Learning and
Teaching Committee
LTC09-M1
Minutes of the Meeting of
the Committee held on 12 February 2009
Members:
Apologies: Nick
Holland, Anne Mumford, Steve Tarleton, David Twigg; Nigel Thomas
In
attendance: Robert
Bowyer
Observer: Mark
Hollingsworth
09/01 Business on the Agenda
Item 15.2 on the agenda was
unstarred.
09/02 Minutes
LTC08-M2
The Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 6
November 2008 were confirmed.
09/03 Matters arising from the Minutes not otherwise appearing on the agenda
3.1 Senate actions
It was noted that
Senate had approved the recommendations of the Committee in the following
matters:
(i)
Terms of reference (M.08/48)
(ii)
(iii) Credit values of
(iv) Assessment flexibility policy for elite
athletes (M.08/56) - LTC09-P1
(v) Programme proposals and other strategic
changes (M.08/58)
(vi) Regulation XVIII, academic misconduct
(M.08/59)
(vii) Validated programmes at
(viii) End of programme feedback (M.08/61)
3.2 Learning and Teaching Spaces (M.08/51)
A
paper from Anne Mumford was tabled summarising developments since the previous
meeting on:
(i) Learning space developments (James
France, Design Centre)
(ii) Establishment of consultative group/planning
teaching space (workshop on 29 April 2009)
(iii) Timetabling and room allocation (agreed
as institutional project)
(iv) Attendance at lectures (information
feeding into student engagement project).
3.3 Periodic Programme Review Reports (M.08/52)
(i)
The AD(T) Science reported on issues raised on
the PPR Report on Physics, which he had discussed in detail at this year’s APR:
·
he expected the department to take note of the
views of the Committee on the treatment of finalists at the 2.2/3rd
boundary without sufficient credit
·
the department was no longer making excessive
use of condonement
·
Physics was one of a number of departments in
Science looking for additional space;
·
the AD(T) had asked the department to liaise
with the Faculty e-Learning Officer with a view to making more use of the e-learning
resources available; the Committee asked the AD(T) to keep a watching brief.
ACTION: MCH
(ii) The AD(T) SSH reported on issues raised
on the PPR Report on
Economics,
which he had also discussed at this year’s APR:
·
the department was reviewing its methods of
teaching delivery in the light of its high SSR, and was planning to make
greater use of 20-credit modules; changes should be in place by 2010/11
·
it was also revisiting the weight of the final
year project as part of the review and had already improved the guidelines for
the project
·
the department wished to persevere with its
use of MCQs but emphasised that these related to coursework that contributed
not more than 20% of a module mark, and their use in this context was supported
by the External Examiner
·
it had been clarified that the PPR panel had
been concerned that students who spent a year abroad should have the
opportunity of obtaining a Diploma award, but had not been pressing the
department to introduce 4-year versions of its programmes.
In addition, the
AD(T) had met with the VP(Education) of LSU and the recent chair of the student
department committee for some useful discussions around the NSS results,
including the personal tutoring system and staff/student contact opportunities.
(iii) The AD(T) SSH reported on issues raised
on the PPR Report on Social Sciences:
·
the department had agreed to amend its rules
on the late submission of coursework from 2009/10 and the PQ Team had reminded
all departments of the relevant University regulation and code of practice
·
one of the important themes raised at the PPR
had been staff/student contact hours, where there was a mismatch between staff
and student expectations; the department had issued extensive guidance for
students and had embarked on a steady programme of increasing contact hours in
response to student concerns.
3.4 Credit values of
Following the approval by LTC and Senate of
the table setting out the normal credit values of University awards,
departments had been advised that if any of their programmes did not comply,
they should either adjust the programme structure or regulations or otherwise
submit a case to CSC for exemption. Departments
did not know at this stage what CSC would be prepared to accept by way of
exemption or how and when they would be expected to respond if a case for
exemption was turned down. It was
difficult however for CSC to formulate guidance without sight of actual
cases. It was agreed that it would be
desirable to establish a small sub-group to consider departmental submissions
and make recommendations through PQ Team to LTC.
ACTION: MB
4. Assessment
Flexibility Policy for Religious Observance
LTC09-P2
(A summary of departmental responses to the consultation
was tabled.)
The Committee
considered at the request of Senate and on
the recommendation of Programme Quality Team a proposed assessment flexibility
policy for religious observance. The
approach followed in drafting the policy was similar to that used previously with
the flexibility policy for elite athletes.
Supporting evidence for a student’s request would be required from a
relevant religious authority.
