Learning and
Teaching Committee
LTC08-M3
Minutes of the Meeting of
the Committee held on 6 November 2008
Members:
Apologies: Simon
Austin, Paul Byrne, Nick Holland (ab)
In
attendance: Robert
Bowyer, Nigel Thomas
Adam
Crawford, Tony Croft (for M.08/50)
The PVC(T)
welcomed Steve Tarleton and Danny McNeice to their first meeting as members of
the Committee, and Nigel Thomas, Director of Student Services, who would have
an open invitation to attend meetings.
08/45 Business on the Agenda
Item 17 on the agenda was unstarred.
08/46 Minutes
LTC08-M2
The Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 5 June
2008 were confirmed, subject to the correction of sub-heading numbers under
M.08/27.
08/47 Matters arising from the Minutes not otherwise appearing on the
Agenda
Senate actions
It
was noted that Senate had
(a)
approved the recommendations of the Committee in the following matters:
(i)
Loughborough Employability Award (M.08/29)
(ii)
Undergraduate Reassessment (M.08/33)
(iii)
New programmes and strategic changes (M.08/38)
(iv)
Membership of the Committee (M.08/44)
(v)
(b) noted the
summary of the findings from the draft report on the QAA Institutional Audit
(M.08/24), and
(c) received the
report on the operation of the Regulation XIV appeals procedure in 2007
(M.08/35).
08/48 Terms
of reference
LTC08-P35
The Committee considered its terms of reference,
reflecting on:
(i) their
fitness for purpose
(ii) members’
responsibilities.
It was recommended that amendments
to incorporate reference to reports from the Teaching Centre Advisory Board and
the e-learning Advisory Group in para.8, and to delete para.10 referring to
Professional Development, be approved.
It was queried whether there should be any formal reference
to internationalisation. The Committee
was informed that it had been acknowledged that internationalisation issues
affecting the curriculum or having quality assurance implications fell within
the broad remit of LTC and channels of communication with the Director of
Internationalisation Strategy were available through groups such as the
Programme Quality Team.
08/49 Priorities
for 2008/09
LTC08-P36
The Committee received a document setting out priority
issues for action in the learning and teaching area in 2008/09.
Attention was drawn to the conference for head teachers
being planned for May 2009, on the theme of ‘Healthy schools for the
future’.
Attention was also drawn to the steps being taken to
enhance and refine language provision for international students through the
International Student Centre and the UWLP.
It was felt that language support for home students also needed to be
improved, but one of the difficulties was that there was no identifiable stream
of funding support for work with students who were not in receipt of the
disabled students’ allowance.
There were reported to be some 2000 students living away
from campus and not in Loughborough, not including students on placement. It was queried whether any investigation had
been undertaken of the learning and teaching experience of these students. It was agreed this would be a valuable
exercise, but there were some issues with the quality of the relevant data
which needed to be followed up first.
08/50 Centres for Excellence in Teaching and
Learning
The Committee received reports on developments in the campus
CETLs in the past year from Professor Tony Croft, Director of sigma, and Adam Crawford, Manager of
the engCETL, the Director of which was Professor John Dickens.
50.1 sigma
LTC08-P38
Members of the Committee were provided with copies of the sigma newsletter and the Mathematics
Education Centre (MEC) annual report and particular attention was drawn to the
following:
·
Loughborough’s
equal partnership in the sigma CETL
with
·
The
impressive amount of ‘reach-out’ work being undertaken by the CETL across the
sector, which included the initiation of regional hubs for mathematics and
statistics support.
·
Drop-in
support visits at Loughborough increased by 41% in 2007/08 over the previous
year. Efforts were being made in the
current year to increase usage where it was low and yet there was known to be a
need, by intervention through the home department.
·
The
statistics support, which included an appointment-based advisory service for
final-year project students and PGs.
·
Specific
resources and support provided to students with additional needs.
·
Secondments
for academic staff – buying out their time to enable them to develop statistics
resources.
·
Investigating
innovative uses of new technologies in the classroom.
·
Pedagogic
research, including the funding of PhD students.
