Learning
and Teaching Committee
LTC10-M2
Minutes of
the Meeting of the Committee held on 3 June 2010
Members:
Apologies: Brian Jarvis, Jennifer Nutkins
In attendance: Robert Bowyer; Nigel Thomas (up to
M.31); Anne Mumford (for M.34)
By
invitation: Ray
Dawson
The Chair welcomed Professor Ray Dawson to
the meeting; he would be taking over the role of AD(T) Science from 1
August. Dr Ruth Kinna, who would be
taking over the role of AD(T) SSH from 1 August, had sent her apologies.
10/24 Business on the Agenda
Items 4.2 and 19.1 were unstarred. It was agreed to take item 14 as close as
possible to 11.00am.
10/25 Minutes
LTC10-M1
To confirm the
Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 11 February 2010.
10/26 Matters Arising from the Minutes not otherwise
appearing on the Agenda
26.1 Senate actions
Noted that Senate had approved the
recommendations of LTC on the following matters:
(i)
Assessment flexibility/stretched degrees for
elite athletes (M.10/08)
(ii)
Regulation changes – Regulations XI, XXI
(M.10/14)
(iii)
New programme proposals and strategic changes
(M.10/13)
and noted reports
on
(iv)
British University in Egypt (M.10/11) – with
approval for the BUE Validation SC to begin detailed planning for the formal
revalidation process, which would consist of a series of exercises over a
period of several months
(v)
Review of condonement in 2008/09 (M.10/07)
26.2 Approved list of calculators for use in University examinations
To note that following further
advice from the MEC and before publication of the revised list, the PVC(T) had
taken action on behalf of LTC to remove HP10 calculators from the revised list.
Chris Peel
reported that there had been some confusion amongst students this year as to
which calculators were permitted.
Although LTC had agreed that calculators which had been removed from the
approved list because they had gone out of production would still be permitted
in the examination halls, there was no indication of this on the Examinations
webpage. The Committee was assured that
frontline staff had been informed and invigilators specifically briefed, but it
was felt something further was needed to reassure students who owned one of the
‘old’ calculators, that they were still acceptable.
ACTION: SRE Office
10/27 Annual Programme Reviews
LTC considered reports from the
AD(T)s on the Annual Programme reviews in their respective Faculties. Some specific issues were raised.
27.1 Engineering
LTC10-P20
(i)
Overall,
applications remained strong and entry qualifications were rising; still some
issues with numbers of first-attempt failures, and with attendance and
engagement in some departments.
(ii)
Some external
examiners were disappointed at not being able to meet with students: interim
visits had been suggested. Some commented
on perceived reluctance to award high marks for projects, and on consistency of
project marking.
(iii)
The question had
been raised in Aeronautical & Automotive Engineering, in respect of the MSc
in Automotive Systems Engineering, whether passing the project development
module at the first attempt could be made a requirement for taking the project,
since it was the department’s experience that students who failed at the first
attempt would go on to fail the project module.
LTC was of the view that, whilst passing the project development module
could be made a prerequisite for undertaking the project itself, the right of
reassessment (in the project development module) could not be withheld.
(iv)
The accreditation
panel in Electronic & Electrical Engineering had questioned the practice of
MEng and MSc students being taught together but being required to achieve
different marks for the award of credit.
(v)
The AD(T) had
suggested that Programme Quality Team consider University policy on supplying
students with lecture notes; in some instances, students were expected to print
them from Learn at their own cost but there was no consistent approach. LTC felt this was not a straightforward issue
because the information requirements for different teaching sessions varied
considerably; some resources made available were supplementary rather than
essential; and in subject areas like Art and Design, it was necessary to
suggest a limit to the amount that students spent on materials to ensure
equality of opportunity. The general view
of LTC members was that the lecturer should arrange for students to be provided
free of charge with any printed materials that were essential for the teaching
session concerned. PQ Team was invited
to consider the matter.
ACTION: RAB
(vi)
It was agreed to
refer to PQ Team an issue raised by Chemical Engineering in relation to the
process for appeals against termination of studies for failure to participate
under Regulation IX.
ACTION: RAB
LTC10-P21
(i)
The Department of
Ergonomics (Human Sciences) felt that the International Office could do more to
help them identify markets than it had in the past few years. The AD(T) had raised this with the IO on the
department’s behalf.
