Learning and Teaching Committee

LTC02-M1

[Minutes ]

Minutes of the Twentieth Meeting of the Committee held on 14 February 2002:

Present: Professor I C Morison (Chair); Professor S A Austin; D Blease; J G Dickens;

Dr D R Green; Ms A Hilton (ab); Professor M A King; Dr C M Linton; W P J Maunder;

Professor R McCaffer (ab); Dr P N Murgatroyd; Dr J C Nutkins; J Staples; Professor D J Wallace (ab); Dr D A Wilson

Apologies: Ms A Hilton

In attendance: R A Bowyer, Professor M H Smith (for Minute 02/12), Dr R B Wilcockson

(for Minute 02/06)

02/01 Business of the Agenda

Item 11 (External Examiners' Reports) was withdrawn: proposals would be brought forward to the next meeting as part of a wider response to the QAA Code of Practice on External Examining.

02/02 Minutes

The Minutes of the nineteenth meeting of the committee held on 8 November 2001 were confirmed and signed.

02/03 Matters Arising

.1 M.01/58 Examination Timetable

Discussions about the adoption of a timetable involving three slots a day were still ongoing. However, it was hoped that an accommodation would soon be reached over the future of Saturday examinations. A productive meeting had taken place between Academic Registry, LSU and LAUT. A general relaxation of the requirement that internal examiners should be available to come to the examination hall in person while their examinations were in progress to handle any queries on the examination paper had been proposed. Examiners would instead be required to be available by telephone and have a copy of the examination paper with them. LAUT had been formally asked to consider the proposal and a response was awaited.

.2 M.01/61 Collaboration with the University of Sharjah, UAE

A meeting had been held with Professor Kavanagh and Professor Wheeler to discuss the proposed collaboration in further detail. Difficulties were foreseen in a number of areas and a judgment had been taken that it would be unwise for the University to expose itself to the potential risks involved in proceeding further. The PVC(T) had informed Professor Kavanagh and Professor Wheeler of this decision.

.3 M.01/56 TQEF Projects

There had been no indication from those involved in the CAA project whether the problems over web-browser based authoring could be resolved. It was agreed to seek further information.

ACTION: AH

.4 Senate Approval

It was noted that Senate had approved the Committee’s recommendations in respect of

(i) Programme Proposals

(ii) Starting Time of Lectures

(iii) Validation of Foundation Degree Programme at Loughborough College

02/04 Curriculum Sub-Committee

Consideration was given to matters referred by the Curriculum Sub-Committee from its meeting held on 17 January 2002.

.1 Registrations on Postgraduate Programmes: Credit Limit

LTC02-P1

The Committee upheld the view of the Curriculum Sub-Committee that Masters students should be allowed to overshoot the 180 credit limit if necessary to accommodate preferred option choices when programmes involved a mix of 10 or 20 and 15 weighted modules. It was acknowledged that this would cause some difficulties for the Academic Registry, but it was hoped that the necessary systems changes could be put in place by October 2002.

It was RESOLVED:

(i) That the Academic Registry be asked to examine in detail the implications of allowing registration on modules to an upper limit of 185 credits and report back in the May/June round of meetings.

(ii) That in the interim, modular credit values be adjusted where this was essential to prevent the credit total of 180 being exceeded, bearing in mind any implications for part-time students. This would typically mean adjusting a 60-credit project module by ±5% and submitting the adjusted module specification for approval in the normal way.

Members felt that the best solution in the longer term would be the standardisation of modular credit values in multiples of 10 or 15.

.2 MDes, MA/MSc in Industrial Design with Secondary Subject

LTC02-P2

The Committee considered proposals for the introduction of a programme leading to the degree of Master of Design and MA/MSc programmes in Industrial Design with a Secondary Subject. The AD(T) reported that the matters set out in the report of the Curriculum Sub-Committee had been satisfactorily addressed by the Department.

It remained for the Committee to determine whether to recommend to Senate the introduction of the degree Master of Design (MDes) as a new postgraduate award. In the course of its discussion, the Committee noted

(i) that the University had adopted titles reflecting the subject focus of Masters degrees only in the case of extended undergraduate programmes up to now (with the exception of the MBA).

(ii) that the Department had produced evidence of the MDes being widely accepted amongst the international design community and being used by a good number of UK universities.

(iii) that several other UK universities which used the MDes as a postgraduate award also offered integrated undergraduate Masters degrees with the ‘M’ prefix.

(iv) that the HE Qualifications Framework offered no guidance on the matter of subject specific titles.

It was RECOMMENDED to Senate that the Degree of Master of Design (MDes) be introduced as a postgraduate award of the University.

It was RECOMMENDED that the new programmes be approved for introduction with effect from September 2002.

