Learning and Teaching Committee

LTC12-M6

Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 13 December 2012

Members: Prof. Morag Bell (in the Chair) Dr Brian Jarvis

Dr Keith Pond Dr John McCardle

Prof. Memis Acar Prof. Ray Dawson

Prof. Ruth Kinna Dr Lorraine Cale

Dr Jennifer Nutkins Dr Vincent Dwyer

Lazar Zindovic Nigel Thomas

Prof. John Feather Dr Phil Richards

Dr Jane Horner Prof. Simon Austin

In attendance: Rob Pearson, Ruth Jenkins (for item 12/64) and Caroline Smith (for item 12/64)

Apologies: Dr Robert Hamilton, Ellie Read, Jan Tennant

12/73 Minutes

Received: LTC12-M4

1. The Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 25 October 2012 were confirmed.

12/74 Matters Arising from the Minutes not otherwise appearing on the Agenda

12/64 Minimum Online Presence Audit

Charles Shields would be invited to the Committee in Semester 2 to discuss the minimum online presence.

12/66 Report from the BUE Validation Sub-Committee

At its meeting on 7 November 2012, Senate approved the recommendation of the Committee not to validate any further cohorts beyond the cohort entering the preparatory year in autumn 2013.

12/75 Business from the Chair

1. OFSTED Visit

There had recently been a successful Ofsted review of the Foundation Art programme in the School of the Arts.

2. UKBA Visit

The UKBA would be making a compliance visit to the University on 8 January 2013.

3. Annual Programme Review

There had been six School APR meetings to date, with the remaining to take place after Christmas. The meetings had worked well and there had been very open and constructive discussions. The Programme Presidents had attended for the first time this year and this addition to the process was working well.

12/76 ‘Transforming the library’: the 2012/13 Loughborough University Library Refurbishment

Noted:

1. A major redevelopment of the Pilkington Library was being undertaken in 2012/13. Changes included:

· Incorporation of Level 4 into the Library

· Improvement to the quality and quantity of learning spaces

· Enhanced access to Information and Communication Technologies (ICT)

· Re-location of PC Clinic from Haslegrave to the Library

· Increased number and quality of toilets

· More effective accommodation for the High Demand Collection

· More impressive entrance to the Library

· Introduction of rolling shelving on Levels 1 and 2 to enable the Library to store all material without need of an external store

2. The work would commence in December 2012 with the intention of being completed by the end of September 2013. Preparatory work would be initially concentrated over the Christmas and Easter vacations, but the scale and volume of work would mean the Library would close from around 22June 2013 to 30 September 2013

3. The Library and the wider University would ensure alternative access to Library services was provided on campus.

4. Ruth Jenkins and colleagues would be open to invitations from Schools to discuss the implications of the redevelopment.

12/77 Student Module Feedback

Received: LTC12-62, LTC12-63

Noted:

1. It was an expectation of the Code of Practice on Student Module Feedback Questionnaires that Deans of School/Heads of Department or their nominee would make a written report to the appropriate SSLC on the quantitative outcome of questions 1-12, detailing any actions taken in response to low scores. A copy of this report should also be sent to the VP Education.

2. Schools would welcome the creation of a LUSI report that would standardise the presentation of the outcomes of questions 1-12 for the SSLC. Schools would still be expected to provide a written report detailing any actions taken in response to low scores.

3. There existed a variation in the ‘low score threshold’ that Schools used to determine whether the outcomes required further investigation. The threshold ranged from scores of 3.0 to 4.0, with practice also varying on whether action was required when one or more questions fell below this threshold.

4. Around 7% of feedback questionnaires were received by the Print Unit well after the deadline in the Code of Practice.

5. IT Services staff were working with WEDC to pilot an online version of the questionnaire for their distance learning provision. The results would be fed into LUSI and presented in the same format as the paper based questionnaire.

