1/13

College Education Committee Meeting date 2 December 2009 Minute

reference CEC: 14M

Document type Minutes Status Unconfirmed Access Internal Special provisions

FOI release: after one year

Minutes of the College Education Committee meeting held at 14:00 on Wednesday 2

December 2009 in Room G73 Franklin Wilkins Building, Waterloo Campus Attendance Chair Vice-Principal (Education) Professor E Leinonen One member nominated by each School Arts and Humanities Dr S Massai, SEC Chair Biomedical and Health Sciences Professor J Clarke, SEC Chair Dental Institute Dr M Woolford, SEC Chair Law Professor A McColgan, Head of

Education Medicine Dr Helen Graham (alternate for

Professor A Greenough) Nursing and Midwifery Mrs A Parry, SEC Chair Institute of Psychiatry Professor P Salkovskis, Head of

Graduate Studies Physical Science and Engineering Professor A Mainwood, SEC Chair Social Science and Public Policy Dr M Goodman, SEC Chair Ex officio Director of King’s Learning Institute Professor P Blackmore Director of the Graduate School Professor V Robinson Chair of the College Assessment Board Dr K Wolff KCLSU nominee Mr R Wain KCLSU nominee Ms E Tapping In attendance Director of Services for Students Ms J Briggs Deputy Director of ISS Dr M Davies Deputy Registrar (Quality Assurance) Ms H Placito Senior Assistant Registrar (Learning and Teaching) Miss M Newton Quality Assurance Administrator Ms L Barker Graduate School Administrator Ms J Eldridge Chair of Student Representation Working Group Professor R Morris (Item 28 only) Apologies for absence were received from: Professor J Clarke and Professor A Greenough.

Part 1: Housekeeping

Action 22. NOTIFICATION OF ANY OTHER BUSINESS 22.1. Reported: that the following items would be taken as items for any other

business: • Personal tutoring guidelines • Modern Language Centre modules

23. MINUTES 23.1. Approved: the minutes of the meeting held on 14 October 2009 (CEC: 13M)

2/13

Action subject to the following amendments:

minute 3.1 should have read ‘Mr Chris Mottershead’ rather than ‘Professor Chris Mottershead’;

minute 8.4 should have said ‘the key mechanisms’ rather than ‘they key mechanisms’;

minute 10.17 and 10.19, where reference was made to good practice in texting students with updates, should have referred to the annual report for undergraduate and taught postgraduate programmes from Florence Nightingale School of Nursing and Midwifery rather than to the annual report for postgraduate research;

minute 12.7 should have indicated that both the MA in Medieval Studies and the MSc in Clinical and Public Health Aspects of Addiction required a further review in one year’s time and a progress report one year after that.

24. MATTERS ARISING 24.1. Received: updates on matters arising not addressed elsewhere in the minutes

as follows:

24.2. Noted: (minute: 4.2 refers) the appointment of alternate members as follows: Dr Anne Jones, Florence Nightingale School of Nursing and Midwifery Dr Steve Barker, Physical Sciences and Engineering Dr Robert Francis, Social Science and Public Policy

24.3. Noted: for information (minute 11.7 refers) that the finalised School Learning and Teaching strategies would be made available on the Committee website.

24.4. Noted: (minute 21.1 refers) that the Committee webpages had been re-launched: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/about/governance/committees/cec/, that feedback would be welcome, and that the pages provided a useful facility for sharing good practice.

Part 2: For consideration

Action 25. CORE RESPONSBILITIES OF THE COMMITTEE 25.1. Received: a paper concerning the core responsibilities of the College

Education Committee and how these were discharged, with a view to identifying any gaps prior to preparation of the new Learning and Teaching strategy (CEC: 09/10: 20).

25.2. Reported: that the role of Vice-Principal (Education) included responsibility for both education and assessment and that, while the College Education Committee and College Assessment Board reported separately to Academic Board, integration at the highest strategic level would be helpful;

25.3. that responsibility for the admissions function lay with the Director of Academic Services, the Committee’s responsibilities incorporated those previously discharged by the Admissions Committee, while the Principal’s Central Team retained oversight of student numbers;

25.4. that the Taught Postgraduate Forum was in the process of developing guidelines for good practice for dissertations which would be circulated to School Education Committees for comment;

25.5. that the discussion paper accurately reflected the issues for Student Welfare.

