Origin: Programme Development & Quality Team
1. Background
A number of issues concerning the use of academic credit
were considered together by the Programme Development & Quality Team at its
meeting on 13 November 2006. These were:
·
National
Credit Arrangements for
·
The
use of credit level indicators in module specifications – prompted by the
adoption of revised module specifications for LUSI
·
A
request from one department for exemption from Senate rules on the use of
‘C-level’ credits in Part D of integrated masters programmes.
The notes of the lengthy discussion which ensued are set out
below. The points set out under 5(ii) – 5(x) form a plan of action which
is recommended to Learning and Teaching Committee and Senate for approval before
implementation.
2. National Credit Arrangements for
Received
(i) A paper
recapping on the national position and Loughborough’s own stance in
respect of academic credit.
Noted
(ii) That it was
anticipated, following the Burgess second stage consultation on the development
of national credit arrangements for England, that a credit framework would be
recommended along the lines set out in the consultation paper, in the form of
non-prescriptive guidelines, and linked to the FHEQ. A final report was expected imminently. [See
note at the end of section 2.]
(iii) That the
earlier national credit guidelines, which had strongly influenced the Burgess
recommendations, treated the credit level as a basic component of a credit
framework and envisaged the use of generic credit level descriptors as a guide
to the assignment of modules to the credit levels.
(iv) That
in spite of its use of credit accumulation, the University did not use credit
levels; modules were not assigned to credit levels and, although the NICATS
credit level descriptors had been commended to the University at one stage,
there was no real need for them when credit levels did not feature.
(v) That
the letter prefixes used in University module codes (A, B, C, D) were sometimes
represented as indicating the ‘level’ of individual modules,
whereas they were really intended to do no more than indicate the stage of the
programme at which a module was usually offered.
(vi) That the
Burgess recommendations had included guidance on the number of credits normally
associated with the main HE awards in
(vii) That in
order to meet the ‘second cycle descriptors’ of the EHEA
qualifications framework, UK HEIs were recommended to ensure that integrated
Masters programmes included a minimum of 120 UK HE credits (generally
accredited to 60 ECTS credits) at postgraduate level (‘M’ or
‘7’).
Note: The final report of the
Burgess Group ‘Proposals for national credit arrangements for the use of
academic credit in higher education in
http://bookshop.universitiesuk.ac.uk/downloads/Burgess_credit_report.pdf
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/FHEQ/academicCredit/AcademicCredit.pdf
Burgess proposes that national
credit arrangements for higher education in England should be structured as a
framework that is linked to the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications;
the draft framework presented in the report is as anticipated, although a
‘Credit Issues Development Group’ will be set up to develop the fine
operational detail.
3. Level indicators
Noted
(i) That in its
discussion of the draft module specification for LUSI, CSC had commented that
the current module code, which was not planned to change under the LUSI system,
did not include a level indicator and CSC had queried whether there should be
text within the module specification that identified level, particularly in
relation to D modules being at level 7.
(ii) That CSC
had referred the matter to PDQ for further deliberation.
4. C-level credits permitted in Part D of
extended undergraduate programmes
Noted
(i) That,
notwithstanding the University’s stance on credit levels generally,
Senate had resolved in 2004 that no more than 20 ‘C-level’ credits
should be permitted in Part D of an extended undergraduate programme.
(ii) That
Electronic and Electrical Engineering was seeking a relaxation of the above
ruling particularly in the case of the MEng in Systems Engineering. The Department’s proposal was that
students ‘should undertake at least 100 credits of D or P level materials
in the last two years of an extended undergraduate programme’.
5. Discussion
Discussion
ranged over 2, 3 and 4 above:
Noted
(i)
The
view of PDQ that it was anomalous for the University’s credit
accumulation arrangements not to incorporate the use of credit levels.
Agreed
(ii)
That
it was desirable for modules to be assigned to credit levels.
(iv) That the
summary NICATS level descriptors should be commended as a basis for assigning
modules to credit levels.
(iii) That a
sensible starting point for moving forward from the current position with
minimal upheaval would be to use the existing letter prefixes in the module
codes to represent level:
A - level 4
B - level 5
C - level 6
D or P - level 7
on
the assumption that on this basis the vast majority of modules would turn out
already to be coded appropriately to reflect their credit level.
(iv) That a
statement should be formulated of the University’s normal expectations on
the credit structure of its awards, that accorded with the national credit
guidelines and allowed the same degree of flexibility.
(v) That
departments should then be asked to look at their programmes against these
expectations and be prepared to provide a rationale for any divergence from the
standard model. (It was anticipated
that, for example, some joint/combined honours programmes might fall outside
it; as might programmes where a mixture of B and C coded modules was available
to students in Parts B and C. If a
module was delivered to a mixed group of students from different years, but
different assessment criteria were applied from one year-group to another, two
separate modules should be created.)
(vi) That CSC be
asked to ensure that new programme proposals fell within the appropriate norms
or that a rationale was otherwise provided.
(vii)
That
PDQ did not wish to introduce any unnecessary constraints on programme design
(and believed this could be very largely avoided), but felt it important to be
able to demonstrate that the University’s own credit arrangements stood
up to scrutiny against national guidelines.
(viii)
That
University degree regulations should remain as far as possible unchanged, for
example in relation to condonement.
(ix) That CIS be
asked, in the context of the LUSI project, whether the letter prefix in module
codes could be automatically translated into the corresponding credit level
number to allow the level to be included in appropriate outputs from the system
in the future.
(x) That the
proposal from Electronic and Electrical Engineering be treated as a rationale
for divergence from the University’s normal expectations on the structure
of an integrated Masters degree and be approved, on the understanding that the
proposal currently met with the requirements of the accrediting body/bodies
concerned; and that a watching brief continue to be kept on developments
affecting the acceptability of the UK integrated Masters in Europe.
Author – Robert Bowyer
Date – January 2007
Copyright © Loughborough
University. All rights reserved