Learning and Teaching Committee
LTC05-M3
Minutes of the Thirty-First Meeting of the
Committee held on 2 June 2005:
Present: Morag Bell (Chair); Simon Austin; David Berry; Paul Byrne; John Dickens;
Keith Gregory;
Martin Harrison; Anne Mumford; Jennifer Nutkins; Iain Phillips (ab);
Jonathan Roberts
(ab); Jan Tennant; Andrew Wilson
Apologies: Iain Phillips
In attendance:
Robert Bowyer, Chris Spendlove (for Min 27), Chris Dunbobbin
(for Min 28 and 29)
05/23 Business of the Agenda
Items 16 and 24
were unstarred.
05/24 Minutes
LTC05-M1; LTC05-M2
The Minutes of the Twenty-Ninth Meeting of the Committee held on 10
February 2005 and the Thirtieth (Extraordinary) Meeting held on 14 April 2005 were
confirmed.
05/25 Matters arising from the Minutes not otherwise appearing on the Agenda
25.1
The Committee received an update on matters relating to the PPR Report,
as set out on the agenda.
25.2 Human
Sciences PPR (M.05/4.3)
The Committee received an update on matters relating to the PPR Report,
as set out on the agenda.
25.3 Impaired
Performance Claims (M.05/5)
It was noted that policy on student absences
for participating in sporting and cultural activities was still under
discussion.
25.4 Departmental
Reviews Group (M.05/7)
It was noted that Derek Blease had been asked
to progress work on the development of policy relating to the supervision of
students undertaking projects or dissertations.
05/26 Annual Programme Reviews
The Committee considered reports from the AD(T)s on the Annual
Programme Reviews in their respective faculties.
26.1Engineering
LTC05-P15
Attention was drawn to the following points:
·
some
concerns over progression and the numbers of resits
·
an
apparent increase in SSR in Chemical Engineering and possible difficulties in
relation to technician support if PGT numbers grew significantly.
The AD(T) indicated that as a rule he would follow up with a department
any pass rate of less than 80% at the first attempt. In most cases, the majority of resit students
passed at the second attempt and so eventual progression was satisfactory. The Committee was assured that academic
staffing issues were being addressed through the appropriate channels.
26.2
Science
LTC05-P16
Attention was drawn to the following points:
·
the
AD(T) had asked departments to ensure that module feedback was discussed at
Staff/Student Committees
·
critical
comments from a Chemistry external examiner: the Department had responded and
expected to be able to resolve matters
·
there
were concerns over the number of resits and some poor progression rates from
Part A
·
liaison
between Computer Science and the
The Committee was concerned that student feedback had not been
available for discussion at the APR in Computer Science and agreed that the
AD(T) should ask the department to provide it without further ado so that the
Committee could be assured that students were generally satisfied with their
experience in the department.
ACTION: MCH
The Committee noted the pressures on the Department of Computer
Science, arising particularly from the decline in applications and intake. It was assured that the department’s position
was being looked at regularly.
26.2
Social
Sciences and Humanities
LTC05-P17
In relation to the validated programmes, there were some issues
concerning progression: these were being addressed. It was noted that the validation of the
Sports Science and Sports Science with Sports Management Foundation Degrees at
In relation to internal programmes:
·
progression
rates were generally satisfactory to good
·
departments
all took Staff/Student Committees seriously and responded to student feedback
·
there
was growing use of Co-Tutor across the faculty
·
departments
were exploring methods of assessing group work that allowed for differentiation
between individuals
·
whilst
the Department of English and Drama did not provide a summary of student feedback at APR, the AD(T) had seen the full
feedback.
It was suggested to the AD(T) that the presentation of data on module
and programme feedback provided by the Department of Social Sciences might be
held up as an example of good practice to others.
A reference to the expansion of PGT teaching over the summer was
queried, since this would impact on accommodation and would need to be planned
for in advance. AD(T)s were not aware of
this happening outside the
The Committee noted that student contact with staff remained an issue
in the Department of Social Sciences and would be looking to see that the
department addressed this.
