SEN15-P72 24 June 2015

Learning and Teaching Committee LTC15-M1 Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 12 March 2015

Attendance Members: Prof. Morag Bell (in the Chair), Prof. Memis Acar, Vipin Ahlawat, Dr Manuel Alonso, Prof. Jo Bullard, Dr Lorraine Cale, Prof. Pat Carrillo, Dr Sandie Dann, Dr Vince Dwyer, Dr John McCardle, Prof. Marsha Meskimmon, Dr Jennifer Nutkins, Dr Keith Pond, Prof. Zoe Radnor, Dr Carol Robinson, Amy Ward, Rob Whittaker In attendance: Rob Pearson, Dr Nick Allsopp, Dr Hardeep Basra (for 15/03), Helen Smith (for 15/05),Tanya Osborne (for 15/10) Apologies: Dr Jane Horner, Dr Vince Dwyer

15/01 Minutes Received: LTC14-M7 1. The Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 11 December 2014 were confirmed.

15/02 Matters arising from the Minutes

14/126 Draft University Lecture Capture Policy

1. Following a recommendation from Learning and Teaching Committee, the University Lecture Capture Policy had been approved at Senate at its meeting on 28 January 2015. The policy was available online at: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/services/teaching-support/review/

14/83 LSU Academic Misconduct Campaign

1. The Students’ Union led campaign to improve student awareness of the academic misconduct policy and regulations and to raise student awareness of the study support available within the LSU, Student Services and other Professional Services had been well received across campus.

2. It was agreed that a small Working Group would be convened to consider formulating a

recommendation to a future Committee meeting on the adoption of a policy in regard to the university-wide use of text matching software, such as Turnitin, for coursework submission. Action: SD

15/03 Academic Guidance and Personal Tutoring Principles and Recommendations Received: LTC15-P2 1. The Committee received a report on the work and outcomes of the Personal Tutoring Working Group,

which was established following the meeting in December 2014. The Group had been tasked with identifying key principles for the provision of Academic Guidance at Loughborough which, if approved, would inform a detailed revision of Appendix 16 and the Personal Tutoring system.

2. The Committee approved the Academic Guidance principles proposed in the paper, in particular:

• That the focus of Personal Tutoring would be on the provision of Academic Guidance to students. • That an alternative model would be established and developed for the provision of Welfare Support to

students. • That the above did not absolve Personal Tutors of having Welfare responsibilities for students, but that

their role would be to guide and refer students to the appropriate sources of support. • That common terminology and responsibilities would be agreed for Personal Tutoring and those

involved in providing Academic Guidance and Welfare Support to students respectively, and that these would be applied consistently across Schools.

• That Personal Tutoring (Academic Guidance) was linked to credit bearing modules in Part A, and

conformed to an agreed minimum number of formal, timetabled meetings. The Academic Guidance elements of these modules would not necessarily be credit-bearing in themselves.

• That Personal Tutoring (Academic Guidance) would continue through Parts B and C to conform to a

set of minimum requirements in regard to number and content of meetings. • That Personal Tutoring (Academic Guidance), conforming to the same set of minimum requirements as

for Part B and C students, would be provided to joint honours and postgraduate taught students. • That Personal Tutoring (Academic Guidance) meetings with all students would be structured, have a

common purpose and agenda, and that retrievable records of all formal meetings would be kept. It had been agreed some time ago that the electronic tool to be used should be Co-Tutor.

3. It was recognised that Schools would wish to provide Personal Tutoring (Academic Guidance) and

implement the principles in different ways to suit their curriculum, methods of learning and teaching, and students’ needs. It was therefore agreed that there would likely be variations and different models of practice across Schools, albeit that Schools would observe certain minimum requirements.

4. It was noted that the Chief Operating Officer was leading discussions concerning Welfare Support and the

principles above were contingent on parallel developments in this area. The Committee therefore agreed that it was unlikely that the principles could be implemented fully from the start of the 2015/16 academic session. Therefore, it was agreed that the principles above would be implemented fully across all Schools and promoted to prospective and current students from the start of the 2016/17 academic session at the latest. Where possible, Schools would seek to implement these principles before that date.

5. It was agreed that CAP would support AD(T)s in implementing the new principles and changes (e.g. via

offering training, advice and guidance, and action planning as appropriate). The CAP would report to LTC during 2015/16 on how the principles were being implemented across the University. Action: CAP

6. It was agreed that it was important to include a mixture of academic and administrative colleagues from across the Schools, and also key colleagues from Professional Services, in the review of Welfare Support. A request for participants in the review would be forthcoming to Schools. Action: MB

7. Secretary’s note: Work on Welfare Support would be concluded by late April/early May. Assuming these

would approved speedily, it was highly desirable that the principles on both Academic Guidance and on Welfare Support should be implemented as far as possible for the start of the new academic year, 2015/16.

8. The Chair and members of the Personal Tutoring Working Group were commended for their work in an

area that would have a significant contribution to enhancing the Loughborough student experience.

15/04 Graduate Attributes Received: LTC15-P3 1. The Committee received a summary of the outcomes of the LTC workshop discussion on 5 February 2015,

alongside a set of draft Loughborough Graduate Attributes and proposals for next steps. Members welcomed the draft attributes and requested that the Graduate Attributes and Personal Development Sub-Committee should consider the inclusion of the phrases ‘motivated’, ‘ professional’ and ‘globally aware’ in the attributes. It was suggested that these phrases may in part, or in whole, replace the phrase ‘employable’. It was noted that feedback from LSU focus-groups had confirmed that Loughborough students readily identified themselves with the ‘passionate and proud’ attribute.

2. The Committee supported the agenda for action set out in the paper agreed that a final draft set of

attributes would be submitted to LTC for formal approval on 16 April 2015. This would then be submitted to Senate for a final sign off on 24 June 2015 and reported to Council on 2 July 2015 for information. Action: HS/JCN

15/05 Annual Programme Review 2014/15 Received: LTC15-P4 1. Schools, Professional Services and the Students’ Union were thanked for their engagement with the APR

process in 2014/15. The process had demonstrated the high quality of taught provision at Loughborough and the rigour with which the University and students worked in partnership to monitor, evaluate and enhance the learning and teaching experience.

