Learning and Teaching Committee
LTC06-M3
Minutes
of the Meeting of the Committee held on 9 November 2006
Present: Morag Bell (in the Chair), Simon Austin (ab),
Paul Byrne, John Dickens, Sophie Driscoll (vice Karen Roxborough), John Harper,
Martin Harrison, Ruth Kinna, Anne Mumford, Jennifer Nutkins (ab), Iain
Phillips, Jan Tennant, David Twigg (ab), Emily Wildman, Andrew Wilson
Apologies: Simon Austin, Jennifer Nutkins,
Karen Roxborough
In
attendance: Robert
Bowyer, Howard Jones (up to the close of 06/56)
06/48 Welcome to new members
The Chair welcomed Ruth Kinna and
Emily Wildman to their first meeting, and also Sophie Driscoll who was standing
in for Karen Roxborough.
06/49 Business of the meeting
Items 23 and 24 were
unstarred for reporting earlier on the agenda.
06/50 Minutes
LTC06-M2
The Minutes of the meeting of the
Committee held on 8 June 2006 were confirmed.
06/51 Matters arising on the Minutes
5.1
Open Source
VLE (M.06/21.1)
LTC06-P35
The PVC(T) reported that the
development of the open source VLE was being given priority under Stage 2 of
the LUSI project and work should begin in early 2007; Computing Services and
CIS had each been allowed to make an additional staff appointment to support
it. The Committee noted the
establishment of a Steering Group chaired by Mary Morley.
5.2
Validation
of new FD programmes at
It was reported that the College had
addressed outstanding issues and made adjustments to the programme
documentation to the satisfaction of the AD(T) SSH and the PVC(T), thus
allowing validation of the two new programmes, in Sports Coaching and Sports
Performance (Motorsport) to proceed wef September 2006.
5.3
Senate
actions
It was noted that Senate had
approved the recommendations of the Committee in other matters, as listed on
the agenda.
5.4
Professional
Standards Framework for Teaching and Supporting Learning (M.06/42)
It was reported that Professional
Development had applied for the University’s HEA-accredited provision to
be recognised against the framework standards.
06/52 Additional Capital Funding for Learning and Teaching
LTC06-P56
The Director of Media Services
reported on the proposals submitted to HEFCE for the allocation of this funding
amounting to £961461, to which the University was required to add matched
funding of £106749. The focus of the bid
was on the creation of a network of open learning spaces across the
campus. Proposals had been sought from
Heads of Department and DISS Directors.
It was queried whether there were
further plans for the upgrading of provision in lecture rooms. It was noted that a rolling programme of
improvements was being funded from the Media Services budget, but the sum
proposed for this head of expenditure in 2006/07 had been halved in the last
budget round.
It was resolved to include a report
from the Director of Media Services as a standing item on the agenda of future
meetings.
ACTION: RAB
She was invited meanwhile to have
further discussions on needs and priorities with the AD(T) s.
ACTION: AMM, AD(T)s
06/53 E-learning funds
LTC06-P57
The Committee noted proposals for
use of the remaining HEFCE e-learning funds allocated in 2005/06. It was suggested that there should be greater
publicity given to the wireless networking of the campus; both staff and
students would find it helpful to receive further information about it. It was requested that the PDQ Team pursue
this with the Director of Computing Services, who would be attending the
Team’s next meeting.
ACTION: PDQ
06/54 Terms of reference
LTC06-P36
The Committee considered proposed
amendments to its terms of reference, intended primarily to ensure that they
addressed the Committee’s responsibility to ensure that quality
enhancement as well as quality assurance was managed effectively.
It was noted that the Committee had an
interest in postgraduate research programmes like the EngDoc which had a
curriculum-based element and it was queried whether this was sufficiently
covered. It was agreed to amend item 5
of the terms of reference to read:
‘5. To keep under review Regulations
relating to the conduct of undergraduate and postgraduate taught programmes and
modules.’
It was resolved to recommend to
Senate that the revised terms of reference be approved.
06/55 Draft Corporate Strategy
LTC06-P37
The Committee considered the draft
Corporate Strategy for 2006-16. The
following points were noted in the course of the Committee’s discussion.
