Learning and Teaching Committee
LTC05-M4
Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 10
November 2005
Present:
Morag Bell (in the Chair), Simon Austin (until M.57), Paul Byrne,
Becky Dicks (until M.58), Martin Harrison, Katie Hyslop (until M.58),
Anne Mumford (until M.62), Jennifer Nutkins, Jan Tennant, David Twigg, Andrew
Wilson
Apologies: John Dickens, Iain Phillips
In attendance:
Robert
Bowyer
05/49 Welcome to new members
The Chair welcomed Lawrence Leger, David Twigg, Becky Dicks
and Katie Hyslop to their first meeting.
05/50 Business of the Agenda
Item 16.2 was unstarred and it was
agreed to take items 14 and 16 immediately after item 8 on the agenda.
The Chair alluded to the excellent
results achieved by the University in the 2005 National Student Survey (item
23). In many subject areas Loughborough
had first or second place scores in several of the question ‘scales’. The results had provided a welcome boost to
staff morale. It was to be hoped they
would be repeated in the 2006 survey.
Attention was also drawn to the
latest publication in the QAA ‘Outcomes from Audit’ series, on Staff Support and Development Arrangements, which
cited many instances of good practice at Loughborough and reflected well on
Professional Development.
05/51 Minutes
LTC05-M3
The Minutes of the Meeting of the
Committee held on 2 June 2005 were confirmed.
05/52 Matters Arising from the Minutes not otherwise appearing on the
Agenda
52.1 Changes
in General Regulations (M.05/27)
LTC05-P32
Discussions
at Senate on 29 June 2005 were noted.
52.2 Academic
Misconduct (M.05/28)
It was noted that
amendments to Regulation XVIII: Academic Misconduct had been approved by Senate
wef 3 October 2005 and that advice had been provided by the Programme Development & Quality Team
on the section of the document discussed at the previous meeting of Learning
and Teaching Committee on penalties available to the Academic Misconduct
Committee.
52.3 Department
of Electronic and Electrical Engineering (M.05/30)
LTC05-P33
Discussions
at Senate on 29 June 2005 were noted.
52.4 Senate
actions on other recommendations
It was noted that
Senate had approved the recommendations of the Committee in the following other
matters:
(i) Six-month pre-sessional course
(M.05/19)
(ii) Year-long modules (M.05/20)
(iii) Schemes for allowing Programme Boards to
move candidates out of rank order as defined by their Programme Mark (M.05/21)
(iv) Student Appeals – amendments to
Regulation XIV (M.05/29)
(v) Programme proposals (M.05/37)
(vi) Assessment policy for students who have a
disability (M.05/38)
(vii) Employment of postgraduate students for
teaching and marking (M.05/39)
05/53 Terms of Reference
LTC05-P34
The Committee reviewed its terms
of reference. It was RESOLVED to
RECOMMEND to Senate the amendments proposed in the agenda paper, together with
the following:
(i)
the addition of ‘, the Student Recruitment &
Admissions Team’ after ‘Programme Development & Quality Team’ in para 7;
(ii) the addition of ‘/her’ after ‘his’ in
para 9.
05/54 Major issues for 2005/06
LTC05-P35
The Committee discussed a paper identifying
major issues that were expected to arise for its consideration in 2005/06. It was agreed that the Committee should take
an overview of key performance indicators (entry grades, retention/progression
statistics, degree classifications) on an annual basis. It was noted that a student recruitment
strategy was already being drafted by the SRA Team. It was recognised that ‘e-learning’ was being
used in the document in a broad sense, to include use of various technologies
in support of learning. It was suggested
that the Committee might undertake an overview of the reports of accreditation
visits on an annual basis.
It was noted that proposals
following on from the HEA consultation on professional standards (item 22 on
the agenda) might impact on future policies and practices within the University
and require consideration by LTC as well as Human Resources Committee. It was agreed to add this to the list of
issues for 2005/06.
Attention was drawn to the need
from time to time to challenge existing University structures that could
obstruct the implementation of strategic decisions at an operational
level. It was agreed to pursue outwith
the meeting a particular instance relating to international student
recruitment.
ACTION: MB, LAL
05/55 Learning and Teaching
Strategy
LTC05-P36
The Committee considered a revised ‘working’ version of the
Learning and Teaching Strategy. Several
additions and amendments were suggested by members of the Committee, including:
(i)
that
the strategic aim (4) be amended to give more emphasis to employability skills;
and the high-level aspirations at the beginning of the document might be
amended to refer to the ‘fit for the future’ theme
(ii) that the
‘aspirations’ might be strengthened into ‘commitments’
(iii) that it might be appropriate to amend the objectives in (4) to
cover changes in programme design that might be necessary to help the
University meet its aims in relation to widening participation, as in (3); it
was noted however that the widening participation strategy did not envisage any
significant change in the academic aptitudes of students
(iv) that
an aim be included, possibly under (6), to ensure that staff were provided with
appropriate infrastructural support to do the job.
