Learning and
Teaching Committee
LTC10-M1
Minutes of the Meeting of
the Committee held on 11 February 2010
Members:
Apologies: Jemima
Barnes, Barry Howarth, Jan Tennant,
David Twigg
In attendance: Robert
Bowyer; Phil Richards,
Martin Hamilton (for M.1); Jo Wilkins (for M.10)
Observers: James
Carroll, Dan Harris, Scott Vickers
Item 14 was unstarred (M.13 below). It was agreed to take item 10 at the start of
the meeting.
10/02 Student Portal
Received a
presentation from Phil Richards and Martin Hamilton of IT Services on the
development of a student portal.
Some work had already been
undertaken on the development of an initial prototype. The technology was available to collect
information from existing systems and incorporate this into a portal page. At this stage, IT Services wanted feedback on
the design ideas.
It was felt the overarching
governance arrangements which were being suggested would be appropriate,
provided that there was clarity on project management issues. The proposal was to complement the LUSI
Steering Group with a strong student focus group. Using such a focus group had worked
successfully in the introduction of Google student email. Members felt it important also to ensure that
academic staff were involved, as key information providers, and with an eye to
the subsequent development of a staff portal.
It would be important not to
overlook the alignment with the introduction of the Content Management System
or other developments such as an ‘applicants’ portal’ and provision for
distance learners.
The students present contributed
a number of initial observations and suggestions as to what a portal page might
include and were enthusiastic about the idea of students being involved in the
project. Accessibility via hand-held
devices was another aspect that would need to be considered.
A timetable working towards
October 2010 was envisaged.
10/03 Minutes
LTC09-M3
The Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 5
November 2009 were confirmed.
10/04 Matters arising from the Minutes not otherwise appearing on the agenda
Senate actions
Noted that Senate
had approved the recommendations of the Committee in the following matters:
(i)
Constitution and membership (M.09/48)
(ii)
Terms of reference of the Committee (M.09/49)
(iii)
Nanyang
(iv)
Regulation XXIII Validated Undergraduate
Awards (Higher Education in
(v)
New programme proposals and strategic changes
(M.09/60)
and noted reports
on
(vi)
(vii)
National Student Survey 2009 (M.09/57)
(viii)
Undergraduate reassessment (M.09/67.1)
10/05 Periodic Programme Review
LTC10-P1A, P1B
Considered the report of the PPR of Electronic and
Electrical Engineering held during Semester 2, 2008/09, and the response of the
department. This item had been deferred
from the previous meeting, as a response had not been received at that
point. In the interim, PQT had
considered an initial response, which it had deemed inappropriate, and there
had been a meeting with the HOD involving the PVC(T), the Dean of Engineering
and the AD(T) Engineering. A revised
response had been produced which was seen to address the main issues. It would be followed up in a modified APR
process in early March, when the Dean of Engineering would again be involved
alongside the AD(T).
A particular concern of the PPR panel had been the ‘very
lean management structure’ of the department’s taught programmes and its over-dependence
on a very small number of key staff. A
query was raised as to whether the proposed move to larger schools within the
University might exacerbate such problems in the future. It was felt that, although size might not be an
issue in itself, it was essential that any organisational changes were supported
by robust management structures in which everyone could feel confident.
It was noted that the impact of the 15- and 20-credit
year-long module structure adopted by the department remained unclear. The department had been given special
dispensation to operate this structure, and the Committee felt it important
that a proper evaluation was undertaken, in order that the University could
learn from the department’s experience.
It was agreed to follow this up at APR.
ACTION: AD(T)
10/06 Disability Equality Scheme
LTC10-P2A, P2B
Considered the draft Disability Equality Scheme and Action
Plan for the period 2009-12. Relevant
committees, including LTC, were being invited to comment to the Equality and
Diversity Sub-Committee (of HRC). The
papers had already been considered by Programme Quality Team.
PQT
had noted some errors of fact concerning the student data and was concerned to
ensure that the action plans based on interpretations of the statistical data
were appropriate. It would also be
important for PQT and LTC to have appropriate oversight of some of the
student-facing actions proposed.
PQT
had also registered concern about the burden of making special assessment
arrangements for students with disabilities and learning difficulties and had
suggested that the management of this should be reviewed.
It
was resolved to ask PQT to pursue these issues and respond to the E&D
Sub-Committee on its behalf.
10/07 Condonement 2008/09
LTC10-P3
Considered a review of the use of condonement for
undergraduate students in 2008/09. LTC
was reminded that a monitoring report had been produced each year since
condonement had been introduced to ensure that it was being used as intended: to
give examiners a measure of discretion to deal with individual cases of
marginal failure where a student had an otherwise reasonable profile of marks
overall.