(i)
The plan was an ambitious one, which anticipated the
University moving some way on from its current position, for example, in terms
of international status and in terms of innovation: it was appropriate to set
challenging goals but important to ensure they were realistic.
(ii)
The section headed ‘Our vision for
(iii)
One might have expected the plan to make mention of
increased tuition fee income and how it would be invested.
(iv)
Although it was to be hoped that the
University’s programmes in whatever discipline would equip students with
the knowledge and skills to succeed once they entered the labour market, the
strong emphasis on meeting employer requirements and ‘national training
needs’ devalued the sort of education that a University should set out to
provide. It particularly excluded the
contribution of the humanities.
(v)
At the same time, more could be said about building on
the work of the Careers Service, which students greatly appreciated.
(vi)
The international strategy would be a demanding one to
deliver. The Committee was unclear how
the aims and objectives under the heading of teaching and learning were going
to be met and would welcome further information on the way it was envisaged
this part of the strategy was going to be led and put into practice.
(vii)
The Committee noted reference to a ‘Centre for
Academic Practice and Student Learning’.
It found the brief explanation of its role disappointingly narrow, in
its focus on innovative practice.
(viii)
The role of the CETLs also went much wider than
developing electronic learning technologies.
(ix)
The Committee was also unhappy with the reference to
(x)
The ‘Marketing and PR’ section mentioned
the University ‘brand’. The
University needed to reach a realistic view of what this was.
(xi)
The range of issues covered within the Corporate
Strategy, and the supporting strategies, posed formidable problems of
integration.
(xii)
The University’s capacity to put the strategy into operation was a major issue to be
addressed. There was a need to
prioritise and also to consider what could be given up or stopped. There was no indication in the document how
priorities would be decided. The section
on ‘Core values and operating principles’ was not helpful in terms
of guiding such decision-making.
(xiii)
It was crucial to align reward mechanisms with the
plan’s aspirations. It was
important to distinguish between rhetoric and reality. For example, the University makes promotions
to Senior Lecturer on the basis of teaching excellence: in 2005/06 there had
been one promotion by this route, by comparison with 30 by the research
route. It had to be recognised that
there were disincentives for staff to put extra endeavour into teaching
activities. Staff needed to see a
benefit to themselves as well as to the institution. The Committee felt the ways in which teaching
and other activities (eg ‘good citizenship’) were valued in the
case of SL promotions by the research route should be reviewed.
(xiv)
The Committee also observed that it was not good for
the morale of other staff when individuals were offered SL positions to keep
them at Loughborough with only passing regard to their record outside of
research.
(xv)
As more agendas were laid on top of each other, for
departments and for staff, it was becoming all the more important to recognise
the need for a mix of skills, and capitalise on individuals’ strengths,
rather than have everyone trying to do something of everything. Individual workloads were key and
departmental workload models were therefore increasingly important. The Committee felt there was scope for
greater ‘top-down’ guidance on the roles that should be recognised
within the workload models and the allowances that were appropriate. Nonetheless, the Committee considered it
extremely important that the best researchers continued to teach.
(xvi)
There was nothing in the plan to suggest that poor
staff/student ratios would be addressed.
(xvii)
The Committee felt the University should be concerned
to ensure that service sections were not turned in commercial directions that
took them away from the support of the University’s core business.
(xviii)
The Committee found the statement that ‘[the
University] would manage student numbers to support financial
sustainability’ very opaque.
(xix)
It was suggested that to state in Appendix 1 that
…’we have met our intake quotas without difficulty’ was to
play down the considerable challenges involved in recruiting to target in some
parts of the University.
(xx)
Much was made of Loughborough’s contribution to
elite sport particularly in the context of the preparations for the London
Olympics 2012; there was a danger however of neglecting the resources and
facilities for participation in recreational sport on campus. (The Students’ Union was understood to
have made a similar point in its response to the plan.)
(xxi)
One might have expected key elements of the Estates
Strategy to be incorporated. More could
be said about plans for replacing space for recreational sport that was being
built on, and about the development of
(xxii)
The overall impression was that the document covered a
mix of vision, strategy, and operational detail, and would benefit from further
editing.
