Learning and Teaching Committee is invited to note the following items from the meeting of Curriculum Sub-Committee held 7 May 2009.
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.
The relevant minute of Senate was noted.
.2 Minute 09/2.4 – BSc (DPS) Web
Development and Design: New Programme Proposals
It
was noted that the Student Recruitment Team had recommended that when a new
programme proposal came forward to the relevant Directorate, the other two
Directorates would be notified by means of an agenda item and link to a web
address for further details. This procedure had been put in place and an
intranet site established for programme proposal forms.
.3 Minute 09/3 –
Credit Values of
It
was noted that Learning and Teaching Committee had felt it difficult for the
Sub-Committee to formulate guidance to departments without sight of actual
cases and had agreed to establish a sub-group to consider departmental
submissions and make recommendations through PQ Team to Learning and Teaching
Committee. The sub-group had met on 30
April 2009. A small number of programmes from four departments had been
submitted for consideration, mostly joint honours programmes. Account was taken
of external recognition requirements and the margin of shortfall against
expectations. With one exception, the shortfall was limited to 10 credits in
Part B or C. All proposals had been approved, though Physics had been requested
to pursue suggestions for decreasing the shortfall for the BSc in Sports
Science and Physics. Compliance with the University’s credit framework
was therefore not seen as a major problem.
.4 Minute 09/4.2 –
BA History and Politics/History and International Relations/ History and Geography/
History and English: New Programme Proposals
The
AD(T)s reported on the extent of modules having versions of different credit
value. There were examples in SSH, substantially in PIRES and Social Sciences,
in Engineering, relating to 10 credit D modules and 15-credit P modules, but
none had been reported in Science. It was understood that credit variants
provided a means of maximising choice to students and the merit in this
approach was appreciated. It would be expected, however, that these variants
would have different ILOs and that this would be reflected in the module
assessment. Where assessment was by examination it would be expected that this
would be different for the module variants. AD(T)s would check the ILOs and
assessment for credit variants during the annual update process.
.5 Minute 09/5.3 – BA English and
Drama: New Programme Proposals
(a)
The Sub-Committee noted
extracts from national QAA guidelines on ILOs. These were felt to be open to
interpretation but did suggest that there should be ILOs for each exit level of
a programme. The Sub-Committee was comfortable that it was able to determine
when ILOs were being met via the Curriculum Map for a programme.
(b)
Of greater concern was
paragraph 77 of the QAA Framework for Higher Education Qualifications that:
‘Higher education
providers ensure that:
·
the outcomes required for each of their qualifications are specified
clearly
·
achievement of those outcomes is demonstrated before a qualification is
awarded
·
assessment procedures that permit compensation or condonation are not
applied in a way that might allow a qualification to be awarded without
achievement of the full
outcomes being
demonstrated.’
University regulations did not require credit in
every module in order for a degree to be awarded and there was no systematic
check that students whose failure had been condoned had achieved all ILOs for
their programme. It was possible in cases where ILOs were only being assessed
in one module (or maybe more than one) that students could graduate without achieving
all the ILOs for the programme. It was necessary for the University to
formulate a clear view of whether this was acceptable and whether it would be
prepared to defend its position to the QAA, or whether a system should be put
in place to ensure that ILOs were achieved before an award was made. If ILOs
were well crafted it might be sufficient to expect them to be assessed by a
minimum of two modules, which could be monitored via Curriculum Maps, though
the University might still be vulnerable in this respect. Good curriculum
design and the crafting of ILOs was paramount, so that students could still
achieve all ILOs in spite of module failure, and departments should be made
aware of this through the guidance on Programme Specifications (see minute 09/19).
It was felt to be unworkable that Programme Boards could track the achievements
of individual students considered for condonement. It was AGREED that this
matter be forwarded to Programme Quality Team for further discussion and that
the approaches taken by comparator institutions be explored.
.6 Minute 09/10.3 –
It was agreed that the following
Availability Code should remain the same, but that departments should be advised that they could be
disadvantaging their students if they do not list optional modules in Programme Regulations:
‘Module is available to any
student meeting pre-requisites, but numbers will be restricted and priority will be given to students for
whom the module is listed in their Programme Regulations’.
2. Programme Specifications
.1 Further to Minute 09/2.3, the
Sub-Committee considered draft revised guidance and template for Programme
Specifications, to be adopted for new
programmes submitted to the Sub-Committee from October 2009. Members were
supportive of the proposal that Faculty Quality Enhancement Officers provide
advice to programme proposers when writing programme specifications, with a set
of exemplars being drawn from these new specifications in due course. The QEOs
would provide a time-frame of when their input would be available. It would be
voluntary but advisable for proposers to take advantage of this advice. In the
first instance existing Programme Specifications with exemplary sections would
need to be pulled together by the Secretary so that agreed criteria could be
determined for use by the QEOs. The Director of the Teaching Centre would
convene a meeting with the QEOs, ADTs and the Chair (if possible) to agree the
criteria, once the exemplary sections had been provided.
