Learning and
Teaching Committee
LTC08-M2
Minutes of the Meeting of
the Committee held on 5 June 2008
Members: Morag Bell (in the Chair), Simon Austin, Paul Byrne,
Sophie Driscoll (ab), John Harper, Barry Howarth,
Ruth Kinna (ab), Anne Mumford, Jennifer Nutkins,
Andrew Wilson (ab)
Apologies: Sophie Driscoll, Helen Jaques, Ruth
Kinna, Andrew Wilson
In
attendance: Robert Bowyer, Danny McNeice, Haseeb Malik; Jenny Jones,
Yvonne Hamblin (for M.29 and M.30)
The PVC(T)
welcomed Danny McNeice and Haseeb Malik who were standing in for their student
colleagues Sophie Driscoll and Helen Jaques on this occasion. Danny would be taking over from Sophie as LSU
VP(Education) in 2008/09.
08/21 Business
of the Agenda
No items were unstarred.
08/22 Minutes
The Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 14
February 2008 were confirmed, subject to the correction of document numbers
referenced under M.08/16 onwards.
08/23 Matters Arising from the Minutes not otherwise appearing on the
Agenda
23.1 Accommodation for Careers Fairs (M.08/4.3)
The PVC(T) reported on further
discussions with Jenny Jones. Given the
importance of ensuring that the Loughborough careers fairs continued to be
attractive to employers, and therefore of optimum benefit to students, the
PVC(T) had agreed that the EHB should continue to be used as a venue, on the
understanding that the autumn fair was moved from a Monday to a Wednesday,
therefore disrupting fewer teaching periods.
Jenny Jones had undertaken to contact all departments affected in
advance of the date.
23.2 Central Timetabling (M.08/08)
Anne Mumford reported that she had
not been able to progress matters since the previous meeting as a result of
other priorities. In any case, the
project had not been funded for 2008/09 and there were concerns about
introducing another major change of system hard on the heels of Agresso and
LUSI. The Committee asked Anne Mumford
to pursue the suggestions made at the previous meeting as far as possible
during the autumn 2008.
ACTION: AMM
23.3 Senate actions
It was noted that
Senate had approved the recommendations of the Committee in the following
matters:
(i)
E-learning strategy and implementation plan
(M.08/07)
(ii)
Condonement (M.08/12)
(iii)
New programmes and strategic changes (M.08/17)
08/24 QAA
Institutional Audit
LTC08-P15
The Committee noted the
Summary of the findings from the draft report on the Institutional Audit
2008. A list of factual corrections and
clarification of issues that the audit team might have overlooked or
misunderstood had been sent to QAA, and the final version of the report was
expected by 4 July.
The University could be pleased with the report. It was especially welcome to note that the
audit team had identified as a feature of good practice ‘the prioritisation of
students in the institutional culture’.
The Committee received further background to some of the
recommendations, from those who had seen the longer version of the draft
report. The audit team had possibly
misunderstood some of the arrangements in question and it was suggested that
further discussion should await receipt of the final report.
08/25 Teaching
Centre
LTC08-P16
The Committee received an update from
It was proposed to establish an Advisory Board and a
Management Group.
The Committee was supportive. It was felt it would be challenging to effect
a step-change with limited extra resources, and it would be important to ensure
that the objectives remained clear and focussed. Members expressed the hope that a new
physical location would be provided for the Centre in due course.
It was agreed that all departmental Teaching and Learning
Co-ordinators should be brought together early next academic year, for an
exchange of views on current issues, and ways in which TLCs and the Centre
could work together.
ACTION: MB, JMT
The Committee was informed of the University’s participation
in the Student Barometer survey, which covered a mix of academic and
non-academic issues relevant to the student experience. It was a national survey that allowed some
benchmarking against other institutions.
It was held in two ‘waves’, autumn and summer. It included PGs, which the NSS did not, but
had a low response rate. One of the
critical issues identified in the surveys so far was the communication skills
of lecturing staff. The Academic
Practice and Enhancement section of PD had done some preliminary work to
address this.
08/26 Student Hub
LTC08-P17
The Committee received an update on progress. It was the intention that the hub website
would be in place before the start of 2008/09.
It was suggested that the Committee should receive a presentation at its
autumn meeting.
