Learning and Teaching Committee

LTC05-M3

Minutes of the Thirty-First Meeting of the Committee held on 2 June 2005:

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

Keith Gregory; Martin Harrison; Anne Mumford; Jennifer Nutkins; Iain Phillips (ab);

Jonathan Roberts (ab); Jan Tennant; Andrew Wilson

Apologies: Iain Phillips

In attendance: Robert Bowyer, Chris Spendlove (for Min 27), Chris Dunbobbin

(for Min 28 and 29)

05/23 Business of the Agenda

Items 16 and 24 were unstarred.

05/24 Minutes

LTC05-M1; LTC05-M2

The Minutes of the Twenty-Ninth Meeting of the Committee held on 10 February 2005 and the Thirtieth (Extraordinary) Meeting held on 14 April 2005 were confirmed.

05/25 Matters arising from the Minutes not otherwise appearing on the Agenda

25.1 School of Sport and Exercise Sciences PPR (M.05/4.2)

The Committee received an update on matters relating to the PPR Report, as set out on the agenda.

25.2 Human Sciences PPR (M.05/4.3)

The Committee received an update on matters relating to the PPR Report, as set out on the agenda.

25.3 Impaired Performance Claims (M.05/5)

It was noted that policy on student absences for participating in sporting and cultural activities was still under discussion.

25.4 Departmental Reviews Group (M.05/7)

It was noted that Derek Blease had been asked to progress work on the development of policy relating to the supervision of students undertaking projects or dissertations.

05/26 Annual Programme Reviews

The Committee considered reports from the AD(T)s on the Annual Programme Reviews in their respective faculties.

26.1Engineering

LTC05-P15

Attention was drawn to the following points:

· some concerns over progression and the numbers of resits

· an apparent increase in SSR in Chemical Engineering and possible difficulties in relation to technician support if PGT numbers grew significantly.

The AD(T) indicated that as a rule he would follow up with a department any pass rate of less than 80% at the first attempt. In most cases, the majority of resit students passed at the second attempt and so eventual progression was satisfactory. The Committee was assured that academic staffing issues were being addressed through the appropriate channels.

26.2 Science

LTC05-P16

Attention was drawn to the following points:

· the AD(T) had asked departments to ensure that module feedback was discussed at Staff/Student Committees

· critical comments from a Chemistry external examiner: the Department had responded and expected to be able to resolve matters

· there were concerns over the number of resits and some poor progression rates from Part A

· liaison between Computer Science and the Business School in respect of the joint honours programme was not entirely satisfactory: the problems could be addressed by recommendations from a the PDQ Working Group on Joint Degrees which would report shortly.

The Committee was concerned that student feedback had not been available for discussion at the APR in Computer Science and agreed that the AD(T) should ask the department to provide it without further ado so that the Committee could be assured that students were generally satisfied with their experience in the department.

ACTION: MCH

The Committee noted the pressures on the Department of Computer Science, arising particularly from the decline in applications and intake. It was assured that the department’s position was being looked at regularly.

26.2 Social Sciences and Humanities

LTC05-P17

In relation to the validated programmes, there were some issues concerning progression: these were being addressed. It was noted that the validation of the Sports Science and Sports Science with Sports Management Foundation Degrees at Loughborough College would fall due for renewal at the end of 2005/06 and a revalidation/PPR event would need to be scheduled during the session.

In relation to internal programmes:

· progression rates were generally satisfactory to good

· departments all took Staff/Student Committees seriously and responded to student feedback

· there was growing use of Co-Tutor across the faculty

· departments were exploring methods of assessing group work that allowed for differentiation between individuals

· whilst the Department of English and Drama did not provide a summary of student feedback at APR, the AD(T) had seen the full feedback.

It was suggested to the AD(T) that the presentation of data on module and programme feedback provided by the Department of Social Sciences might be held up as an example of good practice to others.

A reference to the expansion of PGT teaching over the summer was queried, since this would impact on accommodation and would need to be planned for in advance. AD(T)s were not aware of this happening outside the Business School but would keep a watching eye on the situation.

