Learning and Teaching Committee is invited to note the following items from the meeting of Curriculum Sub-Committee held on 13 October 2005.
.1 It was noted that, with one exception (see item .5), all recommendations to Learning and Teaching Committee, and subsequently to Senate where appropriate, had been approved. The relevant minute of Senate was noted.
.2 Minute 05/18 – Matters Arising from the Minutes (Programme Titles and Coding)
(a) The revised proposal form for new programmes was noted.
(b) An email from the Admissions Office on Programme Coding was noted.
.3 Minute 05/19 –
BSc/MComp (DPS) Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence:
New Programme Proposals
(a) It was noted that the Student Recruitment and Admissions Team had discussed the request by Computer Studies to suffix ‘with Industrial Experience’ to the programme title and that of other sandwich programmes in the Department. Further information had been requested which would be presented to the Team on 17 October 2005.
(b) It was noted that exemplars were being identified from Programme Specifications for 2005-06.
.4 Minute 05/20 – BSc
(DIS/DPS) Chemistry and Information Technology:
New Programme Proposals
The revised Assessment Matrix was noted.
.5 Minute 05/26 – MA/MSc Industrial Design by Research: New Programme Proposals
It was noted that revised proposals had been submitted to Operations Sub-Committee for an MA/MSc/MDes in Research Studies in Industrial Design, but Operations Sub-Committee had remained concerned about the proposed title of the programme. The Department had as yet not submitted a revised title.
The Sub-Committee received a copy of module 05MPI001 which had been provided to departments as an exemplar of a placement module and considered whether it was appropriate to have full Module Specifications for student placements. Though they did not contribute credits to a degree award, such module specifications were required to carry a credit weighting of 120 (or 60 in some cases) for use in the HESES and HESA returns for student load purposes. It had been considered a few years previously that placement modules should be required to identify Aims, ILOs etc as was required for other modules. Concern had recently been expressed that the content of the MTLA field in particular of those modules was not in line with the modular weighting allocated to the module, which could leave the University vulnerable to criticism at a future audit. There might therefore be a need for a disclaimer in the module specification to identify its indicative nature. It was queried whether a placement module appeared on a student’s transcript and if so how it appeared should a student not ultimately submit for a placement Diploma award, and agreed that the Secretary seek clarification on this. The Sub-Committee felt unable to make a recommendation until it had received further information on existing placement module specifications and it was AGREED that the ADTs consider those modules from their Faculties and, in consultation with CIS and with the benefit of examples from other institutions, discuss with the Programme Development and Quality Team how these modules should best appear to coincide with the requirements of the student, their transcript and the student information system. The Sub-Committee would then reconsider the matter at its next meeting.
.1 The Sub-Committee considered comments from the Librarian, noting that the Directors of other Support Services had subsequently expressed support for those comments. Members understood the Librarian’s concerns and expressed their own concerns that the AD(T)s often received proposals well after the specified deadline and were unable therefore to read and comment on the proposals prior to the CSC agenda being printed. The current requirements to allow 10 days from receipt of operational proposals for comments by Support Services and other Departments, and the deadlines set for AD(T)s to receive proposals, had been established to ensure that there was adequate consultation on proposals and time to improve documentation as necessary before its submission to CSC. It was AGREED that in future the Chair of the Sub-Committee would not permit the inclusion on the CSC agenda of proposals which had not received proper consideration by all the necessary parties and/or had not been received in time for the AD(T) to provide feedback to the Department to ensure that paperwork could be improved as required and was not inadequate. It was also AGREED that an email from the PVC(T) be circulated to all HoDs to stress the importance of proposers meeting the deadlines.
.2 It was AGREED that the consultation form be revised to make clearer the consultation requirements at the strategic and operational phases, and that the possibility of rescheduling the Autumn meeting of CSC to a slightly later date be explored.
.1 The Sub-Committee considered proposals from WEDC for a full-time programme with effect from October 2006. In view of the Sub-Committee’s previous discussion under Minute 05/46.1, members considered that they would not be able at this time to make a recommendation to Learning and Teaching Committee for a new MRes programme, but could forward the proposals as an MSc with the possibility of subsequent Chair’s action to convert the award to an MRes. However, within the proposal the Sub-Committee could see no features distinguishing the proposed MRes from an MSc, even with the large 120-credit project module. Other submissions for MRes awards had included a greater weighting of research skills which the Sub-Committee would expect to see. Members were not convinced that the large project module with one 10,000 word report could substitute for skills training. The project module appeared unchanged from its existing 60-credit version other than a change in weighting and size of report. Indeed the journal-style paper, which the Sub-Committee has considered to be a necessary element of an MRes, had been removed. It was felt that for an MRes proposal it would be better if the project was left as 60 credits and research skills modules were introduced.
.2 The Sub-Committee felt unable to recommend the proposal even as an MSc at this time, there being no argument presented for such a large project module within an MSc. It was therefore AGREED that the proposers be asked to recast the proposals for consideration at the CSC meeting on 12 January 2006. The proposers would then have the benefit of Senate’s decision on the criteria for an MRes award, and examples of subsequently approved MRes programmes, and could model the proposals accordingly if they still wished to select the MRes route. The proposers were also requested to take the following into account:
(a) Proposal form
(i) Item 7: Further explanation of why the cost and time to develop the programme would be marginal, and who would be developing the material.
(b) Programme Regulations
(i) Clarification of the intended programme title for the chosen award.
(ii) Removal of para 1.3 and the two sentences following the listed compulsory modules in para 2.2.
(c) Programme Specification
(i) Benchmarks should include an external reference point. (This should include Research Council requirements for an MRes.)
(ii) Greater explanation was needed of how teaching, learning and assessment methods related to ILOs, particularly for skills and other attributes.
(iii) Assessment methods for skills and attributes included a reference to journal papers which was excluded from the module specification and assessment matrix.
(iv) Information on Assessment Regulations: The section on weightings and credits should be removed.
The Sub-Committee received proposals from the Business School for a change of award and title with effect from October 2006 entry to:
MRes Business and Management
With reference to Minute 05/46, the Sub-Committee agreed that it was unable to make a decision until the criteria for the MRes award had been determined, but a decision could be taken by Chair’s action after Senate on 23 November 2005.
With reference to Minute 04/41.4 of the meeting on 14 October 2004, It was noted that Senate had agreed to exceptionally allow the Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering to continue using 15-credit modules in its undergraduate programmes, and to extend their use to Part C, but had reaffirmed that the structure of the University’s undergraduate programmes generally should continue to be based on the 10-credit module and multiples of 10.
It was noted that Senate had agreed to remove the 80-credit restriction on year-long modules for undergraduate programmes.
The following changes in Academic Regulations with effect from 3 October 2005 which have implications for the wording in Programme Regulations and Specifications were noted:
GRUA and ARUA have been converted to Regulation XX
GRMPA and ARMPA have been converted to Regulation XXI
Author – Jennie Elliott
Date – October 2005
Copyright © Loughborough University. All rights reserved