Departments had been consulted on the proposed policy, and information
on practice in other institutions had been circulated. Five out of seven departments which had
responded were broadly content with it. One
suggestion was that the policy as a starting point should encourage students to
seek dispensation from their religious authority to enable them to take their
assessments at the scheduled time; it was agreed that this should be written
in. One department’s preference for
using a chaperone for students granted dispensation did not find favour with
the Committee; this was considered impractical unless the examination was taken
within a few hours and on the same day as scheduled for other students. However, points regarding the difficulties
that might arise from the deferral of SAP resits were well made. Most departments wished the policy to be made
available without the University seeming actively to promote it.
The policy had been drafted with sensitivity to the varying practices
in departments. Requests would be
considered on a case by case basis and there would be the opportunity for
discussion between the department and the Academic Registrar about the type of
flexibility that might be offered. There
was a willingness to review the policy in the light of experience and a
recognition that it might be necessary to make adjustments if any particular
aspects proved unmanageable.
It was resolved to recommend the policy to Senate for approval, subject
to any adjustments to wording judged appropriate in the light of the
departmental responses and discussion in the Committee.
ACTION: JCN
5. Admissions
Policies
The Committee considered
on the recommendation of the Student Recruitment Team admissions policies in
the areas indicated below. These were
part of the move for greater transparency in the whole HE admissions process,
and further policies would be coming forward in relation to other areas in due
course. The SR Team had looked at them
in detail.
5.1 Criminal
convictions
LTC09-P3
It was queried on what criteria it would be decided
whether a case should be referred to the Criminal Convictions Panel. In response, the Committee was informed that
for the time being the SR Manager would be looking at applications and taking
decisions on a case by case basis. When
a body of precedents had accumulated, it might be possible to formulate a
statement of criteria for inclusion in the policy document.
5.2
Applicants
with disabilities
LTC09-P4
This was essentially a revision of previous
policy in this area. It included a
section dealing with situations in which the University judged that it could
not provide the support or adjustments being requested. Members of the Committee emphasised the
importance of liaison with DANS but also expressed the view that DANS appeared
to be under-resourced for the support it was called upon to provide.
The Committee endorsed both policies and
recommended them to Senate for approval.
6. Code of Practice on Staff/Student
Committees
LTC09-P5
The
Committee considered on the recommendation of the Programme Quality Team
proposed revisions to the Code of Practice on Staff/Student Committees. The changes had been brought forward by the
Students’ Union, which had been reforming its support for students involved in
representation. It was resolved to
recommend the revised Code of Practice to Senate for approval.
7. Condonement 2007/08
LTC09-P7
The Committee considered a review of the use of condonement
for undergraduate students in session 2007/08.
It was noted that there had been a significant increase in the number of
students who had benefitted from condonement (a 44% increase on 2006/07),
though the average margin of condoned failure had fallen for the fourth
consecutive year. It was noted that the
Science Faculty had the highest proportion of ‘condoned students’: this was
felt to reflect the nature of the disciplines involved, where students whose
performance generally was entirely satisfactory could have an unexpectedly bad
failure in a single module.
The Academic Registry was thanked for producing the report,
which would be forwarded to Senate for information. The Committee confirmed that it would wish to
continue receiving similar reports on an annual basis.
8.
BUE
Validation
LTC09-P8
The Committee received a summary of business transacted at
recent meetings of the Validation Sub-Committee, which indicated that the
University continued regularly to monitor a wide range of matters relating to
the partnership with BUE. Reference was
made to the invaluable work being undertaken by David Twigg as AD(T) BUE; to
the very helpful advice and guidance provided by Bill Simpson in relation to
the Library; and to the important contribution of Andy Wilson in the complex
area of Staff Development. The Committee
remarked upon the fact that issues remained to be resolved about how the
University’s input to Staff Development would be sustained beyond Andy Wilson’s
involvement. It was noted also that
there were some difficulties with the data transfer process for graduating
students which had still to be resolved.
There would be another Annual Institutional Level Review in April
2009. The first students would graduate
in the summer 2009 and a graduation ceremony was expected to take place in
October. There had been a small number
of student transfers from BUE to LU and it was hoped there might be more: the
Deputy Director of the International Office would be visiting BUE in the near
future.
9.
E-learning
Advisory Group
The PVC(T) as Chair of the Group reported that the Group had
now held two meetings. It had agreed
terms of reference; established an e-Learning Operations Group to be chaired by
Charles Shields which would work closely with departments on day-to-day issues;
and also revisited the e-learning strategy agreed some months ago and was
following up its implementation.
It was noted that Charles Shields had recently produced a
list of staff providing support for e-learning of one sort or another, for the
information of the PQ Team. PQ Team was
keen to see the staff concerned drawn into relevant networks.
It was agreed that in future the Minutes of meetings of the
e-Learning Advisory Group, and the Teaching Centre Advisory Board, should be
included in Section C of the LTC agenda for the information of the Committee.
10. Teaching
Centre Advisory Board
Paul Byrne as
Chair of the Advisory Board reported on its first meeting. The Board had endorsed its terms of reference
and those of the Management Group; and had endorsed the development plan,
already seen by LTC, which included working collaboratively with relevant
others, both internally and externally.