The Committee noted that some of the changes in Regulations now being
proposed were designed to address the growth in the volume of reassessment and
this issue would be monitored.
05/27 Changes in General Regulations
LTC05-P18 and tabled paper
Further to the issues of principle agreed at the April meeting, and
subsequent further consultation with departments, the Committee considered
proposed revisions to General Regulations.
These had been considered by Ordinances and Regulations Committee on 27
May 2005 and a paper setting out further amendments requested by the O&R
Committee, together with some late amendments suggested by Academic Registry
colleagues, was tabled.
The main agenda papers included:
·
new
Regulation XX – Undergraduate Awards, to replace GRUA and ARUA 2004
·
new
Regulation XXI – Postgraduate Awards, to replace GRMPA and ARMPA
·
new
Regulation XXII – Examiners and Boards
·
revisions
to Regulation XVII – Impaired Performance and Project Extensions
·
revisions
to Regulation IX – Registration, Attendance, Leave of Absence, Withdrawal and
Transfer.
In general, the changes proposed were intended to take effect from the
beginning of session 2005/06. In the
case of undergraduate students however it was considered that some of the new
provisions should not be imposed on existing students. It was proposed to abolish GRUA 2004 and ARUA
2004 and to present the new Regulation XX in two sections: Section A –
essentially the version included in the agenda paper – would apply to new
students starting 2005, while Section B – GRUA/ARUA drafted in the same new
format but retaining certain old provisions, such as the capping of resit marks
for the purposes of degree classification – would apply to pre-2005
starters. It would be made clear at the
beginning of each section which students it applied to. Section B would be finalised after Learning
and Teaching Committee and circulated with Section A to departmental
administrators and other key individuals and to O&R Committee members for
any final comments before presentation to Senate. It would also be necessary for a short while
to retain GRUA/ARUA 1999 for a few continuing pre-2000 starters.
The following points were raised in the course of discussion on the
main agenda papers:
.1 Regulation XX, para 6
The requirement that students must have passed the previous Part of
their programme before commencing a sandwich placement was often breached in
practice when students had first attempt failures in Part B modules and started
the placement in July or August. It was
agreed that the paragraph be amended to require students to have passed the
previous Part by the commencement of the academic year in which they undertake
the sandwich placement. This would allow
students to embark on their placement while waiting for reassessment during the
SAP.
.2 Regulation
XX, para 15
In response to a query, it was confirmed that this paragraph was not
intended to impose a requirement on departments to load details of individual
assessment elements onto the central student record at this stage, though it
was possible to record multiple coursework elements if departments wished. The position might need to be reconsidered at
a later date in relation to the new Student Information System. The main point was that marks for individual
assessment elements and component assessments used in calculating the module
mark should be in whole numbers.
.3 Regulation XX, para 18
The position reflected in this paragraph had been arrived at after
lengthy discussion of the alternatives, and was felt to be the most pragmatic
approach.
.4 Regulation
XXI, para 35
The
word ‘inclusive’ should be inserted after ‘between 40% and 49%’.
.5 Regulation XXII, Title
The title should be changed to ‘Internal and External Examiners and
Review and Programme Boards’.
.6 Regulation XXII, para 2
and elsewhere
The Regulation should be confined to examiners for taught programmes
and not attempt to encompass research degree examiners.
.7 Regulation
XXII, para 2
Words such as ‘…and shall be…’ should be inserted before 2.1/2.2.
.8 Regulation XXII, para
14.4
The paragraph should be amended to make it clear that the attendance of
the external programme assessor was required for purposes of quoracy only at
the final Programme Board.
The following points were made in the course of discussion on the
tabled paper:
.9 Regulation XX – Other
It was unclear whether or not GRUA 2004 Appendix 3 would still be
required for some students covered by Section B of the new Regulation XX. The AD(T) of Engineering was asked to check
and confirm the position.
