Learning and Teaching Committee

LTC06-M1

Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 9 February 2006

 

Present:  Morag Bell (in the Chair), Simon Austin, Paul Byrne, John Dickens
Becky Dicks, Martin Harrison, Katie Hyslop (ab), Lawrence Leger, Anne Mumford,

Jennifer Nutkins, Iain Phillips, Jan Tennant (ab), David Twigg, Andrew Wilson

 

Apologies:  Katie Hyslop, Jan Tennant

 

 In attendance:  Robert Bowyer


 

06/01  Business of the Agenda

No items were unstarred.

 

06/02  Minutes

LTC05-M4

 

The Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 10 November 2005 were confirmed.

 

06/03  Matters Arising from the Minutes not otherwise appearing on the Agenda

3.1       Learning and Teaching Strategy (M.05/55)

It was noted that a revised version of the document had been received by Senate on 25 January 2006.

 

3.2       Wolfson School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering PPR (M.05/58.2)

            It was noted that the ‘University issues’ at the end of the report had been investigated by the AD(T) Engineering and clarified by the PDQ Team.

 

3.3       The UK Honours Degree and Provision of Information (M.05/59.1)

            It was noted that an amended response had been despatched to UUK after consultation with HODs following the last meeting. 

 

3.4       Proposals for National Credit Arrangements for Use of Academic Credit (M05/59.2)

            It was noted that an amended response had been despatched to UUK following the last meeting.

 

3.5       Use of HEFCE e-learning capital funding (M.05/60)

            LTC06-P1

The Committee noted allocations approved by Operations Sub-Committee on 5 December 2005. 

 

3.6       Student Diversity Working Group (M.05/63)

            It was noted that the first meeting of the Group had taken place on 14 December 2005.

           

3.7       Calculators in University Examinations (M.05/67)

            LTC06-P2

            The Committee noted action taken by the Chair.

 

3.8       Senate actions on other recommendations

It was noted that Senate had approved the recommendations of the Committee in the following other matters:

(i)                  Terms of Reference (M.05/53)

(ii)                Master of Research (MRes) (M.05/56)

(iii)               Terms of Reference of CSC (M.05/57.1)

(iv)              New programmes and strategic changes (M.05/57.2)

(v)                Co-ordination of joint degrees (M.05/62)

(vi)              External Examining – Revised Code of Practice (M.05/64.2)

 

06/04  Open source VLE

            LTC06-P3

The Committee received a report on proposals currently under consideration for the adoption of ‘Moodle’, an open source VLE, as a replacement for ‘Learn’.  Those involved were confident that it could provide the pedagogic features necessary and result in a significant improvement in both the quality and quantity of online resources.

 

The same paper would be submitted to the LUSI Project Steering Group and Information Services Committee, to keep these bodies informed.  There would need to be further discussions with the DISS service directors about resourcing, timescales and management structures.  In terms of timing, it was hoped to move forward quickly in order to take full advantage of a brief window of opportunity offered by two sources of HEFCE funding, namely funds for e-learning, and funds for learning and teaching enhancement (expected to replace TQEF).  A critical consideration would be whether the project could be brought forward without disrupting the LUSI timetable, whilst still allowing for the necessary linkages to LUSI developments to be covered.

 

It was noted that there would be a responsibility to the open source community and ongoing development costs associated with the adoption of Moodle.  By comparison, institutions using commercial packages had to find the resources needed to respond to software updates.

 

The Committee expressed its support for the proposals.

 

06/05  Timetabling

            LTC06-P4

The Committee received a briefing paper from the Director of Media Services on actions being taken to investigate a possible move to central timetabling.  The following comments were noted in the course of discussion:

 

(i)         The Departmental Administrators played a key role and the Director of Media Services would attend the Registry’s March meeting with the administrators in order to brief them.

 

(ii)        It would not be the intention to take control of departmental rooms away from departments, but it would be necessary for departments to provide information about their bookings in order to construct web-accessible timetables for individual staff and students.

 

(iii)       It would be helpful if possible to put a figure on the cost savings that could be made by freeing up administrative time in departments.

 

(iv)       Risk reduction was important: current arrangements were vulnerable to the absence of key members of staff at crucial times.

 

(v)        It was suggested that the University should explore with potential suppliers the possibility of carrying out a ‘dry-run’ on their system as part of the evaluation phase. 

 

(vi)       It should be possible to enter appropriate parameters into the system to avoid building undesirable cross-campus journeys into timetables.

 

(vii)      It was suggested that the possibility of an open source solution might be considered.

 

(viii)      It would be important to ensure that staff did not infer that control and influence over the timetable would be removed from departments, and to be generally sensitive to the potential impact on staff morale. 

 

06/06  Condonement

            LTC06-P5

The Committee received a report on further consultation with departments from the Programme Development & Quality Team.

