Learning and Teaching Committee
LTC07-M2
Minutes
of the Meeting of the Committee held on 7 June 2007
Present: Morag Bell (in the Chair), Simon Austin (ab),
Paul Byrne, John Dickens,
John Harper, Martin Harrison, Ruth Kinna, Anne Mumford, Jennifer Nutkins,
Iain Phillips (ab), Karen Roxborough, Jan Tennant (ab), David Twigg, Emily
Wildman (ab), Andrew Wilson (ab)
Apologies: Simon Austin, Iain Phillips, Jan
Tennant, Andy Wilson
In
attendance: Robert
Bowyer
07/24 Business of the meeting
No items were unstarred.
07/25 Minutes
LTC07-M1
The Minutes of the meeting of the
Committee held on 15 February 2007 were confirmed.
07/26 Matters arising from the
Minutes not otherwise appearing on the Agenda
26.1 Senate actions
It was noted that Senate had
approved the recommendations of the Committee in the following matters:
(i) Academic
Credit (M.07/5)
(ii) Validation
Procedures (M.07/7)
(iii) BUE (M.07/9)
(iv) Feedback
to students on their work (M.07/10)
(v)
Award of PGCE on MSc in Education with QTS (M.07/12)
(vi)
New programmes and strategic changes (M.07/13)
26.2
Any other
matters arising not appearing elsewhere on the agenda
None were raised.
07/27 Learning and Teaching Implementation Plan
LTC07-P18
The Committee received a summary of the Learning and Teaching
Implementation Plan submitted by the PVC(T) in support of the Institutional
Strategy 2006-09.
Attention was drawn to the following
(i) The
intention to establish a ‘Student Hub’ to draw together and expand
study and generic skills support for students from outside academic
departments; this initiative was being taken forward by Mary Morley and Wendy
Llewellyn.
(ii) The proposed ‘Centre for
Learning and Teaching’; a task group was being led by Jan Tennant to
determine its role and remit. The group
had held its first meeting and the PVC(T) had received a report on its
discussions. It might be necessary to
revisit the remit as outlined in the implementation plan.
Noted
(iii)
That it
would be important for work to be done on various aspects of the
University’s HR strategy before the role and remit of the Centre could be
properly developed.
(iv)
That
the Executive Management Group had already agreed that the Human Resources
implementation plan needed to be given a high priority and identified a range
of issues that needed to be addressed.
It was hoped that a more holistic view would be taken of the individual
academic’s performance, across research, teaching and enterprise.
(v)
That
such a development would be welcomed by the Committee: it was felt that
messages currently being conveyed to members of staff through probation and
promotions procedures currently lowered the standing of teaching and lessened
the extent to which staff were interested in developing their teaching. For the same reason, the Task Group on the Centre
had expressed a view that the Centre’s key role of providing support for
individual members of staff should be separated from involvement in the formal
probation and promotion processes.
(vi) That
it was anticipated that most of the resource requirements associated with the
various implementation plans would be considered outwith the normal annual
budgetary process.
(vii) That
there had been some advances in the development of new subject areas,
particularly in History, where a business case had been produced for submission
to Operations Sub-Committee and it was hoped to launch a number of joint
degrees in 2008 or 2009. The progress in
other discussions was reported to the Committee.
07/28 Annual
Programme Reviews
The Committee received reports from
the AD(T)s on the Annual Programme Reviews in their respective Faculties:
28.1 Engineering
LTC07-P19
Noted
(i) That pass rates before the Special
Assessment Period were again disappointing across the Faculty: a resit culture
appeared to have developed in the University.
28.2 Science
LTC07-P20
Noted
(i) That pass rates before SAP were
disappointing in many cases.
(ii) That UK/EU recruitment at PGT level was
problematic.
(iii) That there were some issues about
assessment and feedback.
28.3 Social Sciences and Humanities
LTC07-P21
(i) That there were some instances of good
practice, such as the integration of personal tutoring and skills development,
and the use of systematic induction in all years.
(ii) That there were some issues about the
quality and quantity of space.
(iii) That external examiners had raised some
issues about how examination boards were run, to the effect that their
contribution was marginalised by the current process.
28.4 Comments noted in the course of discussion
included the following:
(i) That it would be helpful to learn more
about departmental induction procedures at a greater level of detail, with a
view to wider dissemination.