3/13

Action The annual report from Student Services provided some opportunity for reporting and the new Student Experience Forum would provide a further reporting avenue, however, there would also be occasions when reporting on specific issues throughout the year would be required;

25.6. that the Education Advisory Group was an informal group established by the Vice-Principal (Education) to provide a discussion forum for those with a College-wide remit for learning, teaching, quality assurance and enhancement, as well as to support the Vice-Principal in relation to her specific areas of responsibility;

25.7. that the Principal’s Central Team was the key forum for raising important estates issues but that this would not be the arena for consideration of the specific facilities issues that often emerged through annual reporting and programme review.

25.8. Agreed: that the ‘first principles’ would be adopted during development of the new Learning and teaching strategy;

Chair

25.9. that the summary of the Committee’s key responsibilities as laid out in the Terms of Reference should include ‘quality assurance’ alongside ‘enhancement’;

Secretary

25.10. that consideration would be given to unifying the Committee’s key strategies, perhaps through an overarching ‘College Education Framework’;

Chair, CAB Chair, Director AS, Director SfS

25.11. that the Vice-Principal (Education) and Chair of the College Assessment Board would consider how the two Committees work together to discharge responsibilities for assessment and would, in particular, take the lead in bringing forward an integrated ‘Learning, teaching and assessment strategy’;

Chair, CAB Chair

25.12. that the Senior Assistant Registrar (Learning and teaching) would draft Terms of Reference for the Committee’s scrutiny panel. These would need to retain sufficient flexibility to enable the panel to discharge tasks set by the Committee quickly, while defining some key requirements such as minimum membership. The statement about the role of the Scrutiny Panel given in the recent Briefing Paper would provide a basis for drafting;

SAR LT

25.13. that the Vice-Principal (Education) and Director of Academic Services would give further consideration to Admissions including how key strategic issues (e.g. widening participation, access, recruitment) are tackled, the responsibilities of the Committee (including how the Admissions Committee operated), and how fora such as the Admissions Policy Group (see 39) should be developed;

Chair, Director AS

25.14. that although the Learning and Teaching Strategy clearly incorporated teaching issues (and the discussion paper was therefore inaccurate), a more explicit iteration of strategic aims for teaching would be helpful;

Chair

25.15. that, as part of the discussion following on from receipt of the anticipated guidelines for good practice for dissertations (produced by the Taught Postgraduate Forum), School Education Committees would consider whether anything should be done in support of undergraduate dissertation supervision;

Schools

4/13

Action 25.16. that the Director of Services for Students would take the lead in ensuring the

specific issues for student welfare were on the Committee agenda as needed and would work with the Education Advisory Group to identify how College level oversight and effective monitoring might be brought forward;

Director SfS

25.17. that the established approach to enhancement (whereby it remains embedded within each strand of activity) would continue and, as indicated at minute 25.9 this would be broadened to ‘quality assurance and enhancement’;

Chair

25.18. that a representative from the Estates and Facilities Directorate would be sought as an addition to the Committee membership to provide a permanent link between education and facilities and ensure that the Committee’s strategic aims feed into the facilities agenda. The Chair would also ascertain whether the presentation recently given to College Committee on Estates and Facilities could be made available to members;

Chair

25.19. that the Senior Assistant Registrar (Learning and Teaching) would undertake a review of the terms of reference of each of the Committee’s fora with a view to identifying any unhelpful inconsistencies or gaps (to include student representation). The review would then be considered by the Education Advisory Group and any recommendations made to the Committee.

SAR LT

26. EQUALITIES MONITORING 26.1. Reported: following on from receipt of the Equalities monitoring report

2008/2009 (minute 12.13 refers) the Director if King’s Learning Institute laid out three possible options for bringing forward recommendations for further research:

• that, as was currently the case, members of King’s Learning Institute could be approached for advice and guidance by colleagues planning to undertake research in support of learning and teaching;

• that the Committee could seek to commission particular projects through the College Teaching Fund;

• that, for systemic issues identified, major research could be undertaken.

