Learning and Teaching Committee

Curriculum Sub-Committee

CSC09-M2

Minutes of the Meeting of the Sub-Committee held on Thursday 7 May 2009

Membership: Professor Simon Austin (Chair), Professor Morag Bell, Dr Paul Byrne,
Professor John Dickens, Dr Martin Harrison, Dr Jane Horner, Danny McNeice (ab), Ian Murray,

Phil Sawdon, Jan Tennant

In attendance: Dr Jennie Elliott

09/16 Business of the Agenda

Item 10 was withdrawn and items 4.3 and 17 were unstarred.

09/17 Minutes

CSC09-M1

The Minutes of the meeting held on 22 January 2009 were confirmed. A request from a programme proposer to revise minute 09/4 was rejected on the grounds that the minutes should only be amended to correct factual inaccuracies.

09/18 Matters Arising from the Minutes

CSC09-P14

.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 Loughborough University Awards

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.

Action: AD(T)s

.5 Minute 09/5.3 – BA English and Drama: New Programme Proposals

CSC09-P15

(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.

Action: JEME

.6 Minute 09/10.3 – Low Carbon Building Design and Modelling: New programme Proposals

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’.

Action: JEME

09/19 Programme Specifications

CSC09-P16

.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.

Action: JEME, SAA, JMT, AD(T)s, QEOs

.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.

` Action: QEOs

.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.

Action: JEME

09/20 BSc (DPS/DIntS) Engineering Management: New Programme Proposals

CSC09-P17

.1 The Sub-Committee considered proposals from Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering for a new full-time programme with effect from October 2010 entry. Concern was expressed about some common teaching in Part A with the SEFS foundation programme, and with the inclusion of A modules in Part B, C modules in Part B and particularly D modules in part C. The programme did, however, conform to the University’s credit framework, but the possibility that Part D students on extended programmes could be taught together with Part C students on this programme was not felt to be acceptable.

.2 It was noted that the award for the programme was BSc rather than BEng, that accreditation was unlikely to be sought, and that A-level Mathematics would not be an entry requirement to the programme. The latter was likely to be influencing the timing of modules so that students had the necessary mathematical background for some of the engineering modules. The Sub-Committee was unclear, however, as to the intended student market for the programme, the careers that its graduates were likely to pursue and how industry would perceive these graduates. The programme appeared to have been designed with a small management component to make it more attractive to students who would be unlikely to be accepted onto BEng/MEng programmes. This concern was echoed in the comments from the external assessor.

.3 It was AGREED to recommend the proposals to Learning and Teaching Committee subject to the following matters being resolved to the satisfaction of the AD(T) prior to the meeting of Learning and Teaching Committee:

(a) A statement should be provided of the students likely to be recruited to the programme and the likely careers that graduates would pursue.

(b) The proposers should reflect on the wisdom of common teaching with the SEFS programme. Foundation students moving to this programme might find themselves having to repeat material they have already covered. If common teaching was necessary there should be some differentiation in assessment for the different student groups.

(i) The proposers should: reflect on the mix of module levels in each Part; explore ways to include MMA102 in Part A; and avoid the use of D modules in Part C, perhaps by the use of appropriate C modules from the Business School.

(ii) Para 2.3.2: Delete ‘normally’ from the final sentence and/or provide a fallback position for students unable to work on an individual project (presumably worth 20 credits).

(iii) Para 3.1: Delete ‘(40%)’ as this was superfluous.

(d) Programme Specification

(i) Para 3: ILOs on management needed to be strengthened. The section on TLA strategy was not very informative: Strategies must be explained under each type of ILO.

(ii) Para 5: This should be a link to the prospectus entry, when available.

(iii) Para 6: ‘This rule is applied to ensure that students are not permitted to skip modules on which later material may be based’ to be reworded with a more positive slant.

(iv) Para 7: ‘accredited’ to be deleted, assuming this was not applicable.

(e) Module Specifications

(i) Presentation of all the specifications required some improvement.

(ii) MMA110/111: More than one knowledge and understanding ILO and at least one transferable skill would be expected. It was unclear whether the 22 hours of effort for the module comprised both lectures and tutorials. The 3-hour exam for MMA110 seemed excessive for a 10-credit module.

(iii) MMB102: This module did not appear in the Programme Regulations. Should its modular weight be 10 rather than 20?

(iv) MMB610, MMA210, MMB102: Reference to timings in the MTLA field should be removed.

Action: JEME, JGD

09/21 MSc Signal Processing in Communication Systems: New Programme Proposals

CSC09-P18

The Sub-Committee considered proposals from Electronic and Electrical Engineering for a new full-time/part-time programme with effect from October 2009. The programme would provide an additional variant in the suite of Digital Communication Systems postgraduate programmes. It was AGREED to recommend the proposals to Learning and Teaching Committee 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

Delete paras 3.2 and 3.4. This information should be included in module specifications.

(b) Programme Specification

(i) Para 1: Some of these were couched in marketing terms rather than aims. ‘Enable’ would be more appropriate than ‘permit’.

(ii) Para 3: The ILOs for each programme variant should be differentiated. More aspirational language would be expected for knowledge and understanding outcomes for a Masters programme.

