Learning and
Teaching Committee
LTC09-M2
Minutes of the Meeting of
the Committee held on 4 June 2009
Members:
In attendance: Robert
Bowyer, Nigel Thomas
Howard
Jones (M.25, 26), Miranda Routledge (M.27)
09/19 Business on the Agenda
Notice was given of two supplementary agenda items: one
under item 12, the other under any other business. No items were unstarred.
09/20 Minutes
LTC09-M1
The Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 12
February 2009 were confirmed.
09/21 Matters arising from the Minutes not otherwise appearing on the agenda
21.1 Future of Teaching Quality Enhancement Funding
The PVC(T) reported that the University would
receive an earmarked allocation of some £314k under the new heading of ‘Teaching
Enhancement and Student Success’ for 2009/10.
The various support services had requested the extension of fixed-term
posts and non-pay allocations in the 2009 budget round and were heard
sympathetically. The outcomes would be
known within the next few weeks.
21.2 Senate actions
It was noted that
Senate had approved the recommendations of the Committee in the following
matters:
(i) Assessment Flexibility Policy for
Religious Observance (M.09/4)
LTC09-P15
The
discussion of Senate on this issue was also noted.
(ii) Programme proposals and other strategic
changes (M.09/13)
(iii) Admissions Policies (M.09/5)
(iv) Code of Practice on Staff/Student
Committees (M.09/6)
09/22 Annual Programme Reviews
The Committee considered reports from the AD(T)s on the
Annual Programme Reviews in their respective Faculties. Some specific issues were raised.
22.1 Engineering
LTC09-P16
(i)
The AD(T) drew attention to
the fact that the Doctoral Training Centre in Regenerative Medicine offered
some taught elements to its research students.
There were no module specifications as such for these and they were
outside the QA processes that applied to taught programmes. It was noted that they would be included in
the periodic review of research degree programmes in the relevant
department. It was suggested that the
position be referred for further consideration by the relevant administrative
officers.
ACTION: RAB, BPV
(ii)
An
external examiner in Electrical Engineering had raised the issue of the
variability of support that students received from their final year project
supervisor; the department had changed its procedures for managing final year
projects in response. It was noted that
this was an issue that come up not infrequently in student appeal cases.
(iii)
An
external examiner in Civil Engineering had expressed concerns about the
consistency of project marking across different staff groups in the
department. It was suggested that the
use of assessment criteria and grade descriptors should help to prevent this. The QE Officer (Science) was working on a
project looking at the variety of departmental practice in this area, and PQ
Team had asked to be kept informed as work progressed.
(iv)
The
question arose on the Chemical Engineering SSLC Minutes whether the approved
list of calculators for examinations needed updating. It was noted that advice on the suitability
of different models of calculator had been given by the Maths Education Centre,
and an update would be sought.
ACTION: RAB
22.2 Science
LTC09-P17
(i)
It
was noted that Chemistry’s timetabling problems should be brought to the
attention of Facilities Management (Caroline Pickles) rather than Academic Registry.
(ii)
In
relation to the APR report on Materials, the Committee received information
from Jan Tennant on the ‘Communicate’ programme. This 8-week programme, which was directed at
academic staff for whom English was not the first language, had now run on
three separate occasions. The focus was
on the lecture situation. Some
one-to-one support was offered as a follow-up but not all staff chose to take
this up, or were able to give it sufficient priority. The issue was one of ongoing support. It was also noted that an addition to the
staff appointment form had been agreed to allow any particular support needed
by the individual concerned to be highlighted and this was helpful, but
difficulties that might arise in a lecture situation would not necessarily be
spotted in the selection process. The
PVC(T) proposed to take the issue back to HRWG.
This might include the possibility of seeking external funding for
further developing the support available for staff in this area. It was noted that Jan Tennant and Professor
Binner had spoken about the individual cases referred to in the APR.
(iii)
The
report on Physics contained a long list of issues/actions from the 2008 PPR,
some of which were still ongoing. The Committee
considered it essential that the issue concerning the conduct of risk
assessments for student lab work was quickly resolved and the AD(T) was asked
to bring the matter to the attention of the Dean and the Head of the HSE Office
to ensure that the department addressed it.
ACTION: MCH
22.3 Social Sciences and Humanities
LTC09-P18; LTC09-P18a (QEO’s report
– tabled)
(i)
Some
departments (eg Design and Technology and Geography) were disappointed with
their 2008 NSS results, but observed that these seemed not to correlate with
internal feedback. It had been suggested
that the faculty QEO attend the SSLC meetings where the NSS results were
discussed.
