Minute of the Teaching and Learning Committee by dfhrf555fcg


									Minute of the School Teaching and Learning Committee
Held on Wednesday 7 December 2005

Present:      Dr William Naphy, Mrs Susan MacLennan, Professor Francis Watson, Dr Jane
              Geddes, Mr Myron Groover, Dr Martin Mills, Dr Aly Macdonald, Dr Peter Baumann,
              Dr Peter Williams, Dr Micheal O’Siochru.

Apologies:    Dr S Gathercole, Ms Laura Foster, Dr L Bourdua

Minute of the Previous Meeting

The matter of overlap of business between the Teaching and Learning Committee and the Research
Committee had been omitted from the Minute of the previous meeting. Dr Geddes and Dr
Macdonald had been present at the meeting.

Matters Arising

There were none.

Changes to the Honours Degree Regulations

Dr Naphy presented a paper relating to the changes in degree regulations (attached as Appendix 1).
This paper would be circulated to all School staff. The Committee discussed the implications of the
changes, which included a higher administrative burden.       Mrs MacLennan agreed to organise a
meeting at which Dr Webb and Dr MacKintosh from Registry could address the School and any
interested students and take questions on the implications of the changed regulations. (ACTION –

College Workload Assessment Model

A College Executive Paper had been circulated (attached as Appendix 2). The workload model
proposed by the College would factor in the number of students on each course. Dr Bourdua had
expressed concern that, especially in smaller departments, many more than 150 hours would have to
be worked in order to deliver programmes. Dr Naphy suggested that in that case, College would
have to be prepared to fund the requirement for additional staff. Dr Williams expressed concern that
the number of contact hours for probationary lecturers had been lowered without consultation.

A discussion took place regarding the relevance of the exercise, given that the School workload
model was already much more detailed and that administrative workloads had not been taken into

Professor Watson pointed out that duties undertaken outwith the University, such as external
examining, should be specified on the indicative administrative tasks appendix, and should be taken
into account. Dr Naphy agreed to pass this comment on to Professor Salmon. (ACTION – WGN)

SENAS Form Schedule

Dr Naphy had presented a paper (attached as Appendix 3) laying out a proposed schedule for the
approval of SENAS forms. Staff would be informed of these procedures. Dr O’Siochru requested

that departmental staff be consulted about teaching planning as a matter of course, it was agreed that
Dr Naphy would suggest to the Head of School that a meeting be held at the beginning of October
each year. (ACTION – WGN)


Dr Geddes stated that she felt that the extension to coursework form was overly bureaucratic. The
Committee agreed that it would be beneficial to simplify the procedure by keeping the form as a
benchmark but being able to use other documentation such as an e-mail attached to the coursework
as an indication of an extension being granted though it was felt that a handwritten note was
probably not best. Mrs MacLennan agreed to discuss this with the secretarial staff. (ACTION –

Dr O’Siochru stated that he felt the organisation of the new taught Masters programmes had been
confused and unrealistic. Dr Bourdua had been convening a committee which has already begun
effectively to address these issues.

Date and Time of Next Meeting

Wednesday 8 February 2006 from 2 – 4pm in Committee Room 1, First Floor, University Office.

                                                                                        APPENDIX 1

                                  INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM




DATE:      25/02/2010

Changes to the awarding of credits and the classification of degrees at Honours to bring University
regulations into line with SCQF guidelines mean some consideration needs to be given to how this
will work in practice in the School. I should like to make the following suggestions for
    1.Speed is essential in the identification of students who ‘fall foul’ of the new regulations.
           Course convenors should identify to the SEO (School Examinations Officer; Susan
           Maclennan) any student who has an MC, GC (good cause) or NP in a level 4 first half
           session exam as soon after the examination is finished as possible.
    2.Level 4 (also see bullet-point 3 below): A student who has an MC or GC in the January diet
           should be offered two choices: a) take the missing element of assessment during the April
           break, the May revision period, or the May-June exam period at the mutual convenience
           of the student and the examining Department; or, b) register as an external student the
           following year and retake the assessment then. Choice A allows for the possibility of
           graduation in July, Choice B does not. This would mostly relate to 100% exam courses.
    3.Levels 3 & 4: Where a student has an MC or GC and there other elements of assessment for
           which there are marks (totally over 50% of the overall assessment), the course convenor
           should pass all assessed material to the SEO who will bundle this material along with the
           comments of markers and a list of any marks the student may already have in other
           Honours courses. This material would be sent to the relevant EE (External Examiner)
           who would be asked to suggest one of two possible outcomes: a) a mark be awarded
           based on the existing elements of assessment; or, b) the student resit the assessment in
           August (if Level 3) or (if Level 4) be assessed through one of the two options noted in
           bullet-point 2 (above).
    4.Level 3: If the overall mark for the course is 0-5 on the CAS (Common Assessment Scale) then
           the student would resit the course in August. At this point, assuming the student passed,
           the credits would be awarded. However, for the purposes of classification, the original
           mark (0-5) would stand.
    5. Level 4: If the overall mark for the course is 0-5 on the CAS then the student would re-register
           as an external student at a subsequent academic session and re-take the course (or an
           equivalent). However, for the purposes of classification, the original mark (0-5) would
    6.Level 3: If the overall mark for the course is 6-8 on the CAS then the student would resit the
           course in August. At this point, assuming the student passed, the credits would be
           awarded. However, for the purposes of classification, the original mark (6-8) would

7. Level 4: If the overall mark for the course is 6-8 on the CAS then the student would be
       awarded the relevant credits (to an overall maximum of 30 credits in their total 240 for
       Honours) as compensatory Level 1 credits. However, for the purposes of classification,
       the original mark (6-8) would stand.