It was resolved to forward the
Committee’s comments and observations for consideration in the next
revision of the document.
06/56 Development of new subject areas and new programmes
The Committee received a report from
Howard Jones, Senior Assistant Registrar (Student Recruitment and Admissions),
on the strategic importance of developing new subject areas and new
programmes. Whereas there had been many
new developments in the postgraduate area in recent years, there was a need for
some more adventurous and imaginative thinking at undergraduate level, to
ensure that the University could continue to meet its intake targets with high
quality students.
A short list of possible new subject
areas, drawn up in discussions with the PVC(T), the AD(T)s and others, was
presented verbally to the Committee.
Some of the areas suggested would need
significant investment. Some could
possibly be developed in or from existing departments/schools. External bodies (PSRBs and others) would need
to be consulted about the scope for expanding graduate numbers in some of the
subjects. A further list had been
compiled of new programmes that it might be possible to develop more
incrementally within or across departments, largely by building on existing
modules and existing staff expertise, whilst breaking into new subject areas
that were not currently in the portfolio.
It was the intention to present the suggestions to EMG shortly.
Some general points were raised in
the course of discussion:
(i)
It should be made clear what criteria would be used to
select subject areas or programmes to pursue.
(ii)
The availability of student numbers would have to be
taken into account, as would the implications of shifting numbers from one
department to another.
(iii)
It would be important for any major new initiatives to
be reflected in building plans and the estates strategy: a physical base was considered essential to
give both staff and students a sense of belonging.
(iv)
It should be clarified whether the focus was on single
or joint honours programmes: it appeared that more broadly-based degree
programmes were gaining in popularity, probably because of the way the 16-18
curriculum was developing.
(v)
It should be made explicit that the underlying mode of
delivery for these proposals was face-to-face, full-time and campus-based.
The Committee did not demur from the
list of subject areas suggested. It was
noted however that there was nothing on the list with a ‘21st
century flavour’.
It was suggested that at
postgraduate level there was scope for taught offerings in ‘Higher
Education’. There was a growing
body of educational developers in the UK (and internationally) who would
welcome the opportunity to take credit-bearing modules in a CPD context, and it
would help the University to develop a scholarly and pedagogical research base
which was currently missing.
06/57
LTC06-P38
The Committee received an update on
the partnership with the
It was noted that the form of degree
to be awarded (dual or joint) had yet to be agreed.
It was confirmed by way of
clarification that it was the intention, if validation was agreed during
2006/07, that it would cover retrospectively the current first year of degree
studies that had already commenced.
06/58 Indian
LTC06-P39
The Committee received a report on
the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding with the Indian Institute of
Technology,
It was noted that links already
existed with Electronic and Electrical Engineering and Human Sciences, and the
MoU was intended to facilitate broader links between the two institutions. It would also allow advantage to be taken of
funding opportunities as they arose. A
submission had already been made to the UK-India Education and Research
Initiative (UKIERI) since the signing of the MoU.
It was observed that the
University’s international links needed to be managed, to ensure they
were initiated and advanced in a coherent fashion. It was reported that draft protocols were
being drawn up for this purpose. It was
noted that the Dean of Engineering had been given responsibility pro tem for the University’s
international links with
06/59 Major issues for the Committee 2006/07
LTC06-P40
The Committee received a list of the
major issues it might expect to deal with in the forthcoming year, mostly in
the context of the new Learning and Teaching Strategy that was being developed
in support of the Corporate Strategy. It
was not an exhaustive or definitive list and it might be pruned as priorities
were identified.
06/60 Periodic Programme Reviews
60.1
Aeronautical
and Automotive Engineering
LTC06-P41
It was noted that the Department had
been commended on many aspects of its provision. The feedback from the panel’s meeting
with students however had raised a number of critical issues, subsequently echoed
in disappointing NSS scores, including student workload, staff accessibility,
feedback to students on their work, and the English language proficiency of a
minority of international staff. As
indicated in its response, the department had organised a ‘Teaching
Day’ in September to discuss the report in depth and had taken a number
of procedural steps to address the issues raised. The PVC(T) and the AD(T) Engineering had
subsequently met with the HoD and were re-assured that matters of concern were
being followed up.
