Learning and Teaching Committee

Subject: Report of Curriculum Sub-Committee – Matters for Information

Origin Unconfirmed Minutes of the Meeting on 12 May 2011

Learning and Teaching Committee is invited to note the following items from the meeting of Curriculum Sub-Committee on 12 May 2011:

1. Effectiveness of Curriculum Sub-Committee

Members considered the Sub-Committee’s effectiveness. The following observations were made regarding the current and future operation of the Sub-Committee:

(a) A member who had joined the Sub-Committee in the current academic year indicated how impressed he had been with the level of scrutiny which the Sub-Committee was able to provide for proposals.

(b) Care would need to be taken following the introduction of the new school structure to ensure that the Committee was able to maintain the same level of scrutiny of proposals. This would only occur if members continued to devote sufficient time to reading the agenda papers and raised issues at meetings.

(c) In response to comments on its effectiveness in October 2010 (M10/46), the Sub-Committee had approved UG and PGT programme regulation templates which were simple and easy to read. These had been adopted for new programme proposals and would be phased in with the expectation that programme regulations submitted for PPR from 2012 would conform to the new template. A working party had also been set up to review the content of programme specifications and the processes for their production. Therefore, over time it anticipated that such programme-related documentation would be simplified and more user friendly.

(d) Members were reminded of the need for departments to be able to respond swiftly to opportunities for new programmes. It was noted that time needed to be given for reflection and debate on new proposals, but that the approval process could very often be speeded up by involving the Chair or another member in the development of programme proposals.

(e) The newly appointed AD(T)s would have less time to devote to programme-related matters than the existing AD(T)s. As was currently the case, the Sub-Committee could continue to hold virtual meetings where necessary, rather than considering proposals at scheduled meetings, but would need to find the right balance between the two.

(f) It was noted that when taking up their new roles AD(T) could remind staff of the Sub-Committee’s supportive role and its flexibility. They would be able to inform staff that it was invariably those programmes for which departments did not seek the Committee’s advice or disregarded it which failed at a later stage, It would also be helpful for them to note that consulting other areas of the University at an early stage in the design process could enhance their proposals and proposed programmes.

(g) Departments should continue to be encouraged to devote time to preparing their proposals and related documents, rather than relying upon AD(T)s and the Sub-Committee to identify issues and proofread documents for them.

(h) The Sub-Committee may consider introducing a ‘fast track’ approach for some categories of proposal. It may also seek opportunities to streamline the paperwork which it required, for example, by requesting that revised documents were submitted with changes tracked to make them more obvious.

(i) In the future the programme proposal form may be changed to request that departments whose programmes were externally validated should indicate the status of the validated programmes.

It was AGREED that this minute should be forwarded to the PVC(T) for information.

2. Programme and Module Approval Processes

.1 The Sub-Committee noted that changes would need to be made to the programme approval process to take account of the introduction of the new school structure. It also considered departmental consultation with the University Library regarding the introduction of new modules.

.2 In the past, the annual update process memorandum had been sent to heads of departments and copied to departmental administrators and departmental learning and teaching coordinators. With the introduction of the new school structure it was less clear who the memorandum and similar correspondence should be sent to, as the structure within individual schools will vary. It was noted that AD(T)s would be best placed to know who required this correspondence in their schools. Therefore it was AGREED that the Secretary to the Sub-Committee should consult individual AD(T)s over suitable contacts in August. They would be asked to confirm whether, in addition to the memorandum being sent to them in place of the head of department, the operations manager and/or departmental administrators and named others should be copied into such mailings.

The current strategic phase process required Directorates and Operations Committee to approve proposals for new programmes, new titles/awards and the discontinuation/suspension of programmes. Members agreed that Directorates should not be replaced in the process by another body. However, in the case of new programme proposals, it was proposed that Operations Committee should take on the role of identifying conflicts of interest between subject areas in place of Directorates. To facilitate this check, it was AGREED that the section on the Strategic Phase approval form requesting departments to declare any implications for other departments either providing or receiving provision (section 14) should be amended to explicitly ask whether the proposal was likely to raise any strategic issues for other departments.

Currently representatives from Faculty Boards were included in the membership of the Sub-Committee. Under the new structure, they would be replaced in the new membership by the new school AD(T)s. Three AD(T)s would be required to attend each meeting together with AD(T)s from those schools which had submitted programme proposals.

Faculty Board members were currently asked to comment on new programme proposals submitted by departments within their faculty. It was anticipated that under the new structure each school would have its own process for considering new programme proposals but that AD(T)s would ensure that their school’s learning and teaching committees would be given the opportunity to comment on proposals generated within the school.

.3 It was noted, with regard to departmental consultation with the University Library prior to the introduction of new modules, that the proposal form for new and amended modules required module tutors to indicate whether they had consulted the University Library over additional library requirements or whether this was not applicable for that module. Most forms were submitted with the ‘not applicable’ option selected. Whilst this could be true for some new modules, it was unlikely to be the case for most of them. It was therefore agreed that section 8 of the form should be revised to include a note encouraging staff to consult their Library Liaison Officer when deciding whether there were additional library requirements for a new module. The revised section would ask staff to confirm that the library has been consulted if there was a need for new library resources.

Other sections of the form would also need to be revised in anticipation of the introduction of the new structure. The AD(T) would take on the role of approving the forms in place of the head of department, so the form would be amended to reflect this. Section 12, which referred to implications for other departments, would be changed to refer to schools rather than departments. Proposers would be asked to include the name of the school and the person consulted, and a note would be added indicating that email correspondence regarding the consultation could be attached to the form in place of the signature of the person consulted.

.4 Members noted that the process for the annual update of module and programme regulations/specifications had been brought forward in 2011/12, and there had been a requirement for proposed changes to be forwarded to AD(T)s by 11 March with a view to modules being activated in April. Some departments had been unhappy with the change. It had been understood that there were a number of reasons for the change but that the main reason had been the need for modules to be activated prior to data being exported to the new timetabling system. It was now understood that the timetabling system was able to generate a timetable using provisional-status modules.

It was noted that departments were still engaged in workload modeling after the March deadline. Therefore, it was difficult for them to predict at that stage in the year which modules would be on offer the following year. It was AGREED that the matter should be raised at Learning and Teaching Committee and members reminded of the reasons for the update process being brought forward. The PVC(T) may wish to consider discussing the requirements of the workload modeling process and implications for the annual update with Deans.

3. Major Changes to Programme Regulations

It was AGREED to approve the following procedure for the approval of major changes to Programme Regulations for the period to October 2011. Proposals should receive Curriculum Sub-Committee consideration by post at the discretion of the Chair. Where concerns are raised a second circulation would summarise these and invite a formal decision. The Chair would be empowered to determine whether the replies constituted a consensus.

4. Valediction

The Sub-Committee noted that, as this was its final meeting before academic departments were restructured to form ten schools, this would be the final meeting for the representatives from the three faculty boards. Mr Haworth, Dr Jarvis and Mr Murray were thanked for the contributions which they had made during their time as members of the Committee.

Author – Martine Ashby

Date – May 2011