Learning and Teaching Committee Agenda LTC14-A4
Notice of meeting
The next meeting of Learning and Teaching Committee will be held on 5 June 2014 at 2.00 pm in the Pearce Committee Room, Hazlerigg Building.
Rob Pearson, Secretary
1. Apologies for absence
2. Business of the Agenda
Please note that the papers for this Agenda can be found on the following web site: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/committees/learning-and-teaching/
Normally, starred papers will not be circulated in hard copy.
Any member wishing to unstar an item is asked to notify the Secretary by 5.00 pm on Tuesday 3 June 2014. Starred items will otherwise be taken without discussion.
3. Previous Minutes
LTC14-M3
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 10 April 2014.
4. Matters arising from the Minutes
14/02 National Student Survey
To note that the final response rate for the 2014 NSS was 76.6%, which was ahead of the final response rate for 2013 of 74.3% and ahead of the sector 2014 response rate of 71%.
SECTION A – ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
5. Athena SWAN
To receive an overview of the Athena SWAN award from Prof. Steve Rothberg
6. Enterprise, Teaching and Research
To discuss the relationship between Enterprise, Teaching and Research in regard to the University Strategy.
7. The Student Experience Team
To receive an overview from Dr Manuel Alonso on the work of the Student Experience Team.
8. Change of name for the Teaching Centre
LTC14-P33
To receive a report from Dr Carol Robinson.
9. Personal Tutoring at Loughborough – next steps
LTC14-P34
To receive a report from Dr Maurice FitzGerald (to be in attendance)
10. Learn Minimum Presence Audit May 2014
LTC14-P35
To receive a report from Charles Shields (to be in attendance)
11. Lecture Capture Research Report
LTC14-P36
To receive a report from Dr Janette Matthews. Charles Shields (to be in attendance) to present.
12. e-portfolio Review
LTC14-P37
To receive a report from Charles Shields and Sammy Davies (to be in attendance)
13. Student Charter 2014/15
LTC14-P38
To receive a report from Rob Pearson
14. Stretched Degrees – extended flexibility
LTC14-P39
To receive a report from Miranda Routledge. Dr Jennifer Nutkins to present.
15. Peer Observation of Teaching and Learning
LTC14-P40
To receive a report from Dr Nick Allsopp
16. Support for externally funded L&T projects
To receive a verbal report from Dr Jennifer Nutkins on the support available for Schools.
SECTION B – ITEMS FOR APPROVAL
17. Revised Bought-in Teacher (BiT) Quality Assurance Proposal
LTC14-P41
18. Proposed Amendment to Regulation XVIII (Academic Misconduct)
LTC14-P42
*19. Teaching and Learning Roles - Update
LTC14-P43
*20. Oversight of the Academic Practice suite of programmes offered by the Teaching Centre
LTC14-P44
*21. Review of Degree Classification Regulations
LTC14-P45
*22. Report from Curriculum Sub-Committee
LTC14-P46 *23. School APR Action Plans
LTC14-P47
*24. School L&T Project Update
LTC14-P48
*25. Academic Misconduct Committee Report 2012/13
LTC14-P49
*26. Auditing of information published by collaborative partners
LTC14-P50
*27. External Examiner reports 2013/14
LTC14-P51
SECTION C – ITEMS FOR INFORMATION
*28. Register of Accredited Programmes
LTC14-P52
*29. PTES 2014 Overview
LTC14-P53
*30. School e-learning implementation plans
LTC14-P54
*31. Report from the BUE Validation Sub-Committee
LTC14-P55
32. Any other business
Author – Rob Pearson, May 2014
Learning and Teaching Committee
LTC14-M3
Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 10 April 2014
Attendance
Members:
Prof. Morag Bell (in the Chair), Dr Jane Horner, Dr Jennifer Nutkins, Dr John McCardle, Prof. Simon Austin, Dr Keith Pond, Dr Carol Robinson, Amy Ward, Dr Brian Jarvis, Prof. Ruth Kinna, Dr Sandie Dann, Dr Manuel Alonso, Prof. Memis Acar, Dr Keith Pond, Dr Vince Dwyer.
In attendance:
Rob Pearson, Dr Nick Allsopp, Maurice FitzGerald, Hannah Chrisp, Gasim Ibrahim, Ben Cole.
Apologies: Dr Lorraine Cale, Prof. Zoe Radnor, Josh Hurrell, Becky Lauder-Fletcher
14/32 Minutes
Received: LTC14-M2
1. The Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 13 March 2014 were confirmed.
14/33 Matters arising from the Minutes not otherwise appearing elsewhere on the Agenda
14/02 The 2014 National Student Survey
1. Schools and the Students’ Union were thanked for all the work they had undertaken to encourage eligible students to complete the NSS. Student response rates had been up week-by-week in comparison to 2013 and it was anticipated that the overall response rate would be at or above the figure achieved in 2013.
2. The enhanced provision of information for Schools on student eligibility had helped Schools to target relevant students in 2014. It was agreed that action should be undertaken in 2015 to provide further information to students about the eligibility criteria.
14/34 The University Strategy: realising the learning and teaching priorities
Received: LTC14-P21
1. Following approval of the University Strategy: Building Excellence by Council in November 2013, Senate had received a combined Strategic Implementation Plan in March 2014. This included a detailed breakdown of the four themes in the Strategy, identifying priorities, actions and timescales. The learning
1
and teaching elements of this document had been extracted into a single action plan, with areas of responsibility, actions and timescales identified for consideration by the Committee.
2. It was noted that careful consideration should be given to synchronising the priorities and actions identified in the University Strategy with School and Departmental priorities and actions.
3. The Committee endorsed the proposed areas of responsibility, actions and timescales outlined in the paper. It was agreed that the action plan would be amended to identify where individual Schools and Departments were to be involved; to identify timescales for initiation and completion; and to identify and monitor success against KPIs where appropriate. It was expected that the priorities would inform the future agenda of the Committee and that updates on progress would be received at least annually.
14/35 The Teaching Centre contribution to implementing the University Strategy
1. The Committee received a presentation which outlined the priorities of the Teaching Centre for the coming year and identified how the Centre would contribute to the implementation of the University Strategy. Members welcomed the overview and acknowledged the depth and breadth of the activities undertaken.
2. In addition to the initiatives undertaken by the Teaching Centre, the HR working group on Reward and Promotion and Academic Roles would play a critical role in elevating the status of teaching across the University. Among the priorities of the working group, it was recommended that consideration would need to be given to how the creation of Teaching Fellowships would be recognised within the PDR process.
3. It was noted that AD(T)s would welcome the opportunity to reflect and feedback on the successes, challenges and opportunities of their roles, both with each other and with members of the Academic Leadership Team.
4. The presentation would be circulated to members following the meeting, with members encouraged to share the content within their Schools as appropriate.
14/36 Graduate Attributes, Learning Opportunities and the Student Experience
Received: LTC14-P22
1. The new combined University Strategic Implementation Plan, which had been received at Senate in March 2014, incorporated the Learning and Teaching Implementation Plan which in turn LTC had considered at its meeting in February (minute LTC14/05 refers). Strategic leadership for different parts of the Plan had also been specified in the paper to Senate.
2. The Committee received a paper focussing on learning opportunities and support for students. It was agreed that in order to ensure that students experienced our offering in a coherent way, and that there was effective coordination between the different sections of the Plan, it was desirable that an overarching framework of opportunities was developed and adopted across the University. The Committee therefore agreed that:
• LTC would have oversight of all areas within the curriculum and the academic-related/co-curricular opportunities that were adjacent to it. • LTC would provide input to, and be kept informed about, the extra-curricular opportunities for students and the broader network of personal support that is provided by a range of Professional Services and the LSU. (Oversight currently lies with Student Experience Committee) • To avoid fragmentation and to ensure that students experience our offering in a coherent way, an overarching framework of opportunities would be developed that: - was seen as fundamental to realising the desired attributes of our graduates 2
- captured the distinctiveness of Loughborough’s provision - could be communicated clearly to students and to staff in Schools and Professional Services - could be used in external promotion
3. Members were reminded of the work undertaken by the Sports Development Centre to promote the health and wellbeing agenda, which aimed to help students and staff achieve their aspirations and meet the aspirations set by the University.
14/37 Student Engagement in the Educational Experience
Received: LTC14-P23
1. The recent publication of QAA guidance and other related reports in regard to student engagement had highlighted the timeliness of a review into Loughborough’s student engagement agenda.
2. The Committee endorsed a proposal to engage with the student and staff community in order to come to a shared understanding of ‘student engagement’, with a view to developing a shared Code of Practice. It was noted that there were two general definitions of student engagement: the first in regard to improving the motivation of students to engage in learning and to learn independently, and the second in regard to the participation of students in quality enhancement and quality assurance processes, resulting in the improvement of their educational experience. The project would focus on the latter definition, but would not lose sight of potential synergies with the first.
3. It was agreed that the Committee would receive detailed briefs on individual elements of the project at the June meeting, which would enable the Committee to monitor and evaluate the success of the initiative.
14/38 Personal Tutoring and Loughborough
Received: LTC14-P24
1. The Committee received a report into the current system of Personal Tutoring for UG and PG(T) students at Loughborough, firstly within the context of the academic literature and secondly in comparison to a set of purposively sampled HEIs. The report highlighted a variety of practices both across the sector and within the University, and highlighted the strengths and weaknesses of the approach adopted at the University. It was noted that in most Schools there were staff who held ‘senior’ or ‘year’ tutor type roles, who acted as a source of contact and / or co-ordination for personal tutoring.
2. It was agreed that for personal tutoring continue to successfully operate there needed to be consistent implementation of a common system across all Schools. It was felt that at present there was a lack of clarity about whether the personal tutoring should include both academic and pastoral tutoring responsibilities, and whether academic tutoring should be a mandatory part of the curriculum.
3. The Committee approved minor amendments to Appendix 16 of the AQPH. Action: RP
4. It was agreed that:
.1 SSLCs should be asked to discuss at the next available opportunity the purposes of personal tutoring and to make recommendations on its future direction. Action: MF to contact Schools to request that Personal Tutoring is included on the agenda of SSLCs. MF to contact the VP Education to discuss briefing Programme Presidents in advance of the SSLCs and to agree a route for gathering feedback from the SSLCs following the meetings.
.2 A meeting would be convened of staff who perform ‘senior tutor’ roles within Schools to discuss the purposes of personal tutoring and to make recommendations on its future direction. Action: MF to contact AD(T)s to identify appropriate people within Schools to attend a meeting. MF to convene the meeting and report back to LTC.
3
.3 The Teaching Centre would present a report to the June Committee meeting, following feedback from staff and students, which would include recommendations for a common definition of personal tutoring (clarifying whether it should have both academic and pastoral responsibilities) and for actions to be taken to implement a consistent personal tutoring system across the University. Action: MF
14/39 Development of a HEA Accredited CPD Framework
Received: LTC14-P25, LTC14-P25 appendix 1
1. The Committee received an overview of the development of a draft CPD framework for academic staff in the University. It was intended to present the framework to the HEA by the end of May, with the expectation that recognition and approval would commence by August 2014. The framework was a priority identified in the University strategy: Building Excellence.
2. The Committee endorsed the overall approach to developing a HEA Accredited CPD Framework as proposed in the paper. Members were encouraged to seek the views of colleagues within their Schools as appropriate, and to report back to Nick Allsopp by the end of May.
14/40 Quadrennial Review
Received: LTC14-P26
1. The new University Strategy would be underpinned by an annual planning process which would be supplemented by an in-depth Quadrennial Review of all Schools and Support Services. The Reviews would be supported by the Planning Office. Pilot Quadrennial Reviews of the Wolfson School and Facilities Management would be held in May 2014, with a timetable for Reviews from 2014/15 onwards still to be determined.
2. Learning and Teaching Committee noted an overview of the new process and endorsed the expectation that Periodic Programme Review, and its objectives in regard to learning and teaching, would be incorporated within the new process.
3. The Committee would seek to review the learning and teaching element of the review following completion of the pilot review. In particular, it would reflect on the role of the external member and the relationship with APR and other quality assurance and enhancement processes.
14/41 Proposal for running a trial of LSU hosted online Programme Rep Elections
Received: LTC14-P27
1. Initial consultation with Programme Presidents and Department Administrators had highlighted support from a number of Schools/Departments for LSU to host and facilitate centralised online Programme Rep elections.
2. The Committee endorsed a proposal for LSU, via Student Voice, to facilitate a consultation process and to trial centralised online elections for Programme Reps within a selection of pilot Schools/Departments. The School of the Arts, English and Drama indicated a willingness to participate in the pilot.
14/42 SEFS Periodic Programme Review Report
Received: LTC14-P28, LTC14-P29 4
1. The Committee received the report and response to the PPR of SEFs.
2. It was agreed that the Chair and Secretary would discuss actions arising from the report and response with the Science AD(T) outside of the meeting, with a view to reporting back to a future meeting if necessary.
14/43 Request for IT Lab Software 2014-15
Received: LTC14-P30
1. The Committee noted the procedure for requesting software for IT labs.
14/44 QAA Statement on Massive Open Online Courses
Received: LTC14-P31
14/45 Any other business
1. Certification for Dual Awards
1. Notwithstanding existing partnership agreements, the Committee agreed that it did not support the principle of entering into partnerships with Higher Education Providers to deliver programmes of study that would lead to dual awards. Such awards involved the granting of separate qualifications by two awarding bodies for a single programme and the same assessed student work.
2. LUiL Workshop
1. A workshop would be held on 20th May for colleagues interested in developing programmes at LUiL from 2016 onwards. Further details of the workshop would be circulated following the meeting.
Author – Rob Pearson Date – April 2014
5
LTC14-P33 5 June 2014
Learning and Teaching Committee
Subject: Change of name for the Teaching Centre
Origin: Carol Robinson, Director of the Teaching Centre
Executive Summary: It is proposed that the name of the Teaching Centre be changed to Centre for Academic Practice. A revised mission statement, aligning the work of the Centre with the new University Strategy, has been developed.
Action Required: LTC is asked to comment on the proposed change of name and revised mission statement.
Background
The Teaching Centre was formed in 2008. Since then much of the work of the Centre has progressed to incorporate ever more areas of Academic Practice and this will increasingly be the case as the Centre works to deliver the University Strategy. Below we highlight some of the proposed reasons for a change of name.
1. In October 2014 the Centre will launch the new PG Cert. in Academic Practice, which encompasses all areas of academic practice – teaching, research and enterprise. This will be followed in 2015 by a Diploma and Masters in Academic Practice. 2. The Centre is currently seeking accreditation from the Higher Education Academy for a Continuing Professional Development framework which, at is heart, is concerned with academic practice. 3. In 2011 the E-learning team joined the Centre, broadening the work of the Centre in its support of colleagues across teaching, research and enterprise activities. 4. In February 2014, colleagues from the Graduate School, who develop and deliver workshops in academic practice for PGRs and Research Staff, joined the Centre. 5. As part of the new University Strategy, the Centre will be involved in many initiatives, such as the university-wide Pedagogy Interest Group, MOOCs and DL provision, projects centred on student engagement, the introduction of an academic induction day and CPD opportunities for staff with leadership responsibilities in L&T. 6. Finally, the current name has led to some confusion, both with the Teaching Support Unit and the Teacher Education Unit.
It should be noted that colleagues in the TC have researched the names used by other such centres and carefully considered different options. Centre for Academic Practice emerged as the clear favourite.
1
LTC14-P33 5 June 2014
Centre for Academic Practice
Mission Statement
The mission of the Centre for Academic Practice is to help drive forward the University strategy to achieve and sustain an excellent quality learning experience for all our students. We will do this through leading and facilitating change, using an evidence-led approach. We will work with partners across the University, supporting academic staff; research staff; colleagues with a teaching-related remit and post-graduate research students. Through our work we will significantly enhance the national and international profile of the Centre.
We will work towards achieving our mission through the four central themes of the University Strategy – Investing in our staff, Educating for success, Growing capacity and influence, and Raising standards and aspirations.
Investing in our Staff: We will • Design and deliver nationally accredited programmes of professional development in academic practice and a nationally accredited CPD framework. • Develop bespoke provision to meet school / department needs • Work with the Graduate School to ensure provision of high quality CPD opportunities for Research Staff. • Support initiatives in support of research-informed teaching. • Identify and share effective practice. • Work with colleagues across campus to develop a university-wide pedagogic interest group. • Support the development and assess the quality of teaching practice through requirements of promotion to Senior Lecturer, Reader and Professor. • Manage the University’s Teaching Awards.
Educating for Success: We will • Identify, develop and deploy learning resources that enhance the student learning experience. • Promote and support developments linked to curriculum design and delivery at programme and module level • Advise on effective practice in the use of technology-enhanced learning, including Learn (Loughborough University’s virtual learning environment). • Advise on, and evaluate, innovative approaches to learning and teaching. • Undertake projects which enhance the learning experience of our students. • Work with the Graduate School to develop and deliver a broad and flexible range of professional learning opportunities that actively engages post-graduate research students.
Growing Capacity and Influence: We will • Build connections with comparable specialist centres in universities nationally and internationally • Present our work at national and international workshops and host such events.
Raising Standards and Aspirations: We will • Conduct, synthesise and disseminate research on teaching and learning in higher education to inform University policy on, and understanding of, teaching scholarship. We will contribute to relevant fora (e.g. L&T committee and its sub-committees) to review teaching strategies.
2
LTC14-P34 5 June 2014 report for Learning and Teaching Committee Personal Tutoring at Loughborough – next steps
5 June 2014
Dr Maurice FitzGerald (Quality Enhancement Officer, Teaching Centre)
executive summary This report builds upon a paper submitted to LTC before Easter and offers options regarding the future of Personal Tutoring at this institution. action required LTC is asked to consider the recommendations contained in this paper regarding: (1) how Personal Tutoring may be defined at Loughborough; (2) how the Student Lifecycle could be enhanced through the curriculum; and (3) how staff and students might be supported in this undertaking.
introduction
Extending beyond LTC14-P24 Personal Tutoring at Loughborough – a scoping project for LTC, this report offers a set of recommendations to allow us to take this conversation forward to concrete action. It presents a clearer definition regarding what is commonly meant by Personal Tutoring, it offers a mechanism for building effective practice into all undergraduate, as well as postgraduate taught, programmes so that the Student Lifecycle might be better supported and, with the designation of appropriate structures, it proposes cross campus means through which this can be facilitated.
In addition to meeting with student representatives (including LSU Executive members and/or Programme Presidents) on May 1st and 22nd, to hosting an informal first Senior Tutors Forum meeting on May 14th, and to the raising of this issue by students and staff at SSLCs across this term, other meetings conducted since the LTC that was held on April 10th have included those with colleagues in CEDE regarding Co-Tutor, in Geography regarding the student experience, and in CBE regarding the staff experience. This paper cannot cover every local variation regarding Personal Tutoring. That being said, it does offer a means that builds upon existing practice and in doing so it advocates an ever more consistent approach regarding how we might sustain and support the student experience through this particular mechanism.
It may be worth noting that the recently published Times Higher Education “Student Experience Survey 2014” saw Loughborough fall from 5th to 11th place overall. Indeed, when compared to other HEIs, this institution struggles with a number of the attributes that may be said to relate to Personal Tutoring.1 More specifically, these categories are:
• Tuition in small groups – with a score of 5.1, this institution has the lowest ranking for this attribute relative to the other Top 25 institutions; and
1. For more details, see Jack Grove, “Times Higher Education Student Experience Survey 2014”, Times Higher Education, 15 May 2014, accessible via http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/times- higher-education-student-experience-survey-2014/2013333.article [21 May 2014]. LTC14-P34 5 June 2014
• Good personal relationships with teaching staff – with a score of 5.4, this institution has the lowest ranking for this attribute relative to the other Top 40 institutions.
As reported previously – see LTC13-P32 Peer Support at Loughborough – the relative score for Tuition in small groups has compared poorly to other institutions in recent years; however, the score for Good personal relationships with teaching staff has previously been stronger. With regard to the latter attribute, Loughborough’s score of 5.5 in 2012 (i.e. when it came 5th overall) was only the lowest in the Top 15; meanwhile, in 2011 (i.e. when it came 2nd overall), its score of 5.6 was merely the lowest for that attribute in the Top 5.2 Thus, this institution is no longer only getting poor relative scores for Tuition in small groups; the fact is that, according to this annual survey, it is also now doing relatively badly in terms of Good personal relationships with teaching staff as well.
Further to the previous submission regarding Personal Tutoring, this paper therefore recommends that LTC agree on a series of ways forward, in part by utilising this support mechanism to offer both tuition in small groups and the opportunity to develop good personal relationships with teaching staff. There is too much variation within locations regarding how Personal Tutoring is conducted, never mind between them, which is why staff, students, and student representatives now require guidance, oversight and support from University and School/Department management regarding the future operation of this system.
main recommendations
In addition to requesting the framing of a follow-up Personal Tutoring project to this one – i.e. so that any outcomes may be properly overseen through to their conclusion, in order to allow this means of student engagement to dovetail with others (see ASPSC12-P04 Enhancing Student Engagement: an update for details regarding induction/returners, student representation, peer support, and communities of practice), etc. – this paper makes the following recommendations:
(1) how Personal Tutoring might be defined here at Loughborough
As outlined in Academic Quality Procedures Handbook Appendix 16 – Personal Tutoring and Academic Guidance: Minimum Standards, Personal Tutoring at Loughborough combines both pastoral and academic support for our students; it exists “to ensure that appropriate advice and support is provided, student problems and concerns are quickly identified and causes of student withdrawal are minimised”. Normally, most of this interaction between a Personal Tutor and a Personal Tutee will centre on academic matters, though personal issues that impact upon academic progress may also feature as part of their dealings. With regard to academic matters, it is worth noting that support will usually centre on a student’s transition to University life, their academic progress, regular consideration of professional development, the provision of references, etc.; with regard to pastoral support, this may require signposting and guidance on University systems, as well as offering a ‘first port of call’
2. For more information, see Elizabeth Gibney, “THE Student Experience Survey 2013”, Times Higher Education, 25 April 2013, available at http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/the-student- experience-survey-2013/2003450.article; & Zoë Corbyn, “Dundee tops THE Student Experience Survey as fees put focus on ‘value for money’”, Times Higher Education, 26 April 2012, available at http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/dundee-tops-the-student-experience-survey-as-fees-put- focus-on-value-for-money/419771.article [both 21 May 2014]. LTC14-P34 5 June 2014
when an issue arises. A Personal Tutor is not expected or encouraged to go further into the private circumstances of a Personal Tutee other than when the latter feels comfortable in disclosing such information; even then, the priority should be to direct the student to appropriate support, to maintain confidentiality, and to keep adequate records.
(2) how the Student Lifecycle could be enhanced through the curriculum
As the HEA has indicated, our students require and benefit from support throughout a lifecycle running from: 1) pre-arrival and pre-sessional support; 2) induction (and in turn support for returners); 3) teaching and learning in the classroom; 4) life outside the classroom; 5) employability and next steps.3 Where it does not already exist, and in the absence of alternative mechanisms, all undergraduate programmes should consider the integration of Personal Tutoring into the curriculum (e.g. during Year 1 Semester 1) as part of a credit-bearing module offering opportunities for one-to-one meetings, small group interaction, professional development, and cross-cohort peer support. Once good personal relations have been established between a Personal Tutor and a Personal Tutee at induction and during the course of the first semester, they can subsequently be sustained by regular meetings thereafter (i.e. at least once a semester from Year 1 Semester 2 onwards); these meetings would normally be expected to review academic progress and to discuss professional development. If staff/student relations break down, if curriculum choices exacerbate disengagement, if a student wishes to interact with a staff member of the same gender, etc., then each location should ensure that appropriate provision and flexibility exists for the redesignation of a Personal Tutee to another Personal Tutor. In addition, all undergraduate and postgraduate taught degree programmes should be examined to ensure that there is adequate provision for the integration of communication, discussion and presentation skills, building confidence, and tackling unfamiliar problems.
(3) how staff and students might best be supported in this undertaking
The primary responsibility for engendering good working relations between Personal Tutors and their Personal Tutees lies with both the staff members and students concerned, as outlined in the Loughborough Student Charter, even if such interaction can be supported by other means prior to students arriving (e.g. via the University Prospectus), once they are studying here (i.e. through clear local guidance), as well as parallel with and beyond their studies. For example, LSU has been working on the designation of an ‘academic champion’ in each location on campus, an undertaking that fits well with the idea of identifying a Senior Tutor in each School/Department to offer more structure for Personal Tutoring (see appendix 1 – School of Science: “Chemistry Teaching Leadership Team: Role Description” for more details regarding this responsibility). Indeed, the recent creation of a Senior Tutors Forum has already seen the sharing of resources and ideas in other analogous areas (see appendix 2 – School of Business and Economics: “SBE Co-Tutor Policy” for instance). For its part, ostensibly through the provision of bespoke training, the Teaching Centre continues to offer the opportunity for updating more experienced colleagues regarding developments in Personal Tutoring, as well as deeper consideration of tools such as e-portfolios that may enhance and support this staff-student relationship. This all being said, it is not possible for Personal Tutoring to function effectively if this mechanism is not taken seriously at all levels, whether that is through recognition of the importance of this
3. Higher Education Academy, “International Student Lifecycle Resources bank”, http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/international-student-lifecycle [26 May 2014]. LTC14-P34 5 June 2014
undertaking (i.e. by celebrating and rewarding effective practice), the provision of appropriate tools and resources (e.g. using Attendant to monitor student attendance, overseeing Co- Tutor to support staff engagement, linking to the Student Portal to encourage interaction, etc.), or the currency of University guidelines (cf. AQPH Appendix 16 – now that it has been updated, this resource still needs to be audited against actual practice).
conclusions
This paper has sought to offer greater clarity regarding how Personal Tutoring may be defined at Loughborough, it has offered suggestions regarding how the Student Lifecycle could be enhanced through the curriculum, and it has suggested ways in which staff and students might be supported in this undertaking. It recommends that LTC commission a further project across the forthcoming academic year in order to develop and embed the updating and reinvigoration of Personal Tutoring, and to tackle the issues previously identified in student surveys such as the NSS and those featured in the Times Higher Education.
LTC14-P34 5 June 2014 appendix 1 – School of Science: “Chemistry Teaching Leadership Team: Role Descriptions”
LTC14-P34 5 June 2014 appendix 2 – School of Business and Economics: “SBE Co-Tutor Policy”
LTC14-P35 5 June 2014
Learn Minimum Presence Audit May 2014
Origin: Charles Shields, Teaching Centre
Background
In 2012 a new ‘Minimum Module Online Presence’ was agreed by the E-learning Advisory Group (ELAG) and LTC, replacing the previous version which had been in place since 2008. The new version introduced modest additional requirements, notably around the use of the University Reading List System, the General Announcements feature, and contact details. Between August and early October 2012 the Teaching Centre E-learning team audited every School-owned module on Learn11, as actioned in the E-learning Implementation Plan.
Following the 2012 audit, the Minimum Presence requirements were discussed at LTC and at ASPSC, as a result of which the contact details requirement was removed, and the reading list requirement was clarified.
During May 2013, the E-learning team audited every taught module on Learn, excluding those with 5 or fewer students currently enrolled. Since then the Teaching Centre E-learning team have worked with ADTs, departments and individual academic staff towards the goal of improving the compliance rate across the board.
In May 2014 the audit was repeated on exactly the same basis as in May 2013, subject to the caveats below.
Caveats
• While the audit was as objective as possible, it was conducted by a number of people and there was some room for subjective interpretation. As previously, we have tried to normalise the data as far as possible. • Where the compliance rates are low, for most departments the pass rate would be significantly higher if modules where there is only a single point of non-compliance were passed. • Auditors were instructed to ‘follow the letter of the law’ this time rather than giving the benefit of the doubt. The rationale for this was that staff are / should now be familiar with the minimum presence requirements given that they have been in place for several years.
Areas of Improvement / Good Practice
• The auditing team agree that there has been another overall improvement. • There are exemplary modules on Learn in most areas. • There are some particularly good uses of the Module Noticeboard this time. • Part A module compliance is generally good or very good, and where they fail it is often on a single criterion. • The Reading List System is now well-used in most areas.
Learn Minimum Presence Report to LTC 5th June 2014 Page | 1 LTC14-P35 5 June 2014
• Despite the removal of the contact details requirement, many module tutors do still choose to provide additional information about office hours etc. • Use of ReVIEW has increased and in most cases access to captures is via the convenient ReVIEW ‘block’ on the module page.
Areas of Concern
• Many of the failures, across different schools / departments, are ‘single-point’ failures, eg the reading list is missing, and could be easily rectified. • As noted in the last two audit reports, in terms of the student experience, there is still a high degree of inconsistency even within programmes. • The Module Noticeboard requirement is still proving controversial and is one which may need to be more nuanced in any revision to the minimum presence policy.
