Learning and Teaching Committee
LTC06-M1
Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 9
February 2006
Present:
Morag Bell (in the Chair), Simon Austin, Paul Byrne, John Dickens
Becky Dicks, Martin Harrison, Katie Hyslop (ab),
Jennifer
Nutkins, Iain Phillips, Jan Tennant (ab), David Twigg, Andrew Wilson
Apologies: Katie Hyslop, Jan Tennant
In attendance:
Robert
Bowyer
06/01 Business of the Agenda
No items were unstarred.
06/02 Minutes
LTC05-M4
The Minutes of the Meeting of the
Committee held on 10 November 2005 were confirmed.
06/03 Matters Arising from the Minutes not otherwise appearing on the
Agenda
3.1 Learning and Teaching Strategy (M.05/55)
It was noted that a revised version of the
document had been received by Senate on 25 January 2006.
3.2 Wolfson School of Mechanical and
Manufacturing Engineering PPR (M.05/58.2)
It was noted that the ‘University
issues’ at the end of the report had been investigated by the AD(T) Engineering
and clarified by the PDQ Team.
3.3 The
It was noted that an amended
response had been despatched to UUK after consultation with HODs following the
last meeting.
3.4 Proposals for National Credit Arrangements for Use of Academic
Credit (M05/59.2)
It was noted that an amended response had been
despatched to UUK following the last meeting.
3.5 Use of HEFCE e-learning capital funding (M.05/60)
LTC06-P1
The Committee noted allocations approved by
Operations Sub-Committee on 5 December 2005.
3.6 Student Diversity Working Group
(M.05/63)
It was noted that the first meeting
of the Group had taken place on 14 December 2005.
3.7 Calculators in University Examinations (M.05/67)
LTC06-P2
The Committee noted action taken by the Chair.
3.8 Senate actions on other recommendations
It was noted that Senate had approved the
recommendations of the Committee in the following other matters:
(i)
Terms of Reference (M.05/53)
(ii)
Master of Research (MRes) (M.05/56)
(iii)
Terms of Reference of CSC (M.05/57.1)
(iv)
New programmes and strategic changes
(M.05/57.2)
(v)
Co-ordination of joint degrees (M.05/62)
(vi)
External Examining – Revised Code of Practice
(M.05/64.2)
06/04 Open source VLE
LTC06-P3
The Committee received a report on
proposals currently under consideration for the adoption of ‘Moodle’, an open
source VLE, as a replacement for ‘Learn’.
Those involved were confident that it could provide the pedagogic
features necessary and result in a significant improvement in both the quality
and quantity of online resources.
The same paper would be submitted
to the LUSI Project Steering Group and Information Services Committee, to keep
these bodies informed. There would need
to be further discussions with the DISS service directors about resourcing,
timescales and management structures. In
terms of timing, it was hoped to move forward quickly in order to take full
advantage of a brief window of opportunity offered by two sources of HEFCE
funding, namely funds for e-learning, and funds for learning and teaching
enhancement (expected to replace TQEF).
A critical consideration would be whether the project could be brought
forward without disrupting the LUSI timetable, whilst still allowing for the
necessary linkages to LUSI developments to be covered.
It was noted that there would be a
responsibility to the open source community and ongoing development costs
associated with the adoption of Moodle.
By comparison, institutions using commercial packages had to find the resources
needed to respond to software updates.
The Committee expressed its
support for the proposals.
06/05 Timetabling
LTC06-P4
The Committee received a briefing
paper from the Director of Media Services on actions being taken to investigate
a possible move to central timetabling.
The following comments were noted in the course of discussion:
(i) The Departmental Administrators played
a key role and the Director of Media Services would attend the Registry’s March
meeting with the administrators in order to brief them.
(ii) It would not be the intention to take
control of departmental rooms away from departments, but it would be necessary
for departments to provide information about their bookings in order to
construct web-accessible timetables for individual staff and students.
(iii) It would be helpful if possible to put a
figure on the cost savings that could be made by freeing up administrative time
in departments.
(iv) Risk reduction was important: current
arrangements were vulnerable to the absence of key members of staff at crucial times.
(v) It was suggested that the University
should explore with potential suppliers the possibility of carrying out a
‘dry-run’ on their system as part of the evaluation phase.
(vi) It should be possible to enter
appropriate parameters into the system to avoid building undesirable
cross-campus journeys into timetables.
(vii) It was suggested that the possibility of
an open source solution might be considered.
(viii) It would be important to ensure that staff
did not infer that control and influence over the timetable would be removed
from departments, and to be generally sensitive to the potential impact on
staff morale.
06/06 Condonement
LTC06-P5
The Committee received a report on further consultation with
departments from the Programme Development & Quality Team.