(ii) That consideration might be given to
increasing the level of the reassessment fee; some members of the committee
however disagreed with the proposition that students were indulging in
assessment ‘tactics’ and felt a higher resit fee would not improve
first attempt pass rates. It was urged
that any moves to increase the resit fee should be accompanied by access to
support for students struggling financially.
(iii) That it was considered increasingly
common for Part A students to feel they had only to achieve the minimum level
of pass to proceed; however, there were different reasons for first attempt
failures in Part B, including problems in balancing academic work with
non-curricular activities in the case of students who had moved off campus
after their first year and a difficulty in ‘upping the tempo’ after
Part A.
(iv) That the provision of specialist modules
within the curriculum to help students with their study skills, such as the
‘Learning to Learn’ module in the Wolfson School, was commendable.
(v) That the discussion highlighted the need
to support the broader student experience.
07/29 Periodic Programme Reviews
To consider reports of two PPRs held
during the spring 2007 and the responses of the relevant departments:
29.1 Civil and Building Engineering
LTC07-P22
Noted
(i)
That the Department had been commended on many aspects of
its provision and had responded positively to issues raised by the panel.
(ii)
That the Department held to its view that a minimum of two
meetings of the Staff/Student Committee was sufficient unless there were
critical matters arising. Members of LTC
felt it might be a matter of adjusting the timing of the meetings during the
year, since other departments found it possible to have a useful meeting after
the Easter vacation; it was noted also that PGT students were present for a greater
proportion of the year and ought to have more opportunity for feedback.
Agreed
(iii) That the supportive comment concerning
the participation of the VP of LSU would be taken on board in reviewing the PPR
process.
29.2 IPTME
LTC07-P23
Noted
(i) That the Department had been commended
on many aspects of its provision and had responded positively to issues raised
by the panel.
Agreed, on the issues
raised for University consideration,
(ii) That health and safety concerns raised
by the Department be brought to the attention of the Health and Safety Office
and the Deputy Vice-Chancellor.
(iii) That the arrangements for pre- and
in-sessional English language support for departments be remitted to a small
working group for consideration, the group to include the Director of Student
Guidance and Welfare, the Head of ELSU and a departmental representative.
Having noted a view within the
Committee that the arrangements for accommodating ELSU’s pre-sessional
programmes were less than satisfactory and must create a poor impression for
new international students, it was also agreed
(iv) That the group be asked to broaden its
remit to consider the arrangements for delivering ELSU’s pre-sessional
programme.
07/30 The
30.1 Update on Institutional Validation issues
LTC07-P24
The Committee received a report from
a meeting of the BUE Project Group/Institutional Validation Panel/Subject
Validation Panel Chairs held on 18 May 2007.
Noted
(i)
That the meeting had considered an initial set of
information provided by BUE in response to the Institutional Validation report.
(ii)
That the meeting had also received a progress report on
institutional issues followed up during the Academic Registrar’s visit in
March.
(iii)
That BUE had subsequently provided documentation dealing
with ‘essential actions’ listed in the Institutional Validation
report, by the deadline of 1 June 2007: this would be considered at a meeting
later in June.
30.2 Subject Validation Reports
The Committee received summaries of
the reports of the two subject validation panels.
·
Business Studies,
Economics, Political Science, and Informatics and Computer Science
LTC07-P25
·
Engineering
LTC07-P26
Noted
(i)
Both panels had been impressed by the commitment and
enthusiasm of the staff and by the quality and maturity of the students they
had met.
(ii)
Key issues identified by both subject panels concerned
·
the recruitment of qualified and experienced staff familiar
with the
·
student assessment and marking standards.
(iii)
That BUE had already submitted some documentation addressing
points raised by the subject panels.
(iv)
That there had been discussions within the University about
ways of supporting BUE in its recruitment of suitable staff and the possibility
of occasional input from LU staff to specific modules.
(v)
That Karen Roxborough and Gemma Godfrey from LSU had
recently visited BUE and would be submitting a report to the Academic Registrar
on their visit.
RESOLVED to RECOMMEND to Senate
In the light of the advice of the
two Subject Validation Panels, and subject to BUE responding positively to the
information requests and recommendations contained in their reports, that the
University should proceed with the validation of degree programmes at BUE.
30.3 Monitoring and Review Arrangements
LTC07-P27
The Committee considered proposals
to extend the standard monitoring and review arrangements in the case of the
collaboration with BUE, given the scope of the collaboration and the large
number of issues highlighted by the institutional and subject validation panels
that would require monitoring over a significant period of time.
