Learning and Teaching Committee

LTC05-M2

Minutes

Minutes of the Thirtieth (Extraordinary) Meeting of the Committee held on 14 April 2005

Present: Morag Bell (Chair), Simon Austin, David Berry, Paul Byrne, John Dickens,

Keith Gregory, Martin Harrison, Anne Mumford, Jennifer Nutkins, Iain Phillips,

Jonathan Roberts, Jan Tennant;

Apologies: Andrew Wilson

In attendance: Robert Bowyer; Jane Ellis and Henrietta Pocock (for M.19)

It was noted that Anne Mumford had been nominated by Mary Morley, the newly appointed Director of DISS, to represent DISS on the Committee; she replaced Val Blackett who had served as DISS Convenor since the beginning of 2004.

05/18 Business of the Agenda

It was agreed to take item 5 before the other items on the agenda.

05/19 Six-month pre-sessional course

LTC05-P14

The Committee considered proposals from the English Language Study Unit for the provision of a six-month pre-sessional English language course.

Clarification was provided of the arrangements for the IELTS examinations (Week 17 with the opportunity to retake in 26) and internal exit assessment (Week 28), and of the criteria for students to progress to their chosen University programme.

It was noted that the rooms already earmarked for the course in 2005/06 (in the James France building) were not suitable for wheelchair users. It was expected that the University would be alerted to any such needs sufficiently far in advance to be able to respond.

ELSU was asked to check the dates set out in Appendix 2 against the semester and vacation dates for 2006.

It was proposed to charge a fee of £5400 for the course, which was considered a competitive rate.

It was RECOMMENDED to Senate that the course be approved to operate from February 2006.

Anne Mumford and Jan Tennant left the meeting after the above item.

05/20 Changes in General Regulations

The Committee considered further proposals for changes in General Regulations.

20.1 Issues of principle on which departments had been consulted

LTC05-P11

The following issues were considered in the light of responses from departments, which were included in the agenda paper.

(i) Reassessment rights and mark capping

Proposals agreed (as set out in paras 1.3.1 – 1.3.3 and 1.3.5 - 1.3.6).

On 1.3.4, it was agreed to recommend a flat rate reassessment fee of £50 per module regardless of credit volume.

(ii) Abolition of Postgraduate Module Boards and introduction of Progress Boards

Proposals agreed (paras 2.3.1 – 2.3.4). The Committee supported a suggestion that the ‘Progress Boards’ be called ‘Review Boards’.

(iii) Sanctions for failure to attend

Proposals agreed (paras 3.3.1 – 3.3.5), subject to their being recast in terms of participation rather than attendance.

(iv) Relaxation of maximum 80 weight limit on year-long modules

Agreed that the rule limiting the volume of year-long modules at UG level to 80 credits per Part be removed. Agreed that a minimum of 20% of the formal assessment of each year-long module should take place in Semester One.

20.2 Other issues

LTC05-P12

The following issues were also considered.

(i) Reduction of AD(T)s’ administrative workload (responsibility for certain approvals)

Proposals agreed (paras 1.2.1 – 1.2.5). Agreed that the approval of credit transfer/disregard on internal transfer should be delegated to the receiving HOD.

(ii) Award of lesser qualifications

Proposals agreed (paras 2.2.1 – 2.2.5).

(iii) Credit transfer/disregard on transfer of programme and leave of absence

Proposals agreed (paras 3.2.1 – 3.2.2). It was suggested that consideration be given to finding a different term for a transfer of programme after failure.

(iv) Leave of absence – reassessment, permitted repeat attempts

Proposals agreed (paras 4.2.1 – 4.2.2).

(v) Impaired performance - ‘further work’

Proposal agreed (para 5.2.1).

(vi) Degree classification boundaries – remove power to raise by 3%

Proposal agreed (para 6.2.1).

(vii) Programme Boards

It was agreed that the proposals set out in para 7.2 should be the subject of consultation with departments.