Further suggestions concerning the
allocation of responsibilities and the drafting of certain items were
noted.
The document was welcomed. The Chair would undertake further revisions
in the light of the discussion with a view to submitting the document to Senate
in spring 2006 before publishing it more widely within the University and using
it subsequently to update the version published on the TQI web-site.
ACTION: MB
05/56 Master of Research (MRes)
LTC05-P46
The Committee considered proposals from the PDQ Team concerning the
introduction of the degree of Master of Research.
It was suggested that the preparation of a paper in a format
appropriate for publication in a journal in the relevant subject could provide
an excellent training exercise and that departments should be encouraged to
include such a requirement within an MRes degree programme.
It was important that departments introducing MRes programmes were
mindful of the guidelines of the Research Councils on the recognition of
Masters programmes offering research training,
It was RESOLVED to RECOMMEND to Senate that the University introduce
the degree of Master of Research (MRes) and that the criteria and further
guidance for use of the title be as set out in the agenda paper together with
the comments noted above.
05/57 Curriculum Sub-Committee – 13
October 2005 (A)
LTC05-P48
57.1 Terms
of reference of the Sub-Committee
An amendment to the terms of reference of the Sub-Committee
was approved.
57.2 New
programmes and other strategic changes
It was RESOLVED to RECOMMEND new
programme proposals and other strategic changes to Senate as set out in the
report, with the exception of the following:
(i)
MSc in Construction Project
Management with
It was noted that Operations Sub-Committee had approved the
proposal in principle, but had agreed that concerns raised by CSC over the
programme’s academic rigour and the quality assurance of the work-based learning
element must be satisfactorily resolved before the programme could be finally
approved. The AD(T) Engineering had
indicated that the proposers had addressed all the issues raised by CSC,
although there were still outstanding issues to be resolved on the Memorandum
of Agreement with Heriot-Watt which impacted directly on quality assurance
arrangements. It was noted that,
exceptionally, CSC was recommending the proposals for Year 1 only at this
stage, and had asked for further details of Year 2 modules to be submitted to
its next meeting: Loughborough was contributing only one 10-credit module in
Year 1.
Taking account of the above, and the lack of information
about the work-based/distance learning mode in which it was proposed to deliver
the programme, the Committee felt that the quality of the programme and the
standard of the award could not be satisfactorily assured at this stage and it
DECLINED to RECOMMEND the proposals to Senate pending the submission of further
information to and consideration by CSC.
It was understood that the proposers wished to launch the
programme in January 2006. The position
on recruitment was unclear. One possibility
might be that Heriot-Watt launch the programme, while work continued on the
development of the Loughborough modules with a view to the programme becoming a
collaborative venture in due course. It
would need to be made clear to any students however that Loughborough’s
participation had not been finalised.
(ii) MSc programmes in Occupational Health
The programme title ‘Occupational Health Management’ had
been withdrawn by the department from amongst the proposals considered by CSC.
(iii) MRes programmes in Human
Biology/Ergonomics/Psychology
The department would aim to bring forward revised proposals
to the January CSC; these programmes would not therefore go forward to Senate
in the current round.
05/58 Periodic Programme Reviews
The Committee considered the Reports of Periodic Reviews
held during the summer 2005, together with the responses of the relevant
departments. The main issues in the
reports and responses were highlighted by the AD(T)s and panel members. It was noted that all four PPRs had been
complimentary of the high quality of provision and found much good practice to
commend. The Committee was satisfied
that the departments were taking appropriate actions to address the issues
identified for further consideration.
Their actions would be followed up at APR. It was suggested that the departments might
revisit their PPR reports against the results of the NSS and explore with
students their perceptions and expectations in areas such as assessment and
feedback.
58.1 Information
Science
LTC05-P37
It was noted that Derek Blease was
making good progress with the University-wide project on group work. It was hoped that proposals would come
forward for approval in time for guidance to be published for 2006/07.
58.2 Wolfson
School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering
LTC05-P38
The recommendations concerning feedback to students appeared to give
some clues as to the NSS scores in this particular area. The ‘University issues’ at the end of the
report required further investigation. It was understood that the accrediting body
had changed its approach towards students resitting for Honours since the
publication of the FHEQ, which had allowed special provisions to be dropped
from University regulations so that students in all departments were treated
similarly in respect of reassessment opportunities.