02/05 Graduate Apprenticeships: Diploma in Professional Development

LTC02-P3

It was RESOLVED to RECOMMEND to Senate the introduction of the award of ‘Diploma in Professional Development’ for use in conjunction with the undergraduate level Graduate Apprenticeship framework being developed by the University and to ENDORSE the proposed amendments to Regulation XI to provide for the award, subject to the omission of the additional paragraph 4.2(iii).

02/06 QAA Code of Practice on Placement Learning

LTC02-P4

The Committee considered a report from a PDQ Working Group chaired by Dr Robin Wilcockson. The general tenor of the report was that the University’s own Code of Practice on Industrial/Professional Training was reasonably in line with the QAA Code, but needed some strengthening particularly in respect of skills and assessment issues. There were felt to be many examples of good practice in handling placement learning across the campus. These needed to be shared and built upon.

The following points were noted in the course of discussion on the group’s recommendations:

Recommendation 1

The Committee welcomed the proposals, recognising that the intention was for the Careers Service to provide an enhanced level of information support for Industrial Training Tutors rather than perform a central agency role.

Recommendation 2

The Committee endorsed the proposal to revise and re-issue the University’s Code of Practice on Industrial/Professional Training.

Recommendation 3

Departments needed a strategy for dealing with the predominantly optional character of the DIS/DPS. They needed to determine the Intended Learning Outcomes for the placement year and consider whether, and if so how, to differentiate the pathway taken by non-DIS/DPS students from that of students returning from placement in the final year. The Committee would not wish to see any disbenefit to students who had not had the placement experience.

The assignment of Intended Learning Outcomes to the placement year would suggest that the criteria for the assessment of the placement would need to be more tightly drawn.

The Committee was generally in favour of the suggestion that the award of distinction should be available on the DIS/DPS and wished Faculties to be consulted about this.

It was felt that concerns about the substance of the placement year, and value for money issues, pointed to the need to address the pastoral support given to students rather than structural issues such as the award of credit.

The Committee agreed that a student’s eligibility for the award of DIS/DPS should not be dependent on success in the degree. The Committee was sympathetic to the suggestion that DIS/DPS results should be made known before students completed their programme. It was suggested it would heighten the profile of the placement year and students’ sense of accomplishment if Diploma certificates could be made available as soon as possible after the completion of the placement and associated dissertation, though it was recognised that the need to involve External Examiners might make this difficult to achieve.

Recommendation 4

The Committee suggested that guidelines should be issued to departments, clarifying the University’s responsibilities for the health and safety of students while they were on placement. It would be advisable to cover situations where students were not in employment during their placement year (eg on a study-year abroad). It was noted that Dr Wilcockson was proposing to have discussions with the University’s Health and Safety Officer.

The Working Group was thanked for its work so far and asked to continue in being to advise further on the implementation of its proposals. It was RESOLVED in particular to invite the Working Group to enlist the support of the Careers Service as proposed under Recommendation 1, to complete the tasks identified under Recommendations 2 and 4, and work up proposals on the issues raised under Recommendation 3 for further consultation. The Group was asked to report back to the PDQ Team.

ACTION: RBW

02/07 Departmental Learning, Teaching and Assessment Strategies

LTC02-P5

The Committee received a report on an initiative launched through the PDQ Team to provide support to departments for the development and implementation of learning, teaching and assessment strategies. One department in each faculty had been selected to pilot the approach and positive meetings had already taken place with two of the departments.

It was acknowledged that there would be resource implications in helping departments to implement their plans. It was hoped the initiative would help to refocus some of the support provided by central services.

02/08 Student Appeals Procedure

LTC02-P6

The Committee received a report on the operation of the Student Appeals procedure since its introduction at the end of the 2000/01 session. A number of changes were proposed to Regulation XIV, partly to reflect the way in which in practice it had been agreed to operate the procedure and partly to tidy up the wording. The Committee, on the advice of the PDQ Team, ENDORSED the changes proposed, which it was felt would help to ensure the smooth operation and effectiveness of the appeals procedure.

02/09 Regulation Changes

LTC02-P7

The Committee considered proposals for amendments to General and Assessment Regulations for Undergraduate Awards (GRUA/ARUA 2000), to clarify issues concerning re-assessment, notably

· The position of students who having submitted impaired performance claims were required to complete further assessed work, but also had reassessments to undertake in other modules.

· The position of students who transferred between programmes where there were modules common to both programmes.

In the first of these two situations, the intention was to allow students to undertake deferred first attempt assessments and second attempt assessments at the same time, without being forced to lose a year. The relevant regulation changes had proved somewhat problematic, since in certain cases the extent of students’ reassessment rights could not be determined before the deferred assessments had been completed. This was the case where progression was dependent on the achievement of an average mark for the Part. In order to avoid students being granted reassessment rights to which ultimately they might not be entitled, it would be assumed that they would achieve 100% in all parts of the module assessment they were taking as a deferred first attempt. The Committee was assured that no students would be in a worse position than under the present regulations; many could benefit from being able to exercise their reassessment rights without delay.

