Learning and Teaching
Committee
LTC12-M1
Minutes
of the Meeting of the Committee held on 16 February 2012
Members:
Prof.
Memis Acar |
Prof
Simon Austin |
Prof.
Morag Bell (Chair) |
James
Carroll |
Prof.
Ray Dawson |
Prof.
John Feather |
Dr
Jane Horner |
Dr
Brian Jarvis |
Dr
Ruth Kinna |
Prof.
Michael Kong |
Dr
John McCardle |
Dr
Jennifer Nutkins |
Dr
Keith Pond |
Dr
Phil Richards |
Jayde
Savage |
Jan
Tennant |
Prof.
Fred Yeadon |
|
In attendance: Rob Pearson, Nigel Thomas
Dr Manuel Alonso (for 12/03)
Apologies: Dr Robert Hamilton
12/01 Minutes
LTC12-M5
1.
The Minutes of the Meeting of the
Committee held on 15 December 2011 were confirmed.
12/02 Matters Arising from the Minutes not
otherwise appearing on the Agenda
11/73 Course text book provision by the University:
implications of
higher tuition fees
Ruth Stubbings had been in discussion with Library
Liaison Officers and would be reporting back to the March meeting of LTC.
11/77 Periodic Programme Review – 2010/11
At
its meeting on 23 January 2012, the Academic Standards and Procedures
Sub-Committee had agreed actions to be taken in response to institutional
issues raised at LTC.
11/78 Regulation XIV: Student Appeals against
Programme or Review Board Decisions, Report for 2011 (Calendar Year) up to 5
December 2011.
It was confirmed that the timescale for
conveying a decision in writing to an appellant would be extended to 40 working days.
11/80 Role of the External Examiner
Following discussion at the Academic
Standards and Procedures Sub-Committee on 23 January 2012, Schools would be
consulted on revisions to the Code of Practice on External Examining in light
of changes to national guidance provided by the QAA.
12/03 Reasonable Adjustments for
Disabled Students
Received: LTC12-P1
1.
Recommendations for ‘reasonable
adjustments’ were made by the Counselling and Disability Service (CDS) to
ensure that disabled students were not placed at a substantial disadvantage in
relation to their peers.
2.
CDS would only make a recommendation
for a reasonable adjustment if there was sufficient medical evidence and/or a
CDS professional judgement that an adjustment was appropriate.
3.
It was noted that there was little in
the way of case law by which to reference CDS recommendations.
4.
To date in 2011/12 there had been 1530
alternative examination arrangements put in place.
5.
Each year CDS requested alternative
forms of assessment for approximately 30 students.
6.
It was agreed that a greater
understanding of the statistics may be reached by the disaggregation of the
statistics by disability.
7.
The Committee thanked MA for the paper
and the constructive dialogue at the meeting.
Agreed:
8.
If available, MA to provide a future
meeting of LTC with the following data:
·
A disaggregation of the statistics for reasonable
adjustment by disability.
·
Clarification of the number of students for whom a CDS
request for alternative forms of assessment is made for all assessments.
·
A historical analysis of the performance of students for
whom adjustments have been made in comparison to their peers.
9.
Schools were asked to consider their
assessment portfolios to ensure they were designed to provide all students a
reasonable opportunity to complete the assessment in the specified time. In this regard, it was suggested that School
LTCs should annually review assessment matrices.
12/04 QAA
Institutional Review – Spring 2012
Received: LTC12-P2 and LTC12-P3
1.
The QAA Assistant Director overseeing
the Institutional Review had visited the University on 10 February and
confirmed the following:
·
The deadline for the submission of the LU Self-Evaluation
Document, the LSU Student Written Submission and all supporting documentation
was 15 March 2012.
·
The timetable for the Audit Panel visit on 17 and 18
April and the staff and students that the Audit Team wished to meet at that
visit. Relevant staff had been notified.
·
The schedule for the visit on 28 May to 1 June, including
likely participants, would not be confirmed until the end of the first visit on
18 April.
2.
It was noted that the thematic element
of the audit was the first year student experience. In response to comments about student
engagement in the first year it was agreed that at a later date LTC should
consider the appropriateness of Part A assessment contributing towards degree
classification.
Agreed:
3.
The Committee endorsed the content of
the Self-Evaluation Document and thanked all those who had contributed to its
production.
4.
Members were asked to send additional
comments to RP by 24 February.
12/05 Annual
Programme Review 2011/12
Received: LTC11-P4
1.
It was agreed that the revised APR
process had worked well and Schools reported a reduction in the administrative
burden during preparation for the process.
2.
The PQTP office would be working with
Schools and other central services to deliver enhancements to the APR process
in advance of 2012/13.
3.
IT Committee was due to consider a
paper proposing actions to resolve issues with slow login times in some labs
that were having a negative impact on teaching.
The Head of IT Services would forward the report to the Secretary for
circulation to members of LTC.
4.
Institutional issue 4.iv would be
amended to clarify that the concerns related to the timetable, not the
timetabling system.
Agreed:
5.
PQTP and the Teaching Centre would
review the effective practice that had been identified in the reviews, with a
view to reporting back to LTC on practice that was worthy of dissemination and
/ or adoption across the University.
6.
The Academic Standards and Procedures
Sub-Committee would follow up the institutional issues identified in the
reviews and report back to LTC.