2. Following the receipt of feedback from Schools, it was agreed that the APR process was fit for purpose

and would remain largely unchanged for 2015/16.

3. The Committee noted institutional actions and themes arising from School Action Plans, and agreed that they would be followed up by the PQTP Office and Schools respectively. The use of Lecture Capture had arisen in several APR meetings, and the Committee discussed barriers and enablers to greater staff and student uptake. It was agreed that forthcoming Students’ Union guidance for students on ways of engaging with lecture capture material would be made available to AD(T)s as it would be of use to staff as well as students. Action: AW. The CAP would also be providing AD(T)s with an overview of staff and student usage in the near future. Action: CAP

4. It was agreed that this additional information would be discussed at School LTCs as a basis for formulating

a School approach to the use of lecture capture. There was an urgent need to develop these School-level approaches in order that the University’s recently approved Policy should be acted on in a pro-active way. Colleagues in CAP would work with Schools on this with a view to having School-level positions by the beginning of the new academic year, 2015/16. Action: ADTs, CAP

5. An overview of the APR dataset was welcomed and it was agreed that the data was of value and that it

would be beneficial to include it both as a report to LTC and as part of each School’s APR data from the outset of the exercise. It would be usefully supplemented by an analytical commentary and by linking the data to School PIs and University KPIs. It was agreed that a Working Group would be convened to investigate the optimum use of the learning analytics data utilised in the APR process, with a view to reporting back to the June LTC. Membership of the Working Group would include Dr Jennifer Nutkins, Prof. Zoe Radnor, Melanie King, Dave Temple, representatives from CAP, Planning and Academic Registry. Action: RP

6. It was noted that a further report on School responses to their individual action plans would be received at the June 2014 Committee meeting.

15/06 Postgraduate Taught Provision at Loughborough – a Discussion Paper Received: LTC15-P5 1. The Committee received an overview of the University’s current position with respect to PGT provision.

The paper presented a number of possible rationales for PGT programmes and a number of reasons why they may or may not contribute to the achievement of the University’s core strategy of excellence in teaching, research and enterprise. Some tentative initial conclusions were outlined in the paper with the intention of stimulating debate and helping to identify issues which might be analysed in more detail to inform refinement of Loughborough’s future strategy for PGT provision.

2. Members welcomed the paper and identified the value consideration of: the resource implications of PGT

provision; the relationship between PGT and PGR provision; modes of study; and discipline-specific trends and requirements. It was agreed that a Working Group would be convened to produce an agenda for future work in this area, to be considered at a future meeting of LTC. Membership would include Dr Jennifer Nutkins, Prof. Zoe Radnor, Dr Lorraine Cale and Prof. Pat Carrillo. Action: JCN

15/07 Proposal for a Fitness to Study Procedure Received: LTC15-P6 1. The Committee received draft proposals for a Fitness to Study Procedure with a view to a final version

being submitted for formal approval to the April Committee meeting. It was reported that experience suggested that a very small number of students wished to continue with their studies when their state of health and well-being meant that they were not really fit to study. The behaviour of such students damaged their own health further and may also impact negatively on the experience of other students as well as placing unreasonable and sometimes distressing demands on staff. At present the University was only able to address these rare situations by using disciplinary procedures (Ordinance XVII) or academic regulations, and these were unlikely to be appropriate, either due to timing factors or due to the nature of the students difficulties (often a mental health issue). The draft procedure proposed a new staged procedure for dealing with such situations which aimed to balance the interests of individual students with those of the University community.

2. The Committee welcomed the proposed procedure, and endorsed planned consultations with the Students’

Union, the Programme Administrators Liaison Group and Postgraduate Research Student Sub-Committee, in advance of submission for approval at the April Committee meeting. Action: JCN/MA

15/08 Programme Rep Online Elections Pilot Received: LTC15-P7 1. Following a successful pilot Online Election in 2014/15, the Committee agreed that from the start of

2015/16 Online Rep Elections ran by the LSU would be introduced into all Schools/Departments. It was agreed that all Schools/Departments would commit to promoting the Programme Rep role in the following ways:

• Lecturers speaking to students at the beginning/end of core lectures (for all year groups)

• Adverts on electronic noticeboards

• Uploading information and links onto LEARN and School/Department websites

• Online promotional material sent to students via email, Facebook or Twitter with the assistance of Programme Presidents.

2. The LSU would communicate with Schools in advance of the elections to ensure that they were aware of

the Committee decision and to clarify the election and promotion procedures. Action: AW

15/09 Your Education Week Report 2014/15 Received: LTC15-P8 1. In December 2014, the LSU held a “Your Education Week” in which students, Programme Reps and

Programme Presidents participated in several events which focused on the theme of personal development. The Committee received a report analysing the outcomes of these events, which illustrated a largely positive picture, with a significant number of students reporting some real areas of strength. However, the report also identified areas in which the educational experience at Loughborough could be enhanced further, which were largely consonant with the ten priorities identified in the LSU Student Voice Education Report 2014 (minute LTC14/82 refers). The VP Education was following up these areas as appropriate.

2. The “Your Education Week” highlighted the important role that Programme Reps and Presidents played in

both collecting feedback and then working with their Schools/Departments to influence change as a result of this feedback. The report thanked all of those individuals who volunteered their time to be a Programme Rep or President and those University staff who demonstrated a commitment to facilitating the processes through which Programme Reps and Presidents can influence change.

3. The LSU had prepared individual School reports, which would be circulated to AD(T)s and Programme

Reps and Presidents in due course. Action: AW

15/10 Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey 2015 Received: LTC15-P9 1. The PTES was a national survey of taught postgraduate students, run in partnership with the Higher

Education Academy, using Bristol University’s “BOS” survey system. This year BOS had undergone a significant upgrade, which would improve the quality of information gained from PTES by allowing universities to pre-fill demographic and subject data. The HEA was also asking institutions to provide the HESA ID for students so that they could undertake further research by combining PTES data with other information held by HESA, such as DLHE and detailed demographic data.

