Learning and Teaching Committee
LTC07-M1
Minutes
of the Meeting of the Committee held on 15 February 2007
Present: Morag Bell (in the Chair), Simon Austin, Paul
Byrne, John Dickens,
John Harper (ab), Martin Harrison, Ruth Kinna, Anne Mumford, Jennifer Nutkins (ab),
Iain Phillips, Karen Roxborough, Jan
Tennant, David Twigg, Emily Wildman,
Andrew Wilson (ab)
Apologies: John Harper, Jennifer Nutkins, Andy
Wilson
In
attendance: Robert
Bowyer, David Wolfe (for item 07/6)
07/1 Business of the meeting
Item 14 was unstarred.
07/2 Minutes
LTC06-M3
The Minutes of the meeting of the
Committee held on 9 November 2006 were confirmed, subject to the addition of
David Twigg to the list of apologies.
07/3 Matters arising on the Minutes
3.1 Senate actions
It was noted that Senate had
approved the recommendations of the Committee in the following matters:
(i) Terms
of Reference of the Committee (M.06/54)
(ii) Group
Work – Policy Statement (M.06/61)
(iii) New programmes and strategic changes (M.06/64)
(iv) Student
Appeals – amendments to Regulation XIV (M.06/65.1)
(v) Postgraduate
Awards – amendments to Regulation XXI (M.06/65.2)
07/4 Condonement
LTC07-P1
The Committee considered a review of the use of
‘condonement’ for undergraduate students in session 2005/06.
It was noted:
(i) that
overall there had been only a very marginal increase in the use of condonement
over session 2004/05, but there was considerable variation between departments
and faculties in the extent to which it was used;
(ii) that
it would be helpful in future reports to indicate the proportion of examinees
in each departments who had had marks condoned; some of the ‘percentage
change’ figures were not meaningful.
There
was concern:
(iii) that
condonement had been exercised in some cases where students had a low Part
average, as this was against the principle of the scheme that it should be used
to ‘rescue’ students who had failed to progress/qualify because of
a poor performance in one or two modules when they had an otherwise good profile
of marks. On the other hand, it was felt
it could be argued that any student who had the capacity to gain a degree
should not be ruled out of consideration for condonement on the grounds that
they were not capable of a ‘good’ class of degree.
It was noted:
(iv)
that
the circumstances in which it had been envisaged it would be appropriate for
condonement to be exercised were published in the form of guidance rather than
regulation: members of the Committee felt this approach should be reconsidered;
(v) that
departments had been asked to submit their own procedures for handling
condonement for approval by the AD(T)s, but because of the industrial action in
the summer of 2006, the AD(T)s had not met together to ‘compare
notes’ on the arrangements proposed across departments and
faculties.
(vi) that
many departments had not included reasons for the exercise of condonement in
Programme Board reports.
It was RESOLVED:
(vii) that
further consideration be given to reflecting in Regulation XX the circumstances
in which it had been agreed condonement might be exercised;
Action:
PDQ
(viii) that
the AD(T)s be asked to meet as a group to review the schemes departments
intended to use for handling condonement;
Action:
AD(T)s
(ix) that,
subject to the above, the facility for condonement should remain in place in
the same form as in 2005/06;
(x) that
a compulsory condonement heading be included in future undergraduate Programme
Board reports; reports should include specific details of the reasons for
exercising discretion and should make explicit reference to the modules
condoned for each student; if no students were considered for condonement this
should be stated on the report;
(xi) that
Programme Boards be advised to take care to ensure that any student being
considered for condonement on a second occasion will still be on track to meet
the ILOs for their programme;
(xii) that
the use of condonement continue to be subject to annual review, and particular
attention be given to the progress of all students condoned on more than
occasion.
