Items marked with an asterisk (*) are ‘starred items’ and will not be discussed unless a
request is made, in advance or at the start of the meeting, by a member of the Board to do
so. Members of the Board wishing to ‘un-star’ an item should be prepared to speak to it.
LEEDS METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF ARTS & SOCIETY
Meeting to be held on Monday 7 January 2008 at 2pm in Room C515, Civic Quarter.
1* Apologies for absence
2* Membership For information Page 5
To note the membership of the Board for 2007/08
3* Terms of Reference For information Page 7
To note the terms of reference of the Board.
4* Minutes of the previous meeting For decision Page 9
The Board is invited to receive the minutes of the meeting
held on 7 November 2007.
Any comments on the accuracy of the minutes should be
forwarded to the Secretary in advance of the meeting.
5 Matters arising from the minutes For information
REPORTS TO THE COMMITTEE
6 Review of the Effectiveness of the Faculty Board For discussion / Page 15
The Board is invited to receive this paper from the Registrar
and Secretary’s Office which has been sent to all Faculty
Boards for consideration.
7 Student Recruitment For discussion Oral Report
The Board is invited to receive an oral update on student
recruitment for 2007/08 and 2008/09 from the Faculty
8 National Student Survey For discussion Oral Report
The Board is invited to receive an oral update on progress
made since course-by-course data was received in Schools
9 Annual Review 2007/08 For discussion Oral Report
The Board is invited to identify the key themes for annual
review meetings taking place in June/July 2008 and
November 2008 as part of the 2007/08 Annual Review cycle
10 Broadcasting Place For discussion Oral Report
The Board is invited to receive an update on the progress of
the Broadcasting Place Development
11* Approval and Review schedule For information Page 21
The Board is invited to receive a schedule of programmes
due for approval or periodic review during 2007/08 and
REPORTS FROM REPRESENTATIVES ON UNIVERSITY
12 Academic Board For information Oral Report
The Board is invited to receive a report on recent meetings of
the Academic Board.
13 Planning & Resources Committee For information Oral Report
The Board is invited to receive a report on recent meetings of
the Academic Board.
14 Academic Committee For information Oral Report
The Board is invited to receive a report on recent meetings of
the Academic Board.
15 Student Academic Senate For information Oral Report
The Board is invited to receive a report on recent meetings of
the Student Academic Senate
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND SUB-COMMITTEES
OF THE FACULTY BOARD
16* Faculty Research Committee For Information Page 25
To receive the minutes of the meeting held on 12 November
17* Faculty International Strategy Committee For Information Page 29
To receive the minutes of the meeting held on 3 December
18* Faculty Assessment, Learning & Teaching Committee For Information Page 35
To receive the minutes of the meeting held on 6 December
19 Any other business
To be taken at the discretion of the Chair. Members are
asked to notify the Secretary in advance of the meeting of any
20* Schedule of meetings for 2007/08 For information
The Committee is invited to note future meetings as follows:
28 February 2008, 10am
13 May 2008, 2pm
2 July 2008, 2pm
Secretary to Faculty Board
LEEDS METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF ARTS & SOCIETY
Membership of the Faculty Board, 2007-08
Dean (Chair) Professor Christopher Bailey
Associate Deans (ex officio) Dr Gordon Johnston
Ms Jane Kettle
Mr Terry Moran
Mrs Sue Palmer
Mr Chris Royffe
Mr Geoff Teasdale
Faculty Registrar (ex officio) Mr Stewart Harper
Strategic Planning & Resources Mr Brian Watson
Manager (ex officio)
Facilities Manager (ex officio) Mr Adrian Appleyard
2 members of the academic staff from each School within the Faculty
Architecture, Landscape and Design Mr Alan Simson
Dr Robert Felix
Built Environment Mr David Rodgers
Contemporary Art & Graphic Design Mr Chris Bloor
Ms Alyson Brien
Cultural Studies Dr Ruth Robbins
Film, Television & Performing Arts Ms Cheryl Grant
Mr Steve Rennie
Social Sciences Ms Marian Charlton
Representative of the research-active staff from each School within the Faculty
Architecture, Landscape and Design Professor Guy Julier
Built Environment Professor Ian Strange
Contemporary Art & Graphic Design Vacancy
Cultural Studies Professor Mary Eagleton
Film, Television & Performing Arts Mr Simon Piasecki
Social Sciences Dr Paul Wetherly
Representative of the Learning Mrs Sarah Jones
Officers of the Faculty
Representatives of the Miss Charlie Garfoot
Administrative Staff in the Faculty Mrs Claire Ballantyne
Representatives of the students Ms Dominique Duncan (Social Sciences)
of the Faculty Ms Phillippa Lewis (Film ,Television & Performing Arts)
Representative of Libraries & Ms Helen Loughran
Learning Innovation Services
Elected members of the staff of the Faculty on University Committees (ex-officio)
Academic Board Mr Martin Green
Academic Committee Mr John Douglas
Planning & Resources Committee Dr Ash Ahmed
Terms of reference
1 In accordance with the policies established by the University Academic Board and University
Academic Committee, consider and make arrangements within the Faculty for all matters relating to
admission of students, curriculum content, teaching, learning, assessment, research and scholarship
and to report regularly to the University Academic Committee thereon;
2 Develop and adopt a Faculty academic plan and Faculty operational plan and submit this annually to
the University Planning & Resources Committee;
3 Formulate proposals for the development of academic initiatives across and between Faculties for
consideration by the University Planning & Resources Committee;
4 Develop the Faculty staff development policy within the context of the institutional staff
development policy and to underpin the Faculty academic plan;
5 Consider, approve and recommend to the University Academic Committee (within the framework
and policies agreed by the University Academic Committee) arrangements to oversee the quality and
standard of modules and programmes of study;
6 Receive and consider reports on the development of subjects and disciplines within the Faculty for
regular report to the University Planning & Resources Committee;
7 Advise the Faculty Management Team on the planned development and use of resources within the
parameters set out by the University Planning & Resources Committee;
8 Consider and make recommendations to the University Academic Board, via the University Planning
& Resources Committee, proposals for the development of new courses and progress as appropriate;
9 Take responsibility for overseeing and implementing the Race Equality Action Plan as it relates to
LEEDS METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF ARTS & SOCIETY
Minutes of the meeting of the Faculty Board held on Wednesday 7 November 2007 at 2pm in
Room C105, Civic Quarter
Professor Christopher Bailey (Chair) Mr Stewart Harper
Dr Ash Ahmed Dr Derek Horton
Mr Adrian Appleyard Mrs Sarah Jones
Ms Alyson Brien Ms Jane Kettle
Ms Marian Charlton Mr Terry Moran
Professor Mary Eagleton Mr David Rodgers
Dr Robert Felix Mr Chris Royffe
Miss Charlie Garfoot Professor Ian Strange
Mr Martin Green Mr Alan Simson
Mrs W Hussain, Registrar, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka
Mrs R P Bandara, Bursar, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka
Mrs Claire Ballantyne Mr Steve Rennie
Mr Chris Bloor Dr Ruth Robbins
Dr Gordon Johnston Mr Geoff Teasdale
Professor Guy Julier Dr Paul Wetherly
Ms Helen Loughran Mr Brian Watson
Mrs Sue Palmer
2.1 The Board received its membership profile for 2007/08, noting vacancies
for student members which were in the process of being filled.
3 Terms of Reference
3.1 The Board received its Terms of Reference, as approved by the
Academic Board, and also the Standing Orders of the Academic Board
which were in operation.
3.2 The Board also received information regarding the reporting relationships
between the Academic Board and its committees (including faculty
RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 8 June 2007 be approved.