Noted
(i)
That the proposals included the establishment of a BUE
Validation Sub-Committee of LTC to oversee monitoring and review arrangements
until at least the re-validation exercise in 2010.
(ii)
That a major re-validation exercise was envisaged in Spring
2010.
(iii)
That an annual institutional level review process and visit
was proposed in addition to subject level APRs.
(iv)
That the involvement of LU subject specialists would be
discussed with them at a meeting in July.
(v)
That the Academic Registry was developing a recording system
to track progress on the various issues raised by the validation panels and
would also discuss with CIS whether LUSI could be used to keep track of changes
in module specifications.
(vi)
That although there would not have been a graduating cohort
in Engineering by the time of the 2010 re-validation, in approving validation
in 2007 the University would be committing itself to 7 cohorts of validating
students starting with the first intake who commenced the preparatory year in
2005.
(vii)
That it would be important to agree formal arrangements to
handle any BUE proposals for new programmes.
(viii)
That a meeting with the Chairs of the subject validation
panels had taken place to discuss issues concerning the marking of student
work. BUE would be asked to retain a
significant body of student work from the semester just ending, in order that
it could be scrutinised by the subject specialists over the summer. They would be asked to provide feedback on
the marking standards, identify issues, and help to ensure that appropriate
protocols were put in place before students received marks for 2007/08. Insofar as this work was not covered in the original
costings, it would require additional funding.
RESOLVED to RECOMMEND to Senate
That the proposed monitoring and
review arrangements be approved.
07/31
LTC07-P28
The Committee considered the report
of a Validation Panel on proposals from
Noted
(i)
That the College had addressed the points raised by the Validation
Panel.
(ii)
That the Honours top-up programme was being revised to
ensure that appropriate progression routes were provided from the range of FDs
now being offered in sport, exercise and health.
RESOLVED to RECOMMEND to Senate
That the four new pathways, in
Athletics, Football, Rugby Union and Swimming, be added to the Foundation
Degree (FDSc) programme in Sports Performance, and validated for an initial
period of five years from 2007.
07/32 Annual
Report 2006 on Student Appeals under Regulation XIV
LTC07-P29a/29b
The Committee received the above
report.
07/33 Annual report on cases of Academic Misconduct
2005/06
LTC07-P30a/30b
The Committee received the above
report.
Noted
(i)
That the Department of Civil and Building Engineering had
had a blitz on plagiarism amongst first year students in 2005/06, using
electronic detection software. The
number of cases detected had significantly reduced in the current session,
which was a good outcome.
(ii)
That the Students’ Union was reinforcing the message
that academic misconduct was unacceptable and carried penalties.
07/34 Learning
Spaces
LTC07-P31
The Committee received a report from
the Director of Media Services on the recent online survey on teaching space
carried out amongst members of academic staff.
Noted
(i) That overall the survey revealed a
considerable variety of teaching styles, which in itself was good to report.
(ii) That there was demand for data
projectors; the Director wanted to roll out the installation of fixed data
projectors in all rooms, but her budget bid for this had been turned down in
the support services challenge. Members
of the Committee felt that the provision of data projectors should have a high
priority and that it was more important to increase the number of fixed data
projectors than it was to install other equipment in the same rooms as the same
time. Timing was an issue. It would be desirable to have data projectors
available as standard by the start of 2009/10 in order for staff to be able to
exploit the new VLE.
(iii)
That although staff had expressed a wish to see rooms
equipped with computers, Media Services was not planning to increase provision.
(iv)
That staff needed to be confident about what equipment would
be available in a room when they arrived to teach, and how to operate it: there
was a need therefore to ensure that such information was well publicised.
(v)
That Media Services could do more to respond to the
different requirements of staff in relation to teaching styles, but to do so,
it was important that staff relayed these requirements in a timely manner via
the departmental administrators responsible for room bookings.
RESOLVED
That the Director of Media Services
be invited to an early meeting of the Programme Quality Team to update the Team
on what improvements in equipping pool rooms could be made with the funds
currently available.
ACTION: RAB
07/35 External Examiners’ Reports
LTC07-P32
The Committee considered proposals
from the Programme Quality Team concerning the sharing of External
Examiners’ reports with student representatives.