.2 PQ Team had requested that the
Sub-Committee consider whether the value of the proposed tabular format for
section 3 of the template was sufficient to justify the efforts involved.
Whilst members could see benefits in this format there was concern that there
may be repetition of information and that benefits in the current format might
be lost. It was AGREED that the proposed format should be tested on programmes
from each Faculty during the process of devising criteria for QEOs to work to.
.3 Subject to a decision on the format of
section 3, it was AGREED to approve the proposed template for adoption for new
programmes with effect from the October 2009 meeting of the Sub-Committee,
subject to the following revisions:
(a)
Guidance notes on Programme Learning Outcomes
(i) The need for programme learning outcomes
to be well crafted to help ensure that they can be met by students receiving an
award without full module credit should be incorporated in the notes.
(ii) ‘To ensure that students have
sufficient opportunity to be able to demonstrate programme learning outcomes,
it is recommended that these outcomes are assessed by at least two
modules’ to be added to the paragraph about the Curriculum Map (and also
as a footnote to the Curriculum Map template).
(iii) Reference to be made to the relevant FHEQ
statements for Master’s programmes.
(b)
Programme Specification template
(i)
Information in the initial box to include length of
programme.
(ii) Section 4: Revert to first sentence in
current template ‘You may wish to include an overview of programme
structure’.
Once the format of section 3
has been decided, the situations when departments would be required to update
their specifications to the new format would need to be determined. It was
suggested that this could be when major programme changes were submitted and
when Programme Specifications were submitted for Periodic Programme Review.
.1 The Sub-Committee considered proposals
from the Ergonomics & Safety Research Institute (ESRI) and Aeronautical and
Automotive Engineering for a new part-time programme with effect from October
2010. It was advised that the Department
of Aeronautical and Automotive Engineering had raised concerns that the
programme would not be appropriately placed within that department. Informal
discussions were underway about a possible alternative parent department for
the programme. The Sub-Committee agreed that these matters were outside its
remit and would need to be resolved elsewhere. It would nevertheless consider
the operational proposals at this point so that it would be possible for the
programme to be taken forward once the strategic issues had been resolved. The
Sub-Committee was clear, however, that the parent department would need to have
a sense of ownership of the programme and discuss the proposals within the
department as it would any other programme proposal.
.2 It was
AGREED to recommend the proposals to Learning and Teaching Committee once the
strategic issues had been resolved and there had been the opportunity for the
proposal to be discussed within the parent department. The
Sub-Committee’s recommendation was subject to the following matters being
resolved to the satisfaction of the AD(T) prior to the meeting of Learning and
Teaching Committee:
(a)
Programme
Regulations
(b)
Programme
Specification
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(c) Module Specifications
(i)
These would need
to be provided from the LUSI system once a parent department had been
determined.
(ii)
The length of
written assignments should be included. Aims and ILOs required further
development. ‘Flexible private study sessions’ required further
explanation as to whether or not they involved a tutor.
(iii)
TTP702: The
weight of the two assignments should be presented.
(d) Curriculum Map
The proposers should be aware that outcomes C4 and P1
were only being assessed by one module each.
(e) Assessment Matrix
Continuous
assessment was entirely by report. If the outcome T1 was intended to include
oral presentation, this was not being assessed.
(f) Clarification
was required as to whether ESRI staff were subject to teaching
observation/training.
4. Major Changes to Programme Regulations
The Sub-Committee approved the
following procedure for the approval of major changes to Programme Regulations
for the period to October 2009.
Proposals would receive Curriculum Sub-Committee consideration by post
at the discretion of the Chair. Where
concerns were raised a second circulation would summarise these and invite a
formal decision. The Chair would be
empowered to determine whether the replies constituted a consensus.
5. Annual Update of Module Specifications and Programme Regulations/Specifications
The Sub-Committee
noted:
.1 The memorandum
circulated to departments on 24 February 2009 (without Annexes).
.2 The proposal forms for Module
Specification and Programme Regulation/Specification changes for 2009/10.
.3 Validated Programmes: The procedure and
timetable for revision and approval of Module Specifications and Programme
Regulations/Specifications for 2009/10.
Author
– Jennie Elliott
Date
– May 2009
Copyright
© Loughborough University. All rights
reserved