26.2. Agreed: that the first model would continue in the short term as it would be premature to direct research prior to input from Schools regarding the Equalities monitoring report in February (minute 12.12 refers).

Schools

27. QAA INSTITUTIONAL AUDIT 2009 27.1. Reported: that the audit visit was complete and the outcome awaited.

Resulting recommendations would be considered following receipt of the final report;

27.2. that the audit represented an opportunity for the College to reflect on its own practices and that Academic Board and College Education Committee would be ensuring that recommendations made during the course of the audit, including those from the Student Written Submission, were taken forward in addition to the resulting recommendations from the audit itself;

27.3. that thanks were extended to all academic and professional services staff for their efforts. Particular thanks were extended to Professor Eeva Leinonen, Hilary Placito and the Academic Support and Quality team, and the College Assessment Board.

5/13

Action 28. STUDENT REPRESENTATION WORKING PARTY 28.1. Received: a preliminary report and proposed policy on ‘The Student Voice’

from the working party (CEC: 09/10:21), the development of which had included consideration of recommendation two of the Student Written Submission.

28.2. Reported: that the ethos of partnership between academics, professional services and students was key. The proposed policy laid out minimum requirements for supporting this ethos of partnership and, in particular, for ensuring mechanisms for student representation. The policy worked on the assumption that each School would build on these requirements according to local need and the particular requirements of the student body, the policy was therefore supplemented by examples of good practice to assist Schools in building on the minimum requirements and implementing them. Particular points in the policy were highlighted or clarified as follows:

• exact numbers of student representatives would be up to the individual School;

• the duties of student representatives given in Appendix 2 were illustrative rather than all encompassing, the minimum requirements were laid out in the main policy and could be summarised as: undertaking training, attending some committees, communicating with students, and engaging with the on-line communication tools established;

• training for student representatives was provided for research students as well as taught students;

• there was an expectation that different student groups (e.g. international students) would have a voice within the student representation system;

• that the more robust representation system would enable KCLSU to monitor the success of the policy from the student perspective;

• that the policy could potentially inform consideration of the developing ‘Higher Education Achievement’ record, particularly in relation to student achievement falling outside the official transcript or (European element) diploma supplement.

28.3. Agreed: that the Committee endorsed the policy subject to the following: • further elucidation of the first paragraph to emphasise and define the

ethos of partnership; • replacement of ‘elected representatives’ with ‘student representatives’

as the student members on Staff/Student Liaison Committees in Appendix 1;

• insertion of three more examples of good practice and an assumption that the appendix and good practice would be added to as further examples were identified;

SR Working Group

28.4. that a recommendation would be made to Academic Board that the Working Group (and additional experts as required) be asked to meet one further time to discuss the implementation of the policy (e.g. provision of support for Schools in establishing the e-communication mechanisms proposed).

Chair

29. STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION FOR QAA INSTITUTIONAL AUDIT 29.1. School Education Committees

Reported: that reports from School Education Committees on action taken and further recommendations made concerning issues raised during discussion of the Submission would be received at the next meeting;

Schools

29.2. College Assessment Board CAB Chair

6/13

Action Reported: that the College Assessment Board had considered recommendation 2 at is last meeting and had agreed the following:

• that there was a need to ensure a common standard, known across the College, for what information students should receive;

• that a small working group would be established to consider examination feedback;

29.3. that KCLSU were pleased with the proposed guidance on assessment

feedback being produced.

30. NATIONAL STUDENT SURVEY 30.1. 2009

Reported: that Academic Board, College Committee, Schools and departments had all looked at the 2009 data and that action plans devised by Schools following meetings between the Vice-Principal (Education), each Heads of School and appropriate colleagues were available on the College Education Committee web pages: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/about/governance/committees/cec/internal/schools.html.

