Learning and Teaching Committee

LTC05-M1

Minutes of the Twenty-Ninth Meeting of the Committee held on 10 February 2005:

Present: Morag Bell (Chair); Simon Austin; David Berry (ab); Val Blackett; Paul Byrne;

John Dickens; Keith Gregory; Martin Harrison; Jennifer Nutkins; Iain Phillips;

Jonathan Roberts; Jan Tennant; Andrew Wilson

In attendance: Robert Bowyer

The Chair drew attention to the success of the two bids for Centres for Excellence in Teaching and Learning and congratulated all concerned. Thanks were recorded to John Dickens and Tony Croft, and to all the others who had assisted, for their work on the bid documents. The Committee applauded their achievement.

The Access Agreement had received complimentary comments from OFFA. Some minor adjustments would be made before it was published in mid-March. Thanks were due to Jennifer Nutkins in particular for her work on the preparation of the document.

05/01 Business of the Agenda

No items were unstarred.

05/02 Minutes

LTC04-M3

The Minutes of the Twenty-Eighth Meeting of the Committee held on 11 November 2004 were confirmed.

05/03 Matters arising from the Minutes not otherwise appearing on the Agenda

3.1 Items listed on the agenda paper

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

M.04/51.2 Use of Calculators in examinations

M.04/54 Foundation Degrees: policy statement

M.04/59 Curriculum Sub-Committee

M.04/60 Diploma in International Studies

3.2 M.04/51.3 Plagiarism

It was noted that a report on academic misconduct cases would be presented to the next meeting of the Committee.

ACTION: CD

05/04 Periodic Programme Reviews

Considered the reports of Review Panels on programmes in the following departments, and the departments’ responses. Noted that all three reports were positive in their conclusions and endorsed the quality and standards of the provision under review. Consistency of feedback to students and the effectiveness of the personal tutoring system were amongst points identified for further attention in all three reports. The departmental responses were comprehensive and action points would be followed up in their next APR.

4.1 Electronic and Electrical Engineering

LTC05-P1

The Committee shared the reservations of the Review Panel about the use of the Departmental Administrator as an alternative source of personal tutoring (14.1.3). Members were advised that the role was not a formal one and was restricted to pastoral support: the administrator was ‘available to talk to’ and could refer students to other members of staff as appropriate. Demands on the administrator’s time were manageable.

It was confirmed that new students were informed that there would be a short delay in allocating them to personal tutors and of the reasons for this (14.1.1).

The Committee considered it essential that external examiners received a formal written response from the department to their reports (13.5). It was also a University requirement that EEs’ reports be discussed in the departmental Learning and Teaching Committee or full staff meeting.

Noted that departmental responses to EEs had now been added to PPR documentation requirements.

4.2 School of Sport and Exercise Sciences

LTC05-P2

The PVC(T) and AD(T) of SSH would be meeting with the HOD shortly to discuss the School’s participation in joint honours programmes (14.1).

A working party was being established to review the co-ordination of joint/combined honours programmes (14.2), which would include representation from within the Faculties of SSH and Science.

There had been an issue over the interpretation of the rules for determining degree classifications which had attracted critical comments from the EEs (14.3). The Committee considered it essential to ensure that these rules were clear and left departments and EEs in no doubt. The role of the EE also needed further clarification. It was agreed there should be further discussion.

ACTION: PDQ Team

Confirmation was sought that postgraduate research students were contributing to seminars at undergraduate level (10.6).

It was agreed to refer the points concerning accommodation (14.6, 14.7) to the Estates Management Committee.

ACTION: RAB

4.3 Human Sciences

LTC05-P3

The concern relating to assessment criteria (13.1) had arisen from a module where different staff were involved in parallel, and students had commented that individual members of staff set different volumes of work for assessment. The Committee agreed this needed to be addressed.

The department’s accommodation problems associated with the refurbishment programme (14.2.2) needed to be resolved as a matter of urgency.

The Committee felt it important that all departments encouraged staff to provide timely and appropriate feedback to students and that new staff were made aware of such an expectation (14.1.2). It was commented that it might help to promote this sort of ethos across the institution if other sections of the University made it a matter of policy to give feedback to members of staff on internal applications, etc.

It was suggested that the wording of section 12 of the report be revisited.

ACTION: JE

05/5 Impaired Performance Claims

LTC05-P4

Considered a further report from the Working Party on Impaired Performance Claims. The Group had sought feedback on the effectiveness of the new procedures, which had been trialled by all but two departments during summer 2003/04 and were now enshrined in Regulation XVII. Feedback had been generally positive. A number of issues had been raised; the Group felt it possible to address these satisfactorily, as indicated in the report. Further data would be gathered to monitor the number of impaired performance claims. It was agreed to RECOMMEND that the procedures be approved on a permanent basis, with the minor adjustments proposed in the report, and that all departments be required to adopt them.