The Committee noted that student contact with staff remained an issue in the Department of Social Sciences and would be looking to see that the department addressed this.

The Committee noted that some of the changes in Regulations now being proposed were designed to address the growth in the volume of reassessment and this issue would be monitored.

05/27 Changes in General Regulations

LTC05-P18 and tabled paper

Further to the issues of principle agreed at the April meeting, and subsequent further consultation with departments, the Committee considered proposed revisions to General Regulations. These had been considered by Ordinances and Regulations Committee on 27 May 2005 and a paper setting out further amendments requested by the O&R Committee, together with some late amendments suggested by Academic Registry colleagues, was tabled.

The main agenda papers included:

· new Regulation XX – Undergraduate Awards, to replace GRUA and ARUA 2004

· new Regulation XXI – Postgraduate Awards, to replace GRMPA and ARMPA

· new Regulation XXII – Examiners and Boards

· revisions to Regulation XVII – Impaired Performance and Project Extensions

· revisions to Regulation IX – Registration, Attendance, Leave of Absence, Withdrawal and Transfer.

In general, the changes proposed were intended to take effect from the beginning of session 2005/06. In the case of undergraduate students however it was considered that some of the new provisions should not be imposed on existing students. It was proposed to abolish GRUA 2004 and ARUA 2004 and to present the new Regulation XX in two sections: Section A – essentially the version included in the agenda paper – would apply to new students starting 2005, while Section B – GRUA/ARUA drafted in the same new format but retaining certain old provisions, such as the capping of resit marks for the purposes of degree classification – would apply to pre-2005 starters. It would be made clear at the beginning of each section which students it applied to. Section B would be finalised after Learning and Teaching Committee and circulated with Section A to departmental administrators and other key individuals and to O&R Committee members for any final comments before presentation to Senate. It would also be necessary for a short while to retain GRUA/ARUA 1999 for a few continuing pre-2000 starters.

The following points were raised in the course of discussion on the main agenda papers:

.1 Regulation XX, para 6

The requirement that students must have passed the previous Part of their programme before commencing a sandwich placement was often breached in practice when students had first attempt failures in Part B modules and started the placement in July or August. It was agreed that the paragraph be amended to require students to have passed the previous Part by the commencement of the academic year in which they undertake the sandwich placement. This would allow students to embark on their placement while waiting for reassessment during the SAP.

.2 Regulation XX, para 15

In response to a query, it was confirmed that this paragraph was not intended to impose a requirement on departments to load details of individual assessment elements onto the central student record at this stage, though it was possible to record multiple coursework elements if departments wished. The position might need to be reconsidered at a later date in relation to the new Student Information System. The main point was that marks for individual assessment elements and component assessments used in calculating the module mark should be in whole numbers.

.3 Regulation XX, para 18

The position reflected in this paragraph had been arrived at after lengthy discussion of the alternatives, and was felt to be the most pragmatic approach.

.4 Regulation XXI, para 35

The word ‘inclusive’ should be inserted after ‘between 40% and 49%’.

.5 Regulation XXII, Title

The title should be changed to ‘Internal and External Examiners and Review and Programme Boards’.

.6 Regulation XXII, para 2 and elsewhere

The Regulation should be confined to examiners for taught programmes and not attempt to encompass research degree examiners.

.7 Regulation XXII, para 2

Words such as ‘…and shall be…’ should be inserted before 2.1/2.2.

.8 Regulation XXII, para 14.4

The paragraph should be amended to make it clear that the attendance of the external programme assessor was required for purposes of quoracy only at the final Programme Board.

The following points were made in the course of discussion on the tabled paper:

.9 Regulation XX – Other

It was unclear whether or not GRUA 2004 Appendix 3 would still be required for some students covered by Section B of the new Regulation XX. The AD(T) of Engineering was asked to check and confirm the position.