·
The
mathematics/statistics diagnostic testing service available to any department
through the MLSC: 1000 incoming students were tested at the start of 2007/08.
·
The
PG Certificate programme in Mathematics Support for Students with Dyslexia and
Dyscalculia which was the only one of its kind in the country; there were five
students on track to complete the certificate in 2008/09.
·
The
valuable role played by the six student ambassadors in encouraging students to
use the MEC; a further set of ambassadors had been appointed for 2008/09.
It was noted that earmarked HEFCE funding would continue
only until 2010, and consideration was therefore being given to the
sustainability of work beyond this. A
document was being prepared which would present a range of different scenarios.
It was suggested the University might draw on the examples
set by sigma and the MEC in
considering how to approach the provision of language support.
50.2 engCETL
LTC08-P37
Members of the Committee were provided with a copy of the
Annual Stakeholders’ Report 2008 and particular attention was drawn to the
following:
·
The
important role of the seconded academics in each of the participating
departments.
·
The
success of TutorTools: projects developed by engCETL staff from work with just
a few academic staff and rolled out for wider use, including to non-engineering
related departments.
·
Interactions
with students.
·
Joint
activities with various groups across the University, including the Library,
the Teaching Centre (and previously with Professional Development), and the
Careers Centre, as well as sigma and
the MEC.
·
The
work being undertaken by the Pedagogic Research Associate, jointly funded by
the engCETL and the Teaching Centre, and the useful linkages afforded through
the post.
·
The
process for assessing project bids and the emphasis placed on selecting
projects with the potential to enhance the student experience and be
transferable for wider impact.
·
The
high regard in which the engCETL learning spaces were held, and recently the
increasing demand from students for booking space. (It was suggested to the Committee that both
CETLs, and also the Library, could provide data to the University to evidence
the demand for space where students could work together.)
·
The
pedagogic research carried out through the engCETL, and the CETL funding of six
research studentships.
A business plan addressing the issue of sustainability
beyond the current funding period had been produced and sent to the Dean of
Engineering.
Members of the Committee suggested that the key to the
success of the engCETL was its cadre of skilled staff giving positive help to
staff and students.
In considering their future sustainability, it was felt there
was no reason why the CETLs should not be commissioned to provide (training) support
for research degree students.
The Committee was reminded of the fact that the work of the
CETLs had been praised in the recent QAA Institutional Audit Report, and the
integration of the CETLs in learning and teaching to enhance student support
and the student experience had been identified as a feature of good practice.
The Committee was impressed with the range of activities of
both CETLs and felt they were both to be congratulated. The Committee would give its strong support
to their work continuing beyond the current funding period and welcomed the
fact that sustainability plans were being addressed.
08/51 Learning and Teaching Spaces
The Committee received and considered reports from Anne
Mumford on the following:
51.1 Learning space developments
LTC08-P39
The Committee received a report on recent developments. It was hoped that the James France
development might be reinstated on the capital programme. It was noted that there was an increasing
demand for rooms over 250 capacity which it was not possible to meet from
current room stock.
51.2 Formalising the development priorities for
learning and teaching space
LTC08-P40
The Committee considered a paper updating the one submitted
at the previous meeting (M.08/32.2) concerning the establishment of a ‘learning
spaces development group’.
As background to the proposal, it was noted that there had
been significant improvements in learning and teaching spaces in the past few
years, facilitated by ring-fenced funding from HEFCE. In future, as such funding would no longer be
ring-fenced, it would be important to ensure that learning and teaching space
requirements were represented in discussions about the University’s capital
programme as a whole. The demise of
Media Services was another contributory factor in the changing situation.
It was felt the large size of the group proposed meant that
it would be able to operate only on a consultative basis and that a smaller
group was needed to distil priorities and to advise the PVC(T), who would
champion learning and teaching interests in discussions on the capital
programme. It was suggested that the
Programme Quality Team might be an appropriate vehicle, provided that the views
of the consultative group were first synthesised by an appropriate person from
Facilities Management. Operational
details, such as timing of meetings in relation to the development of the
capital programme, would need to be worked out with the Planning Office. The Committee supported the proposal that the
establishment of the consultative group be taken forward as an institutional
project led by Anne Mumford, noting the importance of appointing a senior
academic to act as chair.