5. Matters arising from the minutes
There were no matters arising from the minutes which were not covered
elsewhere on the agenda
6. Student Recruitment
6.1 The Board received a report from the Faculty Registrar regarding the
recruitment of students to programmes within the Faculty. The Faculty
Registrar noted that the position could be measured by means of a
‘snapshot’ of data (whereby the current position could be analysed by
comparison to medium-term planning targets) or by a review of the
potential year-end position.
6.2 It was noted that, at 26 October 2007, 5,784 students were enrolled on
programmes within the Faculty which equated to 4,985 full time
equivalents (fte). The target set by the Sustainable Planning Group for
the Faculty was a year-end position of 4,985 fte (i.e. the Faculty was
currently at the Sustainable Planning Group’s target), but the current
position did not account for withdrawals and non completions between 26
October 2007 and 31 July 2008.
6.3 Within the 4,985 fte currently enrolled, it was noted, 4,910 fte were
‘HEFCE fundable’ compared to a year-end target of 4,843. The Faculty
could be said to be, therefore, above the target by 67fte though the Board
was reminded that this was a ‘snapshot’ position and excluded further
enrolments and withdrawals until the end of the academic year.
6.4 Whilst the current position was encouraging overall, the Board was asked
to note the considerable under-recruitment of overseas students which
was of concern in financial and strategic terms. It also noted the higher
attrition rate than in the previous year which (by virtue of the fact that
these students then did not return for 2007/08) offset higher recruitment
to year 1.
6.5 The Faculty Registrar advised the Board that, together with the Dean and
the Strategic Planning and Resources Manager, work was underway to
report a revised year-end forecast to the Met Office. It was thought that
this was likely to show a year-end position below target once attrition
rates were revised upwards, though the exact magnitude was currently
difficult to predict.
6.6 The Dean reminded colleagues of the importance of ensuring that all
students were given the opportunity for formative assessment in
Semester 1, so as to reduce likely withdrawals, and informed colleagues
that a group of admissions practitioners within the Faculty was to be set
up to discuss future admissions activity.
6.7 RESOLVED that the Faculty Registrar should draw up terms of reference
and membership for an Admission Practitioners Group.
7 National Student Survey
7.1 The Board received a report from the Faculty Registrar outlining the
results of the National Student Survey for programmes within the Faculty.
It was noted that the results for the Faculty were slightly above other
results within the University, though in many cases were below the
National Average. It was also noted that it was difficult to disaggregate
data below (JACS) subject level, though course-by-course data was to be
7.2 The Dean noted particular highlights with regards to teaching and
learning support but noted disappointing results for course management
and feedback issues.
7.3 Associate Deans and other representatives from Schools were asked to
ensure that further consideration was given to data at School level once
course-by-course data was provided.
7.4 Members noted that whilst data was provided in a way which combined
courses from different schools and faculties, it was important to ensure
that this was not used to deny responsibility for poor results but rather to
ensure positive action was taken to improve all results for 2008.
7.5 RESOLVED to discuss again at next meeting, in light of course-by-
8 Word Counts
8.1 The Board received a paper, originally discussed at the Academic
Committee on 21 May 2007, which outlined an approach for identifying
appropriate word counts for assignments within taught degrees.
8.2 The Board noted that the paper for the Academic Committee had been
produced by the Associate Dean for Assessment, Learning and Teaching
within the Faculty (on behalf of that group of Associate Deans across the
University) and that the Board had discussed it in an embryonic form
8.3 The Board noted the importance in this context of ensuring that learning
outcomes for modules were appropriate for the credit weighting and level
8.4 RESOLVED that the Faculty Registrar should advise the Chair of the
Academic Committee that the Board was content with the proposal.
9 Award of First Degrees
9.1 The Board received a paper, originally discussed at the Academic
Committee on 21 May 2007 which reported on the award of first degrees
of different classifications across different subject areas.
9.2 The Board noted that within ‘creative arts and design’ 15% of students
received a first class honours degree in 2005/06 and a further 45% had
received an upper second class degree. Within ‘historical and
philosophical studies’ (which included awards in the School of Cultural
Studies) the respective figures were 3% and 44%.
9.3 The Board recognised the value of these data, but also recognised the
importance of considering ‘value added’ data which took account of
students’ entry qualifications. The Board also recognised issues with
regards to ‘over-awarding’ of higher classification degrees in the view of
professional bodies. In respect of one subject, it was noted that course
teams had recognised that the achievement of students was not fully
expressed by the final assessment calculations and changes had been
made to correct this.
9.4 The Board noted that part-time students in a number of areas were
performing better than full-time students. In a number of areas, it was
felt, this was due to the demographic of the student cohort on these
10 Non-continuation data
10.1 The Board received a paper, originally discussed at the Academic
Committee on 21 May 2007, which outlined data on non-continuation
rates across different programmes of study.
10.2 The Board discussed various options for supporting students ‘at risk’ of
withdrawal and also recognised the importance of ensuring data on non-
continuation was included as part of the annual review process. It was
recognised that there was no single method for improving retention and
reducing withdrawals as the particular circumstances of different
programmes would have an effect.
10.3 The Dean again reminded members of the importance of ensuring
support for students around the assessment periods.
10.4 RESOLVED that the Assessment, Learning & Teaching Committee
should consider particular issues in regards to non-continuation.
11 Student Life
11.1 The Board received the executive summary of a report produced for the
Innovation North Faculty of Information and Technology which had
sought to identify reasons for student attrition.
11.2 The Board discussed the proposals within the paper and noted that many
were already in place within the Faculty.
11.3 RESOLVED that the Faculty Registrar should send the full report, in
electronic form, to members of the Board.
11.4 RESOLVED that the Assessment, Learning and Teaching Committee
should give further consideration to the detailed proposals within the
12 Assessment, Learning & Teaching Priorities 2007/08
12.1 The Board received the Assessment, Learning & Teaching Priorities for
2007/08, and noted that further detailed discussion had taken place (and
would continue to take place) within the Assessment, Learning &
13.1 The Board received a paper on the minimum expectations on faculties for
the implementation of the X-Stream virtual learning environment. The
Dean noted the importance for students of ensuring that the X-Stream
environment was adopted across the Faculty.
13.2 The Board noted concerns from the X-Stream co-ordinator within the
Faculty that the expectation of ‘computer based assessment’ for every
module was not practicable but recognised the need to embrace this
13.3 The Board also felt that to implement all elements of the proposal before
the start of Semester 2 may not be possible, but that the Faculty should
endeavour to meet this by the start of the academic year 2008/09.
13.4 RESOLVED that the Assessment, Learning & Teaching Committee
should have further discussions with the Faculty’s co-ordinator for X-
14 RAE 2008
14.1 The Dean informed the Board that a decision was awaited from the RAE
Strategies Group which would confirm the final submissions for the
14.2 Thanks were expressed to members of the Faculty, both academic and
support staff, who had been involved in the development of the
15 Research Regulations
15.1 The Board received a report on a recent change to the Research
Regulations (section A9 2.6) which extended the maximum limit on
students submitting written work as part of a research degree.
15.2 The Board welcomed the approach but noted that there had been no
similar change for the written elements of degrees in creative arts
15.3 RESOLVED that the Faculty Registrar should seek an amendment to this
area of the regulations and should report to the Faculty Research
Committee at its next meeting.
16 Approval and Review Schedule
16.1 The Board received the schedule of programmes due for approval or
periodic review during 2007/08 and 2008/09
17 Academic Board
17.1 The Board received an oral report from the last meeting of the Academic
18 Planning & Resources Committee
18.1 The Board received an oral report from the last meeting of the Planning &
19 Academic Committee
19.1 The Board received an oral report from the last meeting of the Academic
20 Student Academic Senate
20.1 The Board received an oral report from the last meeting of the Student
Academic Senate. The Board noted that the Senate was proving to be a
useful group for student discussion, but noted the importance of ensuring
that issues were dealt with at a local issue as swiftly as possible.