Areas Requiring Urgent Attention
• As previously, there are still too many ‘ghost’ modules on Learn for whatever reason: modules with no students and / or no content. • Compliance across Part P modules is generally poor. • We have NOT systematically audited resources for possible copyright infringement, because this would be an impossible task given the enormous quantity of resources on the system, but we have flagged up resources which concern us when we have spotted them, and in several cases removed them immediately. Schools MUST warn their staff of the risks of copyright infringement as the institution may incur a significant financial penalty.
Specific Learn Recommendations
• Modules that do not have any registered students for whatever reason should ideally be put into the archive until they are again needed. This would remove a lot of modules, particularly in the Business School. This was recommended previously but has not happened. • As noted previously, more use could be made of the range of activity types in Learn (forums, wikis, quizzes, etc). For the most part, Learn module pages (even ‘good’ ones) consist of little more than a list of resources. • Many ‘good’ module pages (with comprehensive resources for students) are not especially user-friendly and would benefit from more attention being given to layout (eg using the ‘one topic per page’ setting). Learn14 will introduce a new ‘grid’ layout which should help with modules that feature a lot of visual resources. • Again as noted previously, most modules would benefit from the addition of ‘linking narrative’ in order to provide a thread running through topics on the module page.
General Recommendations
• The Minimum Presence Policy clearly needs to be reviewed. There are several possible ways forward now:
Learn Minimum Presence Report to LTC 5th June 2014 Page | 2 LTC14-P35 5 June 2014
o Retain the current policy, perhaps with one or two tweaks, and audit again in May 2015; o Move from an institution-wide policy to School-specific policies which take account of the different needs around supporting STEM and non-STEM subjects; o Remove the policy and focus on positive messages to academic colleagues about the benefits of supporting students through Learn and other central systems.
Overall, there is little doubt that the introduction and ‘enforcement’ of a minimum presence policy has had benefits for students over the last three years. However, it may be that it has had its day and that we need to move on to a different approach to ensuring that students get a consistently good online support experience across the campus.
Table: May 2014 Learn Minimum Presence Audit, By Department
Dept / May 13 May 13 May 13 May 14 May 14 May 14 School Mods Overall Part A Mods Overall Part A Audited* Pass Pass** Audited* Pass Pass** AAE 88 23% 21% 79 51% 50% Arts 66 58% 41% 54 50% 46% Business 258 29% 53% 299 33% 60% School Chem Eng 57 4% 22% 60 38% 50% Chemistry 54 31% 22% 54 67% 75% Civils 191 37% 48% 185 65% 68% Comp 67 16% 38% 72 32% 40% Science Design 88 76% 83% 84 75% 83% School Economics 67 42% 60% 88 63% 80% Elec 95 33% 83% 106 51% 57% English and 111 60% 53% 126 68% 63% Drama Geography 62 79% 83% 40 80% 67% Information 61 25% 0% 38 37% 33% Science Materials 67 31% 57% 63 78% 63% Maths 66 58% 57% 96 48% 50% PHIR 111 92% 100% 117 50% 57% Physics 48 48% 73% 45 67% 78% Social 93 87% 92% 96 79% 72% Sciences SSEHS 169 15% 19% 151 60% 59% Wolfson 122 44% 50% 127 50% 65%
Learn Minimum Presence Report to LTC 5th June 2014 Page | 3 LTC14-P35 5 June 2014
*For each department, all taught modules were audited excluding those with 5 or fewer students enrolled.
**The Part A pass rate is included here because when the last audit was presented to LTC in September 12, the PVC(T) asked AD(T)s to focus on improving the compliance rate of Part A modules.
Learn Minimum Presence Report to LTC 5th June 2014 Page | 4 LTC14-P36 5 June 2014
Lecture Capture Research Study
Dr Janette Matthews, Mathematics Education Centre
Introduction The aim of this study is to inform the development of institutional strategy in relation to the wider or universal adoption of lecture capture (LC).
Lecture capture (LC) facilities at Loughborough University for both audio and video recording are provided through the Echo 360 and Review system in all lecture rooms on campus. Three versions of the system are in use: • Ceiling mounted camera systems in larger lecture theatres e.g. James France, • Web cams on lectern monitors in smaller lecture rooms • Personal Lecture Capture on staff desktops and laptops
Recordings are booked and take place automatically. Recordings may be uploaded and made available to students automatically in their raw state or may be edited and released later. Editing may be simple for example top and tailing to remove the coming and going of students at the start of a lecture or the sound of a routine fire alarm or more complex where sections of the lecture are removed. Once released, students may access the recordings through REVIEW on their LEARN module page. Lecturers may wear roving microphones to improve sound quality and staff from Teaching Support attend at the start of the lecture to ensure the equipment is working correctly. It is not possible for lecturers to view live what is being captured.
Students like LC and are increasingly requesting the facilities either directly to academic staff, through the Students’ Union and in module feedback and in surveys such as the NSS, and those administered annually by Facilities Management. LC has been available at Loughborough for a number of years giving colleagues time to consider its adoption and allowing evidence based discussion on the benefits and drawbacks of lecture capture.
The use of LC by academic staff at Loughborough ranges from full and routine recording of lectures on all modules, for distance learning, full use on some modules for example Part A but not Part C or post-graduate taught modules, a couple of key lectures perhaps relating to course work, guest lectures only or no recording at all. Reasons for use or non-adoption are both varied and polarised and the intention of this study was to move closer to an understanding of the possible barriers to and enablers of the adoption of recording lectures. LTC14-P36 5 June 2014
Methodology In order to understand from an academic perspective the advantages and disadvantages to the delivery of the teaching and the impact on themselves, their teaching and their students, it was decided to first examine the use of LC by those academics who were employing it to a greater or lesser extent. It is not known who at LU employs LC in their teaching so an analysis of the Echo 360 Semester 1 2013/14 recording log was conducted to determine which modules were being recorded and by whom. The log showed that over 700 lectures were being captured by 50 presenters. This information proved to be inaccurate as the log contains one name whereas delivery on a module may be shared by several lecturers. In the case of distance learning modules, the log contains the name of the administrator.
The academics whose names were contained on the log were contacted by email and asked to participate in an interview. Twenty interviews of between 30-60 minutes took place and notes were taken of these semi-structured discussions and recorded anonymously.
From analysis of these discussions, four themes emerged: the benefits of LC for the academic and their students; concerns about the use of LC personally and the impact of LC use on students; changes to the preparation and delivery of lectures that are required by the use of LC; and whether LC recordings could be used to develop teaching practice. An anonymous online survey (See Appendix A) was devised and administered through Bristol Online Surveys. The survey was open between 23 April 2014 and 11 May 2014. Academic staff were invited to participate through an email notice from the LEARN Staffroom. Reminders were sent to all School ADTs (twice), School Operations Managers and through the LEARN Staffroom.
There were 229 responses to the survey. Data was cleaned involving the removal of three blank records. The ‘Other’ categories were reallocated in a few cases. Data was exported to SPSS where quantitative statistical analysis was conducted using chi-squared tests to determine whether findings were statistically significant. In addition comments were categorised and analysed.
Literature Review A concurrent literature review was conducted. This is reported separately.
Results Who responded to the survey The survey was open to all academic staff and 226 responded, 20% of core academic staff1. It was not possible to accurately obtain the number of academic staff on bought-in contacts who were eligible to complete the survey
1 Includes staff on ATPROF, RE5, RE6, RE7, RE8, RE9, RT6, RT7, RT8, RT8RDR, TS6, TS7, TS8 grades. LTC14-P36 5 June 2014
so the response rate of all LU academic staff will be lower. Table 1 shows the responses by School. All Schools were represented apart from LUiL. The highest responding Schools in terms of number of responses were the School of Science (64), School of Social Political and Geographical Sciences (53) and School of Business and Economics (42). Statistical analysis was not conducted by Schools as too few responses were received from some. Interviews represented most but not all Schools (Table 1).
Academic No of % Department staff Interviews Responded Response Loughborough Design School 76 0 9 12% Loughborough University in London 2 0 0 0% School of Aeronautical Automotive Chemical and Materials Engineering 132 0 7 5% School of Business and Economics 134 6 42 31% School of Civil and Building Engineering 108 4 6 6% School of Electronic Electrical and Systems Engineering 84 1 6 7% School of Science 143 1 64 45% School of Social Political and Geographical Sciences 133 3 53 40% School of Sport Exercise and Health Sciences 126 2 13 10% School of the Arts English and Drama 66 2 10 15% Wolfson School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering 133 1 12 9% Other2 0 4 - 1137 20 226 20% Table 1: Responses by Academic School Lecturing experience In order to determine whether the levels of teaching experience played a role in views on LC, respondents were asked to indicate their levels of lecturing experience. See Table 2. No statistically significant results were found on views of LC based on levels on lecturing experience.
Lecturing experience Responded % Less than 3 years 19 8% 3 years or more up to 10 years 72 32% 10 years or more up to 20 years 70 31%
2 Two responses from the English Language Support Service, two responses where the department was not provided. LTC14-P36 5 June 2014
20 years or more up to 30 years 45 20% More than 30 years 19 8% Blank 1 0% TOTAL 226 100% Table 2: Lecturing experience Teaching commitments With the exception of one respondent, all respondents were teaching in semester 1 2013/14(199), or semester 2 201/14 (201) or both (176). Two respondents indicated that they would also teach out of semester during the summer 2014. Use of recorded lectures Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they currently used LC. Responses are given in Table 3. Three quarters of respondents make no current use of LC and 5% are using LC to capture all lectures that they teach. Others use LC to a limited or greater extent in their teaching. The survey did not ask respondents to quantify their use in terms of number of lectures. Clearly experience will differ where for example, lecturers share teaching with colleagues or have sole responsibility for all lectures that take place.
Current use of LC in 2013/14 Responded % I do not capture any of my lectures 172 76% I capture a few key lectures 16 7% I capture most lectures on some of my modules 22 10% I capture most lectures on all my modules 4 2% I capture all my lectures 11 5% BLANK 1 0% TOTAL 226 100% Table 3: Use of Lecture Capture in 2013/14 For analysis purposes, a decision was made to group responses into three groups: those who do not use LC at all, those who make some use of LC (lines 2, 3 and 4 from Table 2) those who use LC for all their teaching (Table 4). The first group will have no or very minimal experience of the use of LC in their teaching although it is possible that they may have used LC previously either here or in another institution. The second group will vary in the extent to which they use LC but do not adopt it fully. Insights into this were obtained from the interviews. The third group have taken the decision to integrate LC into all their teaching. Analysis shows that there were statistically significant differences between these three groups in their views on LC.
Current use of LC in 2013/14 Responded % No use of LC 172 76% Some use of LC 42 19% Full use of LC 11 5% TOTAL 225 100% Table 4: Use of Lecture Capture in 2013/14 LTC14-P36 5 June 2014
Benefits of lecture capture The survey contained a number of questions to ascertain perceived benefits of lecture capture. Table 5 shows the number of respondents who supported the suggested benefits.
Benefits Lecture Capture provides Responded % Students have an additional revision resource 105 47% Students who are absent for legitimate reasons such as illness or interviews have a way of catching up that does not use my time 120 53% Recorded lectures from previous years would be helpful should I be absent due to illness 54 24% I can control the pace of my lectures more as I do not need to wait for all students to take complete notes 10 4% I can record an external speaker and use the footage in subsequent years 41 18% I can edit the capture and use the edits as podcasts 24 11% Additional needs or international students have a way of reviewing lectures 90 40% Lecture capture receives good student feedback 24 11% Other 36 16% TOTAL respondents 225 Table 5: Benefits of Lecture Capture Analysis examined each of these in turn to determine whether those who use LC perceive the benefits differently from those who do not as the interviews had indicated that perceptions of lecturers were changed with experience. The interviews also indicated that academic staff have not generally shared their experience and practice of LC so had not always considered benefits that others had found.
Students have an additional revision resource Lecturers with some (67%) or full use of LC (100%) considered that LC offered students an additional revision resource. Of those who do not use LC, 38% considered that a benefit of LC would be an additional revision resource. The differences between groups are statistically significant (p=0.000).
Students have an additional Total revision resource No Yes Does not use LC 61.6% 38.4% 100.0% Use of LC Some use of LC 33.3% 66.7% 100.0% LTC14-P36 5 June 2014
Full use of LC 100.0% 100.0% Total 53.3% 46.7% 100.0% Table 6: Students have an additional revision resource
Students who are absent for legitimate reasons such as illness or interviews have a way of catching up that does not use my time Lecturers with some (71%) or full use (82%) of LC considered that LC gave students way of catching up that did not use the lecturer’s time. Just under half (47%%) of those who do not use LC considered this to be a benefit. The differences between groups are statistically significant (p=0.002).
Students who are absent for Total legitimate reasons such as illness or interviews have a way of catching up that does not use my time No Yes Does not use LC 53.5% 46.5% 100.0% Use of LC Some use of LC 28.6% 71.4% 100.0% Full use of LC 18.2% 81.8% 100.0% Total 47.1% 52.9% 100.0% Table 7: Students who are absent for legitimate reasons such as illness or interviews have a way of catching up that does not use my time
Recorded lectures from previous years would be helpful should I be absent due to illness Just over half of lecturers who make full use of LC consider a benefit to be that recorded lectures from previous years could be used in the event of lecturer absence due to illness. 19% of those who do not use LC believed this to be the case. The differences between groups are statistically significant (p=0.004).
Recorded lectures from previous Total years would be helpful should I be absent due to illness No Yes Does not use LC 80.8% 19.2% 100.0% Use of LC Some use of LC 64.3% 35.7% 100.0% Full use of LC 45.5% 54.5% 100.0% Total 76.0% 24.0% 100.0% Table 8: Recorded lectures from previous years would be helpful should I be absent due to illness LTC14-P36 5 June 2014
I can control the pace of my lectures more as I do not need to wait for all students to take complete notes The majority of respondents did not consider a benefit of LC to be that lecturers could alter the pace of their lectures, moving ahead before all students had completed their note-taking, however the group that make full use of LC were more in support (27%) The differences between groups are statistically significant (p=0.000).
I can control the pace of my Total lectures more as I do not need to wait for all students to take complete notes No Yes Does not use LC 97.7% 2.3% 100.0% Use of LC Some use of LC 95.2% 4.8% 100.0% Full use of LC 72.7% 27.3% 100.0% Total 96.0% 4.0% 100.0% Table 9: I can control the pace of my lectures more as I do not need to wait for all students to take complete notes
I can record an external speaker and use the footage in subsequent years Only 18% of respondent considered the facility to record external speakers and use the footage in subsequent years to be a benefit of LC. The differences between groups are not statistically significant.
I can edit the capture and use the edits as podcasts On 10% of respondents felt that a benefit of LC was that they could edit captured lectures to produce podcasts. The differences between groups are not statistically significant.
Additional needs or international students have a way of reviewing lectures Lecturers who use LC considered LC to provide additional needs and disabled students a way of reviewing lectures (Full use 82% and some use 57%). One third of those who do not use LC considered this to be a benefit. This result is statistically significant (p=0.000).
Additional needs or international Total students have a way of reviewing lectures No Yes Use of LC Does not use LC 66.9% 33.1% 100.0% LTC14-P36 5 June 2014
Some use of LC 42.9% 57.1% 100.0% Full use of LC 18.2% 81.8% 100.0% Total 60.0% 40.0% 100.0% Table 10: Additional needs or international students have a way of reviewing lectures
Lecture capture receives good student feedback A large majority of those who use LC in all their lectures (82%) considered LC receives good student feedback. Only a third of those who have some use share this view. This result is statistically significant (p=0.000).
Lecture capture receives good Total student feedback No Yes Does not use LC 98.8% 1.2% 100.0% Use of LC Some use of LC 69.0% 31.0% 100.0% Full use of LC 18.2% 81.8% 100.0% Total 89.3% 10.7% 100.0% Table 11: Lecture capture receives good student feedback
Other benefits of lecture capture Thirty-six respondents made additional comments. Three related to distance- learning where the use LC was considered essential. One felt that the suggested benefits would be helpful for a minority of students but would not benefit the majority and ten respondents perceived no benefits of LC at all.
There was a suggestion that the use of previous recordings would benefit the preparation of lecturers for example when taking over a course. Another used LC to observe themselves and critically review the success of their lectures.
Concerns about the use of lecture capture This section considers reason why academic staff may not wish to record their lectures.
I am reticent about appearing on camera 42% respondents are reticent about appearing on camera. Reticence drops with use of LC (51% for no use,14% for some use and 9% for full use). These differences are statistically significant (p=0.000).
I am reticent about appearing on Total camera No Yes LTC14-P36 5 June 2014
Does not use LC 49.4% 50.6% 100.0% Use of LC Some use of LC 85.7% 14.3% 100.0% Full use of LC 90.9% 9.1% 100.0% Total 58.2% 41.8% 100.0% Table 12: I am reticent about appearing on camera
Lecture capture may lead to lower attendance Amongst all groups there is a majority who believe that LC may lead to lower attendance and overall 80% are concerned. The proportions drop with use (86% of those who do not use LC compared to 55% of those who fully use LC. These results are statistically significant (p=0.001).
Lecture capture may lead to Total lower attendance No Yes Does not use LC 14.5% 85.5% 100.0% Use of LC Some use of LC 35.7% 64.3% 100.0% Full use of LC 45.5% 54.5% 100.0% Total 20.0% 80.0% 100.0% Table 13: Lecture capture may lead to lower attendance
Students may be inhibited in their questioning and interaction There is a small majority who are concerned about student interaction in relation to the use of LC. Only 9% of lecturers who make full use of LC believe that LC may inhibit students in questioning and interaction. Under a third of those who make some use of LC (29%) believe this to be the case whereas 60% of those who do not use LC think this may be an issue. These results are statistically significant (p=0.000).
Students may be inhibited in their Total questioning and interaction No Yes Does not use LC 40.1% 59.9% 100.0% Use of LC Some use of LC 71.4% 28.6% 100.0% Full use of LC 90.9% 9.1% 100.0% Total 48.4% 51.6% 100.0% Table 14: Students may be inhibited in their questioning and interaction
LTC14-P36 5 June 2014
Students may publish my lectures elsewhere Two-thirds of all respondents are concerned about students publishing their lectures elsewhere and three-quarters of respondents who do not use LC. This drops to 41% among those who have some use and to 36% for those who make full use. These results are statistically significant (p=0.000).
Students may publish my lectures Total elsewhere No Yes Does not use LC 25.0% 75.0% 100.0% Use of LC Some use of LC 59.5% 40.5% 100.0% Full use of LC 63.6% 36.4% 100.0% Total 33.3% 66.7% 100.0% Table 15: Students may publish my lectures elsewhere
Recording lectures is 'spoonfeeding' students who should be taking notes independently Around half of all respondents believe that recorded lectures interfere in the process of students learning to take notes independently. Around 60% of those who do not use LC think that this could be a concern. This proportion reduces for the other two groups. These differences are statistically significant (p=0.000).
Recording lectures is Total 'spoonfeeding' students who should be taking notes independently No Yes Does not use LC 40.1% 59.9% 100.0% Use of LC Some use of LC 85.7% 14.3% 100.0% Full use of LC 72.7% 27.3% 100.0% Total 50.2% 49.8% 100.0% Table 16: Recording lectures is 'spoonfeeding' students who should be taking notes independently
There is sensitive content in my lectures A quarter of respondents (25%) indicated that there was sensitive content in their lectures that be may a concern when considering LC. The differences between the groups are not statistically significant
LTC14-P36 5 June 2014
There is confidential content in my lectures One-fifth (20%) of respondents indicated there is confidential content in their lectures, which may be a concern for LC. The difference between the groups is not statistically significant. I express opinions in my lectures which should not be recorded Just under a quarter (24%) of respondents indicated that they express opinions, which should not be recorded. The differences between the groups are not statistically significant. I make use of copyright content in my lectures A third (33%) of respondents indicated that they make use of copyright material in their lectures, which should not be recorded. The differences between the groups are not statistically significant.
Recordings of my lectures should look professional and I do not have time to edit them Nearly two-thirds of all respondents (61%) were of the view that the recordings of their lectures should look professional and that they did not have the time to edit them. This view is more prevalent in the group that do not use LC (69%) and drops to just above 30% in the other two groups. The differences are statistically significant (p=0.000).
Recordings of my lectures should Total look professional and I do not have time to edit them No Yes Does not use LC 30.8% 69.2% 100.0% Use of LC Some use of LC 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% Full use of LC 63.6% 36.4% 100.0% Total 39.1% 60.9% 100.0% Table 17: Recordings of my lectures should look professional and I do not have time to edit them
I am concerned that confidential conversations with students may be recorded without me realising Over a third (39%) of all respondents are concerned that confidential conversations with students may be recorded. The view is stronger (44%) in the group who do not use LC but drops to only 9% in the group who make full use of LC. Presumably once lecturers are aware of the problem, avoidance mechanisms are put in place such as moving out of camera shot and switching off the microphone. The differences are statistically significant (p=0.011).
LTC14-P36 5 June 2014
I am concerned that confidential Total conversations with students may be recorded without me realising No Yes Does not use LC 55.8% 44.2% 100.0% Use of LC Some use of LC 73.8% 26.2% 100.0% Full use of LC 90.9% 9.1% 100.0% Total 60.9% 39.1% 100.0% Table 18: I am concerned that confidential conversations with students may be recorded without me realising
Other comments A number of additional comments were given (93). These require further analysis.
Changes to pedagogy The survey also posed questions to gain a closer understanding of what changes to pedagogy are required and to what extent the use of LC imposed changes to lecture delivery and preparation.
I would need to alter what I say (e.g. restrict anecdotes, comments, use of language) The majority of respondents (56%) felt that they would need to be more circumspect about anecdotes, comments and use of language if lectures were to be recorded. Whereas nearly two-thirds of those who do not use LC expressed concerns, all (100%) of those who are using LC all the time did not. Presumably they have already made any accommodations that were required. The differences between the groups are statistically significant (p=0.000).
I would need to alter what I say Total (e.g. restrict anecdotes, comments, use of language) No Yes Does not use LC 36.6% 63.4% 100.0% Use of LC Some use of LC 57.1% 42.9% 100.0% Full use of LC 100.0% 100.0% Total 43.6% 56.4% 100.0% Table 19: I would need to alter what I say (e.g. restrict anecdotes, comments, use of language) LTC14-P36 5 June 2014
I need to prepare more so recording a lecture 'raises my game' Around 20% of respondents indicated that they would need to prepare more for a recorded lecture. The differences between the groups are not statistically significant.
To stay in camera shot, I cannot walk about as much which constrains me 70% of all respondents are concerned about the need to stay in camera shot during a recorded lecture and feel that this constrains their delivery. There is less concern in the groups who are using LC (46% for full use and 52% for some use) than amongst those whose who do not (76%). The differences between the groups are statistically significant (p=0.002).
To stay in camera shot, I cannot Total walk about as much which constrains me No Yes Does not use LC 23.8% 76.2% 100.0% Use of LC Some use of LC 47.6% 52.4% 100.0% Full use of LC 54.5% 45.5% 100.0% Total 29.8% 70.2% 100.0% Table 20: To stay in camera shot, I cannot walk about as much which constrains me
I find I need to add commentary as asides during lectures so that students watching the recording will know what is happening Only 18% of respondents considered that they would need to add comments or asides during lectures for the benefit of those watching the recordings. The differences between the groups are not statistically significant.
I use props in lectures which do not record well on camera Nearly a third (32%) of respondents expressed concerns about the use of props in lectures that may not record well on camera. The differences between the groups are not statistically significant.
I find the use of technologies such as lecture recording interfere with my delivery Less than half of all respondents (44%) said that they considered that the use of LC technologies interfered with their delivery. There were greater concerns in the group that does not use LC (51%) dropping to under 20% in the groups that do use LC. The differences between the groups are statistically significant (p=0.000).
LTC14-P36 5 June 2014
I find the use of technologies Total such as lecture recording interfere with my delivery No Yes Does not use LC 48.8% 51.2% 100.0% Use of LC Some use of LC 81.0% 19.0% 100.0% Full use of LC 81.8% 18.2% 100.0% Total 56.4% 43.6% 100.0% Table 21: I find the use of technologies such as lecture recording interfere with my delivery
I use many different resources in lectures and lecture recording technology is not compatible with these Around of third (34%) of respondents had concerns over the use f different technologies in a lecture which would not be compatible with LC. The differences between the groups are not statistically significant.
Other comments A number of additional comments were given (52). These require further analysis.
Development of teaching practice Questions were asked to gain an understanding of other ways in which academic staff may use recorded lectures to develop their teaching practice.
I would watch my own lectures Just under a quarter of all respondents (24%) indicated that they would watch their own lectures to develop their own teaching practice. This view was more prevalent in the groups who did use lecture capture (38% and 36% respectively). The differences between the groups are statistically significant (p=0.028).
I would watch my own lectures Total No Yes Does not use LC 80.2% 19.8% 100.0% Use of LC Some use of LC 61.9% 38.1% 100.0% Full use of LC 63.6% 36.4% 100.0% Total 76.0% 24.0% 100.0% Table 22: I would watch my own lectures LTC14-P36 5 June 2014
I would watch colleagues' lectures A similar proportion (24%) of all respondents indicated they would also watch recordings of colleagues’ lectures to develop their own teaching practice. The differences between the groups are not statistically significant.
I would examine the inbuilt usage statistics to see which parts of my lectures are most watched to improve my teaching practice Just under a third (32%) of all respondents indicated that they would examine the inbuilt usage statistics to examine which parts of their lectures are most watched with a view to improving their teaching practice. Only a quarter of those who do not use LC said they would do this whereas over half (55%) of the respondents in the other groups indicated they would. It may be that the non-users are not aware of the type of statistics that are available and are therefore unable to judge whether they would find them useful of not. The differences between the groups are statistically significant (p=0.000).
I would examine the inbuilt usage Total statistics to see which parts of my lectures are most watched to improve my teaching practice No Yes Does not use LC 74.4% 25.6% 100.0% Use of LC Some use of LC 45.2% 54.8% 100.0% Full use of LC 45.5% 54.5% 100.0% Total 67.6% 32.4% 100.0% Table 23: I would examine the inbuilt usage statistics to see which parts of my lectures are most watched to improve my teaching practice
Other comments A number of additional comments were given (59). These require further analysis.
Encouraging adoption of Lecture Capture The survey then asked a series of questions to try and understand the level of support for the wider or routine adoption of lecture capture. I support the adoption of routine lecture capture Only 7% of respondents indicated they would support the adoption of routine LC. There was very little support amongst the group that do not currently use LC (1%), a little more from those that have some use (17%) and 64% in the group that do use LC for all their lectures. The differences between the groups are statistically significant (p=0.000).
LTC14-P36 5 June 2014
I support the adoption of routine Total lecture capture No Yes Does not use LC 98.8% 1.2% 100.0% Use of LC Some use of LC 83.3% 16.7% 100.0% Full use of LC 36.4% 63.6% 100.0% Total 92.9% 7.1% 100.0% Table 24: I support the adoption of routine lecture capture
Although I support the wider adoption of lecture capture, I am personally concerned about using it Only 3% of respondents indicated that they supported the wider adoption of LC but were personally concerned about using it. The differences between the groups are not statistically significant.
I would support the adoption of routine lecture capture for all my lectures if all technological issues are addressed 9% of respondents indicated that they would support the adoption of routine LC if all technological issues are addressed. Just under 20% of respondents in the groups who use lecture capture indicated that this would be the case as opposed to only 6% in the group who do not use LC. The increase may be due their experience of technological issues in using LC. The differences between the groups are statistically significant (p=0.014).
I would support the adoption of Total routine lecture capture for all my lectures if all technological issues are addressed No Yes Does not use LC 94.2% 5.8% 100.0% Use of LC Some use of LC 81.0% 19.0% 100.0% Full use of LC 81.8% 18.2% 100.0% Total 91.1% 8.9% 100.0% Table 25: I would support the adoption of routine lecture capture for all my lectures if all technological issues are addressed
I would support the adoption of routine lecture capture as long as there is no increase in my workload 10% of respondents indicated that they would support the adoption of routine LC providing their workload did not increase. This is in spite of a number of comments that relate to time. The differences between the groups are not statistically significant. LTC14-P36 5 June 2014
I would support the adoption of routine lecture capture only if I can opt out when I do not feel it is appropriate 15% of respondents indicated that they would support the adoption of routine LC only if they could opt out when they feel it is not appropriate. 100% of the group that fully uses LC did not indicate they would be in support of this. The differences between the groups are not statistically significant.
