Learning and Teaching Committee

LTC04-M3

Minutes of the Twenty-Eighth Meeting of the Committee held on 11 November 2004:

Present: Professor M Bell (Chair); Professor S A Austin; Dr D G Berry (ab); Ms V Blackett (ab); Dr P L Byrne; Mr J G Dickens (ab); Dr K Gregory; Dr M C Harrison; Dr J C Nutkins;

Dr I W Phillips; Mr J Roberts; Ms J M Tennant; Dr D A Wilson

In attendance: Mr R A Bowyer

Apologies for absence: Ms Blackett, Dr Berry, Mr Dickens

The Chair welcomed Dr Phillips, Mr Roberts and Ms Tennant to their first meeting.

04/49 Business of the Agenda

No items were unstarred.

04/50 Minutes

LTC04-M2

The Minutes of the Twenty-Seventh Meeting of the Committee held on 3 June 2004 were confirmed and signed.

04/51 Matters arising from the Minutes not otherwise appearing on the Agenda

51.1 Items listed on the agenda paper

The Committee noted action taken on the following items, as set out on the agenda paper:

M.04/27 Learning and Teaching Strategy

M.04/28 Committee to Review the Structure of the Academic Year

M.04/29 Use of 15-credit modules in undergraduate programmes

M.04/30 Revised Academic Regulations (LTC04-P37)

M.04/35.2 Validation of Foundation Degree in Exercise & Health at Loughborough College

M.04/45 Teaching Quality Enhancement: additional funding

51.2 M.04/31 Use of calculators in examinations

LTC04-P38

The Committee was invited to endorse an amendment to Regulation VII and a list of ‘approved calculators’. It was noted that concerns had been expressed on behalf of dyslexic students who might find it difficult to get used to a new calculator if they had to change their calculator in mid-session for one on the approved list. It was suggested that DANS might issue students in this position with a written dispensation that would allow them to continue using the machine they were familiar with for the rest of the current session. It was accepted that some students with severe difficulties might need special arrangements. These could be put in place under the ‘Assessment Policy for Students who have a Disability’. It was noted that the policy was in the process of being updated and it was agreed that the use of calculators as an issue be brought to the attention of those concerned.

ACTION: RAB

It was suggested that departments which were prepared to allow calculators that did not appear on the approved list should be advised to avoid broad definitions when wording the rubric of relevant examination papers, since invigilators could not be expected to make decisions about the acceptability or otherwise of different types of machine if makes and model numbers were not specified.

Following further discussion on the question of timing, it was agreed to RECOMMEND to Senate that the revised regulation and the accompanying list of approved calculators be approved with effect from the beginning of Semester One 2005/06, to provide a longer period of notice and obviate the need for transitional arrangements. It was further agreed to RECOMMEND that the interim regulation which had been put in place at the beginning of 2004/05 to pave the way for the approved list should be withdrawn, and the wording of the relevant regulation should revert to the version approved by Senate in June 2004.

51.3 Other matters arising not appearing elsewhere on the agenda

(i) M.04/25.3 Working Group on Impaired Performance Claims

The new procedures had been trialled during the summer and feedback had been generally positive. A further meeting of the Working Group would be held to consider any necessary refinements and regulation changes to provide for the procedures to be formally adopted.

(ii) M.04/25.8 National Teaching Fellowships Scheme

The two nominations had been unsuccessful. The overall results had been explored in further detail to see if any lessons could be learned and the new PDQ Group on Professional Standards had been asked to consider the University’s future approach.

(iii) M.04/25.9 Centres for Excellence in Teaching and Learning

The two bids had progressed to the second stage. They had subsequently been further developed and resubmitted. Final results were anticipated in January.

(iv) M.04/27 ‘Away Day’

A learning and teaching away day had been held at the end of July which had been useful in involving members of DISS.

(v) M.04/33 Monitoring Student Diversity

A meeting of interested parties had taken place in July to consider the better co-ordination of student-related diversity issues. Possible ways forward were still being explored and the PDQ Team had asked for a further report.

A very useful document had been produced by Parin Hirji (Professional Development) to provide guidance on the University’s student-related duties under relevant legislation and regulations. It was clear from the document that the University’s duties and obligations were very wide-ranging and that this was an area of high potential risk. It was agreed that the document be circulated to the PVC(T) and AD(T)s for information. The Committee felt the position was not fully appreciated by senior management and that EMG should be briefed at an appropriate time.

Those concerned felt there was a pressing need for further guidance across the sector as a whole and DAW reported that he would be making representation to the Leadership Foundation to provide this. It was suggested he propose to the Leadership Foundation that it fund a project, possibly based at LU, on the implications of recent diversity legislation and regulations for the student experience.