The Board had noted however that the staffing base was modest. This was relevant to another point discussed,
which was the desirability of including seeking external funding as one of the
aims of the Centre: the Board had agreed to consider at its next meeting whether
to add income generation to next year’s development plan, but it was hoped to
take some modest steps before that. The
TC was revising the New Lecturers’ programme, with a view to streamlining
delivery, though this would need the cooperation of departments in making staff
available; it was also exploring collaboration with the CETLs to provide more
subject based sessions, but there were obviously limits to this. The QEOs were inputting to APRs, PPRs and the
analysis of the NSS results: there had been positive reactions from departments
so far. At the request of the Board, the
PVC(T) had raised with the HR Working Group the need to identify at interview
and inform the TC of any additional support needed by new appointees, and the
adoption of a generic statement which would indicate that the purpose of
probation was to create space for the development of teaching practice as well
as research profile. HRWG had agreed to
these suggestions.
11. Student Feedback – Support Services 2007/08
LTC09-P6
The Committee received a report from the Director of the
Teaching Centre on student feedback 2007/08 in relation to central support
services (Library, IT Services, Media Services). It was noted that in all three areas, the
number of low scoring modules (<3.00) had decreased against the previous
year’s figures. In a minority of cases,
it was apparent that one or more of the central questions was not applicable to
the module concerned and it was suggested that in future departments might
block out the question or questions concerned in these circumstances. Appropriate actions were being taken where
the support services had contacted the module leaders concerned, but the
Committee was disappointed to note a significant number of instances where
module leaders had failed to respond. It
was agreed to remind the support services to copy Learning and Teaching
Coordinators into their correspondence with module leaders. It was also requested that all the support
services in future be sure to list the codes of the modules under scrutiny, in
order that any problems relating to PGT modules could be differentiated from
UG. The AD(T) Engineering informed the
Committee that Chemical Engineering was still reporting problems with
cross-campus movements between lectures.
ACTION: JW (TC)
12. Future of
Teaching Quality Enhancement Funding (TQEF)
The PVC(T) reminded the Committee that the University had been in
receipt of TQEF funding from HEFCE for some time. In the funding period starting 2006/07, this
amounted to some £380k per annum. HEFCE
proposed to replace TQEF with another, targeted allocation to be known as
‘Teaching Enhancement and Student Success’ as from 2009/10. This would include an element of funding for
student retention which had previously been distributed as part of the widening
participation allocation and changes to funding for widening access were also
proposed. The University’s funding under
these new arrangements might be slightly less than at present, but the position
was not yet certain. The University had funded
a number of fixed-term posts from its TQEF allocation, including the OLDOs (now
Faculty e-Learning Officers – FeLOs) and the Faculty QE Officers based in the
Teaching Centre, as well as posts in the Library and in the Careers
Centre. It was considered that these
appointments had been an effective use of the TQEF monies and had made a
significant contribution in support of both staff and students in various
aspects of learning and teaching. There
had been discussions about the way in which the University might use the TESS
allocation, and there was a strong consensus that the TQEF-funded work should
continue to be resourced. With many of
the fixed-term posts due to end during 2009/10, critical decisions would need
to be taken in the next few months. It
was agreed that the PVC(T) and the PQ Team should be asked to act on behalf of
the Committee in these matters, and report back to the Committee on the
outcomes in due course.
ACTION: MB
13. Curriculum Sub-Committee, 22 January 2009 (A)
LTC09-P9
It was resolved to recommend new programme proposals and other strategic changes to Senate on the advice of Curriculum Sub-Committee.
14. Validated programmes at
14.1
Criteria for transfer of FD
graduates to a Part C Honours degree programme in SSES
LTC09-P10
Changes in requirements were approved.
14.2
Outline proposals and establishment
of validation panel for strategic changes to existing FD programmes
LTC09-P11
The Committee noted outline proposals (awaiting approval by
Operations Committee) and approved the establishment of a validation panel to
undertake scrutiny of detailed proposals in due course, comprising Morag Bell,
Paul Byrne, John Dickens and Robert Bowyer, and subject specialist advisers
from SSES.
15. Validated programmes at
LTC09-P12
The Committee noted a summary of outline proposals (already
approved by Operations Committee) and approved the establishment of a
validation panel to undertake scrutiny of detailed proposals in due course.
16. Curriculum
Sub-Committee – 22 January 2009 (B)
LTC09-P13
The Committee noted further discussions of the
Sub-Committee.
17. NSS 2009
LTC09-P14
The Committee received a briefing note.
18. Date of Next Meeting
Thursday 4 June 2009 at 9.30am
Author –
Robert Bowyer
Date – February
2009
Copyright ©
Loughborough University. All rights
reserved