2. Students would access the survey by a direct personalised link, but were also able to access using login

information generated by the survey software. Unlike the NSS, the University had complete live access to survey data as it was generated, and would be able to tell which students had completed the survey. Survey responses would be analysed and anonymised by PQTP before dissemination to Schools in the summer, and subsequently to LTC. In late summer, the HEA would also provide a benchmarking report which would allow comparisons to be made to the sector.

3. The Committee agreed that:

• The PTES would be run at Loughborough between 27 April 2015 to 18 June 2015 • The minimum response rate for internal reporting would be 15 students and 40% • The institutional question would be reworded as recommended • No further institutional questions would be added • The student-facing information about the PTES should be improved.

15/11 Revision to the Postgraduate Merit and Distinction Award Criteria Received: LTC15-P10 1. The Committee approved in principle the endorsement of an amendment to Regulation XXI in regard

to Merit and Distinction awards, to remove the requirement that credit should be achieved in all modules at the first attempt. The amendment would be applicable to all students currently registered on a Postgraduate Taught course. The criteria would not be applied retrospectively to students who had graduated with a postgraduate award.

2. The wording of Regulation XXI would be reviewed to ensure that the requirements on students were clear, with a view to LTC formally endorsing the amendment in April 2015, and Senate being asked to approve the amendment at its meeting in June 2015. Action: JCN

15/12 Preparing a Confirmation of Acceptance for Studies (CAS) for Students Admitted onto an English Language Pre-sessional Course Received: LTC15-P11 1. The Committee approved, with immediate effect, changes to the procedure that the University follows in

relation to the issuing of Confirmation of Acceptance of Studies (CAS) for non EU students who are being admitted to an English language pre-sessional course.

15/13 Assessing English Language Competency for International Students to ensure they meet minimum UKVI requirements Received: LTC15-P12 1. The Committee approved, with immediate effect, changes to the University procedures for assessing the

English language competency of non-EU student to ensure that they meet the minimum level as required by UK Visas and Immigration for a student visa.

15/14 Student Experience Team: Constitution and Membership Received: LTC15-P13 1. The Committee approved an amendment to the constitution and membership of the Student Experience

Team for the 2014/15 academic session.

15/15 Loughborough University Library: impact of refurbishment on the 2013/ 2014 student experience and learning and teaching Received: LTC15-P14 1. On 30 September 2013, Loughborough University Library opened after being closed for 14 weeks while it

underwent a major refurbishment. The paper reviewed the impact of the refurbishment on the student experience and learning and teaching during the 2013/2014 academic year. The report demonstrated that the refurbishments had resulted in significant improvements to both the student experience and learning and teaching.

15/16 Culturally inclusive learning and teaching project Received: LTC15-P15 1. The Centre for Academic Practice was leading a project which aimed to combine the best existing practice

with research among Loughborough students from different educational systems to create resources to support culturally inclusive teaching and learning.

15/17 Publication of eight Subject Benchmark Statements Received: LTC15-P16

1. The QAA was inviting comments on the draft revised versions of the following seven Subject Benchmark Statements:

Dance, Drama and Performance Economics Finance Master's Degrees in Business and Management Mathematics, Statistics and Operational Research Optometry

2. The consultation was open until 27 March 2015.

15/18 STEM accreditation reviews launched

1. The announcement of the Government’s science and innovation strategy in December included a commission to establish a general review of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) and a specific review of computer science degree accreditation arrangements. The reviews would explore issues around graduate employability and consider options for how they could be addressed. HEFCE would be supporting both reviews with evidence gathering and analysis, with sector and accrediting body engagement, and with alignment with the current quality assessment review. Further information was available at: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/news/newsarchive/2015/name,101270,en.html

15/19 Minutes from Sub-Committees Received: 1. Student Experience Team: 2 December 2014 SET14-M6

3 February 2015 SET15-M1 2. Curriculum Sub-Committee: 12 December 2014 CSC14-M5

20 January 2015 CSC15-M1 3. Graduate Attributes and Personal Development Sub-Committee: 8 January 2015 GAPD15-M1

Author – Rob Pearson, March 2015

Copyright © Loughborough University. All rights reserved.

Learning and Teaching Committee LTC15-M2 Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 16 April 2015

Attendance Members: Prof. Morag Bell (in the Chair), Prof. Memis Acar, Vipin Ahlawat, Dr Lorraine Cale, Prof. Pat Carrillo, Dr Sandie Dann, Dr John McCardle, Prof. Marsha Meskimmon, Dr Jennifer Nutkins, Dr Keith Pond, Prof. Zoe Radnor, Dr Carol Robinson, Rob Whittaker, Dr Jane Horner In attendance: Rob Pearson, Andy Borrie (for 15/22), Helen Smith (for 15/24) Apologies: Dr Manuel Alonso, Dr Vince Dwyer, Amy Ward, Prof. Jo Bullard.

15/20 Minutes Received: LTC15-M1 2. The Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 12 March 2015 were confirmed.

15/21 Matters arising from the Minutes 15/11 Revision to the Postgraduate Merit and Distinction Award Criteria 1. It was confirmed that the drafting of the amendment to Regulation XXI submitted to the March meeting

(LTC15-P10) was appropriate and that no further amendment was necessary before submission for approval to Senate.

15/22 Loughborough University Student Leadership Audit Received: LTC15-P17 1. The Committee welcomed Andy Borrie from the SDC to present the outcomes on a Student Leadership

Audit that had been overseen by a Steering Group on behalf of the Committee. The report concluded that leadership skills development within the curriculum varied between academic Schools, and included areas of real excellence. The development of leadership skills appeared to be a high priority for Professional Services and the Students’ Union, but overall the offer lacked coherence. Therefore, although it was being increasingly recognised that this was a key student development area, the opportunities for students to develop an understanding of leadership skills were not widely available.

2. The Committee supported in principle the recommendations outlined in the paper, which were intended to

underpin a coherent strategy to develop a UK-leading system for personal leadership development within students. It was agreed that the Steering Group would undertake further work in the following areas, with a view to reporting back to the Committee at a later date:

• To develop a standardised terminology for leadership at Loughborough

• To share with AD(T)s details of the leadership skills development currently provided within Schools • To undertake audits within all outstanding Schools • For Andy Borrie to attend a meeting of the Graduate Attributes and Personal Development Sub-

Committee to discuss the relationship between the student leadership Steering Group and the work of the Sub-Committee.