ACTION: JGD

.10 Regulation XXI and various other Ordinances and Regulations

The Committee did not agree with the Ordinances and Regulations Committee that all references to ‘Head of Department’ should be considered to be qualified by ‘or designated nominee’. This was considered too lax.

Subject to the points noted above, the changes in Regulations set out in the main agenda paper (LTC05-P18) and in the tabled paper be approved for submission to Senate via the procedure described. It was anticipated that the changes could be a starred item on the Senate agenda, but the Committee felt it would be helpful for Senate to receive a brief paper highlighting the key changes in the ‘for discussion’ section of the agenda, to ensure that HODs were made fully aware of the scale of the updating and communication exercise required at departmental level.

ACTION: CS, JCN

05/28 Academic Misconduct

LTC05-P19

The Committee considered a report on incidents of academic misconduct in 2002/03 and 2003/04, focussing its discussion on the issues set out section 6 where a number of changes in procedure were suggested to improve the way in which cases were handled, some of which would involve amendments to Regulation XVIII.

The Committee endorsed the following proposals:

.1 Reporting of minor offences

That as part of the Student Information System (LUSI) upgrade, a facility should be provided to allow Registry and departmental staff to record on the student database details relating to allegations of academic misconduct, and penalties imposed, as they arise, to help ensure more accurate record keeping. Noted that such a request had already been fed into the project.

.2 Membership of the Academic Misconduct Committee (AMC)

That Regulation XVIII be amended so that the Chair of the Committee is selected from the AD(T)s and the other two academic members are selected from academic members of Senate and Learning and Teaching Committee (such that all three faculties are represented).

.3 Exam hall offences

That the Academic Registrar be allowed to reclassify less serious exam hall offences as minor offences, which could then be dealt with by HODs. (Typically these would be cases where the candidate committed a technical offence by taking prohibited material into the exam hall but there was no evidence of any intention to obtain an unfair advantage.)

.4 Presentation of evidence by invigilators

That Regulation XVIII be amended to state that where the allegation relates to an assessment undertaken in the exam hall, the invigilator who detected the incident, or the relevant HOD (or nominee) may be called to present the evidence (it having been found that the incident report form completed by the invigilator normally provided sufficient information for the AMC).

.5 Intention

That Regulation XVIII be amended to note that in determining the appropriate penalty, the HOD or AMC will take into account the extent to which the candidate appears to have intended to obtain an unfair advantage (alongside other considerations including the nature and extent of the offence and the presence of any mitigating circumstances).

.6 Semester 2 cases

That the practice outlined in the paper which had already evolved where candidates were accused of major offences of academic misconduct in Semester 2 and there was insufficient time for the allegation to be considered by the AMC, should be formalised and included in Regulation XVIII and in the revised award regulations as appropriate.

.7 Extenuating circumstances

That Regulation XVIII be amended to state that where mitigating factors were raised by candidates, documentary evidence of the circumstances should be provided before they may be take into consideration.

The Committee RESOLVED that the above changes be RECOMMENDED to Senate for implementation with effect from the beginning of session 2005/06, including those involving amendments to Regulations. The Academic Registrar was asked to present the necessary amendments to the Regulations, through Ordinances and Regulations Committee as appropriate, for consideration by Senate at its meeting on 29 June.

ACTION: CD, JCN

The Committee RESOLVED to refer the proposals under section 6.5 of the agenda paper, Penalties available to the AMC, to the PDQ Team for further more detailed consideration.

ACTION: RAB

The Committee suggested it would be helpful to take further advice on the statistical significance of the figures remarked upon in section 4 of the paper, where the incidence of academic conduct in different sub-groups of the student population was compared with incidence in the population as a whole. Care was needed in the presentation of the information to avoid statements that might mislead.

05/29 Amendments to Regulation XIV – Student Appeals

LTC05-P20

The Committee considered proposed amendments to Regulation XIV. Noted that these amendments had been presented to Ordinance and Regulations Committee on 27 May 2005. They were intended to make the procedures for the conduct of the Academic Appeal Committee more explicit.