I do not support the adoption of routine lecture capture 71% of respondents indicated that they do not support the adoption of routine lecture capture. 80% of those who do not currently use LC do not support routine adoption, 48% of those with some use and 9% of those who use LC fully are not in support. The differences between the groups are statistically significant (p=0.000). Those who have more experience of using LC are more in support.
I do not support the adoption of Total routine lecture capture No Yes Does not use LC 19.8% 80.2% 100.0% Use of LC Some use of LC 52.4% 47.6% 100.0% Full use of LC 90.9% 9.1% 100.0% Total 29.3% 70.7% 100.0% Table 26: I do not support the adoption of routine lecture capture
Other comments 41 comments were made. Almost all expressed reservations. 14 were strongly against the routine adoption of LC and 15 wished the practice to be voluntary with lecturers being able to opt-out and remove parts of lectures. Two wished for a controlled release in week 11 for revision purposes. 5 were concerned about an increase tin their workload and 3 wished to ensure there would be sufficient resources in terms of time and funding to enable the editing of recordings and to acquire training in the use of the LC system and updates to it in the future. Three would prefer to record audio podcasts as an alternative to LC to retain some control over the quality of the materials. Four wished for more evidence of the contribution to student learning. Two respondents were concerned about ensuring confidentiality of materials available on the web and one was seeking clarity on the ownership and use of LC material once it had been recorded.
LTC14-P36 5 June 2014
Analysis of interviews Interviews were analysed using the following themes: reason for adopting LC, perceived benefits of LC, problems with using LC, concerns over using LC, changes required to pedagogy through the use of LC and other issues which arose in discussion. These will be discussed in turn.
Reasons for adoption The reasons for adoption are varied. Some were student driven for example one lecturer said that the students expect technology and the lecturer sees no reason to resist anything that facilitates student learning. Several had received requests from students who had experience of LC on other modules.
Academic staff were clearly trying to act in students best interests. LC was adopted to provide a resource for students with additional needs and for elite athletes. It was used as a strategy to cope with a dramatic increase in students from 130 to 270. In one School where Part B students are required to seek compulsory work placements, the provision of LC was seen as a necessity to support these students while absent for interviews.
Some lecturers adopted LC through encouragement from other colleagues particularly when lecturing on a shared module. One took over a module from a colleague who used LC.
Lecturers also adopted LC for personal reasons. They wished to trial new technology. One lecturer had previously been absent for a long period due to illness and wished to use LC to provide an alternative in the future. Two wished to repackage some elements of recorded lectures for revision resources.
Problems Many interviewees mentioned problems that they had encountered during their use of LC. Many of these had been overcome but in some cases academic staff were attempting workarounds or living with the problem. Problems related to the integration of LC systems with other software, the visualiser and handheld devices. The quality of LC systems is not consistent across all lecturing rooms. There are particular issues in relation to the capture of audio when a lecturer moves out of shot or there is background noise such as traffic. Students however did not appear to report many issues with the quality of recordings.
The editing facility was the cause of some problems. Some lecturers were able to edit their captured lectures, others not. In some cases the lecturer had control of when a recording was released and in others not. There did not appear to be an understanding of how to control the Echo system for ones own purposes. The editing system is reported as being ‘clunky’ and not very user friendly.
LTC14-P36 5 June 2014
Several reported that the sample lecture is very poor both in terms of quality and what is being shown. It was suggested that a better example would encourage more colleagues to consider adopting LC.
Benefits Interviewees reported many benefits of LC. All students and specific student groups such as disabled students, international and Erasmus students and elite athletes would have another resource. This was particularly emphasised for students who were absent for legitimate and approved reasons. These students could catch up without the need for ‘one-to-ones’ so saves time. Students can see what was said not just what is written on the slides.
Some academics felt that the resource was of great benefit to good students who could access the recording when it suited them. Weaker students knew there was a resource if they needed it.
Changes to pedagogy Interviewees reported that they had not made significant changes to the way in which they teach. The system is not intrusive and continues in the background.
There was no perception that students were inhibited in any way. LC did not interfere with student questioning or interaction.
Two lecturers changed the way in which they provide notes. ‘Gappy’ notes are made available prior to the lecture. The lecturer no longer provides a full set as students can complete the gaps by viewing the lecture.
Some lecturers felt the need to give commentary during student activities so that those watch a lecture would realise what was taking place.
One lecturer (very experienced with LC) does not record video clips that are shown during a lecture so that those attending have a different experience.
Concerns Some concerns were expressed. These relate to the student experience, issues around the use of LC and issues that impact on academic members of staff.
Some lecturers expressed concerns that confidential conversations with students would be recorded as they did not know how to turn of recordings.
With the exception of one academic, all those interviewed were of the opinion that the use of LC had not contributed to lower attendance. The was a view that attendance is affected by other factors and LC may have increased engagement. Some were surprised though by the relatively low usage statistics. LTC14-P36 5 June 2014
The use of copyright materials in lectures is an issue preventing further adoption. Many staff have permission to use much of their material in a lecture situation. There would however be issues if this material were to be distributed beyond the organisation. The same applies for use of video clips. Some interviewees expressed the view that they did not have time to address this and there was not clarity on what could and could not be published. For some, the issue around copyright inhibited further use and other went ahead anyway hoping it would not be a problem.
There were concerns about LC recordings being made public outside the institution. Whilst most lecturers appreciated that they should only express views in a lecture that were for public consumption there was an appreciation that the lecture is a private space and there may be conflicts.
There is a concern around institutional use of recordings. How long will the University retain them? Will access to recorded material lead to redundancies? Will they be used for performance monitoring or disciplinary purposes?
In addition there were concerns expressed about performance rights and ownership of the IP in lectures. Many interviewees expressed the view that they had adopted LC as they were confident they could opt out when they wished to.
Conclusion
This study concludes by making some observations. Where LC has been adopted, it is being used very successfully. It does not interfere with lecturing and provides a resource that students welcome.
There are strong feelings about the coercion of colleagues to use LC and even those who are adopting or support LC are of the opinion that its use should be optional on either a full module or lecture by lecture basis.
The University must give prior consideration to how copyright issues are going to be resolved. Many staff are going to require significant time to seek permissions or to replace content. There will be a resistance to this.
The University must provide information and clarity to staff over the position in relation to performance rights, IP and terms of employment for the use of LC.
The University must provide clarity on the use of LC recordings. Academic staff are seeking guidance on non-academic purposes for LC and would resist their use for monitoring purposes.
Academic staff who are using LC have overcome the initial reluctance and concerns thorough encouragement from colleagues and trialling on a small LTC14-P36 5 June 2014 scale. Full training in the use of LC, the editing facility and problem solving should be provided. Consideration could be given to mentors.
Nearly all academics interviewees expressed high levels of satisfaction with the assistance received from Teaching Support at the start of each lecture. This support should continue.
Acknowledgement Dr Alun Owen, Mathematics Education Centre for statistical advice.
Participants who agreed to be interviewed.
Appendix A : Online survey
Research study into the use of live Lecture Capture
Introduction The Teaching Centre at Loughborough University would like to survey academics at Loughborough University to determine barriers and enablers to the adoption of recording lectures and changes to pedagogy that result from the use of video capturing lectures. The outcomes of this research will be used to inform the Learning and Teaching Committee.
The Centre wishes to understand what would inhibit the adoption of the technology by academics. Are there technical issues? Is there lecture content for which this would not be appropriate? What effect does capturing lectures have on the lecture, on student behaviour and on academic teaching practice? Are there other benefits or concerns?
Some current users of the Echo Lecture Capture system have been interviewed and this anonymous survey is based on themes that have emerged. There are 10 questions and it should take approximately 10 minutes to complete.
This survey closes on Friday 9 May 2014.
If you have any queries about this study, please contact Janette Matthews ([email protected]).
Data Protection statement All data collected in this survey will be held anonymously and securely. No personal data is asked for or retained.
Cookies, personal data stored by your Web browser, are not used in this survey. LTC14-P36 5 June 2014
The Survey Questions 1. Please select your department • Aeronautical and Automotive Engineering • Arts • Business and Economics • Chemical Engineering • Chemistry • Civil and Building Engineering • Computer Science • Design • Electronic, Electrical and Systems Engineering • English and Drama • Geography • Materials • Mathematical Sciences • Mathematics Education Centre • Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering • Physics • Politics, History and International Relations • Social Sciences • Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences • Teacher Education • Other (please specify):
2. How many years of lecturing experience do you have? • Less than 3 years • 3 years or more up to 10 years • 10 years or more up to 20 years • 20 years or more up to 30 years • More than 30 years • Other (please specify):
3. Please indicate whether you lectured on modules (or will) in the academic year 2013/14 (select all that apply) • Semester 1 2013/14 • Semester 2 2013/14 • Other (please specify):
Your use of recorded lectures Please select the option that most applies or comment if appropriate
4. We are interested in the extent to which you record or capture your lectures currently. Please answer thinking about the current academic year (2013/14) and the lectures you deliver personally. • I do not capture any of my lectures • I capture a few key lectures • I capture most lectures on some of my modules LTC14-P36 5 June 2014
• I capture most lectures on all my modules • I capture all my lectures • Other (please specify):
Benefits of lecture capture Please respond to this question even if you have not previously recorded your lectures. We are interested both in the experiences of those who use lecture capture and the perceptions those who do not.
5. Please select the benefits from the list below that you perceive lecture capture to provide. (select all that apply) • Students have an additional revision resource • Students who are absent for legitimate reasons such as illness or interviews have a way of catching up that does not use my time • Recorded lectures from previous years would be helpful should I be absent due to illness • I can control the pace of my lectures more as I do not need to wait for all students to take complete notes • I can record an external speaker and use the footage in subsequent years • I can edit the capture and use the edits as podcasts • Additional needs or international students have a way of reviewing lectures • Lecture capture receives good student feedback • Other (please specify):
Concerns about the use of lecture capture Please indicate whether any of the following are a concern to you personally. We are interested both in the experiences of those who use lecture capture and the perceptions those who do not.
6. The following have been suggested as reasons why academics may not wish to record their lectures. Please select those that apply to you and comment if you have other reasons. (select all that apply) • I am reticent about appearing on camera • Lecture capture may lead to lower attendance • Students may be inhibited in their questioning and interaction • Students may publish my lectures elsewhere • Recording lectures is 'spoonfeeding' students who should be taking notes independently • There is sensitive content in my lectures • There is confidential content in my lectures • I express opinions in my lectures which should not be recorded • I make use of copyright content in my lectures • Recordings of my lectures should look professional and I do not have time to edit them • I am concerned that confidential conversations with students may be recorded without me realising LTC14-P36 5 June 2014
• Other (please specify):
Changes to pedagogy Please respond to this question even if you have not previously recorded your lectures. We are interested both in the experiences of those who use lecture capture and the perceptions those who do not.
7. The following statements have been emerged which indicate that the use of lecture capture may change pedagogy. Please select those statements that apply to you personally. (select all that apply) • I would need to alter what I say (e.g. restrict anecdotes, comments, use of language) • I need to prepare more so recording a lecture 'raises my game' • To stay in camera shot, I cannot walk about as much which constrains me • I find I need to add commentary as asides during lectures so that students watching the recording will know what is happening • I use props in lectures which do not record well on camera • I find the use of technologies such as lecture recording interfere with my delivery • I use many different resources in lectures and lecture recording technology is not compatible with these • Other (please specify):
8. We are interested here in how the use of recorded lectures may develop your teaching practice. (select all that apply) • I would watch my own lectures • I would watch colleagues' lectures • I would examine the inbuilt usage statistics to see which parts of my lectures are most watched to improve my teaching practice • Other (please specify):
Encouraging adoption of recording lectures We are interested here in your views on whether the wider recording of lectures should be encouraged.
9. Please select from the following (select all that apply) • I support the adoption of routine lecture capture • Although I support the wider adoption of lecture capture, I am personally concerned about using it • I would support the adoption of routine lecture capture for all my lectures if all technological issues are addressed • I would support the adoption of routine lecture capture as long as there is no increase in my workload • I would support the adoption of routine lecture capture only if I can opt out when I do not feel it is appropriate • I do not support the adoption of routine lecture capture • Other (please specify):
LTC14-P36 5 June 2014
Other comments 10. Please use this question to provide any additional comments
LTC14-P36 5 June 2014
Appendix B : Chi-squared analysis data sig. Question Value (p) 5 Use of LC * Students have an additional revision resource 24.076 0.000 Students who are absent for legitimate reasons such as illness or interviews have a way of catching up that does not use my 5 time 12.296 0.020 Recorded lectures from previous years would be helpful 5 should I be absent due to illness 10.972 0.004 I can control the pace of my lectures more as I do not need to 5 wait for all students to take complete notes 16.834 0.000 I can record an external speaker and use the footage in 5 subsequent years 5.332 0.070 5 I can edit the capture and use the edits as podcasts 2.251 0.324 Additional needs or international students have a way of 5 reviewing lectures 16.531 0.000 6 Lecture capture receives good student feedback 92.883 0.000 6 I am reticent about appearing on camera 23.363 0.000 6 Lecture capture may lead to lower attendance 14.147 0.001 Students may be inhibited in their questioning and 6 interaction 21.062 0.000 6 Students may publish my lectures elsewhere 22.885 0.000 Recording lectures is 'spoonfeeding' students who should be 6 taking notes independently 30.418 0.000 6 There is sensitive content in my lectures 1.901 0.386 6 There is confidential content in my lectures 0.885 0.642 I express opinions in my lectures which should not be 6 recorded 1.886 0.389 6 I make use of copyright content in my lectures 1.136 0.567 Recordings of my lectures should look professional and I do 6 not have time to edit them 21.142 0.000 I am concerned that confidential conversations with students 6 may be recorded without me realising 8.967 0.011 I would need to alter what I say (e.g. restrict anecdotes, 7 comments, use of language) 20.767 0.000 I need to prepare more so recording a lecture 'raises my 7 game' 4.376 0.112 To stay in camera shot, I cannot walk about as much which 7 constrains me 12.523 0.002 I find I need to add commentary as asides during lectures so that students watching the recording will know what is 7 happening 4.394 0.111 7 I use props in lectures which do not record well on camera 1.284 0.526 7 I find the use of technologies such as lecture recording 17.191 0.000 LTC14-P36 5 June 2014
interfere with my delivery I use many different resources in lectures and lecture 7 recording technology is not compatible with these 3.22 0.200 8 I would watch my own lectures 7.186 0.028 8 I would watch colleagues' lectures 3.444 0.179 I would examine the inbuilt usage statistics to see which parts of my lectures are most watched to improve my teaching 8 practice 15.692 0.000 9 I support the adoption of routine lecture capture 68.227 0.000 Although I support the wider adoption of lecture capture, I 9 am personally concerned about using it 0.509 0.775 I would support the adoption of routine lecture capture for all 9 my lectures if all technological issues are addressed 8.533 0.014 I would support the adoption of routine lecture capture as 9 long as there is no increase in my workload 2.338 0.311 I would support the adoption of routine lecture capture only 9 if I can opt out when I do not feel it is appropriate 4.615 0.100 9 I do not support the adoption of routine lecture capture 38.476 0.000
LTC14-P37 5 June 2014
Learning and Teaching Committee
Subject: E-portfolio review
Origin: Samantha Davis (Teaching Centre) with Charles Shields
Executive Summary: This paper reviews the current position of e-portfolios at Loughborough. It includes details of trials undertaken by the Teaching Centre of the e-portfolio tool Mahara and responses from stakeholders which conclude a need for an institutional e-portfolio system.
Background:
‘An e-portfolio is a digitised collection of artefacts including demonstrations, resources and accomplishments that represent an individual, group or institution.’1
In recent years a number of academic departments and professional services within the University have been interested in the accessibility and practicality of e-portfolio tools. The e-portfolio can be utilised in a number of ways including: reflection, storage, assessment, and extracurricular records. A short survey involving key stakeholders within the institution found that 8/9 surveyed agreed that their ‘school or support service would benefit from the provision of a central e-portfolio tool’ (appendix 1). Responses around the tool highlight a variety of different needs and aims that a centralised e-portfolio system could fulfil.
In regards to the student audience; e-portfolios are a tool for Personal Development Planning (PDP). With the prominence of personal development in surveys such as the National Student Survey (NSS) and the need to equip Loughborough graduates with skills for employment; such a tool could be used to enhance students’ reflection on their personal development and encourage them to record skills gained during their degree.
The benefits of this tool extend beyond students as an institutional e-portfolio system will be a fundamental element of the upcoming Continuing Professional Development (CPD) framework for staff.
The institution has an existing locally-developed and centrally-supported PDP tool called ‘RAPID’. The tool itself can be accessed here: https://rapid.lboro.ac.uk/ . Information about the history of RAPID, dating back to 1998, can be found here: http://rapidprojects.lboro.ac.uk/ In 2004/5: RAPID had 641798 hits with a peak of 696116 in 2007/8. This year RAPID has had 236994 hits from a total of 366 individual users, evidence of a general decline in use of the tool (appendix 2). It has not had any development beyond routine maintenance for a decade and for this
1 An overview of e-portfolios by George Lorenzo and John Ittelson 2005 http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/eli3001.pdf May 2014
LTC14-P37 5 June 2014
reason is no longer fit for purpose. However, there is currently no institutional replacement to which users can be redirected.
There are two main contenders in the search for an e-portfolio tool, Mahara (open source, compatible with Moodle) and PebblePad (commercial). The Teaching Centre has trialled Mahara in 2 separate contexts and the Business School will be using PebblePad this year with a cohort from St James’s Place. Appendix 3 displays the institutions that use each tool. The prominence of e-portfolios across the sector demonstrates the use and need for such a tool.
Current picture:
In Semester 2 a pilot of Mahara in SSEHS (Professions of Psychology Part A module) took place. The module used Mahara for 10% of the assessment and asked students to put together a collection of pages. The task set by the module leader, included elements of self-reflection about their personal skills but the portfolio was also used to collate other pieces of evidence to support their submission.
The Teaching Centre provided the students with a ‘how-to’ session early in the semester and returned to deliver a refresher session to answer any questions. For the purposes of the pilot, the Teaching Centre set up its own installation via an external web hosting provider. To date, student feedback has been very positive. The module leader reported:
“The tool has been great as it has allowed students to record their skills and abilities and to reflect on them. The flexibility of the tool means that students can go back and edit at any time, add pictures and links if appropriate. One or two students found the tool a bit daunting to navigate but this means they have achieved an additional skill of using software.”
More comprehensive feedback from the students will be collected in the upcoming weeks.
An additional trial that ran from December 2013 to April 2014 was an element of the Students’ Union ‘Your Education Award’. This was a scheme that allowed Programme Reps to sign up to training sessions and to complete a reflective piece about their skills gained through their role. An e-portfolio was a successful mechanism to collate these skills as it allowed not only text, but images and other pieces of media to help illustrate the skill they were reporting on gaining. The e- portfolio system also made it easy for them to be submitted and marked. Initial feedback from this trial was also very positive, with students saying that they found the reflection a useful process and added they would like to see it across their degree, used in different ways.
As the survey shows, several areas across the institution are interested in the e- portfolio tool, with the strongest expressions of need coming from the Careers Centre and the Teaching Centre. The Careers Centre’s responses to the survey were in reference to the employability award, future work around employability within
May 2014
LTC14-P37 5 June 2014 the curriculum and the importance of a tool for this work. As the Teaching Centre launches the CPD framework they would require a space to record evidence; as noted by the Head of Academic Practice:
“It is vital that the University invests in an e-portfolio tool so that the new CPD framework – LUPE – can function properly. We have designed the framework and will have it approved by the HEA on the basis of the electronic storage, tagging and exporting of evidence. An e- portfolio tool is vital for this. I have had Mahara demonstrated to me on a number of occasions and I am convinced that it will be able to supply all of the functionality we require.”
Recommendations:
• The University to support a centralised e-portfolio system, including the provision of resources as appropriate to the IT services E-learning systems team. • Working group to be established to map out detailed requirements and select most appropriate tool.
Appendix 1
E-Portfolio Stakeholder Survey May 2014
1. () Would your school or support service benefit from the provision of a central e- portfolio tool?
- Yes: 8 (88.89 %)
- No: 0
- Don’t 1 (11.11 %) know:
2. () If so, for what purpose(s)?
- For staff training, development and reflection.
- To support student skills recording – in the context of progress meetings/personal tutoring – reference writing.
- To support and promote the development of students’ reflective and employability
May 2014
LTC14-P37 5 June 2014
skills
- This is central to the proposed CPD framework for HEA fellowship (LUPE).
- There is little demand from students or staff for such a tool
- Some, if not many of our students struggle to grasp and articulate the full range of achievements and skills acquired within and alongside their academic studies. An e- portfolio would help to formalise, record and enhance student understanding in this regard.
- As a benefit of being a Loughborough graduate which we could promote to alumni (recent grads) as they enter the workforce
- 1. to manage and deliver the Loughborough Employability Award 2. Possibly to support the development of a new in-curricular employability programme, which we are aiming to roll out to all departments in 2014-2015 onwards
- Recording courses taken and skills gained from those courses/library interventions.
3. () What features would you like to see in an institutional e-portfolio tool?
- Accessible indefinitely by 5 (55.56 %) graduates:
- Content can be exported 8 (88.89 %) and re-used elsewhere:
- Can store or embed audio / 7 (77.78 %) video content:
- Private 6 (66.67 %) reflective area:
- Integrated 5 (55.56 %) into Learn:
- Accessible 3 (33.33 %) by potential
May 2014
LTC14-P37 5 June 2014
employers:
- Facilitates online 4 (44.44 %) coursework submission:
- Significant amount of 7 (77.78 %) storage per student:
- Allows for group 1 (11.11 %) portfolios:
- Customisable 4 (44.44 %) by tutor:
- Templates can be 5 (55.56 %) produced / reused:
- Other (please 2 (22.22 %) specify below):
4. () If you chose ‘other’ in Q3, please specify below:
- Possibly also customisable by the student to enable different and creative ways of organising and presenting content.
- This needs to be available to staff as well.
5. () Do you have any other comments?
- The University needs to fund this activity properly. This is not something that can just be dumped on to existing staff to look after – it needs proper help and support to make this a useful service for staff and students alike.
- A usable professional tool of this nature which students could graduate with (and continue to add to) would be a very positive development if this is achievable.
- I envisage a space where many different file formats can be uploaded and then
May 2014
LTC14-P37 5 June 2014
tagged for easier sorting. The files collected over time must be able to be exported to another similar product if the member of staff were to leave the university – although I would hope we would be able to guarantee to store the files collected for a specified period after the individual left the university’s employ (this would mean some sort of access being maintained).
- It needs to be a tool that students will continue to use, without being embedded in any module.
- I feel that opening up access to potential employers is taking away a ‘safe environment’ for students to learn and develop. It might be useful to have some elements open to employers, but only those that have been developed specifically for that purpose, e.g. CVs, academic related reports etc.
Appendix 2
RAPID PDP Views (Total Hits) in academic year
2004/5: 641798 2005/6: 579245 2006/7: 569417 2007/8: 696116 2008/9: 686724 2009/10: 517302 2010/11: 463427 2011/12: 294024 2012/13: 222538 2013/14: 236994
Appendix 3
A search found these institutions using e-portfolio tools.
Mahara PebblePad • Nottingham University • Northumbria • Loughborough College • Bradford • Coventry University • Edinburgh • Birmingham City University • Plymouth • Bradford College • University of West London • Goldsmiths • Sussex • Harper Adams University College • Keele University • Lincoln University • University of Surrey • Newman University College • Sheffield (Graduate School)
May 2014
LTC14-P37 5 June 2014
• Robert Gordon University • Aston University • Roehampton University • University of Birmingham • Royal College of Art • University of Greenwich • Royal Conservatoire of Scotland • University of York • Southampton Solent University • University of Cumbria • Swansea ITeC • University of Derby • University College London • Brunel • University of Bath • University of Bradford • University of Bolton • Edgehill • University of Bournemouth • Canterbury Christ Church • University of Brighton • Lancaster University • University of Central Lancashire • University of Glasgow • University of Kent • University of London Computer Centre • University of Portsmouth • University of Sunderland • University of the Arts London • University of Warwick (pilot) • University of Wales, Newport • University of the West of Scotland • York St John
May 2014
LTC14-P38 5 June 2014
Learning and Teaching Committee
Subject: Student Charter 2014/15
Origin: Rob Pearson and Julie Hibbert, Programme Quality and Teaching Partnerships
Executive Summary: The LSU has requested that changes are made to the content and design of the Student Charter to make it more accessible to students.
Action Required: The Committee is asked to approve the content of the 2014/15 Student Charter and to approve plans for changing the design of the Charter.
Introduction
The Student Charter has been in existence since the 2011/12 academic session, with the last LTC of each session asked to approve the content of the Charter for the coming academic session. The Charter is traditionally circulated to incoming students in leaflet form, produced in a poster format for positioning in key areas around the University and hosted on a web page.
Proposed New Format for 2014/15
The LSU Executive is very keen to promote the Charter to students and to make it a meaningful document with which students will engage. To this aim, the LSU has consulted with Programme Presidents and arrived at a common consensus that student engagement with the Charter would be improved if it was presented in a more easily accessible format. Key concerns are in regard to:
1. the ‘wordiness of the Charter; 2. the formal ‘stuffy’ design.
The LSU has, therefore, proposed that the 2014/15 Charter should have a slimmed down and more accessible content and should be presented in a less formal style, both in hard copy and online. Following discussions between the PQTP Office, the LSU President and VP (Education), a draft text for the 2014/15 Charter is presented in Appendix 1. The text from last year’s edition has been provided for reference in Appendix 2.
Discussions have also been had with Design and Print Services with regard to possible changes to the design of the leaflet, both in hard copy and online. The design used in the promotion of the 2014 NSS was cited as an example of an appropriate style. If LTC approves the principle of changing the design, then mock-ups will be produced for approval by the Chair of LTC and the LSU Executive.
Action for LTC
The LTC is asked to approve the recommended content of the 2014/15 Student Charter, which is presented in Appendix 1.
The LTC is asked to approve a recommendation that changes are made to the design of the Charter. 1
LTC14-P38 5 June 2014
APPENDIX 1
DRAFT Loughborough Student Charter 2014-15
About the Charter:
The Student Charter has been jointly developed by students and staff at Loughborough University.
All students are encouraged to read the Charter so that they know what they can expect and what is expected of them during their time at University.
The Charter is not a binding contract, but outlines a common set of principles that students and staff agree will result in an outstanding student experience.
The Charter is reviewed annually by student and staff representatives. For further information about the review process, please contact:
• Amy Ward, Vice President (Education), Loughborough Students’ Union ([email protected])
• Julie Hibbert, Academic Registry ([email protected])
In order to provide a high quality learning experience, the University will:
1. provide consistently high standards of teaching and access to high quality learning resources and facilities, sharing the excitement of cutting edge research and encouraging engagement with rigorous scholarship 2. provide students with clear and accessible information relating to their studies, including: • details of what to expect in their programmes and modules • a clear and accessible academic timetable • clear information about how and when they will be assessed and receive feedback on their work • information on fees and additional charges 3. offer activities and opportunities within and beyond the curriculum for students to enhance their employability prospects and personal development 4. listen to students: being open to constructive student feedback and encouraging and supporting student participation in shaping the quality of their experience 5. provide support and advice to students in areas such as careers, finance, health, wellbeing and accommodation
In order to get the best out of their University experience, students will:
1. take responsibility for managing their own learning by actively engaging in their programme of study: attending classes, attending meetings with tutors and supervisors, adopting a scholarly approach and ensuring they spend sufficient regular time in private study 2. submit assessed work by stated deadlines and reflect on the feedback provided 3. support programme representatives and participate in processes which will lead to improvements in the quality of learning and teaching, such as the National Student Survey and module feedback questionnaires
2
LTC14-P38 5 June 2014
4. take advantage of all the opportunities the University provides to enhance their employability prospects and personal development 5. make prompt payment of charges made by the University, respect the physical environment of the University and behave respectfully towards staff, fellow students and neighbours on campus and in the local community
In its commitment to the student experience, Loughborough Students’ Union will:
1. support all students to ensure they receive fair treatment and are aware of their rights and responsibilities 2. support student participation in quality enhancement activities – especially through the election, development and training of representatives 3. assist students with academic and welfare problems 4. represent the interests of students at local and national level 5. support active student/community engagement, especially with regard to combating anti- social behaviour; and provide a range of clubs and societies to enhance personal and professional development
Appeals and Complaints Procedures
We anticipate that most students will have an outstanding experience while at Loughborough University. However, occasionally things go wrong and so the University and student representatives have developed a set of procedures which enable students to raise issues of concern.
If you have a complaint about a service provided by the University, you should normally raise this in the first instance with the member of staff, department or section responsible. For further information, please consult the Student Handbook.