Action:
Student Records and Exams Office
07/5 Academic Credit
LTC07-P2
The Committee considered proposals
from the Programme Development and Quality Team concerning the
University’s arrangements for the use of credit
It was noted:
(i) that the final report of the Burgess
Group, ‘Proposals for national arrangements for the use of academic
credit in higher education in
(ii) that, as anticipated, Burgess had
proposed that credit arrangements should be developed at a national level,
structured as a framework linked to the FHEQ, and accompanied by
non-prescriptive guidelines which would indicate the number of credits normally
associated with the main HE awards, and the minimum number of credits within
the overall total normally associated with the level of the award;
(iii) that the Burgess proposals related to the
credit values of the programmes on offer, and that the achievements of
individual students could be affected by rules on, for example, condonement,
which would remain at the specific discretion of each institution;
(iv) that PDQ felt it was important to be able
to demonstrate that the University’s own credit arrangements stood up to
scrutiny against the national guidelines; the fact that the University did not
make proper use of credit levels was a significant omission;
(v) that credit levels were generally
considered a basic component of any credit framework, with credit level
descriptors indicating the relative demand, complexity and depth of learning
and of learner autonomy expected at each level; individual modules would be
assigned to a single credit level by reference to an agreed set of level
descriptors;
(vi) that PDQ had brought forward a range of
proposals to rectify this anomaly in the University’s credit arrangements
and to incorporate the use of credit levels in a staged way with as little
upheaval as possible.
The Committee endorsed the proposals and resolved
to recommend to Senate that the following course of action be adopted:
(vii)
that all modules be assigned to credit levels;
(viii) that the summary NICATS level descriptors
(included in the Burgess Report) be used as a basis for assigning modules to
credit levels;
(ix)
that the existing letter prefixes in the module codes be
used to represent credit levels:
A - level 4
B - level 5
C - level 6
D or P - level
7
(x)
that departments review the codes of all existing modules
and, where necessary, change individual module codes to reflect the appropriate
credit level to which the module should be assigned;
(xi)
that a statement be formulated of the University’s
normal expectations on the credit structure of its awards, that accord with the
national credit guidelines and allow the same amount of flexibility;
(xii)
that departments, having re-coded their modules where
necessary, compare their programmes against these expectations and be prepared
to provide a rationale for any divergence from the standard model, for
consideration by CSC. (It is anticipated
that, for example, some joint/combined honours programmes might fall outside
it; as might Bachelors programmes where a mixture of B and C coded modules is
taken across Parts B and C, or integrated Masters programmes where a mixture of
C and D coded modules is taken across Parts C and D.);
(xiii)
that CSC also be asked to ensure that new programme
proposals fall within the appropriate norms or that a rationale is otherwise
provided;
(xiv)
that University degree regulations should remain as far as
possible unchanged, for example, in terms of the criteria for progression and
in relation to condonement;
(xv)
that CIS be asked in the context of the LUSI project,
whether the letter prefix in module codes could be automatically translated
into the corresponding national credit level number in appropriate outputs from
the LUSI system in the future.
It was also
noted:
(xvi)
that, notwithstanding the University’s stance on
credit levels generally, Senate had resolved in 2004 that no more than 20
‘C-level’ credits should be permitted in Part D of an extended
undergraduate programme. [This will in
future be superseded by the statement referred to under (xi) above.]
(xvii)
that Electronic and Electrical Engineering had sought a
relaxation of the above ruling in the particular case of the MEng in Systems
Engineering, to allow students to ‘undertake at least 100 credits of D or
P level materials in the last two years of an extended undergraduate
programme’.
(xviii)
that PDQ had been inclined to approve the proposal as a
departure from the ‘norm’, on the understanding that it currently met
with the requirements of the accrediting body/bodies concerned;
(xix)
that it would be necessary however to keep a watching brief
on developments affecting the acceptability of the
07/6
LTC07-P3
The Committee received a briefing
paper, introduced by David Wolfe.
