Learning
and Teaching Committee
Report of a Validation
Panel on proposals from
Background
1.
During the summer of 2008,
·
The addition of a pathway in Applied Sports Science
(Management) to the BSc Honours ‘top-up’ degree
·
The introduction of a 2-year full-time version of the FD in
Sports Performance (Football) alongside the existing 3-year part-time
version. (Both versions are by distance
learning.)
2.
In accordance with agreed procedures, outline proposals were
submitted to Operations Committee in the first instance for in principle
approval. Operations Committee gave its
approval and invited Learning and Teaching Committee to set up a validation
panel to consider the proposals in more detail.
3.
LTC members were invited by correspondence to comment on any
matters of principle or issues of potential concern raised by the proposals
– no issues were raised - before a validation panel was established with
the following membership:
Professor Morag Bell, PVC(T) –
Chair
Dr Paul Byrne, AD(T) SSH
Professor John Dickens, AD(T)
Engineering as a member of LTC
Robert Bowyer, Programme Quality
Team Manager
Subject adviser: David Bunker, SSES
4.
The panel met on Monday 20 October 2008 at
Sheryl Cottam
Elaine Locke
Helen van Aardt
BSc Honours in Applied Sports
Science (one-year ‘top-up’ degree): introduction of Applied Sports
Science (Management) pathway
5.
In addition to the outline proposals, the panel received a proposed
programme specification, programme regulations and module specifications.
6.
It was noted that the University and College had always
envisaged a need for the Honours top-up degree, which was first approved as a
progression route for the Foundation Degree students in Sports Science, to be
modified as new FD programmes in sport, exercise and fitness came on stream, in
order to ensure an appropriate ‘fit’ with the work completed by
students at FD level. The new pathway
would become the progression route to Honours for students who had completed a
Foundation Degree in either Sports Science with Sports Management, or Exercise,
Health and Fitness with Management.
Students with Foundation Degrees in either Sports Science or Sports
Coaching would follow the Applied Sports Science route.
7.
Students following the Applied Sports Science (Management)
pathway would take compulsory 20-credit modules in Financial Management and
Accounting in Sport and Exercise (new module) and Marketing in Sport and
Exercise (a previously existing module which would now be confined to the
Management pathway). They would take a
compulsory 30-credit project and select optional modules to a value of 50
credits from amongst modules already validated for the Applied Sports Science
degree.
8.
The panel agreed that the Management pathway provided a
valuable alternative progression route for Foundation Degree holders and that
it would recommend its introduction to LTC and Senate for validation.
9.
It was noted that the way in which the Management pathway
had been incorporated into the existing programme documentation meant that the
distinctiveness of the two routes appeared unbalanced and the distinctive
features of the Applied Sports Science route without Management were not
highlighted. This was compounded by the
fact that the Sports Science Support for Elite Athletes module, which was
compulsory for Applied Sports Science, would also be available as an option for
students on the Management pathway. The
College staff were asked to give further consideration to the desirability of heightening
the distinctiveness of the two routes, and to adjusting the intended learning
outcomes in the programme specification to bring out the different expectations
of the students.
10.
In its scrutiny of the documentation, the panel raised a
number of points which required further attention by the College, as set out
below:
In the programme specification:
(i)
Section 2: should indicate which subject benchmark
statement(s) had been used; ‘National Qualifications Framework’
should be deleted.
(ii)
Section 4 (and in module specifications): ‘JS’
needed to be replaced as internal examiner, having left the College.
(iii)
Section 5: it should be clarified that a minimum average mark of 55% in Part B modules
was required; reference should be included to the FDs in Exercise, Health and
Fitness with Management, and Sports Coaching; and the second bullet point
concerning the bridging modules should be clarified by using the note that
appeared in Section 4.
(iv)
Section 6: the sentence referring to a Pass Degree should be
deleted; the University no longer permitted Programme Boards to raise degree
classification thresholds and the relevant statement should be amended to say
that thresholds may be lowered by not
more than 3%.
(v)
Section 8: the reference to a bridging week for FD students
moving to the top-up degree should be deleted pending further discussion of the
possibility that this be made a requirement; the paragraph referring to staff
use of ILT needed updating and revision; the paragraph on staff development
should refer to the possibility of staff availing themselves of development
activities in the University.
(vi)
Section 9: was duplicated and should follow the paragraphs
on particular support for learning.
