Learning and
Teaching Committee
LTC09-M3
Minutes of the Meeting of
the Committee held on 5 November 2009
Members:
Apologies: Simon
Austin, John Dickens,
In attendance: Robert
Bowyer, Anne Mumford
(present for MM.45-53)
Observers: James
Carroll, Dan Harris, Scott Vickers
The PVC(T) welcomed Brian Jarvis, Chris Peel and Jemima
Barnes to their first meeting of the Committee, as well as the three student
observers, James Carroll, Dan Harris and Scott Vickers.
09/45 Business on the Agenda
Item 4.4 was unstarred.
Notice was given of two items of any other business.
09/46 Minutes
LTC09-M2
The Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 4 June
2009 were confirmed.
09/47 Matters arising from the Minutes not otherwise appearing on the agenda
47.1 Future of Teaching Quality Enhancement Funding (M.09/21.1)
The PVC(T) reported that the
majority of the TQEF-funded posts had been converted from fixed-term to
open-ended contracts in the latest budget round and were now being supported
from the TESS (Teaching Enhancement and Student Success) funding that had
replaced the TQEF. These were based in
the Teaching Centre (two Quality Enhancement Officers), the Library (three
Faculty e-Learning Officers, in the e-learning team), and the Careers Centre
(Employability Development Officer and Assistant).
47.2 Proposed collaboration with the Automotive Research Association
of
It was
reported that following guidance from the PVC(T) over the importance of establishing
the research agenda prior to the development of the MSc, Professor Stobart had
met with the PVC(R). It had been agreed
that a joint research programme be developed between ARAI and the University. The issue of the MSc would be returned to
once progress had been made on the research programme. The MSc therefore was currently on hold.
47.3 Reaccreditation of the New Lecturers’ Course by the HEA (M.09/28(iii))
Jan Tennant reported that the New Lecturers’
Course had been reaccredited for five years until 2014 without condition. The best features of the previous programme
had been retained; it had been restructured into one-day units with progressive
assessment; and some components had been updated. Academic staff joining the University after
July 2009 would join the revised Course.
47.4 Senate actions
Senate action in
respect of the following was noted:
(i)
Semester 2 Examination Period (M.09/27)
LTC09-P40.
The PVC(T)
reminded the Committee of the discussion at the previous meeting on the options
for handling increased student numbers in the Semester 2 examination period,
and the pros and cons of using Saturdays.
Senate had agreed that exams should continue to be scheduled on
Saturdays in S.2 2009/10, but had requested that a review of the timing of
semesters be undertaken in time for alternative proposals to be brought forward
for examination dates in 2010/11.
Possibilities might include the reduction of the length of vacations and
the adoption of an asymmetrical semester pattern. The opinion of the students present was that
the majority of students would prefer Saturday exams to reduced vacations; many
students needed to work during the vacations to earn extra cash. Some worked on Saturdays, but could arrange time
off work for Saturday exams if they had their exam timetables earlier. Steps were currently being taken to convene a
group to work on the issue. There would
be wide consultation.
ACTION: MB
It was noted that
Senate had approved the recommendations of the Committee in the following other
matters:
(ii) New programme proposals and other
strategic changes (M.09/34), including, on the recommendation of the PVC(T) on
behalf of LTC, the MSc in Road and Vehicle Safety, to be housed in the
Department of Human Sciences (Ergonomics).
(ii)
(iii)
Verification of entry qualifications (M.09/25)
(iv)
Widening Participation Strategic Assessment
(M.09/26)
(v)
Regulation Changes (M.09/29)
(vi)
Certificate in Foundation Studies, this having
been recommended by the PVC(T) on behalf of LTC.
47.5
APR Science – Physics
The AD(T) reported that he had followed up the
issue raised concerning the conduct of risk assessments for student projects
and lab work in the department of Physics and had received satisfactory
assurances that appropriate assessments were being undertaken.
09/48 Constitution and Membership of the Committee
LTC09-P41
It was agreed in the light of a report of discussions in the
Programme Quality Team concerning the membership of Learning and Teaching
Committee:
(i)
to
confirm an invitation issued to LSU to nominate, for 2009/10 on a trial basis,
three students, one from each Faculty, from outgoing departmental committee
chairs, to attend LTC meetings as observers;
(ii)
to
approve the arrangements being made for non-members, and in particular Heads of
Support Services, to attend meetings as appropriate to contribute to the
Committee’s discussions;
(iii)
to
leave vacant for the time being the place on the Committee for ‘a Director of a
Support Service contributing to learning and teaching’.