The following issues were raised in
the course of the Committee’s discussion:
(i)
In the case of promotions to SL by the research route,
it was felt there should be a requirement for the HoD to authenticate the content
of the individual’s teaching portfolio.
(ii)
The question of social space for students was one
which needed to be addressed in several areas of the campus, but not easily
resolved.
(iii)
There was some unease about the arrangements for
Business and Management provision in the longer term: the rationale for
in-house delivery should be based on the extent to which the relevant modules
needed to be contextualised for AAE.
(iv)
The section of the report on innovation and good
practice contained some very contextual and subject-based issues and some quite
minor points.
With regard to (iv), it was noted
that as a result of changes in the TQI web-site, it would no longer be a
requirement for summary PPR reports to be uploaded for publication. This might be taken as an opportunity to
review the format of the reports, which could be directed more clearly at an
internal audience and given a stronger quality enhancement emphasis.
It was agreed to refer the
panel’s comment concerning ‘cohort tracking’ to the LUSI
project team, whilst recognising that the facilities for students to transfer
programmes and to opt in or out of taking an industrial placement made it
difficult to conceive of a tracking system that would cover all
eventualities.
60.2
Computer
Science
LTC06-P42
There had been much for the panel to
commend. The department had been
especially complimented on the recent redesign of its undergraduate
programmes. Quality management
arrangements had been identified by the panel as requiring further action. The department’s response indicated
ways in which it had begun to address the panel’s concerns. It was noted that the response included a
‘team working code of practice’, the production of which was in
keeping with the proposed University policy statement that appeared elsewhere
on the current agenda.
The Committee was interested to note
the involvement of Part D MComp students in the mentoring of Part A student
project work. Scope for the extension of
student-to-student mentoring was currently being explored by the PDQ Team.
60.3
English and
Drama
LTC06-P43
There had been many positive
conclusions. The panel had especially
commented on the department’s commitment to providing a student-centred
learning environment where students had a sense of belonging and received a
stimulating experience.
The assessment regime with no unseen
written examinations was considered appropriate and sufficiently robust. The department recognised the potential for
plagiarism and accepted the importance of taking steps to guard against it: a compulsory
assessment on the matter had been introduced for all Part A English and Drama
students in the current session.
The Committee was encouraged to hear
that the two ‘parts’ of the department were becoming more closely
integrated.
It was noted that the Drama
facilities had received a health and safety inspection and the panel’s
concerns about the state of Drama space and facilities were being taken up,
with a bid for major capital funding.
60.4
Geography
LTC06-P44
The department had received a very
positive report, with many aspects of provision being commended. The department was to be especially
complimented on its willingness to explore new initiatives.
Attention was drawn to the
introduction of new marking guidelines which had had a positive impact on the
number of 1sts and 2.1s and were strongly endorsed by the external
examiners. The department’s model
for allocating students for group work based on previous performance was also
interesting. Both matters were worthy of
further exploration and wider dissemination.
The Committee noted the
recommendation that the University encourage all departments to provide an
induction from Part A to Part B. It was
felt this could be extended to all years.
It was agreed to refer the proposal to the PDQ Team for further
consideration.
ACTION; PDQ
The PDQ Team would also take up with
the Director of Computing Services the issue concerning the authentication of
personal PCs.
ACTION; PDQ
It was noted that the space issue
was being pursued within the
The Committee was of the view that
the panel’s suggestions concerning the credit rating of the placement
year and introduction of single semester placements raised issues which could
not be progressed by the department acting alone and would need to be part of a
wider institutional initiative.
06/61 Group work
LTC06-P45
It was resolved to recommend to
Senate a University policy statement on student group work, having noted that
extensive consultations had taken place on the draft version.
06/62 Programme specifications
LTC06-P46
It was resolved to approve
(i)
the incorporation of Annex 1 to the QAA Guidelines for preparing programme
specifications in the guidance notes attached to the LU programme
specification template for proposers of new programmes and others working on
programme specifications at Loughborough;
(ii)
the replacement of the current section 7 of the LU
programme specification template (‘indicators of quality’) by a
section on ‘What makes the programme distinctive’.