It was difficult to make progress within the University when there was no part of the organisation with the necessary range of expertise or dedicated resources to address the issues (by contrast with the position in relation to employment-related legislation).

There was no obvious alternative therefore but for the Committee to ask those involved up to now to reconvene to give further consideration to Parin Hirji’s document and to begin drawing up reasonable and realistic plans for responding to the relevant legislation and regulations, as well as proposals for putting in place the necessary ongoing support. It was noted that an informal diversity group had already been formed amongst the support services which could make a helpful input to the discussions. It would be desirable for academic views also to be represented and for the Students’ Union to be involved.

It was agreed that this group should report in the New Year to the PDQ Team in the first instance.

ACTION: DAW, JCN

(vi) M.04/34 Annual Programme Review

· Professional Development had produced some guidance for staff seeking to address the needs of international students that would be circulated in due course; further consultation with the International Office was proposed.

· Issues concerning internal student feedback mechanisms had been referred to the Student Feedback Group.

· The Academic Registry was unable to act on the suggestion that SAP examinations be organised in overseas locations within current resources and the PDQ Team had agreed that the matter had a relatively low priority.

· Work had progressed on new search facilities for departments to access in support of programme review, one on UG programme board decision statistics, the other on UG programme population monitoring statistics. Both were available on a trial basis and would be refined in the light of feedback from users.

· The Director of the Careers Service had discussed the first destination survey with the PDQ Team and was in contact with the AD(T)s about ways in which departments might be able to help the Careers Service with the collection of information from students who they knew to be in employment.

(vii) M.04/35.1 Validation – Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts

The Director of LUSAD had confirmed that the School was committed to the collaboration with NAFA and was willing to accept responsibility for the operation of the programme.

(viii) M.04/35.2 Validation – Loughborough College

SSES was taking steps to support the validation arrangements for the Foundation Degrees at Loughborough College in the area of Sports Science.

(ix) M.04/44 Plagiarism

Initial trials of the JISC Plagiarism Detection Service had taken place over the summer. Decisions had still to be taken about future use of the service. There were concerns about requiring students to submit work electronically but these worries might be allayed if the use of the service was on a fairly limited (perhaps audit/sample) basis. Further discussions would be needed about the service administrator role.

The treatment of cases of plagiarism and other forms of academic misconduct was discussed. It was noted that staff views were quite polarised on the severity of penalty that was appropriate in such cases; it was felt this was unhelpful and steps should be taken to address the situation. The Committee requested a report on recent academic misconduct cases for its next meeting.

ACTION: JCN

04/52 Periodic Programme Review

LTC04-P39

The Committee considered the report of the Review Panel on programmes in the Department of Politics, International Relations and European Studies (PIRES) and the response of the Department.

Attention was drawn to the features of good practice and innovation identified by the panel. One of these was the ‘Core Tutorial’, introduced in conjunction with the electronic ‘Co-Tutor’ system, and designed both to support and monitor the progress of students, addressing academic, study skills and personal tutoring issues. The Department had extended the Core Tutorial to Part B students in 2004/05.

The provision of ‘generic verbal feedback in lectures and on the Learn VLE’ was also mentioned as good practice. It was explained that some members of staff invited students to feedback their comments on issues by e-mail between lectures; the staff would then report on the feedback at the next lecture and pick up on any issues of common interest or concern.

It was agreed it would be desirable to capture and disseminate more widely the features of good practice from PPRs generally and that this should be taken forward through liaison between the AD(T)s and Professional Development.

ACTION: AD(T)s, JMT

The Committee noted and welcomed the actions of the Department in response to the recommendations of the review team, including the streamlining of departmental structures and the rationalisation of assessment.

The panel’s comments on the problems of joint and combined honours programmes were noted. Issues in this area had attracted comment from the QAA Audit Team also, and these would be explored by the Audit Steering Group in the first instance.

Certain issues had been raised for further discussion at University level. Issues concerning examiners’ discretion at degree classification thresholds had arisen in other departments and would need to be followed up through the PDQ Team. Timetabling flexibility within the modular system and the current structure of the academic year had been raised in relation to the University-wide Language Programme and could be referred to the Departmental Reviews Group (M.04/57 refers). Further consideration was being given to issues concerning plagiarism. The issues concerning physical infrastructure and equipment were considered to be matters for the HOD to pursue through the Dean and the Faculty Directorate in the first instance.

It was noted that the report had been produced using a template designed to mirror the one provided for publication of periodic review reports on the TQI website. It would be possible to publish a statement of ‘actions taken by the institution in response to the review’ on the TQI site alongside the report. It was agreed it would be inappropriate to publish the detailed response from the department and that an abbreviated statement should be produced, and cleared with the PVC(T) for publication.