On the proposals in paras 7.2.1 and 7.2.2 concerning the membership and quoracy of Programme Boards, it was agreed there was a need for an ‘independent member’ to maintain the impartiality currently assured through the Board/Senate representative: and it was proposed that each department be asked on an annual basis to nominate a number of members of staff to a pool from which these representatives could be drawn. Such individuals should be experienced in participating in University Programme Boards, and include, for example, Programme Directors; while probationers should be excluded.

It was proposed that in the case of Programme Boards for joint honours programmes (ie degrees in ‘subject A and subject B’ where the subjects are taught in different departments), the quorum should include one internal examiner from the partner department. A member of staff from the partner department would not be eligible to serve as the ‘independent member’.

It would be helpful in the consultation exercise to show the current membership and quoracy requirements for reference.

On proposal 7.2.3, it was hoped that departmental staff on the approved list would be willing to support less experienced colleagues, but they would not be obliged to do so.

On proposal 7.2.4, it was agreed the aim should be to have as much common membership as possible between the SAP and summer Boards.

On proposal 7.2.5, it was noted that only the proposed new decisions were listed.

(viii) External examiners

Proposals 8.2.1 agreed. Noted that criteria for appointments were under discussion within the PDQ Team: it was likely there would need to be consultation on proposals and that the criteria could not be applied to appointments before 2006/07.

(ix) Non-programme undergraduates (Socrates etc) – reassessment rights

Proposal agreed (para 9.2.1).

(x) Postgraduate project referral

Proposals agreed (paras 10.2.1 – 10.2.3).

(xi) Carry forward of component marks at reassessment

It was queried whether the proposals were necessary. At present, in practice, individual assessment element marks could be carried forward (because examiners would not require satisfactory pieces of coursework to be repeated). The proposals were referred back for further consideration (paras 11.2.1 – 11.2.3).

(xii) Dormancy – abandonment of studies

Proposals agreed (paras 12.2.1 – 12.2.2).

(xiii) Minimum component mark requirements

Noted that this matter had been covered by the proposals agreed under M.05/20.1(i).

(xiv) Transferring in credit from other institutions

Proposals agreed (paras 14.2.1 – 14.2.2), subject to it being noted that Senate had agreed that the one-third limit might be exceeded where an approved inter-institutional agreement was in place.

(xv) Permitted exceptions for BEng/MEng (Deletion of GRUA Appendix 3)

Proposal agreed (para 15.2.1).

(xvi) Exceptional permission for PGT students to register for 185 credits

Proposals agreed (paras 16.2.1 – 16.2.2).

(xvii) Publication of unfixed Semester One UG marks – moderation before Programme Board

Proposals agreed (paras 17.2.1 – 17.2.2).

(xviii) Condonement for PGT students

Noted that this was an outstanding item to be considered at a future review.

It was noted that revised regulations enshrining all the proposals agreed (and, subject to the outcome of consultations, those in 20.2(vii)) would be brought forward for approval at the June meetings of LTC and Senate. The changes would be introduced from the start of 2005/06 wherever possible, though in some cases they would not apply to existing students.

05/21 Schemes for allowing Programme Boards to move candidates out of rank order as defined by their Programme Mark

LTC05-P13

The Committee considered a paper from the Programme Development and Quality Team.

The AD(T)s had consulted departmental teaching co-ordinators and/or their Directorates on the question whether there should be any change in existing procedures to allow Programme Boards scope for moving students out of rank order as defined by their programme marks. This was currently possible only after a viva voce examination. Only a small minority of departments wished to see any change.

The PDQ Team had considered whether the small minority of departments which wanted it should be allowed to adopt a different scheme within their own programme regulations, but felt this would be a retrograde step and lead to difficulties in the case of joint degrees.

In the light of the advice from the PDQ Team, it was RECOMMENDED to Senate that the current degree classification rules should continue to apply across the institution.

05/22 Date of Next Ordinary Meeting

Thursday 2 June 2005 at 9.15 am.

Author – Robert Bowyer

Date – April 2005