Learning and Teaching Committee

LTC11-M2

 

Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 9 June 2011

 

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

 

In attendance:           Rob Pearson, Maurice FitzGerald (for item 11/19), Rachel Atkin (for item 11/21), Charles Shields (for item 11/27).


 

11/17   Minutes

LTC11-M1

 

1.    The Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 17 February 2011 were confirmed.

 

11/18   Matters Arising from the Minutes not otherwise appearing on the Agenda

 

11/08   University Re-organisation: report from the Learning and Teaching Working Group

 

1.    The Working Group had delivered its final report to the Project Management Board.  Discussions were on-going through Programme Quality Team about the delivery of processes such as APR and PPR; the roles of AD(T)s; School structures for the management of learning and teaching; and the composition of the sub-committees of LTC.

 

 

11/19   The Student Charter

           

Received:       LTC11-P12

 

1.             The Committee endorsed the Student Charter and the recommendations for action detailed in the paper.

 

2.             It was agreed that the Charter would be presented for approval to the next

meeting of Senate as an un-starred item.

 

3.             Maurice FitzGerald was thanked for his work in developing the Student Charter.   

11/20   The processing of student evaluation forms

           

Received:       LTC11-P13

 

1.    The proposed use of Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software in module and programme evaluation was welcomed.

 

2.    Further development of the proposals was needed to detail the costs of the system and the redistribution of any resources to Schools.

 

3.    It was agreed that the development of the OCR system should not preclude the future development of an online student evaluation system.

 

Agreed:

 

4.    The proposal would be developed by IT Services/Design and Print/Teaching Centre and submitted to the PVC(T) in conjunction with an implementation plan for launch in 2011/12.

 

11/21   Proposed Policy for Admitting Students under the Age of 18

 

Received:       LTC11-P14

 

Agreed:

 

1.    The policy was approved, subject to clarification of the University’s legal responsibilities in regard to the provision of IT services to students under the age of 18.  It would also be clarified that the policy did not apply to students under the age of 16, whose requirements would be considered on a case-by-case basis.

 

11/22   Annual Programme Reviews

 

1.    LTC considered reports from the AD(T)s on the Annual Programme Reviews in their respective Faculties.  The reports confirmed that the quality and standards of provision were being appropriately monitored and maintained within Departments. The following specific issues were raised:

 

22.1     Engineering

Received:       LTC11-P15

 

1.    Some Departments had been advised to undertake a more detailed analysis of attendance and progression data.

 

2.    Departments felt that contact hours with students were appropriate and high.

 

3.    All Departments had improved the provision of feedback on assessment to students, although it had been highlighted that some Departments could strengthen their mechanisms for monitoring and implementing timely feedback.

 

4.    External Examiners had commented that some staff were not using the full range of marks available to them, and that in some cases they were not seeing ample evidence of the moderation process.

 

22.2     Science

Received:       LTC11-P16

 

1.    Progression rates between parts A and B were of concern in some programmes.

 

2.    Following discussion about the use of condonement in some Science Departments at the last LTC (minute 11/04 refers), there was little evidence that students who had been condoned were subsequently failing the next stage of their programmes.  Therefore it was felt that condonement was being exercised appropriately and providing able students with an opportunity to progress successfully in future stages of their programmes.

 

3.    A number of Departments appeared to be marking to an average of 55%.  In comparison competitor institutions appeared to be marking to an average of 60 to 65%.

 

4.    Attendance monitoring was difficult to carry out where class sizes were high; consequently there were calls for the use of an automated system.  The Committee was aware of the costs and practical implications of such a system.  It was agreed that this issue would be revisited following a review of the attendance monitoring processes that had been introduced during 2010/11 in response to UKBA attendance monitoring requirements.

 

22.3     Social Sciences and Humanities

                        Received:       LTC11-P17

 

1.    Departments had been encouraged to engage with students to develop a shared understanding of feedback mechanisms and expectations on staff and students.

 

2.    The Departments had undertaken a lot of work to consider the implications on learning and teaching which arose from the formation of the new Schools.

 

3.    Discussions on contact time with students had identified the need to work with students to help them structure their study time outside of formal lectures.

 

4.    There was a strong desire from some Departments to introduce the award of Merit for Masters students.

 

5.    The Departments were preparing to develop and enhance the promotion of placement opportunities to students.

 

2.    The Committee thanked the AD(T)s and Quality Enhancement Officers for carrying out to the APRs.

 

Agreed:

 

3.    Actions identified in the reports would be followed up in the next cycle of APRs.

 

4.    The new School AD(T)s would be asked to ensure that their Schools published deadlines for the return of assessed work and feedback to students, and to develop mechanisms for monitoring and managing this within their Schools.

 

5.    In the case of Departments in the Science School which appeared to mark to an average of 55%, this practice should be examined further and an explanation provided to LTC. 

 

11/23   Periodic Programme Review: School of the Arts response to additional queries on PPR

 

Received:       LTC11-P18

           

1.    The Committee was satisfied that the School response had addressed all outstanding issues from the PPR.

 

Agreed:

 

2.    The AD(T) would discuss the content of the planned generic final year project module with the School to ensure that the ILOs of the relevant Masters programmes would be met.

