Learning
and Teaching Committee
Report of a Validation
Panel on proposals from Loughborough College for additional pathways in
Athletics, Football, Rugby and Swimming to the Foundation Degree programme in
Sports Performance
Background
1.
- Sports Science
- Sports Science with
Sports Management
- Exercise, Health
and Fitness with Management
- Sports Coaching
- Sports Performance
(Motorsport)
together with a one-year top-up
programme leading to an Honours degree in
·
Applied Sports Science.
2.
The College offers several other FDs in collaboration with
other awarding partners.
3.
At the time of the validation of the FD in Sports
Performance (Motorsport) in summer 2006, the College signalled its intention to
develop further pathways through the Sports Performance FD, in specific sports,
at a later date.
4.
Outline proposals for four new pathways, in Athletics,
Football,
Process
5.
The outline proposals, together with broadly supportive
comments from the
6.
A panel was subsequently established with the following
membership:
Professor Morag Bell, PVC(T) – Chair
Dr Paul Byrne, AD(T) SSH
Dr Martin Harrison, AD(T) Science, LTC member
Dr Helen Drake, Senate member
Robert Bowyer, Programme Quality Team Manager
Subject specialist advice
was provided by
Dr Alan Bairner, SSES
David Bunker, SSES
7.
The panel received documentation from
·
Validation proposal document
·
Programme specification
·
Programme regulations
·
Structure of pathways
·
Module specifications
·
Assessment mapping documents
·
QAA benchmark mapping document
·
College QA procedures relevant to the assessment process
·
New staff cvs
·
Letters of support
8.
The panel also received for reference
·
Revised University Validation Procedures
·
QAA Foundation Degree qualification benchmark
·
SSES comments submitted to EMG with the outline proposal
9.
The panel visited the College on 16 May 2007 and held
discussions about the proposals with the responsible HE/curriculum area staff, namely
Eric Macintyre
Helen van Aardt
Jane Holden
Elaine Locke (who would be the Programme
Leader)
Jonathan Smith.
10.
The panel’s recommendations and observations on the
proposals were conveyed to the College team at the end of the visit.
Introduction
11.
In introducing the proposals, the College emphasised the
following points:
·
The Motorsport pathway had been launched in the current
session, with 9 students, and was going well.
·
Four National Governing Bodies (in the sports mentioned) had
expressed an interest in developing the FD in Sports Performance in their
respective sports, and saw the FD providing a suitable progression route from
the Advanced Apprenticeship in Sporting Excellence which some of their athletes
were taking.
·
The core modules and structure would remain essentially the
same as agreed for Motorsport, except that the weighting of the core modules
would be reduced to 60 credits, and the sport-specific modules would be
increased to 70 credits.
·
The work-based learning modules would be based around the
athlete’s sport, making this also a sport-specific area: they would be
organised in association with the NGBs.
·
The NGBs had been consulted about the sport-specific modules
and had input to the design of the ILOs and assessment strategies; external
staff would contribute to their delivery.
·
The programme structure provided scope for students to
select either a set of Management modules or a set of Coaching modules (worth
60 credits): the four NGBs favoured the Coaching set (whereas in Motorsport the
Management modules were considered the more relevant).
·
The majority of modules were flagged as ‘partial
distance learning’.
Discussion
Documentation
12.
The panel found the documentation clear and well presented
and complimented the College team on their efforts in this regard.
Aims and
intended learning outcomes
13.
The panel was generally satisfied that the aims and intended
learning outcomes (ILOs) of the programmes were appropriate to the subject
discipline and consistent with the FD Qualification Benchmark and levels 4 and
5 of the FHEQ. Module authors had mapped
the module learning outcomes against the knowledge and understanding and skills
identified in the QAA subject benchmark statement for Hospitality, Leisure,
Sport and Tourism, and a helpful summary table had been produced from this
exercise.
Curriculum
design and content
14.
The panel was satisfied with the curriculum in terms of
coherence, balance, progression and its reflection of the defining
characteristics of a Foundation Degree.
It represented a total of 240 credits with 60 credits from core modules
within sports disciplines, 60 credits in either sports coaching or management,
70 credits from sport specific modules and 50 credits of work-based learning
(WBL). It was anticipated that students
on the four pathways under consideration would take the Coaching rather than
the Management modules. The programme
would be taken part-time over three years.
15.
It was noted that several modules described as
sport-specific were in fact common to different sports pathways, for example,
LGA966 The development of excellence in
sport. It was explained that all the
NGBs had wanted to see such a module included; it had been written generically
and it was the intention to have one main tutor, supported by others from each
sport. The module would be delivered
separately to each pathway.
16.
The panel pursued issues concerning the content of some
modules, to seek reassurance that the material could be taught in a
systematic/rigorous way at the appropriate credit level.
Assessment
17.
An ‘assessment map’ had been produced to show
the method of assessment of all the modules.
The variety and balance of methods of assessment were considered
satisfactory. The panel was assured that
the volume of assessment, and the requirements for individual modules, were
consistent with assessment requirements for other FDs in the College.
18.
