Learning and Teaching Committee

LTC11-M5

Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 15 December 2011

Members: Prof. Morag Bell (in the Chair) Dr Jane Horner

Dr Keith Pond Prof. John Feather

Dr John McCardle Prof. Michael Kong

Prof. Memis Acar Prof. Ray Dawson

Dr Ruth Kinna Prof. Fred Yeadon

Dr Brian Jarvis Dr Jennifer Nutkins

Jan Tennant Dr Phil Richards

Jayde Savage Prof Simon Austin

James Carrol

In attendance: Rob Pearson, Nigel Thomas

Dr Julie Holland, Dr Amanda Berry, Dr Neil Raven (for 11/72)

Ruth Stubbings (for 11/73)

Dr Maurice FitzGerald (for 11/74)

Tricia Breen, Michael Earl (for 11/75)

Apologies: Dr Robert Hamilton

11/70 Minutes

LTC11-M4

1. The Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 27 October 2011 were confirmed.

11/71 Matters Arising from the Minutes not otherwise appearing on the Agenda

11/20 The processing of student evaluation forms

A working group was to be established to revisit Appendix 13 of the AQPH (the Code of Practice on Student Feedback Questionnaires) and to review the questions on the student module evaluation form. The Working Group would report to the March meeting of Senate, via Learning and Teaching Committee (LTC).

11/65 Curriculum Sub-Committee, 6 October 2011

The Teaching Centre and Academic Registry would be undertaking a project to review the delivery and management of joint honours programmes, with a view to reporting back to LTC later this session. The project would address issues raised in NSS data, amongst other things.

11/66 Academic Standards and Procedures Sub-Committee, 3 October 2011

A report from the Counselling & Disability Service would be received at the next meeting of LTC.

11/72 Glendonbrook Centre for Enterprise Education

Received: LTC11-P51

1. The Glendonbrook Centre for Enterprise education was established in August 2011. Located within the School of Business and Economics, it aimed to provide high quality formal and extra-curricular enterprise education across the university.

2. The Centre would be working with School AD(E)s and AD(T)s to raise awareness of enterprise education and to support staff wishing to embed enterprise education in their teaching.

11/73 Course text book provision by the University: implications of higher tuition fees

Received: LTC11-P52

1. There had been a gradual decline in the number of students prepared to purchase all the essential texts for their modules. While the library stocked a broad range of material, including essential texts, it could not provide a copy for each student.

2. The Committee was asked to consider a number of potential options to address student demand and manage student expectations.

Agreed:

3. The committee did not support providing a book bursary through which students could purchase essential reading from the campus bookshop. It was felt that a bursary was not appropriate for a wide range of reasons, including a possible lack of equality due to different costs of books between disciplines and different disciplinary expectations in regard to the use of essential text books.

4. The Committee gave broad support for the recommendations under section 2 in the paper. It was agreed that AD(T)s should ask their Schools to reflect on the recommendations and provide feedback through their Library Liaison Officers to the appropriate Library Committee. In particular, it was recommended that Schools consider:

· The definition and use of the term ‘essential’ text, with a view to clarifying expectations to students.

· Ensuring consistency and an appropriate balance between the expectation of student use of texts and the provision of other material by Schools, such as handouts and information on Learn.

· The use of e-books and bulk buying of texts.

5. The Committee was of the view that there should be an agreed statement setting out the University’s position on the students’ learning environment and resources for learning in a research-intensive institution. This would be considered at the next Learning and Teaching Committee, coupled with a feedback from ADTs on the position within their School.

11/74 The Student Charter

Received: LTC11-P53

1. The Student Charter was welcomed as a positive statement that set out the mutual expectations of the University and its students.

2. The Charter had been circulated to new and returning students at the start of the academic session. It was also promoted in A3 posters and on the University website.

Agreed:

3. AD(T)s would ask their School LTCs and SSLCs to consider the role and use of the Charter and appropriate mechanisms for its dissemination. It was agreed that the AD(T)s would provide feedback from these discussions to Dr FitzGerald in advance of the Easter break.

4. The Charter Working Group would reconvene to evaluate the feedback from staff and students, and to decide on strategies for its future production and distribution.

5. The Charter should be in a prominent position on the University website.

11/75 Timetabling Project

Received: LTC11-P54

1. Positive progress had been made to date in the implementation of the CMIS timetabling project. Key deliverables included the production of individual student timetables prior to the start of the 2012/13 academic session.