08/27 Annual Programme Reviews
The Committee considered reports from the AD(T)s on the
Annual Programme Reviews in their respective Faculties:
8.1 Engineering
LTC08-P18
The AD(T) drew attention to the fact that Sarah Bamforth had
attended the APR meetings with him to help identify areas of good practice for
wider dissemination as part of the quality enhancement strategy. Her report for each department was incorporated
in the document. The document also
included as an annex a follow-up report on the PPR carried out in 2007 in the
Department of Civil and Building Engineering.
The AD(T) highlighted a number of issues at the departmental
level. He drew attention also to the
need for consideration to be given to the collection of feedback from part-time
DL/off-campus students, where the standard module survey form was
inappropriate.
8.2 Science
LTC08-P19
The QE Officer for Science, Caroline Smith, had attended the
APR meetings. In this case, examples of
effective practice that she had identified were contained in an appendix to the
AD(T)’s report. Follow-up ‘action logs’
on their 2007 PPRs had been provided by Chemistry and IPTME.
The AD(T) drew attention to the fact that Chemistry had
taken over administrative responsibility for the SEFS/ISEFS programmes with
Sandie Dann becoming Programme Director.
Personal tutorial support was now expected from the student’s ‘home’
department: some staff had been slow to accept responsibility for SEFS students. The Committee was informed that LSU had
encountered problems related to the integration of SEFS students, and it was
suggested that the
The AD(T) also highlighted the need to ensure that members
of staff new to the University, who were not always required to undertake a
probationary period, were familiar with and implemented institutional and
departmental QA procedures.
The AD(T) reported low attendance and a lack of student
engagement in some departments. In this
connection, the Director of Media Services informed the Committee of the
findings of the latest survey of pool room usage, conducted during Week 4 of
Semester 2. Rooms were allocated to a
capacity 75-100% of class size. The
survey, which involved 3300 visits during the course of the week to physically
observe room usage, found on average only 31% of places occupied. This compared with 63% in the same survey in
2007. A discussion ensued on various factors
that might contribute to the apparent increase in absenteeism, one of which was
the availability of lecture notes on Learn.
It was also noted that the University had ruled out arrangements under
which marks were deducted for non-attendance at tutorials and small group
sessions; it was suggested this might need to be revisited.
It was agreed to ask Anne Mumford to explore the scope for
further analysis of the survey data against information about the modules
involved, for example, the possibility of breakdown by department, UG/PGT,
programme Part, day/time of session. The
Committee hoped it might be possible to produce a paper summarising the
position that could be sent to departments for comment.
ACTION: AMM
The Committee was alerted to the recent FOI request for
information about student/staff contact time.
It was important that departments proactively managed student
expectations from the outset and reinforced this at the start of each year. It was noted that the QE Officer for SSH,
Rachel Johnson, was undertaking a project on the content of induction across
the University, which she was expected to complete before the end of June.
8.3 Social
Sciences and Humanities
LTC08-P20
The AD(T) informed the Committee that in his Faculty, the QE
Officer, Rachel Johnson, had visited departments with him prior to the APR
meetings in order to identify effective practice, and various examples had been
mounted on the Faculty web-site. These
included approaches to induction (not only in the first year), opt-in tutorials
(which had significantly increased attendance), and the use of more explicit
marking criteria (which had helped ensure that excellent performance was
appropriately recognised).
A follow-up report on the
The AD(T) drew attention to the fact that several SSH
departments were finding it difficult to recruit home students to PGT
programmes, and were continually adjusting their programmes to make them more
attractive.
A member queried whether a pass rate of 82% at PGT level
(LUBS) was deemed satisfactory. In
response, it was pointed out that the proportion who did not pass included students
who withdrew as well as those who had failed, and that a high proportion of the
students on the programmes in question were international students. Also, in the case of ‘conversion’ programmes
at Masters level, students did not start with the same level of background
knowledge and understanding of the subject as in the case of specialist Masters
programmes where a first degree in the subject was a requirement for entry, and
a lower overall success rate might more commonly result. The PVC(T) reported that a review of PGT
programmes had been carried out, mapping the different types of programme
offered, and comparing data on their success in terms of recruitment, as well
as completion rates. It might be helpful
for the Committee to see this information in due course.
The PVC(T) informed the Committee that the Programme Quality
Team was looking at the possibility of introducing a standard template for APR
reports for 2008/09; that the involvement of QE Officers had been welcome and
would continue; and that departments would continue to be asked to submit a
12-month follow-up report on a PPR, for consideration by the AD(T) as part of
the APR process.
08/28
LTC08-P21
The Committee considered a report on the Annual Institutional
Level Review held in March 2008.