Noted that the University had taken legal advice on the question whether or not to allow a student, or a member of staff where the substance of the appeal related to that person, to be accompanied in the committee by a solicitor. The advice received was that in the context of an academic appeal the University should feel confident about not allowing a solicitor to attend.

It was RESOLVED to RECOMMEND the changes in Regulation XIV to Senate, to take effect from 2005/06.

05/30 Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering

LTC05-P21

The Committee considered a report from the department on its ‘pilot’ year of operating undergraduate programmes with 15-credit modules.

The broad conclusion of the paper was that the extensive use of 15-credit modules had been a success, in the eyes of both staff and students. The department had been able to reduce subject area fragmentation, deal with core content in greater depth and at a more relaxed pace by excluding ‘make-weight’ material and using weeks 12-15 of semester 1 for laboratory work, coursework and project work. More time could be spent on issues that students usually found difficult. The number of year-long modules had been increased and the number of small assessment elements reduced; semester 1 examinations had been eliminated from Parts A and B, while no programme had more than six examinations in the summer.

There was a feeling amongst some staff that the stress on students towards examination time had increased. Students had some concerns about the length of time between covering material in lectures and being examined in it and about judging the amount of effort required without the feedback they would have received from first semester exams. However, these concerns were felt to be outweighed by the benefits.

The 15-credit modules had been mixed with 10 and 20-credit modules within the EE programme structures. The Department of Mathematical Sciences and the Wolfson School had both agreed to extend specific modules they provided to EE from 10 to 15-credits. One student from the Engineering Physics programme had managed to take two 15-credit modules in EE as options.

The following comments and observations were noted in the course of discussion on the paper and on the question whether to support the department’s continued use of 15-credit modules in its undergraduate programmes:

· the department’s experience supported the case for year-long modules rather than 15-credit modules specifically

· the department had argued its case in 2004 on the basis that the subject material lent itself to being delivered in modules with a 15-credit weighting; the ‘pilot’ had confirmed the department in this view and it was still the basis of the department’s case for 15-credit modules specifically, plus the argument that the adoption of larger modules of, say, 20-credits, would lead to a reduction in optional choice for students

· the concerns raised in 2004 in relation to the operation of joint and combined honours programmes if departments were allowed to operate a mixture of 10 and15-credit structures remained: the EE ‘pilot’ had not addressed this issue as the department’s programmes were in effect self-contained

· Senate had permitted the department to use 15-credit modules in Part B of its programmes on a ‘pilot’ basis ‘while awaiting the outcome of the departmental review exercise recommended by the Committee on the Structure of the Academic Year’; in the event, consultations with departments had found support for the simple removal of the 80-credit cap on the use of year-long modules, rather than a move to a different size of ’building block’.

It was noted that the department wished to move to 15-credit modules in Part C of its undergraduate programmes in 2005/06, and the students would have to choose their modular options within the next few days. The students were fully aware of the restructuring proposed and that approval had still to be given. It would not be impossible to ask them to choose from two sets of options, one set corresponding to the current structure and the other set for the proposed 15-credit structure, though it would greatly simplify matters if approval could be given to proceed with the new structure at this point. It was pointed out that Senate would be the final arbiter on the issue and its decision could not be prejudged.

After a full discussion, the Committee RESOLVED to inform Senate that it was persuaded of the case for allowing the Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering to continue using 15-credit modules in its undergraduate programmes, and indeed extend their use to Part C. The department’s case should however be regarded as an exceptional one and the Committee would RECOMMEND Senate to reaffirm that the structure of the University’s undergraduate programmes generally should continue to be based on the 10-credit module and multiples of 10.

05/31 Procedure for handling external examiners’ reports

LTC05-P22

On the advice of the PDQ Team, the Committee considered revised procedures for handling external examiners’ reports. These were felt to be clearer and easier to operate than the current version. They included a new provision for a review by the PDQ Team of institutional issues identified by external examiners. It was RESOLVED to RECOMMEND the revised procedures to Senate for incorporation in the internal code of practice on external examining.