21.1 The Board received terms of reference for its committees and sub-
committees for the academic year 2007/08, approved by the Dean as
Chair of Faculty Board.
22 Faculty Assessment, Learning & Teaching Committee
22.1 The Board received the minutes of the meeting of the Faculty’s
Assessment, Learning & Teaching Committee held on 11 October 2007.
23 Faculty International Strategy Committee
23.1 The Board received the minutes of the meeting of the Faculty’s
International Strategy Committee held on 19 October 2007.
24 Faculty Research Committee
24.1 The Board noted that the Faculty Research Committee was due to meet
for the first time on 12 November 2007.
25 Equality & Diversity Group
25.1 The Board noted that the Associate Dean for Assessment, Learning and
Teaching (who normally represented the Faculty on the University’s
Equality & Diversity Group) was unable to attend the meetings on 15
November and 20 December 2007.
25.2 RESOLVED that the Faculty Leadership Team should nominate an
individual to attend these meetings
26 Any Other Business
26.1 There was none
27 Date of next meeting
27.1 Monday 7 January 2008 at 2pm in Room C515, Civic Quarter
The meeting closed at 3.55pm.
10 November 2007
Chair …………………………………………… Date ………………………………………
LEEDS METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY
Parent committee Academic Board
Committee Faculty Board
Date of meeting
Report title Faculty Board Review of Effectiveness
Purpose of the report To present the framework for discussion from the
Academic Board Effectiveness Review.
Link to Committee terms of reference
Contact name Kay Ritchie, Catherine Smith, and Claire
Email address K.A.Ritchie@leedsmet.ac.uk
Phone no. for queries 0118 81 (24791), (21742) and (27512)
Time for calls Office Hours
Appendices Appendix A – Overview and framework for review of
Appendix B – Membership and Terms of Reference of
Faculty Board and its sub-committees
Summary or executive summary
The report sets the framework for the Review of Effectiveness of the Sub-committees of
The Committee is invited to receive and discuss the questions/matters and recommendations. Following
the discussion the data will be collated by Governance Services and presented to the Academic Board
Effectiveness Review Steering Group who will review the findings and recommendations from the Sub-
committee and develop present a full report of the Phase 2 conclusions to the Academic Board, the
Governance and Nominations Committee and the Board of Governors for its consideration.
How does the report support the University’s Statement of Vision and Character
Statement and/or strategies?
The effective functioning of the university‟s committees supports the achievement of
the statement of vision and character. The terms of reference of the Committee
directly supports the third statement of vision and character:
“a healthy, ethical, environmentally-friendly and sustainable community which
values well-being, diversity, taking risks as pace-setters, the efficient and
imaginative use of our resources, good governance and professionalism”
What are the resource implications?
Human resources: meeting attendance and preparation support to the Committee.
What are the risks?
A Committee with an ineffective remit that is not fit for purpose would be detrimental
to the effective discharge of the University‟s governance and professional discipline
Conclusion(s) or recommendation(s)
The Committee is invited to review its effectiveness and to determine specific
remedies for weaknesses/issues it identifies using the attached framework.
The Committee is required to provide a report on the discussions, which will feed into
the Academic Board Effectiveness Review.
Filename:Faculty Board Briefing.doc
Faculty Board Review of Effectiveness
The Committee of University Chairman and HEFCE clearly set out their expectation that regular
reviews of effectiveness are conducted by the governing body of individual higher education
institutions. The Academic Board undertook a review of its own effectiveness in 2006/07 and has
agreed to review the effectiveness of each of its committees. This report outlines the framework
that has been developed by Governance Services and the Academic Board Effectiveness Review
Steering Group. The Committee is asked to reflect on its own effectiveness through both the
statistical data provided and the guiding questions.
The framework sets out a series of questions beneath an array of headings listed below.
Framework for the review of effectiveness
Questions/matters for the Committee to consider:
1 Terms of reference
a) Has the business of the Committee covered all areas
adequately and appropriately?
b) Has the Committee focused on some areas, and have any areas been
c) Do the terms of reference continue to correspond to the requirements
of the Academic Board?
d) How has the Board covered each item of its terms of reference in the
past 12 months? Evidence to be provided in report to steering group.
2 Planning of the business of the Committee
a) What are the Faculty practices for compiling agendas i.e. is it consultative, is
it scheduled in advance, is it reactive, who is involved, how do Faculty sub-
Committees and university Committees feed in/out? Balance of discussion,
decision and for information papers (over the year)?
b) Is there an appropriate balance of business at each meeting; items for
information/decision/discussion to allow for the Committee to deliberate
c) Are the length and frequency of meetings appropriate to the business
d) Do the items of business and deliberations correspond clearly to the
terms of reference?
e) How effective is the Committee with regard to following up actions, and,
monitoring and evaluating decisions it has made, or requesting assurance that its
decisions have been implemented effectively?
f) How do members bring forward and feedback, agenda items and perspectives
from their „constituencies (Action 9, AB Effectiveness Review)?
a) Are any perspectives/expertise absent from the Committee‟s
b) Should others be in attendance?
c) Does the Committee‟s membership profile support the current organisational
structure of the University (Action 5, AB Effectiveness Review)?
d) Is attendance monitored? Is quoracy a challenge? Business over the year and
relevance to terms of reference?
e) What vacancies are currently held? How long have they been vacant?
f) Does the faculty hold elections annually?
4 Committee deliberations and decision-making
a) Is the Committee able to make informed decisions (under delegated authority) and
recommendations (to the Academic Committee or Academic Board) on the
matters presented to it?
b) Could the member induction/education programme be improved?
c) What additional support would enhance effectiveness?
5 Action points from the 2006 review of effectiveness of Academic Board to be explored
by each of the Sub-committees of Academic Board and Academic Committee
a) Do members feel that they and their fellow members have a thorough
understanding of the responsibilities of the Committee? (Action 9, AB
b) Is the Committee proactive enough in addressing and responding to issues/matters
concerning the academic direction and challenges within its area of responsibility?
And, is this reflected in the communication between parent committees,
committees and sub-committees? (Action 11, AB Effectiveness Review)
6 Annual Schedule
a) Does the meeting schedule fit with the university and faculty level
committees that feed in and out of it?
b) Is there a schedule of business to support planning /consultation?
a) What are the Faculty processes for committee servicing i.e. how far in
advance are papers sent out, what format (printed, electronic)?
b) Where elections are held, how is membership of the Committees
compiled – is it always ex-officio? How are new members of staff brought
into this? Are there any student representatives
8 Sub-Committees of Faculty Boards
a) What outcomes does the Faculty Board receive from its Committees?
Do these meet the needs of the Board? Does it allow for the right level of
b) Do the sub-committees report to Faculty Board on actions taken under
c) How does the Faculty Board ensure that it‟s own Faculty Committee‟s
are effective? Does it comment on attendance, process issues etc?
9 Dissemination of information
a) How is information relating to items of Faculty Board business
disseminated across the faculty?
b) How can faculty staff better feed into Faculty Board? To what extent is
this taken up?
10 Potential Improvements
a) What potential improvements that could be made to increase the
effectiveness of Faculty Board and its sub-committees?
b) Do you think Faculty Board meets the needs of faculties? Do you think
other structures enhance/dilute the effectiveness of the committee?
c) How are aware are faculty staff of the Academic Board and Board of
Governors Committee structure?