The following points were noted:
(i) that the key objectives of the
(ii) that the status of the
(iii)
that in order to meet the ‘second cycle
descriptors’ of the EHEA qualifications framework, UK HEIs were
recommended to ensure that integrated Masters programmes included a minimum of
120 UK HE credits (generally accredited to 60 ECTS credits) at postgraduate
level (level 7);
(iv)
that there was also some concern that entry to doctoral
(third cycle) programmes might be limited to holders of second cycle
qualifications, but the statement from the EUA included in the paper gave some
reassurance that access to the third cycle would not be restricted to this
route;
(v)
that the University was bidding to participate in the
EU’s new Lifelong Learning Programme, which would incorporate the
continuation of the current Erasmus/Socrates and Leonardo programmes.
It was resolved:
(vi) to continue to keep a watching brief on
(vii) to invite one of the official
‘Bologna Promoters’ to visit the University in the near future, to
brief a wider audience on the Bologna process and its implications.
Action:
MB/DLW
07/7 Validation Procedure
LTC07-P4
The Committee considered revisions
to the University validation procedure, and other proposals, on the
recommendation of the Validation Working Group.
It was noted:
(i)
that it was proposed to strengthen the initial stages of the
validation procedure by requiring an outline proposal to be submitted to
Operations Sub-Committee for strategic approval;
(ii)
that the changes would also meet the request of LTC that it
should have the opportunity of considering any matters of principle before a
proposal was referred for more detailed consideration;
(iii)
that it was intended the revised procedure should apply to
proposals to validate additional programmes at an existing partner institution
as well as proposals involving new validation partnerships;
(iv)
that the opportunity had been taken to incorporate the
already-approved arrangements for departmental support.
It was resolved to recommend to Senate that the revised validation
procedure be approved.
It was further noted:
(v)
that the Working Group was proposing that procedures of a
similar kind should be put in place for handling collaborative programme
arrangements that did not involve validation, including relevant international
partnerships, and that the procedures for handling all types of collaborative
provision, including validation, should be drawn together;
(vi)
that the Working Group also proposed that the Working Group
itself be replaced with a standing committee on collaborative provision
reporting to LTC.
It was resolved to endorse these further proposals and to invite the Chair
to bring forward membership and terms of reference for a standing committee.
Action:
MB/RAB
07/8
LTC07-P5
The Committee received outline
proposals from
It was noted that the proposals had
been presented to the Executive Management Group which had invited LTC to
establish a validation panel to consider the proposals in further detail.
It was resolved to authorise the Chair to establish a validation panel on
behalf of the Committee.
Action:
MB/RAB
07/9
9.1
Institutional Validation
LTC07-P6
The Committee received a summary of
the report of the institutional validation panel.
It was resolved to endorse the recommendations of the panel and to forward
these to Senate.
It was noted that the report set out
a range of further information required before the subject validations in April
2007, and a significant number of issues the panel considered it
‘essential’ or ‘advisable’ for BUE to address.
9.2
Regulations for Progression and Reassessment, BUE
LTC07-P7
The Committee considered proposed
regulations on progression and reassessment for programmes at BUE, which came
forward with the endorsement of the institutional validation panel.
It was noted:
(i)
that ‘General Academic Regulations’ had been
produced by BUE in the context of its wish to offer a UK style of higher
education and seek UK validation from Loughborough (and possibly others), which
were close to the LU model but which still departed significantly in respect of
progression and reassessment arrangements;
(ii)
that it was important to appreciate that these regulations
nonetheless represented a significant shift from those that typically prevailed
in the Egyptian state universities.
It was resolved to recommend to Senate that approval in principle be given
to the incorporation of the following provisions in BUE’s ‘General
Academic Regulations’ for LU-validated programmes:
(iii)
That at each stage of the programme, students must pass at
least 100 credits to progress to the next level.
(iv)
That in the Preparatory Year and Year 1, students be
permitted two re-assessment attempts in all
modules.
(v)
That in Years 2 and 3 (and in the case of the four-year
programmes in Engineering, Year 4), students be permitted two re-assessment attempts in modules worth no more than 20 credits and one re-assessment attempt in other modules.
(vi)
That students be permitted to progress from one level to the
next ‘trailling’ modules worth up to 20 credits; and must attempt
and pass the second reassessment attempt in these modules during the following
academic year in order to remain on the programme.