In the programme regulations:
(vii)
The maximum duration for of the programme if taken on a
part-time basis should, in the view of the panel, be 3 years.
(viii)
The entry requirements should be amended in line with
Section 5 of the programme specification.
(ix)
The final two paragraphs on reassessment should be deleted,
as they duplicated material in the preceding two paragraphs.
In the module specifications:
(x)
The credit level of the bridging modules would be more
appropriately be Level 5.
(xi)
The versions of the previously validated modules presented
to the panel were not those approved by the AD(T). In particular, the ‘Methods of teaching,
learning and assessment’ field in most cases required correction.
11.
It was resolved to
recommend to Learning and Teaching Committee that the proposed introduction
of a programme leading to the Honours degree of BSc in Applied Sports Science
(Management) be approved for validation with effect from session 2009/10,
subject to the College making the amendments to documentation noted above to
the satisfaction of the AD(T) SSH.
2-year full-time version of the FD
in Sports Performance (Football) (Distance Learning)
12.
In addition to the outline proposals, the panel received a
supportive letter from Tom Curtis, Head Football Coach at the University; a
letter from Myra Nimmo, Head of SSES, supporting the proposals in principle; an
outline of the support that would be available for students on the programme in
terms of online learning materials, tutorial time and formative assessment
methods; and the programme specification, programme regulations and module
specifications for the existing 3-year version of the programme.
13.
It was noted that the 3-year version of the Sports
Performance (Football) FD had been validated in 2007. Recruitment to the programme had been
deferred while further discussions took place with the relevant national bodies
and clubs concerning the particular needs of elite football players who formed
the target market. It was felt that the
3-year version would not cater for the needs of young talented players released
from clubs, who were looking for further structured training and coaching in
their sport as well as higher education qualifications. The 2-year version was centred around a
partnership with Loughborough Students Football to provide an elite training
programme for the players during their studies, for which the players/students
would be based in Loughborough. It was
noted that players had to be registered as full-time students to play for
Loughborough Students FC in BUCS matches.
To accommodate 1200 notional learning hours (120 credits) as well as the
performance development programme in each of the two years, the programme would
be structured across 48 weeks, from 1 August to 30 June including 8 weeks off
season. All modules would be by partial
distance learning, with contact hours blocked at set times during the
semester. The College submitted plans
showing how Part A of the programme might be scheduled across the year, and how
the programme delivery might be timetabled alongside the training and
competition schedule.
14.
The panel discussed the demand for the programme, noting
that the size of intake was limited by the scope for participation in the
Loughborough Students training programme.
Members noted the extra workload that it would generate for staff, as
the 2-year and 3-year versions of the programme would need to be delivered and
assessed separately, and queried whether the College had sufficient resources available.
The panel also queried whether the
delivery plans were realistic, in terms of the demands they placed on the
students.
15.
It was noted that students on the 2-year programme would in
fact have more face-to-face contact with tutors than students on the 3-year
version who were not in Loughborough, and more opportunities for obtaining
feedback. The number of taught hours,
and in most cases the learning and teaching methods, for each module would be
the same for both 2-year and 3-year programmes.
16.
The panel concluded that it would be premature at this point
to recommend the introduction of the 2-year version of the programme to
Learning and Teaching Committee. Further
information and documentation was needed on a number of points:
(i)
A sharper and more convincing rationale for the 2-year
programme.
(ii)
Documentation comparing the delivery and assessment
schedules for the 2-year and 3-year versions.
(iii)
An assessment of the additional resources needed to cope
with the delivery and assessment schedules for both versions, as well as the
additional pastoral support for the students, and assurances that such
resources would be available.
(iv)
Programme documentation amended as appropriate (programme
specification, regulations, module specifications) to differentiate between the
two versions.
17. The panel felt it important that there
should be only one entry point during the year for the 3-year version.
18. The panel would reconvene to consider the
proposal further, once the College had provided the further information and
documentation requested.
General issues
19. The panel was concerned whether
sufficient administrative support was available to the College teaching staff,
in the light of increasing student numbers, and the volume and complexity of
programme documentation and associated QA procedures. It welcomed the news that a new HE
administrator had very recently been appointed and would be taking up post
shortly.
20. In the light of the introduction of
additional validated programmes and increasing student numbers, the panel felt it
would be timely to consider the appointment of an additional external examiner.
21. The panel was not aware of the approval
route for new programmes within the College, prior to their presentation to the
University (or other external bodies) for validation, and asked that
information be sought about this.