Agreed:

6. Phil Richards would convene a Working Group to:

· specify a LUSI report that would standardise the presentation of data to SSLCs

· review current practice in regard to the ‘low score threshold’. Making a recommendation to a future LTC for a common ‘threshold’ across the institution and recommending whether action should be taken in response to individual questions or when several questions fell below the threshold

· review how the module evaluation form can be used to facilitate project/dissertation evaluation

7. The membership of the Working Group would include Lazar Zindovic, Ruth Kinna and Simon Austin.

8. To ensure consistency across the University it was agreed that the University would adopt a ‘low score threshold’, below which Schools would be expected investigate further. A threshold of 3.5 was proposed, pending the recommendations of the Working Group.

9. AD(T)s would remind their Schools that all completed forms must arrive for processing at the Print Unit no later than one week after the end of the semester in question.

10. The stand-alone project/dissertation evaluation was not used at all during 2011/12 and would be discontinued.

11. The Print Unit would dispose of all paper questionnaires as confidential material once they had been safely scanned into LUSI.

12/78 Code of Practice for Staff-Student Liaison Committees

Receive: LTC12-P64

Noted:

1. The Code of Practice had been updated following consultation with Schools and the Students’ Union.

Agreed:

2. Minor amendments would be made to the draft Code in light of comments made at the meeting.

3. Approval of the Code would be put on hold pending clarification of the responsibilities of Schools in regard to the election of student representatives.

4. The Secretary would undertake further consultation to determine the process for the election of student representatives to SSLCs. A report would be made to the next Committee, with a view to formally approving the revised Code of Practice.

12/79 Programme and Module approval and review

8.1 Review of Section 3 of the AQPH: Approval for New or Revised Programmes and Modules

Received: LTC12-P65

Noted:

1. The proposed revisions to the AQPH policy for the approval of new or revised programmes and modules would simplify and speed up the approval process. The revisions included:

· revising the category of proposals that require approval by Operations Committee

· revising the category of proposals that require approval by CSC

· bringing forward the point at which a new programme can be publicised

· revising the forms for submitting proposals to Operations Committee and CSC

· the adoption of a two-stream approach for approving immediate effect changes

Agreed:

2. The revised policy was approved for immediate implementation, subject to minor amendments agreed at the meeting.

8.2 New Programme Specification Template

Received: LTC12-P66

Noted:

1. Synthesising the current programme specification and programme regulations template into a single, more concise document, would reduce unnecessary duplication and provide a concise overview of a programme for internal and external audiences.

2. Programme teams should be encouraged to articulate the distinctiveness of a programme in the programme aims and learning outcomes.

3. Schools should realise the potential for utilising the ‘programme aims’ statement for other purposes, such as in the prospectus.

4. In formulating the new programme specification template, due regard had been given to ensuring that it was compliant with relevant guidance provided by the QAA.

Agreed:

5. The Committee approved the new template for programme specifications.

6. The Teaching Centre would be asked to revise the ‘Guide to the Preparation of Programme Specifications’. The guide should facilitate Schools in articulating the distinctiveness of the programme within the programme aims and learning outcomes.

7. The new template would be used for all new programme proposals from this point forward. Proposals currently under preparation for the meeting of CSC in January 2013 that had been prepared using the old format would not be revised in advance of CSC. The Academic Registry would convert them into the new format following the approval process.

8. The Academic Registry would investigate the process for converting all existing programme specifications and regulations into the new format, and the possibility of using the web-based Content Management System to manage the approval and publication process. Schools were advised not to make any changes to existing specifications until advice had been provided by the Academic Registry in the new year.

8.3 Review of the Processes Involved in the Annual Review of Programme and Module Specifications

Received: LTC12-P67

Noted:

1. A half-day workshop involving staff from across the University had been held on 30 October 2012 to discuss the processes involved in the annual review of programme and module specifications.

2. The Committee supported the recommendations that work should be undertaken to define what information is needed, by whom and when, and to investigate the implementation of an online approval system.