If your complaint relates to the mark you have received or other aspects of assessment, then it is an Academic Appeal and you should consult the Academic Appeals information. In addition, please refer to the Student Handbook.
If you are considering making a complaint or an Academic Appeal, please seek help and support from Student Voice who provide a confidential and non-judgemental service for students.
3
LTC14-P38 5 June 2014
APPENDIX 2
Loughborough Student Charter 2013-14
Loughborough University is an outstanding place to study. Widely recognised for the strength of its student experience, we care for and listen to all our students – foundation, undergraduate and postgraduate – throughout the application process, during their studies, and after they graduate.
Many features of our University contribute to this great experience. Our world leading academics and a research-intensive environment provide the basis for our renowned teaching, learning and research. They are complemented by the quality of our campus setting, extra-curricular activities, Library and IT resources, social life, sports and other facilities, all of which are backed up by one of the best Students’ Unions in the country. Our staff and other students – including your student representatives – are there to help; thus, the programme of study that brought you here is sustained both by extensive support networks and through your own efforts.
Developed with students and staff, and revised annually, the Loughborough Student Charter exemplifies the partnership that exists at this Higher Education institution between staff, students and student representatives.
Our mission remains to provide the highest quality of educational experience and to offer the widest opportunities for all of our students. We look forward to you supporting our academic community in this endeavour. signature of Vice-Chancellor signature of LSU president Prof Bob Allison Josh Hurrell Vice Chancellor LSU president
In order to enhance student learning, Loughborough University commits to:
• interact with students and colleagues fairly and respectfully; • provide consistently high standards of teaching, academic support, advice and guidance; • share the excitement of cutting edge research with all students and encourage their engagement with rigorous scholarship; • contribute to ethical economic, political and social development at local, national and international levels; • provide students with concise and accessible information relating to their academic programme that includes the following: • details of programme regulations, specifications, and modes of programme delivery; • notice of the academic timetable and timely alerts regarding any timetable changes; • assessment criteria, assessment and examination arrangements, including clear deadlines for assessments and timeframes for feedback on submitted work; • academic guidance and support, appeals and complaints procedures, and professional requirements (if appropriate); and • programme charges, payment options and deadlines, and an estimate of necessary additional charges; • offer activities and opportunities within and beyond the curriculum that enhance students’ employability and personal development; • be open to, supportive of and responsive to constructive student feedback; • ensure that students have clearly defined access to high quality learning resources and to the facilities and materials necessary for the proper conduct of agreed programmes of study and research; 4
LTC14-P38 5 June 2014
• make available to staff regular opportunities for continuing professional development; • encourage and support student participation in shaping the quality of programmes, including the election of student representatives; • ensure that appropriate investment is made in our learning resources, including teaching spaces, the Library and IT Services; and • facilitate advice and/or counselling to students in areas such as careers, finance, health, and wellbeing via Student Services, and offer housing support through the Student Accommodation Centre.
In turn, Loughborough University students undertake to:
• treat all staff and their fellow students fairly and respectfully; • behave respectfully towards neighbours on campus and in the local community; • meet all the requirements of the programme for which they are registered; • attend induction, participate in timetabled classes, and attend meetings with tutors and supervisors; • obtain agreement from their School, in advance where feasible, for any essential absences; • take responsibility for managing their own learning by actively engaging in their programme of study, adopting a scholarly approach, and ensuring they spend sufficient regular time in private study; • foster a supportive student learning community by, for example, participating fully in group learning activities and acting as learning facilitators for fellow students; • support programme representatives and participate in systems which will lead to improvements in the quality of learning and teaching; • submit assessed work by stated deadlines; • participate in constructive and helpful feedback processes such as the National Student Survey and module feedback; • avail themselves of opportunities to enhance their employability and development; • make prompt payment of charges made by the institution; and • respect the physical environment of the institution, including all the facilities.
And, in its commitment to the student experience, Loughborough Students’ Union undertakes to:
• support all students to ensure they receive fair treatment and are aware of their rights and responsibilities; • support student participation in quality enhancement activities – especially through the election, development and training of representatives; • assist students with academic and welfare problems; • represent the interests of students at local and national level; • support active student/community engagement, especially with regard to combating anti-social behaviour; and • provide a range of clubs and societies to enhance personal and professional development.
Please note that this document offers a framework for aspirations and effective practice to be fulfilled in our supportive academic environment, and does not constitute a binding agreement. It was developed in conjunction with Loughborough Students’ Union and is reviewed annually by the University’s Learning and Teaching Committee, a body upon which student representatives sit. It is based on the work of the Student Charter Group, which was chaired by the National Union of Students and Universities UK, with Department of Business, Innovation & Skills support. Further information on the development and maintenance of this resource is available from:
5
LTC14-P38 5 June 2014
• Rebecca Lauder-Fletcher – Vice President (Education), Loughborough Students’ Union – [email protected]
• Dr Maurice FitzGerald – Quality Enhancement Officer, Teaching Centre – [email protected]
Appeals and Complaints Procedures
If you have a complaint about a service provided by the University, you should normally raise this in the first instance with the member of staff, department or section responsible. For further information, please consult the Student Handbook.
If your complaint relates to the mark you have received or other aspects of assessment, then it is an Academic Appeal and you should consult the Academic appeals information. In addition, please refer to the Student Handbook.
If you are considering making a complaint or an Academic Appeal, please seek help and support from Student Voice who provide a confidential and non-judgemental service for students.
This resource was funded through the Loughborough University Development Trust. The Trust exists to support the University in giving students an outstanding quality of education experience. It raises funds from former students and other friends of the University. Their generosity has made this support possible.
Supported by: Loughborough University Development Trust
6
LTC14-P39 5 June 2014
Learning and Teaching Committee
Subject: Stretched Degrees – extended flexibility
Origin: Student Office, Academic Registry
Executive Summary: LTC is asked to consider whether or not to extend the University’s policies and practice with regard to “stretched” degrees to cover students with employment/work/training commitments following a placement year.
Current Practice in Relation to Stretched Degrees: The University currently has a policy in place to allow full-time students to “stretch” (see below for definition) their degree due to elite sports commitments – see: https://internal.lboro.ac.uk/info/media/wwwlboroacuk/Content/Student-Administration/Forms- and-guidance/Stretched-degree-applications/Stretch_Degree_Policy_(Sport).pdf
ADTs are also permitted to approve “stretched” degree arrangements for students with serious health issues. No formal policy currently exists to cover health related scenarios but Student Office and CDS, with the assistance of the ADT for Science are working to develop one. The current informal process involves ADTs liaising with Student Office to ensure that appropriate evidence is provided from an independent health professional before approving a “stretched” degree.
Definition – Stretched Degree: Typically, students that stretch a year of their degree programme study the modular credits across two academic years rather than one. Essentially, this equates to part-time study and allows students to manage their elite sporting commitments/health issues alongside their academic study.
Case for Work/Employment Related Stretched Degrees: Employment Related Cases Some Schools have requested that, in certain circumstances, the University should permit students to return to post-placement (Part I) study on a “stretched” or part-time basis. For example, we recently received a request from SSEHS for a student who had completed placement at Derby
Miranda Routledge, May 2014
LTC14-P39 5 June 2014
Football Club and was offered a position at the company to continue working after the formal placement has ended. The Football Club expected the student to commence employment immediately but also wanted them to complete their studies. To this end, the student requested to be able to complete their final year on a stretched basis which would allow them to fit around work commitments. The School supported the request because a) they felt it was a good opportunity for the student and b) they felt that the placement was high profile and wanted to preserve relations with the company (Football Club). The Academic Registry was not able to support the request because there was a lack of formal policy in this area and it was seen as potentially unfair on other students to approve the case.
Royal Marines Training Related Cases We have also received a request for a stretched degree from a student who has joined the Royal Marines and is required to attend regular training sessions throughout the year. The student in question is very keen to have a career in the Royal Marines. He has was unable to secure a sponsorship from them and was advised him to apply for a position as a Royal Marines Reserve Recruit. Following basic training, he has secured the position but to retain the job he must engage in a gruelling training programme (evenings, weekends and some 14 hour sessions during term time). The exhaustion and sleep deprivation is expected to affect his studies, hence his request to spread his studies over a longer period. The School are supportive of the request as, whilst not linked to his study of programme, is directly linked to his future career aspirations.
Sports Coaching Related Cases (this section of the paper has been provided by Andy Borrie, SDC) The development of high performance coaching and coaches is a key feature of the sport strategy and is prominent in the overall university strategy (University strategy 1.6.3). There is also an acceptance in the University strategy (2.15) that within sport we will work to increase employability opportunities.
As a consequence SDC are keen to explore how we could extend the concept of the stretch degree to students who are coaching at a performance level. In such cases it is anticipated that students can achieve accelerated growth as a coach by stretching their programme and combining academic study with applied experience.
The stretch degree option for elite athletes has been operational for a number of years and we currently have 26 students utilising this opportunity spread across 8 different Schools. We believe that currently there are a very small number (n<5) students who could benefit from a high performance coaching option to stretch. Overtime as we develop our coaching strategy we believe that this number could increase to match the number of elite student athletes who stretch but this still represents a very small percentage of the student population.
We are proposing that we develop threshold criteria similar to those applied to student athletes that would determine eligibility for a performance coaching stretch programme. If students meet these criteria all other aspects of the application process, management and support of the student would be identical to those applied to student athletes.
- - -
Miranda Routledge, May 2014
LTC14-P39 5 June 2014
In view of these cases, it is felt timely to review the University’s position on this. Specifically, the case for allowing stretched degrees on these grounds can be made on the following basis: • A shift in student focus on employability skills/opportunities • The perceived value of a degree in terms of increased tuition fees for students and the employment benefits derived from the degree • The current economic situation and resultant graduate job environment • The importance of establishing good relations with our placement providers if we are to retain our competitive edge in this area.
Anecdotally, SBE have reported other students who have left the institution to complete their studies elsewhere (Manchester Metropolitan University and John Moores University) because we do not offer this option. For each student that is forced down this route, the University loses a years’ worth of tuition fees, the positive graduate destination outcome, and the opportunity to benefit from an ongoing relationship with the student/alumnus. The University also risks losing or weakening the relationship with the host employer and the potential loss of further placement and graduate opportunities for other students.
An analysis of students that have withdrawn during or after their placement year (ie in Part I or C) since 2007/08 reveals the following:
Reason for Withdrawal 2007/08 2008/09 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Total Gone into Employment 1 1 1 3 Transferred to another HEI 1 2 1 4 Other 1 1 Unhappy - does not like programme 1 1 1 3 Ill Health 1 1 1 3 Personal Reasons 3 3 2 1 9 Did not return from LOA 2 1 3 Deceased 2 1 1 4 Total 6 7 4 3 6 4 30
The purple shaded data is intended to illustrate the students that have withdrawn from the University to pursue employment opportunities and who might have been persuaded to continue their studies had they been permitted to study their final year on a more flexible basis. The number of students is small and, interestingly, has remained fairly consistent over the time period reported on.
If LTC were to agree to extend study flexibility as proposed, a set of clear criteria would be needed to establish in which circumstances ADTs could approve a stretched degree application. These might include:
• High profile placements/employment opportunities that would enhance the University’s future partnerships. • Genuine once in a lifetime opportunities for students. • Graduate level employment only.
LTC’s views on these and other relevant criteria would be welcomed.
Miranda Routledge, May 2014
LTC14-P39 5 June 2014
Like other stretched degree students, affected individuals would need to explicitly accept that the teaching and learning delivery was not being tailored to suit their individual requirements. Therefore, there could be no right of academic appeal or claims for impaired performance linked to the impact of studying part-time. Students would also need to be responsible for ensuring that they met their maximum potential in terms of academic achievement. Achieving a lower class of degree as a direct result of these arrangements would not be beneficial to students nor the University.
Comments from Director of the Careers and Employability Centre (CEC):
Whilst there are complexities surrounding the provision of ‘stretched degree’ options the CEC supports the proposal for an extended option to be made available once all options have been discussed with the student and the employer concerned. Both employer and student would have to be clear that the stretched option could only be offered in exceptional circumstances and that these circumstances would need to be clearly articulated by both parties for the University to consider.
The only possible concern is that if employers came to view this option as a chance to secure the employment of particularly talented students rather than have other employers target and recruit them during their final year back at University, they might suggest that other students request a stretched final year option, and possibly even incentivise them to do so. This is conjecture but there is hot competition amongst graduate recruiters for students who demonstrate high potential so this situation is not beyond the realms of possibility.
However it is also possible that if the University was able to communicate directly with the employer and point out that in most cases there is only an 8-9 month period to have to wait before the student/new graduate can re-commence employment, the employer might change tack and enable the student to continue their final year of study in the normal way. In some cases part-time work or project work might be continued during this time, as long as the student’s studies and grades were not going to be compromised.
The positive outcome of enabling the stretched option if the circumstance was agreed to be exceptional is likely to be the enhancement of relationships between the University, the student/alumnus and the employer, both of which should be beneficial. Additionally, enabling the student to continue to develop vocational skills and generic employability skills alongside their academic studies may well help them secure a higher salary on the eventual completion of their studies.
LTC Action:
LTC is asked to agree whether or not to extend the University’s policies and practice with regard to “stretched” degrees to cover students with employment/work/external training commitments. If this proposal is agreed in principle, further work on the relevant criteria and surrounding policies will be required before Senate approval is sought.
Miranda Routledge, May 2014
LTC14-P40 5 June 2014
Learning and Teaching Committee
Subject: Peer observation of teaching and learning
Origin: Dr Nick Allsopp, Head of Academic Practice, Teaching Centre.
Executive Summary: This paper provides details of an informal survey of existing practice regarding peer observation and recommends a way forward for Schools. Action Required: Following discussion at QEASC, members of LTC are asked to consider and approve the proposal contained in this paper.
1. Introduction
The primary aim for the introduction of a process for the observation of teaching by a peer is to improve the student learning experience by means of a critical, reflective and professional dialogue; as such any proposed process forms part of a framework for the development of an individual’s academic practice. The introduction of a peer observation of teaching process is not a management tool or a control mechanism, but an opportunity to develop one’s own practice and as such draws on Bell’s (2005) definition of a “collaborative, developmental activity in which professionals offer mutual support by observing each other teach; explaining and discussing what was observed; sharing ideas about teaching;…reflecting on understandings, feelings, actions and feedback and trying out new ideas.” Any peer observation process will, as Hammersley-Fletcher and Orsmond (2005:214) argue, involve “the process of teaching and the thinking behind it, rather than simply evaluating the teaching itself. It is, therefore, addressing the question of why as opposed to how and, most importantly, is about learning from this process.” Bell and Mladenovic (2007:747) argue that the key benefit from a peer observation process is the opportunity to observe a colleague teach and that this is “more highly regarded than the (formal written) feedback received” The over-arching aim of introducing a peer observation process is therefore to enable all of those involved to conceive of themselves as learners (Peel, 2006) who, through being exposed to different ways of delivering to or working with perhaps the same or similar students, will become more critical and reflective practitioners. For this to occur the peer observation process must not be seen as an instrumental process or a management tool. Thus, although a process should be implemented across a School for consistency and to maximise potential impact (Drew and Kloppler, 2013:364), for it to trully work it must be owned by those who are engaged in its operation and who can clearly see its benefits. There is no link to professional accreditation or any form of licence to practice in this proposal, it is instead concerned with what Peel (2006:490) describes as a “critical understanding of ways of positively improving the student learning experience.”
2. Action following QSSC, 13.01.14 Following the meeting of the Quality and Standards Sub-Committee on 13th January 2014 the Head of Academic Practice was asked to “…write to ADTs to find out about peer
1
LTC14-P40 5 June 2014
observation practices which were currently in place, so that the Teaching Centre could learn from these and share good practice with others. A report on existing schemes would be submitted to LTC or this Sub-Committee in due course.” 6 replies were received from ADTs of the following Schools: SPGS, Science, SSEHS, SBE, CBE, Arts. In addition the Teaching Centre is working closely with AACME to introduce a peer observation scheme.
This paper was presented and discussed at the meeting of the QEASC on 19th May 2014 and minor amendments were suggested. These have now been made to section 4i and 4vi and the paper is now presented to LTC for consideration and approval. It is envisaged that, if approved Schools will implement peer assessment schemes during the academic year 2014/15 if these are not already in place.
3. Results from the survey of existing practice In all of the Schools that responded peer observation was taking place but organisation was sometimes informal and a record was not always kept. In one school peer observations were confined to specified groups of staff (“Probationers, Bought in Teachers, Promotions and Disciplinary”) rather than being universal. In another distance learning materials were reviewed as a proxy for peer observation for some staff. From the comments received it is seen as important that any scheme or process was not perceived as imposed by those in a management position but was owned and even controlled by the participants. It was clear from respondents that the focus should be upon the development of colleagues rather than making judgements (about performance). The other key concern that emerged from the responses was that any new system would spawn an unnecessary bureaucratic burden that would deflect staff from the original intent.
4. Proposal for a way forward. Following the survey of existing practice it is proposed that each School establishes a process for the observation of teaching by peers which incorporates most/all of the characteristics that emerged from the survey and which are listed below. The exact method by which any process operates is left to the discretion of the individual School and the University Learning and Teaching Committee will receive a report on the School’s scheme annually.
i. The scheme adopted by the School should include all staff who deliver or support student learning in the School. However any scheme would also need to have a possible opt-out for staff who don’t need observing in any given period of time – perhaps because they had been observed as part of another process such as the PGCAP or observations of bought-in teachers (BiTs). Any opt-out should be approved by the Head of Department and the AD(T) ii. An individual should be observed teaching by their peer at least once every three years. iii. Schools should have a consistent approach to selection of observers. Best practice would be for observers to be offered training for the role, facilitated by the Teaching Centre. iv. It should be made explicit that within any scheme there is no link to performance. This may mean that no grade or judgement is made of the observation. Schools are advised to decide whether their peer observation scheme identify areas for improvement as well as the strengths observed. v. The observed colleague should receive or be able to request feedback in an appropriate format. The emphasis of such feedback should be on ways to improve student learning. vi. It is suggested that each School identifies a person within their administration who should be informed of (at least) the following:
2
LTC14-P40 5 June 2014
• Name of person being observed • Name of person observing • date of observation • module code for observation As a further development it is suggested that examples of good practice identified by the observations should be collated and disseminated across the area of work (Dept/School) for the benefit of all.
5. Possible templates for teaching observation In order to assist Schools the Teaching Centre has produced two possible templates which might be used in any peer observation scheme; these are provided for adaptation as an appendix. There is also a teaching observation proforma that is currently used by University Assessors when they assess students on the new lecturer’s course and for those applying for promotion to Senior Lecturer. This is available to download from the Teaching Centre website at http://www.lboro.ac.uk/services/teachingcentre/procedures- schemes/teachingobservations/ Schools may wish to consider this proforma as opposed to those provided in the appendix. As stated in 4iii above, the Teaching Centre is able to provide training for all those identified as observers in a School’s scheme.
6. References and further reading. Bell, M. (2005) Peer Observation Partnerships in Higher Education. NSW, Australia: Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia Inc.
Bell, A. and Mladenovic, R. (2008) The benefits of peer observation of teaching for tutor development. Higher Education, 55, 735-752.
Cosh, J. (2006) Peer Observation in Higher education – a reflective approach. Innovations in Education & Training International, 35, (2), 171-176.
Drew, S. and Klopper, C. (2014) Evaluating faculty pedagogic practices to inform strategic academic professional development: a case of cases. Higher Education, 67, 349-367
Gosling, D. (2002) Models of Peer Observation of Teaching. LTSN Generic Centre [online: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/subjects/escalate/1042_Peer_observation downloaded 15.10.13]
Hammersley-Fletcher, L. and Orsmond, P. (2004) Evaluating our peers: is peer observation a meaningful process? Studies in Higher Education, 29. (4), 489-503.
Hammersley-Fletcher, L. and Orsmond, P. (2005) Reflecting on reflective practices within peer observation. Studies in Higher Education, 30, (2), 213-224.
Peel, D. (2006) Peer observation as a transformatory tool? Teaching in Higher Education, 10, (4), 489-504.
3
LTC14-P40 5 June 2014
Appendix. Possible teaching observation templates
<
Observation of teaching
Date of observation Name of person observed Name of observer Module/course Length of observation Details of session: Subject covered, type of activity, number of students present Review lecture capture: Session observed via Direct peer observation: Both:
Observer’s comments on session: What were the elements of good practice In what ways could the session have been observed? improved?
Observee’s reflection on session:
Signatures:
(Signature of observer)
(Signature of observe) Please tick if you agree to the elements of good practice identified being shared within the School
4
LTC14-P40 5 June 2014
Aspects to consider whilst observing: Clarity of purpose • Is it clear to the students what the purpose of the session is? and aim • Has this purpose been made clear at the beginning of the session? Planning and • How does the session relate to the previous and future sessions? organisation • Is the session well planned with a clearly defined structure? • Is the time management of the session efficient? • Are there sufficient and appropriate learning resources? • How are issues of student diversity/accessibility planned for? • Is there evidence of consideration of the teaching space in the planning of the session? Learning and • Do the teaching methods used enable the objectives of the session to be teaching methods met? • Are the teaching methods used appropriate to the students’ level and needs? • Do the teaching methods used stimulate student interest? • How are issues of student diversity/accessibility addressed? Presentation • Can the tutor can be seen and heard by all the class? • Is oral delivery clear, well-paced, and appropriate in tone and style? • Is the session introduced effectively? • Is it clear to students/participants how the session relates to previous work? • Is the material clearly structured and easy to navigate? • Are explanations clear and coherent? • Are key points summarised? • Are diagrams/graphs clearly presented and labelled? • Have accessibility issues been addressed? • Is the session drawn to a satisfactory conclusion? • Is there eye contact with students/participants? • Is body movement, posture and facial expression used appropriately?
Content • Is the content appropriate for the level, abilities and needs of students/participants? • Is the content well-researched and up-to-date? • Are examples of topical illustrations, analogies and references to research appropriate? Student • What evidence was there of student engagement with the session? engagement and/or • Was student participation appropriate to the nature and purpose of the participation session? • What strategies are used to gain attention, to refocus at intervals, and to ensure attention span is maintained? • Were there opportunities for students to question and give feedback? • Was the session managed in an appropriate way? Impact of • Is the teaching space effectively utilised? accommodation and • Are the learning and teaching methods employed suitable to the learning resources accommodation/size of group? • Are selected resources (specialist equipment, visual aids, etc) appropriate for purpose? • Are resources used effectively? • Do resources support the content of the session?
5
LTC14-P40 5 June 2014
<
Observation of teaching
Date of observation Name of person observed Name of observer Module/course Length of observation Details of session: Subject covered, type of activity, number of students present Review lecture capture: Session observed via Direct peer observation: Both:
Aspects to consider whilst observing: Clarity of purpose and aim • Is it clear to the students what the purpose of the session is? • Has this purpose been made clear at the beginning of the session? Planning and organisation • How does the session relate to the previous and future sessions? • Is the session well planned with a clearly defined structure? • Is the time management of the session efficient? • Are there sufficient and appropriate learning resources? • How are issues of student diversity/accessibility planned for? • Is there evidence of consideration of the teaching space in the planning of the session? Learning and teaching methods • Do the teaching methods used enable the objectives of the session to be met? • Are the teaching methods used appropriate to the students’ level and needs? • Do the teaching methods used stimulate student interest? • How are issues of student diversity/accessibility addressed?
Presentation • Can the tutor can be seen and heard by all the class?
6
LTC14-P40 5 June 2014
• Is oral delivery clear, well-paced, and appropriate in tone and style? • Is the session introduced effectively? • Is it clear to students/participants how the session relates to previous work? • Is the material clearly structured and easy to navigate? • Are explanations clear and coherent? • Are key points summarised? • Are diagrams/graphs clearly presented and labelled? • Have accessibility issues been addressed? • Is the session drawn to a satisfactory conclusion? • Is there eye contact with students/participants? • Is body movement, posture and facial expression used appropriately?
Content • Is the content appropriate for the level, abilities and needs of students/participants? • Is the content well-researched and up- to-date? • Are examples of topical illustrations, analogies and references to research appropriate? Student engagement and/or participation • What evidence was there of student engagement with the session? • Was student participation appropriate to the nature and purpose of the session? • What strategies are used to gain attention, to refocus at intervals, and to ensure attention span is maintained? • Were there opportunities for students to question and give feedback? • Was the session managed in an appropriate way? Impact of accommodation and learning resources • Is the teaching space effectively utilised? • Are the learning and teaching methods employed suitable to the accommodation/size of group? • Are selected resources (specialist equipment, visual aids, etc) appropriate for purpose?
7
LTC14-P40 5 June 2014
• Are resources used effectively? • Do resources support the content of the session?
Observer’s comments on session: What were the elements of good practice In what ways could the session have been observed? improved?
Observee’s reflection on session:
Signatures:
(Signature of observer)
(Signature of observe) Please tick if you agree to the elements of good practice identified being shared within the School
8
LTC14-P41 5 June 2014
Learning and Teaching Committee (LTC)
Subject: Revised Bought-in Teacher (BiT) Quality Assurance Proposal
Origin: Meg Stafford and Sam Marshall, Change Projects Team
Date: 5 June 2014
Executive Summary: This paper summarises changes to the BiT quality assurance policy following feedback from LTC and further consultation with the Teaching Centre. These are required for implementation of the new BiT process.
Actions Required: Members of the Committee are asked to approve the policy proposal.
Current position
Following feedback from LTC and consultation with Carol Robinson and Nick Allsopp from the Teaching Centre, a further simplification of the policy is proposed. The recommendations are summarised below and an amended version of the full paper submitted to LTC on 13th March 2014 is appended in Annex 1.
Summary of recommendations
• The proposed BiT system includes a yes/no flag for Schools to record the appointment of BiTs as Responsible Examiners and enables this information to be reportable to LTC via PQPT. • LTC agrees a policy that PhD BiTs are quality assured through the teaching skills courses and subsequent School observations that are required for professional development purposes and, as a result, this group of BiTs are exempted from University Assessor teaching observations regardless of how much teaching they contribute to a module. • LTC agrees a policy that the proposed BiT system enables a report to be generated for the Teaching Centre on non-PhD BiTs and that the Teaching Centre will select a sample from this group to quality assure, subject to University Assessor resources. • The Teaching Centre will communicate the outcomes of teaching skills courses and University Assessor observations to the Dean of School, or a nominated representative, and it will be at their discretion whether to act on the information supplied. A re-appointment yes/no flag can be included in the proposed system to record a decision not to re-appoint BiTs (without noting the reason) to prevent accidental appointment in future without prior consultation.
Conclusion
It is noted that the Change Team and Teaching Centre will continue to consult on the implementation of these proposals and drafting of guidance for Schools regarding the quality assurance of BiTs but that LTC is asked only to approve the policy changes that are directly related to the process review at this time.
It was also noted that further discussions are taking place around the terminology used to refer to bought-in teachers. The Change Team will incorporate the approved terminology into the proposed system and guidance notes once this has been approved.
1 Annex 1
Learning and Teaching Committee (LTC)
Subject: Revised Bought-in Teacher (BiT) Quality Assurance Proposal
Origin: Meg Stafford and Sam Marshall, Change Projects Team
Date: 5 June 2014
Actions Required: Members of the Committee are asked to approve the findings and recommendations of this paper.
Current position
The Change Projects Team are currently undertaking a process improvement review of how the University employs, quality assures and pays bought-in-teachers. As part of this project, the policy for teaching quality assessment of BiTs has been evaluated.
The current policy requires Responsible Examiners to observe the teaching of any BiTs who are teaching less than 25% of their module(s), or to arrange a Teaching Centre assessment if they are teaching more than 25% of their module(s).
If a BiT is teaching more than 50% of the module, the Responsible Examiner is required to complete a BiT Internal Examiner Form, get it signed by their AD(T), counter-signed by the Dean of School and forwarded by an administrator to the Senior Assistant Registrar in the Programme, Quality & Teaching Partnerships (PQTP) section of the Academic Registry.
For BiTs requiring LEARN access, administrators must assist the BiT in requesting an Lboro IT account and email address, assign them as a Responsible Examiner in LUSI so that their name appears on the module specification, and ensure they have LEARN access enabling reliable 2-way communication between the BiT and the students.
Key findings
• The collection and storage of teaching observation data in Schools is sporadic and there is no mechanism for reporting on it reliably. • There is a perception that the Teaching Centre is not being reliably informed when BiTs are teaching more than 25% of a module and that this boundary for identifying BiTs to assess is arbitrary. • The process for appointing bought-in Responsible Examiners is getting mixed up with the process of assessing teaching quality and this is adding unnecessary complexities and confusion. • The completion and submission of the BiT Internal Examiner Form to PQPT does not trigger any action, however it is desirable for teaching quality assurance information to be reportable to Learning and Teaching Committee.