15/23 Update on Loughborough University in London

Received: LTC15-P18 1. The Committee received a paper providing an update on key aspects of the development of Loughborough

University in London, which would welcome its first cohort of students in September 2015. This included an overview of the building and learning environment, academic programmes, key appointments, and marketing and recruitment. The Committee noted progress and the associated Learning and Teaching Principles which had been developed to support the learning and teaching environment.

2. The LSU President noted the importance for the student experience of retaining a distinct LSU space within the building. The AD(T) for London reported that the LUiL building design was currently out to tender, and it was anticipated that space dedicated to the LSU would be incorporated into the design.

3. A special meeting of Curriculum Sub-Committee would be held in June to focus on LUiL curriculum

approval. It was agreed that this would include the module specifications and assessment regime for dissertation modules.

4. It was noted that the method of reassessment for a module should be the same for the first attempt. The

Committee would consider, at a future meeting, reassessment criteria for modules which required group work, and the related progression implications for postgraduate students. Action: JCN

15/24 Graduate Attributes

Received: LTC15-P19 1. Following work over the last 18 months, the Committee received the final proposals of the Graduate

Attributes and Personal Development Sub-Committee for the Loughborough University Graduate Attributes. The latest version aimed to incorporate comments from the discussion at the meetings of Learning and Teaching Committee and of the Sub-Committee on 12 March 2015. The Committee agreed to recommend the final version of the Graduate Attributes to Senate for approval on 24 June 2015.

2. The Committee thanked Helen Smith, Jennifer Nutkins and relevant colleagues who had contributed to the

development of the Graduate Attributes.

15/25 Loughborough University Teaching Fellowship Scheme – Initial Proposal Received: LTC15-P20 1. A small working group had been tasked by the PVC(T) to develop an initial proposal for a Loughborough

University Teaching Fellowship Scheme. It was proposed that Teaching Fellowships would form part of the suite of Teaching awards available at Loughborough. Each Fellowship holder (up to 3 or 4 per year) would be released from other academic duties for 6 months full-time equivalent. They would each be able to bid for up to £10,000 to support the work of their project.

2. Members welcomed the proposed Teaching Fellowship Scheme and provided feedback to the working group with a view to a revised version being presented for approval to a future meeting. Consideration would have to be given to parity of the Teaching Fellowship with the proposed Research and Enterprise Fellowships in respect to criteria for academic promotion and to principles for back-filling responsibilities

when an academic was on a Fellowship. It was also agreed that the Committee would be asked to approve the criteria upon which the selection panel would base their decisions. Action: CR

15/26 SAP Reassessment for PGT Students

Received: LTC15-P21 1. Amendments to Regulation XXI in relation to the availability of SAP for PGT students were agreed in

principle. The amendments would automatically make all PGT modules available for reassessment in SAP, except where the module specification stated otherwise due to methods of delivery and except where certain performance criteria had not been met.

2. The Committee was made aware that reassessment rights in modules could only be confirmed after a

module had been “fixed” at a Review Board. Therefore, the frequency and timing of Review Boards had a direct impact on whether or not modules were available for reassessment in SAP. There was currently mixed practice regarding the frequency and timing of Review Boards. Of particular relevance, some Schools currently held their first (and only) Review Board in September, thereby effectively preventing reassessment in SAP.

3. It was agreed that the Committee would be asked to formally agree the amendments to Regulation XXI at

its June meeting, with a view to making a formal recommendation to Senate, alongside more detailed guidance on the operation of Review Boards. Action: JCN

15/27 Proposed Stretched Degree Policy (Disability and Health)

Received: LTC15-P22 1. The Committee approved a proposed Stretched Degree Policy and associated procedure which formalised

existing practice and also provided an explicit framework for permitting students to start full-time degrees on a part-time basis as a reasonable adjustment, thereby supporting the University in fulfilling its responsibilities under the Equality Act (2010).

2. It was agreed that discussions would be undertaken with the Counselling and Disability Service to

determine the appropriate level of guidance and support provided to both students and staff in regard to stretched degree and leave of absence recommendations. Action: JCN/MA

3. It was agreed that it would be appropriate to monitor the use of stretched degrees for either disability

adjustment or for facilitating participation in elite sport, and that this would be undertaken by the Student Office, reporting to Learning and Teaching Committee annually.

4. It was agreed that a review of the existing policy concerning stretched degrees for elite athletes would be

undertaken to ensure the wording of the latter was modernised and to include a section on financial implications. It was not proposed that elite athletes would be permitted to commence full-time degrees on a part-time basis. Action: JCN

15/28 Timeline for the Annual Update of Programmes and Modules

Received: LTC15-P23 1. The Committee noted the timeline for the Annual Update of Programmes and Modules and the relationship

between the Annual Update process, the admissions cycle and the timetabling process.

2. The timeline would be updated to clarify that the period between October and December saw the commencement of the formal quality cycle through the APR process. The timeline would also be subject to future amendments to reflect the deadlines associated with a proposed online student module choice system, and guidance which would be forthcoming in regard to the implications of advice from the

Competition and Markets Authority for higher education providers in regard to their legal obligations and consumer rights for students.

15/29 BUE

Received: LTC15-P24 1. The Committee received an update on progress to transfer the UK validation of the Loughborough

University validated programmes at the BUE to London South Bank University. Proposals would be discussed during the annual visit to BUE in May 2015, with involvement expected to cease entirely by the end of 2018/19.

15/30 Update on the Development of the Online Framework for Programme Design, Delivery and Assessment

1. The Committee received an overview of work that had been undertaken to develop an online Framework

for Programme Design, Delivery and Assessment. The Framework was part of the University’s strategic plan to define and deliver an outstanding and distinctive campus-based learning experience in Loughborough and at LUiL. The Framework would reflect the innovation and good practice taking place at Loughborough, and would recognise changing student expectations and the need for efficient and effective teaching practice.