Noted
(i) That the proposals had arisen on the
report of the national Quality Assurance Framework Review Group, which had
recommended that HEIs should no longer be required to publish qualitative data,
including the summaries of EEs’ reports, on the TQI web-site, but coupled
this with a recommendation that institutions should share EEs’ reports as
a matter of course with student representatives.
(ii) That departments had been consulted.
(iii) That in the light of reservations expressed,
the Programme Quality Team was proposing that for the time being an extra
section should be added to the EEs’ report form for any comments of a
confidential nature they felt it inappropriate to share with the student
representatives.
RESOLVED to RECOMMEND to
Senate
(iv) That departments be required in future to
release their external examiners’ reports, and the departmental
responses, for discussion at the relevant Staff/Student Committees;
(v) That on a trial basis, subject to review
after the 2007/08 Programme Boards, an extra section be added to the report
form to allow EEs, if they so wish, to include comments they consider to be of
a confidential nature and inappropriate to share with student representatives.
It was further noted
(vi)
That the TQI web-site would be relaunched over the summer as
‘UNISTATS’. It would be
managed by UCAS and by virtue of its re-orientation be much more important from
a recruitment perspective. Staff in the
Academic Registry would be meeting to review the implications, including the
management of the 2007 NSS results.
07/36 Condonement
LTC07-P33
Further to discussion at the
previous meeting (M.07/4), the Committee received a report from the Programme
Quality Team concerning the Regulations on condonement.
RESOLVED
In the light of the advice of the
Programme Quality Team, that the condonement provisions in Regulation XX remain
unchanged.
07/37 QAA Institutional Audit 2008
LTC07-P34
The Committee received an update on
arrangements for the audit.
It was noted that a preliminary
meeting with QAA officers would take place on 13 July 2007 and that an Audit
Steering Group had been established.
07/38 Employer engagement
LTC07-P35 (confidential)
The Committee received a report from
the AD(T) Engineering on initial discussions with a major company involving
collaboration with the Department of Aeronautical and Automotive Engineering
and the engCETL, concerning the provision of a programme to reskill some 200 of
the company’s engineers. Elements
of work-based learning and development of e-learning materials would be
involved. There was a possibility that
the programme might be designed to lead to a Foundation degree, and Foundation
Degree Forward was providing start-up project funding for the development of an
appropriate framework. The company was
hoping for a January 2008 start.
Noted
(i)
That the funding model had still to be developed. Several aspects were unclear, including the
availability of funding from HEFCE. It
would be essential before any commitments were entered into for the University
to approve a business plan.
(ii)
That it would be a departure from the University’s
position up to now to deliver a Foundation degree without the involvement of an
FE partner.
(iii)
That the framework developed in this case might provide a
basis for an approach to other employers.
RESOLVED
That an outline of the proposal be
presented to Senate at its next meeting to provide an early opportunity for any
comment.
07/39 Curriculum
Sub-Committee – 10 May 2007 (A)
LTC07-P36
It was RESOLVED to recommend new programme proposals and
other strategic changes to Senate on the advice of Curriculum Sub-Committee.
07/40 ‘Stretched
degrees’ for elite sports students
LTC07-P37
It was RESOLVED to approve proposed
procedures.
07/41 Curriculum
Sub-Committee – 19 May 2007 (B)
LTC07-P38
Further discussions of the
Sub-Committee were noted.
07/42 National
Student Survey 2007
The Committee noted that
Loughborough had achieved a final response rate of 77.77%, by comparison with a
rate of 59% across all participating institutions.
07/43 Student
Recruitment and Programme Quality Teams
The Committee noted the
following changes in the titles of teams led by the PVC(T):
The Student Recruitment and
Admissions (SRA) Team had been renamed the Student Recruitment Team; and the
Programme Development and Quality (PDQ) Team had been renamed the Programme
Quality Team.
07/44 Dates of
Meetings 2007/08
The Committee noted the
dates proposed for meetings in 2007/08, all Thursdays:
8 November 2007
14 February 2008
5 June 2008
07/45 Date of
Next Meeting
8 November 2007 at 9.30am
07/46 Departing
members
Before closing the meeting, the
Chair thanked the following members whose terms of appointment were coming to
an end for their contributions to the work of the Committee: Iain Phillips,
Karen Roxborough and Emily Wildman.
Author – Robert Bowyer
Date – June 2007
Copyright © Loughborough University. All rights reserved