It was noted that an item on ‘Learning Spaces’ would
continue to be included on the agenda for each meeting, for which the Director
of Change Projects would be invited to attend.
A paper setting out the constitution and updated membership
of the Committee was received by the Committee.
It was agreed to seek the
endorsement of Senate for the actions taken.
09/49 Terms of reference of the committee
LTC09-P42
The Committee considered its terms of reference. It was agreed to recommend to Senate that the
following amendments be approved:
(i)
to
add the following as the first paragraph:
‘1. To oversee learning and teaching strategy and approve
the annual implementation plan for recommendation to Senate.’
(ii)
to
amend the fourth paragraph to read as follows:
‘4. To ensure that effective arrangements are in place to
identify, support, disseminate and reward effective practice and innovation in
learning, teaching and assessment.’
It was suggested that there might be some consolidation of the
various references to Senate.
ACTION: MB, RAB
09/50 Effectiveness of the Committee
LTC09-P43
At the request of the Audit Committee, consideration was
given to the effectiveness of the Committee.
Members generally felt that the Committee was working effectively. It received appropriate information and
reached decisions on appropriate issues after proper debate. Its members were conscientious about their
attendance and duly contributed to its discussions. Senior management and HODs received reports
of LTC business through Senate; Heads of Support Services and others received
all papers and were invited to attend meetings when appropriate to offer advice
in their areas. Meetings
were often lengthy but with only three meetings a year, this was difficult to
avoid while covering the agenda in appropriate detail. It was suggested there might be more
discussion of the links between teaching quality and HR requirements, and that
the Committee might more often take a forward look at issues on the horizon.
09/51 Overview of forthcoming business 2009/10
LTC09-P44
The Committee received an overview
of forthcoming business for 2009/10.
09/52 Learning
Spaces
Current developments
on campus and ‘Learning Landscapes’ Project
LTC09-P45
The
Committee received a report from Anne Mumford, Director of Change Projects. Forthcoming developments in respect of the
In the
wake of the Centenary Lecture by Professor Peter Jamieson, it was suggested
that further steps should be taken to get input from both staff and students to
the design process for space projects, and that the James France refurbishment
provided an opportunity to experiment in terms of staff and student
involvement. The Committee supported
these proposals and asked Anne Mumford to take them forward. She proposed to set out a statement of the
commitment that would be expected of any academic staff volunteering to become
involved. It was suggested that members
of departmental learning and teaching committees might be approached, and that
departmental student committee chairs were also likely to be interested.
ACTION: AMM
The
Committee discussed some of the existing spaces on campus. The students present indicated that they
appreciated the tiered lecture theatres, provided that staff made themselves
audible, and informal learning spaces in adjacent areas. The Quorn Lecture Theatre in the EHB was not
liked. The
It was
generally agreed there was a need for more strategic discussion about the
future development of learning and teaching spaces in ways appropriate to the
sort of experience that the University wished to offer students. There was a need to consider what
interactions the University wished to encourage, and the impact of e-learning
on physical space requirements. An
initial meeting of interested parties had been arranged for later in
November. It was agreed however that
this meeting should be postponed until the HEFCE-funded Learning Landscapes Project had reported in the spring of 2010; it
was hoped this would bring forward a suitable methodology for engaging
academics in estates development.
09/53 Central
Timetabling Project
LTC09-P46
The
Committee received a report from Anne Mumford.
It was reported that EMG and Operations Committee had agreed in
principle to move towards a common timetabling system for the University. An institutional change project had been put
in place with Anne Mumford as Project Manager and a Project Board chaired by
Jennifer Nutkins. The Board was
supported by Facilities Management.
There was good representation from Departmental Administrators on the
Board.
The
Committee was updated on the early discussions of the Project Board and on
actions taken to move the project forward.
The first phase would be to produce timetables for students and staff
using timetabling software. An
information gathering exercise would need to be undertaken, and a timetabling
policy was being developed which would underpin this. It was emphasised that departments would
retain control of information on the availability of staff, and student module
choice would be driven by programme regulations. These would need to be fixed earlier than at
present, which would mean an earlier deadline for completing the annual update
process. It would be important to ensure
that staff across the University were properly informed about the project and
what it would mean for them.