2. Members welcomed the development of the Framework, which would be a valuable resource for

Programme Directors and other staff with teaching and learning responsibilities. 3. It was agreed that the Committee would receive proposals at its meeting in June for strategies for staff

engagement with the Framework and for future maintenance of the resource. Action: CR

15/31 Report from Curriculum Sub-Committee

Received: LTC15-P25 1. The Committee confirmed the approval of programmes and modules considered by Curriculum Sub-

Committee.

15/32 Arbitration Procedures in Collaborative Agreements Received: LTC15-P26 1. The Committee approved recommendations from the Teaching Partnerships Sub-Committee regarding

arbitration procedures in collaborative partnership agreements.

15/33 Update on key initiatives from the Learning and Teaching Strategic Implementation Plan Received: SEN15-P21c 1. The Committee noted a report submitted to Senate in March highlighting progress with a number of

initiatives under Investing in Staff and Educating for Success, which were included in the Learning and Teaching Strategic Implementation Plan. The Centre for Academic Practice was overseeing the initiatives.

15/34 Notes from NSS Stakeholder Meeting Received: LTC15-P27 1. The Committee received notes from a stakeholder meeting convened by Ipsos MORI to discuss NSS

progress. The meeting discussed fieldwork, response rates, promotion of good practice and stakeholder feedback.

15/35 Making the most of recorded lectures: A student’s guide to ReVIEW Received: LTC15-P28 1. The Committee noted the ‘Student Guide to ReVIEW’ produced by Ben Kingscott, the graduate intern in

CAP, which had been distributed by LSU.

15/36 Any Other Business

1. Inclusion of Part I in Degree Award Titles .1 It was agreed that the Committee would receive a proposal at a future meeting that successful completion of Part I should be reflected in the degree award title conferred on students.

2. Leadership Foundation Course

.1 The Centre for Academic Practice would be extending an invitation to AD staff to attend a Leadership Foundation course entitled “Influencing Without Authority”, which would be held on 9 July 2015.

3. Student Systems Strategy Group

.1 At its meeting in October 2014, the Committee supported the creation of a framework to be used for the prioritisation of student systems enabled projects and developments, which included the formation of a Student Systems Strategy Group (SSSG) and a Student Systems Monitoring Group. It had been agreed that, to ensure the feedback loop was closed, following each meeting of SSSG an extract of sections of the minutes relevant to LTC would be reported to the Committee as appropriate. However, members agreed that to ensure transparency in the decision making process it would be timely to review the relationship between the Committee, the SSSG, and IT proposals from Schools and Professional Services. Action: JCN

Author – Rob Pearson, April 2015

Copyright © Loughborough University. All rights reserved.

Learning and Teaching Committee LTC15-M3 Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 4 June 2015

Attendance Members: Prof. Morag Bell (in the Chair), Prof. Memis Acar, Vipin Ahlawat, Dr Lorraine Cale, Prof. Pat Carrillo, Dr Sandie Dann, Dr John McCardle, Prof. Marsha Meskimmon, Dr Jennifer Nutkins, Prof. Zoe Radnor, Dr Carol Robinson, Rob Whittaker, Dr Jane Horner, Emma Walton, Dr Manuel Alonso, Dr Vince Dwyer, Amy Ward, Prof. Jo Bullard. In attendance: Rob Pearson, Hardeep Basra (for 15/40), Tanya Osborne (for 15/42), Chris Dunbobbin (for 15/43), Allison Dunbobbin (for 15/44), Veronica Moore (for 15/45)

15/37 Minutes Received: LTC15-M2 3. The Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 16 April 2015 were confirmed.

15/38 Matters arising from the Minutes

14/126 University Lecture Capture Policy

1. A Working Group, led by Carol Robinson, was reviewing the existing policy that all recordings should be stored for 5 years. The Working Group would be considering the resource implications and pedagogic rationale for retaining material for this length of time. Consultation would be undertaken with relevant stakeholders, with a view to reporting to the Committee in September 2015.

15/39 Wellbeing Support in Academic Schools Received: LTC15-P29, LTC15-P29a 1. At its meeting on 12 March 2015, the Committee had considered and approved a model for Academic

Guidance (minute 15/03 refers). A Working Group had been formed, chaired by the Deputy Chief Operating Officer, to develop a complementary model for wellbeing support for students within academic schools. The Committee received two papers from the Working Group, which proposed that Wellbeing Tutors would be located within Schools to provide students with first line guidance, advice and support on wellbeing issues within the appropriate sphere of professional competence. This would include, but would not be limited to, issues such as disability support, mental health support, medical issues, financial support, support with dyslexia, dyspraxia and other specific learning differences, emotional wellbeing, attendance issues, alcohol/ substance (mis)use, sexual health, safeguarding concerns and cultural issues/ integration.

Students would be referred on to appropriate professional services (e.g. Counselling, Disability Office, Mental Health Support, Student Support and Advice Service) for more specialist support where required. The Tutor would also provide support and advice to School colleagues (academic and non-academic) in relation to wellbeing issues.

2. It was proposed that Wellbeing Tutors would be resourced and line managed through Student Services,

and that tutors would potentially cover more than one School. This would require additional resources in Student Services to deliver this support.

3. Members agreed that, in conjunction with the new model for Academic Guidance, the model for Wellbeing

Tutors would provide students and staff with greater consistency and quality of support in these areas. However, due to the complexity and sensitivity of implementing a new model it was agreed that it would not be appropriate to endorse the proposals until further work had been undertaken to:

• Develop the proposals to ensure that the synergies between the Academic Guidance and Wellbeing

models were fully understood, in particular the implication for Academic Tutors when encountering wellbeing issues, and to ensure that the model could be applied across all Schools.

• Ensure appropriate consultation with staff and students (the academic community via AD(T)s and Operations Managers via the COO).