ACTION: MB, AMM
51.3 Further analysis of teaching space survey –
attendance levels
LTC08-P41
The Committee received a paper providing further analysis of
data from the survey of pool room usage carried out in Weeks 4 and 5 of Semester
2 of 2007/08, relating to student attendance.
The data was analysed by Faculty, day of the week, time of day, and year
of study.
Several members of the Committee reported on measures being
taken in their departments to monitor attendance, and on the correlation that
had been found between attendance and final degree classification. There was also felt to be a link between
attendance and other factors, including the availability of material on Learn,
student attitudes towards the transition from school to HE, and aspects of
student lifestyle.
The Committee agreed it would be helpful if the VP
(Education) were to obtain direct feedback from the student body about reasons
for non-attendance.
It would also be helpful to know what different departments
were doing by way of monitoring student attendance and if the data analysis
could be taken down to departmental level, in order to test whether different
departmental practices had any impact.
It was noted that new visa requirements for international
students meant that the Academic Registry had an interest in further
information about departmental arrangements in this area.
ACTION: MB, AMM, DMcN
51.4 Timetabling and room allocation
LTC08-P42
The Committee received a paper summarising the University’s
current position on timetabling and room allocation. Anne Mumford also gave a verbal report to the
Committee on a meeting held on 30 October, when members of staff from King’s
College London and UEA had given presentations to LU Departmental Administrators
on practices in their two institutions.
Having discussed the matter on several occasions,
the Committee was persuaded that current arrangements carried with them significant
risks and that changes were needed. This
view appeared to be echoed, not only by one of the Faculty Directorates, but also
by a growing number of departmental administrators who were closely involved in
the process and had a thorough understanding of the operational detail.
It was suggested that short-term enhancements to
the existing system that could be identified in the light of the recent
presentations should be pursued. At the same time, the benefits of major change
should be fully explored, by identifying a selection of universities using
central timetabling and arranging for a small group with the relevant knowledge
and experience to visit them.
The objectives of any major changes (towards
central timetabling) should be
·
to reduce the burden on a small number of
administrative staff who are relied upon to contribute to the process at peak
periods of the academic year;
·
to spread the risk by ensuring that this small
group are no longer, in some cases, sole custodians of departmental knowledge
of the system;
·
to enhance the opportunities for academic staff and
students to have an effective workload distribution in terms of contact time,
across the teaching week;
·
to enable staff and students to have online access
to their timetables in a consistent way across campus;
·
to facilitate programme/curriculum developments
such as joint degree programmes currently inhibited by timetabling constraints;
·
to ensure that in terms of the estate, space is
used efficiently;
·
to facilitate related processes such as business
continuity planning.
The Committee was of the view that in order that
appropriate decisions could be taken and actions follow, a group with the
necessary knowledge and experience needed to be established. This should include representatives from the
departmental administrators, academic staff, Facilities Management, and IT
services. The leadership of such a group
would be a key issue, as would the funding for such a project. The Committee concluded that at this stage the
matter should be referred to ELT/EMG for further discussion.
ACTION: MB, AMM
08/52 Periodic Programme Review Reports
The Committee considered the reports
of PPRs held during the spring of 2008 and the responses of the departments
concerned. The Committee was pleased to
note the actions being taken by the departments to address the issues that had
been identified for further consideration in the review process. It was noted that the departments would be
asked to provide updated reports on their actions for APR 2009. A number of points were drawn to the attention
of the Committee as set out below.
52.1 Chemical Engineering
LTC08-P43
Attention was drawn to the need for the department to look
outside the University to staff with industrial experience to deliver some critical
areas of the curriculum; negotiations had been taking place to buy in
assistance for the design project in Semester 2.
The department was working hard to improve the
feedback given to students on their assessed work and progress. The Committee considered it important that
students were made aware of assessment criteria in advance and that the feedback
provided on assessed work was set against the criteria. This ought to be standard practice across the
University.