30.2. 2010 Reported: that the Vice-Principal (Education) had commenced discussions with Heads of Schools concerning NSS 2010. The process would start on 18th January 2010;

30.3. that web pages in support of NSS 2010 would be launched to assist Schools and the Vice-Principal (Education) would be working to produce guidance on the factual information that students should be given about NSS;

30.4. that the target would be to achieve a 50% response rate within the first month as this would result in fewer reminders being sent to students by IPSOS MORI;

30.5. that College Committee had asked the Vice-Principal (Education) to consider whether a donation to charity for each student taking part would be a suitable incentive;

30.6. that the Committee felt that it was important for students to be provided with feedback on the College’s response to the 2009 round as part of the 2010 process.

30.7. Internal surveying culture Reported: that consideration would also being given to the College’s internal surveying culture.

31. THE KING’S GRADUATE PROJECT 31.1. Reported: that the King’s-Warwick arm of the Graduate Project was nearing

the half way stage. The five groups were shortly due to meet for a second time and an additional Graduate Attributes and Employability Working Group had been established which would include the heads of student support services from both institutions. A website for the project was shortly to be launched, a report would be with the Committee by the end of June, and members from the themed groups would also be available to speak to School Education Committees about the project;

31.2. that the Director of King’s Learning Institute had been in discussion with a number of other universities and was hoping to invite international colleagues to the annual Festival of Learning and Teaching to share innovative practice.

7/13

Action

32. AWARDS AND FUNDING 32.1. College Teaching Fund

Received: a summary of evaluation reports for 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 and proposals for changes to future reporting mechanisms (CEC: 09/10:22).

32.2. Reported: that areas of good practice identified within the projects included: the involvement of students in piloting and evaluation; experiential learning; innovative use of technology (particularly where this enhanced wider dissemination and sharing); and the use of the annual learning and teaching conference as a means of dissemination;

32.3. that a number of project teams were to be commended for their success in driving projects forward despite practical difficulties;

32.4. that the support provided by KLI during the preparation of applications had been noted as helpful and that early involvement by ISS would continue to be pursued as this would help to reduce the number of projects experiencing technical support issues once the projects were underway;

32.5. that the criteria for the College Teaching Fund 2009-2010 were currently being finalised in consultation with Learning and Teaching co-ordinators and would build on previous years in encouraging transferability, sustainability beyond the funded element, and benefits to a large number of people. As with the previous year, support from ISS Learning technologists would continue to be a feature and applicants would be able to bid for content development time. The Committee was reminded that the emphasis on projects focused on undergraduate provision had been for 2008-2009 only.

32.6. Agreed: that in future evaluation reports would be requested after two years with one year progress reports focusing on timetable and budget only;

Director KLI, SAR LT

32.7. that summaries of individual projects would be placed on the Awards and Funding web pages (http://www.kcl.ac.uk/about/structure/admin/acservices/asq/awards/) in future to raise awareness and facilitate wider dissemination. The Committee would then receive general findings and recommendations (including good practice, issues of concern and any proposed changes for the future working of the fund), for consideration;

SAR LT

32.8. that the extension requested for the project ‘Arabic for Business’ would be granted;

SAR LT

32.9. that ideas and issues for the College Teaching Fund 2009-2010 would be forwarded to the Director of King’s Learning Institute.

Members

32.10. Noted: that the full criteria for grants will be linked to on the Committee’s web pages.

SAR LT

32.11. Supervisory Excellence Awards Reported: that the awards were designed to mirror the Teaching Excellence Awards. Nine awards were available and nominations could be made by students, Heads of School, Heads of Department or Heads of Graduate Studies. The process for 2009-2010 would be broadly the same as the 2008-2009 round.

32.12. Teaching Excellence Awards Reported: that each School was given £1,000 each year for these awards.

8/13

Action The Learning and Teaching Co-ordinators Forum had considered Teaching Excellence Awards twice and issues had been discussed in respect of consistency across Schools and whether the nominations process should be more accessible to staff;

32.13. that it was not essential for the nomination process to be identical across the Schools as long as the basic principles underpinning the awards are upheld;

32.14. that Heads of Department did submit supporting statements for each nomination and the current form did allow the Head of Department to make an independent nomination. This mechanism should therefore mitigate against some of the concerns raised about any bias in the nomination process.