• Develop a case for additional resources, for consideration by Operations Committee. 4. In light of the further work required, it was agreed that the Committee could not endorse a preferred model,

and that the Committee would be expected to receive a revised paper for approval during 2015/16, with an earliest possible implementation date for a revised model of wellbeing support of 2016/17. Action: Manuel Alonso

5. Some Schools would begin to implement the new model for Academic Guidance from 2015/16, with a view

to all Schools implementing the principles from the start of the 2016/17 academic session. It was agreed that relevant policies and guidance, such as the Code of Practice on Personal Tutoring and the Student Handbook, would be revised to clarify the transitional process to students and staff. Action: RP, Student Office

15/40 Grade Descriptors (and Feedback): A Review of Current Practice at Loughborough University Received: LTC15-P30

1. A review across the University’s 10 Schools had been undertaken to identify existing practice in the provision and use of grade descriptors. For the purposes of the review, grade descriptors were considered to be “a broad verbal statement about the general standard to be applied with a qualitative description of each grade.” An assumption had been made that the term “grade descriptor” was commonly understood and used across the University. However, once the review began it was apparent that terms such as marking criteria, marking scheme, assessment criteria and level descriptors were used interchangeably to refer to grade descriptors.

2. The Committee thanked Robert Hamilton and Hardeep Basra for conducting the review. It was agreed that

they would undertake further work to develop a University policy governing the development and use of grade descriptors, with a view to reporting back to the Committee at the start of the 2015/16 academic session. The policy would include:

• The adoption of standard nomenclature across the University • An expectation that each School would produce grade descriptors (or such term that is

adopted) for all forms of assessment • An expectation on Schools that grade descriptors would be published and made available to

students • That the policy would allow for local variations in practice, such as the production of discipline

or level-specific grade descriptors, but that all Schools would be expected to adhere to a minimum set of expectations

Action: Robert Hamilton, Hardeep Basra

15/41 Assessment Flexibility Policy Received: LTC15-P31, LTC15-P31a

1. The University operated a general principle that all students registered for any given module must sit the same examination paper and / or submit the same piece of coursework at the same time. However, the University also offered students in some circumstances (high level sporting commitments or genuine religious commitments), flexibility by allowing them to defer the timing of their assessment in order to avoid a sporting/religious event.

2. The Committee was asked to consider whether a review should be undertaken of the policy to allow for

additional categories of students to sit examinations / submit coursework at alternative times and / or undertake alternative assessments. The issue had been referred to the Committee from Teaching Partnerships Sub-Committee, which had considered a request from the School of Business and Economics to vary the examination procedure for students studying abroad in semester two. The matter had also arisen recently with individual students requesting guidance when they had been invited to attend employment assessment centres on dates which clashed with University examinations. The current expectation was that exams would take priority and would not be re-arranged in these circumstances.

3. Members acknowledged the desirability of supporting students to undertake placements and not to

disadvantage student employment opportunities. However, due to concerns about the integrity of the assessment process and about the potential burden on staff and students, it was agreed that it would not be appropriate to undertake a review of the Assessment Flexibility Policy with a view to encompassing additional categories of students.

15/42 Student Feedback Proposals Received: LTC15-P32, LTC15-P32a, LTC15-P32b 1. The Committee was asked to consider proposed policies and principles for receiving student feedback,

focussing on institutional-led surveys of students. The paper identified principles for student feedback which were based on research and evidence which supported the devolution of module-level feedback to teaching staff, and showed the importance of the clarification of purpose and use of all feedback. Three possible models of student feedback were outlined, representing a spectrum of devolution, from zero devolution of student feedback, to complete devolution of module feedback with centralised control of programme part feedback.

2. Members welcomed the paper and agreed that it was timely to review student feedback mechanisms to

ensure that they remained fit for purpose. The Committee supported the general principles in the paper and agreed that the following work would be undertaken, with a view to reporting back to the Committee in 2015/16:

• The University should look to develop and implement programme-part surveys, which would

complement the existing module surveys

• The minimum expectation that module surveys should be conducted at least every 3 years should be retained. This was thought necessary as the Committee sought to balance the desire to ensure students had the opportunity to provide feedback, with concerns about the burden on students if the frequency was increased.

• The current expectation that module feedback should elicit feedback on both module content and teaching should be retained.

• A review should be undertaken of the questions used in module surveys to ensure they remained fit for purpose

• The principle of a LSU led mid-module survey would be supported due to the support they would

provide for Programme Reps and Presidents. However, it was agreed that appropriate consultation should be undertaken with the UCU, and consideration given to the data protection implications, before the Committee could support providing the LSU with details on individual student module registrations. Action: Amy Ward, Jennifer Nutkins

• Further work would need to be undertaken to specify the mechanisms and the associated resources

required for delivering optimum systems. Action: Tanya Osborne

15/43 Impaired Performance: Report of IP Review Group Received: LTC15-P33, LTC15-P33a 1. In December 2014, the Committee approved a proposal for a review of the IP procedures, examining

whether the existing system was fair and reasonable in academic terms, and whether staff time might be saved for more productive activities by improvements to the operational process. The Review Group undertook a range of activities including a light touch review of operational processes, a review of IP procedures at a sample of similar universities, an analysis of IP data, and consultation with a range of colleagues within the University and LSU.

2. The Committee received a report which contained a number of related recommendations concerned with

enhancing the operational process and reviewing the range of outcomes for successful IP claims. These included: Reviewing/revising the IP Policy and Procedures for Staff and Students to provide greater clarity with the aim of reducing the number of “speculative/misinformed” claims; developing an online IP submission system; and reviewing the existing approach to outcomes for successful claims.

3. The Committee welcomed the review and approved the recommendations contained in the report. It was

agreed that the Working Group would re-convene to progress the recommendations, with a view to reporting back to the Committee by the end of semester one 2015/16. Of note in regard to the recommendations was:

• There was general consensus that the University should move away from the principle of mark

adjustments, except in exceptional circumstances.

• The implementation of an online submission system would provide greater consistency, efficiency and security for the IP process.

• It was desirable for students to be able to submit IP claims and associated evidence to a single point of contact.

• Work should be undertaken to determine how disability-related IP claims should be identified and dealt

with.

• There was a need for greater guidance for Schools and IP panels to ensure consistency of decision making across the University, for example: in what constitutes appropriate medical evidence; how late IP submissions are dealt with; and grounds for agreeing extensions to coursework deadlines.

• The LSU did not support the development of a ‘fit to sit’ policy.