11 For all committees of the Academic Board, once the Sub-Committee has discussed the
guiding questions, Committee specific discussion items and associated recommendations,
the data will be collated by Governance Services and presented to the Academic Board
Effectiveness Review Steering Group. The Group will then review the findings and
recommendations and will present a full report of the Phase 2 conclusions to the
Academic Board, the Governance and Nominations Committee and the Board of
Governors for its consideration. This will also be received by the Sub-committees with a
view for any recommendations to be implemented for 2008/09.
Approval and Review Schedule 2007/08
SCH CDTL COURSE/ SCHEME APPROVAL/ DOCS DUE EVENT SPA SPA COMMENTS /ACTION
ACCREDITATION DATE REQ'D REC'D
November Event date will be
early determined by the IFE.
December Awaiting date - PO to
Jim 2007 - Secretary. Event will be at
BE Tennant BSc (Hons) Fire Safety Accreditation date tbc No LCB.
Paper based submission (5 x
hard copies & electronic
copy) sent 04/07/07. Visit
required - will be held at
LCB. CIBSE to secretary.
2nd Course accredited for 5
Janice HNC Building Services Re-Accreditation October years with no Conditions or
BE Edwards Engineering Studies (LCB) CIBSE w/c 9th July 2007 2007 No Recommendations.
Jim Jane apologies - Chris to
Tennant attend SMT meeting am.
and 15th Approved subject to 5
Chris BSc (Hons) Quantity Surveying 14th September October Conditions & 1
BE Garbett BSc (Hons) Building Surveying Periodic Review 2007 2007 No Recommendation.
HND Quantity Surveying
BSc (Hons) Construction 13th Chris apologies. Approved
Jim Commercial Management (L2 & 12th October November subject to no Conditions & 8
BE Tennant 3) Periodic Review 2007 2007 No Recommendations.
Paperwork to be signed off
by the Dean. This
professional body usually
15th & service and plan their own
16th event. Courses accredited
Tony Accreditation November with no Conditions & 2
ALD Rees Architecture RIBA/ARB September 2007 2007 No Recommendations.
SPA approved 22/06/07.
Event will be at LCB. Ian
Richardson organising & to
Secretary. Amended SPA
submitted 13/11/07 to
change title, include
Contained Award & two exit
routes - approved 06/12/07.
Recognition of the College to
continue with no Conditions.
LCB Institutional 3rd Course approved with 2
Chris Review & Joint 19th November December Conditions & 1
BE Wales HNC Construction Studies Course Approval 2007 2007 Yes Recommendation.
Approval and review schedule 2008/ 2009
SCH CDTL COURSE/ SCHEME APPROVAL/ DOCS EVENT SPA SPA COMMENTS
ACCREDITATION DUE DATE REQ'D REC'D /ACTION
Mel BSc (Hons) Architectural
BE Smith Technology Periodic Review Tbc Tbc No
FTVP Tobin MA Screenwriting (Fiction) Accreditation - Skillset 2008 No
MSc Facilities Management
MSc Project Management
MSc Building Surveying
MSc Quantity Surveying
MSc Construction Law Dispute Mid Mid
Janice Resolution and MSc Civil September November
BE Edwards Engineering Periodic Review 2008 2008 No
BA (Hons) Film & Moving Image
Jenny MA Film & Moving Image December
FTVP Granville Production Periodic Review Tbc 2008 No
School of Cultural Studies
School of Film, Television and Performing Arts
School of Architecture Landscape and Design
School of the Built Environment
The Leeds School of Contemporary Art and Graphic Design
School of Social Sciences
LEEDS METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF ARTS & SOCIETY
FACULTY RESEARCH COMMITTEE
Minutes of the meeting of the Faculty Research Committee held on 12
November at 2pm in Room C409d, Civic Quarter
Members present Dr Ash Ahmed
Professor Christopher Bailey
Professor Malcolm Bell (Chair)
Mr Stewart Harper
Professor Guy Julier
Professor Mike Robinson
Professor Terry Thomas
In attendance Mrs Hannah Brotton (Secretary
Miss Charlie Garfoot (Observer)
1 Apologies Ms Teresa Brayshaw
Professor Mary Eagleton
Mr Desmond Wee
The Chair welcomed the members to the first meeting of the Faculty
Research Committee (FRC). Members noted the Committee
membership for 2007/08.
3 Terms of Reference
Members noted the terms of reference of the Committee.
This was the first meeting of this Committee. Therefore, there were
no minutes received.
5 Matters Arising
There were no matters arising.
6 Faculty Research Awards Sub-Committee
The Committee received the minutes from the Faculty Research
Awards Sub-Committee on 19 October. Members noted a small
amendment to item 5.1 from ‘new second supervisor’ to ‘new second
Secretary to amend minutes as above.
7 Faculty Research Ethics Sub-Committee
7.1 The Chair explained that the Committee would normally receive
minutes from the Faculty Research Ethics Sub-Committee, but the
first meeting was cancelled. The Chair explained that he would step
down as Chair of the Faculty Research Ethics Sub-Committee at the
next meeting on 15th November.
7.2 The Committee received the Report on faculty wide research ethics
processes 2006/07 written by the Chair. It was noted that the
previous year had been a year of transition following the updated
ethics procedures. The report addressed issues around these
procedures and ethics training in the Faculty. The Chair reported that
the Committee needed to monitor the workings of these procedures,
and avoid any retrospective ethics clearances and approvals. The
Chair reported that school level training would be discussed at the
next Faculty Research Ethics Sub-Committee.
8 Research Training
Professor Robinson reported that the Centre for Tourism and Cultural
Change were hoping to gain AHRC recognition for research training,
and were in consultation with the University Research Office
regarding this. Members agreed that a mapping exercise was
required to identify what research training was occurring at both
University level, and Faculty level, and to identify what external
funding bodies required. The Chair suggested that the Chair of the
Faculty Research Awards Sub-Committee carried out a mapping
exercise and reported back at the next meeting.
8.2 Research Ethics
The Committee noted that this item had been discussed earlier in the
meeting and would be an agenda item at the next Faculty Research
9 The Schedule of meetings for 2007/08
9.1 The committee received and noted the planned schedule of meetings
Any Other Business
9.2 Faculty Annual Research Report 2006/07
The Dean reported that he had attended the previous University
Research Committee to discuss the University Research Strategy.
The University Research Committee had discussed the Faculties’
Annual Research Reports, and had found them to be of varying
quality. Members received the report from the Faculty of Health for
information. It had been requested that the Dean expand on the
existing Arts & Society report. The Dean had identified that it was not
clear to colleagues what was required of them for each section of the
report, and that the information provided by Schools and Centres was
varying and was provided in different formats. It was agreed that the
Faculty Registrar would write a paper outlining what information was
required for each section of the report, and in what format this would
be submitted in. It was noted that occasionally the same information
was requested for different purposes throughout the year, and this
need not be the case. The Faculty Registrar agreed to send round
the current version of the Faculty Annual Research Report for
comments to be sent to the Dean by the end of the week. Section 11
of the report included bullet points covering aims and objectives. It
was agreed that heads of centres and the equivalent would produce a
plan of a maximum of two pages which outlined how these aims and
objectives would be met. These plans would be discussed at the
next meeting. The Faculty Registrar agreed to send out a formal
request for this.
Faculty Registrar to write a paper as above.
Faculty Registrar to circulate Faculty Annual Research Report
and invite comments for FRC members.
Faculty Registrar to request written plans for Heads of Centres
and the equivalent as above.