52.2 Mathematical Sciences
LTC08-P44
It was noted that
the Teaching and Learning Co-ordinator was working with the Faculty Quality
Enhancement Officer on student engagement.
52.3 Physics
LTC08-P45
The Committee disagreed
with the department’s view that it was acting in accordance with University
policy in its treatment of students at the 2.2/3rd boundary who had
fewer than the required number of credits.
It was agreed to inform the department that the Committee would expect
these students to be required to resit failed modules.
The Committee
observed that annual reports on condonement had indicated that the Department
of Physics was generous in its use of condonement, and it supported the panel’s
recommendation on this issue. The AD(T)
was asked to follow up this point with the department.
The Committee asked
that further information be sought from the Director of Facilities Management
and the Dean about the reference to the possibility that the department might
move to
The panel had
recommended that staff in the department should be encouraged to seek out help
and guidance with the development of e-learning resources and staff development
opportunities that would help them enhance the quality of student learning. The Committee felt the department’s response
that staff were directed to the HEA Physical Sciences Centre and encouraged to
attend sessions was insufficient, and that it should do more to encourage staff
to exploit the resources available on campus.
It was suggested to
the Committee that the videoconferencing facilities set up to support the
partnership with
ACTION: MCH
52.4 Economics
LTC08-P46
It was noted that
the AD(T) had indicated to the PVC(T) that he wished to pursue several of the
panel’s recommendations which had attracted a negative response from the
department. The Committee was also informed
that students in the department had voiced concerns on certain issues. It was agreed to invite the PVC(T), the AD(T)
SSH and the LSU VP (Education) to discuss matters, with a view to following up
the report.
ACTION: MB, PLB, DMcN
52.5 Social Sciences
LTC08-P47
The
Committee’s attention was drawn to the fact that the department’s practice of
penalising late coursework by grade reductions if still within 25 hours of the
deadline, which had been commended by the panel, was contrary to the University
Coursework Code of Practice, which expected the award of a mark of zero for all
work not submitted by the due date. It became
apparent that practice in a number of other departments was not in compliance
with the Code of Practice. The Committee
considered it important that there was a consistent approach across all
departments to avoid any unfairness to students, and that all departments
should be reminded of the Code of Practice on this issue.
ACTION: PQTeam
08/53
LTC08-P48
The
Committee considered the report of a Validation Panel on proposals for a
Loughborough University International Foundation Programme at
It
was resolved to recommend to Senate that the validation of the programme be
approved in accordance with the report, on the understanding that the IFP
Project Group and the PVC(T) were satisfied that the outstanding actions were
being addressed, and subject to confirmation of their completion in due course.
ACTION: MB, IFP
Project Group
It was recommended that the internal International Science and
Engineering Foundation Studies programme be discontinued in the light of the
validation, the 2008 intake thus being its last.
08/54 Curriculum Sub-Committee, 17 October 2008 (A)
LTC08-P49
The Committee considered a request from the Sub-Committee to
provide guidance on the issue of inter-departmental collaboration in
module/programme provision.
The Committee noted the expectations, set out in the agenda
paper, as regards the level of consultation that was expected between
departments when new programmes and modules were proposed. At the module level, proposers were expected
to have an awareness of other modules on the database with similar titles. The Committee would wish to encourage
collaboration to take place wherever practical, but noted that even in cases
where collaboration might be academically desirable, operational constraints
might prevent it happening. It was
content with the current approach and did not wish Curriculum Sub-Committee to
take a more proactive role.
ACTION: JE
08/55 Credit values of
LTC08-P50
The attention of
the Committee was drawn to the recently published ‘Higher education credit framework
for
It would be the
expectation, once the table was approved, that all programmes would be required
to comply. Departments would be advised
to adjust existing programme structures and regulations as necessary, for
approval during the 2009 update process ready for 2009/10, or otherwise produce
a rationale for consideration by CSC. LTC
would look to CSC to take a robust approach in establishing criteria for
allowing exemptions.