(ii)
The School of
Mathematics had raised the issue of students who had completed a CAA test
wanting confirmation that their test paper had been submitted/accepted. This had been raised with IT Services
previously, the AD(T) had intervened but it had not been resolved. LTC agreed it was a reasonable request to
make and asked IT Services to arrange for all students completing CAA tests to
receive an automated email confirmation that their test had been
submitted/accepted.
ACTION: RAB
(iii)
The accreditation
panel from the Institute of Physics had commented that the Physics laboratories
were in need of refurbishment.
(iv)
There was a general
issue of departments letting students know what actions they had taken in
response to student feedback. This was
highlighted in the QE Officer’s report at the end of the agenda paper. It was agreed it was important for departments
to ensure that their Staff:Student Committee was operating effectively. The Committee should receive regular reports
on actions taken in response to formal module feedback as well as issues raised
through the SSC. Departments should
consider over and above this how to foreground important or particularly
significant actions taken. It was
suggested that a notice board next to a coursework collection point was a good
way of bringing items to students’ attention.
(v)
LTC felt there
were learning and teaching related issues where the support services had a
significant contribution to make. It was
suggested that ‘Services Working Together’ meetings might be a good place for specific
issues to be raised for discussion.
27.3 SSH
LTC10-P22
(i)
Departments had
shown themselves responsive to feedback from the NSS; they were ready to revise
and reform their programmes to keep pace with changes in external contexts; and
it was striking that external examiners’ reports were highly complimentary of
quality and standards across the Faculty.
(ii)
Schemes were
being trialled in several departments to improve student engagement (eg revised
tutorial systems, induction procedures).
(iii)
The Faculty was
challenged to produce good strong PGT programmes and would welcome more help
than it was currently receiving from the International Office.
(iv)
There was strong
interest amongst students in obtaining work placements, including short
placements, in view of the positive link between placements and employment
post-graduation. It was not easy however
for departments to find the resources necessary to support placement activity
especially when it had not been a feature of programmes up to now.
(v)
There were
serious concerns about the amount and quality of space in many SSH departments.
10/28 BUE Validation Sub-Committee
LTC10-P23
LTC received the report of the Institutional
Revalidation Visit of May 2010. It was
noted that the visit was the second of six stages to be completed in the
revalidation process, and followed the Subject Advisers’ visit in March.
There had been positive
developments in many areas, but there were concerns in respect of the
programmes in Economics, and Petroleum Engineering and Gas Technology, and the
University would closely monitor and assess the delivery of these particular
programmes at key stages during 2010-11.
Two further points were mentioned, by the
Chair and by the ADT(BUE), which needed to be added into the report before it
was sent to BUE.
ACTION:
MB, DT, CD
10/29 Master
in Science (MSci) degree
LTC10-24
It was resolved, on the recommendation of
Programme Quality Team following consultations, to recommend to Senate the
introduction of the degree of Master in Science (MSci) with immediate effect; and
associated amendments to Ordinance IV.
It was resolved to approve proposals from the
Department of Computer Science that the degree of MSci be adopted for certain
of its existing integrated Masters programmes, subject to Senate’s approval of
the introduction of the award, and details being lodged with the Secretary to
Curriculum Sub-Committee.
10/30 Change in minimum requirements for passing an UG Programme Part
LTC10-P25
It
was resolved, on the advice of Programme Quality Team following consultations, to
recommend to Senate an increase in the minimum requirements for passing an
undergraduate programme part, from
100 credits and a minimum of 20% in all modules to 100 credits and a minimum of 30% in all modules (plus as now
fulfilling any additional requirements for the specific programme), for
introduction on a phased basis (to avoid impacting on students already on
course) from 2010-11; and associated amendments to Regulation XX. It was noted that the change would
necessitate changes to programme regulations for 2010-11 if they currently
specified criteria for passing Part A that were lower than the new minimum
standard.
10/31 Reassessment
of UG project/dissertation modules
LTC10-P26
LTC considered an amendment to Regulation XX
to allow UG students who narrowly failed a project/dissertation module the
possibility of revising and resubmitting the original piece of work for the
purpose of reassessment. The purpose was
to bring the undergraduate and postgraduate award regulations closer into line
on this point. It was noted that
Programme Quality Team was still considering related issues concerning the
implications of the options in terms of attendance requirements and the level
of fee that should be charged for reassessment.