ACTION: JGD
.10 Regulation XXI and
various other Ordinances and Regulations
The Committee did not agree with the Ordinances and Regulations
Committee that all references to ‘Head of Department’ should be considered to
be qualified by ‘or designated nominee’.
This was considered too lax.
Subject to the points noted above, the changes in Regulations set out
in the main agenda paper (LTC05-P18) and in the tabled paper be approved for
submission to Senate via the procedure described. It was anticipated that the changes could be
a starred item on the Senate agenda, but the Committee felt it would be helpful
for Senate to receive a brief paper highlighting the key changes in the ‘for
discussion’ section of the agenda, to ensure that HODs were made fully aware of
the scale of the updating and communication exercise required at departmental
level.
ACTION: CS, JCN
05/28 Academic Misconduct
LTC05-P19
The Committee considered a report on incidents of academic misconduct
in 2002/03 and 2003/04, focussing its discussion on the issues set out section
6 where a number of changes in procedure were suggested to improve the way in
which cases were handled, some of which would involve amendments to Regulation
XVIII.
The Committee endorsed the following
proposals:
.1 Reporting of minor
offences
That as part of the Student Information System (LUSI) upgrade, a
facility should be provided to allow Registry and departmental staff to record
on the student database details relating to allegations of academic misconduct,
and penalties imposed, as they arise, to help ensure more accurate record
keeping. Noted that such a request had
already been fed into the project.
.2 Membership
of the Academic Misconduct Committee (AMC)
That Regulation XVIII be amended so that the Chair of the Committee is
selected from the AD(T)s and the other two academic members are selected from
academic members of Senate and Learning and Teaching Committee (such that all
three faculties are represented).
.3 Exam
hall offences
That the Academic Registrar be allowed to reclassify less serious exam
hall offences as minor offences, which could then be dealt with by HODs. (Typically these would be cases where the
candidate committed a technical offence by taking prohibited material into the
exam hall but there was no evidence of any intention to obtain an unfair
advantage.)
.4 Presentation
of evidence by invigilators
That Regulation XVIII be amended to state that where the allegation
relates to an assessment undertaken in the exam hall, the invigilator who
detected the incident, or the relevant HOD (or nominee) may be called to present the evidence (it having been found that
the incident report form completed by the invigilator normally provided
sufficient information for the AMC).
.5 Intention
That Regulation XVIII be amended to note that in determining the
appropriate penalty, the HOD or AMC will take into account the extent to which
the candidate appears to have intended to obtain an unfair advantage (alongside
other considerations including the nature and extent of the offence and the
presence of any mitigating circumstances).
.6 Semester 2 cases
That the practice outlined in the paper which had already evolved where
candidates were accused of major offences of academic misconduct in Semester 2
and there was insufficient time for the allegation to be considered by the AMC,
should be formalised and included in Regulation XVIII and in the revised award
regulations as appropriate.
.7 Extenuating
circumstances
That Regulation XVIII be amended to state that where mitigating factors
were raised by candidates, documentary evidence of the circumstances should be
provided before they may be take into consideration.
The Committee RESOLVED that the above changes be RECOMMENDED to Senate
for implementation with effect from the beginning of session 2005/06, including
those involving amendments to Regulations.
The Academic Registrar was asked to present the necessary amendments to
the Regulations, through Ordinances and Regulations Committee as appropriate,
for consideration by Senate at its meeting on 29 June.
ACTION: CD, JCN
The Committee RESOLVED to refer the proposals under section 6.5 of the
agenda paper, Penalties available to the
AMC, to the PDQ Team for further more detailed consideration.
ACTION: RAB
The Committee suggested it would be helpful to take further advice on
the statistical significance of the figures remarked upon in section 4 of the
paper, where the incidence of academic conduct in different sub-groups of the
student population was compared with incidence in the population as a whole. Care was needed in the presentation of the
information to avoid statements that might mislead.
05/29 Amendments to Regulation XIV – Student Appeals
LTC05-P20
The Committee considered proposed amendments to Regulation XIV. Noted that these amendments had been presented
to Ordinance and Regulations Committee on 27 May 2005. They were intended to make the procedures for
the conduct of the Academic Appeal Committee more explicit.
