Learning and Teaching Committee
LTC04-M3
Minutes of the Twenty-Eighth Meeting of the
Committee held on 11 November 2004:
Present: Professor M Bell (Chair); Professor S A Austin; Dr D G Berry (ab); Ms V
Blackett (ab); Dr P L Byrne; Mr J G Dickens (ab); Dr K Gregory; Dr M C
Harrison; Dr J C Nutkins;
Dr I W Phillips; Mr
J Roberts; Ms J M Tennant; Dr D A Wilson
In attendance: Mr
R A Bowyer
Apologies for
absence: Ms Blackett, Dr
Berry, Mr Dickens
The Chair welcomed Dr Phillips, Mr Roberts and Ms Tennant to their first meeting.
04/49 Business of the Agenda
No items were unstarred.
04/50 Minutes
LTC04-M2
The Minutes of the Twenty-Seventh Meeting of the Committee held on 3
June 2004 were confirmed and signed.
04/51 Matters arising from the Minutes not otherwise appearing on the Agenda
51.1
Items
listed on the agenda paper
The Committee noted action taken on the following items, as set out on
the agenda paper:
M.04/27 Learning and Teaching Strategy
M.04/28 Committee to Review the Structure of the
Academic Year
M.04/29 Use of 15-credit modules in undergraduate
programmes
M.04/30
Revised Academic Regulations (LTC04-P37)
M.04/35.2 Validation of Foundation Degree in Exercise
& Health at Loughborough College
M.04/45 Teaching Quality Enhancement: additional
funding
51.2 M.04/31 Use of calculators in examinations
LTC04-P38
The Committee was invited to endorse an amendment to Regulation VII and a list of ‘approved calculators’. It was noted that concerns had been expressed on behalf of dyslexic students who might find it difficult to get used to a new calculator if they had to change their calculator in mid-session for one on the approved list. It was suggested that DANS might issue students in this position with a written dispensation that would allow them to continue using the machine they were familiar with for the rest of the current session. It was accepted that some students with severe difficulties might need special arrangements. These could be put in place under the ‘Assessment Policy for Students who have a Disability’. It was noted that the policy was in the process of being updated and it was agreed that the use of calculators as an issue be brought to the attention of those concerned.
ACTION: RAB
It was suggested that departments which were prepared to allow calculators that did not appear on the approved list should be advised to avoid broad definitions when wording the rubric of relevant examination papers, since invigilators could not be expected to make decisions about the acceptability or otherwise of different types of machine if makes and model numbers were not specified.
Following further discussion on the question of timing, it was agreed to RECOMMEND to Senate that the revised regulation and the accompanying list of approved calculators be approved with effect from the beginning of Semester One 2005/06, to provide a longer period of notice and obviate the need for transitional arrangements. It was further agreed to RECOMMEND that the interim regulation which had been put in place at the beginning of 2004/05 to pave the way for the approved list should be withdrawn, and the wording of the relevant regulation should revert to the version approved by Senate in June 2004.
51.3 Other
matters arising not appearing elsewhere on the agenda
(i) M.04/25.3 Working Group on Impaired Performance Claims
The new procedures had been trialled during the summer and feedback had been generally positive. A further meeting of the Working Group would be held to consider any necessary refinements and regulation changes to provide for the procedures to be formally adopted.
(ii)
M.04/25.8
National Teaching Fellowships Scheme
The two nominations had been unsuccessful. The overall results had been explored in further detail to see if any lessons could be learned and the new PDQ Group on Professional Standards had been asked to consider the University’s future approach.
(iii)
M.04/25.9
Centres for Excellence in Teaching and Learning
The two bids had progressed to the second stage. They had subsequently been further developed and resubmitted. Final results were anticipated in January.
(iv)
M.04/27
‘Away Day’
A learning and teaching away day had been held at the end of July which had been useful in involving members of DISS.