32.15. Agreed: that the mechanism used in 2008-2009 would remain for 2009-2010. Consideration of the process for the 2010-2011 round might include further thought as to how recognition of excellence in teaching could be strengthened, how nominations might be better underpinned by student feedback and colleague input (e.g. peer support), and teaching occurring outside School boundaries (e.g. ISS) might be recognised.

Director KLI, SAR LT, LTC forum

32.16. Teaching Fellowships Reported: that Teaching Fellowships had been in abeyance for two years and a review of their purpose would therefore be warranted before any re-launch was considered.

32.17. Agreed: that a review of the previous operation of Teaching Fellowships would be undertaken and recommendations for their future purpose and operation would be received at the next meeting of the Committee. This would include consideration of how recognition of teaching excellence could be strengthened, including promotion prospects.

Director KLI, SAR LT

32.18. National Teaching Fellowships Reported: that the following individuals had been selected as the College nominations for National Teaching Fellowships: Professor Arthur Burns, Arts and Humanities Dr Mike Goodman, Social Science and Public Policy Professor Janice Rymer, Medicine;

32.19. that there was a need to further enable teachers in the College to share experience and engaged in continuing professionally development. King’s Learning Institute would therefore be looking into this area.

Director KLI

32.20. Noted: that the criteria for National Teaching Fellowships were available at: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/ourwork/supportingindividuals/ntfs?tabIndex=0tab1

33. COLLEGE EDUCATION COMMITTEE SCRUTINY PANEL 33.1. Received: two reports from the College Education Committee scrutiny panel

(CEC: 09/10: 23a) and (CEC: 09/10:23b) covering submissions to the Committee as follows:

33.2. Undergraduate and taught programme annual monitoring reports Received: for approval recommendations from the panel concerning reports from the following:

• School of Biomedical and Health Sciences • Dental Institute

9/13

Action • School of Social Science and Public Policy • King’s Learning Institute • School of Arts and Humanities

33.3. Reported: that the panel had identified a number of areas of good practice

including: minutes, action points and follow-up reporting from Staff-Student Liaison Committees; review of accreditation reports by School Education Committees, proactive approaches to teaching based promotions; the introduction of a time-management skills module; proactive approaches to NSS results; the use of standard-set on-line assessment; plans to create ‘forward thinking’ web pages for the School Education Committee; and the use of e-learning;

33.4. that the School of Biomedical and Health Sciences was to be commended for the large number of good practice examples identified by the panel. The thorough use of student data was thought to be particularly helpful and could potentially be used by the College Education Committee and College Assessment Board when considering the use of student data at College level;

Chair, CAB Chair

33.5. that the report from the School of Biomedical and Health Sciences had been of particularly good quality and would be used as an example for future reports.

SAR LT

33.6. Approved: the following reports following confirmation from the panel that all issues requiring clarification had been addressed:

• School of Arts and Humanities • School of Biomedical and Health Sciences • Dental Institute • School of Social Science and Public Policy • School of Medicine • Institute of Psychiatry

33.7. Agreed: that the External Relations department would be informed of the issue raised by the School of Social Science and Public Policy regarding the dissemination of information collected from alumni.

Secretary

33.8. Noted: that clarification/revisions to the report from the School of Law would be received by the panel prior to the next Committee meeting.

Law

33.9. Postgraduate research annual monitoring reports Received: recommendations from the panel concerning reports from the following:

• School of Arts and Humanities • School of Biomedical and Health Sciences • School of Medicine • School of Social Science and Public Policy • International programme in Addiction Studies (Joint programme)

33.10. Reported: that the panel had identified a number of areas of good practice including: workshops run by winners of the Supervisory Excellence Awards; use of key performance indicators; monitoring and provision of supervisor training; database of PhD students and postdoctoral researchers interested in teaching; variety of approaches to gathering student feedback; guidance for teaching delivery by non-academics; collaboration with King’s Learning Institute; development of student-supervisor agreement; support provided to transfer students;

10/13

Action 33.11. that the report from the School of Biomedical and Health Sciences had been of

particularly good quality and would be used as an example for future reports;

SAR LT

33.12. that the panel had commended the approach taken by the International programme in Addiction Studies in identifying both strengths and weaknesses within the report but had requested that the programme submit an action plan for each area of weakness.

