Learning and Teaching Committee

LTC10-M3

Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 4 November 2010

Members: Morag Bell (in the Chair), Simon Austin (ab), Ruth Kinna, Ray Dawson, Jane Horner, Dave Twigg, Jennifer Nutkins, Jan Tennant, John Feather, Derek Stephens, Brian Jarvis, Steve Tarleton, Alice Swinscoe, Phil Richards

Apologies: Simon Austin, Anne Mumford

In attendance: Rob Pearson, Charlie Carter, Nigel Thomas

The Chair welcomed new members to the committee.

10/52 Business on the Agenda

Item 19 was unstarred (M.10/69 below).

10/53 Minutes

LTC10-M2

The Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 3 June 2010 were confirmed.

10/54 Matters Arising from the Minutes not otherwise appearing on the Agenda

54.1 Senate actions

It was noted that Senate had approved the recommendations of the Committee on the following matters:

(i) Master in Science (MSci) degree (M.10/29)

(ii) Minimum requirements for passing an UG programme part (M.10/30)

(iii) Reassessment of UG dissertation/project modules (M.10/31)

(iv) Leave of absence/termination of studies (M.10/32)

(v) Points-based immigration system (M.10/33)

(vi) Admissions policy for high performance student athletes (M.10/35)

(vii) Code of practice on placement learning (M.10/36)

10/55 Terms of Reference of the Committee

Received: LTC10-P48

.1 In light of the forthcoming changes to the academic structure of the University, the terms of reference and membership would be revised in advance of the 2011/12 session.

10/56 Learning Spaces – Development and Use

Received: LTC10-49

.1 The new IT facility on the ground floor of Haslegrave was a shared development between IT Services, Computer Science and Information Science.

.2 The new timetabling system required departments to estimate module enrolments well in advance of the academic session. There was concern that this may restrict module availability in circumstances where accurate prediction of numbers was difficult in advance of the session, such as for languages modules taken by first years and for optional modules. It was agreed that the Timetabling Project Management Board would be asked to ensure that the requirement to estimate enrolments did not restrict actual student choice of optional and language modules. ACTION: JN

10/57 Periodic Programme Reviews

.1 The Committee considered the reports of PPRs held during Semester 2, 2009/10, 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. It was noted that the departments would be asked to provide updated reports on their actions for APR in 2011. A number of points were drawn to the attention of the Committee as set out below.

.2 In regard to the PPR process, it was agreed that:

.1 a template should be developed for the Departmental response to ensure consistency in addressing the report recommendations.

.2 the criteria for the appointment of external assessors should be revisited to ensure that they have current disciplinary expertise.

.3 care should be taken to ensure that an appropriate balance of undergraduate and postgraduate students are met by the panels.

ACTION: RP

.3 The PPR reports had identified a number of themes that the Committee would seek to address and /or refer to other fora:

.1 group work (how it operates and is assessed)

.2 the use of assessment criteria

.3 the relationship between assessment load and credit weighting

.4 academic tutoring (in the first year in particular)

.5 peer support

.6 the application of Masters-level qualifications criteria in programme design

ACTION: RP

.4 School of Art and Design

Received: LTC10-P50a, LTC10-P50b

.1 It was felt that recommendations ii, v, vi and viii in particular had not been addressed satisfactorily in the School response. It was agreed that the AD(T) would ask the School to review their response to these issues.

ACTION: RK

.2 The report had identified student concerns about the additional charges levied for use of some of the facilities within the School. The Committee agreed that it would be appropriate for the University to revisit how Schools and Departments determine additional costs and communicate them to students.

ACTION: MB

.5 Wolfson School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering

Received: LTC10-P51a, LTC10-P51b

.1 The report had identified significant innovative learning and teaching practices within the School. The Committee was encouraged to view a JISC video on the use of WebPA.

ACTION: MB

.6 Department of Information Science

Received: LTC10-P52, LTC10-52b

.1 It was noted that the Department was currently undertaking a review and re-design of its provision. The AD(T) felt that this review would address many of the issues identified in the report.

.7 Department of Design and Technology

Received: LTC10-P53, LTC10-53b

.1 The Department had made a thorough and positive response. It was noted that several of the actions from the School were proposals for future action. The AD(T) would follow up their progress in APR.

