Learning and Teaching Committee

Curriculum Sub-Committee

Subject: Credit Levels

Origin: Notes of Programme Development and Quality Team Meeting on 13 November 2006

.1 National Credit Arrangements for England

Received

(i) A paper recapping on the national position and Loughborough’s own stance.

Noted

(ii) That it was anticipated, following the Burgess second stage consultation on the development of national credit arrangements for England, that a credit framework would be recommended along the lines set out in the consultation paper, in the form of non-prescriptive guidelines, and linked to the FHEQ. A final report was expected imminently. [Secretary’s note: the latest information is that it will be issued on 30 November.]

(iii) That the earlier national credit guidelines, which had strongly influenced the Burgess recommendations, treated the credit level as a basic component of a credit framework and envisaged the use of generic credit level descriptors as a guide to the assignment of modules to the credit levels.

(iv) That in spite of its use of credit accumulation, the University did not use credit levels; modules were not assigned to credit levels and, although the NICATS credit level descriptors had been commended to the University at one stage, there was no real need for them when credit levels did not feature.

(v) That the letter prefixes used in University module codes (A, B, C, D) were sometimes represented as indicating the ‘level’ of individual modules, whereas they were really intended to do no more than indicate the stage of the programme at which a module was usually offered.

(vi) That the Burgess recommendations had included guidance on the number of credits normally associated with the main HE awards in England, and on the number of credits within the overall total normally associated with the level of the award.

(vii) That in order to meet the ‘second cycle descriptors’ of the EHEA qualifications framework, UK HEIs were recommended to ensure that integrated Masters programmes included a minimum of 120 UK HE credits (generally accredited to 60 ECTS credits) at postgraduate level (‘M’ or ‘7’).

.2 Level indicators

Noted

(i) That in its discussion of the draft module specification for LUSI, CSC had commented that the current module code, which was not planned to change under the LUSI system, did not include a level indicator and CSC had queried whether there should be text within the module specification that identified level, particularly in relation to D modules being at level 5 (sic) [assumed this should refer to level 7].

(ii) That CSC had referred the matter to PDQ for further deliberation.

.3 C-level credits permitted in Part D of extended undergraduate programmes

Noted

(i) 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.

(ii) That Electronic and Electrical Engineering was seeking a relaxation of the above ruling particularly in the case of the MEng in Systems Engineering. The Department’s proposal was that students ‘should undertake at least 100 credits of D or P level materials in the last two years of an extended undergraduate programme’.

.4 Discussion

Discussion ranged over 5.1 – 5.3 above:

Noted

(i) The view of PDQ that it was anomalous for the University’s credit accumulation arrangements not to incorporate the use of credit levels.

Agreed

(ii) That it was desirable for modules to be assigned to credit levels.

(iii) That the summary NICATS level descriptors should be commended as a basis for assigning modules to credit levels.

(iv) That a sensible starting point for moving forward from the current position with minimal upheaval would be to use the existing letter prefixes in the module codes to represent level:

A - level 4

B - level 5

C - level 6

D or P - level 7

on the assumption that on this basis the vast majority of modules would turn out already to be coded appropriately to reflect their credit level.

(v) That a statement should be formulated of the University’s normal expectations on the credit structure of its awards, that accorded with the national credit guidelines and allowed the same degree of flexibility.

(vi) That departments should then be asked to look at their programmes against these expectations and be prepared to provide a rationale for any divergence from the standard model. (It was anticipated that, for example, some joint/combined honours programmes might fall outside it; as might programmes where a mixture of B and C coded modules was available to students in Parts B and C. If a module was delivered to a mixed group of students from different years, but different assessment criteria were applied from one year-group to another, two separate modules should be created.)

(vii) That CSC be asked to ensure that new programme proposals fell within the appropriate norms or that a rationale was otherwise provided.

(viii) That PDQ did not wish to introduce any unnecessary constraints on programme design (and believed this could be very largely avoided), but felt it important to be able to demonstrate that the University’s own credit arrangements stood up to scrutiny against national guidelines.

(ix) That University degree regulations should remain as far as possible unchanged, for example in relation to condonement.

(x) 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 credit level number to allow the level to be included in appropriate outputs from the system in the future.

(xi) That the proposal from Electronic and Electrical Engineering be treated as a rationale for divergence from the University’s normal expectations on the structure of an integrated Masters degree and be approved, on the understanding that the proposal currently met with the requirements of the accrediting body/bodies concerned; and that a watching brief continue to be kept on developments affecting the acceptability of the UK integrated Masters in Europe.

(xii) To recommend this plan of action to LTC before proceeding.

Author – Robert Bowyer

Date – November 2006