(v)
M.04/33
Monitoring Student Diversity
A meeting of interested parties had taken
place in July to consider the better co-ordination of student-related diversity
issues. Possible ways forward were
still being explored and the PDQ Team had asked for a further report.
A very useful document had been produced by
Parin Hirji (Professional Development) to provide guidance on the University’s
student-related duties under relevant legislation and regulations. It was clear from the document that the University’s
duties and obligations were very wide-ranging and that this was an area of high
potential risk. It was agreed that the
document be circulated to the PVC(T) and AD(T)s for information. The Committee felt the position was not
fully appreciated by senior management and that EMG should be briefed at an
appropriate time.
Those concerned felt there was a pressing need
for further guidance across the sector as a whole and DAW reported that he
would be making representation to the Leadership Foundation to provide
this. It was suggested he propose to
the Leadership Foundation that it fund a project, possibly based at LU, on the
implications of recent diversity legislation and regulations for the student
experience.
It was difficult to make progress within the
University when there was no part of the organisation with the necessary range
of expertise or dedicated resources to address the issues (by contrast with the
position in relation to employment-related legislation).
There was no obvious alternative therefore but
for the Committee to ask those involved up to now to reconvene to give further
consideration to Parin Hirji’s document and to begin drawing up reasonable and
realistic plans for responding to the relevant legislation and regulations, as
well as proposals for putting in place the necessary ongoing support. It was noted that an informal diversity
group had already been formed amongst the support services which could make a
helpful input to the discussions. It
would be desirable for academic views also to be represented and for the
Students’ Union to be involved.
It was agreed that this group should report in
the New Year to the PDQ Team in the first instance.
ACTION: DAW, JCN
(vi)
M.04/34
Annual Programme Review
· Professional Development had produced some guidance for staff seeking to address the needs of international students that would be circulated in due course; further consultation with the International Office was proposed.
· Issues concerning internal student feedback mechanisms had been referred to the Student Feedback Group.
· The Academic Registry was unable to act on the suggestion that SAP examinations be organised in overseas locations within current resources and the PDQ Team had agreed that the matter had a relatively low priority.
· Work had progressed on new search facilities for departments to access in support of programme review, one on UG programme board decision statistics, the other on UG programme population monitoring statistics. Both were available on a trial basis and would be refined in the light of feedback from users.
· The Director of the Careers Service had discussed the first destination survey with the PDQ Team and was in contact with the AD(T)s about ways in which departments might be able to help the Careers Service with the collection of information from students who they knew to be in employment.
(vii)
M.04/35.1
Validation – Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts
The Director of LUSAD had confirmed that the School was committed to the
collaboration with NAFA and was willing to accept responsibility for the
operation of the programme.
(viii)
M.04/35.2 Validation – Loughborough College
SSES was taking steps to support the validation arrangements for the
Foundation Degrees at Loughborough College in the area of Sports Science.
(ix)
M.04/44 Plagiarism
Initial trials of the JISC Plagiarism Detection Service had taken place
over the summer. Decisions had still to
be taken about future use of the service.
There were concerns about requiring students to submit work
electronically but these worries might be allayed if the use of the service was
on a fairly limited (perhaps audit/sample) basis. Further discussions would be needed about the service
administrator role.
The treatment of
cases of plagiarism and other forms of academic misconduct was discussed. It was noted that staff views were quite
polarised on the severity of penalty that was appropriate in such cases; it was
felt this was unhelpful and steps should be taken to address the
situation. The Committee requested a
report on recent academic misconduct cases for its next meeting.
ACTION: JCN
04/52 Periodic Programme Review
LTC04-P39
The Committee considered the report of the Review Panel on programmes in
the Department of Politics, International Relations and European Studies
(PIRES) and the response of the Department.
