Learning
and Teaching Committee is invited to note the following items from the meeting
of Curriculum Sub-Committee on 6 October 2011:
1. Categories of Postgraduate Taught Programmes
Arising from Minute 10/45.3, it was noted that the University’s
categories of PGT programmes were to be redefined. A
paper providing details of the new categories would be made available in coming
months. CSC may wish to note the paper at its next meeting and consider
requiring proposers of new PGT programmes to indicate
which category their programmes fell into when
completing proposal forms.
It was also noted that the new categories of programme would be used to allow prospective students to
carry out more sophisticated web searches of the University’s PGT offering.
2. Academic Quality Procedures Handbook
Members
considered a revised entry for section 3.1 of the Academic Quality Procedures
Handbook, Programmes of Study: Approval for New or Revised Programmes and Modules. AD(T)s
had been asked to comment on the proposed changes. Some had been content with
the changes whilst others had sought further detail for some aspects of the
handbook or clarification of the role of AD(T) in
relation to the process.
The Sub-Committee
considered who should take responsibility for approving proposals under the new
school structure, It was agreed that, for strategic stage proposals, approval
should be sought from the head of department in federated schools, then from
the AD(T) acting on behalf of the School and finally
from the Dean, with the Secretary to Operations Committee signing the form once
the Committee’s approval had been granted. In non-federated schools, the head
of department would be omitted from the process. Approval for operational stage
proposals would first be sought from the head of department in federated
schools and then from the AD(T) acting in an independent
capacity on behalf of the PVC(T), with the Secretary to CSC signing the form
once the Sub-Committee’s approval had been granted. In non-federated schools,
approval would be sought from the Dean and then from the AD(T).
The other proposal forms would be altered to follow suit. Should there be a difference
of opinion between the AD(T) and the proposer when
considering the proposal, the AD(T) should feel able to refer the matter to the
relevant head of department in a federated school or to the Dean in a
non-federated school.
The Head of PQTP
would make tracked changes to the handbook in response to the AD(T)s comments and would amend the forms to take account of
the Sub-Committee’s proposed changes. He would circulate both to members for
comment with a view to the Learning and Teaching Committee being asked to
approve the new forms at its meeting at the end of October.
ACTION: RP
It
was noted that the handbook should make it clear that strategic phase approval
for a new proposal should only remain valid for one year after it had been
granted. After this time, Schools would be required to reapply for this level
of approval.
A
member noted that offering postgraduate taught programmes
on a part-time basis only could severely restrict intake to the programmes, as Tier 4 rules did not permit international
students to study part-time in the UK on a student visa. The PVC(T)
would raise the matter with the Student Recruitment and Admissions Office.
ACTION: MB
The Director of the
Teaching Centre highlighted the importance of e-learning being considered at an
early stage in curriculum development. It was noted that the Secretary and the
Head of E-Learning had met to discuss ways in which proposers could be prompted
to consider e-learning when preparing programme and module proposals.
3. Annual Update Process
It was agreed
that the Secretary should meet with relevant staff within Loughborough Design
School to brief them on the annual update process.
ACTION: MA
Author – Martine Ashby
Date – October 2011
Copyright ©
Loughborough University. All rights reserved