(ii)
There
had been meetings in some SSH departments during the current session to address
issues raised by the students, involving the HOD, AD(T), and Chair of the
students’ Departmental Committee. The
LSU VP (Education) hoped this might continue.
(iii)
There
were problems across the Faculty in relation to the recruitment of Home/EU
students to PGT programmes.
(iv)
There
was a lack of space in several departments for students to meet socially or to
work individually or in groups, e.g. Economics, which the University should be
made aware of and ought to address.
(v)
The
Committee queried the low progression rate from Foundation Diploma to UG degree
programmes in LUSAD (c26%). It was noted
that some of the areas of study covered in the Foundation programme were not
offered at degree level (e.g. Fashion), although the Foundation curriculum now
matched more closely with the LUSAD’s UG degrees than it had done in the
past. It was also the case that many of
the Foundation students were local, and not surprisingly wanted to go elsewhere
for their degree level studies.
(vi)
It
was noted that there was a high rate of withdrawal from year one of the
Loughborough College FDs. It was thought
that students with outside commitments (particularly in sport) often registered
without properly appreciating the volume of work involved. Issues relating to progression from Part A to
Part B were being addressed by programme changes (which appeared elsewhere on
the agenda).
(vii)
There
would be no further intakes to the validated FD at
09/23
Available to staff on the University intranet
at https://internal.lboro.ac.uk/admin/registry/uniwide/LTC/ltc09-m2(full).doc
09/24
LTC09-P20
The Committee considered the report of a validation panel on proposed
strategic changes to four of the existing Foundation Degree programmes at the
College. The panel was satisfied that
there was a sound rationale for the changes, which involved a reduction in the
number of modules overall, through the greater use of 20-credit modules and
adoption of a common core of modules across all four programmes, and the rationalisation
of work placement experience. The
College had taken the opportunity of relaxing the requirements for progression
from Part A to Part B, to 100 credits and a modular mark of 30% in the
remaining 20 credits, whereas 120 credits had been required previously. The College had also sought approval for the
introduction of classification scheme (pass/merit/distinction) for the final FD
award, which was now common across the sector.
It was noted that following advice received at the validation panel
meeting, the College had agreed to revert for the time being to the title
‘Sports Coaching’ for the one FD where it had proposed the adoption of the
title ‘Sports Coaching and Teaching’. The
titles of the four revised programmes would therefore be: Sports Science (no
change), Sports Development and Management (previously Sports Science with
Sports Management), Exercise Science, Physical Activity and Health (previously
Exercise, Health and Fitness with Management) and Sports Coaching (no change).
It was resolved to recommend to Senate that the proposed changes be approved, subject to the
completion to the satisfaction of the AD(T) SSH of minor modifications
requested by the panel, and that approval also be given to the introduction of
a classification scheme for Foundation Degrees validated by the University as
recommended by the panel.
ACTION: RAB, PLB
09/25 Verification
of entry qualifications
LTC09-P21
The
Committee considered the adoption of a procedure for verifying entry
qualifications. It was noted that the Student Recruitment Team
had considered four options and had recommended the adoption of a random
verification process. It was felt this
would offer flexibility, create a manageable level of additional work and act
as a powerful deterrent if well publicised.
This would be aimed principally at PG applicants.
Enhancements
were also proposed to the procedures operated by the Undergraduate Admissions
Office. The UCAS Verification Unit gave
extra assurance in this area.
It was resolved to recommend to
Senate that the
verification procedures recommended by the Student Recruitment Team be adopted.
The
Committee noted that if a case came to light after a student had already been
admitted, that they had presented fraudulent information about their entry
qualifications, the case would be dealt with as a disciplinary matter. Reference was made to the possibility of
students presenting bogus English Language qualifications. It was suggested that it might be desirable
to stipulate a specific level of performance in components of the IELTS test,
such as writing skills; it was agreed to ask Howard Jones to raise this
possibility with Admissions Tutors.
