Learning and Teaching Committee

Report of a Validation Panel on proposals from Loughborough College for strategic changes to validated Foundation Degree programmes

Background

1. Earlier this year, Loughborough College brought forward proposals for the revision of the interrelated Foundation Degrees validated by the University in

· Sports Science

· Sports Science with Sports Management

· Exercise, Health and Fitness with Management

· Sports Coaching.

2. In view of the ‘strategic’ nature of the changes, 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. The outline proposals were also submitted to the School of Sport and Exercise Sciences for comment. They were presented to the School’s Learning and Teaching Committee, which was happy to see the changes taken forward for validation.

3. LTC at its February meeting referred the proposals to a validation panel with the same membership as had considered changes in the Honours top-up degree earlier in the session, namely:

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 Thursday 7 May 2009 at Loughborough College. David Stead joined the panel on the day as a second subject adviser from SSES, and Claire Atkins, Academic Registry, was also in attendance. The panel received more detailed documentation from the College and held discussions with the following staff:

Eric Macintyre, HE Senior Manager

Elaine Locke, Team Leader for Sport in HE

Nicki Hayes, Administrator in Sport, Exercise and Fitness

Discussion of the proposals

5. The panel was provided with a rationale for the proposals. The expansion of programmes and addition of new modules since the launch of the Sports Science FD in 2001 had become difficult to manage; there were issues with recruitment and retention; first time success rates at Part A were disappointing; and feedback from staff and students had suggested that the content and structure of the current programmes could be improved to make them more distinctive and vocationally relevant, and align with the occupational standards issued by Skills Active, the relevant sector skills council.

6. It was proposed to reduce the number of modules, from 50 to 29, by using 20-credit modules across the board. Some new areas had been introduced and some discontinued. There would remain four programmes, three with revised titles (listed in the same order as in 1 above):

· Sports Science

· Sports Development and Management

· Exercise Science, Physical Activity and Health

· Sports Coaching and Teaching

Each programme would include six core modules (common to all programmes), and specific modules relevant to the programme area. There would be some limited choice of optional modules on the first and last of the four programmes listed, but the nature of the other two programmes was considered such that no optional modules would be offered. Module assessments had been revised. There would be only one 20-credit industrial placement module on each programme (previously one 10-credit module in Part A and a 20-credit module in Part B), but the opportunity had been taken to embed opportunities for vocational/industrial experience in other modules.

7. The panel, including the subject advisers, considered the proposals timely and felt that the changes improved the suite of programmes and constituent modules. A small number of issues were however raised with the College staff in the course of discussion.

8. The panel had a concern over the proposed title ‘Sports Coaching and Teaching’. It was noted that the programme specification focussed predominantly on coaching and only one module on the programme was explicitly concerned with pedagogy. It was felt that the use of ‘Teaching’ in the title did not reflect the content and might be misleading, possibly implying that it led to a recognised teaching qualification. The College view was that many students who were attracted to the programme were interested in working with children and young people in schools and other contexts and possibly considering teaching as an eventual career, and it was therefore a good choice of title from a promotional point of view. Students would be encouraged to undertake their industrial placement in an environment relevant to their vocational intentions, and could select appropriate case studies for assessments in other modules, in order to develop their specific interests. They would also have voluntary opportunities to put their skills into practice on-campus with young people through the Leadership Academy. It was not thought a teaching qualification would be inferred.

9. The panel discussed the introduction of ‘Sports Development’ into the title of one of the programmes, and the way in which the term was being used. This was clarified by reference to the content and assessments proposed for the two Sports Development Project modules in particular, and the panel was reassured by the response it received. It was noted that the College also offered a one-year Honours top-up in ‘Leisure Management with Sports Development’ validated by NTU, which was administered and delivered by the Leisure Management team in the College. The panel was assured that the programme was quite distinct from the Sports Development and Management proposal and, as it was a top-up degree limited to FD/HND-holders, there would not be confusion from a recruitment point of view.

10. In its scrutiny of the documentation, the panel found some inconsistencies between the description and table of the content and structure that appeared in the outline proposals, and the programme regulations later in the papers. The College explained that there had been some minor changes after the outline proposals had been submitted; these were reflected in the programme regulations, whereas the outline document was submitted in its original format. It was pointed out to the College that in certain programme regulations the distribution of modules (and therefore student workload) appeared to be out of balance across the two semesters. A 70:50 split in the 120 credits could be allowed, but should not be exceeded.