9.3 Research Regulations
The Faculty Registrar reported that the University's Academic
Committee had recently approved an amendment to the Research
Regulations with regards to word counts, (A9 2.6), so as to replaced
fixed maxima (for example candidates for Professional Doctorates
should not exceed 60,000 words) with an opportunity for candidates
to submit work which did not exceed a range (in that example, 60,000
to 75,000 words). The Faculty Registrar noted that the Faculty Board
had discussed the amendment at its recent meeting and that he had,
at the Board's request, written to the Registrar & Secretary's Office to
seek a similar amendment to section A1 5.b, which governed
'creative work' (currently set at minimum 5,000 words, maximum
15,000 words). It was expected that a similar change would be
introduced for this section shortly, following a discussion at the
University Research Sub-Committee on 9 November.
9.4 Students Forums
The Faculty Registrar reported that the subject of Research Student
Forums had been raised at the Research Discussion Group. These
were to be held both at University level, and at Faculty level. The
Faculty forums were scheduled twice annually on 30 January 2008
and 25 June 2008, at 3pm. The Faculty Registrar would be writing to
all Research students in the Faculty to invite them to the Faculty
forums and agendas would be distributed before the events. It was
noted that two students and two staff members would be elected for
the University Forum in due course.
10 Date of the next meeting
10 January 2008, 2pm, C409d, Civic Quarter.
The meeting closed at 4.00pm.
21 November 2007
Chair …………………………………………… Date
LEEDS METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF ARTS & SOCIETY
ASSESSMENT, LEARNING & TEACHING COMMITTEE
Minutes of the meeting of the Assessment, Learning & Teaching Committee
held on Thursday 6 December 2007 at 10.00am in Room C409d, Civic
Miss Kuljit Gill
Mr Chris Gorse
Ms Helen Loughran
Ms Wendy Mayfield
Mr Thomas Mitchell
Ms Jill Morgan
Mrs Sue Palmer (Chair)
Miss Emma Rawden
Miss Laura Dean (timed business 11.00am)
Mr Chris Garbett
Miss Charlie Garfoot (Secretary)
Dr Jenny Seavers (timed business 10.15am)
Dr Ed Walley (timed business 10.30am)
Professor Christopher Bailey
Mr Stewart Harper
2.1 The Secretary informed the Committee that two student
representatives had been identified and included on the membership
list since the papers had been sent to repro.
2.2 The Committee noted the membership.
3 Terms of Reference
3.1 The Committee noted the terms of reference.
4 Minutes of the Previous Meeting
4.1 The Chair asked for comments regarding the minutes of the previous
meeting. A correction to the name of the representative of the
Student Liaison Officers was highlighted on page 1 (2.2).
Secretary to amend 2.2 of the minutes with regard to the name of
the representative of the Student Liaison Officers
4.2 The Committee confirmed the minutes to be a true and accurate
record of the meeting.
5 Action Points from the Previous Meeting
5.1 With regard to Action Point 2 (2.4 in the minutes), Miss Rawden
confirmed that the addresses of the student representatives would be
sent to the Secretary as soon as possible.
5.2 The Chair commented that with regard to Action Point 33 (17.3 in the
minutes), the update on the Assessment, Learning & Teaching (ALT)
Priorities for 2006-07 had been completed. The Secretary provided
copies of the new ‘Assessment, Learning & Teaching Priorities: 2007-
08’ booklets for Committee members. The Chair explained that the
Committee was required to respond to the priorities, and that the
Technology Enhanced Learning Group (TELG) was responding to
priority 1 related to increasing the take-up of Technology Enhanced
5.2 It was noted that the Action Points from the previous meeting had
6 Matters Arising from the Minutes
6.1 No matters arising.
7 Minutes of the Quality & Standards Sub-Committee
7.1 The Chair informed the Committee that the Quality & Standards Sub-
Committee (QSSC) was concerned with operational issues such as
the approval of external examiner proposals and major modifications,
and that the minutes detailed comments made during discussions
related to approval. The Chair thanked the Sub-Committee for its
7.2 It was highlighted from the minutes that a number of courses had had
the entry requirements increased via the major modifications process,
to try and address issues with regard to marketing. It was
acknowledged that changes to entry requirements were also as a
result of professional body recommendations. It was suggested that
it would be worthwhile for the Committee to consider the impact of
raising entry requirements, and the Chair suggested that a piece of
research should be undertaken to monitor the impact.
7.3 It was acknowledged that some subject areas were comfortable with
lower tariffs as entry was dependant on portfolios, but that low entry
requirements were still an issue. It was reported that entry
requirements for BA (Hons)
Design were being introduced for the first time as part of the periodic
review process. The entry requirements for the course would be
applied with sensitivity in the first instance, but would possibly
become more stringent in the future. It was acknowledged that
experience could still be recognised particularly for mature students,
but that potential applicants would need to be made aware of that.
7.4 The Committee acknowledged that raising entry requirements
supported the University agenda of recruiting students that were
better able to cope with the courses. The point was made that if entry
requirements were structured around ALT, the quality of the student
experience was a good way to monitor how appropriate they were,
and so entry requirements were not just related to marketing.
7.5 The Chair asked Ms Morgan to set out the parameters for a piece of
research to measure the impact of increasing entry requirements.
Ms Morgan to set out the parameters for a piece of research to
measure the impact of increasing entry requirements
7.6 The Committee received the minutes of the meeting of the QSSC 11
October 2007 for information.
APPROVAL & REVIEW
MONITORING OF CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ARISING FROM APPROVAL AND REVIEW EVENTS DURING
8 Update on Recommendations following the Approval of MSc
Criminology held 22 February 2007
8.1 The Chair explained to the Committee that following the approval of
MSc Criminology, the course did not recruit in September 2007. As
the recommendations following the approval event could only be
considered following recruitment, the receipt of the six month report
had been deferred to December 2008.
9 Report on Recommendations following the Periodic Review of
BA (Hons) Human Geography and BA (Hons) Human Geography
and Planning held 16 February 2007
9.1 Dr Jenny Seavers, Group Head Planning & Housing, School of the
Built Environment attended to present the report at 10.30am.
9.2 The Group Head commented that the periodic review had been a
very positive event and very useful for the Course Development
Team (CDT); it had pulled the Team together, made the Team
evaluate what they were doing and so was very strategic. The Panel
had also been very positive during the event.
9.3 At the event one condition was set which was related to the
Admissions Profiles. The necessary changes were made to the
Profiles by 31 March 2007. In addition to that, the Team had
subsequently re-evaluated the tariff points for entry onto the courses
and determined an increase in the tariff to bring the
courses in line with regard to the regional competition, and to further
enhance the image of the courses in terms of perceived quality
among applicants. A major modification to raise the tariff was
approved in October 2007 by the QSSC.
9.4 Four recommendations were set at the event. With regard to
Recommendation 1, ‘To re-visit the Module Specifications and update
the reading lists’, the full compliment of Module Descriptors for the
two courses have been reformatted using the new Module
Specification form. As a result of that, the indicative reading lists on
all of the Module Specifications had been checked and updated to
ensure currency across the courses had been maintained. As part of
reformatting the Module Descriptors, Recommendation 2, ‘To clarify
the Assessment Strategy for each module within the Module
Specifications’ was addressed. All learning outcomes were now tied
to the particular assessments that were to be undertaken so that it
was now clear how the students were to achieve the learning
outcomes, and equally how the assessment tested those learning
9.5 The Group Head highlighted that the time taken to receive the Course
Run Numbers (CRNs), following the amendments to the Module
Specifications was problematic with regard to timetabling, and
resulted in difficulties for both Administrators and Academics. The
Secretary, also responsible for the approval and review schedule and
quality activities for the Faculty was aware of the problem, and
informed the Committee that to help resolve it the decision had been
made to bring forward all approval events for new courses intending
to start in September 2007, so that they were completed by the end
of December 2007. Completing the events earlier would result in the
conditions being met and therefore the amended documents being
processed sooner, which would have an impact on the module
information being available earlier for timetabling. The Faculty
Registrar was also currently producing a paper which would consider
the timing of modifications to help alleviate further problems with
timetabling. It was acknowledged that timetabling was a major issue
with students, and the Chair wondered whether it was possible for
courses to have provisional CRNs attached before final approval.