ACTION: RAB

04/53 Validation Panel

LTC04-P40

The Committee considered the report of the Panel on the revalidation of the MSc in Aerosystems Engineering at the RAF College, Cranwell. It was noted that Senate at its meeting in June 2004 had already approved the extension of the agreement with Cranwell on the basis of a positive verbal report on the visit from the PVC(T).

It was agreed that the recommendations for attention by the College should be followed up through the Department of Aeronautical and Automotive Engineering and that the programme should be formally included in the Department’s annual and periodic programme reviews. It was considered questionable whether the programme would receive sufficient attention as part of the regular departmental PPR: it was noted, however, that it would be subject to further review under the validation procedures before another extension of the validation agreement.

It was agreed that the fee arrangements for the programme be referred to the Validation Working Group for further consideration.

ACTION: RAB

It was agreed that in future, where a University department was supporting a collaboration with a partner organisation, the membership of a validation or other review panel should not include staff members of the department in question: and that it would be more appropriate for the relevant departmental staff to participate in the review alongside the staff of the partner organisation.

04/54 Foundation Degrees: Policy Statement

LTC04-P41

The Committee considered, on the recommendation of the PDQ Team, a draft University policy statement on Foundation Degrees. It was noted that the statement was drafted to complement the University’s Policy on Collaborative Programmes and was intended as a reference point for academic and administrative staff involved in collaborative provision.

It was suggested that it would be helpful to include a reference to arrangements for progression from the Foundation Degree to an Honours Degree, as this had been a problematic area. It was important that agreement on this point was reached between the University and the partner organisation before any FD was launched. It was agreed that the statement be suitably revised before submission to Senate.

Attention was drawn to the fact that two of the University’s existing FDs with Loughborough College had been selected by QAA to be included in a sample of FDs to be reviewed during 2004/05 (item 22 on the agenda). The reviews would be based on similar principles to all other QAA programme-level review methods, lead to threshold judgements about standards and the quality of learning opportunities, and result in published reports. The University as awarding institution would be responsible for ensuring that there was an appropriate response to any matters identified by the review team for further attention.

04/55 Teaching Quality Information

LTC04-P42

The Committee received a further progress report. It was noted that the HESA data had not yet appeared on the TQI website although the date for publication had passed.

Attention was drawn to the requirement to publish summaries of ‘Findings of External Examiners’ on the TQI site. The intention was to publish one summary for each programme or group of related programmes. The summary would need to be compiled from the TQI forms completed by the individual EEs contributing to the programme, including relevant EEs from outside the parent department. The TQI forms included three statements with Yes/No answers, space for comment if any answer was ‘No’, and a further space where the EE could comment briefly on any particular strengths, distinctive or innovative features. The PDQ Team had agreed that departments should be asked to compile the summaries and send them to the External Programme Assessor for approval before publication. Almost all EEs had answered ‘Yes’ to the three standard statements but judgement would need to be exercised in consolidating their additional comments (including explanatory comments where a ‘No’ answer had been given).

It was noted that the role of External Programme Assessor was not as formalised in many departments as it might seem, with any one of a number of EEs being in a position to act in the role as circumstances required. It was agreed that where the EPA for a specific programme was not pre-determined, the department should decide which EE should be approached to ‘sign off’ the summary.

The Committee endorsed the approach proposed, including the involvement of departments, which it agreed could not be avoided. The AD(T)s were asked to mention the issue at Directorates and to emphasise the importance of turning round the summaries in time for publication by the Academic Registry on the TQI site before the end of January (UG programmes).

ACTION: AD(T)s

The Committee felt that departments should be asked to work towards a position where the EPA for each programme was known in advance.

04/56 National Student Survey

LTC04-P43

The Committee received an update on the National Student Survey. Loughborough had nominated a start-date of 31 January 2005. All undergraduates in their final year would be able to take part. The likelihood was that the results of the survey would be a factor in future University ratings and the University and the Students’ Union were keen to encourage students to participate. The PVC(T) had attended a number of meetings with Teaching Co-ordinators and others to emphasise the importance of a good response.

04/57 Programme Development & Quality Team;
Student Recruitment & Admissions Team

The PVC(T) reported on revised operating arrangements for the Teams.

The PDQ Team had decided to meet less frequently as a group and to set up a number of sub-groups to take forward a number of ongoing activities and new developments within the context of the Learning and Teaching Strategy. Staff and students from across the University would be invited to participate as appropriate. These included:

· Student Feedback Group - covered under M.04/56 above

· Departmental Reviews Group – taking forward the recommendations from the Committee to Review the Structure of the Academic Year for the review and refinement of programmes and assessment

It was noted for information that the revised programme structures in Electronic and Electrical Engineering were generally proving popular, though the primary factor was the reduction in assessment rather than the switch to 15 credit modules.