It was noted that there had been a further increase in the
proportion of Science Faculty students condoned. At 4.42% this was not considered excessive,
but the number of students condoned in Physics had risen from 3 to 18
(8.53%). This was considered by some to
be too large a proportion of the student body.
Members felt it would be helpful to know which programme years the
condonements related to. It was thought
there might be a relationship between the number of condonements and the entry
grades with which students were admitted. A key consideration in continuing the
use of condonement however should be whether students who were condoned were
eventually successful in obtaining a good degree.
It was noted that the use of condonement was bound up with
the interplay of programme regulations and University regulations (i.e.
Regulation XX) in setting the criteria for progression, as well as with the
core or optional status of individual modules within programmes. There was considerable variation across the
University in the criteria for progression and for the award of a degree and
the University had been advised to review procedures in this area at the last
Institutional Audit.
It was agreed in the light of this discussion to consult
departments on a proposal that the minimum requirements in Regulation XX for
passing a Part of an undergraduate programme should be raised 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). It was noted that this change would have to
be phased in if it was agreed. The
AD(T)s were asked to take initial soundings at their next Directorate meetings.
ACTION: AD(T)s
10/08 Assessment flexibility policy for elite
athletes; stretched degree policy for elite athletes
LTC10-P4A, 4B, 4C, 4D
Resolved to recommend to Senate, on the advice of PQ
Team, proposed amendments to the above.
10/09 Research
degree programmes with a taught element
LTC10-P5
Considered at the request of Curriculum Sub-Committee issues
relating to research programmes with a taught element, based in the DTCs. Attention was drawn to the variation in approach
being taken by the DTCs in which the University was involved to the study
requirements and awards available to students, as illustrated in the table set
out in the agenda paper. The position
was complicated by the fact that each DTC involved collaboration with one or
more partner universities and that commitments to specific patterns of
provision had effectively been made in the process of bidding for the
establishment of the centres. It would
have been helpful for there to have been earlier consideration of the taught elements
of the research degree programmes concerned.
It was suggested that discussions should be held with key
parties from the research side of the University, including the new Director of
the Graduate School, to see if it might be possible to establish a more
consistent approach to similar programmes in the future, and to derive a clear
set of principles which could underpin the University’s position from the
outset in any related funding bids or partnership proposals. This was agreed, though it would be important
not to adopt such a rigid approach as to stand in the way of the University
responding to future funding initiatives from the research councils. The PVC(T) would raise the matter at
Operations Committee.
ACTION: MB
It was also suggested that the EPSRC be invited to comment
on the desirability of such variation in the awards being offered through the
DTCs that it was funding.
Attention was drawn to a specific query raised by CSC in
relation to the taught element of the PhD in Hydrogen, Fuel Cells and their
Application. It was felt it would be
anomalous for
10/10 Student
Feedback – Support Services 2008/09
LTC10-P7
Received
a report from the Teaching Centre on student feedback 2008/09 in relation to
central support services.
LTC
welcomed the speedier turn-round of forms now being achieved by the Teaching
Centre.
Attention
was drawn to the continuing problem of students providing negative responses to
questions that were not applicable to a particular module. The Teaching Centre would raise this again
with departmental co-ordinators and suggest that questions that were not
applicable should actually be crossed through when forms were overprinted with
departmental questions.
There
were a few problems with reading lists and it was agreed to encourage the Library
to remind departmental Teaching and Learning Co-ordinators to ensure that
reading lists were being made available in a timely manner.
It was
noted that the
ACTION: MB, PLB
It was
suggested that the AD(T)s follow up issues on a number of individual modules
with relevant departments.
ACTION: AD(T)s
Questions
were raised about the pilot use of electronic feedback questionnaires. A report on the third pilot would be made to
PQT in March. Experience to date had
shown a significant reduction in response rates, though some members of staff
felt the usefulness of the qualitative comments had improved. It was queried whether some way might be
found of making it obligatory for students to provide feedback or whether this
might be considered too draconian. There
were possibly means of providing feedback electronically that had not yet been
explored. It was agreed to invite the
Students’ Union, perhaps through the departmental chairs committee, to
brainstorm how electronic module feedback could operate effectively, and to
come back to PQT with suggestions.
ACTION: CP et al
It was
noted that a scanner would need to be purchased to replace the obsolescent OMR
machine if a paper-based system continued.
Members observed that the paper-based system was not
environmentally-friendly.
