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.
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
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