ACTION: HEJ
09/26 Widening Participation Strategic Assessment
LTC09-P22
The Committee considered a draft Widening
Participation Strategic Assessment for submission to HEFCE, as recommended by
the Student Recruitment Team. The
submission of such a document, with a deadline of 30 June, was a condition of
the University continuing to receive earmarked widening participation
funding. The overriding purpose was to
provide public reassurance of the extent of institutions’ commitment to
widening participation. There was no
prescriptive template but the document was expected to contain two sections: an
overarching statement identifying the place of WP in the University’s strategy,
and a statement of the full range of WP activities, targets, milestones and the
level of resource committed by the University.
The existing Access Agreement would be appended. The University would be expected to provide a
progress report to HEFCE annually in December.
There was no major change of direction in the
University’s WP strategy signalled in the document. Directorates had been consulted and had
endorsed the approach and key messages.
A realistic assessment of the University’s WP performance was included
in the ‘Challenges’ section, as well as highlights of successful
initiatives.
Work would continue, to raise aspirations of young
people in under-represented groups, and to increase Loughborough’s recruitment
from such groups.
The Committee endorsed the document, noting that it
was still in draft, and recommended it
to Senate.
09/27 Semester 2 Examination Period
LTC09-P23; LTC09-P23a (tabled paper
from LSU)
The Committee considered options for handling increased
student numbers in the S.2 examination period.
A significant increase in student numbers had led to the re-introduction
of Saturday examinations. The increased
numbers plus constraints on the examination timetabling processes meant that it
was not possible to schedule the S.2 examinations across 15 days (Mon-Fri,
Weeks 13-15). It had been agreed to
undertake consultations on other options before Saturday exams were confirmed
for 2009-10 and beyond. The results of
the consultation with departments were presented in the agenda paper. UCU would be discussing the proposal at their
AGM on 10 June. A separate paper on LSU
research into student opinion was tabled, though a summary of these results was
also incorporated in the agenda paper.
It was noted that module leaders whose modules were being
examined on Saturdays were being asked to make themselves available by
telephone in case of queries, but did not need to attend in person. The Business School, being responsible for
the majority of modules involved, had agreed for this year to accommodate all students
with special needs for the Saturday exams; but future arrangements for these
students involving Saturday exams could potentially require support from a wide
range of departments and involve extra costs where carers were required to be
present.
It was noted that there was an extra complication in 2009-10
in that the Monday of Week 13 would be a Bank Holiday, further reducing the
weekdays available in Weeks 13-15.
Four options had been put to departments. The option which attracted most support was
to continue scheduling examinations on Saturdays. There was less support for using Saturdays
plus Bank Holiday Monday. Students
taking part in the LSU survey gave the Saturday option a cool response, but
more were in favour of using Saturdays than extending the exam period outside
Weeks 13-15. Some students qualified
their support by suggesting that there should be only two exam slots on
Saturdays. Students having examinations
scheduled on a Saturday would also appreciate the timetable being released
earlier. The Bank Holiday issue was not
covered in the student survey.
It was suggested that there should be further clarification
of how arrangements might fall out in respect of the Bank Holiday weekend. It was felt unlikely that colleagues had
appreciated the possibility of Saturday of Week 12 being used as the first day
of exams, with no exams on the Bank Holiday Monday of Week 13, and the second
day of exams being on the Tuesday of Week 13.
It was noted that the student survey showed students
‘categorically’ opposed to having more than one exam in one day; and that there
was widespread support for reducing the emphasis on examinations as a means of
assessment.
Of the four proposals, the Committee agreed to recommend to Senate that, for
2009-10, examinations continue to be scheduled on
Saturdays. Subject to the clarification with
departments of arrangements for the Bank Holiday weekend, it was also agreed to recommend that the Bank Holiday Monday be
avoided.
The Committee also supported the suggestion that had emerged
from the consultation with departments for a review of the timing of semesters
to allow for a possible reduction in the length of Easter and/or Christmas
vacations from 4 to 3 weeks, in order to reduce pressure on the time between
the exam period and programme boards/graduation. It was
agreed to recommend to Senate that such a review take place. It was suggested that the review should also cover
the possibility of adopting an asymmetrical semester pattern (e.g. 14:16 weeks)
bearing in mind the shift towards year-long modules that had taken place since
the last review.
The Academic Registry would undertake further investigation
to establish whether Saturday examinations could be minimised by running
multiple venues or scheduling more than one exam per day for individual
students. The LSU Vice-President
(Education) asked that the University continue to avoid scheduling more than
one exam in one day for individual students.
It was suggested to the Committee against this, however, that if it was
found the timetable could be improved for many students while negatively
affecting only a few, then this course of action ought to be considered.