It was resolved to
recommend to Senate that the table of credit values be approved.
08/56 Assessment
flexibility policy for elite athletes
LTC08-P51
The Committee considered, on the recommendation of Programme Quality
Team, a proposed assessment flexibility policy for elite athletes.
It was resolved to recommend to Senate that the policy be approved,
subject to the points highlighted by the PQ Team being incorporated.
It was noted that the approach was one which might be adopted in
dealing with other groups of students who had grounds for seeking flexibility
in assessment arrangements.
08/57 Emergency planning and business continuity
LTC08-P52
It was noted that the Audit Committee had identified the
need for a more coherent approach to emergency planning and for the development
of a business continuity plan. Anne
Mumford was taking forward the development of plans as an institutional
project. The Committee was alerted to
the need to undertake an impact analysis in relation to learning and teaching
and to identify means of mitigating against major incidents. Appropriate staff were needed to participate
in the project. There had already been
some volunteers, but members of the Committee were asked to encourage others to
put themselves forward. In the case of
the Academic Registry both Admissions and Student Records would need to be
involved.
ACTION: MB, AMM
08/58 Curriculum Sub-Committee, 17 October 2008 (B)
LTC08-P53
It was resolved to recommend new programme proposals and other strategic changes to Senate on the advice of Curriculum Sub-Committee.
08/59 Regulation
XVIII, Academic Misconduct
LTC08-P54
The Committee considered amendments to Regulation XVIII to
allow for appeals submitted by students found guilty of minor offences to be
considered by the nominee of a Dean of a Faculty other than the student’s
own.
It was envisaged that the nominee would normally be the
Associate Dean (Teaching) of the relevant Faculty. The Committee discussed whether the wording
should expressly refer to ‘the Dean or the Associate Dean (Teaching)’; but it
was pointed out that the use of ‘nominee’ was common in the regulations, it
allowed a degree of flexibility in exceptional circumstances, and there was no
reason to doubt that the Deans would use their powers of delegation
appropriately.
It was resolved to endorse amendments to Regulation XVIII as
set out in the agenda paper, and to recommend them for approval by Senate.
08/60 Validated
programmes at
LTC08-P55
It was resolved to recommend to Senate the introduction of a
new version of the Honours ‘top-up’ degree at
08/61 End of programme feedback
LTC08-P56
It was resolved to recommend to Senate on the advice of the
Programme Quality Team that the University requirement on departments to
collect end of programme feedback be lifted.
08/62 Constitution and membership
LTC08-P57
The Committee noted the above.
08/63 Curriculum Sub-Committee – 17 October 2008 (C)
LTC08-P58
The Committee noted further discussions of the Sub-Committee.
08/64 E-learning Advisory Group
LTC08-P59
The Committee noted the
establishment of the group and draft terms of reference.
08/65 Teaching Centre
LTC08-P60
The Committee received an update.
08/66 Student Hub
LTC08-P61
The Committee received an update.
08/67 QAA Institutional Audit 2008
The Committee noted the publication of the Report of the QAA
Institutional Audit which could be seen at
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews/reports/instReports.asp?instID=H-0152
08/68 National Student Survey 2008
It was noted that for a fourth year, the University had achieved
excellent results in the National Student Survey. A range of data had been circulated
internally, including Loughborough’s results at subject level on Question 22
(‘overall satisfaction’) and results at departmental level on all questions
with a comparison against the equivalent results from 2007. 91% of Loughborough students responding had rated
their overall satisfaction at 4 or 5 on a five-point scale. The University had also achieved a response
rate of 80%.
08/69 Publications
The Committee noted the publication
of the following:
69.1 The
framework for higher education qualifications in
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/FHEQ/default.asp
69.2
Higher education credit framework for
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/england/credit/default.asp
08/70 Dates of Meetings 2008/09
The Committee noted the dates of further meetings in 2008/09,
due to start at 9.30am:
Thursday 12
February 2009
Thursday 4
June 2009
Author –
Robert Bowyer
Date - November
2008
Copyright ©
Loughborough University. All rights
reserved