58.3
LTC05-P39
It was noted that LUSAD was endeavouring to increase recruitment from
the Foundation Studies Diploma to its own undergraduate programmes. A significant rationalisation of programmes
was in train, in 3-D and Fine Art.
Adjustments in working methods and structures were helping to free staff
time for research and reduce the level of dependence on bought-in
teachers. It was agreed that LUSAD
students had a sense of being ‘different’, but they considered themselves fully
integrated into University life.
58.4 Department
of Design and Technology
LTC05-P40
Several aspects of the department’s learning and teaching provision involved
a high level of staff/student contact, and there was a high assessment load;
the department was taking the opportunity of its revised undergraduate programmes
to tackle high staff workloads and address the balance of teaching and
research.
05/59 University responses to Universities
59.1 The
LTC05-P41
The Committee considered a response
that had been drafted following discussions between the PVC(T) and the
AD(T)s. The Committee was supportive of
the comments made but felt it would be preferable, if the Honours
classification were abandoned, not to create a Distinction category, since this
would replicate at the Pass/Distinction boundary the problems encountered at class
boundaries (particularly the 2.2/2.1 boundary) under the present system.
It was noted that the deadline for
responses was 18 November 2005, which precluded debate at the next Senate
meeting. It was agreed that the draft
response, amended in the light of the views expressed, should be circulated to
all HODs as soon as possible to confirm that it had broad support within the
University before it was returned to UUK.
ACTION: MB, RAB
59.2 Proposals for National Credit Arrangements
for Use of Academic Credit
LTC05-P42
The Committee considered a
response that had been drafted following discussions between the PVC(T) and the
AD(T)s. The Committee noted the renewed impetus
for the development of national credit arrangements. It was felt that the Burgess Steering Group
appreciated that institutions would be opposed to arrangements that might
compromise their autonomy and would endeavour to avoid over-specification. It was noted that the University’s stance on
the use of credit levels remained ambivalent in spite of the support expressed in
the response to Q.3 for arrangements involving the use of credit levels.
It was RESOLVED TO RECOMMEND that
the response be adopted on behalf of the University, subject to the deletion of
the reference to ‘continental Europe moving closer to the UK approach’ from the
response to Q.3, and the reference to ‘partial failure’ being amended to
‘marginal failure’ in the response to Q.5(b).
ACTION: MB, RAB
05/60 Use of HEFCE e-learning
capital funding
LTC05-P43
The Committee received a report on discussions that had
taken place between the PDQ Team and the DISS Service Directors on possible
uses of HEFCE e-learning capital funding.
It was noted that further discussions were planned with a view to making
recommendations to Operations Sub-Committee at its meeting on 5 December. The Committee had no comments on the options
under consideration.
The Committee also noted discussions that had taken place on
the future of ‘Learn’ as the University’s VLE.
Recent developments, including the proposed take-over of WebCT by
Blackboard, suggested that it would be beneficial for efforts in the immediate
future to be directed towards an evaluation of open-source products and their
ability to meet the University’s pedagogic needs.
05/61 Condonement
LTC05-P44
The Committee considered a report on the
operation of the use of the new condonement provisions in 2004/05, which had
been prepared at the request of Senate.
It was reported that a total of 125 students had
benefited from condonement over the course of the main summer and SAP Programme
Boards. The report showed significant
diversity of practice in the way that condonement had been applied. Some departments seemed to have used it
excessively, in some cases condoning an overall level of performance from
individual students substantially below that required in programme regulations,
whilst others had not used it at all; some departments were known to have taken
a positive decision not to use it. In some
cases, the reasons for exercising condonement had not been indicated in the
Programme Board report as required in the new regulation.
Some suggestions were made in the report as
to how the situation might be better managed in future to avoid such a high
level of inconsistency in the way that condonement was being applied across the
University. The Committee was anxious not
to regulate it in a formulaic way, since the primary purpose of condonement had
been to give examiners a measure of discretion that was previously lacking to
deal with individual cases of marginal failure where the outcome for the
student otherwise seemed unjust in the light of their overall performance.
It was proposed that there should be a delay
in reporting to Senate to provide an opportunity for consultation with
departments about their experience of working with the new condonement
provisions in 2004/05 and about how condonement should be handled in the
future. It was agreed to invite the
Academic Registry to prepare a briefer version of the report for the purpose of
the consultation, which should remind departments why condonement was
introduced, and ask departments, broadly, to indicate
(i)
if they wished the condonement provisions to remain in place
(ii)
and if so how matters might be managed to ensure a higher level of
consistency in the way the provisions were applied across the University.
It was agreed that Senate meanwhile should
receive a brief update on these actions.