ACTION: JCN, MTR
09/28 Learning and Teaching Implementation Planning
LTC09-P24
The Committee considered documents setting out (a) progress
on learning and teaching implementation planning priorities for 2008/09, and
(b) priorities for 2009/10. Both documents were still in draft form.
Noted on (a):
(i)
modules
in regenerative medicine were Doctoral Training Centre modules rather than
EngDoc;
(ii)
the
important step that had been taken in the re-alignment of SL promotion
criteria, to be implemented in 2009/10;
(iii)
that
work was also underway in the Teaching Centre to get the New Lecturers’ Course
re-accredited by the HEA.
Noted on (b):
(iv)
the
proposal to promote PG programmes by key categories;
(v)
more
work needed to be done on placements;
(vi)
more
work needed to be done on languages: as regards English language provision for
international students, Liz Shahal as Director of the Student Support Centre
was in the process of visiting departments to discuss ways in which the English
Language Support Centre could enhance the services it provided.
The Committee endorsed the documents in their current
form.
ACTION: MB
09/29 Regulation Changes
On the recommendation of the Programme Quality Team, the
Committee considered proposed amendments to the following:
29.1
Regulation XI – Diplomas in
Industrial Studies, Professional Studies, International Studies and
Professional Development (Graduate Professional Development Award)
LTC09-P25
It was resolved to
recommend to Senate
additions and amendments to Regulation XI, firstly to make provision for
handling circumstances where students on placement were unable to complete 45
weeks of attendance due to circumstances beyond their control, such as
redundancy or short time working in the current recession, and secondly to make
provision for the Diploma in International Studies to be awarded to students
successfully completing a full year of study in a partner educational
institution abroad. There had been
consultation with departments on the first issue and the second involved a
change in regulation to cover an omission without impacting on other routes to
the DIntS.
29.2
Regulation XX – Undergraduate Awards
LTC09-P26
It was resolved to
recommend to Senate
amendments to Regulation XX, firstly to clarify that Programme Boards could
apply impaired performance decisions only to modules which students had
specified on their IP claim form, and secondly to remove a clause rendered
redundant by earlier changes. It was
noted that the first change was made in the interests of consistency across
departments. In obviously deserving
cases – where a student’s performance was believed to have suffered in modules
not mentioned on the IP claim – a department could apply for a waiver of
regulation.
29.3
Regulation XXI – Postgraduate Awards
LTC09-P27
It was resolved to recommend to Senate additions to Regulation XXI, to give more explicit
guidance on which marks should be included for the purpose of determining the
overall programme mark where a PG student left the programme with a PGCert or
PGDip having attempted additional modules for a higher award. It was noted that in some cases, departments
might need to define more clearly in their Master’s programme regulations which
were regarded as the core modules for the lesser awards.
29.4 Regulation XVI – Tuition Fees
and Payments for other University Services
LTC09-P40 (tabled)
It was resolved to
recommend to Senate
amendments to Regulation XVI. These
reflected the suggestion that students registered to resit modules during the
following academic year ‘without tuition’ should be regarded as resitting
‘without attendance’, since it had been agreed they should still be able to
access resources on Learn.
09/30 Development of Learning Spaces
LTC09-P28
The Committee
received a report from Dr Anne Mumford, which followed up a workshop held
following the centenary lecture by Professor Jamieson of the
A number of
suggestions were put forward in the course of discussion:
(i)
that some pilots were needed to showcase
possibilities, perhaps focussed on the delivery of specific modules;
(ii)
the University should gather more data about
space utilisation; formulate a view on the optimum utilisation of certain types
of space and on optimum group sizes for certain types of learning and teaching
activity;
(iii)
the University should consider how spaces
could be changed and improved to enhance learning experiences;
(iv)
the HEFCE ‘Learning Landscapes’ project was
expected to report by the end of 2009, and offer a framework and toolkit for
approaching the development of learning spaces; this should be helpful to the
University in matching its learning and teaching plans with space development
opportunities.
It was noted that
there would be opportunities in the refurbishment of James France and the
construction of a new building for the
It was noted that
the Implementation Planning Priorities for 2009/10 (M.28) included the
development of a strategic approach to learning spaces as a ‘Change
Project’. The PVC(T) would have further
discussions with Anne about possible terms of reference for such a project and
follow this up with a discussion with Will Spinks with a view to seeking
endorsement from ELT.