(iii) Para 4: The text should be reduced to the hyperlink to Programme Regulations.

(iv) Para 5: The text should be reduced to a hyperlink to the prospectus entry.

(v) Para 6: Information replicated in Regulation XXI should be removed.

(vi) Para 7: A statement about the distinctiveness of the programme suite, followed by comments on the specialisations, would be expected.

(vii) The project work would be expected to feature more in the Programme Specification as it appears to be quite significant.

(i) ELP012: Prerequisites were not required as all modules were compulsory. ILO 2(i) was not a learning outcome.

(ii) All modules on the programme should be checked for ILOs that were appropriately expressed.

(d) Curriculum Map

(i) It was surprising that T2 was only met by the project module; fortunately students were required to pass this module.

(ii) A Curriculum Map covering the suite of programmes was required.

(e) Assessment Matrix

(i) There appeared to be little variation in assessment across the modules, but may depend on the type of case studies. Confirmation of this was required.

(ii) Assuming that the 0.5 hour examination listed for the project was the viva, this should not be appearing in the examination column.

(f) Consultation Forms

The awaited responses from the External Assessors were required, which should be supportive.

Action: JEME, JGD

09/22 MSc Road and Vehicle Safety: New Programme Proposals

CSC09-P19

.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

Para 3.5: Delete ‘where suitable modules are available’.

(b) Programme Specification

(i) Para 2: Remove ‘The research interests…disciplines’ as this was inappropriate.

(ii) Para 3.1: The first sentence was not useful to prospective students. A clearer statement was needed about the remote support and whether there would be access to tutor support.

(iii) Para 3.2b: ‘set up real world studies’ should be more clearly explained.

(iv) Para 4: The link to the correct programme regulations would need to be inserted in due course.

(v) Para 5: A hyperlink to the prospectus would need to be inserted in due course.

(vi) Para 6: Information replicated in Regulation XXI should be removed.

(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.

Action: JEME, JGD

09/23 MSc Information and Knowledge Management: Major Programme Changes

CSC09-P20

The Sub-Committee considered major programme changes with effect from October 2009 entry.

The changes involved a repackaging of existing material from 10-credit to 15-credit modules so that the programme was consistent with other postgraduate programmes in the department, and the withdrawal of modules taught jointly at UG and PG level. It was AGREED to recommend the proposals to Learning and Teaching Committee, 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

Para 2.1: ‘May onwards’ to be deleted.

(b) Programme Specification

(i) Para 2: Annual Programme Review, External Examiners’ reports and Staff Student Committees to be deleted as these were inappropriate.

(ii) Para 3: Module titles to be removed from ILOs. Wording of subject-specific cognitive skills should be reconsidered as to whether they were sufficiently demanding for a Masters programme. The FHEQ descriptors would provide an indication of better wording.

(iii) Para 5: The text should be reduced to a hyperlink to the prospectus entry.

(iv) Para 6: Information replicated in Regulation XXI should be removed

(i) ISP508: Second aim to read ‘to introduce students to software packages that are commonly used for web design’. Reference to field trip in feedback section to be clarified.

(ii) ISP509: ‘Academic essay’ in MTLA field to be clarified.

(d) Curriculum Map

Assessment of knowledge and understanding outcomes appeared light, with the exception of ISP487. The proposers should reflect on this and whether, for example, the dissertation module included some assessment of these outcomes.

Action: JEME, MCH

09/24 MEng Innovative Manufacturing Engineering: Proposed Additional Pathway to MEng Innovative Manufacturing Technology

CSC09-P22

It was AGREED to recommend to Learning and Teaching Committee the addition of a pathway leading to an MEng in Innovative Manufacturing Technology for those students unable to obtain a placement in industry, with effect from October 2009. (There would be no direct recruitment to this new pathway.)

Action: JEME

09/25 Change to Programme Title

CSC09-P23

It was AGREED to recommend to Learning and Teaching Committee the following change to a programme title (effective date shown in brackets), subject to approval by Operations Committee on 22 May:

MA/PGDip/PGCert Healthcare Risk Management to MA/PGDip/PGCert Patient Safety Management (September 2009 entry)

Action: JEME

09/26 Discontinuation of Programmes

CSC09-P24

It was AGREED to recommend to Learning and Teaching Committee discontinuation of the following programme (proposed date of last intake shown in brackets):

BSc/BSc,DIS Process Technology and Management (October 2009)

Action: JEME

09/27 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.

09/28 Annual Update of Module Specifications and Programme Regulations/Specifications

The Sub-Committee noted:

CSC09-P25

.1 The memorandum circulated to departments on 24 February 2009 (without Annexes).

CSC09-P26 and CSC09-P27

.2 The proposal forms for Module Specification and Programme Regulation/Specification changes for 2009/10.

CSC09-P28

.3 Validated Programmes: The procedure and timetable for revision and approval of Module Specifications and Programme Regulations/Specifications for 2009/10.

09/29 Dates of Meetings in 2009/10 (provisional)

Friday 16 October 2009 (am)

Thursday 21 January 2010 (am)

Thursday 6 May 2010 (am)

(Date for if necessary meeting in late May 2010 to be determined)

Author –Jennie Elliott

Date – May 2009