10/58 International Foundation Programme: first year review

Received: LTC10-P54a, LTC10-P54b

.1 The Committee approved proposed revisions to the validation agreement.

.2 It was agreed that a group would be convened to co-ordinate actions to be taken to strengthen the IFP provision.

ACTION: RP

.3 It was agreed that the certificates for the Loughborough University IFP award should not include the Loughborough College logo. It was noted that the place of delivery was recorded on the certificates.

10/59 Loughborough College Validation Sub-Committee

Received: LTC10-P55

.1 It was agreed to revisit the proposed terms of reference to ensure that responsibility for quality assurance, operational and strategic issues were appropriately addressed.

ACTION: RP / JN

10/60 BUE Validation Sub-Committee

Received: LTC10-P56.

.1 The committee considered developments since the meeting in June 2010 and agreed recommendations to be made to Senate on 16 November 2010.

10/61 University Re-organisation: report from the Learning and Teaching Working Group

Received: LTC10-P57

.1 The report and proposals had been endorsed, subject to minor amendment, at a meeting of the Project Management Board on 3 November 2010.

.2 Appendix 1, which detailed how learning and teaching responsibilities would be discharged from 2011/12 onwards, was indicative of likely responsibilities. The Working Group would be developing the detail of the proposals over the course of this academic session.

10/62 Curriculum Sub-Committee – 13 October 2010 (A)

Received: LTC10-P58

1. It was agreed to recommend new programme proposals and other strategic changes to Senate on the advice of Curriculum Sub-Committee, as set out in the report.

10/63 QAA Consultation on the new method of Institutional Review

Received: LTC10-P59

The University response to the national consultation was approved.

10/64 Curriculum Sub-Committee – 13 October 2010 (B)

Received: LTC10-P60

10/65 E-Learning Advisory Group

Received: LTC10-P61a, LTC10-P61b, LTC10-P61c

10/66 Student Recruitment Committee

Received: LTC10-P62a, LTC10-P62b

10/67 Centres for Excellence in Teaching and Learning

Received: LTC10-P63, LTC10-P64

10/68 Annual report on cases of academic misconduct 2008/09

Received: LTC10-P65

10/69 National Student Survey 2010

Received: LTC10-P66

.1 Loughborough University was again ranked among the UK’s top institutions for student satisfaction. Eighty-nine percent of Loughborough’s undergraduate students were satisfied with their course, compared with a national average of 82%. Loughborough achieved a response rate of 76% to the survey, considerably higher than the national average of 63.1%.

.2 The AD(T)s and Teaching Centre Quality Enhancement Officers had held meetings with Heads of Departments and relevant learning and teaching staff to discuss the results and the intended departmental responses. The Programme Quality Team would be discussing the outcomes of these meetings at its meeting on 15 November 2010.

10/70 Review of External Examining Arrangements in the UK

Received: LTC10-P67

10/71 External Publications

.1 The QAA had recently published the following:

.1 Revised subject benchmark statement for Architecture; factual update to subject benchmark statement for Psychology; factual update to Foundation Degree qualification benchmark; revised Recognition scheme for subject benchmark statements, available at: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/benchmark/

.2 Outcomes from institutional audit: Institutions’ intentions for enhancement, available at:

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews/institutionalAudit/outcomes/series2/InstitutionsEnhancement.pdf

.3 Outcomes from institutional audit: Closing overview, available at: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews/institutionalAudit/outcomes/series2/ClosingOverview2010.pdf

10/72 Dates of Meetings 2010/11

1. Dates of remaining meetings:

Thursday 17 February 2011

Thursday 9 June 2011

to start at 9.30 am.

10/73 Any Other Business

.1 The Government had set out its initial plans for reforms to higher education and student finance in light of the Browne Review. It had indicated that it would publish a Higher Education White Paper in the winter with detailed proposals on the wider, long-term issues that arose from Lord Browne’s review.

.2 It was anticipated that potential applicants and their families would be seeking clarification of the expected 2012/13 Loughborough tuition fees at forthcoming open days.

.3 The Students’ Union was providing students with a platform to debate their responses to the Browne Review, and was seeking to ensure that the student voice was heard.

Author – Rob Pearson

Date – November 2010