It was agreed that the guidance
notes should prompt departments to use this new section, inter alia, to expand
on any accreditation received, on the opportunities for industrial/professional
training, periods of study/placement abroad, ERASMUS agreements, employer
contributions to the design/delivery of the programme, and links between
teaching and research in the department.
ACTION: RAB, JEME
06/63 Module specifications
LTC06-P47
The Committee considered the proposed
addition of a ‘Method of feedback’ field to the University template
for module specifications.
It was noted that this proposal had
arisen primarily from discussions over the past year on the results of the
National Student Survey, in which the ‘assessment and feedback’
section had been the lowest scoring set of questions for the University, and
was intended to help improve this aspect of students’ learning
experience. It was proposed that the
field be in free-text format; its prime purpose was to provide information for
students, and it was also hoped that the member of staff completing the module
specification would be encouraged to think about the type of feedback they were
giving and whether it was the most effective.
It was proposed that the field should encompass the various different ways
in which feedback was given to students in relation to their work for the
module and not be confined to written feedback on coursework assignments.
The Committee felt it important that
further guidance was provided for members of staff on what was it was
reasonable to expect.
It was resolved
(i)
that the addition of a free-text ‘Method of
feedback’ field be approved;
ACTION: RAB, JEME
(ii)
and to request the PDQ Team in the first instance to
consider the formulation of further guidance for staff.
ACTION: PDQ
It was noted that a draft version of
the full LUSI module specification had been circulated to all departments for
any comment, with examples of how it would look ‘on-screen’ for
data entry and in printed format.
06/64 Curriculum Sub-Committee – 19 October 2006 (A)
LTC06-P48
It was resolved to recommend new programme proposals and other strategic changes to Senate on the advice of Curriculum Sub-Committee.
06/65 Amendments
to Regulations
It was resolved to approve
amendments to the following for recommendation to Senate:
65.1
Regulation
XIV Student Appeals
LTC06-P49
65.2
Regulation
XXI Postgraduate Awards
LTC06-P50
06/66 Constitution
and Membership
LTC06-P51
The constitution and membership of
the Committee were noted.
06/67 Curriculum
Sub-Committee – 19 October 2006 (B)
LTC06-P52
Further discussions of the Sub-Committee were noted.
06/68 National Student Survey
LTC06-P53
The Committee noted the results of
the NSS 2006 and plans for the NSS 2007.
The results had again been excellent
for the University. It was noted that
the NSS looked likely, with the other revisions to the TQI-site now announced,
to become an annual event. It was clear
that other institutions across the system were taking it increasingly seriously
and it was important for the University to look closely at the results to help
identify possible improvements in the learning and teaching environment at
Loughborough.
It was proposed to continue working
closely with LSU, to identify effective practice and help to disseminate it more
widely, and to maintain a focus on assessment and feedback issues where the
lowest NSS scores were being obtained.
All departments had been encouraged to discuss the results in their
Staff/Student Committees, to gain a better understanding of the student
viewpoint.
06/69 The
LTC06-P54
The University’s response to
the second ‘Burgess Group’ consultation was noted.
06/70 Teaching Quality Enhancement Fund 2006/07 – 2008/09
LTC06-P55
The Committee noted the contextual
statement of priority activity areas submitted to HEFCE with the
University’s action plans for the allocation of TQEF funding; and that
HEFCE had approved the release of funding against these plans, amounting to
£380116 in each of the three years starting 2006/07.
06/71 QAA Institutional Audit
It was noted that the QAA had turned
down the University’s request that the next Institutional Audit be postponed
until spring 2009 and the audit was therefore scheduled to take place in spring
2008. The University had expressed a preference
for the audit visit taking place in the week 10 -14 March 2008.
06/72 Dates of Meetings for remainder of 2006/07
15 February 2007
7 June 2007
both Thursdays at 9.30am
Author – Robert Bowyer
Date – November 2006
Copyright © Loughborough University. All rights reserved