05/32 Criteria for external examiner appointments

LTC05-P27

On the advice of the PDQ Team, the Committee considered proposed criteria for external examiner appointments. The University’s code of practice on external examining already laid down conditions of appointment designed to avoid potential conflicts of interest (as in para 4 of the first section of the paper), but otherwise criteria for appointments had not up to now been explicit except in a few broad statements on the appointment request form completed by departments. It was RESOLVED to RECOMMEND the proposed criteria to Senate for approval, subject to the addition of the words ‘or equivalent’ after ‘principal lecturer’ in para 2 of the first section.

It was noted that the PDQ Team would shortly be consulting departments on a statement intended to clarify the role and responsibilities of external examiners.

All documentation concerning the external examining process would be updated once the various elements currently under consideration had been agreed.

ACTION: RAB

05/33 TQI update

LTC05-P24

The Committee received an update on developments. It was additionally noted that details from external examiners’ reports on postgraduate programmes/modules had now been circulated to departments for the production of the relevant summaries for the TQI site.

QAA and UCAS had jointly produced a booklet entitled ‘How do I find the best course for me?’

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/students/guides/bestcourse/default.asp

which made many references to the material that would be publicly available on the TQI site after the launch in September 2005; this underlined the significance that would be attached to the site, especially after the NSS results were added.

05/34 NSS update

LTC05-P25

The Committee received an update on the National Student Survey. It was noted that the University’s final response rate had been 75.06% overall. It was noted also that the NSS would be repeated in 2006.

Attention was drawn to the final section of the paper, and issues for the University to consider and act upon in relation to the NSS results. It was noted that the University could publish only a single commentary on the NSS results: individual departments might like to consider publishing statements on their own LU web pages commenting on the results at the department/subject level. The Registry would undertake a competitor analysis at the institutional level in due course, but recognised that competitor institutions varied from one department/subject to another and that departments might wish to conduct exercises of their own. Intentions would be clarified as the nature of the data became known. Matters would continue to be taken forward by the TQI Action Group in the Registry, in consultation with the PVC(T) and others as appropriate.

ACTION: JCN

05/35 Online Learning

John Dickens reported as Chair of the Online Learning Strategy Group.

A decision had to be taken on whether to continue with ‘Learn’, the University’s in-house VLE, or purchase a replacement system from a commercial supplier. Since the previous meeting, presentations had been made by the suppliers of ‘Blackboard’ and ‘WebCT’, and by Computing Services on ‘Learn’, to enable the Group and others involved to get a better appreciation of what the various systems could offer.

The Student Information System (LUSI) steering group was looking for a decision to be taken by September 2005 so that the integration of the VLE with the upgraded student system could be planned into the project.

It was proposed next to look at what other universities were doing in this area and conduct an options appraisal.

Whatever the eventual decision, those involved in the current discussions were concerned to ensure that the VLE was properly resourced on an ongoing basis from central funds.

The Heads of DISS sections had been invited to the next PDQ Team meeting on 13 June 2005 for joint discussions on the next steps.

05/36 Establishment of University Graduate School

LTC05-P26

The Committee considered proposals from the Strategic Review Group. It was noted that the Faculty Boards had discussed the proposals and the minute of the Engineering Faculty Board was included in the agenda papers.

The Committee was informed that in addition to the benefits referred to in the document, it was hoped the Graduate School would perform a broader student support function for postgraduates beyond the academic, and it seemed clear that the students would welcome this.

The following points were noted in the course of discussion:

· Some members of the Committee were unconvinced that the Graduate School would meet its objectives unless it had a physical presence that offered tangible benefits to students

· Some members queried why it was necessary to pursue the creation of a University Graduate School if the concept was not supported by all three faculties

· Some expressed doubt whether the Graduate School would achieve its objectives if led by a Director appointed on only a 0.4FTE basis; on the other hand, others felt the job described did not amount to more than this

· Some were firmly of the view on the basis of previous experience elsewhere that the Graduate School would require inspirational leadership at senior management level to be successful

· Professional Development had a major involvement in PGR training, and the Committee supported its wish to be represented on the operational group

· The proposals failed to identify where responsibility would lie for the quality assurance of the PGR student experience as a whole. It was essential to address this issue and ensure that the University was acting in accordance with the recently revised QAA Code of Practice on postgraduate research programmes. Responsibility did not fall obviously within the remit of the PDQ Team, though this was where most expertise in relation to academic quality currently lay, and if responsibility were to lie with the Research Student Office, support would be required from the AD(R)s and other members of the wider Research Team.