10/11
The PVC(T) reminded LTC that at the previous meeting she had
reported sending a letter to the President of BUE setting out a number of
principles that Loughborough regarded as essential to its validation of BUE
programmes. There had been a
considerable amount of interaction between LU and BUE since then, both by
letter and face-to-face, including a meeting in the previous week. It was felt that broad agreement had now been
reached on the principles, but the way they were put into practice raised
further challenging issues. It had been
agreed that matters must be resolved by the end of February. If there was agreement, a revalidation
process would be put in train that would take place over several months.
10/12 ‘Future arrangements for quality assurance in
LTC10-P8
Considered a draft University response to the above
consultation paper, brought forward following discussion in PQT. Noted that the consultation was linked to the
conclusion of the current institutional audit cycle in 2010-11, but was also
taking place at a time when quality assurance in higher education had acquired
a high media and public profile via a number of key enquiries and reports, and
the consultation addressed some of the issues which they had raised. There were a number of other complementary
reviews in progress, details of which appeared elsewhere on the agenda
(LTC10-P19).
HEFCE had requested responses to the consultation by 5
March, using the template provided which focussed attention on 10 specific
questions. It was noted that there would
be further consultation on the operational detail of a revised audit method in
autumn 2010.
It was suggested that in the response to Q5, it should be
emphasised that institutional audit was concerned with the effectiveness of
processes for managing quality and standards, and should not lead to judgements
about output standards.
Members were invited to send the secretary any further comments
by Friday 19 February, after which the response would be signed off by the
PVC(T).
10/13 Curriculum Sub-Committee – 21 January 2010
LTC10-P9
13.1 MRes Built Environment:
Energy Demand Studies (item 4)
The AD(T) Engineering reported on further discussions with the proposer concerning CSC’s point that modules led by UCL should appear as UCL not LU modules and the UCL codes should appear in LU programme regulations.
Following further consultation with UCL, it was proposed that each institution should present all the modules in the MRes programme as its own, with appropriate module codes: in effect, two parallel versions of the same programme. The LU and UCL students would be taught together: LU students would travel to UCL for the UCL-led modules and vice-versa. There would be LU staff input to the UCL-led modules and UCL input to the LU-led modules, but the ‘ responsible examiner’ shown on the module spec would always be from the home institution. The module assessments would be the same for LU and UCL students, jointly set and jointly marked by LU and UCL staff. All assessments would be coursework based. The LU students’ results would be submitted to an LU Programme Board; the UCL students’ results would go to a UCL board of examiners. Both institutions would use the same external examiner.
LTC was prepared to endorse this approach. The AD(T) Engineering would proceed on this basis to consider revised paperwork for the programme, and the PVC(T) was authorised subsequently to take Chair’s action to approve the programme on its behalf.
ACTION:
A query was raised about the status of the students who were ‘visiting’ the other institution for teaching and whether they would be covered for insurance purposes; the proposer was asked to check the position.
13.2 Other proposals
It was resolved to recommend other new programme proposals and other strategic changes to Senate on the advice of Curriculum Sub-Committee.
10/14 Regulation
Changes
Resolved to recommend to Senate, on the advice of
Programme Quality Team, amendments to the following Regulations:
14.1 Regulation XI - Diplomas
in Industrial Studies, Professional Studies, International Studies
LTC10-P10
14.2
Regulation XXI – Postgraduate Awards
LTC10-P11
10/15 Approved list of calculators for use in
University examinations
LTC10-P12
Resolved to approve, on the advice of Programme Quality
Team, changes in the approved list of calculators.
10/16 Learning Spaces
LTC10-P13
Received a report from the Director
of Change Projects on recent developments.
10/17 E-Learning Advisory Group
LTC10-P14A, P14B
Noted the minutes of the meetings held on 28 October 2009
and 10 December 2009.
10/18 Student Recruitment Team
LTC10-P15A, P15B
Noted the minutes of the meetings held on 23 November 2009
and 18 January 2010.
10/19 Points-based Immigration System
LTC10-P16
Noted the actions being put in hand to enable the University
to fulfil its reporting duties as a Tier 4 Sponsor.
10/20 National Student Survey 2010
LTC10-P17
Received a briefing note.
10/21 Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey 2010
LTC10-P18
Received a briefing note.
10/22 External reviews in the area of Quality and
Standards
LTC10-P19
Received an update on other reviews
complementing the review of quality assurance arrangements (M.12 above).
10/23 Date of Next
Meeting
Thursday 3 June 2010 to start at 9.30 am.
Author – Robert Bowyer
Date – February 2010
Copyright © Loughborough University. All rights reserved