2. The timing of the room allocation process in 2012 had been brought forward to reduce the pressure of deadlines from central services on Schools. This would result in a draft timetable being made available in July 2012. However, this was dependent on adherence to the published deadlines for programme and module update and approval.

3. Members encouraged the consideration of future enhancements, including:

· The integration of coursework submission and return deadlines into individual student timetables

· An effective dialogue between the module presence in Learn and the timetabling system

· Long term ad hoc room booking for academic purposes

4. Members were encouraged to relay any concerns about the facilities in pool teaching rooms to Caroline Pepper.

Agreed:

5. The Committee endorsed the Timetabling Policy for onward approval by Senate, subject to minor revisions in light of comments from members.

11/76 The Academic Quality Cycle

Received: LTC11-P55

1. The Annual Programme Review (APR) meetings were under way and were resulting in a positive and constructive dialogue.

2. The APR and PPR processes sit within a range of activities that Schools undertake to monitor and review the quality and standards of provision.

Agreed:

3. School LTCs are responsible for oversight of the quality and standards activities, but in federal-model Schools it may be appropriate to delegate day-to-day responsibility to Departmental level committees.

4. AD(T)s would ask their School LTCs to discuss and agree a timetable for School quality activities and report back as appropriate.

5. RP would update the ‘academic quality cycle’ table with relevant deadlines and circulate to the AD(T)s.

11/77 Periodic Programme Review – 2010/11

Received:

Department of Computer Science, LTC11-P56, LTC11-56A

Department of Aeronautical and Automotive Engineering, LTC11-P57, LTC11-P57A

Department of English and Drama, LTC11-P58, LTC11-P58A

Department of Geography, LTC11-P59, LTC11-P59A

.1 The Committee considered the reports of PPRs held during Semester 2, 2010/11, and the responses of the departments concerned. The Committee was pleased to note the actions being taken by the Schools to address the issues that had been identified for further consideration.

Agreed:

.2 The relevant AD(T)s were asked to ensure that actions had been addressed and to provide an update on their actions in the 2012 APR.

.3 The Academic Standards and Procedures Sub-Committee would undertake further work on the following areas and report back to a future LTC:

· The dissemination of good practice such as the work on referencing and plagiarism in the Department of English

· Policy and practice in regard to the use of the Turnitin plagiarism detection software

· The introduction of the Merit band into Masters qualifications

· Guidance in the Coursework Code of Practice on group work and peer review

· The recycling of exam questions.

11/78 Regulation XIV: Student Appeals against Programme or Review Board Decisions, Report for 2011 (Calendar Year) up to 5 December 2011.

Received: LTC11-P60

1. The number of appeals received against programme or review board decisions had increased substantially in 2011.

2. Members felt that the Academic Registry undertook a thorough job in preparing paperwork and advice for consideration by AD(T)s.

Agreed:

3. The pool of staff acting on behalf of the PVC(T) in relation to regulation XI would be subject to future review.

4. The timescale for conveying a decision in writing to the appellant would be extended from 25 working days of receipt of the complete appeal documentation to 40 days.

5. The Regulation would be amended to allow more flexibility for additional rounds of submissions, from the Chair or student, both prior to and subsequent to the appeal file being sent to the AD(T).

6. The above changes would require minor amendment to Regulation XIV, subject to approval by Senate, for implementation for all appealed which relate to the 2011/12 academic session.

11/79 Teaching Partnerships Sub-Committee, 6 October 2011

Received: LTC11-P61

11/80 Any Other Business

E-Learning events

1. The annual E-learning Showcase would take place on Wednesday 1st February 2012 11.00am – 2.30pm, in the Keith Green Building.

2. The first e-learning Network event was being held on 22 February. It would discuss the introduction of Moodle 2 and the implications for Learn.

3. Ray Dawson would email members the time, venue and agenda for both events.

Role of the External Examiner

4. The Academic Standards and Procedures Sub-Committee would be asked to clarify the expectations on Schools when an External Examiner has identified an issue during the moderation of work.

11/81 Dates of Meetings 2011/12

Dates of remaining meetings:

16 Feb.2012, 9.30 am

29 March 2012, 2.00 pm

3 May 2012, 9.30 am

14 June 2012, 9.30 am

Author – Rob Pearson

Date – December. 2011