LTC suggested that the following issues be considered in the course of
these ongoing discussions:
(i)
whether
or not students who were required to submit new work for reassessment should be
allowed to undergo reassessment in the SAP
(ii)
whether
students with a first-attempt mark in the range 30-39% (PGTs 40-49%) should be
required consult their supervisor/tutor before deciding on their course of
action as regards reassessment.
ACTION:
RAB
The new regulation would mean that UG
students with a project/dissertation mark of <30% would have to submit new
work for reassessment. LTC considered it
important that academic staff appreciated the implications for students of
awarding a mark of <30% as against 30-39% under the revised regulation.
It was resolved, on the advice of Programme
Quality Team, to recommend to Senate, that undergraduate students who fail a
project/dissertation module at the first attempt with a mark in the range
30-39% be permitted to revise and resubmit the original piece of work for the
purpose of reassessment; and to amend Regulation XX accordingly with effect
from the start of 2010-11.
10/32 Leave of
absence/termination of studies
LTC10-P27
LTC considered a Working Group report
concerning changes in procedures for handling leave of absence and termination
of studies.
It was noted that one of the additions
proposed to Regulation IX included a requirement (para 35(vi)) that where leave
of absence was due to ill health, a student would normally be required to
provide evidence from an appropriate professional source to support the case
that a return to studies was appropriate.
The Departmental Administrators’ Liaison Group (DALG) had foreseen
practical difficulties in implementing this requirement and was concerned about
the extra workload potentially involved in chasing such evidence. Programme Quality Team had been broadly
supportive of including the requirement, recognising the need to balance the
interests of the individual student with those of other staff and students in
the University community, but had asked for information to be sought about
relevant procedures in other HEIs.
Enquiries had been made and, as indicated in the agenda paper (Annex A),
out of 22 institutions which responded, 21 currently had a system in place
whereby students were required to show evidence of their fitness to return to
study. Members of LTC were nevertheless not
entirely comfortable about including the clause, being doubtful as to what
would be deemed to constitute acceptable evidence, noting that two universities
which had such a ‘fitness to return system’ were considering abandoning it
because they had doubts about its effectiveness, and noting the advice from the
law firm Martineau that the University needed to be cautious about implementing
such a policy. Some members queried why
it was not proposed to seek evidence of ‘fitness to return’ when leave of absence
had been granted for reasons other than ill health. It was felt that the issue required further
consideration and that for the moment, the additional clause 35(vi) should be
omitted from the regulation changes proposed.
In the course of discussion, it was remarked
that students who were permitted to repeat an assessment following an impaired
performance claim were not required to provide evidence of being fit to
undertake the reassessment. It was felt
this was a possible anomaly in the light of the new procedures and that it
might need to be revisited.
LTC considered it acceptable to provide a
list of reasons for granting leave of absence.
It was emphasised that the list was for guidance and was not intended to
be definitive. It was noted however that
there was no mention of leave of absence for sport-related reasons, and it was
suggested reference be made to the separate procedures already in place for
handling such cases.
ACTIONS:
Working Group
It was resolved, on the recommendation of Programme
Quality Team, to recommend to Senate the changes in procedures for handling
leave of absence and termination of studies, and associated changes in
Regulation IX, as set out in the agenda paper, with effect from the start of
2010-11, subject to the points noted above and excluding therefore the addition
of clause 35(vi).
10/33 Points Based Immigration System
LTC10-P28
LTC received a report on progress made in
response to the new system and recommendations for action as endorsed by
Programme Quality Team. It was resolved:
(i)
to
approve the proposal to (a) report continuing students who do not get their
visas scanned to UKBA and (b) refuse to register new students until their visa
has been scanned;
(ii)
to
approve the general approach to attendance monitoring;
(iii)
to
approve the reliance on department checks in Weeks 6-8 of each semester;
(iv)
to
approve the adoption of the ‘Protocol for investigating students who are
failing to participate in their programme’;
(v)
to
approve the proposals for conducting departmental audits as part of the APR
process (and additional ad hoc checks);
(vi)
to
approve the suggestion that a member of Academic Registry staff be added as an
‘attendance monitor’ to all departments on Co-Tutor;
(vii)
to
recommend that Co-Tutor be fully implemented in all departments to record
interactions with students and in particular to assist with attendance
monitoring.
and to forward the report to Senate.