                                                                                     APPENDIX 2

                         COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

                              COLLEGE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

                                  WORK ASSESSMENT MODEL

Following the last College Executive Committee in August 2005, this paper finalised the terms of
the proposed introduction of a work assessment model. The paper details recommended guiding
principles and workload proformas.

The College Executive Committee is asked to note the final version of the introduction of a work
assessment model.

Further information
Further information can be obtained from Professor Trevor Salmon, Director of Learning and
Teaching (x3152).


                             COLLEGE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

                                WORK ASSESSMENT MODEL

This report is by the Director of Learning and Teaching.

                                                                       Guiding Principles
Work assessment should be underpinned by the guiding principles of transparency and

Transparency will be demonstrated in terms of:

      workload commitments being determined at the outset of the academic year, given
       the available information at that time
      information about workload commitments being freely available to academic staff.

Equity will be demonstrated in terms of workload commitments being:
    fair
    balanced
    justifiable


Seminars: academic training in small groups where students are requested to participate
actively, based on student reading/research. This is often done by students presenting a
paper in class and also in written form as the basis for discussion. The idea is to confront
students with methodology and practical problems,

Tutorials : a small class (12-15) that supplements a lecture and gives the student an
opportunity to discuss the lectures and additional reading. It may involve presentations.

Workshops : a small group of students which employs techniques such as role-playing,
simulations and problem-solving. It may also involve hands-on or expediential learning of
certain competencies

Field trip : would normally be allocated eight hours for each day

Significantly less demand must be made of probationary lecturers in order to allow them a
period of induction and to meet agreed objectives.

After three years           CASS expectation is about 150 hours contact time
In year three of probation CASS expectation is about 125 hours contact time
In year two of probation    CASS expectation is about 100 hours contact time

         In year one of probation   CASS expectation is about 75 hours contact time

         A Teaching Load proforma should be completed by each member of academic staff, and
         the proforma should be agreed with the Head of School or his/her nominee (see appendix
         1), and signed off by the Head of School.

         Indicative Administrative Tasks

         It should be borne in mind that the expectation of administration roles ought to grow
         according to the progression of staff and career aspirations.

         The College expects that normally :

         Probationers should have no significant administrative responsibility

         Promoted staff should expect to have significant administrative responsibility.Non-promoted
         but non-probationer staff should undertake administrative duties as part of their personal
         career development and commensurate with their experience and career aspirations

         (See appendix 2).

         Appendix 1   TEACHING LOAD PROFORMA

         NAME:        _______________________________________________________

         SCHOOL       _________________________________________________

                   Number     Hours/      Hours        Hours      Field    School      School     Other
                   of         Lectures    (non-        (repeated Trips     Visits      Visits     (speci
                   Students               repeated)    )                   (non-       (travel)   fy)
                                          Tutorials/   Tutorials/          travel)
                                          Seminars     Seminars
Module Codes

(fte equivalent)


NAME:         ____________________________________

SCHOOL:       ____________________________________

Head of School
Deputy Head
Discipline research leader
Director of Teaching
Undergraduate Programme Co-ordinator
Ordinary Members of Teaching/Research Cttes.
Co-ordinator of Taught Postgraduate Degrees
Socrates Advisor
Research Seminar Co-ordinator
Member (non-school ctte.)
Examinations Officer

NB: This is an indicative rather than an exhaustive list and other significant task should be
included in the returns.

Professor Trevor C. Salmon
Director of Teaching and Learning

                                                                                   APPENDIX 3

Last week of October:

Meet with Deputy Head of School to intimate which sort of SENAS forms are being anticipated and
any issues relating to workload implication – in particular, any compulsory elements.

End of the first week of November:

Submit forms to Susan with the Deputy Head of School’s signature on draft form.

End of the second week of November:

SAO, Head of School, Director T&L meet to discuss wider school issues relating to SENAS
proposals, financial implications, staffing requirements longer term, etc.

End of the third week of November:

Return forms to Susan which may have needed alteration, emendation in light of previous
discussions, again, with Deputy Head of School’s signature.

End of the fourth week of November:

Submit forms to ASC.

The dates are simply general targets; specific dates will need to be set in advance to suit Deputy
Heads of School, SAO, Head of School and Convener T&L..


To top