Recommendations for appointing BiTs as Responsible Examiners
As it is the responsibility of Deans, or nominated individuals within the School, to appoint Responsible Examiners to modules, the School should identify, by criteria of their own choosing, whether a bought-in teacher should be appointed as a Responsible Examiner for a given module. This will be recordable in the proposed system for reporting to LTC via the University Programme Quality and Partnerships Team (PQPT) and will remove the need to complete the existing Internal Examiner Form.
2 Annex 1
Recommendations for teaching quality assurance
It is recommended that the 25% boundary is discontinued and that, for the purpose of identifying which BiTs may benefit from a University Assessor teaching assessment, a distinction is made between PhD students and the remaining group of bought-in University teachers.
All PhD students should be required to register on, and complete to a satisfactory standard, the University Teaching Skills courses and subsequent School observation. The requirement to undertake the teaching skills courses and advice on how to register for these should be included in the HR contract.
The Teaching Centre will be able to identify the remaining group of BiTs through a report generated by the proposed system and select a sample to quality assess. It should be noted in the HR contract for this group that their teaching may be subject to a teaching quality assessment carried out by the University Teaching Centre however they will be notified in advance if this is required. The proposed system will give the Teaching Centre a better understanding than previously of how many bought-in teachers are in this group and enable them to target their resources accordingly. Additional Teaching Centre assessments could be triggered by other indicators, such as module feedback. The timescales for reporting and carrying out assessments should be advised by the Teaching Centre.
For both groups of bought-in teachers, the Teaching Centre should devise a process, out-with the system being developed by the Change Team, to communicate the outcomes of the PhD Teaching Skills courses and University Assessor teaching observations confidentially to an appropriate individual within the School. The Dean, or their nominated representative, should decide whether or not to act on the information. It will only be necessary to record if a bought-in teacher is not permitted to continue teaching in the proposed system so that they cannot be re-appointed without prior consultation. It would be the responsibility of the nominated individual to keep a record of the reasons for discontinuing the employment of certain BiTs as it would not be appropriate to record this level of detail in a centralised system.
Summary
Learning and Teaching Committee are asked to approve the recommendations regarding the quality assurance of teaching for bought-in-teachers.
Further information
Further details on the administrative and IT systems under development are available from Sam Marshall ([email protected], 222305) or Meg Stafford ([email protected], 222810) in the Change Projects Team.
3 LTC14-P42 5 June 2014
Learning and Teaching Committee LTC14-P42
Subject
Proposed Amendment to Regulation XVIII (Academic Misconduct)
Origin
Chris Dunbobbin, Programme Quality and Teaching Partnerships
Executive summary Learning and Teaching Committee is asked to recommend to Senate an amendment to Regulation XVIII (Academic Misconduct) to make explicit that it is an offence of academic misconduct for a candidate to submit work that they have previously submitted for formal assessment at Loughborough or any other University, unless specific provision is made in the assessment brief.
Background
In a number of cases considered by the Academic Misconduct Committee in Semester 1 2013-14, candidates were found to have submitted work which they had previously submitted as part of another assessment, undertaken at an earlier stage in their programme. Some of the candidates involved claimed to have been unaware that it was not permissible to submit the same piece of work for multiple assessments.
The existing definition of academic misconduct in section 2 of Regulation XVIII refers to ‘plagiarism’ in the context of submitting work as the candidate's own of which the candidate is not the author. There is also a catch-all category: engaging in any activity likely to give an unfair advantage to any candidate. However, the concept of ‘self-plagiarism’, or more appropriately put, submitting the same or partly the same work for more than one formal assessment is not explicitly addressed.
On the basis that it is good academic practice for all work submitted as part of a degree programme to be new/original (as well as being the candidate’s own work), it is proposed that the definition of Regulation XVIII (Academic Misconduct) be amended to make explicit that it is an offence of academic misconduct for a candidate to submit work that they have previously submitted for formal assessment at Loughborough or any other University, unless specific provision is made in the assessment brief, for example in the context of project modules where candidates are required to submit for assessment a preliminary report, some of which may legitimately form part of the final submission. This change, together with some explanatory text referring to ‘self-plagiarism’ can then be added to the Academic Misconduct section of the Student Handbook.
Proposed Amendment to Regulation XVIII
It is proposed that section 2 of Regulation XVIII be amended as below:
2. It is academic misconduct for any candidate in the course of any assessment to engage in one or more of the following activities: • Failing to comply with the Rules for the Conduct of Written Examinations (set out in Senate Regulation VII), for example by taking prohibited materials into an Examination Hall.
• Assisting another candidate to gain an advantage by unfair means, or receiving such assistance, for example by impersonation or the passing off of one individual's work as another's. This includes undeclared failure to contribute to group coursework assignments.
• Misleading the examiners by the fabrication or falsification of data.
• Plagiarism; namely submitting work as the candidate's own of which the candidate is not the author. This includes failure to acknowledge clearly and explicitly the ideas, words or work of another person whether these are published or unpublished.
• Submitting work that the candidate has previously submitted for formal assessment at Loughborough or any other University, unless specific provision is made in the assessment brief.
• Engaging in any other activity likely to give an unfair advantage to any candidate.
2
LTC14-P43 5 June 2014
Learning and Teaching Committee
Subject: Teaching and Learning Roles - Update
Origin: Rob Pearson, Programme Quality & Teaching Partnerships
Executive Summary: Following approval of a recommendation for the adoption of four levels of learning and teaching roles within Schools, further discussion has been conducted to discuss how implementation can be best supported.
Action Required: LTC is asked to note and endorse the development of role descriptors within Schools and to prioritise training for role holders and support for the appointment process during 2014/15.
1. Introduction In March 2014, Learning and Teaching Committee approved a recommendation that Schools should adopt an agreed set of learning and teaching role descriptors and levels of responsibility, with effect from the start of the 2014/15 academic session. It was agreed that greater consistency in the management of learning and teaching within Schools would enhance the oversight of taught provision. This included the expectation that all Schools would adopt the following levels of responsibility and associated nomenclature:
Level 1: Associate Dean (Teaching) Level 2: Director of Studies / Learning and Teaching (either UG / PGT or both, also permissible at Departmental level) Level 3: Programme Director Level 4: Module Leader
Further to that meeting, discussions have been undertaken between the AD(T)s and the Head of PQTP to determine how implementation of these roles can be supported and how the expectations of the Academic Quality Cycle and other relevant responsibilities (e.g. response to external examiners, student module feedback etc..) would be best met within the context of each School.
Discussions have confirmed that it is appropriate for individual Schools to determine at a local level how these responsibilities should be mapped against the roles and responsibilities outlined above. It was also noted that Schools had either started or intended to develop more detail role descriptors for the roles and responsibilities above.
2. Action for Learning and Teaching Committee The Committee is asked to note and endorse the development by individual Schools of role descriptors for Levels 2 to 4 above.
The Committee is also asked to endorse a recommendation that LTC prioritises the following in its work schedule for 2014/15:
• Training sessions for individuals at all levels of responsibility, that would serve to: clarify expectations of the role holders; provide training on University processes (e.g. programme and module update and approval); and develop communities of practice across the University. • The involvement of AD(T)s in the appointment process / allocation of roles across levels 2 to 3 within their Schools. LTC14-P44 5 June 2014
Learning and Teaching Committee
Subject: Oversight of the Academic Practice suite of programmes offered by the Teaching Centre.
Origin: Teaching Centre
Executive Summary: Following discussion at QEASC, this paper is presented to Learning and Teaching Committee as a means by which the university can assure itself of the quality of the credit-bearing provision provided by the Teaching Centre.
Action Required: Learning and Teaching Committee are asked to consider and approve the proposal
1. Introduction On 6th February 2014 the University’s Learning and Teaching Committee approved an application to designate the Teaching Centre as the equivalent of a School for the purposes of the Postgraduate Certificate, PG Diploma and MA in Academic Practice. The Associate Teaching Programme, which consists of modules TCP001 and TCP002 from the PGCAP will also fall within the remit of this committee.
In so doing the Committee required the Teaching Centre to confirm to its Quality and Standards Sub- committee how it would provide “an appropriate overview of the quality and standards of the provision.” This paper provides that detail.
To this end, the Teaching Centre will establish an Academic Practice Programmes Steering Committee.
2. Terms of Reference. • To act as the Programme Board for the postgraduate awards defined above and thus to operate according to the guidelines provided in the Academic Quality Procedures Handbook, section 3.4 (see http://www.lboro.ac.uk/admin/ar/policy/aqp/3/index.htm) • To provide overall responsibility for the coordination, quality assurance and development of the programme • To implement, monitor and review the quality and standards of the Academic Practice suite of awards, to include reviewing reports on matters of relevance to the committee, including: − External Examiner reports − Annual and Periodic Programme Reviews − Student Surveys
1
LTC14-P44 5 June 2014
− Student Staff Liaison Committees − Recruitment, progression and completion data − External Accreditation Reports − Student Module Feedback • To ensure that the suite of programmes develops in ways that maintain the appropriate academic standards, assure the quality of the student learning experience and meet the needs of the University and its Schools, including − Ensuring the programmes meet the requirements of the QAA ‘Quality Code’ and continues to align with the UKPSF − Ensuring the programme remains coherent as its component modules evolve. − Overseeing the annual monitoring of programmes and the periodic review of programmes • To review data relating to student enrolment, retention, achievement and HEA fellowship and to suggest further appropriate actions • To receive and consider reports from student representatives regarding specific and general learning and teaching issues. • To ensure that effective arrangements are in place to identify, support, disseminate and reward effective practice and innovation in learning, teaching and assessment, in line with University Strategy • To ensure that relevant matters are reported to the University Quality and Standards sub- committee and onwards to the Learning and Teaching Committee. • The committee will meet three times per year, usually in November, February and July. o The November meeting will include the External Examiner and will, amongst other items, consider and confirm the final marks and any reassessments for a cohort. o The February and July meetings will, amongst other items, consider and provisionally confirm re/assessment marks from the previous semester
3. Membership.
Director of the Teaching Centre (Chair)
Programme Directors of all awards (PGCAP, PG Dip and MA)
External Examiner(s) – November meeting only
Representation from academic Schools (x2)
Representation from student representatives (x2) – not when considering student marks
Representation from e-Learning team in Teaching Centre (x1)
Possible co-options (x2)
Secretary provided by Teaching Centre
2
LTC14-P45 5 June 2014
Learning and Teaching Committee
Subject: Review of Degree Classification Regulations
Origin: Rob Pearson, Programme Quality & Teaching Partnerships
Executive Summary: A review has been undertaken of the Loughborough degree classification regulations in response to comments from External Examiners and requests from several Schools during APR.
Action Required: The Committee is asked to approve recommendations from QEASC, with a view to confirming that current regulations and principles are fit for purpose.
1. Introduction
The Degree Classification regulations operated by the University (see appendix 1) have come in for comment from a small number of External Examiners in recent years. Several Schools have also requested that consideration should be given to amending our regulations and principles, or to providing greater guidance in their use. Therefore, earlier in this session a review was undertaken of our degree classification regulations to ensure that they are fit for purpose.
Schools were consulted, via AD(T)s, for their opinions on our current system and a review was also conducted of conventions across comparator Universities. Several points of principle were raised during the review and discussed at a meeting of the Quality Enhancement and Assurance Sub- Committee in March (see paper QEASC14-P6).
Following discussion at QEASC and subsequent discussion with AD(T)s, this paper makes a number of recommendations for approval by LTC, with a view to confirming that current regulations and conventions are fit for purpose. The Committee is also presented with an appraisal of a national initiative to replace degree classifications with a Grade Point Average system.
2. Matters of Principle
2.1 Discretion at the borderline Loughborough allows Programme Boards discretion to lower the degree classification boundary by up to 3%. It has been suggested by some Externals that this amount of discretion is too large. However, appendix 2, column 2, demonstrates that there is variation across comparator Universities in the amount of discretion available, and that Loughborough is not alone in allowing discretion of up to 3%. QEASC was of the opinion that the University was not therefore operating outside of acceptable boundaries.
Recommendation 1: The University should retain a 3% discretion boundary.
1
LTC14-P45 5 June 2014
2.2 Convention for raising students within the discretion boundary to a higher classification The most contentious area for comment from External Examiners was the convention of applying a lower threshold to all students under consideration by that Programme Board, i.e. we do not take students out of rank order. As appendix 2, column 3 demonstrates, Loughborough is alone in this regard. The concern from the Externals was that ‘weaker’ students are promoted to a higher classification on the coat-tails of ‘stronger’ students.
It should be noted that the response from AD(T)s when consulted on this issue was that, while acknowledging the External Examiner concerns, this was not a widespread concern amongst most Externals, and that staff and students were predominantly content with our existing regulations. It was felt that as long as the decision process was transparent to students, this was as fair a method of deciding degree classification as any of the alternatives currently used across the sector. A response was also presented from an External Examiner from English & Drama who did not feel that any change was necessary.
Learning and Teaching Committee had debated whether to allow Schools to promote students out of rank order in April 2005, using a mechanism such as a ‘majority paper’ rule. However, there was little support across the University for promoting students out of rank order, and a recommendation was made to Senate that the existing policy should continue to apply (LTC05- 21 refers). QEASC did not feel that there was sufficient evidence to suggest a change to this position was necessary.
Recommendation 2: The University should retain the convention of not promoting students out of rank order.
2.3 Classification Weightings
2.3.1 Consistency in weightings? Appendix 2, column 4, demonstrates that many comparator Universities have a single set of weightings that are applicable to all programmes. It should be noted that there is no consistency in weightings across Universities. At Loughborough, as demonstrated in appendix 3, we employ a range of weightings across Schools/Departments.
QEASC felt that there should be greater consistency in weightings across Schools and within Schools, but due to disciplinary preferences did not feel it appropriate to move to a single weighting model across all Schools. Following QEASC, Schools have agreed to review their degree class weightings to ensure that there is a sound rationale where differences remain.
Recommendation 3: Individual Schools should adopt a single degree class weighting, except in cases where there is a clear rationale for retaining more than one weighting model.
2.3.2 Should Part A count towards the overall degree classification? During the 2013/14 APR, Wolfson School requested that the University should consider whether Part A should count towards the overall degree classification. It was felt that this would encourage greater student engagement with their studies at Part A, which would have a positive impact on progression rates at Part B.
2
LTC14-P45 5 June 2014
As appendix 2, column 5 demonstrates, only one other comparator University includes Part A in the overall degree classification. After considering the case made by Wolfson, QEASC did not feel that there was strong evidence to merit including Part A in the overall degree classification.
Recommendation 4: The Regulations should not be amended to allow Schools to include Part A towards the degree classification.
2.4 The use of vivas in determining degree classifications QEASC questioned whether it was appropriate to retain the option to use vivas to determine degree classifications for students in the borderlines. Subsequent to QEASC, discussions with AD(T) revealed that vivas were used sparingly, and typically in exceptional cases to determine whether a student on the borderline should be moved up a class. It was apparent that some Schools did not use vivas, but others wished to retain the right to use vivas in exceptional cases.
Recommendation 5: The University should retain the right for Schools to use vivas to determine the classification of students in the degree class borderline.
3. Grade Point Average (GPA): An alternative to Degree Classifications?
It is well recognised that there are limitations and issues in the use of the UK honours degree classification system (e.g. current grade classifications do not provide sufficient information to distinguish between graduates). The adoption of a single GPA system, as commonly used in many countries, could provide key benefits including a finer granularity of detail in a summative representation of student achievement than the current classification system, and helping to further engage students in their course of study.
The Higher Education Academy (HEA) is facilitating a national discussion on the use of a GPA system, as a possible addition or alternative to the honours degree classification system in UK higher education. The aims of the GPA programme of work are to:
• explore the potential use of a GPA model and the issues that arise through its use in a range of institutional contexts; • raise awareness and enhance understanding across and beyond the higher education sector of the issues relating to the potential adoption of GPA as a cumulative and summative measure of student achievement, ‘in tandem’ with, or as an alternative to, the honours degree classification system.
As part of this programme in 2013-14, the HEA is facilitating a GPA pilot involving a diverse group of 21 higher education providers from across the UK (see appendix 4). Through this pilot work, these institutions are being supported to explore the use of a proposed GPA scale within their current context. Institutions are looking at key areas, including:
• the acceptability of the proposed scale in relation to institutional provision and its robustness in comparison with the current system; • preferred institutional approaches to progression weighting with GPA; • operational issues relating to the reporting of student results and dual running of GPA alongside degree classification.
3
LTC14-P45 5 June 2014
4. Action required
Learning and Teaching Committee is asked to approve the recommendations made in section 2, which have been reproduced below.
Recommendation 1: The University should retain a 3% discretion boundary.
Recommendation 2: The University should retain the convention of not promoting students out of rank order.
Recommendation 3: Individual Schools should adopt a single degree class weighting, except in cases where there is a clear rationale for retaining more than one weighting model.
Recommendation 4: The Regulations should not be amended to allow Schools to include Part A towards the degree classification.
Recommendation 5: The University should retain the right for Schools to use vivas to determine the classification of students in the degree class borderline.
4
LTC14-P45 5 June 2014
Appendix 1
Extract from Regulation XX:
Programme Mark and Degree Classification 20. For each student, a Programme Mark shall be determined according to the following scheme:
20.1 The Module Marks (as defined in paragraph 16 hereof) awarded for every module (capped in the case of second attempt module assessments in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 49 hereof) in each Part of the programme will be weighted in proportion to the relevant modular weight and used to calculate an average percentage mark for each Part. 20.2 The average percentage marks for Parts B, C, D and I will be combined in the ratio indicated in Programme Regulations to determine the Programme Mark. 20.3 Part and Programme Marks shall be shown and recorded as rounded to one decimal place.
21. Students who meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs 27 to 29 hereof to pass the final Part of their programme shall receive the appropriate award. Where first degrees are awarded, the degree classification shall be determined according to the following scheme:
Programme Mark Degree Class
70%+ First Class Honours
60%+ Second Class Honours Upper Division
50%+ Second Class Honours Lower Division
40%+ Third Class Honours
Less than 40% Pass
22. At the discretion of the Programme Board, any or all of the Programme Mark thresholds detailed in paragraph 21 hereof may be lowered by not more than 3%. In such a case, the revised threshold(s) shall be applicable to all students under consideration by that Programme Board.
5
LTC14-P45 5 June 2014
Appendix 2
Overview of Degree Classification Protocols at Comparator Universities*
Discretion Calculation used to raise students within boundary to a higher classification Weighting across Part A boundary programme parts counts below (parts B:C, or B:C:D) towards classification degree? range** University of 2% Half of final year credits required in upper classification 32:88, 24:8:68 No Bath University of 3% 50% or more of marks required in upper classification 25:75, 20:80 No Birmingham University of 2% 50% or more of marks required in upper classification Varies No Bristol Durham 2% Not clear 2:3, 2:3:4 No University University of 2% Minimum performance in upper class in 120 credits (1st), 140 credits (2:1, 2:2), 40:60, 20:30:50 No East Anglia 160 credits (3rd) University of 2% 120 credits at higher classification 40:60 No Essex University of 2% 50% or more of marks required in upper classification 1:2, 4:2:8 No Exeter Lancaster 2% 50% or more of marks required in upper classification Equal No University University of 3% 120 credits at higher classification (180 credits for integrated masters) 40:60, 30:70, 20:30:50 No Leicester University of 3% Either 120 credits of study in years two and three are in a higher class than the 30:70, 20:10:70 No Liverpool overall average mark and of these at least 60 credits have been achieved in year three or 135 credits across years two and three are in a higher class than the overall average mark. Loughborough 3% At discretion of Programme Board threshold may be lowered, and must be Varies (see Appendix 2) No University applicable to all students in threshold 6
LTC14-P45 5 June 2014
University of 2% 2/3 of credits must be at higher classification Part A excluded: 0:33.67, Yes Manchester 0:2:4:4, Part A included: 1:3:6, 0.06:0.19:0.375:0.375 Newcastle 2% Discretion of examiners Varies No University University of 1% Systems as determined by individual Schools Varies No Nottingham University of 2% 50% or more of marks required in upper classification, or at discretion of Board of 1:2, 2:3:5, 2:4:4 No Reading Examiners University of 3% Discretion of examiners 1:2, 1:2:2 No Sheffield University of 2% 50% or more of marks required in upper classification 1:2, 1:2:2 No Southampton University of None None 35:65, 25:35:40 No Surrey University of 1% 50% or more of marks required in upper classification (as a general guide) 40:60, 25:40:60 No Sussex University of 2% From: performance above the class boundary in final year; preponderance of Varies No Warwick module marks above the class boundary; performance above the class boundary in core modules or optional core modules (as listed in course regulations). University of 2% Algorithm to determine if proportion of marks lie in higher classification 2:3, 2:3:3 No York
*Comparison undertaken with Russell Group and former 1994 Group institutions where the information is readily available. All the above universities use a straightforward arithmetic mean calculation to determine the overall programme mark. Several other universities use other systems such as Grade Point Average to determine classification within certain bands, and have not been represented above.
** The standard classification range used by most universities is:
First Class: 70% Second Class, Upper Division: 60% Second Class, Lower Division: 50% Third Class: 40%
7
LTC14-P45 5 June 2014
Appendix 3
Loughborough Degree Class Weightings by School / Department
Bachelors Integrated Masters 20:80 25:75 30:70 33.3:66.7 40:60 15:40:45 1:3:4 1:3:3 15:42.5:42.5 20:35:45 20:40:40
School of Aeronautical, Automotive, Chemical and Materials Engineering Department of Aeronautical and Automotive Engineering x x Department of Chemical Engineering x x Department of Materials x x School of the Arts, English and Drama School of the Arts x Department of English & x Drama School of Business and Economics x x School of Science Chemistry x x Computer Science x x Physics x x School of Mathematical Sciences x x School of Civil and Building Engineering x x x Loughborough Design School x School of Electronic, Electrical and Systems Engineering x x School of Social, Political and Geographical Sciences Department of Geography x Department of Politics, History and International Relations x (PHIR) Department of Social x Sciences Wolfson School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering x x School of Sports, Exercise and Health Sciences (SSEHS) x
8
LTC14-P45 5 June 2014
Appendix 4
Participants in the Higher Education Academy GPA programme
Twenty one higher education providers from across the UK are participating in the GPA pilot in 2013-14:
• Bangor University • University of Birmingham • University of Edinburgh • Hull College • Kingston University • University of Leeds • University of Leicester • Northumbria University • City College Norwich • University of Nottingham • The Open University • Oxford Brookes University • Richmond, the American International University in London • University of Sheffield • University of Southampton • South West College (Northern Ireland) • University College London • University of the West of England • University of the West of Scotland • University of Winchester • York St John University
Through a series of HEA facilitated meetings, these higher education institutions are being supported to explore and test the possible use of a proposed GPA scale within their own context.
This pilot forms a core part of a wider programme of activities to inform the debate around whether to introduce a GPA system as a complement to, and possible eventual replacement for, the degree classification system. The wider programme is engaging institutions that are interested in or considering the possible use of GPA, as well as other key stakeholders, such as employers and students.
9
LTC14-P46 5 June 2014
Learning and Teaching Committee
Subject: Programme Proposals
Origin: Secretary to Curriculum Sub-Committee
Executive Summary: Report from the meeting of Curriculum Sub-Committee held on 15 May 2014
Action Required: Learning and Teaching Committee is asked to (i) approve programme proposals as indicated; (ii) note feedback on the standard of programme proposal documentation submitted to the Sub-Committee
1. New Programme Proposals The following proposals are recommended for strategic/ operational approval (as appropriate) via LTC Chair’s action after outstanding issues have been resolved: BSc Applied Sports Science (a blended-learning top up programme) (from Sept 2014) MSc/ PGDip Business Analytics Consulting (from Sept 2015) MSc Business Psychology (from Sept 2015)* MSc/PGDip/PG Cert Conversation Analysis (from Sept 2014)* MSc Corporate Finance (from Sept 2015) MSc/PGDip Discursive Psychology (from Sept 2014)* MSc Finance (from Sept 2015) MSc Finance and Investment (from Sept 2015) MSc Work Psychology (from Sept 2015)* * Title may be subject to change.
2. Major Change Proposals (i) The following proposals are recommended for strategic/operational approval (as appropriate) (all from Sept 2014): Taught Component of the PhD Research Programme in Hydrogen Fuel Cells and their Applications BSc Information Management and Business Studies BA Industrial Design and Technology BEng Manufacturing Engineering BEng/MEng Mechanical Engineering BEng Innovative Manufacturing Engineering BEng/MEng Product Design Engineering
(ii) The following proposals are recommended for strategic/operational approval (as appropriate) via LTC Chair’s action after outstanding issues have been resolved (all from Sept 2014): Curriculum-Based Component of the Doctor of Engineering (EngD) Research Programme in Efficient Fossil Energy Technologies and the MSc Efficient Fossil Energy Technologies BA International Relations BA Politics with a Minor MSc Sociology of Sport
3. New Module Proposals (new type of module) The following proposal is recommended for operational approval: 14SSC499 Professional and Applied Social Sciences Dissertation
4. Changes to Programme Titles/Awards The following proposals are recommended for strategic and operational approval: Addition of DIntS Award (Sept 2014 entrants onwards) BSc Human Biology BSc Sport and Exercise Science BSc Sport and Exercise Science (Gymnastics) BSc Sport Management BSc Sports Science with Management
Addition of DPS Award (Sept 2010 entrants onwards) BSc Engineering Management
Addition of DPS and DIntS Awards (Oct 2010 entrants onwards) BSc Geography and Management
Title Changes (Sept 2014 entrants onwards)
FROM: MSc Design and Innovation IN Sustainability TO: MSc Design and Innovation FOR Sustainability FROM: Curriculum-Based Component of the Doctor of Engineering (EngD) Research Programme in Efficient Fossil Energy Technology and MSc Efficient Fossil Energy Technologies TO: Curriculum-Based Component of the Doctor of Engineering (EngD) Research Programme in Carbon Capture and Storage and Cleaner Fossil Energy (CCSCFE) and MSc in Efficient Fossil Energy Technologies FROM: Taught Component of the PhD Research Programme in Hydrogen Fuel Cells and their Applications TO: Taught Component of the PhD Research programme in Fuel Cells and Their Fuels FROM: BSc Information Management and Business Studies TO: BSc Information Management and Business FROM: MSc Wealth Management and Leadership TO: MSc Wealth Management
5. Discontinuation of Programmes The following proposals are recommended for strategic and operational approval: MSc Advanced Process Engineering (part-time version only) (last intake = October 2013) MSc Advanced Chemical Engineering with IT and Management (p/t only) (last intake = Oct 2013) 2
PG Dip/PG Cert Advanced Studies in Ergonomics (no recent intakes) MSc Applied Finance and Banking (last intake Sept 2014) MSc Analytical Chemistry and Environmental Science (last intake: Sept 2013) MRes Ergonomics (last intake Sept 2013) PGCert Mathematics Support and Dyslexia/Dyscalculia in HE/FE (last intake 2010/11) MSc Money Banking and Finance (last intake Sept 2014) MSc Sport and Exercise Psychology (last intake Sept 2013) MSc Sport and Exercise Science (FT & PT versions) (last intake Sept 2014)
6. Suspension of Programmes The following proposals are recommended for strategic and operational approval: MBA International Sports Management (Last intake: Feb 2014; Next intake: Sept 2016) MSc Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy (Last intake: f/t= 2009; p/t= 2010; Next intake: Sept 2015) MSc Transport (last intake - Sept 2013; proposed next intake - Sept 2015)
7. Programme Proposal Documentation LTC is asked to note the following:
The Sub-Committee noted that the standard of the programme proposal documentation that had been submitted for the meeting was generally higher than that received for other recent meetings. This was thought to be due to a number of factors including simplification of the format of documentation required, the support and guidance provided by PQTP and the Teaching Centre, and the diligent work undertaken by AD(T)s in working with colleagues within their Schools in the development of programme documentation. It was agreed that this improvement should be brought to the attention of LTC. ACTION: RP It was noted that a number of proposals had been submitted in the wrong format or with information missing. It AGREED that LTC should be reminded that programme proposal documentation should be ready for publication when submitted to CSC. ACTION: RP
3
LTC14-P49 5 June 2014
Title: Academic Misconduct Committee Report for 2012-13
Origin: Catherine Smethurst - Student Office
Date: May 2014
This report includes details of all major cases, and all minor cases where an allegation of misconduct was upheld, in the academic year 2012-13 (including SAP 2013).