· The proliferation of bodies with a marketing remit was a matter of concern which needed to be addressed

· The implications for offices currently responsible for postgraduate student matters had not been discussed with the managers concerned

· Without proper infrastructure to support it – and there was no evidence that this would be provided - the Graduate School would be ‘piggy-backing’ on existing structures and be forced to impose on the goodwill of already busy staff.

The Committee noted the proposal to add the Director of the Graduate School to membership of the Committee, ex officio.

It was agreed to pass the Committee’s comments to the Strategic Review Group.

05/37 Curriculum Sub-Committee – 5 May 2005 (A)

LTC05-P27

It was RESOLVED to RECOMMEND new programme proposals and other strategic changes to Senate on the advice of Curriculum Sub-Committee, subject to the following:

(i) in the case of the proposals for the BSc/MComp (DPS) in Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, to outstanding issues being resolved to the satisfaction of the AD(T) of Science.

(ii) in the case of the proposals for the MSc in Internet Computing and Network Security, to it being noted that the two departments were still working to resolve issues concerning the operation of the joint programme, but wished the proposals to proceed.

05/38 Assessment Policy for Students who have a Disability

LTC05-P28

The Committee approved a paper clarifying aspects of the current assessment policy for students who have a disability.

05/39 Employment of Postgraduate Students for Teaching and Marking

LTC05-P29

It was RESOLVED to RECOMMEND to Senate a Code of Practice on the employment of postgraduate students for teaching and marking.

05/40 Curriculum Sub-Committee – 5 May 2005 (B)

LTC05-P30

Noted further discussions of the Sub-Committee.

05/41 Teaching Prizes, Academic Practice Awards and Mini-Projects

LTC05-P31

Noted awards made in the current session.

05/42 Access Agreement

Noted that the University’s proposed Access Agreement had been approved by OFFA:

http://www.offa.org.uk/acc_agr/statemnts/H-0152.pdf

05/43 E-learning Strategy

Noted the release of HEFCE circular letter 05/2005 announcing the publication of the HEFCE strategy for e-learning and allocations of capital funding to support investment in e-learning:

http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/circlets/2005/cl05_05

05/44 QAA Review of Foundation Degrees

44.1 FD in Leisure Management at Loughborough College

It was reported that in their draft Review Report, the reviewers had expressed confidence in the standards and achievements of students and in the quality of learning opportunities.

44.2 FD in Sports Science with Sports Management at Loughborough College

Noted that the reviewers would hold their ‘judgement meeting’ on 2 June 2005.

Secretary’s Note: The reviewers have subsequently expressed confidence in the standards and achievements of students and in the quality of learning opportunities.

05/45 Dates of Meetings 2005/06

The following dates were agreed:

Thursday 10 November 2005 at 9.30 am

Thursday 9 February 2006 at 9.30 am

Thursday 8 June 2006 at 2.00 pm (change of time)

05/46 Date of Next Ordinary Meeting

Thursday 10 November 2005 at 9.30 am.

05/47 Any Other Business

47.1 Terms of Reference

The Committee was informed that Senate had agreed that its terms of reference should be amended to include academic issues related to admissions. Amended terms of reference would be presented to the November meeting.

05/48 Valedictions

The Chair thanked Dave Berry and Keith Gregory, who had reached the end of their terms of office, for their contributions to the work of the Committee; and, in his absence, Jonathan Roberts for representing the student body in the current session.

Author – Robert Bowyer

Date – June 2005