09/54 Periodic Programme Reviews
The Committee considered the reports of PPRs held during
Semester 2, 2008/09, and the initial responses of the departments concerned. It was hoped that the Teaching Centre would
ensure that examples of good practice identified in the PPR reports were shared
where appropriate with other departments.
54.1 Electronic and Electrical Engineering
LTC09-P47
It was noted in this instance that, disappointingly, the
department had not yet responded to the PPR report, and in the absence of the
AD(T), it was agreed to defer consideration until the next meeting. The PVC(T) undertook to follow up the lack of
departmental response with the Dean of Engineering.
ACTION: MB
54.2 Politics, International Relations and
European Studies
LTC09-P48
It was noted that the department had responded to points
extracted from the body of the report rather than the recommendations at the
end. Points 11.4 (iii), (iv) and (viii)
still needed a response, and the AD(T) would follow these up with the
department.
ACTION: PLB
Members of the Committee commented favourably on the
induction arrangements referred to in the PIRES PPR report, and the ‘core
seminar module’, which helped students to cope with the transition from school
to HE and a more independent learning style.
The Committee applauded the fact that there were also induction lectures
in the second and third years, to help students appreciate how the nature of
the learning process continued to change over the course of the programme.
The students present appreciated the steps being taken to
enhance student engagement. They suggested
that it would be helpful to provide new students with a brief statement of what
they could expect of staff in the course of their programme (for example, in
terms of contact hours, and feedback), and at the same time, what staff could reasonably
expect of them as students. Members were
broadly receptive to the suggestion, although there was a wish to avoid the use
of legalistic learning contracts.
There was support for arrangements adopted by PIRES and
other departments designed to bring students and their personal tutors together
in the context of the curriculum (in the case of PIRES, by having personal
tutors leading the skills-based seminar module), as a means again of enhancing
student engagement.
It was agreed to bring the Committee’s discussion to the
attention of Maurice Fitzgerald in the Teaching Centre, who was leading a
project on enhancing student engagement.
ACTION: MF
It was noted that the PPR report highlighted the need for
additional support to be made available at institutional level for students
with a poor standard of written English or basic comprehension (11.5(i)). It was agreed to follow up this issue with
the Director of Student Services.
ACTION: MB, NT
It was agreed to bring to the attention of the Space
Allocation Sub-Committee the panel’s comment on the importance of the strategy
for the development of the
ACTION: RAB
It was agreed to encourage the Dean of SSH to pursue the
panel’s comment on the need to increase the funding for the department’s
Learning Resource Centre to cover the ongoing renewal of equipment and
materials and annual running costs.
ACTION: TK
54.3
LTC09-P49
It was noted that a combined response to the SSES and Human
Sciences reports had been received from the Director of Learning and Teaching
in the new
ACTION: PLB, RAB
It was queried whether there was any feedback to the
students who had met with the PPR panel.
It was felt they would appreciate knowing that points they had raised had
been included in the report and would be responded to. It was agreed to consider how best to follow
up this suggestion.
ACTION: RAB
Attention was drawn to the recommendation that the School
consider the provision of formal placements across undergraduate provision
(11.7) and it was suggested this might be a Faculty-wide issue for SSH. In the context of the SSES report, it was
felt this related in part to the extension of study-abroad and international
exchange opportunities. Nevertheless,
students generally found that work placements offered valuable experience and the
Committee was of the view that many SSH departments could do more to promote placements
and formally incorporate them within their programmes.
54.4 Human Sciences
LTC09-P50
The AD(T) of Science assured the Committee that he would
follow up with the staff remaining for the time being in the Department of
Human Sciences (Ergonomics) the Ergonomics-related issues identified for action
by the Human Sciences PPR panel that were not being covered by SSEHS.
ACTION: MCH
09/55
The Chair informed the Committee that the partnership with
BUE continued to present challenges for the University. Since the early summer, problems had been
experienced with Programme Boards and the student appeals process. At the beginning of October, a letter had
been sent to the President of BUE setting out a set of principles to apply to
the validated degrees; BUE would be expected to agree to these before the
revalidation exercise planned for 2010 went ahead.