The Group had also highlighted the need for a policy to deal with student absences for participating in sporting and cultural activities. It had been specifically requested that such circumstances be excluded from the eligibility criteria for impaired performance claims. A draft statement of principles was put forward for discussion. Attention was drawn to several matters that would need further clarification, including

· the definition of commitments that would qualify: ie. level (international, national, etc), training as well as competition

· whether all forms of coursework should be included

· the extent to which powers should be delegated to departments to handle matters.

It was suggested that high performance athletes and students with external artistic commitments should be able to have their whole programme of study managed from the outset.

It was agreed that there be further consultations, with the Sports Development Centre amongst others, and that the policy be refined and brought back to the Committee through the PDQ Team for further consideration.

ACTION: CS

It was suggested that there appeared to be an increasing incidence of students failing to attend classes, tests, etc at specific times for religious reasons.

05/6 Regulation XIV, Student Appeals against Programme Board or Module Board decisions: Reports for 2002, 2003 and 2004

LTC05-P5

Considered a report on the operation of the appeals procedure over the previous three years. Thanks were due to Chris Dunbobbin for compiling the report and accompanying data. One of the points arising from the data was that there was a greater propensity for ‘Black and Minority Ethnic’ (BME) students to appeal than their white counterparts.

Discussion focussed on the issues identified in section 3.

Students undertaking reassessments without tuition

The Committee agreed that students who opted for reassessment without tuition were not entitled to anything more than basic administrative support and supported the suggestion that steps be taken to ensure that they were explicitly advised to this effect. It was noted however that in practice it could be difficult for staff to enforce this in relation to project and dissertation modules and it might be helpful to investigate the practicalities further with the departments where appeals had arisen because of uncertainty over the support that could be expected. It was remarked that reassessment should not be allowed without tuition if it was unrealistic to expect students to cope without it and it should be possible for departments to include a statement in a module specification that reassessment in that module was only permitted with tuition.

Problems with project or dissertation supervision

This issue would be discussed under the Report of the Departmental Reviews Group.

Guidance on marking schemes for multiple-choice examinations

It was agreed it should be compulsory for all multiple-choice examination papers to include guidance on the marking scheme in the rubric at the head of the paper.

International students returning to their home country for long periods during the academic year

The Committee felt that it would not always be appropriate to take a tough line towards students who had temporarily ‘disappeared’ and that it was reasonable if the appeals procedure came into play to judge each case on its merits. In order to reduce the incidence of it happening, it was suggested that ELSU be asked to inform international students attending its courses about the appropriate procedures to follow should they have to return home for some reason during the year, or that a member of Registry be invited along to explain the procedures.

ACTION: JCN, CD

05/7 Departmental Reviews Group

LTC05-P6

Considered a report from the PDQ Team Departmental Reviews Group. Noted that the Group had been set up to take forward the recommendations of the Committee to Review the Structure of the Academic Year that departments review and refine their programmes with attention to modular weightings, modular options and assessment practices. It had also been asked to consider relevant issues raised in the QAA Institutional Audit.

The Committee approved the following proposals:

(i) That Annual and Periodic Programme Review should provide the vehicle for the departmental review of programmes requested by the RSAY Committee.

(ii) That the reviews be instigated through adjustments in the documentation requirements for APR/PPR, and involve an exploration of the relevant issues with the department by the AD(T) (APR) or the Review Panel (PPR).

(iii) That in the current session, the exercise be confined to departments with PPR (expected to take place in April/May 2005), and extended in 2005/06 to all other departments whether undertaking APR or PPR.

(iv) That the reviews focus on undergraduate programmes in the first instance (APR/PPR would continue to encompass both UG and PGT).

The Group was urged to issue the necessary guidance to the departments involved in PPR in 2005 as soon as possible.

A supplementary recommendation was considered, relating to the supervision of students undertaking projects or dissertations. The view had emerged in meetings of several different groups that there was a need for departments to be more explicit in future about the contact and support that students could expect in respect of project and dissertation supervision. A significant number of student appeals had arisen in this area.

The Committee was broadly supportive of the approach proposed but felt the wording required further refinement before any directive was issued to departments, to ensure that those with adequate record-keeping procedures were not burdened with additional paperwork. The matter was referred back to the Group.

ACTION: RAB

The Committee discussed ways in which the introduction of variable tuition fees would raise students’ expectations regarding the learning support they received from staff, and whether low contact hours would become a matter of contention. It was noted that issues of learning support were taken up at APR/PPR but problems of this sort came to light only if students themselves raised them.

05/8 Other PDQ Team Sub-Groups

Received verbal reports on the activities of the following sub-groups:

8.1 Online Learning Strategy Group

The Group had held one meeting with representatives of academic users and another with relevant service providers to begin to establish what level of provision to plan for the future; and there had been a follow-up discussion in the PDQ Team. There was a strong level of support for ‘Learn’ but Val Blackett and Carys Thomas had been asked to invite commercial suppliers of VLEs to make presentations to help the Group and others involved to get a better appreciation of what alternative systems could offer. It was pointed out that, within current resources, work could not start on the replacement of Learn (if this were the chosen option) before the end of 2006 and the earliest full year of working with a replacement system would be 2008/09. It was essential to take account of what was happening with the redevelopment of the Student Information System, where an electronic student portal was proposed through which students would access personal administrative information as well as online learning resources.

