Docstoc

AGENDA - Leeds Metropolitan University

Document Sample
AGENDA - Leeds Metropolitan University Powered By Docstoc
					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

Faculty Board

Meeting to be held on Monday 7 January 2008 at 2pm in Room C515, Civic Quarter.

                                                AGENDA

           COMMUNICATIONS

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.


           MINUTES

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
                                                                                 feedback
           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
           Registrar
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
      2008/09

      REPORTS FROM REPRESENTATIVES ON UNIVERSITY
      COMMITTEES

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
      2007

17*   Faculty International Strategy Committee                         For Information      Page 29

      To receive the minutes of the meeting held on 3 December
      2007
18*   Faculty Assessment, Learning & Teaching Committee                For Information           Page 35

      To receive the minutes of the meeting held on 6 December
      2007

      OTHER BUSINESS

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
      such items.

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



                                                                                               Stewart Harpe
                                                                                            Faculty Registra
                                                                                   Secretary to Faculty Board
                                                                                              December 2007
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
                                         Vacancy
Contemporary Art & Graphic Design Mr Chris Bloor
                                         Ms Alyson Brien
Cultural Studies                         Dr Ruth Robbins
                                         Vacancy
Film, Television & Performing Arts Ms Cheryl Grant
                                         Mr Steve Rennie
Social Sciences                          Ms Marian Charlton
                                         Vacancy

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
                                                                                                  Item 3
FACULTY BOARD


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
      the Faculty.
                                                                              Confirmed




LEEDS METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF ARTS & SOCIETY

Faculty Board


Minutes of the meeting of the Faculty Board held on Wednesday 7 November 2007 at 2pm in
Room C105, Civic Quarter

       Members present

      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

       In attendance

       Mrs W Hussain, Registrar, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka
       Mrs R P Bandara, Bursar, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka

1      Apologies

      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    Membership

     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
           boards)

4.   Minutes

     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
          provided shortly.

    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-
          course data.

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
          previously.

    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
          concerned.

    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
            programmes.

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
           paper.

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 &
           Teaching Committee.

13    X-Stream
     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
          wherever possible.

     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-
          Stream.

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
          faculty’s units.

     14.2 Thanks were expressed to members of the Faculty, both academic and
          support staff, who had been involved in the development of the
          submission.

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
          (section A1.5)

     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
          Board.

18   Planning & Resources Committee

     18.1 The Board received an oral report from the last meeting of the Planning &
          Resources Committee
19   Academic Committee

     19.1 The Board received an oral report from the last meeting of the Academic
          Committee
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     Sub-Committees

       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.

                                                                         Stewart Harper
                                                                       Faculty Registrar
                                                                     10 November 2007

Chair ……………………………………………                      Date ………………………………………
                                                                                                       Item 6

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.
Open/Confidential                         Open
Link to Committee terms of reference




Contact name                              Kay Ritchie, Catherine Smith, and Claire
                                          O‟Callaghan
Email address                             K.A.Ritchie@leedsmet.ac.uk
                                          C.J.Smith@leedsmet.ac.uk
                                          C.OCallaghan@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
                                          effectiveness
                                          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
Academic Board.

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
related responsibilities




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
                                                                                      Appendix A
                            Faculty Board Review of Effectiveness

Background

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.

Context

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
       overlooked?
       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
       fully?
       c)      Are the length and frequency of meetings appropriate to the business
       covered?
       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)?

3      Membership

       a)     Are any perspectives/expertise absent from the Committee‟s
              deliberations?
       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
              Effectiveness Review)?
       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?

7       Support
        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
interaction?
        b)      Do the sub-committees report to Faculty Board on actions taken under
        delegated authority?
        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?

Process

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


                                                                                       Late
                                                                                       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
       Ann                                                                                  November
FTVP   Tobin       MA Screenwriting (Fiction)        Accreditation - Skillset               2008       No
                   MSc Facilities Management
                   MSc Project Management
                   MSc Building Surveying
                   MSc Quantity Surveying
                   Commercial Management
                   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
                   Production
       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
                                                            Unconfirmed




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

2     Membership

      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.

4     Minutes

       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
      examiner’.

      Action
      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

8.1   Methods

      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
      Ethics Sub-Committee.
9     The Schedule of meetings for 2007/08

9.1   The committee received and noted the planned schedule of meetings
      for 2007/08.

      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.

      Action

      Faculty Registrar to write a paper as above.

      Action

      Faculty Registrar to circulate Faculty Annual Research Report
      and invite comments for FRC members.

      Action

      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.

Hannah Brotton
Committee Secretary
Faculty Office
21 November 2007

Chair ……………………………………………                          Date
………………………………………
                                                               Confirmed




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
Quarter


       Members present

       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

       In attendance

       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)

1      Apologies

       Professor Christopher Bailey
       Mr Stewart Harper

2      Membership

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.




      MINUTES

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).

      Action
      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
      Learning (TEL).

5.2   It was noted that the Action Points from the previous meeting had
      been completed.

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
      work.

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.

      Action
      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
      2006/07
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
      outcomes.

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
      discussed.

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
      attending.
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
       for attending.

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
information.

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
       information.


       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
       environments.

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
       rooms.

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.

       Action
       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
       Faculty.

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
       degree’.

       Action
       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
       continuation.

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
       headings:

          Pre-entry information and contract
          Induction
          Peer support programmes
          Student representation
          Clarity of learning outcome
          Campus life
          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:

          Virtual Site
          Admin Aspects of Blackboard Vista
          Second Life (Up to 20)
          Pebble Pad
          Learning Objects
          Polygraph Tests
          Course Genie

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
       the TELG.

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.

       Action
       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.


       OTHER BUSINESS

20     6 Assessment, Learning and Teaching Priorities 2006/07 –
Update

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
       information.

21     6 Assessment, Learning and Teaching Priorities 2007/08

21.1   The Committee received the ‘6 ALT Priorities 2007-08’ for
       information.

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
              environment.

       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:

       http://skillsforlearning.leedsmet.ac.uk/

       http://www.leedsmet.ac.uk/metoffice/employability/index.htm

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
       had flexibility.

22.7   The Committee had wanted to consider key skills as there was a lot
       of course

       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
       from employers.

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.

        Action
        Ms Mayfield to contact Ms Dean to discuss organising a working
        group to undertake work in relation to key skills, PDP and
        employability

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.

        Action
        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
        completed electronically.

        Action
        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
2007-08 for


        information.

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
Charlie Garfoot
Committee Secretary
Faculty Office
December 2007
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.

        Members present

        Ms Jane Kettle (Chair)                 Ms Jill Morgan
        Mr Tony Conneely                       Mr David Rodgers
        Ms Cheryl Grant                        Mr John Wakefield
        Miss Janet Martin (Secretary)

    1   Apologies

        Professor Christopher Bailey           Dr Erika Laredo
        Mrs Kathryn Blackburn                  Professor Mike Robinson
        Mr Stewart Harper                      Dr Ruth Robbins


2       Membership

        The 2007/08 membership of the Committee was noted.

3       Terms of Reference

        The terms of reference of the Committee was noted.

4       Minutes

        RESOLVED

        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
        Mauritius.

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
        Plan.

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
        international office.

        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.

        Other Business

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
         process.
         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
         Design.


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
         meeting.

13     Date of the next meeting

13.1    Friday, 1st February 2008, 10:00 – 12:00, C409D.

The meeting closed at 15.40 pm.

Janet Martin
Committee Secretary
Faculty Office
      th
Date: 5 December 2007

Chair ……………………………………………   Date
………………………………………

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:57
posted:12/10/2011
language:English
pages:46