It was noted that the University’s Subject Specialist
Advisers had visited BUE immediately before the AILR Panel.
Both groups had been impressed with the progress that had
been made since the beginning of 2007.
The Sub-Committee would continue to monitor developments as indicated in
the report.
08/29 Loughborough Employability Award
LTC08-P22
The Committee considered proposals for the introduction of a
Loughborough Employability Award. It was
noted that the proposals were fully supported by the Programme Quality Team,
which had set up a Steering Group to oversee the development; this included an
employer representative. Useful
information had been obtained from a number of other institutions which had
already implemented similar awards.
The award was seen as an opportunity to recognise and raise
the profile of work already being done across campus to enable students’ to
develop their employability skills. The
award would be in addition to the student’s academic programme. It would reward and encourage a mix of skills
gained through paid work experience; unpaid work and voluntary activity; and
personal interests and other extra-curricular activities. Students who registered for the award would
have to complete an online skills assessment and create a structured action
plan. There would be a clear link to
Personal Development Planning, and RAPID would be available to those who wished
to use it. Each element would be
allocated a points weighting and students would need to make up a total of at
least 100 points for the award. Students
would be assessed, for example by the employer or volunteer co-ordinator, as
well as having to complete their action plan and a self-reflective ‘learning
log’. The final assessment would be
carried out by the award co-ordinator and another member of staff of the
support services. It was anticipated
that students would receive a certificate on completion of the award and that
there would be reference to it on the student’s transcript on graduation.
It was proposed in the first instance to pilot the award
with some 30/40 students, from autumn 2008.
It was hoped to increase numbers to possibly 200/300 in 2009/10. Initial publicity would be aimed at second
year undergraduates. It would be
important for academic staff to be aware of the award and its potential
benefits to students, and that graduate employers were also made aware of its
added value.
The Committee resolved to recommend to Senate that the
proposals for the introduction of the Loughborough Employability Award be
approved.
08/30 International
Employability Skills
LTC08-P23
The Committee received a report from the Director of the
Careers Centre on various initiatives in which the Careers Centre had been
involved to help prepare students for work in a global market-place and thereby
contribute to the internationalisation of the student experience. It was noted that certain elements would feed
into the Employability Award. It was
noted also that some work was being undertaken in conjunction with the
08/31 International Mobility Team
LTC08-P24
The Committee approved the
establishment of an International Mobility Team.
08/32 Learning and Teaching Spaces
32.1
Update
on developments
LTC08-P25
The
Committee received a report from the Director of Media Services.
It was also noted that efforts had been made to address
students’ demands for 24/7 access to workspaces in connection with the current
summer examinations.
32.2 Governance
structure
LTC08-P26
The
Committee considered a discussion paper from the Director of Media Services. This reminded members of the demise of Media Services, and
drew attention to the need for a new mechanism that would allow academic
priorities and good practice in learning and teaching, as well as student
feedback, to be taken into account by the new Facilities Management team in
construction and space development projects.
Both pool space and departmental space needed to be taken into
consideration.
The Committee supported the proposal contained in the
document for a consultative group with a wide-ranging membership, to meet once
or twice a year, with the opportunity to input to both Learning and Teaching
Committee and Estates Management Committee.
It was suggested that student representation on the group could come
from amongst the chairs of student department committees as well as the LSU
Executive. Imago should be included
amongst the bodies represented.
It was resolved that the proposal be adjusted in the light
of the Committee’s comments and submitted to Estates Management Committee for
comment.
ACTION: AMM
08/33 Undergraduate Reassessment
LTC08-P27
The Committee considered, on the advice of Programme Quality
Team following consultation with the Faculties, proposed amendments to
Regulation XX. The proposals would
simplify current reassessment regulations, making them easier to understand for
both staff and students. The changes had
the broad support of Departmental Teaching and Learning Co-ordinators and the
Faculty Directorates and had also been welcomed by the Departmental
Administrators Liaison Group who believed that they would make reassessment
guidance for students simpler and quicker to produce.
There were concerns that the proposals would increase the
number of reassessments being taken.
There were concerns also that some students would not appreciate the
fact that if they registered for a non-essential reassessment and then failed
to attend for it, they would receive a mark of zero, which would supersede
their first attempt mark and lead to termination of studies.
The Committee was assured that the Academic Registry would
work with departments to improve communications with students about
reassessment. The Committee strongly
supported the prioritisation of this area in LUSI Stage 2, and the possible development
of an on-line reassessment registration form which could include a tick-box
that students would have to check to indicate that they had understood the
associated implications.