9.6 The Group Head explained that Recommendation 3, ‘To review the
requirement for specialist technical support for Geographical
Information Systems (GIS) provision on the courses’, was an ongoing
concern which required Faculty consideration. The concerns had
been passed up to the Head of Architecture, Landscape & Design
and the Head of the Built Environment. Students were now starting
the courses with a knowledge base of GIS, and so the inclusion of
more GIS within level 1 was required, which then needed to be built
on during levels 2 and 3. In order to do that a Faculty resource to
provide academic support for GIS was required.
9.7 It was reported that GIS and the need for support for GIS was raised
at the University TELG, but that there was little interest other than by
the Faculty of Arts & Society. The Committee thought that other
courses would use GIS in the future for example Psychology and
Sociology, and Health already made use of it. It was commented that
GIS was a University resource that was not made use of; because it
was not supported it was not very accessible. It was acknowledged
that there was a wider issue when working with new ideas and
developments; academic support was needed and dependency on
one resource often became too great which made it difficult to move
forward. The need for staff development relating to GIS was
9.8 In response to Recommendation 4, ‘To clarify the situation with the
Learning Adviser support for the course’, a new Learning Adviser,
Miss Catherine Robinson, was appointed in September 2007 and
was the student’s point of contact within the library.
9.9 The Committee accepted the report and thanked the Group Head for
10 Report on Recommendations following the Approval of MA
Heritage Planning held 2 March 2007
10.1 Dr Ed Walley, Course Leader, School of the Built Environment
attended to present the report at 10.30am.
10.2 The Course Leader explained to the Committee that the event was
for the approval of a new course, MA Heritage Planning and that it
was approved subject to two conditions and four recommendations.
Evidence to satisfy the conditions was submitted by 3 April 2007 and
was finally agreed 25 July 2007. As a result of the date on which the
course was finally approved, the decision was made not to recruit for
September 2008. The Course Leader had since used the extra time
as an opportunity to undertake marketing and hopefully the course
would successfully recruit for September 2008.
10.3 The Chair commented that most of the recommendations were
related to amendments to and ‘tidy up’ of the documentation rather
than operational issues. The Course Leader agreed and explained
that the course was a new departure for the School and professional
Group; Heritage Planning was very diverse and a number of
comments on the documentation had been received from the
professional and practitioner panel members which the Team had
taken on board.
10.4 The Chair asked the Course Leader whether there were any issues
that could be highlighted following the event, that were relevant to the
ALT Committee. The Course Leader commented that the panel had
raised some interesting questions at the event related to the
relationship of the new course with the Scheme, as there were only
three new modules to be approved as part of the event; the rest of
the modules were already in approval within the Scheme. A number
of areas were subsequently discussed related to ALT within the
context of the core modules, and the panel was quite specific on
focusing on the experience of the Heritage Planning students in the
Scheme as a whole. Some further work had since been undertaken
to ensure the experience of the Heritage Planning students met the
panel’s aspirations which was very positive, and the Course Leader
was confident in discussing with colleagues delivering the core
modules that Heritage was considerably represented.
10.5 The Committee accepted the report and thanked the Course Leader
11 Update on Monitoring of Conditions and Recommendations
arising from Approval and Review Events during 2006/07
11.1 The Chair explained that the Update indicated progress made in
terms of monitoring the recommendations set as part of the approval
and review events which took place during 2006-07.
11.2 The Committee received the update for information.
12 Approval and Review Schedule for 2007/08 and 2008/09
12.1 The Committee received the Approval and Review Schedules for
13 SPA Approval by the Deans
13.1 The Committee received the memo which indicated recent Strategic
Planning Approvals (SPAs) for the Faculty of Arts & Society for
OTHER COMMITTEE & UNIVERSITY REPORTS
14 Academic Board
14.1 The Chair had selected and included in the papers a report that was
considered at Academic Board and was relevant to the ALT
Committee. The paper was for discussion and related to Learning
Environments at Leeds Met; it looked at how the University should be
taking forward plans for developing effective learning environments
for the next two decades. The Chair asked members for comments.
14.2 The Committee thought that the paper was very positive in that the
Estates Strategy was now linking to the ALT Strategy; if ALT became
top priority it provided Faculties with a base for building on. The
Chair felt that the paper was timely as it brought together concerns
about teaching and learning with ways of delivering and supporting
students. The Committee was positive about point 6 of the paper as
it reflected what the Faculty of Arts & Society was trying to achieve.
14.3 It was queried whether there was an intention for the paper to steer/
contextualise the Estates Strategy, or whether the intention was to
use the paper as a form of reference when considering new build.
The Chair thought that intention of the paper was to ensure that
Estates Strategy responded to the need for appropriate learning
14.4 Concern was expressed regarding references to the minimum
expectations of what would be provided on the Virtual Learning
Environment (VLE); whilst minimum expectations were welcomed
and were easily achievable, it was acknowledged that there were
different aspects to minimum content. The expectation was that
students should be able to see module assessment details such as
briefs and hand in dates, but computer based assessment was a
pedagogic issue rather than a minimum content issue. There was a
danger that if it was stipulated that there should be minimum content
for assessment it might result in poor quizzes. It was also
commented that there was no distinction between online and off line
channels of communication; another communication mechanism
should only be used if needed.
14.5 It was reported that for the Youth & Community courses within the
School of Social Sciences, the Team had set up chat rooms via
Xtreme which had proved to work well, and students liked having the
opportunity to be involved. It was acknowledged that there might be
discrepancies between in the way different tutors might use chat
14.6 The Committee thought that as the University became more confident
about blended learning, the issue with regard to minimum content on
VLE would be resolved. The Committee was in favour of the
minimum requirement to
encourage all staff and students to get involved. It was suggested
that if students had more ownership of the VLE for example,
introducing discussions rather than tutors facilitating everything, that
use of VLE might increase although there could be problems with that
level of access.
14.7 A discussion took place regarding Facebook. It was reported that
University level discussions had acknowledged Facebook; Facebook
was considered to be private and distinguished from other University
networks. Issues related to information on Facebook being public
were raised. Miss Rawden agreed to raise the issue of the use of
Facebook at the Student Liaison Officer Network meeting.
Miss Rawden to raise the issue of the use of Facebook at the
Student Liaison Officer Network
15 Student Senate
15.1 It was noted that the Committee expressed concern regarding the
proposed closure of the Students Union, and the impact that a loss of
the student support services would have on the courses within the
16 Faculty Board
16.1 The Chair explained that three papers had been referred to the ALT
Committee for information by Faculty Board; Award of First Degrees,
Non-Continuation Data and Student Life Research.