Noted that the University had taken legal advice on the question
whether or not to allow a student, or a member of staff where the substance of
the appeal related to that person, to be accompanied in the committee by a
solicitor. The advice received was that
in the context of an academic appeal the University should feel confident about
not allowing a solicitor to
attend.
It was RESOLVED to RECOMMEND the changes in Regulation XIV to Senate,
to take effect from 2005/06.
05/30 Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering
LTC05-P21
The Committee considered a report from the department on its ‘pilot’
year of operating undergraduate programmes with 15-credit modules.
The broad conclusion of the paper was that the extensive use of
15-credit modules had been a success, in the eyes of both staff and
students. The department had been able
to reduce subject area fragmentation, deal with core content in greater depth
and at a more relaxed pace by excluding ‘make-weight’ material and using weeks
12-15 of semester 1 for laboratory work, coursework and project work. More time could be spent on issues that
students usually found difficult. The
number of year-long modules had been increased and the number of small
assessment elements reduced; semester 1 examinations had been eliminated from
Parts A and B, while no programme had more than six examinations in the
summer.
There was a feeling amongst some staff that the stress on students
towards examination time had increased.
Students had some concerns about the length of time between covering
material in lectures and being examined in it and about judging the amount of
effort required without the feedback they would have received from first
semester exams. However, these concerns
were felt to be outweighed by the benefits.
The 15-credit modules had been mixed with 10 and 20-credit modules
within the EE programme structures. The
Department of Mathematical Sciences and the
The following comments and observations were noted in the course of
discussion on the paper and on the question whether to support the department’s
continued use of 15-credit modules in its undergraduate programmes:
·
the
department’s experience supported the case for year-long modules rather than
15-credit modules specifically
·
the
department had argued its case in 2004 on the basis that the subject material
lent itself to being delivered in modules with a 15-credit weighting; the
‘pilot’ had confirmed the department in this view and it was still the basis of
the department’s case for 15-credit modules specifically, plus the argument
that the adoption of larger modules of, say, 20-credits, would lead to a reduction
in optional choice for students
·
the
concerns raised in 2004 in relation to the operation of joint and combined
honours programmes if departments were allowed to operate a mixture of 10
and15-credit structures remained: the EE ‘pilot’ had not addressed this issue
as the department’s programmes were in effect self-contained
·
Senate
had permitted the department to use 15-credit modules in Part B of its
programmes on a ‘pilot’ basis ‘while awaiting the outcome of the departmental
review exercise recommended by the Committee on the Structure of the Academic
Year’; in the event, consultations with departments had found support for the
simple removal of the 80-credit cap on the use of year-long modules, rather
than a move to a different size of ’building block’.
It was noted that the department wished to move to 15-credit modules in
Part C of its undergraduate programmes in 2005/06, and the students would have
to choose their modular options within the next few days. The students were fully aware of the restructuring
proposed and that approval had still to be given. It would not be impossible to ask them to
choose from two sets of options, one set corresponding to the current structure
and the other set for the proposed 15-credit structure, though it would greatly
simplify matters if approval could be given to proceed with the new structure
at this point. It was pointed out that
Senate would be the final arbiter on the issue and its decision could not be
prejudged.
After a full discussion, the Committee RESOLVED to inform Senate that
it was persuaded of the case for allowing the Department of Electronic and
Electrical Engineering to continue using 15-credit modules in its undergraduate
programmes, and indeed extend their use to Part C. The department’s case should however be
regarded as an exceptional one and the Committee would RECOMMEND Senate to
reaffirm that the structure of the University’s undergraduate programmes
generally should continue to be based on the 10-credit module and multiples of
10.
05/31 Procedure for handling external examiners’ reports
LTC05-P22
On the advice of the PDQ Team, the Committee considered revised
procedures for handling external examiners’ reports. These were felt to be clearer and easier to
operate than the current version. They
included a new provision for a review by the PDQ Team of institutional issues
identified by external examiners. It was
RESOLVED to RECOMMEND the revised procedures to Senate for incorporation in the
internal code of practice on external examining.