The AD(T) BUE reported, with reference to M.09/23.2 of the
previous meeting of LTC, that Senate had agreed to allow the validation of the
Petroleum Engineering programme to continue in the light of actions taken by
BUE.
It was noted that the AD(T) would be visiting BUE to carry
out Annual Programme Reviews in two weeks’ time.
It was noted that students’ union officers of the two
institutions had exchanged visits in 2007.
It might be possible to explore a repeat of this.
09/56 Nanyang
LTC09-P52
Considered the report of a validation panel on programmes to
be delivered by NAFA in collaboration with
It was agreed to recommend to Senate:
(i)
That
the one-year programme in Graphic Communication delivered by NAFA be
re-validated for a further four intakes, up to and including the 2012/13
intake, to lead to the LU degree of BA Honours.
(ii)
That
from 2009/10, NAFA students on the Graphic Communication programme undertake a
seven-week visit to LUSAD during their first semester. (Financial arrangements for this have already
been approved by Operations Committee.)
(iii)
That
two further one-year programmes, in Fine Art and in 3D Design:New Practice, to
be delivered by NAFA, be validated in the first instance for three intakes,
2010/11, 2011/12 and 2012/13, to lead also to the LU degree of BA Honours, both
programmes also to include a seven-week visit to LUSAD for NAFA students.
(iv)
That
students admitted to the programmes be required to have an IELTS score of at
least 6.5 and that this be kept under review over time. It was considered important to ensure that
students did not struggle with English language given the short length of the
programme, especially any international students recruited directly.
It was agreed to ask LUSAD to ensure that actions were taken
on the further recommendations set out in the validation panel’s report to
strengthen the partnership with NAFA during the next phase of collaboration
between the two institutions, and to be ready to report on progress to the
AD(T) at APR in spring 2010.
It was noted that further discussions were taking place with
NAFA through the good offices of the Dean of SSH, seeking a positive response
to recommendation (xv) concerning the registration of NAFA staff for PhD
studies with Loughborough.
09/57 National
Student Survey 2009
LTC09-P53
It was noted that the University had again achieved
excellent results in the National Student Survey. 89% of Loughborough students responding had
rated their overall satisfaction with their course at 4 or 5 on a 5-point
scale. The University had achieved a
response rate of 74%. Action taken
within the University in the wake of the NSS results was summarised in the agenda paper. A selection of key data, as listed in the
agenda paper, would be circulated to members after the meeting.
Further reference was made to the ‘statement of
expectations’ discussed earlier in the meeting (M.54.2). It was felt that this would also be helpful
in the context of the NSS: if actions matched student expectations, this should
be reflected in the NSS results.
Jan Tennant reported that she would be meeting shortly with
Chris Peel and the issue of feedback, in its various forms, would be on their
agenda.
Issues of communication had been identified amongst
students’ qualitative comments in the NSS.
It was pointed out to the Committee that some native English-speaking
staff, as well as international staff for whom English was a second language, were
guilty of a lack of clarity in lecture presentation. Questions were raised about postgraduate
students involved in teaching. The
Committee was informed that all postgraduate students were expected to receive
appropriate training before undertaking teaching duties, which meant completing
the short course on Teaching Skills provided through the
The Students’ Union was encouraged to bring specific cases
of concern to the attention of the Teaching Centre. Students could also raise any problems with the
delivery of specific modules through their departmental SSLCs.
09/58 Regulations
for Validated Undergraduate Awards
LTC09-P54
Considered revised regulations for validated undergraduate
awards.
They closely followed the format of Regulation XX, with
appropriate additions to cover, for example, Foundation degrees and one-year
Honours top-up degrees for FD holders, not catered for within Regulation XX,
and with the omission of extraneous details to avoid unnecessary complexity,
such as those specific to integrated Master’s degrees which were not part of
the University’s validated provision.
It was noted that in practice these regulations would
currently apply only to the LU-validated HE programmes at
It was agreed, subject to the
above, to recommend to Senate that the revised regulations for validated
undergraduate awards be approved and numbered as Regulation XXIII.