8.2 Audit Steering Group

The Group had recently met to consider the recommendations in the QAA Audit Report and had agreed a range of actions to begin taking these forward. The Committee would be consulted and its approval sought for various proposals in due course.

8.3 TQEF Group

The Online Learning Development Officers (OLDOs) had been appointed: four in the Faculties and one based in Professional Development. One job for them in support of the Online Learning Strategy Group would be to audit how departments were already using Learn and other systems. Primarily, they would be helping staff in departments to develop and expand their use of Learn. It would be important to introduce the OLDOs and promote the initiative in such a way as to ensure the co-operation of departments and thought was currently being given to this.

8.4 Professional Standards Group

Details of various new internal ‘awards and rewards’ in learning and teaching had been published, including teaching prizes, academic practice awards and mini-projects. A group had been established with cross-faculty membership to determine priorities and plans in relation to the external standards agenda emerging from the Higher Education Academy. One recommendation from its first meeting was that the University should not seek reaccreditation for the Teaching Excellence Route to SL.

05/9 Teaching Quality Information

There had been significant progress since the last meeting in two areas: summaries of external examiners reports and periodic programme reviews.

For each UG programme or group of programmes, there was now available on the TQI site a single summary report, signed off by the relevant external programme assessor. These summaries had been compiled from the TQI forms completed by individual EEs and submitted with their University reports after the summer 2004 assessments. Thanks were due to all departmental staff who had assisted in this exercise and to the several members of Registry involved (CS, LMH, MK, CMG). It was noted the exercise would have to be repeated for PG programmes later in the spring.

The PIRES PPR report had been installed on the site and three of the five PPR reports from 2003 (Mathematical Sciences, Physics, Social Science), which had been reformatted using the TQI headings. The remaining 2003 reports (Chemical Engineering and Economics) would be added shortly. The three reports considered earlier in the current meeting could also now be added. Reports from before 2003, which preceded the current PPR process, would not be added but links would be installed to relevant TQA and ESR reports published on the QAA web-site.

The first set of quantitative data, which was being supplied by HESA, had still not appeared on the TQI site.

05/10 National Student Survey

The National Student Survey was now underway, involving all undergraduate students in their final year. Loughborough students were expected to have received an email from Ipsos UK at the beginning of the previous week (31 January) inviting them to complete the survey online, and already to have received a first reminder if they had not responded.

Within the past day or so, however, it had become apparent that there had been a technical hitch which prevented many Loughborough students from opening the survey directly from the email sent by Ipsos as intended. Ipsos was unaware of any general problem but revealed that as of 9 February only 4.4% of Loughborough students had responded by comparison with an anticipated response rate of 10% and that this was significantly lower than the response rates in neighbouring HEIs.

Ipsos had been asked to send the file again in a format compatible with the IMP webmail that most students would be using.

The Committee was very disappointed and concerned at this news and felt that as well as sending the email again Ipsos should send a special message apologising for the problem that had occurred. It was felt the Students’ Union should be asked to redouble their promotional efforts to overcome this setback to the response rate.

Both avenues would be followed up as a matter of urgency.

ACTION: MB, MK

05/11 Curriculum Sub-Committee – 13 January 2005 (A)

LTC05-P7

It was RESOLVED to RECOMMEND new programme proposals and other strategic changes to Senate on the advice of Curriculum Sub-Committee. Attention was drawn to the changes in proposed programme titles since the meeting of Curriculum Sub-Committee, as highlighted in the agenda paper.

05/12 Curriculum Sub-Committee – 13 January 2005 (B)

LTC05-P8

Noted further discussions of the Sub-Committee.

05/13 Centres for Excellence in Teaching and Learning

Noted the University’s success in bidding for the following CETLs to be created at Loughborough:

· Centre for Excellence in Employer-linked Engineering Education

· A Centre for Excellence in the Provision of University-wide Mathematics & Statistics Support (in collaboration with Coventry University)

05/14 Access Agreement

LTC05-P9

Noted the University’s proposed Access Agreement, as submitted to OFFA. This should continue to be treated as a confidential document pending its final acceptance and publication by OFFA.

05/15 Student Feedback – Support Services 2003/04

LTC05-P10

Received a report from the Head of Academic Practice and Quality, Professional Development on student feedback 2003/04 in relation to the support services.

05/16 Extraordinary Meeting

Noted that an extraordinary meeting of the Committee had been arranged for Thursday 14 April 2005 at 09.30 a.m. in order to consider further changes in awards regulations.

05/17 Date of Next Meeting

Thursday 2 June 2005 at 09.15 a.m.

Author – Robert Bowyer

Date – February 2005