The Committee noted that the variation permitted in
programme regulations was the root cause of the complexity of the current
situation in respect of reassessment, as University Regulations and programme
regulations interacted to determine outcomes for individual students. One way of simplifying matters would be to
require all students to obtain credit in all modules and it was suggested that
the Committee might give further consideration to this possibility in due
course.
For the moment however the Committee resolved to recommend
to Senate the proposed amendment to Regulation XX, para.37, to permit
non-finalist undergraduate students who have not completed a Part at the first
attempt to take reassessment in all
modules where they have failed to achieve
credit; this to be applicable to all students with effect from the start of
AY2008/09.
It was noted that the proposal now being recommended to
Senate was permissive and could therefore be applied to all students without
prior notice, whereas a more stringent requirement to obtain credit in all
modules, if it were agreed at any time in the future, would have to be phased
in.
08/34 Condonement for PGT students
LTC08-P28
Further
to M.08/12 of the previous meeting, the Programme Quality Team had discussed the suggestion
that condonement be introduced at the PGT level. The Committee received a report on its
discussions.
PQ Team had taken the view that, if departments always
reviewed marks that fell just below 40% or 50% and made judicious use of vivas,
the sort of marginal cases that might be rescued by condonement could be
largely avoided within existing regulations; and it had seen no compelling
argument for introducing condonement. It
was not proposing to consult departments on the issue, as there appeared to be
no groundswell of opinion in favour of change which demanded an institutional
response.
A member asked the Committee to note that many international
PGT students had returned home by the time their Programme Board took place and
that it was not practical to hold vivas in such cases.
It was however agreed to accept the advice of the PQ Team
and to take no further action on the matter at this time.
08/35 Annual report 2007 on student appeals under Regulation XIV
LTC08-P29
The Committee received the report.
08/36 Annual report on cases of academic misconduct 2006/07
LTC08-P30
The Committee received the report.
08/37 University Risk Schedule
LTC08-31a; LTC08-P31b
The Committee reviewed the ratings assigned to the various
risks identified in the Learning and Teaching section of the University Risk
Schedule and confirmed the ratings assigned by the PVC(T).
08/38 Curriculum Sub-Committee – 8 May 2008 (A)
LTC08-P32
The Committee recommended new programme proposals and other strategic
changes to Senate on the advice of Curriculum Sub-Committee.
08/39 Curriculum
Sub-Committee – 8 May 2008 (B)
LTC08-P33
The Committee noted further discussions of the Sub-Committee.
08/40 National Student Survey 2008
It was noted that the University had achieved a final
response rate of 79% by comparison with a rate of 64% across the sector. (2007 figures: 78% and 59% respectively.)
08/41 International
Foundation Programmes at Loughborough College
LTC08-P34
The Committee noted the establishment of a project group to
bring forward proposals for an international foundation programme in
collaboration with
08/42 Publications for
consultation
The Committee noted the publication
of the following draft documents for consultation:
23.1
Higher education credit framework for
(consultation closed 9
May 2008)
23.2
The framework for higher education qualifications in
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/news/circularLetters/CL0408.asp
(consultation closed 6
June)
08/43 Dates of Meetings 2008/09
Provisional dates for meetings were
noted, as follows:
6 November 2008
12 February 2009
4 June 2009
08/44 Any Other Business
Membership of the
Committee
It was noted that, in the light of his change of duties, it
had been agreed with Andrew Wilson that he would cease to be an ex officio
member of the Committee beyond the end of the current session. The Committee recorded thanks to Andy for his
contribution to its work over many years.
It was noted that Anne Mumford’s duties and title were also
changing. The Committee would benefit
from representation from the various services supporting learning and teaching
and it was agreed to recommend that the composition be amended to provide for
this. It was anticipated that Anne
Mumford would continue to serve in this capacity for the time being.
It was noted that David Twigg had reached the end of his
term as Engineering Faculty representative.
It was agreed to recommend that the AD(T) BUE should be an additional ex
officio member of the Committee, which would then retain David Twigg’s services
in this capacity. The Engineering
Faculty vacancy would be filled for a three-year term in the normal way.
The PVC(T) on behalf of the Committee thanked Sophie
Driscoll and Helen Jaques for their contributions to the work of the Committee;
and Sophie for her work in support of learning and teaching through many other
channels during the past session.
Author –
Robert Bowyer
Date – June
2008
Copyright ©
Loughborough University. All rights
reserved