Attention was drawn to the features of good practice and innovation
identified by the panel. One of these
was the ‘Core Tutorial’, introduced in conjunction with the electronic
‘Co-Tutor’ system, and designed both to support and monitor the progress of
students, addressing academic, study skills and personal tutoring issues. The Department had extended the Core
Tutorial to Part B students in 2004/05.
The provision of ‘generic verbal feedback in lectures and on the Learn
VLE’ was also mentioned as good practice.
It was explained that some members of staff invited students to feedback
their comments on issues by e-mail between lectures; the staff would then
report on the feedback at the next lecture and pick up on any issues of common
interest or concern.
It was agreed it would be desirable to capture and disseminate more
widely the features of good practice from PPRs generally and that this should
be taken forward through liaison between the AD(T)s and Professional
Development.
ACTION: AD(T)s, JMT
The Committee noted and welcomed the actions of the Department in
response to the recommendations of the review team, including the streamlining
of departmental structures and the rationalisation of assessment.
The panel’s comments on the problems of joint and combined honours
programmes were noted. Issues in this
area had attracted comment from the QAA Audit Team also, and these would be
explored by the Audit Steering Group in the first instance.
Certain issues had been raised for further discussion at University
level. Issues concerning examiners’
discretion at degree classification thresholds had arisen in other departments
and would need to be followed up through the PDQ Team. Timetabling flexibility within the modular
system and the current structure of the academic year had been raised in
relation to the University-wide Language Programme and could be referred to the
Departmental Reviews Group (M.04/57 refers).
Further consideration was being given to issues concerning
plagiarism. The issues concerning
physical infrastructure and equipment were considered to be matters for the HOD
to pursue through the Dean and the Faculty Directorate in the first
instance.
It was noted that the report had been produced using a template designed
to mirror the one provided for publication of periodic review reports on the
TQI website. It would be possible to
publish a statement of ‘actions taken by the institution in response to the
review’ on the TQI site alongside the report.
It was agreed it would be inappropriate to publish the detailed response
from the department and that an abbreviated statement should be produced, and
cleared with the PVC(T) for publication.
ACTION: RAB
04/53 Validation Panel
LTC04-P40
The Committee considered the report of the Panel on the revalidation of the MSc in Aerosystems Engineering at the RAF College, Cranwell. It was noted that Senate at its meeting in June 2004 had already approved the extension of the agreement with Cranwell on the basis of a positive verbal report on the visit from the PVC(T).
It was agreed that the recommendations for attention by the College should be followed up through the Department of Aeronautical and Automotive Engineering and that the programme should be formally included in the Department’s annual and periodic programme reviews. It was considered questionable whether the programme would receive sufficient attention as part of the regular departmental PPR: it was noted, however, that it would be subject to further review under the validation procedures before another extension of the validation agreement.
It was agreed that the fee arrangements for the programme be referred to the Validation Working Group for further consideration.
ACTION: RAB
It was agreed that in future, where a University department was supporting a collaboration with a partner organisation, the membership of a validation or other review panel should not include staff members of the department in question: and that it would be more appropriate for the relevant departmental staff to participate in the review alongside the staff of the partner organisation.
04/54 Foundation Degrees: Policy Statement
LTC04-P41
The Committee considered, on the recommendation of the PDQ Team, a draft University policy statement on Foundation Degrees. It was noted that the statement was drafted to complement the University’s Policy on Collaborative Programmes and was intended as a reference point for academic and administrative staff involved in collaborative provision.
It was suggested that it would be helpful to include a reference to arrangements for progression from the Foundation Degree to an Honours Degree, as this had been a problematic area. It was important that agreement on this point was reached between the University and the partner organisation before any FD was launched. It was agreed that the statement be suitably revised before submission to Senate.
Attention was drawn to the fact that two of the University’s existing FDs with Loughborough College had been selected by QAA to be included in a sample of FDs to be reviewed during 2004/05 (item 22 on the agenda). The reviews would be based on similar principles to all other QAA programme-level review methods, lead to threshold judgements about standards and the quality of learning opportunities, and result in published reports. The University as awarding institution would be responsible for ensuring that there was an appropriate response to any matters identified by the review team for further attention.