1. Membership of Committee
The Academic Misconduct Committee (AMC) during 2012-13 was composed as follows:
Dr B Jarvis (Chair) Dr S Dann Mr L Zindovic
2. Incidence and Type of Academic Misconduct (Appendix I)
The overall number of cases of Academic Misconduct (AM) has remained static over the last year, with 182 recorded cases in 2012-13, compared to 184 in 2011-12. 125 of these cases were plagiarism-related (including collusion and/or inappropriate collaboration with other students). Five students were penalised for taking an invigilated computer test in an unauthorised location and there was a single instance of a student failing to obtain ethical clearance for a project. The remaining 51 cases related to exam hall offences typically involving prohibited materials.
2.1 Examination Hall AM
2012-13 saw a decrease in the overall number of exam hall AM cases, broken down into a small increase in major offences (44 compared to 39 in 2011-12) and a substantial reduction in the number of minor offences (i.e. technical breaches of exam hall rules, where there was no apparent intent to obtain an unfair advantage and no such advantage actually obtained, or cases where students were found with prohibited material which was irrelevant to the exam being sat) from 33 to 7.
As in previous years, cases of examination hall AM tended to arise as a result of students being found in possession of notes on paper, in a pencil case, or on their hand, or possession of a mobile telephone or other inappropriate device.
Reasons for the reduction in examination hall cases are unclear but this may be attributable to enhanced student awareness of the Rules for Written Examination Candidates.
1 LTC14-P49 5 June 2014
2.2 Plagiarism and other forms of AM
The number of plagiarism and other non-examination hall related cases of AM increased by approximately 17% in 2012-13. The number of major cases rose from 20 to 23 whilst the number of minor offences increased from 92 to 121. Whilst the majority of these cases continued to involve candidates submitting, as their own work, un-referenced material from published (internet, textbook, etc.) or unpublished sources (other students’ work), instances of collusion had grown substantially. The 2012-13 academic year saw 18 students facing allegations of collusion, or plagiarism and collusion, compared with just 4 in 2011-12.
It is possible that more extensive and systematic use of TurnItIn similarity detection software is responsible for the increased detection of potential cases of plagiarism and collusion, rather than there being an actual increase in plagiarism and poor scholarship.
3. Analysis of Penalties Imposed for Academic Misconduct (Appendix II)
As in previous academic years, the penalty most commonly imposed was the reduction of marks in the module(s) in which AM was found to have occurred. This was the outcome in a total of 147 cases out of 182 (92 for minor offences and 55 for major offences). Where such a penalty was applied, 64% of cases saw the reduction of the affected mark(s) to 0, 29% by another amount and 7% by an amount which resulted in the student achieving the minimum pass mark for the module concerned. In the vast majority of the remaining cases, the outcome was the issue of a formal reprimand (19% of the total).
4. Appeals
In 2012-13 there were four appeals against penalties imposed for minor offences. Two of these were withdrawn prior to consideration, whilst the remaining two of these were dismissed. Eight appeals against penalties imposed for major offences were received. One of these was withdrawn and in the other seven cases, the AMAC upheld the decision of the AMC.
2 Appendix I - Incidence and Type of Academic Misconduct
Examination Hall Plagiarism and Other Exam Hall 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Minor % of Total Major % of Total Minor % of Total Major % of Total Minor 13 38 31 19 33 7 Gender Gender Major 52 50 19 34 39 44 Female 1 14% 11 25% 30 28% 10 43% Total 52 88 50 53 72 51 Male 6 86% 33 75% 78 72% 13 57% Ethnicity Ethnicity Plagiarism and Other Asian Or Asian British - Indian 2 5% 4 4% 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Asian Or Asian British - Pakistani 1 4% Minor 132 150 120 87 92 108 Black Or Black British - African 5 11% 8 7% 2 9% Major 9 23 20 23 20 23 Chinese 1 14% 22 50% 29 27% 8 35% Total 9 173 140 110 112 131 Mixed - White And Asian 1 1% Mixed - White And Black Caribbean 1 1% Total of All AM Cases Not Known 2 5% 1 1% 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Other Asian Background 1 14% 1 2% 12 11% 3 13% Exam Hall 65 88 50 53 72 51 Other Black Background 2 2% Plagiarism and Other 141 173 140 110 112 131 Other Ethnic Background 1 2% 3 3% Total 206 261 190 163 184 182 Other Mixed Background 1 14% 1 2% White 4 57% 10 23% 44 41% 8 35% White - British 3 3% 1 4% Disability Disability Yes 2 5% 6 6% 1 4% No 7 100% 42 95% 102 94% 22 96% Incidence and Type of Fee Status Fee Status UK 2 29% 16 36% 60 56% 8 35% Academic Misconduct EU 1 14% 2 5% 1 1% 3 13% International 4 57% 26 59% 46 43% 12 52% 300 Islands 1 1% Level Level 250 Undergraduate 4 57% 23 52% 88 81% 13 57% Postgraduate 3 43% 21 48% 20 19% 10 43% 200 Department Department Aero and Auto Engineering 8 7% 150 Exam Hall
Business and Economics 4 57% 15 34% 6 6% 1 4% Cases Plagiarism and Other Chemical Engineering 2 5% 1 1% 1 4% 100 Chemistry 4 9% 6 6% Total Civil and Building Engineering 2 2% 10 9% 50 Computer Science 1 14% 1 5% 4 4% EESE 1 14% 5 2% 15 14% 4 17% 0 English, Arts and Drama 2 2% 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Geography 1 11% 12 11% 11 48% Academic Year Information Science 1 2% Materials 2 2% 12 11% 4 17% Mathematics 4 9% 12 11% 1 4% Mech and Man Engineering 1 14% 4 9% 2 2% 1 4% PHIR 5% 6 6% Physics 1 2% 1 1% Social Sciences 1 2% 2 2% SSEHS 1 2% 9 8%
Note: percentages rounded to the nearest whole number Appendix II - Analysis of Penalties Imposed for Academic Misconduct
2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Type of Academic Misconduct Type of Academic Misconduct Type of Academic Misconduct Type of Academic Misconduct Type of Academic Misconduct Penalty Minor Major Total Minor Major Total Minor Major Total Minor Major Total Minor Major Total No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No penalty 1 1% 1 0.4% 1 1% 1 1% 1 1% 1 2% 2 2% Formal reprimand 55 29% 10 14% 65 25% 36 24% 1 1% 37 19% 29 27% 6 10% 35 21% 40 32% 10 17% 50 27% 23 20% 11 16 34 19% Formal reprimand and reduce marks in 1 21 18% 1 1 22 12% module Reduce marks in 1 module 132 70% 43 58% 175 67% 114 75% 28 19% 142 75% 74 70% 39 68% 113 69% 85 68% 49 83% 134 73% 71 1 52 78 123 68% Reduce marks in 1 module and withdraw 8 11% 8 3% 2 4% 2 2% reassessment rights Reduce marks in 1 module and specified cap 8 11% 8 3% 1 1% 1 1% 1 1% 1 2% 2 2% on reassessment Reduce marks in more than 1 module 3 2% 3 2% 3 5% 3 2% 3 4% 3 2% Reduce marks in more than 1 module and 1 1% 1 1% 1 1% 1 2% 2 2% specified cap on reassessment Termination of studies 4 5% 4 2% 1 1% 4 3% 5 3% 4 7% 4 3% Total 188 100% 73 100% 261 100% 151 100% 39 100% 190 100% 106 100% 57 100% 163 100% 125 100% 59 100% 184 100% 115 100% 67 100% 182 100%
Detailed Analysis of Penalties Imposed During 2012-13
2012-13 Type of Academic Misconduct Penalty Minor Major Total No. % No. % No. % Formal reprimand 23 20% 11 16% 34 19% Formal reprimand and mark reduced by 12 10% 1 1% 13 7% other amount in 1 component Formal reprimand and mark reduced to 0 in 2 2% 2 1% 1 component Formal reprimand and mark reduced to 0 in 18 16% 18 10% 1 component section Mark reduced by other amount in 1 11 10% 10 15% 21 12% component Mark reduced by other amount in 1 6 5% 6 3% component section Mark reduced by other amount in 2 2 2% 2 1% components Mark reduced by other amount in 2 1 1% 1 1% components (2 modules) Mark reduced in 1 component bringing 10 15% 10 5% overall module mark to minimum pass Mark reduced to 0 in 1 component 39 34% 31 46% 70 38% Mark reduced to 0 in 2 components 1 1% 1 1% Mark reduced to 0 in 2 components (2 2 3% 2 1% modules) Module mark reduced to 0 1 1% 1 1% Student required to resubmit work as a first 1 1% 1 1% attempt Total 115 100% 67 100 182 100%
Note: percentages rounded to the nearest whole number LTC14-P50 5 June 2014
Learning and Teaching Committee
Subject: Auditing of information published by collaborative partners
Origin: Rob Pearson, Programme Quality & Teaching Partnerships
Executive Summary: Following the outcome of the QAA Institutional Review, the Teaching Partnerships Sub-Committee is recommending that LTC formally approves a regular audit of information published by collaborative partners.
Action Required: LTC is asked to approve the policy for auditing published information and to note that a formal audit has just been completed.
1. Background
An outcome of the March 2012 QAA Institutional Review was that the University received the following judgement in regard to collaborative provision:
• The quality of student learning opportunities for collaborative provision at the University requires improvement to meet UK expectations.
Following a QAA revisit in January 2014, the QAA Board confirmed on 14 March 2014 that, on the basis that all of the Expectations have now been met, that the judgements should be amended as follows:
• the quality of student learning opportunities at the University meets UK expectations.
The 2012 QAA Institutional Review report has been updated to incorporate this revised judgement and to include an additional commentary on the revisit, as presented in appendix 1.
2. Action for LTC
LTC is asked to note the outcome of the QAA revisit and the two recommendations contained in paragraphs 3 and 5 of the amended report at appendix 1. It should be noted that these two recommendations will be addressed in due course by the BUE Validation Sub-Committee.
LTC is also asked to note paragraph 8 of the report in regard to the accuracy of information published by collaborative partners. The QAA noted that the University regularly signed off and reviewed the information published by partners, but that “this process is neither documented nor recorded formally.” Following discussion at Teaching Partnerships Sub-Committee (TPSC) on 19 May 2014, LTC is therefore asked to approve the following process for reviewing information published by collaborative partners, which will be included in the Collaborative Provision Code of Practice:
1. All Memorandums of Agreement include a clause which requires the partner to ensure that publicity, marketing and other information provided accurately reflects the provision offered and the University's involvement in the validation process. The Partner will have the duty to
1
LTC14-P50 5 June 2014
seek approval from the University (via PQTP on behalf of TPSC) for the use of any publicity, marketing or other information used in relation to the approved provision.
2. PQTP will formally audit all published information in advance of each meeting of TPSC (i.e. three times a year) and report on this audit to each meeting of TPSC.
3. In addition to 2 (above), PQTP will undertake spot-checks of the published information throughout the year.
In line with the above policy, LTC is asked to note that the PQTP Office has audited all information published by partners in advance of the meeting of TPSC on 19 May 2014 and can confirm that all the information is accurate and up to date.
2
LTC14-P50 5 June 2014
Appendix 1
QAA Amended judgement, published 16 April 2014
1. The Institutional Review report for Loughborough University was published in February 2013. A new review team4 visited the University in January 2014 to confirm that appropriate action had been taken in response to the original judgement that the quality of student learning opportunities for collaborative provision requires improvement to meet UK expectations. The team found that the University has addressed the three recommendations most germane to that judgement, and has also made progress in other areas. Therefore, the new review team recommended to the QAA Board that the judgement be changed to meets UK expectations, and the QAA Board accepted that recommendation in March 2014.
2. Following the Institutional Review by QAA in 2012, the Learning and Teaching Committee has undertaken a detailed review of identified issues and produced a comprehensive action plan. In addition, the University has developed a more detailed action plan specific to one partner, which incorporates issues identified from external examiners' reports, Annual Programme Review, Annual Institutional Level Review and Subject Advisors’ Reports. A sub-committee of the Learning and Teaching Committee has delegated authority to take operational decisions.
3. The action plan has enabled the University to maintain clearer oversight of the issues arising at a collaborative partner and to take action to address these issues. The University recognises that there are a number of issues highlighted within annual reports that have not yet been resolved, but these are being addressed. However, it is not always clear where responsibility sits for progressing actions or for oversight of progress. Formal reporting and oversight of collaborative partnerships should be managed more transparently through the deliberative structures of the University with delegated responsibility clearly identified. The team recommends that reporting lines and responsibilities for decision-making should be clearly set out and evidenced in the formal recording of decisions and meetings, by the start of the academic year 2014-15.
4. Some external examiners’ reports and Subject Advisors’ Reports note improvements in assessment practices. However, some still raise concerns about the level, range and design of questions, standard of marking, and where standards are not comparable to other UK universities. Assessments are reviewed by the University but only where the assessment component is above 40 per cent of the overall mark. The relevant AD(T) and the Sub-Committee of the Learning and Teaching Committee reads all external examiners’ reports and the responses. The responses to all correspondence with the examiners are managed through the University. Some responses to examiners are returned to Heads of Department at the collaborative partner for amendment.
5. The AILR panel emphasised that a partner’s executive group has a key role in ensuring that the issues and actions arising from external examiners’ reports are fully resolved. This was noted in the context that the sub-committee was focused on ensuring that the issues contained in the action plan and external examiners’ reports are fully addressed. Subject Advisors’ Reports make reference to areas of concern in the external examiners’ reports and state that they are being addressed and some, but not all, provide detail of the action taken. Concerns have been raised about the conduct of the Programme Board, citing that there was no agenda, and that marks were adjusted after classifications agreed. The Memorandum of Association (MoA) states that at least one Loughborough
3
LTC14-P50 5 June 2014
staff member would be present at the Programme Boards. The AD(T) attends all Programme Boards and is satisfied that they are conducted appropriately. The team recommends that the University should proactively intervene to provide support where necessary to maintain greater consistency of academic standards and the quality of students’ learning opportunities, and to ensure that actions are progressed in a timely manner.
6. Collaborative partnerships are overseen by the Teaching Partnerships sub-committee (TPSC). The policy and procedures for establishing a new collaborative partnership including the process for due diligence are set out in Section 12 Collaborative Provision of the Academic Quality Procedures handbook. An MoA for one partner was signed by both parties in 2009 for the period 2007-11, but there was no formally documented and signed agreement for an extension agreed for two intakes in 2010. The extension for the MoA agreed in 2010 is now signed but not dated.
7. In the 2012 QAA Institutional Review, misleading information was identified in a programme specification that was the central source of information for prospective students whereby it was implied that there was a likelihood of imminent validation of a programme by the University that would lead to a BSc award from the collaborative partner and a BEng from Loughborough University.
8. All information published by collaborative partners is now accurate and regularly reviewed. Partners have been reminded that it is a requirement that any information in regard to collaborative provision is signed off by the university prior to publication. The accuracy of information published by collaborative partners is monitored by the TPSC and the Academic Registry. The MoA clearly states that partners should not publish or use any materials or information relating to validated programmes which refer to the University without the prior written consent of the University. It also requires wording for the website to be mutually agreed as far as possible. The University agrees the form of words that may be used in respect of the partnership and monitors the information on the website during visits. This is completed by the Assistant Registrar and reported to the Registrar. However, this process is neither documented nor recorded formally. Programme specifications and handbooks are considered during annual approval and updating.
9. The review team explored with the University the sustainability of the various changes that are being introduced to the management of collaborative provision as a result of the 2012 Institutional Review. The MoA has now been extended to validate the degrees of the relevant students up to and including the cohort entering in autumn 2013, and has been signed. The development of a detailed action plan has enabled the University to maintain clearer oversight of the issues arising at a collaborative partner and to take action to address these issues. While some issues are still outstanding, the team confirms that the University has made progress in this area. The checking and oversight of information published by collaborative partners has been strengthened.
4
LTC14-P51 5 June 2014
Learning and Teaching Committee
Subject: Institutional overview of External Examiner reports - 2012/13
Origin: Rob Pearson, Programme Quality & Teaching Partnerships
Executive Summary: An overview of external examiner reports for the 2012/13 session is provided, identifying themes and recurring recommendations that are worthy of further consideration.
Action Required: The Committee is asked to note the report and the actions to be taken.
1. Introduction This report provides an overview for the University of external examiner reports for the 2012/13 session, identifying themes and recurring recommendations that are worthy of further consideration. The criterion for the selection of these themes is that they occur in more than one report and across more than one School/Department.
In most cases the themes have only been identified in a handful of reports and so should not be interpreted as evidence of major concerns about the quality and standards of our provision. It should be noted that the overall message within the external examiner reports is very positive, with considerable praise for high standards and excellent quality of provision.
All the external examiner reports have been received and considered by Schools, with a response made from the School to the external examiner. It is an expectation that the external examiner reports will be shared with students via Staff Student Liaison Committees.
2. Themes identified in the external examiner reports
The themes in the reports have been separated into three broad categories:
• Commendations • The External Examining Process • Degree Classifications • Utilising the full range of marks
These themes are summarised below, with supporting extracts from External Examiner reports. Due to this being a public document the names of the Externals have been omitted.
2.1 Commendations Many of the Externals are keen to commend the strengths of the programmes that they examine. The following is a sample of these types of comments, which are testimony to the strength of provision at Loughborough.
Comment 1: PGT School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences From what I have seen, the Research Projects are innovative, contemporary and of very high standard. In fact, the research and applied-led nature of teaching from research and applied-
1
LTC14-P51 5 June 2014
active staff is a particular strength of the course that facilitates a cohesive and enhanced student experience. The comments raised above are affirmed by students, and frequently reported as being one of the key reasons why they chose to study at Loughborough.
Comment 2, UG School of Civil and Building Engineering The School of Civil and Building Engineering is a thriving and very welcoming environment. It has an ideal critical mass in terms of its ability to support teams of research and teaching with very competent academic & clerical staff and strong leadership. This is reflected in the quality of its operations and the strong impressions gained in the first two years of my appointment continue. These impressions are worth repeating: In terms of teaching quality, learning and teaching resources and administration there are no issues at all. Loughborough is very positively comparable with its peer institutions. Indeed the breadth of staff within the Department is one of the strongest points at it allows for some very specialised teaching, necessary for the engagement and motivation of a group of what are clearly well qualified students.
Comment 3, UG English The university should be extremely proud of its English Department and the passion, dedication and high teaching quality offered by its staff. This shines through in many of the essays that I saw which demonstrate enthusiasm, intellectual rigour and a real enjoyment of the subject. The detailed, engaged and extremely helpful marking feedback is exemplary - not only does it clearly explain how a mark was arrived at (the dialogues between first and second marker with each other and with the student is evidence of the care and attention paid to each script) but clear guidance is offered on how students may achieve their maximum potential.
Comment 4, UG Design School The BSc Product Design and Technology is leads a blazing trail of innovation and design through rigorous and highly relevant engineering technologies. The potent mix of creative practice and technological understanding is one of the best in the UK. The commitment from the University of Loughborough in maintaining, supporting and growing this programme is highly commended. It goes above national subject benchmarks, above what HEFCE require and sets the standard by which other universities can follow.
2.2 The External Examining Process The PQTP Office is currently reviewing the administration of the external examining process, with a view to making proposals for change early in the next academic session. There were very few comments about the process from Externals, but the two comments below have been noted and will be taken into consideration during the review.
Comment 1 This is not a comment of the kind you are asking - but a comment about the binary nature of the questioning [in the report pro forma]. Some of these questions invite answers of the kind "to some extent". To say "yes" to such cases would not feel right. To say "no" would deny reservations. One of my concerns about the Loughborough assessment regime is its enthusiasm for multiple choice formats. This is really the same problem I am feeling about your examining report method here - issues are more nuanced than yes/no tick boxes imply
Comment 2 I hope that Loughborough might consider moving to an on-line system of external examining in order to reduce the paper consumption required when posting hardcopies of coursework and exams.
2.3 Degree Classification Regulations
2
LTC14-P51 5 June 2014
As in previous years, several Externals have commented on the University regulations for the discretion at the degree class boundary and the principle of not taking students out of rank order. For example:
Comment 1 An aspect of procedure that surprised me and, I think, the other external examiner was the movement of grade boundaries. My experience in other universities is that this is a mechanism rarely used.
Comment 2 As I commented last year about the 3% class boarder zone at Loughborough which is very generous and out of step with other UK universities. I am particularly concerned about the practice of using the overall rank list to automatically promote a candidate who did not cross the border using the standard criteria but who happen to have a candidate lower in the rank order who does qualify. This situation is clearly unjust as it makes the candidate close to the boarder's degree result dependent not only on their own work but also on the often complex circumstances of another candidate who happens to be in their degree program.
However, as the comment below demonstrates, many Externals are satisfied with the processes for determining degree classifications:
Comment 3 The flexibility that the School has in determining the degree class boundaries provides an effective framework to ensure fairness and consistency, which is thoughtfully and responsibly used by the School. The boundary points are decided upon in the Programme Board fairly and consistently across the degree programmes.
The University has undertaken a comprehensive review of degree classification regulations during 2013/14, in which the concerns raised by the Externals have been considered. A final report on the review is being considered at the June 2014 meeting of Learning and Teaching Committee.
2.4 Utilising the full range of marks
As in previous years, several Externals have encouraged Schools to use the full range of marks. It has been apparent from discussion at APR that Schools are taking these comments seriously and engaging in discussions about marking conventions. The comments below provide an example of the feedback provided by the Externals:
Comment 1 the first-class range is under-utilised in relation to the quality of the work achieved, certainly in relation to my own institution. This places students at a potential disadvantage in relation to their peers in other national institutions, and really should be addressed by the course team.
Comment 2 I note, however, that even the highest of the firsts was near the bottom of the first class range of marks, though members of the exam board commented unanimously on the overall excellence of the best first class student. This, together with my observation of a frequent reluctance in the individual modules I examined to give marks higher than 73/74, seems to indicate that the Department should now consider being prepared to extend its marking within the first class range to include marks in the higher 70s and even, for outstanding work, into the 80s. To do so consistently and effectively will require some discussion among the internal markers, including visiting lecturers, of the appropriate criteria to be employed, both for written and practical work. It may be useful for the Department to arrange a marking workshop at some point in the coming academic year to focus on the issue and to help establish consistency in marking practice.
Comment 3 Marks generally seem to be “flat”. There seems to be little spread below 40% and above 70%.
3
LTC14-P51 5 June 2014
Comment 4 This is not an unusual problem but there looked to be a reluctance to take marks much above around 72. The result of this is that it makes it very difficult for students to get a first class honours degree without an element of fudging. As the latter should be avoided, it would be better to encourage academic colleagues to mark above 75 if and when appropriate. This does not mean a lowering of standards!
3. Action for Learning and Teaching Committee
The Committee is asked to note the themes identified from the overview of External Examiner reports and the actions that either have been taken or are in progress. Particular attention is drawn to the commendations identified in 2.1.
4
LTC14-P52 5 June 2014
Learning and Teaching Committee
Subject: Register of Accredited Programmes
Origin: Rob Pearson, Programme Quality & Teaching Partnerships
Executive Summary: A Register of Accredited Programmes is maintained by the Programme Quality and Teaching Partnerships Office. It is being presented to LTC for information.
Action Required: LTC is asked to note the 2014 Register of Accredited Programmes.
Background
The University has a strong history of accreditation for its taught provision, with many programmes at both undergraduate and postgraduate level being accredited by a professional, statutory or regulatory body.
A Register of Accredited Programmes is maintained by the Programme Quality and Teaching Partnerships Office, and updated annually in consultation with Schools via the Annual Programme Review process, during which accreditation reports and School responses are formally received and considered.
The Register of Accredited Programmes is also used to inform the information provided annually to Unistats for the Undergraduate Key Information Set.
New accreditations during 2013/14 include accreditation for:
• programmes in the School of Business and Economics by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB International). Loughborough is now among just 16 UK business schools to be triple-accredited from all three major international accrediting bodies; with AACSB accreditation adding to EQUIS accreditation (from the European Foundation for Management Development) and AMBA accreditation (from the Association of MBAs) for MBA programmes.
• BSc (Hons) Human Biology in the School of Sport, Exercise and Health Studies by the Society of Biology.
Action for Learning and Teaching Committee
The Committee is asked to note the 2014 Register of Accredited Programmes.