It was reported that the overall number of places required for semester one examinations in January 2005 was down by about 10% on the previous year.

· On-line Learning Strategy Group – to develop future University strategy in this broad area; this group would be chaired by John Dickens and consult widely

· TQEF Group – to co-ordinate the activities of the Faculty ‘On-line Learning Development Officers’ being appointed against TQEF funding and links with the new on-line learning staff based in Professional Development; this group would be chaired by Paul Byrne

· Professional Standards Group – to steer the University’s response to the external ‘standards’ agenda as it developed, promoting an ‘academic practice’ approach which was not confined solely to professional standards in relation to teaching and learning; in the short term, it would determine the criteria for internal academic practice awards, teaching prizes and mini-projects; this group would be chaired by Andy Wilson.

The SRA Team had split its meetings between the core group, a group concerned with international student recruitment and another dealing with the recruitment and admission of home students and widening participation.

It was noted that the agenda and minutes of the PDQ Team now appeared on the Registry website alongside the documents of other committees. It was agreed to alert non-PDQ members of LTC as and when new PDQ papers were added and to allow them sight of any papers on request.

ACTION: RAB

Consideration would be given to publishing SRA Team documents in a similar fashion.

ACTION: MB, HEJ

04/58 Widening Participation Strategy for Access Agreement

LTC04-P44

The Committee received a paper that had originally been produced for Operations Sub-Committee concerning the preparation of an Access Agreement for approval by the Office of Fair Access (OFFA). The document had been prepared before the final guidance had been received from OFFA and the proposals would be revisited in the light of the guidance. The Access Agreement itself would need to contain specific targets and milestones and indicate clearly what new activities were proposed. The University’s existing Widening Participation Strategy would subsequently have to be revised.

The Committee ENDORSED the broad thrust of the strategy proposed.

04/59 Curriculum Sub-Committee

LTC04-45

It was resolved to RECOMMEND new programme proposals and other strategic changes to Senate on the advice of Curriculum Sub-Committee.

04/60 Diploma in International Studies

LTC04-P46

It was resolved to RECOMMEND to Senate that approval in principle be given to a Diploma route in International Studies combining study (in an educational institution) and work experience (in an industrial placement abroad).

04/61 Handbook for Validated Provision

LTC04-P47

It was resolved to APPROVE the issue of a ‘Handbook for Validated Provision’ to partner institutions, and minor amendments to the University’s validation procedure, as incorporated in the Handbook.

04/62 Constitution, Terms of Reference and Membership

LTC04-P48

Noted.

04/63 Curriculum Sub-Committee

LTC04-P49

Further discussions of the Sub-Committee were noted.

04/64 Institutional Audit Report

The Committee noted the publication of the report and the University’s response on the QAA web site: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/revreps/reviewreports.htm

04/65 Corporate Planning Statement; Annual Monitoring Statement

The Committee noted the Learning and Teaching sections of the following documents returned to HEFCE in July 2004:

18.1 Corporate Planning Statement

http://www.lboro.ac.uk/admin/ar/planning/opplans/index.htm

18.2 Annual Monitoring Statement

http://www.lboro.ac.uk/admin/ar/planning/opplans/index.htm

04/66 Higher Education Academy (HEA) Accreditation

It was noted that in July 2004 an HEA Accreditation Team had visited the University to review the pathway to what used to be ILTHE Membership. The Team had recommended that the New Lecturers’ Programme be accredited as a pathway until 2009 and that a new Associateship pathway be similarly approved subject to HEA scrutiny of new documentation.

04/67 Phase 5 of the Fund for the Development of Teaching and Learning (FDTL5)

It was noted that funding, amounting to £149,933 over three years, had been awarded to a project entitled ‘Embedding employability skills in the curriculum’ (EPIC) led by Derek Stephens (Information Science).

04/68 QAA Special Review of Foundation Degrees 2004/05

It was noted that the following programmes delivered by Loughborough College and leading to Foundation Degrees awarded by the University had been selected by QAA to be included in a sample of FDs to be reviewed during 2004/05:

FdA in Leisure Management

FdSc in Sports Science with Sports Management

04/69 Any Other Business

A member of the Committee expressed concern on behalf of his department that the provision that was previously available in ARUA for a Programme Board to record a ‘decision deferred’ appeared to have been removed during the recent revision of the Regulations. The department felt it had been a useful provision and that situations in which it had been used were not catered for within the revised regulations. The Committee requested the Academic Registrar to look into the matter and respond to the member concerned, copying the response to the Committee for information.

04/70 Date of Next Meeting

Thursday 10 February 2005 at 09.15 a.m.

Author – Robert Bowyer

Date – November 2004