05/32 Criteria for external examiner appointments
LTC05-P27
On the advice of the PDQ Team, the Committee considered proposed
criteria for external examiner appointments.
The University’s code of practice on external examining already laid
down conditions of appointment designed to avoid potential conflicts of
interest (as in para 4 of the first section of the paper), but otherwise
criteria for appointments had not up to now been explicit except in a few broad
statements on the appointment request form completed by departments. It was RESOLVED to RECOMMEND the proposed
criteria to Senate for approval, subject to the addition of the words ‘or
equivalent’ after ‘principal lecturer’ in para 2 of the first section.
It
was noted that the PDQ Team would shortly be consulting departments on a
statement intended to clarify the role and responsibilities of external
examiners.
All documentation concerning the external examining process would be
updated once the various elements currently under consideration had been
agreed.
ACTION: RAB
05/33 TQI update
LTC05-P24
The
Committee received an update on developments.
It was additionally noted that details from external examiners’ reports
on postgraduate programmes/modules had now been circulated to departments for
the production of the relevant summaries for the TQI site.
QAA and UCAS had jointly produced a booklet entitled ‘How do I find the
best course for me?’
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/students/guides/bestcourse/default.asp
which made many references to the material that would be publicly
available on the TQI site after the launch in September 2005; this underlined
the significance that would be attached to the site, especially after the NSS
results were added.
05/34 NSS update
LTC05-P25
The Committee received an update on the National Student Survey. It was noted that the University’s final
response rate had been 75.06% overall.
It was noted also that the NSS would be repeated in 2006.
Attention was drawn to the final section of the paper, and issues for
the University to consider and act upon in relation to the NSS results. It was noted that the University could
publish only a single commentary on the NSS results: individual departments
might like to consider publishing statements on their own LU web pages
commenting on the results at the department/subject level. The Registry would undertake a competitor
analysis at the institutional level in due course, but recognised that
competitor institutions varied from one department/subject to another and that
departments might wish to conduct exercises of their own. Intentions would be clarified as the nature
of the data became known. Matters would
continue to be taken forward by the TQI Action Group in the Registry, in
consultation with the PVC(T) and others as appropriate.
ACTION: JCN
05/35 Online Learning
John Dickens reported as Chair of the Online Learning Strategy Group.
A decision had to be taken on whether to continue with ‘Learn’, the
University’s in-house VLE, or purchase a replacement system from a commercial
supplier. Since the previous meeting,
presentations had been made by the suppliers of ‘Blackboard’ and ‘WebCT’, and
by Computing Services on ‘Learn’, to enable the Group and others involved to
get a better appreciation of what the various systems could offer.
The Student Information System (LUSI) steering group was looking for a
decision to be taken by September 2005 so that the integration of the VLE with
the upgraded student system could be planned into the project.
It was proposed next to look at what other universities were doing in
this area and conduct an options appraisal.
Whatever the eventual decision, those involved in the current discussions
were concerned to ensure that the VLE was properly resourced on an ongoing
basis from central funds.
The Heads of DISS sections had been invited to the next PDQ Team
meeting on 13 June 2005 for joint discussions on the next steps.
05/36 Establishment of
LTC05-P26
The Committee considered proposals from the Strategic Review
Group. It was noted that the Faculty
Boards had discussed the proposals and the minute of the Engineering Faculty
Board was included in the agenda papers.