Action: Chris Dunbobbin

15/44 Update to the Code of Practice on Placements Received: LTC15-P34, LTC15-P34a, SEN10-P59 1. A Working Group to review the University health and safety and risk assessment procedures for student

placement activities was established in November 2014, subsequent to process mapping activities undertaken by the Placements Governance Manager and Placement Advisers in Schools. Following consultation across the University, the Working Group had revised the Code of Practice for Placements and revised the Health and Safety Policy for Placements. The revisions would ensure that the University continued to meet the expectations in the QAA Quality Code for Higher Education and the ASET good practice guidelines.

2. The Committee approved the revised Code of Practice for Placements, subject to minor amendments,

including further clarification about the employment rights of paid and unpaid placement students. The revised Code had updated and defined the responsibilities (and entitlements) of the four key stakeholders

in the placements process: the University, Schools, placement providers and students. It was noted that the School-wide adoption of Co-Tutor for recording placement-related activities was dependent on the delivery of appropriate IT systems and support.

3. The Committee endorsed the content of the revised the Health and Safety Policy for Placements, subject

to clarification of the responsibilities on students to purchase insurance for activities not covered by the University insurance. The Policy would be submitted to Health, Safety and Environment Committee for formal approval.

15/45 Impact of Proposed Changes to Disabled Student Allowance Funding (DSA) Received: LTC15-P35 1. In April 2014 the Government announced significant changes to the system of allocating DSA, which would

be in full effect from the Academic Year 2016/17. The changes were aimed at “modernising” the current system, by targeting DSA funding in order to achieve value for money, while continuing to ensure those most in need received the help they require. This paper summarises the proposed changes, identifies the risks these pose and makes recommendations to mitigate these risks.

2. The Committee supported development of the proposed actions to be taken, and agreed supported the

creation of a Working Group, comprising colleagues from CDS, Registry, IT, Academic Schools and LSU, to work on further detailed proposals and to report back to the Committee as appropriate. The Working Group would undertake appropriate consultation with University staff and the Students’ Union, and would propose appropriate actions and timescales for their implementation. Action: Veronica Moore

15/46 Loughborough University Alcohol Policy Received: LTC15-P36, LTC15-P36a 1. The University had been working with the Students’ Union (LSU) on a pilot of the NUS Alcohol Impact

Project. The project aimed to provide an accreditation framework for institutions and Students’ Unions which demonstrated a commitment to fostering a responsible drinking environment. The Director of Student Services had been chairing the Loughborough Alcohol Partnership, which included members from the University, LSU, Charnwood Borough Council, the Police and Street Pastors. The Partnership had been working to take a strategic lead on alcohol-related issues at the University. As part of its work it had developed an Alcohol Policy and Alcohol Action Plan. The policy sought to set out the University’s position in respect of tackling alcohol-related behaviour. The action plan identified specific actions which had been taken and would be taken to address three particularly problematic aspects of alcohol culture: peer pressure drinking, pre-drinking and alcohol-related behaviour.

2. The Committee welcomed the development of the policy, which would be submitted to Senate for approval. It was proposed that:

• The title should be amended to clarify that it was a ‘Student Alcohol Policy’. • HR should be asked to consider the development of a complementary staff alcohol policy. • Staff should be provided with guidance on how to deal with students under the influence of alcohol,

both within and outside the classroom. • The Code of Conduct for Students should include an expectation that students should not attend taught

sessions while unfit through alcohol use. Action: Manuel Alonso

15/47 Peer Observation Received: LTC15-P37

1. The pilot peer observation scheme had operated successfully across several Schools during 2014/15. It was agreed that all Schools would adopt the principles of peer observation outlined in the paper from the start of 2015/16.

2. It was agreed that the Committee would receive an annual update from the Centre for Academic Practice on University-wide engagement with the principles.

15/48 Programme Design and Delivery Framework 1. It was agreed that the presentation on the development of the Programme Design and Delivery Framework

would be deferred to the July lunchtime meeting of AD(T)s, with a view to considering proposals for the adoption of the Framework at a future Committee meeting.

15/49 Report from Curriculum Sub-Committee

Received: LTC15-P38 1. The Committee noted programme approval undertaken at the meetings of Curriculum Sub-Committee

held on 7 May and 14 May 2015 and noted an upcoming review of the programme approval process.

15/50 Role of the Programme Director and the Provision of Professional Development Support Received: LTC15-P39 1. The Committee approved a Programme Director role description and endorsed the professional

development support provided for Programme Directors.

15/51 Examination Timetabling Policy Received: LTC15-P40 1. The Committee approved an Examination Timetabling Policy for implementation commencing the 2015/16

academic year. Clarification would be sought from the LSU on the content of the explanatory text for publication on the Academic Registry web pages (specifically the principles contained in Appendix 2 in the report). The latter provided students with an overview of how the examination timetable was produced within the context of the new Policy.

Action: AW, Mark Lister

15/52 Final Proposals for a Fitness to Study Procedure Received: LTC15-P41 1. The Committee approved for recommendation to Senate draft proposals for a Fitness to Study Procedure

which would be applicable to all taught and research students.

15/53 Amendments to Regulation XVI – Tuition Fees and payments for Other University Services Received: LTC15-P42, LTC15-P42a

1. The Committee approved for recommendation to Senate amendments to Regulation XVI to give effect to recommendations from the Office of Fair Trading regarding an end to the prevention of progression and withholding awards in relation to non-academic debt, and approved associated changes to Regulations IX, XX and XXI.

15/54 Amendments to Regulation XXI – Postgraduate Awards Received: LTC15-P43, LTC15-P43a, LTC15-P43b 1. The Committee approved for recommendation to Senate amendments to Regulation XXI and associated

amendments to other regulations as detailed in the paper. The amendments were designed to address a number of issues with Regulation XXI had been identified, including the timing of reassessment for part-time PGT students and the discord between the Regulation and actual practice in terms of the roles of PGT Programme and Review Boards. Minor changes where inconsistencies or areas of confusion have been identified were also addressed, and the changes recently agreed by LTC in relation to the criteria for Merit and Distinction awards and the availability of modules in SAP were additionally reflected.

15/55 Student Charter Received: LTC15-P44 1. The Committee approved the content of the 2015/16 Student Charter, which had been updated following

consultation with the Students’ Union and relevant Professional Services.