1
LTC14-P52 5 June 2014
REGISTER OF ACCREDITED PROGRAMMES (Updated May 2014)
SCHOOL Professional Body Accredited until Wolfson School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering MEng (Hons) Innovative Manufacturing IMechE & IET 2015 intake Engineering (Extended) BEng (Hons) Manufacturing Engineering IMechE & IET 2015 intake BEng (Hons) Mechanical Engineering IMechE 2015 intake MEng (Hons) Mechanical Engineering IMechE 2015 intake (Extended) BEng (Hons) Product Design Engineering IMechE, IET & IED 2015 intake MEng Product Design Engineering IMechE, IET & IED 2015 intake (Extended) BSc (Hons) Engineering Management IMechE & IET 2013 intake MSc Engineering Design IMechE, IET & IED 2015 intake MSc Mechanical Engineering IMechE, IET & IED 2015 intake MSc Engineering Design and Manufacture IMechE, IET & IED 2015 intake MSc Advanced Manufacturing Engineering IET 2015 intake and Management MSc Sustainable Engineering IED 2015 intake Institute of Engineering Technology (IET) Institute of Mechanical Engineering (IMechE) Institute of Engineering Designers (IED)
SCHOOL OF SPORT, EXERCISE AND HEALTH SCIENCES BSc Psychology BPS Open ended MSc Psychology of Sport and Exercise BPS Open ended - visit June 2014 BSc Human Biology SoB 2019 BSc Human Biology (DPS) SoB 2019 British Psychological Society (BPS) Society of Biology (SoB)
SCHOOL OF SOCIAL, POLITICAL AND GEOGRAPHICAL SCIENCES Department of Social Sciences Social Psychology BPS Open ended British Psychological Society (BPS)
SCHOOL OF SCIENCE Department of Chemistry Chemistry RSC 2015 intake Chemistry with Analytical Science RSC 2015 intake Medicinal and Pharmaceutical Chemistry RSC 2015 intake Chemistry (Extended) RSC 2015 intake Chemistry with Analytical Science RSC 2015 intake (Extended) Medicinal and Pharmaceutical Chemistry RSC 2015 intake (Extended)
2
LTC14-P52 5 June 2014
Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)
Department of Computer Science BSc (Hons) Computer Science BCS 2019 intake BSc (Hons) Computer Science and Artificial BCS 2019 intake Intelligence BSc (Hons) Computer Science and BCS 2019 intake Mathematics BSc (Hons) Computing and Management BCS 2019 intake BSc (Hons) Information Technology BCS 2019 intake Management for Business BSc (Hons) Information Management and BCS 2019 intake Computing BSc (Hons) Information Management and BCS 2012 and 2013 intake Web Development only BSc (Hons) Web Development ** BCS 2019 intake MSci (Hons) Computer Science BCS 2019 intake MSci (Hons) Computer Science and BCS 2019 intake Artificial Intelligence MSci (Hons) Computer Science and BCS 2019 intake Mathematics MSci (Hons) Computing and Management BCS 2019 intake MSci (Hons) Information Technology BCS 2019 intake Management for Business MSc Internet Computing and Network BCS 2019 intake Security MSc Visual Systems and Technology BCS 2019 intake MSc Advanced Computer Science BCS 2019 intake MSc Information Technology BCS 2019 intake Information Management and Business CILIP December 2014 Studies Information Management and Computing CILIP December 2014 BCS intake 2013 MA/MSc Information and Library CILIP December 2014 Management MSc Information and Knowledge CILIP December 2014 Management British Computer Society (BCS) Chartered Institute of Library & Information Professionals (CILIP)
Department of Physics Information Technology and Physics IoP 30 May 2014 Physics IoP 30 May 2014 Physics (Extended) IoP 30 May 2014 Engineering Physics IoP 30 May 2014 Engineering Physics (Extended) IoP 30 May 2014 Physics and Mathematics IoP 30 May 2014 Physics and Mathematics (Extended) IoP 30 May 2014
3
LTC14-P52 5 June 2014
Physics with Cosmology IoP 30 May 2014 Sports Science and Physics IoP 30 May 2014 Physics and Management IoP 30 May 2014 Institute of Physics (IoP)
SCHOOL OF ELECTRONIC, ELECTRICAL AND SYSTEMS ENGINEERING Electronic and Computer Systems IET, InstMC 2013 intake Engineering Electronic and Computer Systems IET, InstMC 2013 intake Engineering (Extended) Electronic and Electrical Engineering IET, InstMC, El 2013 intake Electronic and Electrical Engineering IET, InstMC, El 2013 intake (Extended) Electronics and Software Engineering IET 2013 intake (Extended) Systems Engineering IET, InstMc, RAes 2013 intake Systems Engineering (Extended) IET, InstMc, RAes 2013 intake 16/16 programmes accredited Energy Institute (EI) Royal Aeronautical Soceity (RAes) Institution of Engineering & Technology (IET) Institute of Measurement and Control (InstMC)
SCHOOL OF CIVIL AND BUILDING ENGINEERING Air Transport Management CI of Logistics & Transport 2013 intake Architectural Engineering and Design CIOB 2015 (March) Management Civil Engineering ICE, ISE and IHT 2015 intake Civil Engineering (Extended) ICE, ISE and IHT 2015 intake Commercial Management and Quantity RICS & CICES Annual Surveying **Construction Engineering Management CIOB 2015 (March) Transport and Business Management CI of Logistics & Transport 2013 intake 14/14 programmes accredited **sandwich version only available (sponsored programme) Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB) Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) Chartered Institute of Civil Engineering Surveyors (CICES) Institute of Civil Engineers (ICE) Institute of Structural Engineers (ISE) Institute of Highways & Transportation (IHT)
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS
BSc Accounting and Financial Management AACSB, EQUIS AACSB Jan 2019, EQUIS Dec 2014 BSc Banking, Finance and Management AACSB, EQUIS AACSB Jan 2019, EQUIS Dec 2014 BSc Information Management and Business AACSB AACSB January 2019 Studies BSc International Business AACSB, EQUIS AACSB Jan 2019, EQUIS Dec 2014
4
LTC14-P52 5 June 2014
BSc Management Science AACSB, EQUIS AACSB Jan 2019, EQUIS Dec 2014 BSc Retailing, Marketing and Management AACSB, EQUIS AACSB Jan 2019, EQUIS Dec 2014 BSc Business Studies AACSB, EQUIS AACSB Jan 2019, EQUIS Dec 2014 BSc Business Studies with Human Resource AACSB, EQUIS AACSB Jan 2019, EQUIS Dec 2014 Management BSc Economics AACSB, EQUIS AACSB Jan 2019, EQUIS Dec 2014 BSc Business Economics and Finance AACSB, EQUIS AACSB Jan 2019, EQUIS Dec 2014 BSc Economics with Accounting AACSB, EQUIS AACSB Jan 2019, EQUIS Dec 2014 BSc International Economics AACSB, EQUIS AACSB Jan 2019, EQUIS Dec 2014 BSc/BA Joint Honours with Accounting AACSB AACSB January 2019 BSc/BA Joint Honours with Management AACDSB AACSB January 2019 BSc/BA Economics with a minor subject AACSB, EQUIS AACSB Jan 2019, EQUIS Dec 2014 BSc Automotive Dealership Management AACSB AACSB January 2019 MSc Management AACSB, EQUIS AACSB Jan 2019, EQUIS Dec 2014 MSc Marketing and Management AACSB, EQUIS AACSB Jan 2019, EQUIS Dec 2014 MSc International Management AACSB, EQUIS AACSB Jan 2019, EQUIS Dec 2014 MSc Finance and Management AACSB, EQUIS AACSB Jan 2019, EQUIS Dec 2014 MSc Business Analysis and Management AACSB, EQUIS AACSB Jan 2019, EQUIS Dec 2014 MSc Banking and Finance AACSB, EQUIS AACSB Jan 2019, EQUIS Dec 2014 MSc International Banking AACSB, EQUIS AACSB Jan 2019, EQUIS Dec 2014 MSc Economics AACSB, EQUIS AACSB Jan 2019, EQUIS Dec 2014 MSc Economics with Finance AACSB, EQUIS AACSB Jan 2019, EQUIS Dec 2014 MA Money, Banking and Finance AACSB, EQUIS AACSB Jan 2019, EQUIS Dec 2014 MA Banking and Financial Markets AACSB, EQUIS AACSB Jan 2019, EQUIS Dec 2014 PG Cert/PG Dip/MSc Management and AACSB, EQUIS AACSB Jan 2019, EQUIS Dec 2014 Leadership MPhil/PhD AACSB, EQUIS AACSB Jan 2019, EQUIS Dec 2014 BSc Automotive Retail Management* EQUIS Equis December 2014 PG Dip in Economics EQUIS Equis December 2014 MSc Strategic Dealership Management* EQUIS Equis December 2014 MSc Automotive Retail Management* EQUIS Equis December 2014 MSc Occupational Health and Safety EQUIS Equis December 2014 Management* MSc Manual Handling Management* EQUIS Equis December 2014 MSc Healthcare Governance* EQUIS Equis December 2014 MSc Medical Management* EQUIS Equis December 2014 MSc Security Management* EQUIS Equis December 2014 MA Patient Safety Management* EQUIS Equis December 2014 MRes in Business and Management EQUIS Equis December 2014 MBA AACSB, EQUIS, AACSB Jan 2019, EQUIS Dec 2014, AMBA AMBA June 2014 European Quality Improvement System (EQUIS) Association of MBAs (AMBA) Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB)
SCHOOL OF AERONAUTICAL, AUTOMOTIVE, CHEMICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING Department of Aeronautical and Automotive Engineering Aeronautical Engineering RAes & IMechE 2018 intake Aeronautical Engineering (Extended) RAes & IMechE 2018 intake Automotive Engineering IMechE 2018 intake Automotive Engineering (Extended) IMechE 2018 intake Automotive Systems Engineering IMechE 2018 intake (Postgraduate)
5
LTC14-P52 5 June 2014
Advanced Methods in Aeronautical RAes & IMechE 2013 intake Engineering (Postgraduate) Note – this programme has been discontinued, no further intakes Royal Aeronautical Society (RAes) Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE)
Department of Chemical Engineering Chemical Engineering IChemE 2015 intake Chemical Engineering (Extended) IChemE 2015 intake Chemical Eng with Management IChemE 2015 intake (Extended) Advanced Process Engineering IChemE 2015 intake (Postgraduate) Advanced Chemical Engineering with IT IChemE 2015 intake and Management (Postgraduate) Institute of Chemical Engineers (IChemE)
Department of Materials Automotive Materials IoMMM 2013 intake Automotive Materials (Extended) IoMMM 2013 intake Design with Engineering Materials IoMMM 2013 intake Materials Engineering IoMMM 2013 intake Materials Engineering (Extended) IoMMM 2015 intake Materials Science and Technology IoMMM 2013 intake (Postgraduate) Packaging and Technology (Postgraduate) IoMMM 2013 intake Note – this programme has been discontinued, no further intakes Polymer Science and Technology IoMMM 2013 intake (Postgraduate) Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining (IoMMM) Institute of Engineering Designers (MIED)
LOUGHBOROUGH DESIGN SCHOOL BA Industrial Design and Technology MIED 2015 intake BA Industrial Design and Technology with MIED 2015 intake DPS BSc Product Design and Technology MIED & meets requirem's for 2015 intake Incorporated Engineer BSc Product Design and Technology with MIED & meets requirem's for 2015 intake DPS Incorporated Engineer Institution of Engineering Designers (MIED)
6
LTC14-P53 5 June 2014
Learning and Teaching Committee
Subject
Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey (PTES)
Origin
Claire Atkins, Programme Quality and Teaching Partnerships
Executive summary The PTES collects feedback from postgraduate (taught) students on their teaching and learning experience and provides institutions with data for internal enhancement and an opportunity to benchmark themselves against sector participants.
Learning and Teaching Committee is asked to note the information provided in this briefing paper in relation to PTES 2014.
1. Introduction
Loughborough is currently participating in the PTES 2014 until 13 June 2014. The survey is aimed at all PGT students studying 60 or more credits (no CPD short courses) with a view to collecting data for quality and enhancement purposes.
2. Access to the survey
Unlike the NSS contact with eligible students is managed internally from the Academic Registry. Students have now received an initial (and weekly reminder) emails inviting them to complete the survey.
Students are provided with an individual link to the survey in the emails to allow them to click directly through to the survey questions and to ensure that each student can only complete the survey once.1
Additional marketing activity will include use of the student noticeboard and use of LEARN.
3. Results and further discussion
Results of the PTES (including benchmarking data) are expected mid-July and will be circulated to Schools and relevant services once received. A report will be provided for discussion at the first meeting of LTC in the 2014/15 academic year.
A number of discussion points have been raised by colleagues in Schools including access to the survey and which students should be included in the target participant lists. These will be brought to LTC for discussion at the same time as the 2014 results with a view to confirming aspects of the operation of the 2015 survey.
1 The system used by the HEA to host the survey requires either this method of access or that a generic URL is used but with individual usernames and passwords for each student. 1
School E-learning Plans
This composite document contains the latest drafts of all School e-learning plans as of 27 May 2014. School of Civil and Building Engineering: E-learning Implementation Plan 2011/13
A: CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT No. Required action(s) Status Member of staff/ Committee responsible Ensure that staff are familiar with new module minimum A1 presence requirements on Learn; implement, monitor, and undertake remedial action where necessary All staff A2 Use of the online reading list system and Library Catalogue (monitored by ADT Plus to be embedded into modules Essential and reporting to A3 Seek opportunities to work with the Teaching Centre’s E- UGL&T and PGL&T) learning team and other relevant support services to strengthen the use of e-learning within existing programmes/modules Student perspective: Consider how best to secure A4 appropriate student representation and engagement from within the School to ensure that learning technologies are being used efficiently, effectively and in line with evolving Essential PDs student expectations. (monitored by ADT A5 Where new programme/modules are being developed, and reporting to programme/module leaders/teams to work with central UGL&T and PGL&T) support staff to incorporate e-learning approaches A6 Develop and implement plans to migrate School distance Highly learning provision from print-based to online delivery where desirable possible
B: STUDENT AND STAFF ENGAGEMENT No. Required action(s) Status Member of staff/ Committee responsible B1 Establish School E-learning Network (SELN) to facilitate Dean/ADT exchange of efficient / effective practice within the School, Essential (reporting to UGL&T linking to other School E-learning Networks and PGL&T) B2 Research-informed practice: Undertake ongoing evaluation SELN of effectiveness/efficiency of selected e-learning applications Essential (supported by in specific disciplinary contexts and develop/disseminate Dean/ADT and PDs) new case studies B3 Strongly encourage staff to make appropriate use of e- SELN Highly learning related CPD provision, with a particular focus on (supported by desirable Learn and other key tools Dean/ADT and PDs) B4 Promote increased staff engagement with specific e-learning SELN related events and initiatives, e.g. annual E-Learning Desirable (supported by Showcase Dean/ADT and PDs)
C: SCHOOL PROCEDURES, POLICY AND IPR No. Required action(s) Status Staff member/
1
Committee responsible All academic staff to take responsibility for ensuring there is no infringement of third party IPR in Learn modules and C1 face-to-face teaching, seeking guidance from central support All staff Essential staff as appropriate (monitored by ADT) Work within the institutional Web 2.0 guidelines for C2 Teaching and Learning C3 When available, use revised documentation for new programme/module approval ensuring appropriate application of learning technologies has been considered SEO/QA/ADT Where new School policies are being drawn up covering key Essential (supported by aspects of e-learning (use of Learn; online coursework DUGS/DPGS) C4 submission; Turnitin; online assessment including peer assessment; Co-Tutor; lecture capture), ensure that these are aligned with institutional policies Integrate into School annual review processes audits of C5 compliance with module minimum presence requirements on LEARN and use of other e-learning applications Highly SEO/QA/ADT C6 Audit School distance learning provision with respect to use desirable (supported by PDs) of online delivery C7 Respond to compliance audit as required C8 Ensure that School development plans address need to Highly Dean promote and further embed e-learning approaches at School/ desirable (supported by Department level ADT/Ops Mgr)
Notes:
1. ‘Essential’ actions are required to be implemented during 2011-12 academic year. 2. Abbreviations: SEO = Margaret Missett; QA = Graham Sander; ADT = Simon Austin; DUGS = Jacqui Glass; DPGS = Pat Carrillo; Ops Mgr = Adam Crawford.
2
School of Aeronautical, Automotive, Chemical & Materials Engineering
e-learning Strategy
The School is committed to providing all students with the best possible learning experience. As part of that strategy the School has a minimum expectation of the engagement with e-learning, as outlined below. The School also encourages staff to consider more engagement than the minimum expectation
The School expects
• All Personal Tutors to use Co-Tutor to maintain a record of meetings and other interactions with Personal Tutees. School Admin staff will spot check on record keeping and report findings to Heads of Department • All Teaching Staff to ensure that the modules they are responsible for on Learn meet the minimum presence requirements and that resources are up-to- date. Oversight of this is the responsibility of the Departmental Teaching Coordinators • All Teaching Staff to ensure that the modules they are responsible for have an on-line reading list. Oversight of this is the responsibility of the Departmental Teaching Coordinators • Admin Teams to maintain a departmental page on Learn that allows students to access the relevant programme documentation • Every department to provide health and safety information for staff and students on Learn. Oversight to be provided by the School Health and Safety Committee • All undergraduate students to have been exposed, as a minimum, to pertinent analysis and CAD software • Where appropriate, Turnitin to be used to detect plagiarism in coursework. Staff who are new to using Turnitin must seek advice from the Departmental Teaching Coordinator on the interpretation of the results from Turnitin. • Where appropriate, Attendant to be used to register student attendance. • Where appropriate, modules to incorporate the use of pertinent software as part of the coursework • Where student module feedback scores fall below School norms, staff to consider use of e-learning tools to improve module delivery and student engagement amongst other solutions.
The School encourages • The use of lecture capture to support MSc teaching, particularly as part of pre study material for modules and especially where DL or part-time students are registered on the module. • The use of Web-PA for peer assessment • Staff to consult the School e-learning Champion, Martin White, when seeking advice on e-learning • The use of ProjectList for individual investigative project selection and allocation,
May 2013 Loughborough Design School
e-learning Policy
The Loughborough Design School e-Learning Policy has been derived to ensure that the delivery of teaching and assessment is in line with the strategic direction of the University and in meeting the on-going adoption of e-Learning Technologies.
The e-Learning strategy document delivered through LTC requested Schools to undertake the following action;
1. Embed the E-learning implementation plan at a local level 2. Develop a School position on the use of centrally supported technologies in the curriculum/teaching administration 3. Agree a process so that, when developing new programmes, their School considers embedding e-learning within the new curriculum 4. Develop School e-learning networks where they have not been set up.
Current Practice in LDS While there is substantial conventional delivery of teaching in LDS much of the coursework necessitates specific approaches to learning, teaching and assessment. For instance portfolio and logbook submissions and associated marking creates substantial challenges for both administrative staff within LDS and the centrally adopted technologies. To date the limitations and reliability of the technology has constrained the adoption of e-learning in LDS however the School currently encourages the use of e-learning technology through its Coursework Code of Practice, specifically through the use of the TurnitIn application. LDS currently has no distance learning courses that may necessitate extensive investment in e-learning technologies.
In general the School has ensured;
1. Compliance with minimum presence on Learn for ALL LDS modules as defined by the e- Learning Team (Teaching Centre) and annual audit. 2. That it actively promotes the use of centrally supported e-learning through the circulation of relevant information and details of workshops and links to e-learning blogs through the LDS intranet. 3. Support for the use of on-line assessment such as that provided by Grademark Perception, although this is not wide-spread.
Set against the themes and University level required actions, the tasks and timetable for progression of a specific LDS e-learning policy is set in the table below;
LDS e-Learning Implementation Plan 2013-14
Theme Required Institutional LDS Specific Actions Timeline Level Actions Curriculum design and Support On-line formative Annually to start delivery programme/module assessment/feedback strategies January 2014 leaders/teams to to be considered in reducing incorporate e-learning summative assessment approaches into the (Programme Reviews with QEO design of new support)
Loughborough University | LDS 2013 1
Loughborough Design School
programme/modules
Seek opportunities to Annual Learn update event to be Easter 2014 work with School-based held for all academic staff staff to strengthen the use of e-learning within Dissemination of best practice in existing e-learning as a standing item for programmes/modules tri-annual Staff Meetings
Promote and seek to Compliance with minimum On-going embed use of the online presence policy reading list system and Library Catalogue Plus by academics
Policy E-learning Advisory Establishing a School e-learning Easter 2014 Group to be network. This is to be chaired by deadline reconstituted with new the existing L&T Advisor in LDS. Chair, membership and Terms of Reference
Agree, implement and All new modules are expected to On-going monitor new module comply with minimum presence minimum online policy. presence requirements
Review institutional Exists as part of the School’s On-going policies on key aspects Coursework Code of Practice. To of e-learning (online be reviewed annually. coursework submission; Turnitin; online assessment) and ensure alignment with School/Departmental policies
. Review policy on Currently at lecturer’s discretion. On-going student personal Requires an Institutional policy for recording of lectures guidance
Continuing Develop an online Annual Learn update event to be Easter 2014 professional resource summarising held for all academic staff development how specific technologies can Dissemination of best practice in support identified e-learning as a standing item for teaching and learning tri-annual Staff Meetings activities
E-learning Revisit e-Learning strategies to be a support role/responsibilities of compulsory CPD activity for new the Faculty E-learning staff (not just probationers) Officers (and other members of the E-L Bespoke annual update event for Team as appropriate) to School Staff ensure appropriate links Loughborough University | LDS 2013 2
Loughborough Design School
to new School structure
Student Consult with Student On-going discussions with the Easter 2014 perspective Union with a view to Programmes President and securing support for Programme Reps. Loughborough’s E- learning Strategy and Possible standing item on SSLC the associated Implementation Plan
Consider how best to Programmes President or On-going secure appropriate delegate as member of School’s student representation e-learning network and engagement in shaping and promoting the e-learning agenda
Advise all academic Staff should be informed via CPD IPR staff of their programme on e-learning responsibility for ensuring there is no infringement of third party IPR in Learn modules and F2F teaching
New activities to strengthen the School’s position on e-learning
1. Lecture capture (ReView) to be used for ALL guest lectures 2. Lecture capture encouraged for key and core programme lectures. 3. Annual Learn update event to be held for all academic staff 4. e-Learning strategies to be a compulsory CPD activity for new staff (not just probationers) 5. Dissemination of best practice in e-learning as a standing item for tri-annual Staff Meetings 6. On-line formative assessment/feedback strategies to be considered in reducing summative assessment (Programme Reviews with QEO support) 7. Active targeting of some modules and module leaders for the integration of specific technologies 8. Establishing a School e-learning network. 9. Proposing a formal process for all new programmes and modules to consider e-learning strategies.
Summary The Loughborough Design School intends to;
• Embed e-learning as part of its Coursework Code of Practice. • Support the use of central provided technologies in curriculum development and teaching administration. • Support Staff in implementing contemporary methods in existing teaching practices. • Provide support to staff developing new programmes. • Initiate a School e-learning support network with a champion/primary contact.
Loughborough University | LDS 2013 3
School of Business and Economics
e-Learning Strategy
Introduction
The SBE e-learning strategy provides a focus for the development of the School’s e-learning activities over the period 2010 to 2013 and should be read in conjunction with the University’s e-learning strategy (currently under review) and the HEFCE strategy for e-learning.
Aim
Through the use of the appropriate technologies, the aim of e-learning is not only to enhance the student learning experience but also to maintain and enhance the academic quality of undergraduate, postgraduate and executive education programmes. To ensure efficient use of academic staff resources. To reach audiences and markets not accessible to conventional delivery.
Purpose of this document
An e-learning strategy is needed to help plan resources, infrastructure, staff development and support. The School needs to build capacity and skills to support the fast moving changes of an increasingly web based world. This strategy should be used to motivate innovation using core e-learning technologies.
Vision
The vision behind this e-learning strategy, which is to work towards using a balanced application of e-learning technologies across the School’s programmes. This needs to be evaluated carefully, as a one-size fits all approach is unlikely to work in supporting the current high standards of learning and teaching in the School and e-learning should compliment face-to-face delivery. In addition, we will use the NSS scores to provide external benchmarks in student satisfaction with the quality of e-learning and IT supported teaching. We will also use module and programme feedback to monitor satisfaction levels with specific e- learning initiatives.
Strategic Objectives
As the highest priority, to provide support and training to all academic and support staff to enable them to engage with core e-learning tools and technology. To focus initially in 2010 - 2012 on achieving staff buy-in on the core e-learning technologies (LEARN, Co-Tutor, Online submission mechanisms and electronic lecture based capture), while introducing as a lower priority, the peripheral technologies (outsourced large scale video based projects).
To establish a School-wide e-learning communication network, to enable staff to start to develop communities of practice.
To set a minimum presence for every module on LEARN that promotes interactivity, for example by using discussion forums, online tests and the creation of multi-media resources.
To manage student expectation in relation to e-learning, through information provided during the student induction process and through module based intended learning outcomes.
To improve administrative efficiency in relation to the processing of student data.
To promote efficient use of scarce teaching resources by allowing substitution of face-to-face contact with e-learning alternatives in relevant circumstances.
Operational Objectives
To implement this strategy incrementally, systematically encouraging all members of staff to make their contribution. The process will entail developing staff skills around individual technologies, delivered by School-based training and support by School staff.
To review in conjunction with the Director of Learning and Teaching the current resources in supporting this strategy and enabling the Director of IT to report to the Management Group on what additional resources may be needed to achieve the strategic aims.
To establish training courses and one-to-one support for staff to enable them to develop and publish materials that satisfy the aims of the strategy.
To establish a School wide repository of re-usable learning objects.
To provide more up-front investment for distance learning programmes. Funding for these larger projects will need to be sourced from within the University and external funding bodies.
To review annually the progress of this strategy; this review to be led by the Director of IT and the Director of Learning and Teaching.
To decide the targets for minimum presence; such targets to be indicated by the Director of Learning and Teaching.
To manage the strategy effectively; the SBE IT Committee, which reports to the Management Group, will manage this strategy through the Chair.
To communicate effectively the aims and the progress of this strategy to staff at staff meetings. School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences
E-learning and E-learning Implementation Plan
Update on Progress
Following the March University Learning and Teaching meeting, Charles Shields, Head of E- learning, contacted all ADTs requesting that the following be actioned at School level (with support from the E-learning Team):
• Embed the E-learning implementation plan at a local level • Develop a School position on the use of centrally supported technologies in the curriculum/teaching administration • Agree a process so that, when developing new programmes, their School considers embedding e-learning within the new curriculum • Develop School e-learning networks where they have not been set up.
The progress the School has made on the above to date is summarised below. i) Embedding the E-learning implementation plan at a local level The actions taken at School level to embed the University E-learning implementation plan have been mapped against the relevant sections of the plan and are detailed on the following pages. ii) School Position on the use of centrally supported technologies The School actively promotes the use of centrally supported technologies to support both learning and teaching within the curriculum and teaching-related administration. However, there is no formal requirement on staff to use specific technologies. For example, promotion is via:
• The circulation of relevant information and details of workshops on such technologies to academic staff • Encouragement of the use of TurnitIn and Grademark (for coursework submission and marking) in School documentation (e.g. the School assessment policy and guidance document and in communication with colleagues) • The work in progress on establishing a School policy on academic misconduct which addresses plagiarism and the use of TurnItin • Active targeting of some modules and module leaders for the integration of specific technologies (e.g. project modules; part distance learning modules) • With the support of Lee Barnett, attempts have been made to organise staff development sessions on the use of selected technologies but the uptake to date has unfortunately been relatively poor. iii) Agreeing a process to consider embedding e-learning within new programmes No new SSEHS programmes have gone through the official approvals process recently. However, an informal process has operated with the proposed Olympic Park programmes, whereby all colleagues were encouraged to consider e-learning and e-learning opportunities within their submission. This informal process could be formalised and will form an agenda item at a Learning and Teaching Committee during 2013-2014. iv) Develop a School e-learning network The ADT and Director of Quality Enhancement have recently met with Lee Barnett (12/7/13) and it has been agreed that a School e-learning network will be established from October 2013.
SSEHS Draft E-learning Implementation Plan (alongside University 2011-13 Plan)
Theme University required Status Responsibility Progress 03/13 School required actions Responsibility Progress actions Curriculum Support E-L Team; Formalise the process ADT; DQE; design and programme/module E QEOs; Process in place – but still which has been Programme delivery leaders/teams to Programme/ not being taken up. implemented recently via Directors incorporate e-learning Module consultation with Learning approaches into the design Directors/Tea and Teaching and of new ms; CEDE Programme Committees programme/modules Seek opportunities to work E-L Team; Happening – but still Promote the use of e- ADT; DQE; with School-based staff to E CEDE; QEOs; mainly at module level. learning and e-learning strengthen the use of e- ADTs; sessions to all colleagues learning within existing Programme/ programmes/modules Module Liaise with Lee Barnett over DQE Attempts have been made Directors/Tea bespoke sessions, as to organise staff ms appropriate development sessions on the use of selected technologies but the uptake to date has been relatively unfortunately poor
Establish a School E- A School E-learning learning Network with network will be support from Lee Barnett established from October 2013 Promote and seek to Happening. But still not all Promote the online reading ADT; DQE; This is promoted annually embed use of the online E Academic modules have reading list list system and encourage Library Liaison ahead of each academic reading list system and Librarians; on LORLS, and a few colleagues to liaise with rep year Library Catalogue Plus by ADTs colleagues have Louise Fletcher in the academics questioned whether Library as required reading lists are necessary for eg project modules. To be discussed at LTC.
Policy Agree, implement and ASPSC; E-L Team audited every Circulate the minimum ADT; DQE A number of e-mails sent SSEHS E-learning Implementation Plan Page | 2
monitor new module E Academic module on Learn against online presence but compliance rates are minimum online presence Registry; revised minimum requirements to all still poor. requirements ADTs presence in summer 12. colleagues requesting their Follow-up audit to be compliance Lee Barnett has provided done after Easter 13; specific drop in LEARN report to LTC 6th June. Send frequent reminders to ADT; DQE support sessions for all colleagues colleagues during July ADT; DQE Inform colleagues that the minimum online presence audit will feature within the APR process Review institutional policies Head of E-L; Process has started within Establish a School Assessment Meetings have taken on key aspects of e- E ASPSC; E-L team. academic misconduct co-ordinators place to progress this learning (online coursework Academic policy which promotes and policy submission; Turnitin; online Registry; includes guidance on the assessment) and ensure ADTs; SAMT use of TurnItin alignment with School/Departmental Promote the on-line ADT; DQE; Some programmes are policies submission of coursework Programme using this across a to module leaders, as Committees number of modules and appropriate others are planning to use it for 2013-14
Audit the use of online School Preliminary auditing assessment across Support Staff suggests this is practised programmes and modules on a number of modules on selected programmes
Student Consult with Student Union LSU Head of E-L has worked Consult with the School Senior SSLC perspective with a view to securing E President; closely with this year’s VP Programme President and Co-ordinator support for Loughborough’s LSU VP Ed. SSLC Committees on the and E-learning Strategy and the (Education); School’s implementation Programme associated Implementation Head of E-L; plan SSLC Co- Plan Director of TC ordinators
IPR Advise all academic staff of Deans; ADTs Done, but the message Inform colleagues of their ADT; DQE Colleagues have been their responsibility for E needs to be repeated responsibilities in relation to notified and a reminder ensuring there is no regularly. Head of E-L and IP will be sent again ahead infringement of third party Copyright Officer run of the next academic year IPR in Learn modules and scheduled workshops but F2F teaching these do not recruit well.