16.2 With regard to the paper ‘Award of First Degrees’, it provided
statistics for first degree awards from the University in terms of the
different Faculties, modes of study, ethnicity, disability, gender,
subject area and by sector. The Committee felt that the data was
meaningless without a percentage key. It was commented that it was
the first time that any such analysis had been attempted which was
positive, but that it was important to receive some clarification
regarding the percentages so that it was clear what they were based
on. It was noted that within the report there was a request for action;
that ‘Further analysis should take place with regard to the low
percentages of some ethnic groups receiving a good honours
Chair to contact Mr Colin Curwen to seek clarification regarding
the data and to request an update regarding the evaluation of
the ethnic data
16.3 The Chair tabled a summary paper related to the Non-Continuation
paper; it provided a breakdown by entry type and socio-economic
classification for non-continuation amongst full time undergraduate
new entrants for the academic year 2005-06. Entry types were
divided into UCAS entrants, clearing entrants, direct entrants and
other. The summary confirmed that the greatest percentage of
students that did not proceed to level 2 entered via clearing. The
Committee acknowledged that the more students that entered
through UCAS, the more secure the students would be in terms of
16.4 The Committee was informed that the full paper was available if
members wished to see it. The Chair intended to provide summaries
of all papers referred to the ALT Committee rather than full reports.
16.5 The Chair tabled a summary paper related to the Student Life
Research paper. The original paper described research undertaken
by Innovation North with the
aim of establishing reasons for student attrition. A number of
recommendations were made, perhaps of some interest to the
Committee. The recommendations were grouped under the following
Pre-entry information and contract
Peer support programmes
Clarity of learning outcome
Term time employment
Staff student relationships
16.6 The Committee was informed that the full paper was available if
members wished to see it. The Committee acknowledged that
reasons for student attrition might be different for other Faculties
especially where more direct vocational courses were available. It
was also commented that if a student withdrew from a course, it had
to be accepted in some instances that a student was making a
mature informed decision, and that it was not necessarily a failure on
the University or students behalf.
17 Minutes of the Faculty Technology Enhanced Learning Group
17.1 The TELG, which consisted of Mr Garbett and a representative from
each School, met periodically to discuss TEL issues. A budget was
available. At the meeting 8 November 2007, the TELG discussed
minimum expectations for X-Stream Learning as mentioned under
point 14.4 to 14.6.
17.2 The minutes detailed progress made in relation the ALT priorities for
2007-08, specifically in response to priorities 1.4, 1.5 and 1.7. In
order to achieve the priorities for the Faculty the following workshops
had been agreed:
Admin Aspects of Blackboard Vista
Second Life (Up to 20)
17.3 It was also reported that the University was establishing a network,
under the leadership of Mr Bob Rotheram, and the TELG was looking
into sharing expertise on the variety of software packages available
within the Faculty.
17.4 The Chair thanked the TELG for the positive work being undertaken
which supported the work of the ALT Committee. It was suggested
that the ALT Committee could refer some of the issues from the
annual review process for example, the need for support for GIS to
18 Notes of the HEI Diploma Partners
18.1 Ms Mayfield explained that the notes were following a regional
meeting with HEI partners regarding the regional development of
Diplomas for 14 to 19 year olds. The introduction of 14 to 19
Diplomas was a government initiative; the
intention was to bring online Diplomas that would run alongside
GCSE and A Level subjects. The Diplomas would be available in
thirteen subject areas with five being delivered in September 2008 in
school. Leeds Met would see the product of those Diplomas in three
years. It was reported that following discussing with people involved
with Diploma development in other regions, that there was
uncertainty about what the Diplomas would be; perhaps a more
holistic approach to teaching and delivery was intended similar to the
kind of teaching approaches adopted for BTEC Nationals which
would enable better transition. The Committee felt that more
information was required.
Secretary to gather more information about the 14 to 19
Diplomas and circulate to Committee members
19 Innovation North: Faculty of Information and Technology –
Supporting Students’ Learning – Autumn Report 2007
19.1 Ms Loughran highlighted that 24 hour opening of the library was
being introduced over the Christmas period for the first time.
19.2 The Committee received the report for information.
20 6 Assessment, Learning and Teaching Priorities 2006/07 –
20.1 The Chair explained that the ‘6 ALT Priorities 2006-07 – Update’ was
the final version which had now been submitted.
20.2 The Committee received the ‘6 ALT Priorities 2006-07 – Update’ for
21 6 Assessment, Learning and Teaching Priorities 2007/08
21.1 The Committee received the ‘6 ALT Priorities 2007-08’ for
22 Key Skills
22.1 Ms Laura Dean, Career Development Tutor, Pro-Vice Chancellor
(ALT) Office attended at 11.00am to present and take part in a
discussion regarding key skills.
22.2 As part of the presentation, the key issues with regard to key skills
were highlighted as follows:
1. What are key skills?
There was no definitive answer but there were different ways to
think about key skills:
Edexcel provided a list of skills it considered to be key; it was
likely that students would have heard of those skills, and after
transition to University would think that any reference to key
skills would relate to the Edexcel list. Edexcel produced
qualifications up to level 4, but students did not see the
qualifications as relevant when assessed at level 3 because
they would often be assessed outside of the curriculum.
Edexcel intended to produce qualifications up to level 5 but
they did not materialise.
The Leeds Met angle – the Skills for Learning Project was
undertaken within the University which focused on particular
key skills such as IT and numeracy.
In terms of employer definitions the key skills identified were
much more transferable and included communication,
teamwork, problem solving and IT. Exercises carried out with
students involved considering a particular type of job and
asking students to identify the key skills an employer for that
job might be looking for. The outcome of the exercise was that
employers generally looked for the four key skills. The
employer skills however did not include academic
communication which was important within a University
2. How do key skills related to PDP?
Key skills related to PDP for example, ethics, sustainable
development and enterprise.
22.3 Key skills in relation to particular courses were discussed. Ms Dean
explained that a Course Team needed to decide what the key skills
were to the group and in relation to the subject area. In terms of
auditing key skills for a course and providing support, the
Employability Office audited courses using tools such as the ‘AGCAS
Careers Education Benchmark Statement’. The Key Skills Project
had also run workshops which had been quite successful; specifically
over 1000 had attended the workshops in the curriculum although
attendance was only four per workshop.
22.4 The following two websites were highlighted:
22.5 The Chair thanked Ms Dean for the presentation and commented that
other documents related to key skills were included within the papers
for the Committee.
22.6 The Chair explained to Ms Dean that as part of the work of the ALT
Committee, the intention was to get a better understanding of key
skills; key skills were part of Module Specifications that had to be
completed for all modules, and staff were unsure about what the key
skills were. Staff had to make judgements which was fine, but it was
important to be clear against what they were setting. The Chair
asked Ms Dean for guidance. Ms Dean commented that there was
an issue around the modular approach; some modules might not
develop a specific key skill but that did not matter if the course did. It
was important to consider key skills at course level and think about
what the needs of the students were, and what would be asked of the
students once they had graduated. The employability key skills were
therefore important but so were the subject specific ones i.e. those
that were relevant to students going into a particular academic area.
It was acknowledged that the employability skills were generic and
22.7 The Committee had wanted to consider key skills as there was a lot
development work being undertaken, and there was a need to
encourage colleagues to consider key skills with confidence rather
than devising key skills matrix which often had no meaning. It had
become a mechanistic approach; in the development of modules,
reference was being made to previous modules with regard to key
skills which was damaging i.e. there was no thought about which key
skills were relevant to the modules being developed. Module
feedback from students for some courses had also been poor in
terms of what key skills they were gaining from the course. The link
to Personal Development Planning (PDP) was highlighted.
22.8 The Committee commented that students coming to University from
Further Education would need to be addressed in an appropriate way
if they were used to the Edexcel references to key skills, and queried
whether any work had been undertaken on the required transition in
the way of thinking about key skills from further education to
University. Ms Dean explained that work in that area was around
students creating an action plan with targets but while the targets
were ‘SMART’ the students were not reflecting. Ms Dean had worked
with groups using appraisal documentation and bonus documentation
22.9 The Chair suggested that a working group consisting of colleagues
within the Faculty and Ms Mayfield as a PDP representative, be
commissioned to carry out some work in relation to key skills, PDP
and employability, and perhaps produce a guide for CDTs. The
Committee agreed and Ms Dean agreed to be involved with the
group. It was suggested that it would be beneficial to work across the
University and involve PDP working groups, and that a TQEF bid
could be put forward for the work.