04/55 Teaching Quality Information
LTC04-P42
The Committee
received a further progress report. It
was noted that the HESA data had not yet appeared on the TQI website although
the date for publication had passed.
Attention
was drawn to the requirement to publish summaries of ‘Findings of External
Examiners’ on the TQI site. The
intention was to publish one summary for each programme or group of related
programmes. The summary would need to
be compiled from the TQI forms completed by the individual EEs contributing to
the programme, including relevant EEs from outside the parent department. The TQI forms included three statements with
Yes/No answers, space for comment if any answer was ‘No’, and a further space
where the EE could comment briefly on any particular strengths, distinctive or
innovative features. The PDQ Team had
agreed that departments should be asked to compile the summaries and send them
to the External Programme Assessor for approval before publication. Almost all EEs had answered ‘Yes’ to the
three standard statements but judgement would need to be exercised in
consolidating their additional comments (including explanatory comments where a
‘No’ answer had been given).
It was noted that the role of External Programme Assessor was not as
formalised in many departments as it might seem, with any one of a number of
EEs being in a position to act in the role as circumstances required. It was agreed that where the EPA for a
specific programme was not pre-determined, the department should decide which
EE should be approached to ‘sign off’ the summary.
The Committee endorsed the approach proposed, including the involvement
of departments, which it agreed could not be avoided. The AD(T)s were asked to mention the issue at Directorates and to
emphasise the importance of turning round the summaries in time for publication
by the Academic Registry on the TQI site before the end of January (UG
programmes).
ACTION: AD(T)s
The Committee felt that departments should be asked to work towards a
position where the EPA for each programme was known in advance.
04/56 National Student Survey
LTC04-P43
The
Committee received an update on the National Student Survey. Loughborough had nominated a start-date of
31 January 2005. All undergraduates in
their final year would be able to take part.
The likelihood was that the results of the survey would be a factor in
future University ratings and the University and the Students’ Union were keen
to encourage students to participate.
The PVC(T) had attended a number of meetings with Teaching Co-ordinators
and others to emphasise the importance of a good response.
04/57 Programme
Development & Quality Team;
Student Recruitment & Admissions Team
The PVC(T) reported on revised operating
arrangements for the Teams.
The PDQ Team had decided
to meet less frequently as a group and to set up a number of sub-groups to take
forward a number of ongoing activities and new developments within the context
of the Learning and Teaching Strategy.
Staff and students from across the University would be invited to
participate as appropriate. These
included:
·
Student
Feedback Group - covered under M.04/56 above
·
Departmental
Reviews Group – taking forward the recommendations from the Committee to Review
the Structure of the Academic Year for the review and refinement of programmes
and assessment
It was noted for
information that the revised programme structures in Electronic and Electrical
Engineering were generally proving popular, though the primary factor was the
reduction in assessment rather than the switch to 15 credit modules.
It was reported
that the overall number of places required for semester one examinations in
January 2005 was down by about 10% on the previous year.
·
On-line
Learning Strategy Group – to develop future University strategy in this broad
area; this group would be chaired by John Dickens and consult widely
·
TQEF Group –
to co-ordinate the activities of the Faculty ‘On-line Learning Development
Officers’ being appointed against TQEF funding and links with the new on-line
learning staff based in Professional Development; this group would be chaired
by Paul Byrne
·
Professional
Standards Group – to steer the University’s response to the external
‘standards’ agenda as it developed, promoting an ‘academic practice’ approach
which was not confined solely to professional standards in relation to teaching
and learning; in the short term, it would determine the criteria for internal
academic practice awards, teaching prizes and mini-projects; this group would
be chaired by Andy Wilson.
The SRA Team had
split its meetings between the core group, a group concerned with international
student recruitment and another dealing with the recruitment and admission of
home students and widening participation.