SSEHS E-learning Implementation Plan Page | 3
Funding Review spending on and Head of E-L; Done, and several Following consultation ADT; Advice has been sought effectiveness of all current E Head of licences (including with/advice from Lee Operations for one member of staff e-learning and related Internet SecondLife and TxtTools) Barnett, support staff with Manager regarding the purchase of licences Services were dropped. requests to purchase Camtasia licences which technology and licences to the School will endeavour enhance their teaching, as to support appropriate
Support staff in applying for ADT; DQE SSEHS colleagues have Teaching Innovation grants secured one Innovation and other sources of grant which led to the funding to support the development of an e- development of e-learning learning tool and the use of technologies within modules and programmes
Provide colleagues with Technical support has human and financial been provided and work is resources from the underway to develop Learning and Teaching some virtual labs to budget to support the enhance students’ development of e-learning learning in biochemistry and the use of technologies within modules and programmes
University E-learning Implementation Plan 2011-13 (Highly Desirable / Desirable)
Theme Required actions Status Responsibility Progress 03/13 School required actions Responsibility Progress
Curriculum Ensure that School PVC(T); Continue to monitor and ADT; DQE design and development plans address H Deans; ADTs ? promote/embed e-learning delivery need to promote and through this plan further embed e-learning approaches at School/ Conduct a School audit of DQE; Following consultation Department level the use of e-learning and e- Operations with the e-learning team technologies Support the most appropriate way Officer of doing this has been
SSEHS E-learning Implementation Plan Page | 4
agreed and this will be progressed over the summer Audit distance learning Head of E-L; Initial audit done; further Audit our current modules DQE; provision with respect to H ELOs; work required. which are, or include some, Operations use of online delivery Academic distance learning Support Registry Officer
Policy Integrate into annual review PVC(T); Inform colleagues of this ADT; DQE processes audits of H Registry; ? ahead of the next academic compliance with module ADTs; ELOs year minimum online presence requirements Respond to compliance Programme This has been Send frequent reminders to ADT; DQE A number of e-mails sent audit as required H Directors; happening, but perhaps colleagues concerning this but compliance rates are Module not consistently. still poor Leaders; School E-L Lee Barnett has provided champions; specific drop in support ELOs sessions for colleagues during July 2013
Research- Establish new Staff E- Head of E-L University Network was Promote the staff E-learning informed learning Forum to provide D set up and met twice. forum to colleagues as a practice both face-to-face and Low turnout. The Learn space for the exchange of online spaces for the Staffroom forum is used ideas exchange of ideas relating to this end, and there is to best practice in e- sharing of experiences / Enlist the services of a SMT; ADT Communication has learning ideas in New Lecturers’ discipline expert in this area begun with an expert in Course Learn forums. to promote and share good this area to work with the practice in the use of School next year technology and social media to share/exchange ideas Identify and promote best Head of Google Apps now Promote the relevant staff ADT; DQE practice for use of Google H Internet covered in staff development sessions to Apps Services; development sessions colleagues Head of E-L; (eg Introduction to E-L Team Online Collaboration) Enlist the services of a SMT; ADT Communication has discipline expert in this area begun with an expert in to promote and share good this area to work with the practice in the use of apps School next year and other pedagogies of
SSEHS E-learning Implementation Plan Page | 5
technology amongst colleagues
Embed the use of such PGCE and The use of apps, twitter technologies into selected other and other technologies programmes (e.g. the PGCE Programme has been introduced into programme) Directors the PGCE programme and their use by trainees in their teaching and assessments is actively encouraged
Continuing Review and re-launch e- Head of E-L; Done. A wide range of Promote these professional ADT; DQE Sessions are promoted professional learning related CPD H Director of TC; scheduled CPD development sessions to when information is development provision, comprising APDA workshops are colleagues disseminated to the functionally- and advertised through SD School but there is a need pedagogically-oriented booking system. Take- to be more proactive elements, with a particular up is relatively low, with focus on Learn and a few exceptions (such Some colleagues consideration of need for as Camtasia workshop) (probably a minority) have mandatory requirements attended these workshops
Communication has begun with an expert in Enlist the services of a SMT’ ADT this area to work with the discipline expert in this area School next year to work with colleagues in the appropriate and effective integration of technology and pedagogies of technology to enhance teaching and learning Promote increased staff ADTs; School Attendance at this year’s Promote these events to ADT; DQE These events are engagement with specific D E-learning Showcase was, colleagues promoted when e-learning related events Champions; disappointingly, down on information is and initiatives, eg annual E- Head of E-L 2012 despite being very disseminated to the Learning Showcase well publicised. School
E-learning Establish School E-learning Chair (ELAG); Only 1 school network Establish an E-learning Met with Lee Barnett support Networks and overarching H ADTs; Head of (SBE) meets regularly. Network (12/7/13) and agreed to network E-L establish a School E- learning Network from
SSEHS E-learning Implementation Plan Page | 6
October 2013 – some colleagues have accepted invitations to join this group
Student Monitor effectiveness of LSU VP Regular discussions Consult with the School Senior SSLC Perspective structures and processes H (Education); with VP Ed this year Programme President and Co-ordinator for seeking student Head of E-L; have been very positive. SSLC Committees on and engagement in promoting QEOs promoting student Programme the e-learning agenda engagement with e-learning SSLC Co- ordinators
Technical Roll out automated lecture ITS; FM This is now happening. Promote the use and benefits ADT; DQE; This has been promoted and estates capture facilities to every H Teaching We have c. 24 rooms of lecture capture to Programme to colleagues who it was pool teaching room Support with ‘fixed’ installations; colleagues Directors felt would be receptive other rooms are using a and some lectures/ software-only variant of modules have been ReVIEW called captured this year ‘Classroom Capture’. Review Turning Point to E-L Team; FM; There is no compelling Promote the use and benefits ADT; DQE determine whether it D ITS reason to use another of Turning Point to remains the best Electronic hardware-based system, colleagues Voting System to support given Teaching teaching/learning Support’s investment in handsets. However, academic colleagues are starting to use alternative approaches including Twitter-based voting.
IPR Develop (or adapt from Head of E-L; Materials have been Raise staff awareness of the ADT; DQE public domain content) and H Library Head developed by Library for Library materials and the pilot an online copyright of Academic publication on Learn. University Copyright Blog awareness module on Services; There is also a new Learn ADTs University Copyright Blog which is the main repository of guidance materials.
SSEHS E-learning Implementation Plan Page | 7
School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering e-learning Implementation Plan 2014/15
No. Required action(s) Status Responsibility
1 Establish School e-Learning Network to facilitate exchange of efficient / effective practice within the School; ensure that School development plans address the need to promote e- Essential ADT and LTC learning approaches.
2 Work with the Teaching Centre’s e-learning team and other relevant support services to disseminate e-learning tools, e-Learning initiatives and best practices to enhance the learning and Essential Network teaching in the School.
3 Where new School policies are being drawn up covering key aspects of e-learning (use of Learn; online coursework ADT, submission; Turnitin; online assessment including peer Essential L&T Team assessment; Co-Tutor; lecture capture, etc), ensure that and LTCs these are aligned with the institutional policies
4 Undertake evaluation of effectiveness/efficiency of selected e- learning applications in specific discipline contexts and Highly e-Learning develop/disseminate new case studies desirable Network
5 Strongly encourage staff to make appropriate use of e- ADT & e- learning related CPD provision, with a particular focus on Highly Learning key tools desirable Network
6 Ensure that staff are familiar with the module minimum presence requirements on LEARN; survey modules on the Essential ADT and LTC LEARN internally and assist staff where necessary. All academic staff to take responsibility for ensuring there is 7 no infringement of third party IPR in LEARN modules and Essential All staff face-to-face teaching, seeking guidance from central support staff as appropriate All Personal Tutors to use Co-Tutor to maintain a record of 8 meetings and other interactions with Personal Tutees. Essential All staff School Admin staff will spot check on record keeping Where appropriate, Turnitin to be used to detect plagiarism 9 in coursework. Staff who are new to using Turnitin must seek Highly e-Learning advice from e-learning network on the interpretation of the desirable Network results from Turnitin. Where student module feedback scores fall below School 10 norms, staff to consider use of e-learning tools to improve Highly ADT and DoSs module delivery and student engagement amongst other desirable solutions.
Encourage the use of lecture capture for key and core UG 11 lectures and particularly for MSc teaching, as part of pre- Highly e-Learning study material for modules and especially where part-time desirable Network, ADT students are registered on the module; active target of some modules and module leaders for the integration of specific technologies Encourage the use of Web-PA for peer assessment, the 12 ProjectList for individual Part C project selection, allocation Highly LTCs & e- and on-line marking; consider on-line formative desirable Learning assessment/feedback strategies where appropriate to reduce Network summative assessment
Propose a formal process for all new programmes and modules 13 to consider e-learning strategies; promote increased staff Highly e-Learning engagement with specific e-learning related events and desirable Network & LTC initiatives; e-learning strategies to be a compulsory CPD activity for new staff (not just probationers)
Consider how best to secure appropriate student 14 representation and engagement from within the School to Highly SSLC ensure that learning technologies are being used efficiently, desirable ADT, DoSs effectively and in line with evolving student expectations.
Seen resources to develop and implement plans to migrate e-Learning 15 School DL provision from print-based to online delivery where Highly Network & ADT possible desirable (reporting to PGT L&T)
School of Arts, English & Drama E-learning Implementation Plan
The school is committed to the use and implementation of teaching technologies which will: • support established teaching practices; • enhance student engagement and the management of self-learning; • introduce efficiencies in delivery, consistent with high quality teaching; • extend innovative practice across the School. • maintain diversity in module design, teaching delivery and assessment, consistent with ILOs and particular learning & teaching styles
The following eLearning requirements will be implemented in 2014-15 subject to approval at the first Learning & Teaching Committee.
1. In 2014-2015: all Personal Tutors of Part A students will be required to use Co-Tutor to maintain a record of meetings and other interactions with Personal Tutees. School Admin staff will spot check on record keeping and report findings to the Programme Directors. Personal Tutors of Part B and Part C students will be encouraged to use Co- tutor. In 2015-16 all Personal Tutors will be required to use Co-Tutor.
2. All Teaching Staff will ensure that the modules they are responsible for on Learn meet the minimum presence requirements; that assessment information is located within the first two blocks of the module home page; that resources are up-to-date and that he copyright status of images is indicated. School Admin staff will spot check on record keeping and report findings to the Programme Directors.
3. All Teaching Staff will ensure that the modules they are responsible for have an on-line reading list. School Admin staff will spot check on record keeping and report findings to the Programme Directors
4. Admin Teams will maintain a departmental page on Learn that gives students access the relevant programme information and documentation.
5. The School Health and Safety Committee will provide health and safety information for staff and students on Learn. School Admin staff will spot check and report findings to the School Operations Manager.
6. Whenever appropriate, all staff will use Turnitin to enable electronic copies of assignments to be uploaded to Learn.
7. Where appropriate, Attendant should be used to register student attendance.
8. Where appropriate, modules should incorporate the use of relevant software as part of the coursework
9. Where student module feedback scores fall below School norms, staff should consider e-learning tools to improve module delivery and student engagement amongst other solutions.
The School will actively encourage the following, subject to approval at the first Learning & Teaching Committee of 2014-15
1. The use of lecture capture to support teaching, particularly as part of pre study material for modules.
2. The use of Web-PA for peer assessment
3. The use of training courses and one-to-one support for staff to enable them to develop and publish e-learning materials
4. Establish a staff e-learning forum to enable the exchange of ideas relating to best practice in e-learning. School of Electronic , Electrical and Systems Engineering Loughborough University Leics, UK, LE11 3TU Tel: +44 (0)1509 227 001
E-Learning Strategy
The school of Electronic, Electrical and Systems Engineering (EESE) is keeping in pace with innovative teaching technologies and is embracing the e-learning tools focusing on offering the best possible learning experience to all our students, particularly part time or DL students who are very dependent on virtual learning resources.
In general in EESE the following activities aimed at strengthening our position on e-learning have been discussed and encouraged in staff meetings:
All Teaching Staff are expected to
a. Ensure that their module has a presence on LEARN, maintained at a minimum level:
• All lecture notes • Where appropriate, all laboratory activities and notes • All tutorial sheets and their solutions • Coursework, with relevant dates for submission and a guide to the assessment: 1. Coursework should relate to the Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs) of the module and where possible the link should be clear. 2. Some description of what is required by the assessment and how marks are allocated. 3. Provide feedback of the kind that would help enable a student to gain a better mark next time 4. Relevant dates are Hand-out, Hand-in, Hand-back (of mark and final feedback comments if they are different). 5. All coursework collections of physical items should be via the CASPA system, and all online coursework collections via Learn • Deliver on-line tests and feedback comments, where appropriate. Loughborough University | EESE May 2014 1
• Deliver completed examination papers and worked solutions by the date and in the format requested. • Provide past exam papers via the Exam papers database for modules where exams are part of the assessment process • Generic Feedback from previous years’ examination papers (“Many struggled with Q2 because they …”). • A reading list. You should ensure that there is a reading list hosted on the Library Reading List System – not uploaded to Learn itself. This also includes any kind of supporting on-line resource which would benefit students, such as links to journal papers and other technical documents, to other educational sites, or if you are happy with the content such things as Wikipedia or itunesU.
b. maintain the module’s LEARN pages
• ensuring that appropriate sections are visible to students at appropriate times. • ensure pages are easy to use. • The Module Noticeboard / General Announcements forum should be used as the primary mechanism of making announcements to students collectively.
c. clarify such support as is available for the module.
• Video capture to support part-time/DL MSc students. • Students will need access to staff outside the timetabled contact hours. It needs to be clear what access there is. This is particularly important for year-long modules.
All Personal Tutors will need to use Co-Tutor to:
a. provide feedback to tutees on the tutorial content discussed.
b. keep a record of all tutorials meetings.
c. register student attendance.
Loughborough University | EESE May 2014 2
EESE e-learning Implementation Plan
Theme University required actions Status EESE required Responsibility Timeline actions Curriculum design Support All academic staff to All teaching and delivery programme/module take responsibility to staff, ADT leaders/teams to ensure that their On-going incorporate e-learning Essential module meet the Learn approaches into the design minimum presence of new details
programme/modules
Policy Agree, implement and Embrace innovative ADT, E-L monitor new module teaching technologies Coordinator minimum online presence by using e-learning Semester 2, requirements Essential tools, April 2014 Staff meeting discussions, and distribution of LEARN leaflets from the Teaching Centre
Promote E Learning http://www.lboro.ac.uk/servic Enriching the student E-L team, and Teaching es/teachingcentre/documents international learning ADT Strategy - Essential experience, and On-going resources/policiesandstrategi support for staff and es/ opportunities for professional development in relation to e-learning
Loughborough University | EESE May 2014 3
Compliance with http://www.lboro.ac.uk/servic Identify and raise staff E-L Semester 1 the Learn minimum es/teachingcentre/documents awareness on modules Administrator September 2014 presence details - Essential falling short on resources/policiesandstrategi minimum presence es/ details
E-Learning and Establish School E-Learning Desirable Establish E-Learning SMT, ADT Teaching Support networks and Teaching networks September 2014 for interchange of ideas
Student Perspective Engage Student Union body Consult with the School ADT, in promoting the e-learning Essential Programme President LSU reps On-going experience
Loughborough University | EESE May 2014 4
School of Science E-learning Implementation Plan
Introduction
The School of Science E-learning Implementation Plan provides a roadmap for the seamless integration of e-learning practices and technology into the delivery of teaching and assessment in line with the strategic direction of the University.
This plan has a minimum expectation of the engagement with e-learning, but encourages staff to adopt practices and technologies that will deliver long terms benefits in terms of efficiency and effectiveness.
Aim
The aim of this plan is to enhance not only the student learning experience at all levels, but also to enrich the academic quality and diversity of content in undergraduate, postgraduate and executive education programmes, whilst ensuring the progression and development of our staff in a relevant and beneficial manner.
Scope of this document
An e-learning implementation plan is needed to help plan resources, infrastructure, staff development and support. The School needs to build capacity and skills to support the increasing expectations of students and to ensure the School stays current and innovative with the ever changing suite of e- learning tools and technologies.
The e-Learning strategy document delivered through LTC requested Schools to undertake the following actions;
1. Embed the E-learning implementation plan at a local level; 2. Develop a School position on the use of centrally supported technologies in the curriculum/teaching administration; 3. Agree a process so that, when developing new programmes, their School considers embedding e-learning within the new curriculum; 4. Develop School e-learning networks where they have not been set up.
Set against the themes and University level required actions, School level actions and responsibilities for progression of a Science E-learning Implementation Plan are set out in the table below:
Curriculum Design and Delivery
No. Required Action(s) School Specific Action(s) Status Responsibility
1 Ensure programme / module leaders / Contact QEOs at the earliest Essential E-L Team; QEOs; Comment [2]: /E-L Team teams work with central support staff to possible stage of programme / Programme / incorporate e-learning approaches into module development cycle. Module Directors / the design of new programme / Teams; CEDE; Comment [1]: or significantly revised modules. ADT.
2 Seek opportunities to work with the E- Look for potential sources of Essential E-L Team; CEDE; learning team and other relevant efficiency within programme / QEOs; ADT; support services to strengthen the use module delivery by using e- Programme / of e-learning within existing learning and e-technologies. Module Directors / programmes / modules. Teams.
3 Ensure that all staff are familiar with Undertake regular reviews of Essential All staff; ADT; new module minimum presence minimum presence compliance Teaching Co- requirements on Learn; implement, in addition to annual E-learning ordinator. monitor, and undertake remedial action team Learn audit. where necessary
4 Determine the most suitable method to Programmes President or Essential LSU President; ensure appropriate student delegate as member of School’s LSU VP representation and engagement from e-learning network. (Education); Head within the School to ensure that of E-L; Director of learning technologies are being used TC; E-L Team. efficiently, effectively and in line with evolving student expectations.
5 Promote the use of and seek to embed Promote the online reading Essential All staff; ADT; the online reading list system and list system and encourage Teaching Co- Library Catalogue Plus into modules. colleagues to liaise with ordinator; their Academic Librarian. Academic Librarian.
6 Audit distance learning provision with Audit current modules which Desirable Head of E-L; E-L respect to use of online delivery. are, or include some, distance Team; Academic learning. Registry; ADT.
Staff and Student Engagement / CPD
No. Required Action(s) School Specific Action(s) Status Responsibility
1 Establish School E-learning Network to Establish an E-learning Essential E-L Team; Head of facilitate exchange of efficient / Network consisting of key school E-L; ADT; Teaching effective practice within the School, and support service contacts. Co-ordinator. linking to other School E-learning Networks.
2 Identify and promote effectiveness / Enlist the services of discipline Essential E-L Team; Head of efficiency of selected e-learning experts in this area to promote E-L; ADT. applications in specific disciplinary and share good practice in the contexts. use of e-learning applications and technologies amongst colleagues.
3 Consult with Student Union with a view Consult with the School Essential ELSU President; to securing support for Schools E- Programme President and LSU VP learning Implementation Plan. SSLC Committees on the (Education); Head School’s implementation plan. of E-L; Director of TC; E-L Team.
4 Strongly encourage staff to make Desirable appropriate use of e-learning related CPD provision, with a particular focus on Learn and other key tools.
5 Promote increased staff engagement with Promote these events to Desirable ADT; School specific e-learning related events colleagues. E-learning and initiatives, eg annual E- Champions; Head Learning Showcase. of E-L.
Policy / IPR / School Procedures
No. Required Action(s) School Specific Action(s) Status Responsibility
1 All academic staff to take responsibility Inform colleagues of their Essential All staff; ADT; for ensuring there is no infringement of responsibilities in relation to IP. Dean. third party IPR in Learn modules and face-to-face teaching, seeking guidance from central support where appropriate.
2 Ensure School policies covering key Audit the use of e-learning Essential Head of E-L; aspects of e-learning (use of Learn; across programmes and Academic online coursework submission; modules and promote Registry; Turnitin; online assessment including approaches and technologies ADT; peer appropriately. assessment; Co-Tutor; lecture capture), . are aligned with institutional policies.
3 Agree, implement and monitor module Ensure all staff are aware of the Essential Academic minimum online presence module minimum presence Registry; requirements. requirements for Learn and send ADT. regular reminders.
All new modules must comply with minimum presence policy.
4 Integrate into School annual review Ensure all staff are aware. Desirable PVC(T); Registry; processes audits of compliance with ADTs; ELOs. module minimum presence requirements on LEARN and use of other e-learning applications.
5 Respond to compliance audit as required. Send frequent reminders to Desirable Programme colleagues. Directors; Module Leaders; School E-L champions; ELOs
6 Ensure that School development plans Continue to monitor and Desirable PVC(T); Dean; address need to promote and further promote / embed e-learning. ADT. embed e-learning approaches at School / Department level
School of Social Political and Geographical Sciences
E-learning implementation plan
Principles:
To support the application of teaching technologies which
• Enhance established teaching practices • Encourage student engagement and the management of self-learning • Introduce efficiencies in delivery, consistent with teaching excellence • Extend innovative practice across the School • Support diversity in module design and teaching delivery, consistent with ILOs and individual learning & teaching styles
GENERAL Theme Policy/Issue Action Complete Promote LU E- http://www.lboro.ac.uk/services/teachingcentre/educationalthem Provide link from School Learn site On-going learning es/e-learninganddistancelearning/strategyandpolicy/ Department oversight implementation plan; LU E-learning strategy Agree and publish Discussed in LTC. Amendments Done SGP E-learning agreed in Depts. implementation plan
LEARN
Compliance with http://www.lboro.ac.uk/services/teachingcentre/educationalthem Departments alert library to Sem. 1 minimum presence es/e-learninganddistancelearning/strategyandpolicy/ exceptions to policy on online 2013-14 on Learn reading lists (EUL); REs provide generic reading lists for dissertation/project modules. Compliance with Section 6 http://www.lboro.ac.uk/services/it/about/policies/aup/ REs to check materials on Learn (incl. End sem. 2 Acceptable Use ppt) do not infringe copyright 2013-14 Policy SENDA compliance SENDA compliance in HE, pp. 38-41 REs to check materials on learn are End sem. 2 http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/assets/SWA/Sendadoc.pdf accessible & provide alternative 2013-14. Section 11 QAA Code of Practice for the Assurance of Academic formats of materials, as required Quality and Standards in HE: Disabled Students http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Doc uments/Section3Disabilities2010.pdf Online student AQPH Appendix 16 Review through Dept. LTCs End sem. 2 handbooks http://www.lboro.ac.uk/admin/ar/policy/aqp/6/index.htm 2013-14 Introduction of NSS responses on feedback TC asked to provide workshop(s) on On-going interactive Learn facilities feedback exercises for exam only modules Introduction of Library Reading Survey TC asked to provide guidance on interactive learning http://www.lboro.ac.uk/services/library/about/publications/ appropriate Learn activities exercises for captured lectures TEACHING TECHNOLOGIES Innovation in Student feedback Information being shared across the teaching delivery School. Lecture capture LSU/student demand/PVC(T) support Agreed for those where module REs recognise a pedagogic value in using LC (thus ensuring adoption as broadly as required by individual staff and putting the onus on staff to justify why they don’t use LC or do use LC in their teaching), plus (for GY) 1. lectures that contain essentially organisational information: induction and programme-wide lectures (beginning of year pep- talks; module choice sessions); lectures from individual modules with a ‘heavy’ practical, technical or methodological component. 2. lectures that have been rescheduled and are sitting outside of their expected time- slot. WebPA AQPH Appendix 10b Group work weighted @50%+ of http://www.lboro.ac.uk/admin/ar/policy/aqp/3/index.htm the module mark Assessment Student feedback Discontinue handwritten feedback PHIR for all cw adopted TEACHING ADMINISTRATION Co-tutor AQPH Appendix 16 Personal tutoring; supervision On-going http://www.lboro.ac.uk/admin/ar/policy/aqp/appendix/16/index.h meetings; references tm Attendant LU Student Participation Monitoring PBS-Protocol Agreed minimum points recording Sem. 1 across Departments 2013-14
LTC14-P55 5 June 2014
Learning and Teaching Committee Subject: British University in Egypt Validation Sub-Committee Origin: Secretary to the BUE VSC
Executive Summary: Summary report on the key areas from Validation Sub-Committee meetings for the period September 2013 to May 2014; encompassing the receipt and acceptance of papers for the ongoing validation of the BUE programmes. The report also highlights two important events namely the QAA revisit in January 2014 and the announcement of the future partner for BUE validation, namely London South Bank University (LSBU). Action Required: The committee is asked to receive the report
1. Review of the year to date BUE staff have visited Loughborough twice this year. Once in November and again in January, both times meeting members of the VSC. The VSC has met 7 times on the following dates; 2 September, 27 September, 30 October, 26 November, 14 January, 19 February and 1 May. At the start of the academic year the VSC discussed the use of ‘make up marks’ where a student has been given the opportunity, under appropriate conditions to sit an alternative piece of assessment. Inconsistencies were identified in relation to Module Leader’s willingness to make this available to the students. Following discussions with the BUE acting Registrar and the AD(T) BUE it was agreed to amend the General Academic Regulations (GAR) to discontinue the practice. Following concerns by one of the External Examiner (EE) for Business Administration submitted as part of her report for 2012-13 the VSC asked BUE to send a sample of marked work from relevant semester 1 modules. This was actioned and the VSC subsequently informed that the Subject Advisor (Andrew Higson) had found no issues with the marking practice or standards for the scripts received. LTC14-P55 5 June 2014
The Political Sciences department came under ongoing scrutiny by the VSC at the start of the academic year with concerns such as staffing, internal processes for formulating responses to LU requests for information about the programme and the need for significant improvements in the department. A decision was taken at the January VSC meeting not to suspend validation. Since then there have been improvements in the department reported to the VSC by both the AD(T) BUE and the Subject Advisor. Concern about the large number of Egyptian track of students was noted by the VSC after the BUE supplied the requested data. Disappointment was expressed to BUE at the change of regulations in the GAR allowing student progression on the EG track from the Preparatory year to Degree year 1 which were made without consultation. The BUE Senate (December 2013) approved the reversal of the regulation which was welcomed by the VSC. Staffing has featured several times throughout the year. Concerns were expressed by the VSC about the support and training being provided to new members of staff particularly with the lack of UK HE experience at BUE (BUEVSC13-M7 13/37.1a). Additional matters were raised with BUE regarding the number of the key administrative positions being vacant. An offer of assistance in reviewing potential candidates as part of the recruitment processes were offered by the VSC. Since January 2014 a number of key vacant posts namely the Registrar, Head of Q&V, Senior Assistant Registrar (SAR) for the BAEPS faculty and SAR for the Engineering Faculty, have been filled. The level of English Standards on entry to the BUE also continues to be an issue in relation to some students. BUE are taking steps, welcomed by the VSC, to raise the English language entry requirements. An increased student numbers recruited to the Preparatory year was noted by the VSC, particularly pertinent to the Business Administration programme (468 students) and in Engineering. Concerns were communicated to BUE in November regarding the increase and subsequent effects on the teaching and resources. Repeated discussion with regards to the Engineering Degree Year 1 student progression has taken place resulting in the VSC not agreeing to an increase in student numbers on any of the LU validated Engineering programmes having raised the need for reassurance on health and safety, staffing, resource implications and clear planning for the additional student numbers. During this year BUE have also had a period of forced closure (three weeks including one week of exams) from the Egyptian Ministry of Education. The VSC requested details of the contingency planning and how the students would be assisted to meet the ILOs for the programmes which were received. BUE ensured that students were not disadvantaged by providing additional materials online, staff being available online for questions and the implementation of additional classes and lab access once the university reopened. The VSC requested that the Subject Advisors (SAs) during their visit examine and report on the effects of the closure for both staff and students. The Subject Advisors reported that during their visit having met with both students and staff reported that the contingency plans and its implementation had been a great success. Through the year the VSC have also noted a number of positive steps being made at LTC14-P55 5 June 2014
BUE including noting that the marking standards have been improving over the year with over-generous marking being less prevalent. Furthermore, an improvement in the sharing of good practice was reported to the committee through the APR and SA reports. In general the VSC have seen positive improvements and have a sense of BUE maturing as an institution.
2. The QAA Visit January 2014 Following the judgement made at the institutional audit visit in May 2012, a follow up visit was made by three representatives of the QAA in January 2014 focusing specifically on the BUE partnership. Colleagues from the BUE attended the meeting with the QAA along with key members of Loughborough University staff. The University received the revised judgement (meets UK expectation) regarding the collaboration in April; amending the original report to include a narrative of the revisit. Arising from the revisit two recommendations were made; (i) “The team recommends that reporting lines and responsibilities for decision making should be clearly set out and evidenced… by the start of the academic year 2014-15” (ii) “Proactively intervene to provide support…to maintain greater consistency of academic standards and the quality of students’ learning opportunities”: The BUE VSC discussed the recommendations during its May meeting specifically focusing on recommendation (ii) as recommendation (i) was in the process of being documented.
3. The BUE partnership with LSBU On the 30 April 2014, the BUE formally announced an ‘in principle agreement’ with London South Bank University. LU had been notified of the coming announcement prior to public release. The VSC the implications of this agreement including the possible impact on BUEs remit and the possibility of LSBU offering ordinary degrees. It was agreed in principle that LSBU be approached to discuss the phase out of LU programmes and the partnership relationships, but timing would be decided following discussions with BUE Staff.
4. The papers received and accepted by the Sub-Committee Over the course of the year to date the BUE VSC has formally approved the following reports in line with the terms of reference;
• The APR Report 2012-13
• The External Examiners Reports for 2012-13
• The BUE Response to the External Examiners for 2012-13
• The Subject Advisor Visit Reports for 2013-14 The Annual Institutional Level Review Report for 2013-14 is still to be reviewed. However, the main findings of the report are expected to be the continuing ongoing issues from the Institutional Action Plan including: LTC14-P55 5 June 2014
• Student Recruitment
• Student Progression
• Resources and Facilities
• Staffing and Staff Training and Development
Author – Nicola Wilkinson
Date – May 2014
Copyright (c) Loughborough University. All rights reserved.