Learning and Teaching Committee

 

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

 

Origin             Unconfirmed Minutes of the Meeting on 18 October 2007


 

Learning and Teaching Committee is invited to note the following items from the meeting of Curriculum Sub-Committee held on 18 October 2007.

1.       Matters Arising from the Minutes

.1         It was noted that all recommendations to Learning and Teaching Committee, and subsequently to Senate where appropriate, had been approved, and the relevant minute of Senate was noted.

 

.2         Minute 07/12 – External Input to Programme Approval

(a)        The revised new programme proposal form and guidance were noted.

                              

(b)        The following statement in the Code of Practice for External Examining for Taught Undergraduate and Postgraduate Programmes was noted:

 

            External Examiners may be asked from time to time to comment on new programme developments.  The University’s approval procedure requires departments to obtain an external view which may be from within the HE sector or from an industry/employer perspective.

 

.3         Minute 07/13 – MA English: New Programme Proposal

(a)        The revised Curriculum Map, included in CSC07-P27 above, was noted.

(b)        It was noted that the Sub-Committee’s request that all assessment contributing to a module mark should be summative and not formative had been withdrawn.

 

.4         Minute 07/15.2 – Changes to Programme Titles

            It was noted that the following title change had been agreed by Chair’s action with immediate effect:

 

            PGCert Mathematics Support for Students with Dyslexia and Dyscalculia in HE/FE

            to PGCert Mathematics Support and Dyslexia/Dyscalculia in HE/FE.

 

.5         Minute 07/20.1 – Annual Update of Module Specifications and Programme
Regulations/ Specifications

            It was noted that Departmental Administrators had been expressing concern over the volume of work related to this and other activities over the summer period, particularly in relation to the requirement to revise the programme structure section of Programme Specifications.  Further information would come forward to the next meeting for discussion.

 

2.       Terms of Reference and Membership

The Sub-Committee noted its membership for 2007-08, and the Chair’s action in approving the addition of the Head of Academic Practice and Enhancement, Professional Development, as a member.

3.       Conversion of MSc Management (Professional) to MBA

The Sub-Committee considered proposals from the Business School to extend the existing MBA regulation, whereby holders of the PG Diploma in Management (Professional) can convert this to 60 credits exemption towards the MBA, to permit holders of the MSc Management.(Professional) to covert this to 90 credits exemption towards the MBA.  Members were sympathetic to what was being proposed and were supportive in principle, but were concerned that the documentation did not provide sufficient information as to the basis of the credit transfer, bearing in mind that this would account for 50% of the MBA award. It was suggested that rather than a blanket transfer of 90 credits it would be better for credit to be exempted on an individual basis, on the basis of MBA ILOs already covered in the MSc. The Curriculum Map for the MSc programme was felt to be too densely populated to be of value in this respect, partly due to the large number of optional modules, and needed to be more clearly presented with the optional modules grouped according to common ILOs.

 

The Sub-Committee acknowledged the University’s requirement that students opting for an alternative qualification should relinquish their original award to avoid ‘double counting’, but felt this to be a grey area in terms of how this was achieved for students returning to the University after some time, or bringing their award from another institution. It was nevertheless clear that students could not be required to relinquish their original award until their subsequent award had been confirmed.

 

It was AGREED that the proposers be asked to resubmit the proposals, making a more convincing case as to the basis of the credit exemption and whether this was based on specific ILOs or more general prior learning.

 


Author – Jennie Elliott

Date – May 2007  

Copyright © Loughborough University.  All rights reserved