It was agreed to ask IT Services to introduce
a facility for staff to copy emails to and from their students directly into
Co-Tutor records.
ACTION:
RAB
10/34 Learning Spaces
34.1 Learning Landscapes Conference
LTC10-P31
LTC
received a summary report on the conference prepared by Maurice
FitzGerald. Simon Austin who had been
involved in the project and had also attended the conference spoke to the
item. He drew attention to the change
management tools identified by the project, and also to the presentation
advocating the input of academics and students to the design process and
ongoing dialogue with estates planners and architects. This was about strategic level thinking for
the future, and there was no evidence that it was currently being addressed at Loughborough.
Anne
Mumford spoke of her efforts to drive recent capital projects from a learning
and teaching perspective. It had now
been agreed that in the case of capital projects with a learning and teaching
dimension and involving pool facilities, there would be a requirement for
Facilities Management to consult with the learning and teaching community; the
question remained however who should be involved in that conversation,
especially where the project was not being driven by one department. It was also felt that a forum was needed for
more regular discussion in an integrated way on physical space, virtual
environments and teaching styles.
It
was felt the University did not have sufficient information on the way in which
space impacted on the effectiveness of learning and teaching processes and
needed to develop a research perspective on this. In terms of input to developments, it was
suggested that students would see a distinction between learning space,
provided for them to work and study in, alone or in groups, in which they had
most interest; and teaching space, which was primarily for academic staff to influence
to accommodate their preferred teaching styles.
It
was suggested too that there be post-occupancy evaluations of space from a learning
and teaching perspective, also as part of the capital projects process.
It
was agreed to draw these issues to the attention of the Executive Leadership
Team.
ACTION: MB
It
was noted that Loughborough had joined with Lincoln and Reading to make a bid
to HEFCE for a further project concerning space sharing with local communities,
under the title of ‘Academic Commons’.
34.2 Recent developments
LTC10-P32
LTC
received a report from the Director of Change Projects. This highlighted developments taking place in
James France before the start of 2010-11.
It also referred to a proposal to investigate the possibility of using
J.1.04 and adjacent furniture store to create a 400-seater lecture theatre.
The
report also covered developments in relation to timetabling. It was noted that a contract had been signed
for the purchase of appropriate software and a Timetabling Manager had been
appointed who would be based in Facilities Management. A detailed implementation plan and schedule
was to be discussed at forthcoming meetings with the supplier and by the
project management board. It was
anticipated that as a first phase in the project the software would be used to
replicate the existing room bookings system for Semester 2, 2010-11. It was noted that data input to the system would
include the time needed to get from one venue to another.
10/35 University Admissions Policy for High Performance Student Athletes
LTC10-P29
It was resolved, on
the advice of the Student Recruitment Team following consultations, to
recommend to Senate a University Admissions Policy for High Performance Student
Athletes.
10/36 Code of Practice on
Placement Learning
LTC10-P30
It was resolved, on the advice of the
Programme Quality Team, to recommend to Senate a revised Code of Practice on
Placement Learning and associated Health and Safety policy. It was noted that the latter had only just
become available and some minor amendments to wording might be needed to ensure
that the two documents dovetailed with each other; it was agreed to authorise
the PVC(T) to approve any necessary adjustments before they went forward to
Senate.
ACTION:
MB, RAB
It was noted that placements for students on
the IT Management for Business degree programme in Computer Science were
endorsed by e-skills
10/37 Loughborough
College Validation Sub-Committee
LTC10-P33
It was resolved to approve in principle the
establishment of a Validation Sub-Committee for HE programmes at Loughborough
College. It was noted that proposals for
membership and terms of reference would be brought to LTC’s next meeting. It was agreed to take note of a suggestion
that there be student representation.
ACTION:
MB
10/38 Learning and Teaching
Implementation Planning
LTC10-P34
LTC considered progress on learning and
teaching implementation plans for 2009-10.
Amongst other things, it was noted that further progress had been made
in improving entry qualifications; a lot had been done to improve induction,
partly through the student engagement project led by the Teaching Centre; actions
had been taken on aspects of e-learning and on the development of learning
spaces; the New Lecturer Course was underway; and revised criteria had been
implemented for promotions to SL.