33.13. Approved: the report from the School of Medicine as issues requiring clarification had been addressed.

33.14. Noted: that clarification/revisions to the reports from the Schools of Arts and Humanities, Biomedical and Health Sciences and Social Science and Public Policy would be received by the panel prior to the next Committee meeting.

A&H BHS SSPP

33.15. Programme review reports Received: for approval recommendations from the panel concerning programme review reports for six-year re-approval from:

• MA in Medical Ethics and Law

33.16. Reported: that the panel had noted that the Self Evaluation Document was particular comprehensive and had commended the blended approach to learning and teaching and the varied methods for acquiring student feedback;

33.17. Approved: the report from the MA in Medical Ethics and Law as well as the following reports (received at the October meeting), as issues requiring clarification had been addressed:

• MA Medieval Studies • Department of Portuguese and Brazilian Studies • Postgraduate Certificate in Education/Professional Graduate

Certificate in Education • MA/PGDip Child Studies

33.18. Noted: that issues for clarification concerning the programme review reports received at the October meeting for the Department in Mathematics were yet to be received.

PSE

33.19. Progress reports Received: recommendations from the panel concerning the progress report from EdD/DrPS in Education/Professional Studies/DMin in Ministry.

33.20. Reported: that the presentation of research to fellow students by those nearing completion was a feature of good practice.

33.21. Agreed: that an update would be requested following the scheduled Programme Team meeting where a number of the recommendations were to be addressed and that the programme would also be asked to reconsider the justification for not using WebCT to provide information to students (and thus placing this responsibility upon student representatives).

Scrutiny Panel

33.22. Outstanding programme and progress reviews Received: a list of those programme and progress reviews that had been held so far in 2008/09 but for which reports were still outstanding (CEC: 09/10: 24).

33.23. Agreed: a request from the Dental Institute for permission to delay the review of the BDS programme so that new recommendations for curricula from the

11/13

Action General Dental Council, due at the end of 2009/2010, could be taken into account;

33.24. that Schools would ensure that the finalisation of review reports did not rely solely on one individual and that, where a report was awaiting approval, a special meeting would be convened for this purpose to avoid future delays.

Schools

33.25. Further issues for the Committee Approved: proposals for formalising arrangements for consideration of reports from Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies (CEC: 09/10 23a);

Secretary

33.26. Agreed: that future annual monitoring reports for taught programmes would be considered at the October meeting while research programme reports would be considered in December (submissions deadlines would reflect this);

Secretary

33.27. that the scrutiny panel reports would be disseminated to School Education Committees and Heads of Graduate Studies so that the good practice examples could be shared;

Schools

33.28. that the concerns raised regarding teaching, catering and social spaces were an example of the sorts of issues coming to the Committee which would benefit from a representative from Estates and Facilities see minute 25.18;

Chair

33.29. Reported: that template annual monitoring reports for 2009/2010 would be considered at the next meeting;

33.30. that the list of those programmes reviews expected in 2009/10 had not required amendments as suggested at the last meeting and therefore stood.

34. PROGAMME APPROVAL ACTIVITIES 34.1. Approved: a revised schedule of programme approvals for 2009/10 (CEC:

09/10: 25).

34.2. Approved: the provision of a ten credit module for the Masters in Teaching and Learning (CEC: 09/10: 26).

35. INTERDISCIPLINARY PROGRAMMES 35.1. Received: proposed supplementary guidance for interdisciplinary programmes

to be added to the procedures for programme approval (CEC: 09/10: 27).

35.2. Approved: the guidance subject to: • the inclusion of assessment as a topic needing consideration in relation

to organisation and management as well as external examiner arrangements and reporting;

• correction of ’90 modules’ to read ’90 credits’.

SAR LT

36. ACADEMIC AUDIT AND ENHANCEMENT GROUP 36.1. Received: proposed terms of reference, membership and plan of work (CEC:

09/10:28).