The Committee was informed that in addition to the benefits referred to
in the document, it was hoped the
The following points were noted in the course of discussion:
·
Some members of the Committee were unconvinced
that the
·
Some members queried why it was necessary to
pursue the creation of a
· Some expressed doubt whether the Graduate School would achieve its objectives if led by a Director appointed on only a 0.4FTE basis; on the other hand, others felt the job described did not amount to more than this
·
Some were firmly of the view on the basis of
previous experience elsewhere that the
· Professional Development had a major involvement in PGR training, and the Committee supported its wish to be represented on the operational group
· The proposals failed to identify where responsibility would lie for the quality assurance of the PGR student experience as a whole. It was essential to address this issue and ensure that the University was acting in accordance with the recently revised QAA Code of Practice on postgraduate research programmes. Responsibility did not fall obviously within the remit of the PDQ Team, though this was where most expertise in relation to academic quality currently lay, and if responsibility were to lie with the Research Student Office, support would be required from the AD(R)s and other members of the wider Research Team.
· The proliferation of bodies with a marketing remit was a matter of concern which needed to be addressed
· The implications for offices currently responsible for postgraduate student matters had not been discussed with the managers concerned
· Without proper infrastructure to support it – and there was no evidence that this would be provided - the Graduate School would be ‘piggy-backing’ on existing structures and be forced to impose on the goodwill of already busy staff.
The Committee noted the proposal to add the Director of the
It was agreed to pass the Committee’s comments to the Strategic Review
Group.
05/37 Curriculum Sub-Committee – 5 May 2005 (A)
LTC05-P27
It was RESOLVED to RECOMMEND new programme proposals and other strategic changes to Senate on the advice of Curriculum Sub-Committee, subject to the following:
(i) in the case of the proposals for the BSc/MComp (DPS) in Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, to outstanding issues being resolved to the satisfaction of the AD(T) of Science.
(ii) in the case of the proposals for the MSc in Internet Computing and Network Security, to it being noted that the two departments were still working to resolve issues concerning the operation of the joint programme, but wished the proposals to proceed.
05/38 Assessment Policy for Students who have a
Disability
LTC05-P28
The Committee approved a paper clarifying aspects of the current
assessment policy for students who have a disability.
05/39 Employment of Postgraduate Students for Teaching and Marking
LTC05-P29
It was RESOLVED to RECOMMEND to Senate a
Code of Practice on the employment of postgraduate students for teaching and
marking.
05/40 Curriculum Sub-Committee – 5 May 2005 (B)
LTC05-P30
Noted further discussions of the Sub-Committee.
05/41 Teaching Prizes, Academic Practice Awards and Mini-Projects
LTC05-P31
Noted awards made in the current session.
05/42 Access Agreement
Noted that the University’s proposed Access
Agreement had been approved by OFFA:
http://www.offa.org.uk/acc_agr/statemnts/H-0152.pdf
05/43 E-learning Strategy
Noted the release of HEFCE circular letter 05/2005 announcing the
publication of the HEFCE strategy for e-learning and allocations of capital
funding to support investment in e-learning:
http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/circlets/2005/cl05_05
05/44 QAA Review of Foundation Degrees
44.1 FD in Leisure Management at
It was reported
that in their draft Review Report, the reviewers had expressed confidence in
the standards and achievements of students and in the quality of learning
opportunities.
44.2 FD in Sports Science with Sports Management
at
Noted that the reviewers would hold their
‘judgement meeting’ on 2 June 2005.
Secretary’s
Note: The reviewers have subsequently
expressed confidence in the standards and achievements of students and in the
quality of learning opportunities.
05/45 Dates of Meetings 2005/06
The following dates were agreed:
Thursday 10 November 2005 at 9.30
am
Thursday 9 February 2006 at 9.30
am
Thursday 8 June 2006 at 2.00 pm
(change of time)
05/46 Date of Next Ordinary Meeting
Thursday 10 November 2005 at 9.30 am.
05/47 Any Other Business
47.1 Terms of Reference
The Committee was informed that Senate had agreed that its terms of reference should be amended to include academic issues related to admissions. Amended terms of reference would be presented to the November meeting.
05/48 Valedictions
The Chair thanked Dave Berry and Keith Gregory, who had reached the end of their terms of office, for their contributions to the work of the Committee; and, in his absence, Jonathan Roberts for representing the student body in the current session.
Author – Robert Bowyer
Date – June 2005
Copyright © Loughborough University. All rights reserved