09/59 Collaborative postgraduate programme
LTC09-P55
The Committee received an outline of proposals under
discussion by Aeronautical and Automotive Engineering with a major motor
manufacturer which would involve contributions from Loughborough and a small
number of other HEIs to a modular postgraduate programme. The company proposed to direct individual
employees towards specific modules which would address skills shortages in the
company and contribute to the continuing professional development of the
individuals concerned. It was reported
that the outline had been submitted to Operations Committee which had agreed to
discussions continuing on the basis that full economic costs must be
recovered. LTC was invited to comment on
any matters of principle or issues that might give cause for concern. Members were particularly concerned that the
modules involved should be at the appropriate credit level to contribute to a
postgraduate qualification, particularly if new modules were to be designed for
this context, and that the company appreciated the distinction between training
and education. The department should be
convinced of the company’s case for sending its employees on credit-bearing
modules rather than short courses. It
was agreed that the department should proceed with its discussions with a view
to bringing forward more detailed proposals in due course. The Committee asked that the Programme
Quality Team Manager be involved in the discussions and that the AD(T) of
Engineering be kept informed.
09/60 Curriculum Sub-Committee – 16 October 2009 (A)
LTC09-P56
It was resolved to recommend new programme proposals and other strategic changes to Senate on the advice of Curriculum Sub-Committee.
09/61 Curriculum Sub-Committee – 16 October 2009 (B)
LTC09-P57
(i) Further discussions of the Sub-Committee were noted.
(ii) Further to the above, it was noted that the revised Guide for the Preparation of Programme Specifications would be accessible via the following weblink:
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/admin/ar/templateshop/index.htm
under item 3.2.
09/62 E-Learning Advisory Group
LTC09-P58
The minutes of the meeting held on
13 July 2009 were noted.
09/63 Teaching Centre Advisory Board
LTC09-P59
The minutes of the meeting held on
24 September 2009 were noted.
09/64 Centres for Excellence in Teaching
and Learning
It was noted that Operations Committee had approved plans
for the future funding of the CETLs and the continuation of specific posts
within them; the Committee had also requested that both CETLs should provide
annual reports to Learning and Teaching Committee on the services provided. Programme Quality Team had suggested that
these reports be presented in future to the November meeting of LTC.
09/65 External
Publications
The publication of the following documents about
quality and standards in HE in
The Report of the House of Commons Innovation,
Universities, Science and Skills Committee 'Students and Universities', 2
August 2009, 11th report of 2008/09.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmdius.htm
Report of the HEFCE sub-committee for Teaching,
Quality, and the Student Experience
'HEFCE's statutory responsibility for quality
assurance'
A report commissioned by HEFCE to examine public
concerns about quality and standards in English higher education, HEFCE
2009/40, 1 October 2009.
http://www.hefce.ac.uk/news/hefce/2009/tqse.htm and follow links.
The QAA response to the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills
(IUSS) Select Committee's report, 2 October 2009.
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/news/media/pressReleases/IUSS011009.asp and follow links.
and in addition, since the circulation
of the agenda
‘Higher Ambitions – The future of universities in a
knowledge economy’, 3 November 2009, Department of Business, Innovation &
Skills. Described as a new framework for
the future success of higher education.
09/66 Consultation document
It was noted that QAA had released a ‘new draft master’s
degree characteristics reference point’ for consultation (deadline 27
November):
www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/benchmark/masters
09/67 Any Other Business
67.1 Undergraduate reassessment
It was noted that an exercise had been undertaken to
ascertain whether the number of module reassessments in the 2009 special
assessment period had increased over the SAP 2008, following the change in
reassessment regulations and increase in reassessment fees. It was reported that the increase in the
number of reassessments had been marginal, and the number of students involved
had increased hardly at all. The
Committee welcomed this report and was also pleased to hear that departmental
administrators had found it much more straightforward to handle reassessment
notifications under the new regulations, and that the Registry had found it
easier to log SAP registrations.
67.2 Students under 18 years of age
The PVC(T) reported on a communication from
the Director of Student Services, Nigel Thomas, expressing concern about the
additional obligations for the University towards students under the age of
18. It was noted that it was unlawful to
discriminate on the basis of age and admissions policies had to reflect
this. Howard Jones would meet with Nigel
Thomas to discuss the position.
09/68 Dates of
Meetings 2009/10
Dates of remaining meetings:
Thursday 11 February 2010
Thursday 3 June 2010
to start at 9.30 am.
Robert
Bowyer
November
2009
Copyright ©
Loughborough University. All rights
reserved.