11. It was noted that the College was proposing a relaxation of the progression requirements from Part A to Part B, requiring students to obtain 100 credits and a modular mark of 30% in the remaining 20 credits, whereas 120 credits had previously been required. This was acceptable to the panel and within the approved Regulations for validated UG awards. There would need to be an amendment to the assessment requirements stated in the programme regulations which currently stated that 240 credits were required for the award of the FD.

12. The panel suggested that the reassessment requirements set out in the programme regulations should be transferred to the General Regulations for validated UG awards, and revised to reflect recent changes in University Regulation XX.

13. The panel sought assurance from the College that with the reduction in credits allocated to the industrial placement element of the programmes, there was still sufficient industrial/vocational experience to meet normal expectations of Foundation Degrees. The College indicated that feedback from staff, students, external examiners and the recent QAA IQER had been that the previous dual-placement arrangements had been repetitive and of questionable value. There would in future be opportunities within other modules for students to gain experience and practical skills appropriate to the relevant employment sector.

14. The panel received curricula vitae for new teaching staff whose personal details had not previously been submitted to the University. The individuals concerned were deemed approved to act as module organisers/internal examiners. The College informed the panel that staffing resources had improved significantly and in 2009/10 the programmes would be taught entirely by full-time staff working exclusively in HE. Staff were being encouraged to pursue higher degrees where appropriate and there was a cross-College review in progress of terms and conditions.

15. The panel also received a late request from the College for the classification of Foundation Degrees and the CertHE. The College believed it to be the case that the majority of Foundation Degrees across the country were now classified, and the College already operated a classification scheme with some of its other validating partners. The proposal was for both the CertHE and the Foundation Degree to be classified as follows, on the basis of Part A and Part B marks respectively:

70% and above Distinction

60-69% Commendation

40-59% Pass

16. It was noted that the University awarded the CertHE to internal students without classification. It was felt it would therefore be inconsistent to classify CertHEs awarded to students on validated programmes, and it was unlikely that Senate would look favourably on introducing a classification scheme for the award. The panel was unwilling therefore to take this proposal forward.

17. In the case of the Foundation Degree however the panel was prepared to support the proposal in principle, as it appeared to be in line with developments nationally, subject to the categories being changed to Distinction/Merit/Pass. It was noted that the classification scheme would need to be written into the General Regulations for validated UG awards.

18. College staff alluded to the need for students on the FD programmes to undergo a CRB check before they took up certain placement opportunities, without which they would not be able to complete their module assessments. The CRB check was effectively compulsory therefore and the question arose how best to enforce it. It was noted that PGCE students in the University were required to undergo a CRB check before admission to the programme, and it was suggested that the College have discussions with the University staff involved about the administration and timing of these checks.

19. Attention was drawn to the reference in the outline proposals to the introduction of partial distance learning variants of the programmes. The College did not propose to pursue this possibility before the 2010 entry. It was noted that additional documentation would be required before approval could be given.

Recommendations

20. With the exception of the introduction of the title ‘Sports Coaching and Teaching’ and subject to some minor amendments to the documentation as listed below, It was resolved to recommend to Learning and Teaching Committee that the proposed changes in the four FD programmes be approved.

21. In the case of the Sports Coaching programme, it was suggested that the College have further discussions with the University subject specialists about the proposed title and content, with a view to finding an alternative way forward acceptable to the panel as a whole (para 8).

22. It was also suggested that there be a dialogue between the relevant curriculum areas in the College over the interpretation of ‘Sports Development’, to ensure that there were no misunderstandings over the use of the term and students were not in any way misled (para 9)

23. The College was asked to discuss the distribution of modules/credit across the two semesters with the AD(T) and amend the programme regulations as necessary (para 10).

24. The College was asked to discuss with the PQ Team Manager the necessary amendments to programme regulations in relation to assessment and reassessment requirements (paras 11 and 12).

25. It was also resolved to recommend to Learning and Teaching Committee that approval be given to the introduction of a classification scheme for Foundation Degrees (para 17).

26. The PQ Team Manager was asked to re-draft General regulations for validated UG awards to set out reassessment arrangements in line with Regulation XX (para 12), and to accommodate the proposed classification scheme (para 17).

Author – Robert Bowyer

Date – May 2009