The Committee found it surprising
that opinion appeared to be so starkly divided between Engineering and Science
on the one hand and SSH on the other, given the data on the use of condonement
presented to the previous meeting. Although
it was the case that differences in programme regulations had always militated
against consistency in outcomes from one programme to another, and this had not
been considered problematic, it was suggested that differences between
departments in the way that condonement was or was not applied were more likely
to be challenged. It was felt that this
view was shared by several SSH departments and explained their lack of support
for retaining the condonement provisions.
It was noted that a majority of departments
(outside SSH) had expressed a preference for additional guidelines rather than
tighter regulations to bring a greater measure of control over the application
of condonement. It was suggested that
the key aims and intentions ((i) and (ii) highlighted in Appendix 1 of the
agenda paper) should suffice as guidelines, since there was no consensus on the
definition of ‘marginal failure’ or an ‘otherwise good pattern of marks’ and
opposition to a formulaic approach being imposed.
Following further discussion, the
Committee agreed to endorse the proposals from the PDQ Team, which included a
requirement that departments be required to produce guidelines for their
Programme Boards to indicate how condonement should normally be used. The intention was that these would be
reviewed on an annual basis. It was
agreed that the sub-group referred to in proposal (ii) should comprise the
three AD(T)s.
The Committee was of the view
however that departments should not be permitted to produce a blanket statement
that they would not use condonement, and that proposal (iii) should be
deleted.
It was resolved to advise Senate
accordingly.
06/07 National Student Survey 2006
LTC06-P6
The Committee received a progress report on
the NSS 2006. It was noted that 433
responses (response rate of 16.67%) had been recorded as of 8 February, one
week since the start of the survey. The
Chair thanked the Students’ Union, on behalf of the Committee, for their
efforts in promoting the survey and encouraging students to respond. It was the aim to improve on the 2005
response rate of 75% and maintain the University’s top position in the results.
06/08 Quality Enhancement
LTC06-P7
The Committee received a report of
a PDQ Team ‘away day’ on the theme of quality enhancement. The day had been prompted partly by the
anticipation of further HEFCE funding for learning and teaching enhancement,
partly by a new emphasis on quality enhancement in the revised approach to
institutional audit. There was a need to
redefine and sharpen up what were defined as the University’s strengths, and
consider what aspects of teaching and learning should be enhanced, not only to
improve the experience of students but also to take account of the needs of
staff. There was a general feeling that
staff would welcome a shift in ethos from policing to providing more help and
support. Key points from the notes of
the day’s discussions were brought to the Committee’s attention.
There was discussion on the issue
of examination feedback. It was noted
that within the SSH Faculty, departments were being asked to ensure that for
modules assessed largely by examination, students subsequently received
‘generic feedback’ in the form of an overview of the performance of the class
as a whole. It was reported that some
other departments also provided this sort of feedback.
06/09 Curriculum Sub-Committee – 12 January 2006 (A)
LTC06-P8
It was resolved to recommend new programme proposals and other strategic changes to Senate on the advice of Curriculum Sub-Committee.
06/10 Coursework Code of Practice
LTC06-P9
It was resolved to approve amendments to the
University’s Coursework Code of Practice on the advice of the PDQ Team.
06/11 Postgraduate Certificate and Diploma Awards on MRes programmes
LTC06-P10
It was resolved to make recommendations to Senate on the advice of the
PDQ Team.
06/12 Curriculum
Sub-Committee – 12 January 2006 (B)
LTC06-P11
Further discussions of the Sub-Committee were noted.
06/13 Student Feedback – Support Services 2004/05
LTC06-P12
The Committee received a report from the Head of Academic
Practice and Quality, Professional Development, on student feedback 2004/05 in
relation to the support services.
06/14 Validation
Panel
It was noted that Loughborough College had put forward
proposals for two new Foundation Degrees, in Sports Coaching, and Sports
Performance (initially with a pathway in Motorsport), and a Validation Panel had
been established to consider the proposals.
06/15 Student Diversity Working Group
LTC06-P13
The Committee received a report of the meeting of the
Working Group held on 14 December 2005.
06/16 QAA consultations
Recent consultation papers from the
Quality Assurance Agency were noted as followed:
16.1 Operational description
for the revised institutional audit process, CL14/05
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/news/circularLetters/CL1405.asp
16.2 Revised approach to
programme specifications (incorporating guidance on minimum content) CL15/05
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/news/circularLetters/CL1505.asp
16.3 Proposals for an interim
review process as part of the revised institutional audit process CL01/06
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/news/circularLetters/CL0106.asp
It was noted that the University had responded to CL14/05; responses
to CL15/05 and CL01/06 were under consideration by the PDQ Team.
06/17 Date of Next Meeting
Thursday 8
June 2006
NB This
meeting would take place at 1.30 pm to avoid a clash with Human
Resources Committee.
Author – Robert Bowyer
Date – February 2006
Copyright © Loughborough University. All rights reserved