Senate
Subject: Academic Credit
Origin: Learning
and Teaching Committee 15 February 2007 (unconfirmed minutes)
Senate approval is sought for the recommendations set
out under (vii) to (xv) below.
Learning and Teaching
Committee considered proposals from the Programme Development and Quality Team
concerning the University’s arrangements for the use of credit
It was noted:
(i) that the final report of the Burgess
Group, ‘Proposals for national arrangements for the use of academic
credit in higher education in
(ii) that, as anticipated, Burgess had
proposed that credit arrangements should be developed at a national level,
structured as a framework linked to the FHEQ, and accompanied by non-prescriptive
guidelines which would indicate the number of credits normally associated with
the main HE awards, and the minimum number of credits within the overall total
normally associated with the level of the award;
(iii) that the Burgess proposals related to the
credit values of the programmes on offer, and that the achievements of
individual students could be affected by rules on, for example, condonement,
which would remain at the specific discretion of each institution;
(iv) that PDQ felt it was important to be able
to demonstrate that the University’s own credit arrangements stood up to
scrutiny against the national guidelines; the fact that the University did not
make proper use of credit levels was a significant omission;
(v) that credit levels were generally
considered a basic component of any credit framework, with credit level
descriptors indicating the relative demand, complexity and depth of learning
and of learner autonomy expected at each level; individual modules would be
assigned to a single credit level by reference to an agreed set of level
descriptors;
(vi) that PDQ had brought forward a range of
proposals to rectify this anomaly in the University’s credit arrangements
and to incorporate the use of credit levels in a staged way with as little
upheaval as possible.
The Committee endorsed the proposals and resolved to recommend to Senate that
the following course of action be adopted:
(vii)
that all modules be assigned to credit levels;
(viii) that the summary NICATS level descriptors
(included in the Burgess Report) be used as a basis for assigning modules to
credit levels;
(ix)
that the existing letter prefixes in the module codes be
used to represent credit levels:
A - level
4
B - level 5
C - level 6
D or P - level
7
(x)
that departments review the codes of all existing modules
and, where necessary, change individual module codes to reflect the appropriate
credit level to which the module should be assigned;
(xi)
that a statement be formulated of the University’s
normal expectations on the credit structure of its awards, that accord with the
national credit guidelines and allow the same amount of flexibility;
(xii)
that departments, having re-coded their modules where
necessary, compare their programmes against these expectations and be prepared
to provide a rationale for any divergence from the standard model, for
consideration by CSC. (It is anticipated
that, for example, some joint/combined honours programmes might fall outside
it; as might Bachelors programmes where a mixture of B and C coded modules is
taken across Parts B and C, or integrated Masters programmes where a mixture of
C and D coded modules is taken across Parts C and D.);
(xiii)
that CSC also be asked to ensure that new programme
proposals fall within the appropriate norms or that a rationale is otherwise
provided;
(xiv)
that University degree regulations should remain as far as
possible unchanged, for example, in terms of the criteria for progression and
in relation to condonement;
(xv)
that CIS be asked in the context of the LUSI project,
whether the letter prefix in module codes could be automatically translated
into the corresponding national credit level number in appropriate outputs from
the LUSI system in the future.
It was also noted:
(xvi)
that,
notwithstanding the University’s stance on credit levels generally,
Senate had resolved in 2004 that no more than 20 ‘C-level’ credits
should be permitted in Part D of an extended undergraduate programme. [This will in future be superseded by the
statement referred to under (xi) above.]
(xvii)
that Electronic
and Electrical Engineering had sought a relaxation of the above ruling in the
particular case of the MEng in Systems Engineering, to allow students to
‘undertake at least 100 credits of D or P level materials in the last two
years of an extended undergraduate programme’.
(xviii)
that PDQ had been
inclined to approve the proposal as a departure from the ‘norm’, on
the understanding that it currently met with the requirements of the
accrediting body/bodies concerned;
(xix)
that it would be
necessary however to keep a watching brief on developments affecting the
acceptability of the
Author – Robert Bowyer
Date – February 2007
Copyright © Loughborough University. All rights reserved