 

The Committee found it surprising that opinion appeared to be so starkly divided between Engineering and Science on the one hand and SSH on the other, given the data on the use of condonement presented to the previous meeting.  Although it was the case that differences in programme regulations had always militated against consistency in outcomes from one programme to another, and this had not been considered problematic, it was suggested that differences between departments in the way that condonement was or was not applied were more likely to be challenged.  It was felt that this view was shared by several SSH departments and explained their lack of support for retaining the condonement provisions. 

 

It was noted that a majority of departments (outside SSH) had expressed a preference for additional guidelines rather than tighter regulations to bring a greater measure of control over the application of condonement.  It was suggested that the key aims and intentions ((i) and (ii) highlighted in Appendix 1 of the agenda paper) should suffice as guidelines, since there was no consensus on the definition of ‘marginal failure’ or an ‘otherwise good pattern of marks’ and opposition to a formulaic approach being imposed. 

 

Following further discussion, the Committee agreed to endorse the proposals from the PDQ Team, which included a requirement that departments be required to produce guidelines for their Programme Boards to indicate how condonement should normally be used.  The intention was that these would be reviewed on an annual basis.  It was agreed that the sub-group referred to in proposal (ii) should comprise the three AD(T)s.

 

The Committee was of the view however that departments should not be permitted to produce a blanket statement that they would not use condonement, and that proposal (iii) should be deleted. 

 

It was resolved to advise Senate accordingly.

 

06/07  National Student Survey 2006

            LTC06-P6

The Committee received a progress report on the NSS 2006.  It was noted that 433 responses (response rate of 16.67%) had been recorded as of 8 February, one week since the start of the survey.  The Chair thanked the Students’ Union, on behalf of the Committee, for their efforts in promoting the survey and encouraging students to respond.  It was the aim to improve on the 2005 response rate of 75% and maintain the University’s top position in the results.

 

06/08  Quality Enhancement

            LTC06-P7

The Committee received a report of a PDQ Team ‘away day’ on the theme of quality enhancement.  The day had been prompted partly by the anticipation of further HEFCE funding for learning and teaching enhancement, partly by a new emphasis on quality enhancement in the revised approach to institutional audit.  There was a need to redefine and sharpen up what were defined as the University’s strengths, and consider what aspects of teaching and learning should be enhanced, not only to improve the experience of students but also to take account of the needs of staff.  There was a general feeling that staff would welcome a shift in ethos from policing to providing more help and support.  Key points from the notes of the day’s discussions were brought to the Committee’s attention.

 

There was discussion on the issue of examination feedback.  It was noted that within the SSH Faculty, departments were being asked to ensure that for modules assessed largely by examination, students subsequently received ‘generic feedback’ in the form of an overview of the performance of the class as a whole.  It was reported that some other departments also provided this sort of feedback.

 

06/09  Curriculum Sub-Committee – 12 January 2006 (A)

LTC06-P8

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

 

06/10  Coursework Code of Practice

            LTC06-P9

It was resolved to approve amendments to the University’s Coursework Code of Practice on the advice of the PDQ Team.

 

06/11  Postgraduate Certificate and Diploma Awards on MRes programmes

            LTC06-P10

          It was resolved to make recommendations to Senate on the advice of the PDQ Team.

 

06/12  Curriculum Sub-Committee – 12 January 2006 (B)

LTC06-P11

Further discussions of the Sub-Committee were noted.

 

06/13  Student Feedback – Support Services 2004/05

            LTC06-P12

The Committee received a report from the Head of Academic Practice and Quality, Professional Development, on student feedback 2004/05 in relation to the support services.

 

06/14  Validation Panel

            It was noted that Loughborough College had put forward proposals for two new Foundation Degrees, in Sports Coaching, and Sports Performance (initially with a pathway in Motorsport), and a Validation Panel had been established to consider the proposals.

 

06/15  Student Diversity Working Group

            LTC06-P13

The Committee received a report of the meeting of the Working Group held on 14 December 2005.

 

06/16  QAA consultations

            Recent consultation papers from the Quality Assurance Agency were noted as followed:

 

16.1     Operational description for the revised institutional audit process, CL14/05

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/news/circularLetters/CL1405.asp

 

16.2     Revised approach to programme specifications (incorporating guidance on minimum content) CL15/05

            http://www.qaa.ac.uk/news/circularLetters/CL1505.asp

 

16.3     Proposals for an interim review process as part of the revised institutional audit process CL01/06

            http://www.qaa.ac.uk/news/circularLetters/CL0106.asp

 

It was noted that the University had responded to CL14/05; responses to CL15/05 and CL01/06 were under consideration by the PDQ Team.

 

06/17  Date of Next Meeting

            Thursday 8 June 2006

            NB This meeting would take place at 1.30 pm to avoid a clash with Human Resources Committee.


Author – Robert Bowyer

Date – February 2006

Copyright © Loughborough University.  All rights reserved