It was noted that the proposed amendments had already been submitted to Ordinances and Regulations Committee, and a report from that Committee was included in the supporting papers. A number of additional changes had been requested, which Learning and Teaching Committee was content to endorse. Particular consideration was given to an alteration to GRUA para.19(c) proposed by O&R Committee. This concerned students whose programme regulations required them to achieve a combination of a minimum number of credits and a minimum module mark in a number of unspecified modules. The Committee agreed with reference to the example given in the papers that such students should have the option to be reassessed in any module or modules in which they had failed to obtain credit at the first attempt, provided that in modules in which they had already met the minimum mark requirement, their reassessments were limited to the minimum total modular weight necessary to make up their credit deficit. Attention was drawn to the fact that the wording of para.19(c) as presented would require further amendment to prevent students opting to resit all modules in which they had failed to obtain credit.

ACTION: CS

Subject to the above, the Committee ENDORSED the changes proposed which would be applied to both GRUA/ARUA 2000 and GRUA/ARUA 1999.

It was noted that a more thorough redrafting of GRUA and ARUA was proposed, with a view to their simplification and consolidation. It might be necessary however to standardise the many and varied progression requirements in programme regulations in order to achieve a more straightforward set of regulations at the institutional level. Equity would continue to be a guiding principle, but it was acknowledged that the complexity of the current regulations led to inequities because to some students they were unclear or confusing. It was suggested that a set of flow diagrams might be helpful.

02/10 Student Feedback

LTC02-P9

The Director of Quality Enhancement presented a report on the results of student feedback for 2000/01, incorporating individual reports from the Heads of the central services: Library, Computing Services and Audio Visual Services. These reports indicated that discussions about the majority of low-scoring modules had taken place with relevant departments. Some outstanding issues were being pursued.

Attention was drawn to the fact that there had been criticism from departments of the need to formally collect OMR feedback at the end of programmes. Consideration would be given to abandoning the programme feedback form and instead encouraging departments to collect information about their programmes in whatever way they thought most appropriate. It was felt it would be desirable at the same time to encourage departments to seek formal feedback on all modules every time they ran. These matters would need to be considered in the light of decisions on the ‘Cooke Report’ concerning the collection and publication of information on quality and standards of teaching and learning in HE.

ACTION: DB

02/11 Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001

LTC02-P10

The Committee received a briefing note produced by the Technology for Disabilities Information Service (TechDis). It was noted that the University would be required to take such steps as were reasonable to prevent a disabled person being placed at a disadvantage. This included matters such as access to the curriculum and learning resources. There was an anticipatory aspect to this duty.

It was suggested there might be a need for an academic in each department to be nominated to liaise with central services and ensure that the implications of the Act were taken into account. The initiative to support the development and implementation of departmental learning, teaching and assessment strategies would ensure that the implications of the Act were considered by departments, but it might be some time before all departments were covered. It was AGREED that the PVC(T) would in the meantime take up the suggestion with Wendy Llewellyn and David Jackson.

ACTION: ICM, DAW

It was noted that the internal distribution of HEFCE disability premiums was under consideration.

02/12 Language Teaching

LTC02-P18

The Committee received a report from the Department of European Studies on the future of language teaching at Loughborough. The Committee supported the revisions proposed by the Department to its portfolio which were designed to maintain and make more accessible good quality language teaching both within the Department and across the University. It was noted that substantive proposals would be brought forward to Curriculum Sub-Committee at its May meeting.

02/13 Curriculum Sub-Committee

.1 Strategic Planning

LTC02-P11

It was RESOLVED to RECOMMEND new programme proposals, changes of title and discontinuations to Senate, on the advice of the Curriculum Sub-Committee, from its meeting held on 17 January 2002.

.2 Matters for information

LTC02-P12

Further discussions of the Curriculum Sub-Committee at its meeting on 17 January 2002 were noted.

02/14 Annual Report of Quality Enhancement

LTC02-P13

The committee received the Annual Report for 2000/01.

02/15 Information on Quality and Standards of Teaching and Learning (01/66)

LTC02-P14

The Committee noted the University's response to the HEFCE Consultation Document.

02/16 Supply and Demand in Higher Education (01/62)

LTC02-P15

The Committee noted the University's response to the HEFCE Consultation Document.

02/17 Fund for the Development of Teaching and Learning (FDTL) 4 Bids

LTC02-P16

The Committee noted two bids submitted in FDTL phase 4.

02/18 European Activities Group

LTC02-P17

The Committee noted the establishment of a European Activities Group.

02/19 Date of Next Meeting

Thursday 6 June 2002 at 09.30 am

Author - Robert Bowyer

Date - February 2002