The panel explored the College procedures for the setting
and marking of assessments and the involvement of the external examiner. It noted the use of second marking/internal
verification, and the production of marking criteria for the various types of
assessment instrument, which guided both the students and second markers. It was standard practice for students to
receive assignment briefs, explaining what they would be assessed on.
19.
The panel was assured that the final mark from every group
work assessment would incorporate an element based on a student’s
individual contribution.
Placements
20.
A new member of staff was now in post to manage work
placements and liaise with employers.
The current External Examiner, who had considerable experience and
expertise in work-based learning (WBL) issues, was also offering welcome advice
and guidance.
21.
Students would be provided with a handbook (which would also
be sent to the placement provider), setting out all relevant requirements. Most (but not all) students would be visited
during their placements. They were asked
to complete feedback forms, as were the placement providers. Students would be encouraged to make regular
contact with the College module tutor. (In
the case of full-time students on other programmes, conversations between
student and module tutor took place on a weekly basis.)
22.
The work settings would be selected to allow students the
opportunity to apply and develop the skills and knowledge acquired through the
programme and critical reflection on the WBL would be an important element of
the assessment. Employers would not be involved
in summative assessment but any feedback that they provided to a student on
placement could be used by that student, as part of their portfolio. The possibility of incorporating some element
of employer assessment in the future was being explored.
23.
The panel noted that many of the students would be
undertaking placements with their regular employer.
Approach to
learning and teaching delivery
24.
The programme would incorporate 4 - 6 weeks of residential study
blocks in Loughborough each year. An
induction to the programme as a whole would be provided, and the blocks would typically
be used to introduce new modules. While
the students were not in residence, they would be supported in DL mode with
resource packs and have access to materials on-line, with support through
e-mail and telephone.
25.
Ideally students on the different pathways would take the
core modules together, though it was logistically unlikely that the Motorsport
students could be integrated. The panel
remarked that there would need to be considerable flexibility to accommodate
the sporting/employment commitments of the various students. Residential accommodation was not expected to
present problems.
Access and Progression
26.
The panel sought further information on the content of the Advanced
Apprenticeship in Sporting Excellence and was assured of its suitability as a
preparation for entry to the FD and also that there were no overlaps with the
FD material.
27.
It was suggested that the entry requirements on p.9 of the
programme specification needed be re-drafted to remove ambiguity.
28.
It was anticipated that successful FD students would be in a
position to progress directly to the top-up Honours degree in Applied Sports Science
at the College. Some modifications to
the top-up programme (for example, the addition of appropriate specialist
modules to a generic core) would be required to tailor it to the requirements
of students from the FD in Sports Performance.
29.
It appeared less likely that students from these FDs would
be suitably equipped to transfer to the final year of an Honours degree
programme in SSES. This would require
further discussion.
Staffing
30.
The College indicated that four new HE appointments were in
prospect.
31.
The panel was supplied with the CVs of all staff who would be leading LU-validated modules for the
first time. It was satisfied that all
those concerned had the qualifications and/or the professional experience to
undertake the roles expected of them.
All assessments conducted by those not currently holding appointments in
FE or HE – who would be involved in sport-specific modules – would be
subject to second and third marking procedures as described in the
documentation, and previously agreed in the case of individuals contributing to
the Motorsport pathway. A reference to
this procedure in the programme specification needed clarification.
32.
It was confirmed that non-College staff would be expected to
commit to support the students throughout their modules; contacts with the
students would be monitored.
Recruitment
and marketing
33.
The College had emphasised to the NGBs that the programme
was essentially for elite sports performers and it was looking to the NGBs to
refer potential students.
34.
The College had not attempted to market the programme,
through Academy Directors for example, prior to University approval. It was hoped to recruit 8 -12 students to
each pathway in the first instance, and in due course to increase this number
but with an entry ceiling of 20 per pathway.
Start date
35.
It was established that the College was seeking approval in
time for a 2007 start.
Academic
Oversight
36.
Academic oversight of the Sports Performance FD, including
the conduct of annual and programme review, has already been assigned within
the University to the Board of the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities. The four new pathways will be incorporated
into these arrangements.
Recommendations
37.
The panel recommends that
the four new pathways, in Athletics, Football,
(i)
That separate module specifications be developed for the various
sports pathways in the case of the ‘sport-specific’ modules common
to several sports pathways (The
development of excellence in sport, Motivation and inter-personal aspects in
competitive sport, Recovery for sports performance). It was felt that the differentiation in
terms of content for the various sports should be made clear (para 15).
(ii)
That the entry requirements (programme specification, p.9)
be redrafted to remove ambiguity (para 27).
(iii)
That the programme specification and programme regulations
be redrafted to incorporate the Motorsport pathway as well as the four new
pathways, and to clarify expectations about the selection of the Coaching or
Management modules for each pathway (paras 11 and 14).
(iv)
That the possibility of progression to the final year of a
programme in SSES should not be offered for the time being (para 29).
(v)
That the reference in the programme specification (p.12) to
a third tier of marking in the case of assessments undertaken by staff not
holding posts in FE/HE be clarified (para 31).