult for departments to complete. It was pointed out that the data in question related essentially to ‘programme board decisions’; the Committee was reminded that recent efforts had been made to provide the relevant data centrally and was informed of further work being undertaken, with assistance from CIS, to produce a different set of data to help analyse student progression. As noted earlier in the meeting, further progression statistics could be provided at a departmental or programme level in a similar format to those recently supplied for diversity monitoring. The views of the AD(T)s would be sought on the presentation and applications of the various statistics concerned.
ACTION: JE, CS, GLW
(b)
The AD(T) felt that the personal tutoring system had come
under strain with increased student numbers but there was a welcome interest in
‘Co-Tutor’ as a means of ensuring that adequate monitoring of student progress
was taking place.
.3 Engineering
(a) PGT numbers in Mechanical Engineering were beginning to give rise to problems with the capacity of teaching rooms.
(b) Civil and Building Engineering was generally holding only one Staff/Student Committee per semester (less than the three required under the University Code of Practice): it was felt the requirement might need to be reviewed.
(c) Attention was drawn to a problem with the presentation of employment data for APR. Graduate employment rates were known by departments to be better than they appeared, but it was understood that only returns from the individual students concerned could be incorporated into official data. It was agreed to invite the Director of the Careers Service to report to the PDQ Team about this issue as it could impact badly on performance indicators.
ACTION: RAB, WEL
04/35 Validation Panels
.1 Report of a Validation Panel on a
proposal that Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts, Singapore, deliver a one-year
programme in Graphic Communication leading to the Loughborough University
Honours degree of Bachelor of Arts
The Committee considered the
report of the panel. Attention was
drawn to the potential of the collaboration leading in due course to the
recruitment of postgraduate students to LUSAD and the establishment of links
with other parts of SE Asia through NAFA’s own connexions in the region.
Attention was also drawn to the
ways in which staff of LUSAD would be supporting the programme, including
participation in the selection of students, the setting of projects, and the
assessment process.
It was RESOLVED to RECOMMEND to
Senate that the report be approved and that, subject to the clarification and
resolution of the issues identified in paragraph 50, the programme be validated
for an initial period of three years with effect from the beginning of NAFA
academic year 2004/05 (starting July 2004) and that the continuation of the
validation beyond the end of the initial period be subject to review towards
the end of academic year 2005/06.
It was also resolved to endorse
the further recommendations set out in paragraph 52 of the report, for onward
transmission to Senate, for action within the University.
ACTION: RAB
.2 Report of a Validation Panel on
proposals from Loughborough College for a Foundation Degree in Exercise and
Health
The Committee considered the
report of the panel.
It was noted that the College had
submitted documentation to the University within the past few days to address
the issues raised by the panel in paragraph 30 of its report as conditions of
approval. There had not yet been
sufficient time to consider and ‘sign off’ the documentation within the
University.
ACTION: WPM, RAB
Attention was drawn to the
recommendations in paragraph 33 for action within the University. The Committee expressed concern at the delay
in securing SSES involvement in the validation arrangements for the College
Foundation Degrees in Sports Science, in line with the ‘minimum expectations’
agreed by Senate at its March meeting, and urged that appropriate discussions
take place as soon as possible.
It was noted that the Working
Group on Validation would be considering the ongoing arrangements for the
management of quality and standards of validated programmes in further detail,
including the financial arrangements involved.
ACTION: MB, RAB
The Committee observed that the
level of validation activity in which the University was involved meant that
economies of scale associated with a bigger operation were not available.
It was RESOLVED to RECOMMEND to
Senate that the proposed programme leading to a Foundation Degree (FdSc) in
Exercise and Health be validated for an initial period of three years from
2004/05, subject to the conditions set out in the report being met and to SSES
confirming its willingness to provide support for the validation of the
programme on an ongoing basis.
ACTION: RAB
04/36 Curriculum Sub-Committee – 6 May 2004
It was resolved to recommend new programme proposals and other strategic programme changes to Senate on the recommendation of the Curriculum Sub-Committee.
04/37 External Examining Code of Practice
It was resolved to approve a minor
amendment to the Code of Practice in relation to the adjustment of marks where
an External Examiner has seen work from only a sample of students.
04/38 Code
of Practice and Service Level Statement – Use of the OMR CAA Bureau Service for
Undergraduate and Postgraduate Examinations
It was resolved to approve updated
versions of the Code of Practice and SLS.
04/39 Composition and Membership of the Committee
It was resolved to recommend
proposed changes in the composition of the Committee to Senate. Imminent changes in membership for 2004/05
were noted.
04/40 Validation Review Panel to consider the extension of the
validation of the MSc in Aerosystems Engineering at RAF College, Cranwell
It was noted that the Panel would be visiting Cranwell on 16 June 2004 for the purposes of the review and to authorise the PVC(T) in the light of the visit to make recommendations to Senate on behalf of the Committee, on the understanding that the Panel report would be presented to the next meeting of the Committee for ratification.
04/41 Curriculum Sub-Committee
Further discussions of the Sub-Committee were noted.
04/42 Teaching Quality Information
The Committee received a report on the creation of the Teaching Quality Information (TQI) web-site and the “definitive calendar” for publication of TQI data.
04/43 Report of a review of the
Loughborough College BSc Honours “top-up” in Applied Sports Science and
progression arrangements for College Foundation Degree students
The report was noted.
04/44 Plagiarism
It was noted that the PDQ Team had
agreed there should be a “trial” of the JISC Plagiarism Detection Service by
about six departments.
04/45 Teaching Quality Enhancement: additional
funding
It was noted that the institutional strand of the existing Teaching Quality Enhancement Fund would be extended for a further year to the end of 2005/06. Additional funds were also being allocated for 2004/05 and 2005/06 to support staff development of teachers in higher education, under the heading “Supporting Professional Standards”. The indicative allocation for Loughborough for each year/funding strand was £176,418.
http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2004/04_18
04/46 Dates of Meetings 2004/05
The schedule of meetings of the
Committee for 2004/05 was noted as follows:
11 November 2004
10 February 2005
2 June 2005
all meetings to start at 9.15am.
04/47 Date
of Next Meeting
Thursday 11 November 2004 at
9.15am.
04/48 Valedictions
The Chair thanked the retiring members
(Dr Green, Mr Hutton, Dr Linton and Mr Maunder) for their input to the affairs
of the Committee. The Committee
expressed its gratitude particularly to Dr Green and Mr Maunder for the very
substantial contribution each had made to the work of the University during his
term of office as AD(T).
Author – Robert Bowyer
Date – June 2004
Copyright © Loughborough University. All rights reserved