It was noted:
(vii) that similar principles would be applied
to the 4-year honours degree programmes in Engineering, once the structure of
those programmes had been resolved by the subject validation panel;
(viii)
that the detailed wording of the regulations would be
subject to further discussion with BUE during the Academic Registrar’s
visit to BUE at the end of February;
(ix)
that the regulations could be amended in the light of
experience over time.
(x)
that the details of the certificates and transcripts to be
issued to BUE students who qualified for dual awards of BUE and LU would need
careful consideration;
(xi)
that the Committee was concerned that there was potential
for confusion in the proposal that BUE allow students who failed at some stage
to meet LU requirements to continue studying under an alternative set of
regulations for a ‘BUE-only’ award, and that it was important for
the University to clarify the procedures that would be involved.
Action: BUE Project Group
07/10 Feedback to students on their work
LTC07-P8
The Committee considered proposals
from the Programme Development and Quality Team which followed from an
investigation carried out by Derek Blease and Karen Roxborough. It was noted that the investigation had
raised concerns about variability in the quality and quantity of feedback both
within and between departments.
The Committee was supportive of the
recommendations but at the same time considered it important not to confine
attention to feedback on assessed work.
It was vital that, across the institution, feedback was interpreted more
broadly and seen as a means of helping students to enhance their learning and
raise their standards of performance. It
was felt that students too often avoided work that did not contribute to the
module mark.
It was agreed to invite the PDQ Team to give further consideration to the
issue of feedback in this broader context.
Action: PDQ
It was recommended:
(i)
That the University Coursework Code of Practice, which
currently required that Programme Handbooks
‘state the form of feedback that students can expect
and that this information shall also be given to students when assignments are
set’,
should in addition encourage
departments to incorporate the following extract or similar into their wording:
‘The
feedback should enable students to understand the reasons for the mark/grade
given and should include constructive comments on the strengths and weaknesses
of their work.’
(ii) That
departments be encouraged to raise the profile of feedback on coursework in
departmental documentation by (a) emphasising to tutors the need to be
consistent in complying with the University’s minimum requirements in
every case, and (b) helping students to see feedback as a part of their
learning experience just as important as the teaching and assessment.
(iii) That in the case of modules assessed entirely by examination,
departments be required to provide some form of generic feedback to students on
the examination; and encouraged to provide the same sort of feedback in the
case of modules where 50% or more of the module mark is accounted for by
examination.
(iv) That
LSU consider, in collaboration with course reps and student committees in
departments, ways in which they might jointly communicate their concerns to
departments and help students to make better use of feedback to enhance their
learning; and, conversely, convey to students the importance of collecting work
that academic staff had taken the trouble to mark and comment on.
(v) That
question 16 on the External Examiners’ report form be amended to read: ‘Was the standard of marking
and feedback in assessed coursework satisfactory?’
(vi) That
documentation for programme review be amended (a) to ensure that the
information requested on student feedback was to a specific standard (to be
agreed in consultation with the AD(T)s), and (b) to include a requirement for
departments to outline their strategies for ensuring that individual staff
comply with the University’s minimum requirements on feedback to
students.
(vii) That departments be required to include a question about the
quality of feedback in the ‘individual tutor’ section of the OMR
Module Feedback Forms.
It was noted in the case of
recommendation (iii) above, that the feedback should ideally be made available
in parallel with the module marks, particularly for S.1 modules. One way of providing the feedback would be
via the Learn/VLE server. The feedback
could also provide helpful guidance to the students in the year below and this
should be borne in mind in the case of S.2 modules in the final year.
07/11 Teaching and Learning Spaces
LTC07-P9
The Committee received a report from
the Director of Media Services on current space developments and on timetabling
and room bookings issues.
With regard to specific space
projects:
(i) The Director of Media Services was
asked to ensure that the Head of Chemical Engineering was fully apprised of the
proposed developments to the S block entrance.
Action: AMM
(ii)
It was noted that of the
‘informal learning spaces’ projects that came in after the
deadline, only the Schofield entrance was likely to proceed, and as part of a
general consideration of entrance areas.