It was noted that
the agenda and minutes of the PDQ Team now appeared on the Registry website
alongside the documents of other committees.
It was agreed to alert non-PDQ members of LTC as and when new PDQ papers
were added and to allow them sight of any papers on request.
ACTION: RAB
Consideration
would be given to publishing SRA Team documents in a similar fashion.
ACTION: MB, HEJ
04/58 Widening Participation Strategy for Access Agreement
LTC04-P44
The Committee
received a paper that had originally been produced for Operations Sub-Committee
concerning the preparation of an Access Agreement for approval by the Office of
Fair Access (OFFA). The document had
been prepared before the final guidance had been received from OFFA and the
proposals would be revisited in the light of the guidance. The Access Agreement itself would need to
contain specific targets and milestones and indicate clearly what new
activities were proposed. The
University’s existing Widening Participation Strategy would subsequently have
to be revised.
The Committee
ENDORSED the broad thrust of the strategy proposed.
04/59 Curriculum Sub-Committee
LTC04-45
It
was resolved to RECOMMEND new programme proposals and other strategic changes
to Senate on the advice of Curriculum Sub-Committee.
04/60 Diploma in International Studies
LTC04-P46
It was resolved to RECOMMEND to Senate that approval in principle be given to a Diploma route in International Studies combining study (in an educational institution) and work experience (in an industrial placement abroad).
04/61 Handbook for Validated Provision
LTC04-P47
It was resolved to APPROVE the issue of a ‘Handbook for Validated Provision’ to partner institutions, and minor amendments to the University’s validation procedure, as incorporated in the Handbook.
04/62 Constitution, Terms of Reference and Membership
LTC04-P48
Noted.
04/63 Curriculum Sub-Committee
LTC04-P49
Further discussions of the Sub-Committee were noted.
04/64 Institutional Audit Report
The Committee noted the publication of the report and the University’s response on the QAA web site: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/revreps/reviewreports.htm
04/65 Corporate Planning Statement; Annual Monitoring Statement
The Committee noted the Learning and Teaching sections of the following documents returned to HEFCE in July 2004:
18.1 Corporate Planning Statement
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/admin/ar/planning/opplans/index.htm
18.2
Annual Monitoring Statement
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/admin/ar/planning/opplans/index.htm
04/66 Higher Education Academy (HEA) Accreditation
It was noted that in July 2004 an HEA Accreditation Team had visited the University to review the pathway to what used to be ILTHE Membership. The Team had recommended that the New Lecturers’ Programme be accredited as a pathway until 2009 and that a new Associateship pathway be similarly approved subject to HEA scrutiny of new documentation.
04/67 Phase 5 of the Fund for the Development of Teaching and Learning (FDTL5)
It was noted that funding, amounting to £149,933 over three years, had been awarded to a project entitled ‘Embedding employability skills in the curriculum’ (EPIC) led by Derek Stephens (Information Science).
04/68 QAA Special Review of Foundation Degrees 2004/05
It was noted that the following programmes delivered by Loughborough College and leading to Foundation Degrees awarded by the University had been selected by QAA to be included in a sample of FDs to be reviewed during 2004/05:
FdA in Leisure Management
FdSc in Sports Science with Sports Management
04/69 Any Other Business
A member of the
Committee expressed concern on behalf of his department that the provision that
was previously available in ARUA for a Programme Board to record a ‘decision
deferred’ appeared to have been removed during the recent revision of the
Regulations. The department felt it had
been a useful provision and that situations in which it had been used were not
catered for within the revised regulations.
The Committee requested the Academic Registrar to look into the matter
and respond to the member concerned, copying the response to the Committee for information.
04/70 Date of Next Meeting
Thursday 10 February 2005 at 09.15 a.m.
Author – Robert Bowyer
Date –
November 2004
Copyright © Loughborough University. All rights reserved