7.
Schools would be provided with an
extract of the report with the expectation that School issues would be
addressed, at the latest, by the next APR.
8.
There would be a standing item on all
meetings of LTC for Schools and central services to provide an update of
actions taken following APR.
12/06 Automated monitoring of student engagement
Received: LTC12-P5
1.
The Student Information Steering Group
(SISG) asked the committee to comment on a proposal to pilot an automated
system to monitor student attendance in classes. It was reported that attendance monitoring
was one of many ways in which student engagement could be assessed and
supported.
2.
It was reported that recording of
attendance was widespread across the University but that practice varied, with
many Schools using paper -based methods which had a high administrative
workload. The SISG had been asked to
investigate the possibilities of adopting automated systems, and the proposal
for a pilot had arisen following a period of review into current practice.
3.
The Committee noted the pastoral
benefits of attendance monitoring, with current practice having identified
students with welfare issues.
4.
Members felt that while attendance
monitoring may be a way of measuring student engagement with their studies, it
did not address the causes of disengagement.
It was felt that student engagement would be better enhanced by measures
within Schools to address pedagogical issues in regard to the delivery of the
curriculum and through discussions with students on their performance and
progress within the tutorial system.
Agreed:
5.
With the exception of the School of
Science, members did not support proceeding with a pilot.
12/07 Student Placements
Received: LTC12-P6
Agreed:
1.
The Committee supported the proposals set
out in the paper for recommendation to Senate.
12/08 Draft response to the QAA consultation on
Part C of the UK Quality Code for Higher Education
Received: LTC12-P7, LTC12-P7A
1.
The QAA Academic Infrastructure would
be replaced with a new UK Quality Code for Higher Education from 2012/13. A key component would be a new Part C, which
would set out the expectation that all UK higher education providers are
required to meet concerning the information they produce about the higher
education they offer.
Agreed:
2.
The Committee approved a response to
the QAA consultation on the content of
Part C.
12/09 Code of Practice on Student Feedback
Questionnaires
Received: LTC12-P8 and
LTC12-P8A
1.
It was proposed to revise Appendix 13
to clarify the responsibilities on Schools to report to Staff Student
Committees the outcomes of questions 1-12 (quantitative questions on the
module) and to provide feedback on actions taken.
2.
Questions 13- 18 (quantitative
questions on the lecturer) and any written comments would not be made public.
3.
The Committee noted the sensitivity of
the data and agreed that the policy would be revisited if any concerns were
raised about misuse of the data.
Agreed:
4.
The proposed Appendix 13 would be
revised in light of feedback from the committee and circulated for comment in
advance of submission to Senate.
5.
Senate would be asked to approve the
revisions to Appendix 13 and to delegate authority to LTC to oversee revisions
to the questions, with a view to implementing the revised Code and revised
questions for the Semester 2 module feedback process in 2011/12.
6.
The Head of IT Services would
investigate the practicalities of making the module data available on Learn and
of identifying the programmes towards which the modules contribute.
12/10 Revised UK Professional Standards Framework
for teaching and supporting learning in higher education
Received: LTC12-P9,
LTC12-P9A
1. A new HESA field,
recording details of teaching qualifications held by academic staff, would be
introduced in 2012/13.
12/11 Research-informed
Teaching Award
Received: LTC12-P10
1.
The award was welcomed as an
opportunity to demonstrate and celebrate outstanding research-informed
teaching.
12/13 The Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey
Received: LTC12-P11, LTC12-P11A
1.
The outcomes were very positive,
although the response rate was low.
Agreed:
2.
Action should be taken to increase the
response rates.
3.
Action should be taken to investigate
the usefulness of disaggregating and benchmarking the data.
12/14 National Student Survey
Received: LTC12-P12
1.
An early census date by which the
University was required to notify the Ipsos Mori of NSS participants resulted
in some student groups being surveyed outside of their final year.
Secretary’s note: The Registry had contacted all
affected students to inform them that they were eligible to complete the NSS
questionnaire and that they would not have another opportunity next year.
12/15 Curriculum Sub-Committee – 26 January 2012
Received: LTC12-P13
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.
2.
It was agreed that Chair’s Action
would be taken to approve the programmes for which there remained issues to be
resolved, as noted at the meeting.
3.
Members commended the secretary to CSC
for the introduction of an appendix detailing the actions required by CSC.
12/16 Amendments to Regulation XIV
Received: LTC11-P14
Agreed:
1.
The Committee agreed to recommend to
Senate amendments to Regulation XIV.
12/17 Teaching Partnerships Sub-Committee, 30 January
2012
Received: LTC12-P15
12/18 Academic Standards and Procedures Sub-Committee,
23 January 2012
Received: LTC12-P16
12/19 Curriculum Sub-Committee, 26 January 2012
Received: LTC12-P17
12/20 E-Learning Advisory Group, minutes of the meeting of 24 November
2011 and terms of reference and membership
Received: LTC12-P18, LTC12-P18A
12/21 Dates of Meetings 2011/12
Dates of remaining meetings:
29 March 2012, 2.00 pm
3 May 2012, 9.30 am
14 June 2012, 2.00 pm
Author – Rob Pearson
Date – February 2012
Copyright © Loughborough University. All rights reserved