36.2. Approved: the terms of reference, membership and plan of work on the provision that:

• the use of the term ‘membership’ be revised in the parameters for the Student Information review to reflect a contribution from these groups but not necessarily a requirement for attendance at all meetings etc;

• the parameters for the Flexible and technology based learning review take account of the previous e-learning review and work of the

SAR LT

12/13

Action Technology enhanced learning forum (see minute 37.9).

Part 3: For information

Action 37. FORA 37.1. Graduate School forum

Reported: that the Terms of Reference of the forum were to be reviewed;

37.2. that the College Education Committee retained responsibility for decision-making with the role of forums being to advise the Committee and submit issues for consideration;

37.3. that studentships for 2009-2010 had recently been launched, including AHRC studentships for which the Graduate School had taken over the administration.

37.4. Learning and teaching co-ordinators Reported: that the forum’s discussion has largely centred on how enhancement initiatives could be better brought together across the College and that the forum had introduced an agenda item at each meeting for reporting on an example of good practice as one means of supporting this.

37.5. Student experience forum Reported: that the forum would be meeting the following week.

37.6. Taught postgraduate forum Reported: that the forum had discussed the dissertation advice sessions run in the COMPASS and that the good practice guidelines created as a result of the initiative would be sent to School Education Committees and on to programme leaders for Masters degrees. Feedback on the guidelines would be welcome;

Schools

37.7. that a paper on Master programmes had been generated and discussed. The document would be made available for consultation in January and February with a view to submission to the Committee in April;

TPF Chair

37.8. that the paper provided an excellent opportunity for the Committee to begin to think about taught masters programmes more generally.

37.9. Technology Enhanced Learning Forum Received: terms of reference for the Forum (CEC: 09/10:29).

37.10. Approved: the terms of reference subject to the inclusion of a member representing assessment issues.

Chair

38. ASSESSMENT ISSUES 38.1. Received: minutes from the meetings of the CAB on 23 September 2009

(CAB: 08/09: 6M)

38.2. Reported: that the plagiarism policy had been approved and would be submitted to the Assessment Scrutiny Panel, Information Services and Systems and the College Education Committee for information;

38.3. that the scheme for the translation of marks for students studying abroad had been finalised and would be submitted to the College Education Committee for information;

38.4. that the procedures for the nomination, appointment and termination of

13/13

external examiners had been reviewed and tightened up;

38.5. that the assessment feedback guidelines for students and staff were near completion;

38.6. that a working group looking at examination feedback had been convened.

39. ADMISSIONS 39.1. Received: a paper outlining mechanisms for the review and development of

admissions policy (CEC: 09/10:30).

39.2. Agreed: that the membership of the Policy Group would be re-considered by the Vice-Principal (Education) and Director of Academic Services.

VP Education, Director AS

40. COLLABORATIVE PROVISION 40.1. Received: a report on new collaboration reported between July and

November (CEC: 08/09: 31).

41. SECTOR ACTIVITY 41.1. Noted: that information about sector activity would now feature on the

Committee’s web pages.

42. DATE OF FUTURE MEETINGS 42.1. Noted: the future meetings of the Committee for 2009/10, all at 2pm on

Wednesday, as follows: • 17 February 2010 • 21 April 2010 • 19 May 2010 • 7 July 2010

43. ANY OTHER BUSINESS 43.1. Personal tutoring guidelines

Reported: that the existing Personal Tutoring Guidelines had been re-released but were due for review;

43.2. that there were areas of good practice in personal tutoring which would be drawn upon. A particular issue for attention would be the present requirement for a written record of each contact as the requirement did not adequately reflect the growing use of electronic record keeping nor the different nature and types of contact taking place.

43.3. Modern Language Centre modules Reported: that the potential for supplementing postgraduate studies through language modules (either optional or incorporated into programme specifications) warranted attention.

43.4. Agreed: that the Chair would convene a small group to consider the issue.

Chair

Secretary: Maggie Newton, Senior Assistant Registrar (Learning and Teaching) Telephone: ex3320 Email: maggie.newton@kcl.ac.uk