Agreed:

3. Anne Mumford would lead a Working Group to develop the recommendations in the review. Membership would include Ray Dawson, Jane Horner, and colleagues from the School administration, Academic Registry and Marketing.

4. The annual update process for 2012/13 would remain unchanged. The deadline for programme and module submissions would be 15 April 2013.

12/80 Report of the Working Group to Review Practice and Guidance on Plagiarism Detection

Received: LTC12-P68

Noted:

1. The Working Group had reviewed practice and guidance on plagiarism detection with a view to making recommendations to ensure consistency of practice across the University, and to identify and disseminate good practice.

2. Chris Dunbobbin was thanked for his work in servicing the Working Group.

Agreed:

3. A Code of Practice on Plagiarism Detection was approved, subject to further work to determine procedural issues in regard to recommendations on:

· the provision of central sessions on good referencing and plagiarism avoidance

· the proposal to require students found guilty of a first offence to take an online plagiarism awareness course

4. Amendments to Regulation XVIII were approved, subject to formal approval of the proposed changes to the Regulations at Senate.

12/81 Learning and Teaching Development Plan

Noted:

1. Members were thanked for their input into the drafting of the Development Plan.

2. It was important for all Schools to have identified potential areas for development as any items not included in the Development Plan that required resources would not be supported in the 2013/14 budget.

12/82 Review of Information Science, Information Systems and Information Management (RISM)

Received: SEN12-P131

Agreed:

1. The Committee approved the transfer of ownership of Department of Information Science programmes, with effect from 1 August 2013, as detailed in section 3.3 of the paper.

12/83 Assessing English Language Competency for International Students to ensure they meet minimum UKBA requirements

Approved: LTC12-P69

12/84 Preparing a Confirmation of Acceptance for Studies (CAS) for Students Admitted onto an English Language Pre-sessional Course

Approved: LTC12-P70

12/85 Minutes of the Sub-Committees:

1. Learning and Teaching Futures Group – 4 October 2012

Received: LTC12-P71

2. Teaching Partnerships Sub-Committee – 8 October 2012

Received: LTC12-P72

12/86 Any Other Business

1. University Open Days 2013

Noted:

1. Concern had been raised that a change the date for the open day that had been proposed for June 2013 had resulted in some staff being unavailable due to other commitments.

2. The original date proposed for the events had been reviewed due to a clash with the date that contracts end in a number of halls of residence on campus. It was expected that many students and their parents would be leaving University on this date. Following consultation across the University, it had been decided to change the date of the events to Friday 5 July and Saturday 6 July 2013.

2. Return of exam scripts to students

Noted:

1. The Committee confirmed that it was not University policy to provide students with copies of exam scripts. However, students were entitled on request to a copy of all comments made by both internal and external examiners.

Agreed:

2. The Secretary would circulate to members the University data protection guidance in regard to exam scripts.

3. The Secretary would meet with the VP Education to determine whether existing policy and practice on the provision of feedback on examinations was in accordance with student expectations. They would report back to the Committee later this session.

3. Employability Events

Noted:

1. The Careers and Employability Centre was organising an ‘Employability Summit’, that would provide an opportunity for sharing best practice both inside and outside of the curriculum. The event would be held on 19 March 2013, with invitations to be sent to Schools in due course.

2. The School of the Arts, English and Drama would be holding an ‘Employability Week’ from Tuesday 29 to Thursday 31^st January 2013. The event would offer three full days of employability-related activities to help students of the school make progress in planning their careers.

12/87 Dates of Meetings 2012/13

7 February 2013, 9.30am, Hazlerigg Committee Room 201.0.09

21 March 2013, 2.00pm, Hazlerigg Committee Room 201.0.09

25 April 2013, 9.30am, Hazlerigg Committee Room 201.0.09

6 June 2013, 2.00pm, Hazlerigg Committee Room 201.0.09

Author – Rob Pearson

Date – December 2012