 

11/24   Curriculum Sub-Committee – 12 May 2011

 

Received:       LTC11-P19

 

1.    Annual Update of Module Specifications and Programme Regulations /Specifications

 

1.    Some Departments had encountered problems in meeting the earlier deadline for the annual update.

 

Agreed:

 

2.    The deadlines for 2011/12 would be reviewed following consultation with timetabling and Schools, and published early in 2011/12.

 

3.    Departments who had routinely missed deadlines for programme and module approval would be contacted to discuss underlying reasons and to develop a shared understanding of future deadlines.

 

2.    Criteria for Passing a Part

 

1.    It was agreed that discretion to allow a candidate to carry one module in which 20 credits had not been gained into the next part of a programme should continue to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis as waivers of regulations.

 

11/25   University Award for Outstanding Contribution to Research-Informed Teaching

 

Received:       LTC11-P20

 

Agreed:

 

1.    The Committee endorsed the creation of the University Award.

 

2.    The number of nominations available to each School should be weighted to reflect the asymmetric distribution of staff across the University.

 

11/26   Reassessment without attendance analysis

 

Received:       LTC11-P21

 

Agreed:

 

1.    In light of the small number of students involved, and the potential detrimental impact on these students, it was agreed that there was no merit in introducing legislation to prevent students who had achieved less than 60 credits at their first attempt from resitting without tuition.

 

2.    Module specifications should state when students are required to resit a module with tuition.

 

3.    Students who had achieved less than 60 credits at their first attempt should be counseled about the benefits of resitting with attendance.

 

11/27   E-Learning Strategy and Implementation Plan

           

Received:       LTC11-P22

 

Agreed:

 

1.    There was broad support for the aims and the principles set out in the strategy.

 

2.    The terminology ‘E-learning’ should be retained as it was a commonly understood term.  However, further drafting should be undertaken to distinguish between e-administration and e-learning support.

 

3.    It was important to consider student perspectives on e-learning and their requirements for e-learning support, both technically and pedagogically.

 

4.    The integration of different e-learning systems, with the purpose of providing staff and students with a single interface to the various systems currently used, would be identified as a priority in the implementation plan.

 

11/28   BUE Validation Sub-Committee

           

1.    LTC received the report of the Annual Institutional Level Review visit of May 2011.

 

2.    It was noted that there were many improvements across the validated programmes and that work was ongoing with BUE to address outstanding issues.

 

11/29   Curriculum Sub-Committee – 12 May 2011

 

Received:       LTC11-P23

 

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. 

 

11/30   Learning and Teaching Implementation Planning

 

Received:       LTC11-P24

 

1.    The Committee endorsed learning and teaching implementation planning priorities for 2011-12 at this stage.  Discussions on them would take place with the new ADTs in due course.

 

11/31   University Risk Schedule

 

Received:       LTC11-P25

 

1.    The Committee approved ratings assigned to the various risks identified in the Learning and Teaching section of the University Risk Schedule.

 

11/32   PSB validation report

 

Received:       LTC11-P26

           

1.    The Committee endorsed the recommendation to re-validate the School of Business and Economics provision delivered in partnership with PSB Singapore.

 

11/33   Loughborough College validation report

           

Received:       LTC11-P27

           

1.    The Committee endorsed the recommendation to re-validate provision delivered at Loughborough College.

 

11/34   Academic Governance Working Group

 

Received:       LTC11-P28

 

1.    The Committee endorsed recommendations for changes to the ordinances and regulations arising from the University re-structuring.

 

11/35   Curriculum Sub-Committee – 12 May 2011

 

Received:       LTC11-P29

 

1.    There remained amendments to be resolved to the satisfaction of the Chair of Curriculum Sub-Committee (CSC).  The Committee authorised the Chair to approve proposals on the Committees behalf, once they had been cleared by the relevant AD(T)s.

 

2.    It was noted that CSC would be reviewing the criteria for major and minor programme and module changes, with a view to making a recommendation to the Committee next session.

 

11/36   E-Learning Advisory Group

 

Received:       LTC11-P30

           

11/37   Annual report on cases of Academic Misconduct, 2009-2010

 

Received:       LTC11-P31

 

11/38   Annual report on student appeals under Regulation XIV

 

Received:       LTC11-P32

 

11/39   The Centre for Enterprise Education

 

Received:       LTC11-P33

 

11/40. QAA Subject Benchmark Statement – Master’s degrees in Computing

           

Received:       LTC11-P34

           

1.    The Committee noted the publication of a new Subject Benchmark Statement.

 

11/41   QAA Institutional Review

 

1.    It was noted that the QAA had confirmed the following dates for Institutional Review in 2011/12:

 

First Team visit: Tuesday 17 and Wednesday 18 April 2012

Review visit: week commencing 28 May 2012

 

11/42   National Student Survey 2011

 

1.    It was noted that the final University response rate was 74%, compared with a final figure of 75% in 2010. The National response rate was 66%, compared with 63% in 2010.

 

11/43   Any other business: Joint and Dual Awards

 

1.    The Committee endorsed a proposal to amend the University Charter to make explicit reference to powers to make academic awards jointly and dually in conjunction with other institutions.

 

11/44   Valediction

 

1.    The PVC(T) on behalf of the Committee thanked Alice Swinscoe for her contribution to the Committee on behalf of the student body during 2010-11.


Author – Rob Pearson

Date –  June 2011

Copyright © Loughborough University.  All rights reserved