Learning and Teaching Committee

Subject: Report of Curriculum Sub-Committee – Matters for Information

Origin Unconfirmed Minutes of the Meeting on 19 October 2006

Learning and Teaching Committee is invited to note the following items from the meeting of Curriculum Sub-Committee held on 19 October 2006.

1. Terms of Reference and Membership

.1 Members AGREED that the Terms of Reference of Curriculum Sub-Committee remained fit for purpose.

.2 The Sub-Committee’s membership for 2006-07 was noted. It was commented that the Associate Deans (Teaching) should be full members rather than attend by invitation. It was AGREED that the AD(T)s reflect on this prior to further discussion at the next meeting, and that the Secretary explore whether there was good reason for maintaining the status quo.

It was AGREED that:

· Should the status quo be maintained, the quorum for the Sub-Committee should be 4. In the event that AD(T)s became full members, the quorum should be 5.

· All members, including ex-officio and alternate members, should have voting rights.

2. Module Specifications

Draft University Policy Statement on Group Working: Minimum Requirements

.1 The Sub-Committee considered a draft University Policy Statement on Group Working: Minimum Requirements for implementation in 2007/08, and the comments of the Programme Development and Quality Team thereon.

In regard to paragraph 4:

“Where the assessment of group or team work counts towards the degree classification and comprises 50% or more of the overall module mark, it must include an element of either individual or peer assessment or both”

it was queried whether the proposed threshold of 50% should be revised to ‘more than 50%’, but considered that in order to reassure students that the majority of module assessment was individual the threshold should remain at 50%.

Module Specification

.2 With reference to Minute 20.2 of the meeting on 4 May 2006, the Sub-Committee considered a draft Module Specification for LUSI. During discussions members were informed of students’ requests for feedback on examination performance. Feedback in the form of an email summarising overall student performance in an examination, together with a performance profile of the exam group and an indication of common problems and what students were getting right in order to get good marks, was proposed as a sensible approach. Whether this should be for all modules with an examination component required debate. As the feedback was intended to be formative, final-year modules could possibly be excluded. It was AGREED to forward the Sub-Committee’s comments to the Programme Development and Quality Team and request that it reflect on whether current policy that examination feedback was not a requirement should be reconsidered, particularly as students may now demand feedback on A-level papers.

.3 In view of the importance to students of feedback on assessment performance, and the considered value in identifying other ways in which feedback was provided to students (e.g.tutorials), it was AGREED that a new free-text section entitled ‘Method of Feedback’ should be included in the LUSI module specification in between the ‘Method of Learning and Teaching’ and ‘Method of Assessment’ sections.

.4 It was AGREED that the requirement within the module specification for a deadline date for coursework assignments should be removed, as those dates were not normally known at the time specifications were updated and might be subject to change. In accordance with the Policy on Groupwork discussed in Minute 06/47.1, it was AGREED that the field for ‘Individual Assessment of groupwork (%)’ be deleted and replaced with a prompt under each coursework assignment to identify group/teamwork, coupled with a question as to whether there was individual/peer assessment of that work.

Note: (See also Minute 06/47.6 below)

.5 It was commented that the current module code, which was not planned to change under the LUSI system, did not include a level indicator, and queried whether there should be text within the module specification that identified level, particularly in relation to D modules being at level 5. It was AGREED that this matter be forwarded to the Programme Development and Quality Team for further deliberation.

Assessment Matrix

.6 The Sub-Committee received the current Assessment Matrix and considered any further revision required to this in the light of the previous discussions.

The following revisions were AGREED:

(a) ‘% individual assessment of coursework’ and ‘Exam Length’ columns to be deleted

(b) As a matter of principle, all proportions of assessment types to be expressed as a percentage of total assessment on the module, rather than a percentage of the examination/coursework components. This would impact on the LUSI module specification which would require revision accordingly.

(c) New column ‘% module assessment that is group/teamwork’ to be placed so as to be disassociated from and not interrupt the run of percentages covering the module assessment (which should now total 100%). A footnote for the new column would require departments to confirm that there was an element of individual/peer assessment where required under the new Policy on Groupwork. A breakdown of group and individual assessment under each coursework type would no longer be required.

(d) For each programme part, compulsory modules should be listed before optional modules.

3. Programme Specifications

With reference to Minute 06/21.3 of the meeting on 4 May 2006, the Sub-Committee considered proposals from the Programme Development and Quality Team for revisions to the Programme Specification template. Members were supportive of the proposals and offered the following comments to the PDQ Team:

.1 There should be reference in Programme Specifications to periods of study/placement abroad where these were a possibility, and to ERASMUS agreements where these existed. This could be included in the proposed new section on ‘what makes the programme distinctive’.

.2 Section 4 – Programme structures and requirements, levels, modules, credits and awards: Guidance was required on producing more user-friendly summary text rather than repeating regulatory text, possibly in diagrammatic form (example available from the Secretary). Exemplars should be provided.

.3 Section 5 – Criteria for admission to the programme:
A summary of the programme’s prospectus entry was likely to be appropriate.

4. Discontinuation of Programmes

It was noted that Operations Sub-Committee had requested that consideration of the following proposal be deferred pending discussions between IPTME and ESRI:

Discontinuation of the following programme (proposed date of last intake shown in brackets):

MSc Vehicle Safety Engineering (no recruitment)

Author – Jennie Elliott

Date – October 2006