ACTION: MB, AMM
09/31 University Risk
Schedule
LTC09-P29
The Committee reviewed, and confirmed, the ratings assigned
to the various risks identified in the Learning and Teaching section of the
University Risk Schedule. It was
suggested that the University needed to take the risk of a flu pandemic into
account in its overall planning.
ACTION: MB
09/32 Annual report 2008 on student appeals under Regulation XIV
LTC09-P30; P30a
The Committee received a report. Noted that the number of appeals had
increased by 47 on the previous year to a total of 147. The Committee sought clarification for the
reasons behind the relatively high number of appeals from one or two
departments.
Attention was drawn to the issues arising from appeals that
were highlighted in the document.
Noted that departments were not required formally to notify
students of outcomes of IP claims; students had a right to seek this
information (although, it was noted that students would not be told about the
outcomes of S.1 IP claims until decisions were taken at Programme Boards), but
routine notification would be a major task unless a LUSI solution could be
found.
Noted that it had been suggested consideration be given to
allowing condonement in cases where students were undertaking repeat first
attempts in SAP. It was suggested that
in the specific case referred to, it would have been appropriate for the
department to have requested a waiver of regulation.
Other issues related to student dissatisfaction with
project/dissertation supervision, and the management of student expectations in
this area.
09/33 Annual report on cases of academic misconduct 2007/08
LTC09-P31; P31a
The Committee received a report. Noted that the number of cases had increased
by 59 on the previous year to a total of 206, which included a steep rise in
the number of exam hall offences. There
had been a total of 10 appeals against penalties imposed. It was commented that some other HEIs
appeared to take a tougher line in dealing with offenders.
09/34 Curriculum Sub-Committee – 7 May 2009 (A)
LTC09-P32
It was resolved to recommend new programme proposals and other strategic changes to Senate on the advice of Curriculum Sub-Committee.
09/35 Programme exemptions from the University
credit framework
LTC09-P33
It was resolved to approve recommendations from the group
convened by the PVC(T) to consider departmental requests for exemption.
09/36 Policy on group work
LTC09-P34
It was resolved to approve amendments to the University
policy statement on group work.
09/37 External
examiners’ reports
LTC09-P35
It was resolved to approve amendments to the procedures for
handling external examiners’ reports, for incorporation in the Code of Practice
for External Examining – Taught Programmes.
09/38 Personal Development Planning (PDP)
LTC09-P36; P36a
It was resolved to approve amendments to the University
policy statement and briefing sheet for staff.
09/39 Curriculum Sub-Committee – 8 May 2008 (B)
LTC09-P37
Further discussions of the Sub-Committee were noted.
09/40 E-Learning Advisory Group
LTC09-P38
The Committee received the minutes
of the meeting held on 30 April 2009.
09/41 National Student Survey
It was noted that the ‘final’ University response rate was
74% compared with a final figure of 79% in 2008. (National
response rate 62% compared with 64% in 2008.)
09/42 Dates of
Meetings 2009/10
Provisional dates:
Thursday 5 November 2009
Thursday 11 February 2010
Thursday 3 June 2010
all meetings to start at 9.30 am.
09/43 Any Other Business
Proposed Collaboration with the
Automotive Research Association of
LTC09-P39
It was
noted that the Department of Aeronautical and Automotive Engineering had put
forward a proposal for collaboration with ARAI.
Although the focus in the longer term would be mainly on research, it
was proposed as a first stage to collaborate in the delivery of an MSc in
Automotive Systems Engineering. An
outline proposal and costing had been submitted to Operations Committee and
following further discussions between Professor Halliwell and Professor Stobart
(as HOD of AAE) approval had been given to proceed with the proposal, subject
to the necessary collaborative procedures being followed and confirmation that
bought-in teaching requirements for the programme could be met. The Committee authorised the PVC(T) to
convene a small group to review the proposal in further detail in order to seek
assurance that any matters of principle or issues that might give cause for
concern could be handled satisfactorily.
ACTION: MB, RAB
09/44 Farewells
The
PVC(T) reminded the Committee that this would be the last meeting for Ruth
Kinna as SSH Faculty member, and for Danny McNeice, LSU Vice-President
(Education). In addition, Anne Mumford
had suggested she should step down from membership following the change in her
University role. All were thanked for
their participation in the affairs of the Committee and their contribution to
its work.
Author – Robert Bowyer
Date – June 2009
Copyright © Loughborough University. All rights reserved