ACTION: JCN,
CS, RAB
05/62 Joint Degrees
LTC05-P45
The Committee considered, on the advice of the PDQ Team, the report of
a Working Group on Joint Degrees.
It was commented that some joint degrees (eg between subject areas
located in different parts of the campus) had specific problems with
timetabling and room allocations that could adversely affect students’
experience and it was important to keep a watching brief on such matters.
It was RESOLVED to commend the Working Group’s report to Senate and to
RECOMMEND that approval be given to the recommendations contained in section
2.3 of the report, concerning the appointment of a ‘link person’ by the ‘away’
department and what might be encompassed in this role.
It was noted that these recommendations had been drawn to the attention
of the Human Resources Working Group to help ensure that the link person role
was properly recognised. The Committee
felt the response of the HRWG indicated that it had not appreciated the fact
that, for most joint degree programmes, only the ‘home’ department allocated
programme directors and personal tutors, and it was this that needed to be
addressed.
05/63 Establishment of a Student Diversity Working Group
LTC05-P48
The Committee APPROVED the establishment of a Student Diversity Working
Group with initial membership and remit as set out in the agenda paper, subject
to ‘Phase 3’
being amended to read, ‘Monitor success and ensure embedding in existing
structures.
05/64 External
Examiners
64.1 Statement of responsibilities
LTC05-P49
It was RESOLVED to approve a
statement on the responsibilities of external examiners, on the advice of the
PDQ Team following consultation with departments.
64.2 Code of Practice
LTC05-P50
It was RESOLVED to RECOMMEND to
Senate a revised version of the University Code of Practice on External
Examining, incorporating the criteria for external examiner appointments and
revised procedure for handling external examiners’ reports approved by Learning
and Teaching Committee and Senate in June 2005, as well as the statement of external
examiners’ responsibilities endorsed by LTC at the present meeting.
05/65 Constitution and Membership of the Committee
LTC05-P51
The constitution and membership of
the Committee were noted.
05/66 Curriculum Sub-Committee – 13 October 2005 (B)
LTC05-P52
Further discussions of the Sub-Committee were noted.
05/67 Calculators in University examinations
LTC05-P53
It was noted that the Chair had taken action on behalf of
the Committee to approve a revised list of calculators for use in University
examinations (Regulation VII, para 26) and guidelines for students with
dyslexia or dyspraxia on choosing a calculator.
05/68 Award of Academic Practice Awards and
Mini-Projects
LTC05-P54
The Committee noted awards made in
the latest round.
05/69 University response to HEA consultation paper
LTC05-P55
The Committee noted the University’s response to an HEA
consultation paper on ‘A framework for teaching and supporting student learning
in Higher Education’.
05/70 Launch of Teaching Quality
Information (TQI) web-site
The Committee noted
(i)
the
launch on 22 September 2005 of the TQI web-site, incorporating the results of
the 2005 National Student Survey:
(ii) that
further analyses of Loughborough’s NSS results had been circulated widely
within the University, and aspects were being pursued in discussions between
the ADTs and Departmental Learning and Teaching Co-ordinators.
(iii) that more
detailed results would shortly be disseminated to institutions by Ipsos
05/71 National Student Survey 2006
It was noted that confirmation had been received of the arrangements
for the 2006 NSS. It would have a
similar format and timetable to the 2005 survey. The same questionnaire would be used, though
it was intended to test some additional questions for potential use in
subsequent surveys. There would be an added facility to aggregate
the results for the two years of the survey to enable reporting on smaller
areas of provision. Following the 2006
NSS, the frequency of the survey would be reviewed. Information had been
circulated to departmental TQI contacts.
05/72 QAA Institutional Audit 2004
It was noted that during the summer the University had
responded to a standard request from QAA for a progress report on actions taken
in response to the Report of the Institutional Audit one year on.
05/73 QAA Special Review of Research
Degree Programmes
It was noted that the QAA was undertaking a one-off desk-based
review of research degree programmes. It
would use a questionnaire designed to provide information on the University’s
quality assurance framework for RDPs and particularly on how the framework
aligned with the precepts of the revised Section
1 Postgraduate research programmes of the QAA Code of Practice. The
University’s response was being co-ordinated by Brigette Vale in the Research
Student Office.
05/74 DfES consultation paper on
‘Improving the Higher Education Applications Process’
It was noted that the DfES was consulting on changes to
enhance the current system of applications to higher education, including
options for moving to a ‘post-qualifications applications’ system. The University’s response was being handled
through the Student Recruitment and Admissions Team.
05/75 Dates of Future Meetings
2005/06
Thursday 9
February 2006 at 9.30am
Thursday 8
June 2006 at 9.30am
Author – Robert Bowyer
Date – November 2005
Copyright © Loughborough University. All rights reserved