15/56 Actions arising from the APR 2014/15 Received: LTC15-P45 1. The Committee noted progress on the School Action Plans arising from the 2014/15 APRs.

15/57 EESE Quadrennial Review report and response Received: LTC15-P46, LTC15-P46a 1. The Committee received the report of the Teaching and Learning Workstream of the Quadrennial Review

of the School of Electronic, Electrical and Systems Engineering and the associated School Action Plan. Progress against the action plan would be monitored during the 2015/16 APR.

15/58 Qualification reform in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland and admission to Loughborough Received: LTC15-P47, LTC15-P47a 1. Qualifications in the UK were currently undergoing significant reform. In the next few years it was likely that

significant numbers of students would be applying to higher education with new qualifications and new combinations of qualifications.

2. The Committee noted the fundamental aspects of the changes to the new curriculum environment and

approved a Loughborough University Policy Statement. The initial statement would help guide schools, colleges and prospective applicants in making informed decisions about their studies, while at the same time, reassuring them of Loughborough’s continued commitment to fair admissions and to attracting applicants who have the potential to flourish in their studies.

15/59 Teaching Fellowships Received: LTC15-P48, LTC15-P48a 1. A small working group had been tasked by the PVC(T) to develop a proposal for a Loughborough

University Teaching Fellowship Scheme. It was envisaged that Teaching Fellowships would form part of a suite of Teaching awards available at Loughborough and the other awards, due to be reviewed later in 2015, may be refined following the adoption of a Fellowship scheme.

2. It was agreed that the proposal would be revised in light of feedback received from members, and would be

resubmitted to the Committee for approval in September 2015. Action: CR

15/60 Student Barometer Received: LTC15-P49 1. The University participated in the iGraduate Student Barometer Survey every other year. The survey runs

annually and a range of UK, EU and overseas universities participate. It is one of the few surveys of student experience that allow for a global comparison.

2. Loughborough University had performed very well in the latest iteration of the Student Barometer Survey.

The Committee received paper which outlined the results for questions relating to the student learning experience, which aimed to identify the most significant questions which related directly to a students’ overall satisfaction, and which analysed the results of those questions.

15/61 Market Research Support for new course proposals Received: LTC15-P50 1. Following the restructure of Marketing and Advancement, the University had a newly formed Market

Research function. Abbie Loney and Paul Redfern would be available to support the development of programme portfolios. This would involve researching the UK/EU and International market(s) for all new course proposals, including all credit-bearing UG and PGT programmes (full and part-time provision).

15/62 TESTA update Received: LTC15-P51 1. In January the Centre for Academic Practice (CAP) reported it was looking to pilot the TESTA methodology

at Loughborough University (LTC14-P108 refers). The main aim of TESTA was to enhance the student learning experience from assessment by providing evidence to programme teams about assessment and feedback patterns and to help teams to identify ways of improving assessment design in the interests of better learning outcomes.

2. The Design School and Civil and Building Engineering were participating in the pilot. Once the pilot was

completed the CAP hoped to cascade TESTA to a wider University audience and would look to identify other programmes/Schools to undertake the TESTA approach.

15/63 Student Experience Implementation Plan 2014/15 Received: LTC15-P52 1. The Student Experience Team produced an implementation plan each year to help guide and structure its

activity. This year the format of the plan had been heavily revised to ensure that actions:

Were explicitly aligned with the University Strategy and the Strategic Implementation Plan; Had clear KPIs attached; Were consolidated into wider themes were appropriate to ensure coherence.

2. The committee noted the Plan and the work of SET in 2014-15.

15/64 2015 NSS: Timeline for the Publication of Data Received: LTC15-53 1. The Committee received information on the next steps in the 2015 National Student Survey (NSS) process,

including an update on the thresholds for publication and a timetable for when institutions would be able to access their results via the NSS results and Unistats websites.

15/65 2013/14 Academic Misconduct Report Received: LTC15-P54, LTC15-P54a, LTC15-P54b 1. The Committee received a detailed summary of the type of academic misconduct cases in the 2013/14

academic year, mapped against figures for previous cycles. An analysis of cases by student type and School/Department was provided.

2. The Committee noted the rise in cases and the disproportionate number of instances involving certain

groups of students.

15/66 University Teacher Process Improvement Project: Six month review Received: LTC15-P55 1. The Committee noted a six month review of the changes that had been implemented as a consequence of

the University Teacher Process Improvement Project. It was reported that process times had been consistently reduced for the issuing of contracts, IT registration and the payment of claims. This had been achieved through removal of significant waste, duplication and failure demand in university processes. Staff were providing a better service to University Teachers through implementation of more efficient working practices. These benefits were quantifiable through the reduction in touch points and end-to-end process times.

15/67 Register of Accredited Programmes Received: LTC15-P56 1. The Committee noted the 2015 Register of Accredited Programmes.

15/68 Minutes from Sub-Committees Received:

1. Student Experience Team: 24 March 2015 SET15-M2

2. Curriculum Sub-Committee: 7 May 2015 CSC15-M2

3. Graduate Attributes and Personal Development Sub-Committee: 12 March 2015 GAPD15-M2

4. Teaching Partnerships Sub-Committee: 23 February 2015 TPSC15-M1

15/69 Any Other Business

1. Nick Allsopp and Jane Horner were commended for their work with the HEA and the Engineering Council to investigate the accreditation of Chartered Engineers for the purposes of Fellowship of the HEA. A report would come to the Committee in the next academic session.

2. The Academic Misconduct committee was undertaking a review of policies for the online submission of work, the use of text matching software, and mechanisms for dealing with minor academic offences. AD(T)s were requested to provide the AD(T) for Science with copies of School policies and procedures in this area. Action: AD(T)s

3. A review of the Foundation Studies programme was being undertaken over the coming months. AD(T)s were notified that they may be receiving requests to be involved in developmental discussions.

4. Rob Whitaker and Amy Ward would complete their terms as part of the LSU executive at the end of July. They were commended for the work they had undertaken throughout the year, and it was agreed that their enthusiasm and commitment had led to significant enhancements to the student experience over the last academic year and to the continued good relationship between the Students’ Union and the University.

Author – Rob Pearson, June 2015

Copyright © Loughborough University. All rights reserved.