If more funds became available, there would be a new call for projects.
With
regard to timetabling and room bookings, it was recognised there was a need to
improve procedures:
(iii)
to avoid clashes in bookings for
PG block release modules/courses;
(iv)
to get a better match of student
numbers to room capacity in semester one.
Action: AMM
It was
noted that:
(v)
a significant proportion of adverse student feedback
concerning teaching rooms related to departmental space.
The
Committee felt it important to ensure a consistent base level of provision in
terms of the standards to which pool rooms were equipped. The Director outlined ways in which she would
survey and consult with academic staff about their priorities.
07/12 Award of PGCE on MSc in Education with
Qualified Teacher Status
LTC07-P11
The Committee considered a recommendation that students
entering Year 2 of the MSc, having completed the PGCE element, be permitted to
retain their PGCE award (whereas it was previously anticipated that they would
relinquish the PGCE to avoid a 60-credit element of double-counting).
It was noted:
(i)
that students’ international employability would be
limited if they did not possess the PGCE, as the PGCE was the only external
teaching qualification recognised by governments such as New Zealand, Australia
and Canada;
(ii)
that various other universities including Leicester and
(iii)
that it would be unfair to Loughborough students to have to
relinquish their PGCE when students entering Year 2 of the Masters with a PGCE
from elsewhere were allowed to retain theirs;
(iv)
that the Masters transcript could indicate that the student
had begun the Masters with advanced standing of 60 PG credits from a previous
PGCE.
It was resolved to recommend that the MSc in Education with QTS be
considered a special case such that students entering Year 2 of the programme
on the basis of a PGCE award from the University are not required to relinquish
that PGCE award.
07/13 Curriculum
Sub-Committee – 18 January 2007 (A)
LTC07-P10
It was RESOLVED to recommend new programme proposals and other strategic changes to Senate on the advice of Curriculum Sub-Committee.
07/14 FD in Exercise, Health and Fitness with
Management
LTC07-P12
It was RESOLVED to approve a change
in the validation review arrangements for the above.
07/15 Curriculum Sub-Committee – 18 January
2007 (B)
LTC07-P13
Further discussions of the Sub-Committee were noted.
07/16 National Student Survey 2007
LTC07-P14
The Committee received a briefing
note.
07/17 Student Feedback – Support Services 2005/06
LTC07-P15
The Committee received a report from
the Head of Academic Practice and Quality, Professional Development, on the
response to student feedback 2005/06 from central support services. The Committee wished to record its thanks to
the DISS Directors and staff for the efforts taken to respond.
It was agreed to circulate the
report to academic departments for information and to take the equivalent
report as an unstarred item on the agenda in future years.
Action: RAB
07/18 Calculators in University Examinations
LTC07-P16
The Committee noted actions taken
during the 2006-07 semester one examination period on issues arising from the
implementation of the ‘approved list’ of calculators.
07/19 International Science and Engineering
Foundation Programme
It was noted that articulation agreements
had been entered into with
07/20 Review of the Quality Assurance Framework;
Development of TQI and the NSS
LTC07-P17
The
Committee received a summary of key points from the outcomes of phase two of
the review of the Quality Assurance Framework and plans to improve the TQI and
NSS initiatives.
07/21 QAA Institutional Audit
It was noted that the QAA had
confirmed the following dates for Loughborough’s next institutional
audit:
·
Briefing visit – week commencing 4 February 2008
·
Audit visit – week commencing 10 March 2008
07/22 Any Other
Business
Institutional Strategy
It was
noted that the Institutional Strategy had been adopted by Senate and Council in
December. Work was now in progress on
the development of implementation plans in various areas of activity including
Learning and Teaching, and there would be appropriate consultations in due
course. It was agreed that copies of the
draft Learning and Teaching implementation plan should be emailed to members of
LTC shortly.
Action: MB
07/23 Date of Next
Meeting
7 June 2007 at 9.30am
Author – Robert Bowyer
Date – February 2007
Copyright © Loughborough University. All rights reserved