Ms Mayfield to contact Ms Dean to discuss organising a working
group to undertake work in relation to key skills, PDP and
22.10 The need to be aware of cultural and ethical consideration of key
skills was highlighted.
23 Flexible Learning
23.1 Item to be carried forward to the next meeting of the ALT Committee.
Secretary to include ‘Flexible Learning’ on the agenda for the
next meeting of the ALT Committee
24 Module Evaluation Survey in X-Stream
24.1 The Chair asked whether members had seen the Module Evaluation
form; the members had not seen the form. The Chair explained that
the form was to be used across all courses and would probably be
Secretary to request that ‘Module Evaluation’ be included on the
agenda for the next meeting of Faculty Leadership Team
25 Schedule of meetings for 2007/08
25.1 The Committee received and noted the schedule of meetings for
26 Any other business
26.1 No other business.
27 Date of the next meeting
Thursday 6 February 2008 at 2.00pm in Room C409d, Civic Quarter
The meeting closed at 12.00noon
LEEDS METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF ARTS & SOCIETY
INTERNATIONAL STRATEGY COMMITTEE
Minutes of the meeting of the International Strategy Committee held on 3rd
December 2007 at 14:00 in Room C409D, Civic Quarter.
Ms Jane Kettle (Chair) Ms Jill Morgan
Mr Tony Conneely Mr David Rodgers
Ms Cheryl Grant Mr John Wakefield
Miss Janet Martin (Secretary)
Professor Christopher Bailey Dr Erika Laredo
Mrs Kathryn Blackburn Professor Mike Robinson
Mr Stewart Harper Dr Ruth Robbins
The 2007/08 membership of the Committee was noted.
3 Terms of Reference
The terms of reference of the Committee was noted.
That the minutes of the meeting held on 20 August 2007 be approved.
5 UCAS International Residential Conference 2008, details still
unavailable action ongoing.
Action: DR to circulate more information about the UCAS
conference when it becomes available.
Reports to the Committee
6 Feedback from Mauritius
6.1 The Chair reported to the Committee on a recent visit to Mauritius.
The visit followed on from a meeting in the UK with the Director of the
Rushmore Business School, Quatre Bornes, Mauritius. The purpose
of the visit was to explore a possible partnership with the institution
and identify possible markets. In particular a joint delivery of the HND
Quantity Surveying was explored. There is currently no construction
education in Mauritius but there is a need due to the development of
new leisure facilities to meet the traditional tourism industry as well as
rise in Health tourism. The medium of education is in English and it is
a safe Country with good infrastructure and its position makes it a
good hub for links to other areas such as Sub-Saharan Africa, UAE
and many more giving huge potential for recruitment, collaborations
and partnerships. Currently the International Office does not have a
contact in Mauritius. Identified markets are construction, quantity
surveying, facilities management, film, health and safety and tourism.
The visit included meetings at the British Council, the Tertiary
Education Commission (TEC) and the Mauritius Association of
Quantity Surveyors (MAQS) and interviews with potential Lecturers. A
visit report will be submitted.
Action: The Chair to submit a visit report to the International
Office with the suggestion of assigning a representative to
7 British Council PMI2 Initiative
7.1 DR reported on the expressions of interests received and submitted
by the Faculty to David Braham to consider when submitting PMI2
bids on behalf of the University.
7.1.1 Bids to consider under the Partnership Development Grants strand
include Architecture, Centre for Tourism & Cultural Change (Taiwan)
and Contemporary Art & Graphic Design (Japan).
Further bids include Social Sciences (India) and Film, Television and
Performing Arts (India) and a possible research bid for Vietnam.
It was reported that there had not been many proposals across the
University but the Committee had been very pro-active in the first
round of proposals giving Arts & Society a high profile.
JM reported she had received no response from Steve Rennie
regarding a possible bid for Playwork. CG will speak to SR about this.
Action: DR to work on proposals with CG (Film) and EL (Social
Science) to take forward to David Braham.
8 International Marketing Plan
8.1 The Committee received a draft copy of the International Marketing
8.1.2 TC reported that International Officers (IO) had now been assigned to
regions but that the schedule of visits is subject to change. He
requested that Faculties input into the schedule and contact the
assigned IO for the region they intend to visit. Focus of the plan is on
student recruitment, partnerships would come under this remit but
research would not. Partnerships are high on the agenda for future
recruitment this could include the development of offshore deliveries
for example. The Committee agreed that staff on staff exchanges or
student trips could be utilised to do further work through the
The Committee commented that key markets were not covered by
the plan and would like to see acknowledgement of potential work in
these markets. The Faculty had potential strong markets in North
America, Canada and Australasia. EU collaborations can also create
contacts internationally through reputation for research and existing
partnerships which should be recognised.
The Committee asked if any activity was being planned surrounding
the China Olympics, TC was not aware of any but would report to the
Committee about any plans that emerge in the future.
9 Academic Technology Approval Scheme (ATAS)
The Committee received information about the new immigration rules.
The main subject identified for the Faculty is Civil Engineering;
currently this will only affect one taught Postgraduate course.
Research JACS codes have not been identified. Admissions are
currently looking into putting information onto the University website
for new applicants.
10 Any other business.
10.1 Scholarships. JaM circulated details of the 2008-2009 overseas fees
and scholarships. Arts & Society have 10 scholarships for £2000
each. The Committee were asked to consider and decide on the
application criteria and format. It was decided the current
International Office application criteria was not suitable and a new
format will be created. Suggested deadlines for applications were the
end of April and the end of June (both one month ahead of the
University wide scholarship deadlines), reserves should be selected
in case successful applicants apply and receive a full scholarship.
Actions: JaM to circulate Business & Law model and collate
ideas and suggestions from Committee members by email.
The Chair to meet with JaM to finalise the application criteria.
JaM to meet with the Registrar to finalise the application
The Chair to query why scholarship is set at £2000.
10.2 Jobshop opportunities for international students. JM highlighted the
lack of appropriate work provided by the Jobshop for international
students. As students were only allowed to work 20 hours a week
they often found the only opportunities available to them were low
waged and inappropriate for their qualifications and experience, many
international students were working in the service roles and not in
administration. The Committee put forward a suggestion that the
University should look into employing Student Ambassadors. It was
also suggested that the Jobshop could offer sessions in induction
weeks about looking for employment.
Actions: The Chair to raise issues with the Jobshop.
TC to take the suggestion of Student Ambassadors to the
International Dean and feedback to the Committee.
10.3 International Foundation in Construction and Civil Engineering at
Wakefield College. DR informed the Committee that a Foundation
course will be offered by Wakefield College for the September 2008
intake. Successful students will be offered direct progression to
Degree and HND courses within the School of the Built Environment
providing they meet agreed conditions. DR has worked with Dawn
Carter from Wakefield College with a view to rolling out the
Foundation to cover more subjects if this pilot is successful. Current
problems with RUN courses would need to be resolved before going
forward with a similar Foundation tied to Contemporary Art & Graphic
10.4 International Promotional DVD impact analysis and marketing
strategy. The Committee requested that the Marketing Manager
presents an overview at the next meeting.
Action: JM to invite the Marketing Manager to present at the next
13 Date of the next meeting
13.1 Friday, 1st February 2008, 10:00 – 12:00, C409D.
The meeting closed at 15.40 pm.
Date: 5 December 2007
Chair …………………………………………… Date