LTC also considered learning and teaching
implementation planning priorities for 2010-11, and a number of points were
highlighted. The University needed to
take a tough look at Master’s programmes, and consider the possible redistribution
of intake targets; further developments were proposed in international learning,
and on language provision; consideration would be given to the expansion of
central support for placement activities, building on best practice and also exploiting
possibilities for greater use of IT; the implications for quality management of
changes in University structure would need careful consideration; there would
be a review of the criteria for appointments to personal chairs.
The Committee endorsed the documents
presented.
10/39 University Risk
Schedule
LTC10-P35
The Committee endorsed the updated risk
assessment schedule for Learning and Teaching.
10/40 Effectiveness of the Committee
LTC10- P37
At the request of Audit Committee,
consideration was given to the effectiveness of the Committee. In the current session for the first time the
Students’ Union had been invited to send three student observers to meetings of
the LTC, one from each Faculty from amongst previous departmental student
committee chairs. The students had been
encouraged to participate in the Committee’s discussions and had all made
helpful contributions. It was agreed
that the invitation to the Students’ Union to nominate three student observers
should be repeated on an annual basis.
It was agreed that this information should be added to the comments on
the Committee’s effectiveness from the meeting in November 2009.
10/41 Curriculum Sub-Committee – 6 May 2010 (A)
41.1 New programme proposals
LTC10-P37
It was RESOLVED to recommend new programme proposals and other strategic changes to Senate on the advice of Curriculum Sub-Committee, as set out in the report, with the exception of major programme changes to the MSc in International Relations (item 2). In this instance, the proposals were still subject to outstanding matters being resolved to the satisfaction of the Chair of the Sub-Committee; and it was agreed to authorise the PVC(T) as Chair of LTC to approve them on behalf of the Committee, once cleared by the Chair of CSC, to enable them to go forward to Senate.
41.2 Programme specifications
LTC10-P38
It was RESOLVED to approve a recommendation from CSC on the presentation of programme specifications.
10/42 Curriculum Sub-Committee – 6 May 2010 (B)
LTC10-P39
LTC noted further discussions of the Sub-Committee.
10/43 Annual report 2009 on student appeals under
Regulation XIV
LTC10-P40
LTC received the report.
10/44 Annual report on cases of academic misconduct
2008/09
The report was not yet available and the item
was deferred to the next meeting.
10/45 Centres for Excellence in
Teaching and Learning
Received
evaluation reports from the CETLs.
45.1 sigma CETL
LTC10-P42
45.2 engCETL
LTC10-P43
10/46 E-Learning Advisory Group
The minutes of the meeting held on 26 April 2010 were not yet available and would be taken
at the next meeting.
10/47 Student Recruitment Team
LTC10-P45
LTCC noted the minutes of the Team meetings
held on 15 March and 26 April 2010.
10/48 Responses to HEFCE and QAA
consultations on quality matters
LTC noted responses submitted on behalf of the
University to the following:
47.1 Future arrangements for
quality assurance in England and Northern Ireland
LTC10-P46
47.2 Evaluation of the Academic Infrastructure
LTC10-P47
10/49 National Student Survey
LTC noted that the final University response
rate was 75.97% compared with a final figure of 73.75% in 2009. (National
response rate 63% compared with 62% in 2009.)
10/50 Dates of Meetings 2010/11
Secretary’s
Note:
Provisional dates are as follows, all
Thursdays, meetings to start at 9.30am:
4
November 2010
17
February 2011
9
June 2011
10/51 Valedictions
The PVC(T) on behalf of the Committee thanked
Chris Peel and Jemima Barnes for their contributions to the Committee on behalf
of the student body during 2009-10; Barry Haworth for his contribution as
Science Faculty representative for the past three years; Paul Byrne and Martin
Harrison who were retiring from the University for their commitment and hard
work during their periods of office as AD(T)s, and the effective manner in
which they had balanced institutional and faculty responsibilities; and finally
Robert Bowyer who was also retiring from the University for his unstinting
support in managing the affairs of the Committee over many years as its
Secretary.
Author – Robert Bowyer
Date – June 2010
Copyright © Loughborough University. All rights reserved